Misplaced Pages

:Sockpuppet investigations/Scalabrineformvp: 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 18:50, 17 February 2010 editSandyGeorgia (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors279,126 edits →Comments by other users: personal attacks← Previous edit Revision as of 19:05, 17 February 2010 edit undoRd232 (talk | contribs)54,863 edits →Evidence submitted by SandyGeorgia: rNext edit →
Line 40: Line 40:
# In spite of the similarities in their editing, including a long absence from Wiki followed by a return to pro-Chavez editing, John Z denies any association, and he doesn't have the same tendency towards personal attacks as the others. On the other hand, the two main pro-Chavez editors, ] and ] have been largely absent recently from Wiki, since Rio/Rob and the Brazilian IP have been editing. # In spite of the similarities in their editing, including a long absence from Wiki followed by a return to pro-Chavez editing, John Z denies any association, and he doesn't have the same tendency towards personal attacks as the others. On the other hand, the two main pro-Chavez editors, ] and ] have been largely absent recently from Wiki, since Rio/Rob and the Brazilian IP have been editing.
# While I have long been concerned about off-Wiki coordinated editing, COI, tandem reverting, ], ] and meatpuppetry across all of the Chavez/Venezuela/CEPR-related articles, only yesterday did I understand that Rd232 had a very different, unexplained concern: the appearance that ] could be charged with acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign government. Where did that come from? We have multiple editors and IPs jumping on board to cleanse CEPR-related articles, simultaneously, with Rd232 and Off2riorob leading the charge while JRSP has disappeared, and I have to ask where this strange connection to a US legal issue came from? Rd232 says he is a UK editor, but this notion evidences some awareness of US legal concerns that hadn't even occurred to me. The question must be asked: are Rd232 and Off2riorob editing on behalf of CEPR? Rd232 has long used ] to source POV articles, and Venezuelanalysis.com frequently uses CEPR as a source. A CU would help resolve possible sockpuppetry, if not meatpuppetry. # While I have long been concerned about off-Wiki coordinated editing, COI, tandem reverting, ], ] and meatpuppetry across all of the Chavez/Venezuela/CEPR-related articles, only yesterday did I understand that Rd232 had a very different, unexplained concern: the appearance that ] could be charged with acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign government. Where did that come from? We have multiple editors and IPs jumping on board to cleanse CEPR-related articles, simultaneously, with Rd232 and Off2riorob leading the charge while JRSP has disappeared, and I have to ask where this strange connection to a US legal issue came from? Rd232 says he is a UK editor, but this notion evidences some awareness of US legal concerns that hadn't even occurred to me. The question must be asked: are Rd232 and Off2riorob editing on behalf of CEPR? Rd232 has long used ] to source POV articles, and Venezuelanalysis.com frequently uses CEPR as a source. A CU would help resolve possible sockpuppetry, if not meatpuppetry.
#:Bullshit. The issue of VIO being a agent of a foreign government is one you have been long involved with and know well. The point that attempting to associate people with such a foreign agent in order to discredit them requires zero knowledge of US law - it is straightforward smearing. You know perfectly well what you are doing: you're doing it even now by attempting to link CEPR with Venezuelanalysis - as if much citation (which from my experience is completely untrue) proved anything. (If it did, any source cited by Misplaced Pages would become automatically unreliable.) I have already explained this on your user talk page; yet you repeat it, which is part of your pattern of ignoring explanations of straightforward issue and repeating misrepresentations. You are a malicious and manipulative editor of the highest order. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


Too many non-neutral admins here; too much censorship of Wiki aimed at the CEPR, Weisbrot, Baker articles; and too much uneven application of Wiki policy. ] (]) 18:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC) Too many non-neutral admins here; too much censorship of Wiki aimed at the CEPR, Weisbrot, Baker articles; and too much uneven application of Wiki policy. ] (]) 18:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:05, 17 February 2010

Scalabrineformvp

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

Populated account categories: confirmed

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


Report date February 10 2010, 22:31 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Relisting
Evidence submitted by SandyGeorgia

Reopened. See Center for Economic and Policy Research, (CEPR) Mark Weisbrot is a principal, similar revert pattern from User:Kriswarner. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Relisted
Can Checkuser determine if/which of these accounts may be editing from CEPR.net, and which may be editing from home or other IPs? Who will handle the blocking/tagging? These socks have been active across three articles (Mark Weisbrot, Dean Baker, and Center for Economic and Policy Research), and meatpuppetry is an ongoing possibility. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
187.47.23.230 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is now removing a COI tag from Talk:Mark Weisbrot (a Brazilian IP was involved in the debates about the reliability of Venezuelanalysis.com, another site connected to CEPR.net-- Center for Economic and Policy Research). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Before checking this IP, pls give me a moment to gather other Brazilian dynamic IPs involved in related discussions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Related discussions from SPA Brazilian dynamic IP here and here; see also 189.116.62.114 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 187.46.229.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 189.65.155.201 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and there have been others. See also Talk:Mark Weisbrot for the connections between CEPR.net and Venezuelanalysis.com. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Considering multiple discussions elsewhere on Chavez, Venezuela, CEPR and Venezuelanalysis.com articles, where neutrality is becoming an issue, I believe there is evidence to check these IPs versus Off2riorob (talk · contribs), Rd232 (talk · contribs) and JRSP (talk · contribs). In particular, this IP shows the same partial grasp of Wiki policies as Off2riorob and Rd232, and the Off to Rio is suggestive of Brazil. Of particular relevance is the thread linked above to the WP:RSN discussion of Venezuelanalysis.com, the discussions at Talk:Hugo Chavez and the discussions at Talk:Mark Weisbrot, where Off2riorob has suddenly appeared and taken a stance that has not been neutral. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Specifically, lest it's lost in the numerous diffs above, we have:

  1. Rob in Rio Brazil removing text from Mark Weisbrot that is sourced to The New York Times, USA Today and numerous other (lesser) supporting sources,--sourced text that it now appears that someone does not want in the article about CEPR's connection to Chavez-- while proposing a reversion to wholly unsourced text written by proven socks with a COI.
  2. Rob in Rio removing a well-substantiated and under discussion POV tag from Hugo Chavez, backing Rd232.
  3. Brazilian IP, involving itself it says to defend Rd232, another pro-Chavez editor whose tendentious edits across Chavez-related articles are well documented.
  4. John Z welcoming now-blocked sockpuppet User:Markweisbrot, without mentioning the COI and editor naming issues; (at least he hasn't attacked me for pointing out policy).
  5. Three of the four of these editors (IP, Rd232 and Rob in Rio) willing to engage in personal attacks on me rather than addressing the edits and Wiki policy.
  6. Rob in Rio removing sources and adding text not supported by mainstream reliable sources, against consensus. The same well cited text was removed several times by Rd232, sample .
  7. In spite of the similarities in their editing, including a long absence from Wiki followed by a return to pro-Chavez editing, John Z denies any association, and he doesn't have the same tendency towards personal attacks as the others. On the other hand, the two main pro-Chavez editors, User:Rd232 and User:JRSP have been largely absent recently from Wiki, since Rio/Rob and the Brazilian IP have been editing.
  8. While I have long been concerned about off-Wiki coordinated editing, COI, tandem reverting, WP:OWN, WP:BITE and meatpuppetry across all of the Chavez/Venezuela/CEPR-related articles, only yesterday did I understand that Rd232 had a very different, unexplained concern: the appearance that Mark Weisbrot could be charged with acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign government. Where did that come from? We have multiple editors and IPs jumping on board to cleanse CEPR-related articles, simultaneously, with Rd232 and Off2riorob leading the charge while JRSP has disappeared, and I have to ask where this strange connection to a US legal issue came from? Rd232 says he is a UK editor, but this notion evidences some awareness of US legal concerns that hadn't even occurred to me. The question must be asked: are Rd232 and Off2riorob editing on behalf of CEPR? Rd232 has long used Venezuelanalysis.com to source POV articles, and Venezuelanalysis.com frequently uses CEPR as a source. A CU would help resolve possible sockpuppetry, if not meatpuppetry.
    Bullshit. The issue of VIO being a agent of a foreign government is one you have been long involved with and know well. The point that attempting to associate people with such a foreign agent in order to discredit them requires zero knowledge of US law - it is straightforward smearing. You know perfectly well what you are doing: you're doing it even now by attempting to link CEPR with Venezuelanalysis - as if much citation (which from my experience is completely untrue) proved anything. (If it did, any source cited by Misplaced Pages would become automatically unreliable.) I have already explained this on your user talk page; yet you repeat it, which is part of your pattern of ignoring explanations of straightforward issue and repeating misrepresentations. You are a malicious and manipulative editor of the highest order. Rd232 19:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Too many non-neutral admins here; too much censorship of Wiki aimed at the CEPR, Weisbrot, Baker articles; and too much uneven application of Wiki policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Way to make a fool of yourself there. All you had to do was ask. Yes I'm the same IP that commented on the Venanalysis issue thats how I learned of this mess. You should also note that in none of the articles that you mention have I ever made a single edit. I have no stake in the whole Chavez debacle, but I do want to see WPs policies applied. Claiming that I have a partial understading of policies doesnt make it so. I can say the same about you. And finally, no, I'm not a sock or unlogged incarnation of any of the editors that you mention. You're trying to make every single editor that disagrees with you into a sock of somebody else. Its not a conspiracy. 187.46.135.78 (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, well ... since CUs have so far borne out, I'm not too concerned about "mak a fool of myself"; we've got massive POV-pushing going on across all Chavez and Venezuela articles, several involved admins, and enough evidence to get to the bottom of this issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia is trying to paint everyone who disagrees with her crusade as a Sock so she can use that to discredit such editors. This is a smear campaign plain and simple. But of course she will suffer no repercurtions. 187.46.135.78 (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, well. We have plenty of evidence of non-neutral admins involved themselves in these articles, with an uneven understanding and application of policy (including from Rd232 and Off2riorob), all of them willing to engage in personal attacks on me, and a real issue of POV-pushing on Chavez-related articles. When I've been checkusered on far less evidence, I've welcomed the opportunity to be exonerated; do you? Off to Rio is certainly suggestive of Brazil, to say the least, and the evidence of your non-neutrality on these articles is there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
"We" don't have anything. All we have is you throwing accusations around. Everyone who disagrees with you seems to have "an uneven understading and application of policy." All of them seem "willing to engage in personal attacks on me" And all seem to be Chavez' POV pushers". Have you even entertained the possibility that the problem is not those editors? But you? Have you considered that your frequent condescending and patronising attitude welcomes snarky responses? Or maybe you do it deliberatly? Trying to use the civility policy to your advantage? And no, I don't welcome baseless accusations and I don't really care if you do. And the Off to Rio thing... well that at least put a smile to my face. 187.46.135.78 (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Happy to have entertained you. Now, I believe this discussion is no longer about the CU, but became personal on account of both of you quite a while ago, so how about leaving it to the CUs now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Both of us? I thought we were the same person? Freudian slip? 187.46.135.78 (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Please try to stay on topic; a checkuser is nothing for innocent editors to be concerned about. Been there several times myself, glad to be exonerated, always wonder when "the lady doth protest too much". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Theres nothing to be ontopic about, you've made this whole charede up. If you like being faselly accused thats your problem. Like I said I dont really care. You pulled this same thing ond Rd232 and now you'rre doing it to us. Every who gets in yourway has to face the fire. Get over yourself, you're not the bastion of impartiallity. 187.46.135.78 (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, rio, brazil, chavez...la la, If you are looking for a coi, look no further than your own edit history. Off2riorob (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
If you believe I have a COI (which I don't), feel free to explore it on my talk page, and I will respond once I'm home. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Mirror mirror on the wall....who's got the biggest COI of them all? Off2riorob (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
The degree to which this is misrepresentation is quite outstanding; sadly, it's par for the course for Sandy. Equally sadly, I do not have the time to expose her constant misrepresentations (as well as a smear campaign against at least one living person) with sufficient clarity and impact (RFC/U / arbcom case) to stop her in continuing to constantly misrepresent and smear others. Rd232 12:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Comments by other users
  • The allegation against Off2riorob makes little sense to me. He's clearly not a SPA.
  • While Rd232 has been less than entirely neutral in his edits, and an admin might want to look into pro-Chavez POV-pushing, I don't think he is a sock. The problem is complicated because SandyGeorgia isn't always respectful of WP:SYN when trying to insert balance into the Venezuela-related articles, and an editor can have good-faith reasons for reverting his edits.
  • Fwiw, I don't think that Weisbrot and Kriswarner are socks of each other. It's far more likely that they're co-workers editing from the same IP and in violation of WP:COI (which would require admin attention), but that's not being a sock. That said, Scalabrine might be a sock of one of them. THF (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I've added diffs above (more can be provided); if you are concerned that I don't always respect SYN, please address on my talk with examples, but know that I'm unlikely to be able to respond until I return from travel (chasing socks while I'm on vacation is fun :) I think there's enough evidence for a CU here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Nice to see what you resort to when you're cought misrepresenting. That block was a joke. Any sensible admin wouldve blocked you aswell, but of course, you got wikibuddies who look after you. 187.46.135.78 (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Re-iterating, your partial grasp of Wiki policies (for example on 3RR) and resorting to personal attacks is remiscent of others involved in these discussions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree entirely with User:THF's comments. This diff by User:Markweisbrot helps explain a little about the usage of his account. I think it is pretty clear this is Mark Weisbrot, a more experienced user like the others would not place his comments so badly. If he wants to edit here, which I unfortunately doubt is the case, and his identity is confirmed, I think he should be allowed to and unblocked.John Z (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • This is the biggest shame of this report, the committee has said that we are supposed to welcome users who are the subjects of BLP's and should listen to them and work with then, not throw seven barrels of poo at them and haul them over the coals and block them indefinitely, it is a shame and I totally agree with John Z. Off2riorob (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I think it's unlikely that Off2riorob is related to the other listed accounts. If you compare his communication style to the others, he lacks the same level of writing skill and eloquence. It looks more like a case of bandwagon-jumping. --Andy Walsh (talk) 14:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • CU can't rule out meatpuppetry, but at least it can determine sockpuppetry. Off2riorob still is suggestive of Brazilian IP, and we still have evidence of coordinated editing, and some editors taking up where others leave off. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • All froth and nothing at all to support your unfounded assertions. Your asking for a checkuser on the grounds that I am suggestive of a brazilian ip and I have rio in my username? I suggest you edit some articles outside of you chosen subject you clearly are obsessed with conspiracy. Off2riorob (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Off2riorob, I'm frankly amused that you haven't yet been blocked for these ongoing personal attacks on me. Perhaps you're not aware of my editing history, beyond trying to keep up with multiple editors inserting POV into multiple articles over the last month. The next personal attack on me is going to the circus at ANI, or requesting admin attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

{{RFCU}} is deprecated. Please change the case status parameter in {{SPI case status}} to "CURequest" instead.

Checkuser request – code letter: D (3RR using socks )
Current status – Endorsed for Checkuser attention.    Requested by SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

 Clerk endorsed highly likely, however, because Kriswarner has been editing a different page, I'm not to comfortable with just recommending this for duck. Would like to determine if there is a link between Scalabrineformvp, Kriswarner and Constitutional1787 (talk · contribs), Spitfire 10:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

 Confirmed Markweisbrot = Kriswarner = Scalabrineformvp. Constitutional1787 is Red X Unrelated. Dominic·t 12:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 Relisted to check the IPs. NW (Talk) 17:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC). However, please do not check the two relisted accounts; I have not gone through their contributions to see if a check is warranted. NW (Talk) 13:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Categories:
Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Scalabrineformvp: Difference between revisions Add topic