Misplaced Pages

:Sockpuppet investigations/WalterMitty: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:44, 26 December 2009 editBetty Logan (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers78,661 edits →Report date December 25 2009, 04:44 (UTC): - relocated comments/these are comments, not evidence.← Previous edit Revision as of 17:48, 26 December 2009 edit undoBeyond My Ken (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers263,580 edits Undid revision 334119573 by Betty Logan (talk) please stop refactoring comments, thanksNext edit →
Line 51: Line 51:
Since both WalterMitty and Melody Perkins are blocked, if Betty Logan is, as it appears, a sock of the WalterMitty editor, all of Betty Logan's edits are in furtherance of avoiding a block. Note that the Betty Logan account , just 17 days after both WalterMitty and Melody Perkins were blocked on 20 Octobert 2008. ] (]) 04:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC) Since both WalterMitty and Melody Perkins are blocked, if Betty Logan is, as it appears, a sock of the WalterMitty editor, all of Betty Logan's edits are in furtherance of avoiding a block. Note that the Betty Logan account , just 17 days after both WalterMitty and Melody Perkins were blocked on 20 Octobert 2008. ] (]) 04:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


⚫ :Contrary to Betty Logan's contention below, that their editing on '']'' was all sweetness and light, as a result of a conflict with ] and ], Betty Logan filed a , and joined in to expand what appears to be a frivolous and scattershot and other editors who disagreed with her. These actions appear on their face to be retaliatory, and, if so, are not the behavior of an editor dedicated to consensus as Betty Logan wishes to protray her- or himself. ] (]) 03:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


⚫ ::Compare Betty Logan's scattershot counter-accusations below to his or her behavior , with the intent to muddy the waters and to use every possible means of deflecting yet another block. It would habe been nice if Betty Logan had provided even one diff to support her allegation, but in any event, I state categorically that I am not ], who I am not familiar with. ] (]) 07:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

⚫ :::] was blocked as a sockpuppet of ]. According to and , my account has no overlap whatsoever with Ethelh, and a trivial 3 overlaps with Epeefleche, 2 of them user talk pages. It doesn't seem on the face of it likely that I am them. ] (]) 07:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


======<span style="font-size:150%"> Comments by accused parties </span>====== ======<span style="font-size:150%"> Comments by accused parties </span>======
Line 82: Line 86:
======<span style="font-size:150%"> Comments by other users </span>====== ======<span style="font-size:150%"> Comments by other users </span>======


⚫ :Contrary to Betty Logan's contention below, that their editing on '']'' was all sweetness and light, as a result of a conflict with ] and ], Betty Logan filed a , and joined in to expand what appears to be a frivolous and scattershot and other editors who disagreed with her. These actions appear on their face to be retaliatory, and, if so, are not the behavior of an editor dedicated to consensus as Betty Logan wishes to protray her- or himself. ] (]) 03:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


⚫ ::Compare Betty Logan's scattershot counter-accusations below to his or her behavior , with the intent to muddy the waters and to use every possible means of deflecting yet another block. It would habe been nice if Betty Logan had provided even one diff to support her allegation, but in any event, I state categorically that I am not ], who I am not familiar with. ] (]) 07:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

⚫ :::] was blocked as a sockpuppet of ]. According to and , my account has no overlap whatsoever with Ethelh, and a trivial 3 overlaps with Epeefleche, 2 of them user talk pages. It doesn't seem on the face of it likely that I am them. ] (]) 07:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
======<span style="font-size:150%"> Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments </span>====== ======<span style="font-size:150%"> Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments </span>======


Revision as of 17:48, 26 December 2009

WalterMitty

WalterMitty (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/WalterMitty/Archive.


Report date December 25 2009, 04:44 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence

The following report was rejected by a checkuser in August 2009, because the data was stale, but the report does not seem to have been relisted for consideration on behavioral evidence alone:

Evidence submitted by TheRetroGuy

User:Betty Logan appears to be a sockpuppet of blocked user Melody Perkins, itself a sockpuppet of User:WalterMitty, both of whom were indef blocked for block evasion. Not only do Betty Logan and Melody Perkins have several articles in common, but Betty Logan has embroiled herself in the Jenny Agutter nudity debate, seeking a similar outcome (see these two discussions for a comparison ). Betty Logan registered on 7 November 2008 and began editing within a few days , a couple of weeks after Melody/Walter's block. The Betty Logan account was registered shortly after activity from these suspected socks ceased.

Melody Perkins was blocked on 20 October 2008 as a block evading sockpuppet of WalterMitty, itself blocked for 6 months in May 2008. WalterMitty's block was reset, then changed to an indef block after the user later went on to engage in harassment (see suspected socks above, links 7 to 14). Betty Logan and Melody Perkins have several articles in common with each other. Some examples include:

There are others, but these appear to be the most significant. I know we all have articles in common, but the diversity of these subjects lead me to believe it is possible that Betty Logan and Melody Perkins are one and the same person. Please see also this checkuser report for further details. TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Also see this comment from Betty Logan regarding the addition of this video to the article by Melody Perkins, which was subsequently deleted. I find it strange that Betty can recall a video which was included in the article for less than an hour over a year ago and can give directions to it. TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Update by User:Beyond My Ken

The commonality between the edits of these three accounts remains striking:

Since both WalterMitty and Melody Perkins are blocked, if Betty Logan is, as it appears, a sock of the WalterMitty editor, all of Betty Logan's edits are in furtherance of avoiding a block. Note that the Betty Logan account was created on 7 November 2008, just 17 days after both WalterMitty and Melody Perkins were blocked on 20 Octobert 2008. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Contrary to Betty Logan's contention below, that their editing on Avatar (2009 film) was all sweetness and light, as a result of a conflict with User:Erik and User:Wildhartlivie, Betty Logan filed a complaint on AN/I, and joined in to expand what appears to be a frivolous and scattershot SPI complaint against Wildhartlivie and other editors who disagreed with her. These actions appear on their face to be retaliatory, and, if so, are not the behavior of an editor dedicated to consensus as Betty Logan wishes to protray her- or himself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Compare Betty Logan's scattershot counter-accusations below to his or her behavior here, with the intent to muddy the waters and to use every possible means of deflecting yet another block. It would habe been nice if Betty Logan had provided even one diff to support her allegation, but in any event, I state categorically that I am not User:Ethelh, who I am not familiar with. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
User:Ethelh was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Epeefleche. According to this and this, my account has no overlap whatsoever with Ethelh, and a trivial 3 overlaps with Epeefleche, 2 of them user talk pages. It doesn't seem on the face of it likely that I am them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

This has only just come to my attention through an investigation into another user, and I am perplexed I was not notified about this. If a checkuser is run on me it there will be no IP match since mine is static. In addition to that the cross-editing looks considerable but you have to take into account the area where most of this cross-editing takes place. I often edit the snooker articles and I often encountered edits by Melody Perkins. She seemed to be a good editor for the most part, but there aren't many snooker articles so two people who share an interest will often cross edit. The only other article we cross-edited was the bikini waxing article. The claim that the video was only on there for an hour is a lie, it was present for weeks if not months, so it was hard to miss if you were a regular vistor to the article, and it is one of the firt videos up if you google "bikini wax". The only reason I became involved in that article was because my boyfriend refused to perform oral sex on me unless I had a bikini wax. I tried shaving but it leaves stubble, so I came across that article while I was researching bikini waxing. I don't feel too comfortable revealing aspects of my sex life here on Misplaced Pages, but if it helps to clear this up then I will oblige.

When Melody Perkins stopped posting on the snooker articles I looked her up to see she was banned for being a sock. She had always been effective editor on the snooker articles, but since she admitted to being a sock I guess she left the admins with no choice. I bookmarked 3/4 of the articles outside of the snooker which she regularly edited and had been targetted for vandalism because I was worried there would be no-one around to protect them. I realise it looks like a pattern of cross-editing, but when you take the snooker out of the equation where the articles are not independent that only amounts to a handful of articles. I am sure there are plenty of articles in other areas which we have edited independently.

If I am going to go under 'behavioral analysis' I hope this take into account our MO on the articles we have in common, rather than just a judgment based on a small amount of circumstantial evidence. If you take the Jenny Agutter article for instance where it is suggested I argued for the same outcome as MelodyPerkins, this simply isn't true. Melody Perkins argued for a list of the nude scenes to be included. I argued for the mention of the scenes to be incorporated into the text and for their notability to be established through reliable sources. That resulted in the nude scenes only being mentioned in relation to Jenny Agutter's own comments about them. I resisted their total removal because I felt that would be censorship, but I also recognised that their inclusion had to be consistent with Misplaced Pages policy.

Another article Melody Perkins and I have in common beyond the snooker project is the List of most expensive films. I'm not sure what Melody did there apart from remove erroneously charted films, but I have personally proceeded to work through that article and source every entry. If you compare the article to how it was at the start of the year to how it is now you will notice it is a very well sourced article as opposed to being completely unsourced. In the next few days I will have it completely sourced.

Another article for you take a look at is the List of snooker player nicknames. At the start of the year completely unsourced with false entries, and now I have completely sourced it.

Similarly with List of vegetarians and Pescetarianism - both completely unsourced this time last year and now completely sourced! The Vegetarian list was some undertaking.

My main focus in these articles has to been provide complete verifiable and reliable sourcing for the claims within. I think you will find these articles inparticular are in a much better state due to my involvement. Although I've only looked through several of Melody's edits, it seemed she had no interest in sourcing. Our behavior on the common articles is completely different, and I doubt you will find any articles where the point of my edits have been to perpetuate her edits. Our functions and our MO on the common articles are different to such an extent that we look like separate editors - because we are!

Even if I haven't quite convinced you here then at least look at the articles I have highlighted and ask if I have ever vandalised an article as Betty Logan, and consider the improvements these articles have undergone with my involvement. It is very obvious that the bulk of my editing is in sourcing articles, so the question is am I good for Misplaced Pages or not? I have never been blocked, and while I have been involved in the odd dispute they have always been resolved usually through my own edits by reasoning with the other editor. With the American-British debate on Avatar (2009 film) I deferred to consensus and no edit-warring took place apart from the odd revert in establishing the ground. I would very much like to be able to stay on Misplaced Pages and continue with my main function of adding sources to poorly sourced articles. Even if you ultimately decide to suspend my account I would appreciate it if you could give me 48 hours notice so I can wrap up the sourcing on List of most expensive films since it is almost complete, although I would very much prefer to stay.

Obviously I can't prove I am not Melody Perkins, so I hope my record as a good editor will at leats earn me the benefit of the doubt. Betty Logan (talk) 20:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

If you look in to that complaint (re Beyond My Ken below in respect to the Avatar/ANI) you will see that that my conduct on "Avatar" was exemplary. There was a disagreement between myself and User:Erik, which was ultimately resolved (see talk page). There was a small dispute between Erik and myself in how the dispute was listed after he removed some of my comments in respons eto his on anothe rtalk page which I restored but that was resolved once he reworded his own comments. User:Wildhartlivie left extremely unpleasant comments on my talk page which I complained about at ANI. An administrator pointed out in that dispute that Erik 'canvassed' and Wildhartlivie should not have left the comments he did. The upshot was I did not edit-war as Wilhartlivie accused me of doing so I was justfified in filing a complaint about it.Betty Logan (talk) 06:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
On another note I am extremely suspicious that editor User:Beyond My Ken seems to have such an in depth knowledge of Misplaced Pages protocol after less than a month on Misplaced Pages. It is worth pointing out that this is not the first time I was accused of being a sock:User_talk:Betty_Logan#ANI_discussion_you_may_be_interested_in. User:Ethelh accused me of creating socks to harrass her, a complaint which was eventually dropped after it was confirmed she was the one creating socks. All that was a direct result of me removing a contribution from List of vegetarians because it was unsourced and I was harangued ever since, including the sock investigation. The behaviour of User:Beyond My Ken seems to have strong similarities with User:Ethelh in the way he has targetted me. How many editors pursue other editors in sock investigations after less than a month on Misplaced Pages? His pursuit of me here is consistent with the MO of User:Ethelh. Betty Logan (talk) 06:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, both User:Beyond My Ken and User:Epeefleche have common editing history on User:Erik, which incidentally is the editor involved in the dispute above. I find it extremely suspicious that I become involved in a dispute with User:Erik, and a personal attack is launched on me by User:Wildhartlivie. I take this to ANI where an admin upholds my complaint in regards to User:Wildhartlivie (who is currently under an independent sock investigation), and User:Beyond My Ken who has been on Misplaced Pages less than a month instigates sock proceedings against me. It then transpires that User:Beyond My ken has a common editing history with User:Epeefleche on the talk page of User:Erik. User:Epeefleche was blocked for having a sock User:Ethelh who accused my of wikistalking and harrassing her with socks, after I removed an unsourced contribution of hers from an article. The case was dropped after usercheck revealed User:Ethelh to be a sock. Betty Logan (talk) 08:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions
Category:
Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/WalterMitty: Difference between revisions Add topic