The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Peteris Cedrins[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Peteris Cedrins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Anna Planeta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by: -Mauco 06:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User:Anna Planeta is suspected of being a sockpuppet of User:Peteris Cedrins. They have both agreed to be checked. User:Anna Planeta has requested a voluntary IP check, saying "Please check my IP".[1] User:Peteris Cedrins has also requested a voluntary IP check, saying "of course I agree"[2].

Similar edit patterns, times and dates: The contributions of "Anna Planeta" are not independent, but follow Peter Cedrins on the exact same dates, times and subject matters.

The first-ever edit of User:Anna Planeta was a revert to User:Peteris Cedrins in an edit war / conflict dispute.[3]

Removal of warning templates: A suspected sockpuppet template was placed on the User:Anna Planeta userpage on 6 October 2006 by User:Khoikhoi. At 14:31, 15 October 2006, Anna Planeta removes the template.[4] Five minutes later, at 14:36, 15 October 2006, we have User:Peteris Cedrins shows up and makes another edit on the same page.[5] The template was restored on 27 October 2006.[6] At 20:22, 29 October 2006, User:Anna Planeta again removes the template[7] Six minutes earlier, User:Peteris Cedrins was online and also editing Wikipedia.[8]

15 October:User:Anna Planeta 14:31, 15 October 2006:[9] and User:Peteris Cedrins 14:41, 15 October 2006: Defends Anna Planeta sock [10]

29 October: User:Anna Planeta is online at 20:09, 29 October 2006[11] and User:Peteris Cedrins is online at 20:22, 29 October 2006[12], then, immediately afterwards, User:Anna Planeta is online at 20:22, 29 October 2006[13]

Use of sockpuppet to influence outcome of formal mediation in dispute resolution: Both joined Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Transnistrian referendum, 2006 within minutes of each other, despite the fact that neither of them were parties to the dispute since neither had made a single edit in main article namespace, ever.

At 19:29, 4 October 2006: User:Peteris Cedrins accepts mediation.[14]

Ten minutes later: 19:39, 4 October 2006: User:Anna Planeta accepts mediation.[15]

My concern mostly stems from the fact that there has been an attempted use of this sockpuppet to influence a mediation process which I myself have been invited to become part of. - Mauco 06:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I request Mauco delete this. Far more than ten days have gone by, why is this still here? —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peteris Cedrins does have an internet telephone, people do talk. I can personally vouch for Peteris' character and his having no need to stoop so low, but I would be branded a partisan observer. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 05:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And who may you be, that we should simply take your word for it and not follow the normal Wikipedia procedure in such cases? To determine who you are - and that you are not another sockpuppet of Peteris Cedrins - will you voluntarily agree to an IP check? If not, why not? I find it curious, and highly suspicious to say the last, that this page has a full month of inactivity and then within a mere nine (9!) minutes, we get entries from both Pēters J. Vecrumba 05:11 a.m. and Pēteris Cedriņš 05:02 a.m., with both entries aiming criticism at me for merely doing what every responsible Wikipedia editor would do: Making sure that voting and mediation processes are not circumvented by malicious use of sockpuppet. - Mauco 12:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Nine (9!) minutes! I don't know whether you power your computer with candles in darkest Transnistria or what, but I have Yahoo (!), ICQ, AIM, GoogleTalk, etc. ...these are instant messaging programs. When a faceless person writing under a fake name accuses me of sockpuppetry, i.e., of creating fake personae, it is possible for me to inform a real person, writing under his real name, of such a calumny -- in less than nine (9!) minutes, even! Hey -- even e-mail is quick these days! Probably even in Tiraspol! Vecrumba is the owner of a respected website. I am a fleshly person with a directory listing. I am not quite sure how to close this bizarre episode -- I have decided to leave Wikipedia because of it, at least for a time... but I cannot allow you, "William Mauco," to declare me a liar in a public forum. That is called slander, Mauco. I do not have, and have never had, a sockpuppet. I can be reached through my blog, Marginalia. A fleshly person from Wikipedia is welcome to contact me, and I can then put them in touch with the fleshly persons accused of being my sockpuppets. In less than nine (9!) minutes! --Pēteris Cedriņš 15:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that what happened? Did the two of you (Vecrumba and Cedrins) actually contact each other immediately via ICQ? Or via AIM? Or via GoogleTalk? And collude that one should defend the other, here? Please clarify. Or are you merely explaining what may have happened, theoretically? It is not clear from your phrasing, but I and several others would like to know, in order to ensure that Wikipedia policies are being applied correctly in this case. - Mauco 16:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colluding as evilly as I possibly could, I sent an e-mail to Vecrumba explaining that one Mauco was accusing me of lying. --Pēteris Cedriņš 17:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And why would Vecrumba be involved? The accusation is against you. It raises the eyebrows of more than one person here that he instantly reads the email, replies, and then goes on the page to defend you ... all within the span of nine minutes. If he is not your sockpuppet, then this admission by you is at least evidence that he is your meatpuppet. There is nothing wrong with admitting that you have a sockpuppet or meatpuppet, or several (as the case may be), but you can not use them to tilt the outcome of an ongoing dispute resolution / mediation process where you have retired, but where both myself and Vecrumba are still involved. - Mauco 17:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this accusations of Mauco against Cedrins long time ago. As I am involved with Mauco in mediation process for Transnistrian referendum, 2006, where Cedrins also wanted to participate (he withdrawed meantime) I've put the page on my watchlist but didn't care more about it. I saw suddenly this page became place for a lot of discussions. Is not my job to establish truth about sockpuppetry accusations (why nobody investigated this so long?), but I want to remind Wikipedia policies about meatpuppetry. Meatpuppets are related with sockpuppets. I quote from official policy of Wikipedia [16] "A related issue occurs when multiple individuals create brand new accounts specifically to participate in, or influence, a particular vote or area of discussion. This is common in deletion discussions or controversial articles. These newly created accounts, or anonymous edits, may be friends of another editor, may be related in some way to the subject of an article under discussion, or may have been solicited by someone to support a specific angle in a debate. Wikipedians also call such user accounts single-purpose accounts, because whereas committed Wikipedians are usually active on a range of articles, and their aim is to see a balanced growth in articles and in the encyclopedia as a whole, single-purpose accounts come to Wikipedia with one agenda". Is Vecrumba a brand new account or a new created account? Of course not, he, like Cedrins, has a longer history in Wikipedia than Mauco. I am kindly asking Mauco to refrain telling plain fallacies about Wikipedia policies. Discussions between editors are normal, including discussions regarding fighting with vandalism or disruptive edits. Only asking somebody who didn't edit Wikipedia before to register a "single purpose account" and join a heated discussion in Wikipedia is meatpuppetry.--MariusM 21:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vecrumba and Peteris Cedrins are colluding (within 9 minutes, no less) to defend and deny a very obvious and blatant attempt to use a sockpuppet to influence ongoing mediation. And you, MariusM, are now defending this? Of course, you would. It is not to different from the kind of antics that you and User:EvilAlex were up to, and which you then covered-up by attempting to delete the evidence right after the fact. This was looked at by several admins and at least one of them reprimanded you. The main difference, if I recall correctly, what that you didn't take 9 minutes but 5 ... - Mauco 22:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is nothing against Wikipedia rules to ask intervention from a 3rd person (a veteran user, not a meatpuppet), like I did (how long ago was this - 2 or 3 months?) with EvilAlex. At that time I was new at Wikipedia and you managed to intimidate me with your interpretation of Wikipedia rules about meatpuppetry. Now I see you try to use the same tactics to intimidate Cedrins or Vecrumba. I considered a reminder of Wikipedia definition of meatpuppets necesary, as you try to impose your own definition. Regarding the use of sockpuppets, we should wait the result of investigation. I suspected you once for using sockpuppets, the result of investigation was "possible" while not 100% sure [17]--MariusM 22:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mauco, I must say you demonstrate a pattern of (1) using sources to your advantage when it suits you and (2) discrediting those same sources when they do not suit you; as well, (3) Wiki-stalking people like MariusM who are a thorn in your side and accusing them of all sorts of anti-Mauco machinations, not to mention (4) seeking to discredit, sock-puppetize or meat-puppetize into one amorphous anti-Mauco meatloaf anyone who would call your tactics into question, and, finally, in all cases (5) invoking Wiki rules to your purpose, enforcing the letter of the law in order to violate the spirit of the law--just as you are doing here at this very moment. Peteris and I correspond on a regular basis; he simply mentioned that your sockpuppet allegation is still sitting out here and I took it upon myself to defend his honor. I was appalled that allegations which should be erased after 10 days without verified proof were still sitting out in Wikipublic.

Frankly, when my involvement in Transnistria started in earnest, I had no idea what a "sockpuppet" was, nor a "meatpuppet." In fact, I STILL don't know what a "meatpuppet" is, nor do I care to. You are the first, and only, person I have encountered here on Wikipedia (and I have certainly had intellectual disagreements in the extreme on more than one occassion) who, when their "logic" fails, resorts to fabrication of conspiracy theories in a blatant and frankly repugnant (for someone who admonishes people for not practicing "intellectual honesty") effort to discredit people. Your behavior in this regard is utterly disgraceful and you should personally be banned from any more such future accusations under penalty of being permanently banned yourself.

Have you considered that more than one person might consider your viewpoints to be incorrect and worth disputing? Frankly, I find your whole attitude towards others (lecturing, admonishing, denigrating) quite Brahmin. You can check my IP address all you like. As long as you're at it, let's check yours and Mark Street's, too. Let's just check everybody's. Frankly, my experience is that dishonorable people spend an inordinate amount of time accusing others of tactics they employ themselves.

When we first started our discourse, I considered your research excellent though often selective in support of fundamentally flawed interpretations. But worth discourse, regardless whether those flaws were intentional or not. But now I see that when you are pressed (for example, I've been waiting two weeks for when/where the British Embassy organized that seminar you cited in order to declare it a "myth" that Transnistria lacks freedom of the press), you become the avatar of the mean-spirited vindictiveness that drives honest people of true intellectual and personal integrity away from Wikipedia. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean, such as yourself? Gimme a break... As for your source, it is already online. Both in Wikipedia and elsewhere, in several other parts of the web. - Mauco 15:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which source, the one that states when/where the British Embassy-organized seminar was held? I don't see that anywhere on Talk:Transnistria or Transnistria. There were unrelated references to their web site, on which I have not found said seminar. Please respond on the Talk:Transnistria page if you have a link.

BTW, have you checked my IP yet? I'll be glad to submit, what is it, a "CHECKUSER"? myself.

I move this allegation be archived and marked unsubstantiated. You claim being an upstanding Wikipedia editor, yet you don't simply ask if I would submit to an IP check, you attack me with "will you voluntarily agree to an IP check? If not, why not? I find it curious, and highly suspicious..."

Your accusatory innuendo is a classic smear tactic. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)\[reply]

You know, Vecrumba, that is a trollish comment. As for your request in Talk:Transnistria, I didn't put it there because I frankly did not like your tone on that page and the way that you requested it. There is one single mention of this conference in main namespace on Wikipedia, and it is appropriately sourced, so do your own homework if it matters that much to you. I only source mainspace, not Talk pages where you are involved. You will not get any help from me as long as you keep up the namecalling. - Mauco 15:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FOR THE RECORD: I rather looked forward to what new obscure (and ultimately flawed) reference you would come up with next. It's a shame you've descended to personal attacks--which require much less effort on your part and certainly tie up others when they could be contributing to Wikipedia more constructively (i.e., disputing you) than having to defend themselves against your "I'm upholding Wikipedia standards" claptrap. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explain to me how your request does not employ innuendo to accuse me of activities to be suspicious of. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will let you have the last word. That is what trolls prefer. - Mauco 16:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're avoiding my question. Now you're just content to dismiss me as a troll. If you want to uphold a higher standard, you do that by setting that standard yourself and inviting others to follow. You don't uphold a higher standard by using the rules to persecute people. If this behavior on your part is a reaction to some prior incident, I am truly sorry for whatever experience it was that made you this way. But only you can change how you choose to deal with conflict. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And where does one go to close out this sort of thing? It's not like there are 3,000 of these. I've already agreed to whatever technical invasions of my privacy as Wikipedia would like to do, having been accused of being part of the Cedrins/Planeta puppet cabal (discussion above). —Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eleven days later! I don't want the last word, but this affects me more than anyone. A very apparently rotten creature raised this issue and brandished it for some time, but if you Google my name -- this page comes up towards the top, and this disturbs me. There seems to be no reaction on this page, and I have offered my physical address, a direct connection to the physical "Anna Planeta," my phone numbers, etc., to solve this issue -- nothing seems to work. Were Mauco a real person, he would have either dropped this libel or pursued it, methinks. At this point, I do believe Mauco is guilty of slander -- criminal slander in many a country. Is nobody else going to comment? If not -- why is this still here? --Pēteris Cedriņš 22:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement given 30 October 2006 at more than one page where Mauco had plastered his unfounded accusations --

Like Pernambuco, I don't see the process as one of taking sides. My interest in Moldovan issues is peripheral, to say the least -- my home is in a heavily Russian-speaking city in the most russified region of Latvia, and there is a connection between the Transnistrian government and some of the persons and groupings that attempted to subvert the elected government of the Latvian SSR in 1991. I have long followed developments in Moldova and Transnistria at a distance -- a Latvian friend of mine was educated in Chişinău (when it was Kishinev) and has written on Moldovan issues at length, and I have a friend in Romania with whom I often discuss politics, history, language policy, etc. (Anna Planeta; I invited her because, as a well-connected translator who has written extensively on politics, she has access to information I would otherwise not have access to -- she is no longer interested in participating, however). I followed Wikipedia articles on Moldova also, and I began to do so again after Edward Lucas gave a favorable mention to William Mauco in his blog. Whilst I was glad to see that there is a considerable increase in the material available in Transnistria-related articles, I find much of the increased quantity increasingly tendentious, I'm afraid. The only reason I agreed to mediation was because MariusM asked me to. I suspect that he invited me because I've lashed out at William Mauco.

Though I most definitely do have a bias (influenced by the fact that different states and regions on the periphery of the former Russian Empire and the Soviet Union have many features in common), I have attempted to write and edit balanced, researched, "NPOV" articles for Wikipedia since June 2005 -- when I have the time and inspiration. I've seen many a Central and Eastern European talk page spiral into the venomous inane, and many a phrase or paragraph get watered down into a parody of "neutrality." Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with Wiki processes like mediation, what an admin's powers and principalities might be, how people get blackballed, etc. -- nor do I want to become more familiar with these mechanisms, frankly. All I know is that not a few people I know who might have made valuable contributors get turned off or driven off. Therefore, I didn't read reams of material on things like meatpuppetry, for which I assume Anna Planeta qualifies (though she is most certainly not a sockpuppet, and I don't take kindly to groundless accusations). Perhaps I qualify as MariusM's meatpuppet, too, in some sense. This sort of thickening atmosphere makes contributing exceedingly unpleasant.

Having worked with editors on various books and publications, I cannot imagine what the product would have been were the relations between them such as they often tend to become here at Wikipedia. I doubtless violated the rules on personal attacks in my comments to Mauco, and I regret that. I respectfully withdraw from this probably doomed attempt at mediation. Puerile bickering, spin, and the fact that "the point is not whether the facts are true or not" (quoth Mauco, the phrase taken out of context for emphasis) were not what I had in mind when I was first attracted to Wikipedia. I still think Wikipedia is a very valuable resource and a fascinating project, but the reasons why articles on history and politics are generally very inferior to articles on astronomy or biology ought to be abundantly clear.

Sorry to run on at such length, but I felt that explaining my POV more fully, among baseless squibs about sockpuppets and hints at dishonesty, had become necessary.

I humbly request that Mauco either apologize for his lies, or that this section be closed out; it is curiously pathetic that one (fake) person can defame another (real) person, for all to see, but that these lies (supported by nobody but Mauco and those he invoked) sit here for two months. Anyone wishing to confirm my identity can contact me, and I have said so again and again. I do believe that even Jimmy Wales is nervous about what Wiki does to real people, no? --Pēteris Cedriņš 18:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peteris, each time you add a new comment with your signature, this page become more relevant for google searches about your name. If you are worried about this, just replace your name on this page with "P. Cedr." for example, and google will not find this page anymore.--MariusM 14:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Marius. But I am certain that the record will show that Mauco is a liar. In fact, I think it already shows that! It should be fairly easy to check the IP addresses, which is what Anna and I agreed to have checked in the first place. She is in Cluj-Napoca, Romania; I am in Daugavpils, Latvia. Simple, and I don't think I commute between Kolozsvár and Dvinsk in less than nine (9!) minutes. I want this closed out, enfin. --Pēteris Cedriņš 15:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And here we are in a new year and Mauco's accusation (one of his multitudes, among whose targets I also number) remains unclosed. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pēter -- you forgot Wikimath! The project page says: Cases on this page are debated for up to ten days, after which the decision considering the suspect has to be made. I don't think ten days have gone by yet! I mean 9 November 2006 - 7 January 2007 couldn't possibly be ten days, could it? --Pēteris Cedriņš 06:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I will repeat what I have offered time and again, on various pages -- if Mauco cannot assume the good faith he professes to brandish, I can repeat my telephone number or give him my street address. I've already done so. I can be reached through my blog, also, where there is a Skype link. I cannot give out a contact for Anna Planeta because she chose to be pseudonymous, but any neutral person contacting me can conference with her and get details of her very independent identity, far further from me than any sock could possibly be. We could even play games, if necessary -- I mean, I am willing to call Mauco. But I said this from the very beginning, and yet this page is still here. The observant user can check to see what Anna and I agreed to, further up -- to reveal our IP addresses, not to be subjected to this inane débâcle. I was completely open about all of this, always -- I use my real name, and I am not ashamed of anything I have done at Wikipedia. Since then, Mauco has doubted Pēters J. Vecrumba, the owner of a respected website who vouched for me. There must come a point where this gets ridiculous -- a fake persona arguing that real people are faking, and the accusations lasting for two months... might that be the point? --Pēteris Cedriņš 08:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Ideally we should have a checkuser, since the accusation is still going on, and both accused parties agree to it, however this doesn't seem to fit any of the situations listed as grounds on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. I don't see any disruption due to the alleged sockpuppetry; one reversion is not much, and just wanting to be listed on a mediation case is hardly disruptive in itself. So I'm going to just close as is; apologies for taking so long, and ending so unsatisfactorily for everyone.

Note that I'm new at suspected sock puppet cases, and closing this one merely because it has stayed open for so long. If you can find a different admin to appeal to for a different resolution, please go ahead - just copy me, so I know what I should have done instead. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC) AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]