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:Davesmith33

[edit]
Suspected sockpuppeteer

Davesmith33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Emma368 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Godraegpot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
DoctorFrench (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
TGSM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
SabineSchmitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
HRHSabineSchmitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Looneyman (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

Emma368's edits show a striking similarity with the edits made by Davesmith33, who was banned for disruptive edits. Evidence includes...

1) Labelling edits that disagree with his/her views as vandalism.

2) A single minded purpose to get Top Gear Dog listed as a presenter in the Top Gear (current format) article.

3) Slipping personal insults into pages and edit summaries.

4) Constant blanking of the talk page.

Additional:

5) Emma368's first edit (15th May 2007) was just 3 weeks after Davesmith33's block and final edit (27th April 2007) SteveBaker (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6) Very similar patterns of using boldface and/or capital letters for emphasis.

7) Too many shared editorial interests (Top Gear, Formula One, and most telling, Emma Snowsill) but very few differences. Drmargi (talk) 06:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Primary evidence:

8) I'm not sure where this case is heading, it should probably be temporarily put on hold, but it is clearly significant to it that HRHSabineSchmitz has admitted that all the above accounts (as of this edit) are one and the same. diff Halsteadk (talk) 15:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No the case should be left to run its course. Admins may decide on some other community sanction short if an outright ban (e.g. banned only from editing certain articles for a period of time - a bit like being put on probation). DrFrench (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then it should also be pointed out at this point that all those sockpuppets were created after admin who were personally involved in the content dispute had blocked me. There was a clear conflict of interest, in fact all this has been due to over zealous admin with an axe to grind. It should also be pointed out that below, I have written to all concerned with a proposition of reconcilliation and am trying to solve the situation ammicably. Any further action, bans, etc. is just likely to enflame the situation even more. HRHSabineSchmitz (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you are well aware, the correct route to take if you disagree with a block put in place is to use the unblock template, not sockpuppetry. Use the first, and you're get a completely, 100% uninvolved sysop come and take a look, and either endorse or oppose the block. Use the latter, and you break WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE. TalkIslander 18:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Islander, I did exactly what you suggested there and the admin who came along was you - i.e. 100% involved. This was the reason I created sockpuppets, because I was being banned by an admin with an agenda, you did the same thing to the original SabineSchmitz account last night, despite me trying to reach an agreement with other users. HRHSabineSchmitz (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And what about this? TalkIslander 21:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Nonsense, it appears this Dave character and I share the same opinion. I have to say there is no evidence whatsoever to support the above accusation. Administrators - please see my talk page on why this case is both unwarranted and unfair. Emma368 (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Looneyman, the patten of editing is remarkably similar.
Emma368's first edit was on 15 May 2007, less than three weeks after Davesmith33's last edit on 27 April 2007.
Both editors work in a fashion that satisifes the criteria of WP:DISRUPT. There are so many examples it's difficult to decide what to highlight here, perhaps it's best illustrated in the edit summaries: using personal insults (diff 1 diff 2), similarity of edits and edit summaries (diff3 diff4); demands that others discuss any changes on the talk page (diff5 diff6), but refuses to accept the outcome of the discussion and rejects the concept of community consensus (diff7 diff8); labelling of edits he/she disagrees with as vandalism (diff9 diff10) and use of WP:POINT (diff11 diff12).
In this diff on 29 June 2008 Emma368 says that "There used to be an exceptionally good Top Gear Dog article before Dr French started his one man crusade against any mention of TGD on this site." A check on the log file shows that article was actually deleted in February 2007, three months before Emma368 started contributing to Wikipedia, but when Davesmith33 was active. If Emma368 thought that the article was good, one would have expected him/her to comment in the AfD, even as an anon IP.
When I first suspected that Davesmith33 and Emma368 might be the same person, I asked a polite question on 23 June 2008 to give Emma368 the opportunity to either confirm or deny the fact and put the matter to rest. If they were the same person they would the have the opportunity to be open and honest about it, if they wanted a 'clean start'. Emma368 has chosen not to respond.
DrFrench (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would only add the strikingly similar styles of argumentation used by the two on the TG talk page. In addition to what is detailed above, both favor taking an argument against Top Gear Dog/Top Gear Stuntman/Sabine Schimidt/Stig as co-star, twisting it slightly and throwing it back at another editor.
Most telling is both tend to view themselves as victimized by one or more editors (DrFrench at present), and favor disruptive edits, most commonly focused on The Stig, as a means of retaliation.
--Drmargi (talk) 06:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The prima-facia evidence is pretty strong that these are the same person - the singleminded effort to get the name of a dog into the list of presenters of a TV show in the teeth of the opposition of a dozen other editors is a really WEIRD kink and it's impossible to imagine that there is more than one person on the planet who feels so strongly about something so particular and so trivial. But to be honest - even if they were not the same person, the actions that got Davesmith33 a permanent block are being acted out identically by Emma368 - so there is ample justification for blocking this user even if NOT a sock. SteveBaker (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked through diff8 and reviewed the gist of the contrib logs. I agree with everything that's been said - Emma368 is almost certainly Davesmith33, and even if not, is behaving in the same manner and should be unblocked for the same reasons. The first available administrator should please block Emma368. Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 19:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked Emma for 55 hours for the repeated deletion of content from this page. Daniel Case (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emma368 has convienently provided more evidence against him. He recently added the text Thou shalt not post any comments here which could be construed as bullying or victimisation on these pages. Any such comments will be removed with immediate effect. Thank you. to the top of his talk page. And if you look at Davesmith33's talk page, you will find the exact same line at the top of the talk page. Looneyman (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do we get this wrapped up? There is more than enough evidence the accused has had a chance to reply and things are escalating in a bad direction. Emma368 has been doing a bunch more disruptive editing today (so far we have a 3RR violation, an NPA violation, blanking official notices from talk pages, maybe even a legal threat). Can we please just find an admin and slap an indefinite block on this account? SteveBaker (talk) 22:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree. This has been going on for too long. Plus the way Emma was treating his talk page just mere moments ago almost perfectly mirrors Davesmith33's behaviours in the past. I'd add diffs to prove this but I don't know how to. If someone could do so for me, that would be much appreciated. Looneyman (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This person is clearly just here for a wind-up, and it seems to be working. No genuine editor (even one with such a trivial but overblown point to make) would behave in this frankly peculiar way - copying Davesmith33's weirdly worded and pathetic plea for help against the "bullies" is the final straw. Let's just forget the 55 hour bans and ban permanently asap please?? Far too much time is being wasted by this joker. Halsteadk (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Davesmith33 and Emma368 are clearly not the same person and merely share a similar viewpoint. Any similarities between the two appear to be totally coincidental. I would advise all users to try to get along with each other better and any cases of bullying and harassment will be dealt with swiftly and harshly. Action: Case closed. Xinyu1981 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emma368 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 8 Jul 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edit history of this page shows clearly that the above entry was added by User:Emma368. diff I'm reporting this user to admin for vandalising after a ban expiry, as impersonating another user is not acceptable behaviour. Halsteadk (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Totallly agreed. Emma368 has been blocked again for trying to do this. As you said, the edit history has given him away on this. We might as well remove the fake conclusion. Looneyman (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say leave it there, it's more evidence. Bit disappointed it's only 2 weeks to be honest. Can't see "she"'ll come back a reformed character. Halsteadk (talk) 18:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The admin who banned her has just confirmed that he preferred to give a long temp ban to await the true outcome of the case - if it's proven she'll be banned permanently. And I guess if not she'll still be blocked for a couple of weeks and then be back to get herself banned again no doubt. So I'm happy with that and retract my disappointment... Halsteadk (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, oh wow. Completely aside from the sockpuppet possibilities, the feeble attempt at impersonating an admin on this page definitely warrants a permaban. It's kind of sad when this person clearly does understand how edit histories work. - Vianello (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the person that was chosen is even an administrator. If he was, it would be on his/her profile page. As it stands, the person that was chosen doesn't even have a profile page. Looneyman (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions


User:Nokezie

This one might be worth watching in conjunction with this. Interesting timing of similar edit, and account has only made that edit. Not much evidence yet, but think it's worth keeping any eye on. Halsteadk (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could give a likn to his contributions so we can compare. Looneyman (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
diff - diff of 2 edits. Might be nothing as there's not a lot to go on at the moment but something tells me it's not quite right and the timing is suspicious. Halsteadk (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that User:Emma368 stepped in and restored User:Nokezie's edits a few hours after they were reverted. It's no proof - but it certainly suggests we should watch Nokezie's contributions list carefully. (Aside: The one thing sockpuppeteers never seem to understand is that while they can cover their identity in the short term, people have long memories and if they carry on doing whatever got them blocked in the first place then their behaviour gives them away immediately. So their only way to proceed is to start working on completely different articles and reform their misbehavior patterns so carefully that they end up being model Wikipedians and we don't notice that they were ever sockpuppeteers. We may never know how often that happens.) SteveBaker (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never thought about that. Huh. Well, sounds like a nice win/win to me, in a way! - Vianello (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Godraegpot

Well, there's a coincidence. Another new user happened to create an account on Wikipedia and as his/her first (and so far only) edit added that the bloody Top-Gear-Dog was introduced as a team member on Top Gear. You know what I'm saying folks. We're talking a twelve-pack of Walmart calf-length size 9 cotton with little goggle-eyes sewn on them. SteveBaker (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And did we note: Godraegpot in reverse is (surprise!) Topgeardog? --Drmargi (talk) 00:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh!!!! I'm humiliated to say I didn't spot that. (/SteveBaker Quickly checks "Nokezie" and is disappointed with the result). SteveBaker (talk) 00:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's amazing how naive people can be; what would possess someone to think that a fresh user wouldn't draw any attention when this brouhaha has already put the article under a microscope? Dp76764 (talk) 00:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What possesses a fairly normal editor with seven months at Wikipedia - and several hundred edits to articles about motor racing, olympic athletes and TV presenters to suddenly 'wig out' and then to struggle over and over in the face of resistance, blocks and acrimony for 14 months to add one line about a dog into an article about a TV show - and after repeated warnings and opportunites to back-down, ultimately gets a lifetime ban from an activity he evidently once enjoyed? I can't explain it - it's rather sad - but sometimes Wikipedia does that to people. SteveBaker (talk) 02:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with me. Godraegpot (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, if you are indeed the new-to-wikipedia user you claim, please explain to us why you are starting off on your very first day here by attacking the exact same article as Davesmith33 and Emma368 in exactly the same way - and created your account at precisely the time when Emma368 gets banned? You reverted that change FIVE TIMES today - and then accused me of a 3RR violation when I'd only reverted once. This is NOT the behavior of a tentative Wikipedia newbie. Furthermore, I reverted perfectly legally in defense of a consensus and against a clearly disruptive editor. Give it up Dave - we can see through these pathetic disguises. As I said above - it is your behavior that gives you away. SteveBaker (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, Godraegpot has made a comment similar to Emma's "consensus isn't the be-all and end-all" in one of his/her edit summaries: "An encylopedia is for facts, not consensus.". No doubt Godraegpot will deny that as he/she/it has already shown they don't understand how edit history works. Anyway, both ignore Wikipedia's fundamental principle: Wikipedia:Consensus, specifically "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making". This person has already proven their idiocy time-over, but I thought even they would understand that to prevent one extreme person introducing inaccurate or misleading information or taking an article in the wrong direction, consensus of the overriding majority is vital. Halsteadk (talk) 15:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence: Godraegpot's first edit was two hours after Emma368's most recent block commenced - the only actions of this person since account creation has been to try to get TGD inserted into the Top Gear article - plus spurious 3RR complaints against User:Looneyman and myself. Godraegpot has now gotten a 24 hour block for 3RR violations. SteveBaker (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:DoctorFrench (indef blocked)

Yet another alias has popped up. Dp76764 (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry DP it's the same old me. I forgot my password for my usual account. DoctorFrench (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL and apparently forgotten your previous stance on this issue! You're not fooling anyone, Dave. Dp76764 (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You DO understand what that "contribs" button by your username up there shows, right? - Vianello (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinitely blocked for impersonating another user (per WP:IU). TalkIslander 20:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:TGSM

Another likely alias. (NB TGSM=Top Gear Stunt Man) Only edit is to replace an entry in the TG template with Sabine Schmitz. Replacing an existing entry rather than adding a new one is a trademark of this user, who has persistently argued that Sabine should be listed if the Stig is. Competently (albeit unhelpfully) editing a template is not a typical first edit of a user, nor is wading into an ongoing argument and making the same edit as someone who has just been blocked. Halsteadk (talk) 10:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I have removed the hyperlink from User:TGSM. This makes this entry virtually impossible for this user to find unless they are specifically looking at this page (it won't appear under "what links here" on their own home page). On this basis, if it is another alias then Dave/Emma will be looking here anyway and promptly deny all knowledge and give the game away. If it isn't an alias they theoretically won't come here. Halsteadk (talk) 10:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except that, theoretically, if they did come here, they would see this notice, and therefore possibly not say anything, and therefore be indistinguishable from not having come here? Plus, I don't know if it's policy, but it's probably good principle to inform someone who's accused of a breach know where they stand. Even if they're a filthy liar if they are guilty and won't have anything productive to add, I don't know if it's worth the chance of not letting an innocent user speak their mind. - Vianello (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it is the same person, they haven't exactly shown a huge level of tact and cunning to date, so they'll probably make it obvious. However, I can see your argument so have no objection if others think it is appropriate to hyperlink or if I'm in breach of policy. Halsteadk (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know for a fact if there's an actual policy breach in not giving notice, and you may be right. I'm willing to leave it as-is and abide by your decision at present. I just wanted to bring those thoughts to the table. In any case, it's certainly no sin to tackle these issues strategically! - Vianello (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Note, I have removed the hyperlink from User:TGSM. This makes this entry virtually impossible for this user to find unless they are specifically looking at this page" - What a good idea, wish I'd thought of that. TGSM (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I can't believe that actually worked. Welcome back Dave - sorry you won't be around much longer. SteveBaker (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TGSM has now been blocked for the vandalism, if you were interested. Look at the talk page for proof. Looneyman (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:HRHSabineSchmitz

Just appeared on top gear talk claiming there was no consensus on top gear dog.... -mattbuck (Talk) 11:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't and isn't. That's what all this is about. We are trying to reach a consensus, abuse like above is not necessary and self-defeating. HRHSabineSchmitz (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you guys are being a bit too harsh all of a sudden. Has it occued that this time, dave might be trying to make a clean start. Please see my notice on my talk page. Looneyman (talk) 11:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then it would help if the user weren't continually creating new accounts to avoid bans. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All those so called bans you refer to were unjustified and were orchestrated by admin who were personally involved in a content dispute and were therefore biased. Please keep your nose out of affairs that don't involve you. We are trying to move on from this. HRHSabineSchmitz (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we're trying to resolve this, as is the norm at SSP. As I posted above, the correct course of action in your case is to use Template:unblock, not to evade a block. Also, being Wikipedia, it's everyone's business, so please remain civil. TalkIslander 18:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An offer of reconciliation

I have written to all concerned on this subject, details can be found on users' talk pages and please see Top Gear discussion page for more details. SabineSchmitz (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lest we forget: This is a user who has run sock puppets, evaded blocks, vandalised, 3RR'ed, impersonated another users, attempted to close this discussion by impersonating an admin, engaged in personal attacks and violated uncountable policies and guidelines...how can we possibly consider a simple "oops! my bad" and allow the editor to simply return as if nothing had ever happened? Heck - we've even seen ANOTHER sock appear AFTER the plea for unblocking! (And we KNOW that Davesmith knows the proper procedure for requesting a block reversal because he used it before.) With a user who has resorted to such outright dirty tactics as impersonating an admin in an effort to cut this very discussion short - what evidence do we have that he is truly a reformed user? In the past, we indef-blocked Davesmith33 - and the first sock (Emma368) was able to return to editing and to work without anyone noticing for an extended period. Did he mend his ways? No! He went right back to the same exact pattern of misbehavior. How do we know this isn't just another trick?
I would want to see this user PROVE his intent to reform by abiding by his current block for a period of several months - without creating further socks or using IP accounts to evade that block. Then (and only then) should we consider an appeal - under the usual rules for an unblock request. IMHO, if Davesmith can do that - honestly and without subterfuge - then we should unblock him with heavy conditions. I'd like to see Davesmith promise not to edit any Top Gear-related topics for an extended period - at least a year. I'd want assurances that he's not going to create more accounts. I'd want to see another editor assigned to monitor his subsequent edits with the power to immediately reinstitute the indefinite block at the first sign of misbehavior. SteveBaker (talk) 04:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


"Heck - we've even seen ANOTHER sock appear AFTER the plea for unblocking!" - Because I had been banned unfairly by a biased admin, Steve have you actually read what happened in the "early" days? It sounds like you are basing your opinion solely on what has happened in the past few weeks, which was basically me trying to workaround biased admin who were abusing their position of power.
"How do we know this isn't just another trick?" - Has there been any problems since I proposed a truce?
"I'd want to see another editor assigned to monitor his subsequent edits with the power to immediately reinstitute the indefinite block at the first sign of misbehavior." - Would that be the same admin (Islander) who was personally involved in the content dispute and who apparently wasn't biased?
HRHSabineSchmitz (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've just waded through the L-O-N-G pile of stuff at the RfA here: [1]. I wasn't involved in your first block - and this is my first contact with that material. I agree that some of the admins who commented there had been involved in the prior editing disputes - but quite a few of them had not. I don't see a clear split where the people who had not been involved were on your side - so 'bias' is really not evident. But even if they were biassed to heck, the edit diffs they point to (which are concrete evidence that would be almost impossible to fake) are very clearly at odds with the standards of behavior here at Wikipedia. The facts are there - and the rules you violated are out there - even if the admins were all biassed, they were still interpreting the rules correctly according to the facts and a 100% uninvolved admin would have made the same decision. Hence, I believe your original block WAS perfectly fair...and everything that has followed from that has only made matters worse. SteveBaker (talk) 02:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, you're making a mountain out of a molehill. We are trying to solve this ammicably and you're recent comments are not helping the situation. HRHSabineSchmitz (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion
More