Dajudem

Dajudem (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
08 July 2010
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by George

I'll try to keep this as short as possible. A few days ago, Nableezy asked Stellarkid if they had a previous account, after Stellarkid mentioned voting for deletion of an article which hadn't been nominated for deletion since well before Stellarkid's account was created. Stellarkid replied that they had confused a time they had mentioned that the article should be deleted on the article talk page with a vote for deletion. It seemed like a very reasonable explanation, but I had already started looking into the matter before seeing it, and based on certain editing patterns that seemed suspiciously similar between Stellarkid and a banned editor that had been involved in the previous deletion discussion, I'm not sure if it's true.

The banned editor in question is Tundrabuggy, a known sockpuppet of Dajudem, who was banned for their involvement in the CAMERA 'Isra-pedia Wikilobbying' fiasco.

There is significant behavioral and circumstantial evidence that indicates to me that Stellarkid is Tundrabuggy:

← George talk 00:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add additional information when I have time. ← George talk 18:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

Using the wikistalk tool I see that Tundrabuggy and I have a full six pages similar to each other, 5 of which are major articles in the I-P conflict area which would not be unexpected for anyone interested in the area. I have many times more articles in common with Nableezy and George, even some obscure ones. Some 15 others besides myself have edited this "little known" author. I can argue that he is not little known in Maine, or even outside Maine in the areas of his scholarship. I did a copy-edit and added a category. On that day I also edited Carolyn Chute[2][3], another Maine author, and wrote a note to User:Bocajpj regarding his article[4] on Carlo Pittore, a Maine artist. I did not follow up on any of these articles, unlike Tundrabuggy who apparently knew considerably more about Mr Stevens than I do. I simply added the category of Maine writer[5] and made an insignificant change in wording [6]. I have to be out for a bit but will be back in a few hours to comment on the rest of this behavioral evidence, if the fates make it available. Stellarkid (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What makes George think that it is an unlikely coincidence that people on Wikipedia share IP addresses? I would ask George what percentage of couples edit Wikipedia? I think this is all rather thin gruel, and wish that there still was some IP evidence to compare. Stellarkid (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stellarkid, feel free to move this reply to the section above if you prefer. By itself, its just a coincidence. As more and more coincidences stack up, the chances that you are not Tundrabuggy becomes more and more unlikely. You ask what percentage of Wikipedia editors have partners that also edit Wikipedia, and I would ask how many editors have partners that also edit articles on the I-P conflict, have similar grammar and phrasing, and have an interest in little known authors from Maine? I would think not many. An administrator had requested that IP evidence be saved after Tundrabuggy was found to be Dajudem, and I believe someone is looking for that information now. For whatever it's worth, I hope I'm wrong about you, but the more I look, the more likely it seems to me that you are a sock puppet. ← George talk 01:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you hope you are wrong about me George. I really believe that.  ;) The hyphen business is a bit thin. You can check other people's contributions and find similarities. Epeefleche [7] uses the double hypen some 13 times in 500 edit summaries. .ZScarpia does about 25 times. I assure you I am not a sockpuppet of either one of them either. The three instances that you call a "tendency", ie that "tend to use consecutive hyphens at the end of their edit summaries" -- in my case comes to 3/500 or 6/10ths of 1%. Hardly a tendency. I do hope they find that information, as it will exonerate me. Stellarkid (talk) 02:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the two choices are being wrong about an editor being a sock puppet, and having to root through a sockpuppet's year-long edit history to figure out what nefarious edits they've made, I will absolutely choose the first. I actually don't consider my own views so different from your own, but I am a stickler on Wikipedia policy. Regarding the use of double hyphens, Epeefleche used the double hyphen 4 times in their last 500 edits; never at the end of an edit summary (no, I don't count their sarcastic edit summaries to this very SPI case). ZScarpia uses the double hyphen often, but always at the beginning of their edit summaries - never in the middle, or at the end. If I saw another editor with a tendency to use double or triple hyphens like ZScarpia, and other editing similarities, I might very well suspect them of being ZScarpia. There are other similarities in your and Tundrabuggy's editing styles, grammar, and sentence structure which I also based my conclusion on, but those are more nuanced, so I'm hoping they don't have to be brought up in this case (not to mention that the best way for a sockpuppet to avoid detection next time is for us to tell them how we discovered that they're a sockpuppet). ← George talk 06:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quickly before I stop this for the evening. Israel is known as the "motherland" and is always a "she." It is typical in scholarly work to so refer to her. I just found one reference here [8] "Liberation from reaction means putting an end to reaction, and liberation from Zionism, therefore, means, not to exert such an influence on Israel that she will cease to be Zionist, but to put an end to Israel, which is the expression of Zionism." This is standard usage and does not serve to tie me to any other editor. Stellarkid (talk) 02:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

to add: to referring to the country of Israel as "her", consider the lyrics to America the Beautiful:
God Bless America,
Land that I love.
Stand beside her, and guide her
Thru the night with a light from above.
From the mountains, to the prairies,
To the oceans, white with foam
God bless America, My home sweet home.

Stellarkid (talk) 03:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with referring to a country as a "she", but it is unusual. Combined with other circumstantial evidence, it may say something. There's also nothing wrong with wearing Bruno Magli shoes, though it isn't common, and when combined with other circumstantial evidence may indicate something. ← George talk 06:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Seanhoyland. I do agree that looking at the CJ Stevens article that it looks like an improbable coincidence. But it is an improbable coincidence along the lines of Dawkins "Climbing Mount Improbable" that is, if you have enough events occasionally you are going to have coincidences that seem highly improbable. Possiblities that I considered is that Tundrabuggy is from Maine, knows Mr Stevens personally, or has some other interest that he shares with him. Sean's suggesting that I was following Tundrabuggy's edits is even a remote possibility, since I find that sometimes I read my edits later and I do not remember making them, and they do not even sound like me to myself, and I certainly don't remember everywhere I have surfed! Stellarkid (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to CJ Stevens, he is not dismissively "a little-known Maine author who writes about mining gemstones and some poetry." Besides his gemstones and gold mining books, his poetry and local color short stories, he has written scholarly biographies of British author D. H. Lawrence, American author Erskine Caldwell and British artist and prodigy Bryan Pearce. For the record. Stellarkid (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

This is going to be too stale for a CU, it is going to need to be based off behavioral evidence (although when Tundrabuggy was discovered to be a sock, Future Perfect at Sunrise requested that a CU store the relevant data. I dont know if that was done or not) nableezy - 13:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George, it is stale because CU data is only available for a set period of time. As the other accounts have presumably not logged in since then there is nothing to compare SK's data with. nableezy - 17:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Epeefleche

The "key evidence" supporting George's accusations ranges from non-existent to wholly unconvincing. Israel is certainly a "she". Both in the English language, as well as on English wikipedia. I'm not sure where Nableezy studied English (which may explain his error). Or if it is his first language. But I would refer him to the wikipedia entry for "she". Which says, inter alia, "She refers to ... a country."

Nableezy's "WOWEEEEE -- I GOT HIM/HER -- CAN'T WAIT TO SHARE THIS 'EVIDENCE'" contribution to this discussion may, perhaps, be more illuminating as to Nableezy's desire to reach a result here that accords with his personal POV, than to anything else. Then again, it may simply relate to his command of the language; it's difficult to know. [Add: Per Nableezy's response, it would appear that the error is not due to where he studied English, or it not being his native tongue, so the answer would appear to lie elsewhere].

Also agree that the inflammatory "massacre" effort was ill-advised POV-pushing.

This beyond baseless, meritless effort -- She is a waste of time.-- --Epeefleche (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Nab--As I said above, it is difficult to know what your error relates to. I have close friends for whom English is not their native tongue, and who studied English in non-Western countries, who refer to their home country as "watan" But I gather from your response that that is not, in your case, the reason for your error. Had it been the case, it would have explained how such an error could be understandable, and made in complete good faith.
Beyond that, I refer you back to my above comments. "She" is the common English phrase used vis-a-vis a country. The quickest wikipedia check shows as much. Good faith and civility might be thought by some to require such a check, where there could be any doubt, before making such a negative public accusation against another editor.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just taken a look at the author whose article the nom describes as the "smoking gun" at the very core of the nom's now-circumstantial SPI case. The nom in making his case describes the author, C. J. Stevens, as "little-known". And known only in "very specific circles in mining in Maine". Nom asserts that the fact that the two editors edited such a "little known" author is a "smoking gun", proving that the editors are one and the same person.
As it turns out, however, Stevens has published 19 [over 30] books. And by mid-career (two decades ago) had already been published in 400 magazines. And the United States Library of Congress contains a special collection of his works. This may undermine the nom's characterization, and therefore bears directly on the legitimacy of his smoking gun argument.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Jiujitsuguy

Concur with Epeefleche. Hey Nab are you now going to accuse me of being a sock of Epeefleche?-- Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Nableezy's "evidence." I also "campaigned" to have the term "massacre" removed and using the female pro-noun to refer to a country is grammatically correct. Golly gee! I guess I must be a sock of Stellarkid as well. In fact, we must be all socks of each other! Get a grip--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Sean.hoyland

Here is some data about the C. J. Stevens article.

So, on average, the article is viewed once or twice a day and therefore Stallarkid's assertion that the author is 'not little known' isn't evident from the data. The viewing figures indicate that it's highly improbable that both Stellarkid and Tundrabuggy would even view the article, let alone edit it by coincidence. Improbable things happen all the time though. He could have said that he was going through the edits of a like minded editor, saw the C. J. Stevens article and had a look just out of interest. That would be a plausible explanation for such a highly improbable intersection. However, he didn't say that. If Stellarkid were a sockpuppet and if he were to acknowledge such a thing I'm curious whether and under what circumstances and constraints an opportunity for a clean start could be offered ? Sean.hoyland - talk 10:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually a good point, and something I've been considering. If Stellarkid is Tundrabuggy, then they've gotten quite good at the sockpuppet game, and will be even harder to find in their next incarnation, so an outright block is unlikely to be effective long term. ← George talk 18:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Mbz1

My comment is concerning the "evidence" addressing to Israel (the country) as "she". Here is an article written by an Arab journalist, who hardly could be called a friend of Israel I am afraid. Please take a look at the title "Who the hell does Israel think she is?" (Highlighted by me) IMO the author of the article MUSTAFA AKYOL should be included in this SPI request ☺ --Mbz1 (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Clerk declined All accounts except the unblocked one are  Stale --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 14:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Enough bickering. If you have evidence to show, please show it. If you do not, I kindly ask that you do not use this case as a battleground for an ongoing content dispute. Anyone who cannot remain civil and contribute properly to this case will be removed by force. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: Redacted some content on this page which was entirely non-constructive. Because I don't appear to have made myself clear, I have also posted an edit notice for this page. There will be no further warnings to users that are disrupting this investigation. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 14:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: as it may not be feasible to do a CU, I am currently reviewing the behavioral evidence and may propose a closure based on those findings later. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, having reviewed the evidence, including the latest IP and geolocation data added by George, I am now convinced the aggregation of circumstantial evidence is strong enough. I have blocked User:Stellarkid as an apparent sock of User:Dajudem. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
27 June 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Common articles:

Stellarkid wrote on his userpage that he had a copy of Jewish Villages in Israel published by the Jewish National Fund (see here) . Snakeswithfeet has been using that source extensively. See the article List of Jewish villages in Israel through 1948 and the blue links within that article. There is additional behavioral evidence that I would rather not include here but would be happy to email a reviewing clerk or CU. While I realize the data on Dajudem's known socks will be stale by this point, I am under the impression that the relevant data has been archived somewhere. Additionally, the most recent blocks of Dajudem's socks resulted in multiple named accounts being blocked at once, the last time that I am aware of was when CJStevens, JuJubird, and KantElope were all blocked as Dajudem socks. I am asking for a similar check for other named accounts, though I feel the private evidence that I have is fairly conclusive regarding Snakeswithfeet. nableezy - 18:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steven, I would prefer to not include the additional evidence on-wiki as it may enable Dajudem to escape detection in the future. Regarding whether or not the data is available elsewhere is something I would like to get a CU to comment on. I am aware of the retention policy for the actual checkuser tool, however there are additional logs and archives elsewhere. As far as emailing you the evidence, I could do that but as you are not an admin you wont be able to do much with it besides emailing it to others. I hope you dont mind, but I would rather email the evidence to an admin who is also a clerk. nableezy - 14:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Email sent. nableezy - 16:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
More