Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jonawiki

As Roguegeek above stated: "For clarification, this is a report for User:Jonawiki, User:Magonaritus, and User:66.208.54.226. It would be much appreciated if we could stay on the subject." As such, here are the counterarguments to the sockpuppet charges against User:Jonawiki, User:Magonaritus, and User:66.208.54.226 which Roguegeek erased as a means to hide any flaws in the analysis that he and G2bambino put together. Deleting the defense against a sockpuppet accusation is outrageous. And it's contemptible, biased and irresponsible behavior for admins like Irishguy to have chosen to stay silent in the face of such an abomination of simple BALANCED justice. Please note, this is not the first time that Roguegeek has deleted :talk discussions as a means of making disagreement with his ideas go away. He did so at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Star_Wars_Galaxies&diff=114985651&oldid=114980298 and his deletion was reverted at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Star_Wars_Galaxies&diff=114986562&oldid=114986318.

:That's an interesting accusation. Can you provide a diff where I "erased as a means to hide any flaws in the analysis"? The accusation (which that's all it is) means nothing without proof and the only outrageous thing here is that you did so without one. Roguegeek (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

::The proof you're looking for was already provided. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Star_Wars_Galaxies&diff=114985651&oldid=114980298 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Star_Wars_Galaxies&diff=114986562&oldid=114986318. It shows the outrageous action you took to archive active discussions so you can could the points raised that you didn't want to hear.

:::Yup. Those links go nowhere, but I think I know what incident you're talking about. The page was archived to start new discussion because, basically, none of the long time editors of the article agreed with the edits you were making and spoke as such, but you continued to ignore their voice. Roguegeek (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

There are several indications that place non-trivial doubt on the assertion that Jonawiki and Magonaritus are sockpuppets. The classic sockpuppet TENDS to have the following characteristics: (a) they always edit only the exact same articles, (b) they start doing so as soon as they are created, (c) they never disagree with each other and (d) degrade the quality of the article with no new content that complies with WP:ATT. Please find below 9 weaknesses in the sockpuppet accusation.

:(1) G2bambino placed a request for checkuser on magonaritus as a suspected sockpuppet. His request was declined on March 10, 2007: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser&diff=114171374&oldid=114171183

:(2) G2bambino asserts that Magonaritus and Jonawiki "always supports the opinions... of the other" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:G2bambino/temp). However, this assertion is untrue. They have disagreed 4 times:

:* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Star_Wars_Galaxies#Emulators: Jonawiki wanted to keep emulators in the Controversy section despite objections from Antman. Magonaritus agreed with Antman and moved it to a new Developments to Watch section.

:* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Star_Wars_Galaxies#Freeman_.22Controversy.22 Jonawiki wanted to keep the description of a controversy involving Jeff Freeman. Magonaritus disagreed and argued that it should be deleted from the article.

:* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Star_Wars_Galaxies#Bioware_speculation.2Frumor Jonawiki argued that the Bioware rumor should stay in the article. Magonaritus disagreed and argued that it should be deleted from the article.

:* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Upper_Canada_College#G2bambino:_Stop_Hiding_UCC.27s_Dirty_Laundry Magonaritus lightly chastises Jonawiki's demeanor with "no comment".

:(3) Aside from the articles on Upper Canada College and Star Wars Galaxies, both Magonaritus and Jonawiki have a long list of 22 different non-intersecting editing interests altogether:

:* Magonaritus edited 9 non-intersecting articles: O Rly?, Elephant, List of Internet slang phrases, Dragon, Harvard University, AOL, ICQ, Edgar Allen Poe, Urban Dictionary

:* Jonawiki has edited 13 non-intersecting interests: Harvard College, Old Ones (Buffyverse), Roma people, Green tea, Auction, Monomyth, Teras Kasi, Carl Jung, Monarchy in Canada, Bushism, John Smedley, Sony Online Entertainment, Vanguard: Saga of Heroes

::How anyone can consider a list of 22 individual edits a long list is beyond me. In fact, it's pretty trivial. Roguegeek (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

:::Typical sockpuppets will have only edited 2 to 5 articles in which they agree with the puppet master in all 2 to 5 articles. The 22 articles represent 92% of the articles edited by these 2 users. Upper Canada College and Star Wars Galaxies represent only 8% of the articles in which the 2 users intersect.

:(4) Per the "100 edit rule" as one possible test for sockpuppets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wp:sockpuppet#When_questions_arise), the results do not really indicate that they are sockpuppets:

:* Magonaritus has about 70 edits on pages other than Upper Canada College and Star Wars Galaxies

:* Jonawiki has about 97 edits on pages other than Upper Canada College and Star Wars Galaxies

::So what is the reasoning of leaving out the number of those two main articles? Roguegeek (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

:::Read the link already provided: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wp:sockpuppet#When_questions_arise. It says "one possible rule of thumb is the so-called 100-edit rule. This suggests that any account which already has more than 100 edits across a range of OTHER articles or has been active more generally on Wikipedia, can often be presumed not to be a sock puppet ... However, simply having made few edits is not evidence of sock puppetry on its own, and if you call a new user a sock puppet without justification, he or she will probably be insulted and get a negative impression of Wikipedia ...Some have suggested applying the 100-edit guideline more strongly in such cases, assuming that all accounts with fewer than 100 edits are sock puppets. Generally, such beliefs have been shown to be not well-founded"

:(5) On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:G2bambino/temp, G2bambino makes a decent case that 66.208.54.226 is Jonawiki. There's no crime in a user forgetting to log in every once in a while. Then he tries to show that Jonawiki and Magonaritus are the same user because they both made edits to articles about Harvard, however this link is pretty weak.

:* Jonawiki edited Harvard College to create a new section list of famous alumni. Magonaritus never touched this article. 66.208.54.226 never touched this article.

:* Magonaritus edited the Harvard UNIVERSITY article to add a pop culture reference. Jonawiki never touched this article. 66.208.54.226 never touched this article.

::Actually, it shows perfectly that both users are 66.208.54.226. Roguegeek (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

:(6) In the 8 months that Jonawiki and Magonaritus have been in existence, they did not intersect in the first 5 months. So the first 63% of their lifespan was spent apart.

::Simply not true. Check the histories. Roguegeek (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

:(7) No consideration is given by the plaintiffs that maybe the 2 accounts sometimes use the same computer: like a computer lab (i.e. they are fellow students), a work computer (i.e. they are coworkers) or a home computer (i.e. they are a couple or room-mates or family members).

:(8) Magonaritus had extensive debates in Talk:Elephant and O RLY? per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Magonaritus. Sockpuppets are supposed to always and mindlessly support whatever debate the puppetmaster is in. So if Magonaritus and Jonawiki are sockpuppets, why didn't Jonawiki join those 2 arguments in support of Magonaritus?

:(9) Sockpuppets tend to have the purpose of degrading the quality of the article. G2bambino and Roguegeek have vehemently fought against providing any negative information on Upper Canada College and Star Wars Galaxies. It is indisputable that these 2 articles have improved SUBSTANTIALLY in terms of NPOV and ATT solely because of the efforts and research from Jonawiki and Magonaritus in the face of constant attacks from G2bambino and Roguegeek.

:* BEFORE - UPPER CANADA COLLEGE: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Upper_Canada_College&oldid=41805391. Previous to the interventions of Jonawiki, Magonaritus, Blunders and WormwoodJagger, Upper Canada College was a biased brochureware article of weasel words and historical trivia with little citation (i.e. WP:ATT) that lacked NPOV by ignoring major unpleasant truths covered extensively in the Canadian media for the past 5 years.

:* AFTER - UPPER CANADA COLLEGE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Canada_College. Despite the vicious resistance from G2bambino, the article now is more balanced and comprehensive and well-cited. NPOV was established and a plentitude of citations were provided soley through the efforts of Jonawiki, Magonaritus, Blunders and WormwoodJagger.

:* BEFORE - STAR WARS GALAXIES: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Wars_Galaxies&oldid=111855100. This game is one of the most controversial games in the game industry. It made no mention of this. It would be like writing an article about Nixon but then omitting any details on Watergate. The long article covering some many details had only FIVE footnotes that only covered 2 or 3 statements, so it was a travesty of WP:ATT.

:* AFTER - STAR WARS GALAXIES: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_Galaxies. Jonawiki and Magonaritus provided most of the 60 footnotes in the article, so now the article complies very well with WP:ATT. Most of the controversies of the game are discussed in a neutral manner. The article is more comprehensive. All this was done despite the histrionics from Roguegeek.

Now let's put this accusation of sockpuppetry in a social context. An important consideration is that the sockpuppet accusation is merely a revenge tactic by a disruptive Wiki user (G2bambino) in order to silence a POV that G2bambino wants to repress. As such, the sockpuppet accusation needs to be taken with a grain of salt as the intentions of the plaintiff are suspect. Also, this type of tactic is a waste of admin time.

(A) G2bambino admits that he does not believe Jonawiki and Magonaritus are sockpuppets which is outrageous given that he is the one who originally launched the accusation. He states just yesterday on March 22nd "Though I never really believed Wormwood and Blunders to be socks of each other, or Jonawiki or Magonaritus for that matter" (See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Jonawiki&diff=117053183&oldid=117030150). Now he is backpedalling on his clear wording, giving it a completely separate meaning. How convenient that he asks for deference and clemency for his miswordings but none for those who are accused or anyone who tries to support the accused....

(B) G2bambino has proved to be disruptive in his historical behavior. As noted below, I easily found 25 incidents of violations in WP:NPOV, WP:CIV, WP:AGF, WP:3RR, vandalism, edit war and sockpuppetry violations involving 18 different Wiki users.

::Keep in mind that G2bambino did not report the users in question. I did. Roguegeek (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

::: Wrong, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive217#Jonawiki_and_sockpuppetry where you can see G2bambino started the sockpuppetry accusation a day earlier than you.

::::Umm, you can yell "wrong" all you like, but the fact of the matter is, this sock puppet report was started by myself. The other is an incident report. All of this is pretty easily verifiable so I'm not going to waste my time on trying to prove otherwise. Roguegeek (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

:(1) G2bambino has been accused of lacking WP:NPOV on 5 separate occasions by 3 different users:

:* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gbambino/archive1#Chronology "Can you please explain why your chronology of the Monarchist League of Canada is copied almost word for word from the chronology on the MLC website" AndyL

:* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gbambino/archive1#Chronology "Re: Elizabeth II. As you know, I still think 16 articles on Elizabeth II (and her father, and his abdicating brother, and her grandfather, and her successors) is not very useful" Xoloz

:* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gbambino/archive1#Mediation "Just because the MLC says something doesn't make it a "proven fact". If you keep going on like this people are going to start thinking the MLC is some sort of cult." AndyL

:* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Monarchy_in_Canada#Rouleau....again "The Rouleau quotations are not out of context. They just don't fit your particular interpretation and you have to torture them to try to make them fit. I'm sorry gbambino but... ...Just because you don't like the fact that Rouleau says "British" and would prefer it if he had fit your POV by saying "Canadian" is not sufficient reason for censoring the quotation." Homey

:* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Monarchy_in_Canada#Gbambino_and_POV "Gbambino is again showing his POV by removing factual information that he doesn't like or thinks reflects badly on the monarchist position" Homey

:* more examples forthcoming

:(2) G2bambino has violated or been accused of violating WP:CIV and WP:AGF 8 times involving 5 different users:

:* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gbambino/archive1#QPC "In response to the offensive message you left on my talk page... You leave a hysterical message on my talk page accusing me of stalking... " Homey

:* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:G2bambino#Your_edit_summary_in_Image:Queen_of_canada.jpg "In regard to this edition, Please avoid using abusive edit summaries as per Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thanks and happy editing." Abu Badali

:* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:G2bambino#Civility "Wikipedia has only a few core policies and Wikipedia:Civility is one of them. ...We are here to build an encyclopedia not to debate. It's is a collegial activity not an adversarial one. And so we try keep our focus on the edits not the editors. ...Let's all be civil and avoid referring to each other as we go about summarizing reliable sources using the neutral point of view." Will Beback

:* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:G2bambino#Civility "I never claimed your comments weren't "civil." I claimed that they did not conform with Wikipedia guideline WP:AGF...One last thing: holding a civil tone does not exempt you from WP:AGF, just for the record." K. Scott Bailey

:* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Monarchy_in_Canada#More_on_the_meaning_of_.27Crown.27 "I'm disgusted by your dishonest and disingenuous tactics and I'm not going to engage in you any further. I have less respect for you know than I did a week ago and I didn't think that was possible." Homey

:* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Monarchy_in_Canada#gbambino "Gbambino, you should be ashamed of yourself ...So I'm sorry gbambino, your "bad faith" charge is not only not proven, it was, if I may say so, made in bad faith." Homey

:* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:James_Buchanan/Archive#Buchanan.27s_sexual_orientation "Additionally, your accusation of "editorial bullying" is against WP:AGF." K. Scott Bailey

:* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Upper_Canada_College#G2bambino:_Stop_Hiding_UCC.27s_Dirty_Laundry "Frankly, you are a boor who provides nothing constructive. Dealing with you is a waste of anyone's time" G2bambino

:* more examples forthcoming

:(3) G2bambino has been accused of vandalism, edit wars and 3RR violations 11 times:

:* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gbambino/archive1#Talk_pages "Also, you should be aware that there is a rule that you should not revert an article more than three times in one day." Kevintoronto

:* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gbambino/archive1#Revert_wars "Please try not to get into revert wars with other users. If you continue, you may be blocked under the three revert rule...." Susvolans (pigs can fly)

:* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gbambino/archive1#Violation_of_the_3RR "I have blocked you in accordance with the 3RR policy for your reverts on Monarchist League of Canada. The block is in effect for 24 hours." Inter

:* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gbambino/archive1#Mediation "Removing factual information is vandalism. I've warned you once yet you pesist in removing information on Rouleau's ruling. I've reported the matter on the incident page and am asking that you be banned. Given that you've been banned twice before, once for vandalism, once for 3RR, I expect this ban will be longer if not permanent." AndyL

:* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gbambino/archive1#Queen.27s_Privy_Council "I see you've broken the 3 revert rule. It would be better to sort this out in the talk page before you continue to revert." Astrotrain

:* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gbambino/archive1#QPC "We have both reverted three times. If you revert again you've broken the 3RR. A silly thing to break the 3RR over as you've already admitted that the point you are reverting is correct." Homey

:* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gbambino/archive1#Residences_of_Queen_Elizabeth_II " see you've almost managed an edit war with User:Adam Carr at Governor-General of Australia. I think you would do well to desist" Scott Davis

:* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gbambino/archive1#WP:3RR_reminder "Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule" Jkelly

:* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gbambino/archive2#Elizabeth_II_image "Please stop reverting that page. It is not urgent which image appears on it. I've already warned your opposite number that if he reverts again I will block him, and I will you too, if you should revert." Splash

:* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:G2bambino#Canadian_Royal_Symbols "Your recent edit to Canadian royal symbols (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles" AntiVandalBot

:* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:G2bambino#UCC_Revert_War "Hello, I am sure you know about 3RR. I have notified the other editor - please be reminded yourself." zzuuzz

:* more examples forthcoming

:(4) G2bambino has been accused of sockpuppetry and uploading copyrighted images to Wiki 1 time:

:* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gbambino/archive1#DW "Just out of curiosity, are you User:DW?" HistoryBA

(C) There is a concern that G2bambino is engaging in wikistalking and this accusation of sockpuppetry is just another way to game the system in order to intimidate his victim.

:(1) G2bambino has been warned by an admin of violating 3RR in an edit war against Magonaritus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:G2bambino#UCC_Revert_War).

:(2) Per WP:ANI, G2bambino did not have the "courtesy... [to]... inform other users and editors if they are mentioned in a posting, or if their actions are being discussed." A check on the discussion pages of both Jonawiki and Magonaritus will demonstrate that G2bambino is attempting to get them blocked with as little notice as possible.

:(3) Reviewing several thousand contributions from G2bambino, there were no contributions to any articles on gaming or Star Wars previous to his most recent contributions to the article on the Star Wars Galaxies game. The vast majority deal with monarchy, Canadiana and sexuality.

:(4) His contributions displayed no knowledge of the Star Wars Galaxies game, just very generic edits.

:(5) It seems his sole interest in the Star Wars Galaxies article was because of the presence of Jonawiki and Magonaritus. He even admits as much at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BaronJuJu#SWG_edits: "I was merely drawn to the issue as I've had to deal with Jonawiki (talk • contribs) and Magonaritus (talk • contribs) inserting POV and highly baised edits at Upper Canada College, and noted "they"'re doing the same at SWG."

:(6) This seems a possible case of wikistalking per WP:HAR#Wikistalking. Because of the past history of edit wars between Jonawiki/Magonaritus versus G2bambino, it seems per WP:HAR that G2bambino's edits in the Star Wars Galaxies article and his accusation of sockpuppetry have the "purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person... for the purpose of intimidating the primary target... to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to encourage them to stop editing entirely." G2bambino's edits in Star Wars Galaxies seemed only for the purpose of inciting and harrassing Jonawiki and Magonaritus. Per WP:HAR#Types_of_harassment, his behavior fits wikistalking: "The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor."

I'll add a complaint of wikistalking against G2bambino to WP:ANI sometime within the next 24 hours.

::Again, I'm not sure why so much attention is being brought to G2bambino considering I am the one who has started this report. If you tactic is to not legitimize anything G2bambino is bringing to the table, it's a pretty weak way to go out the defense of the accuses sock puppets. Especially considering I'm the one who has brought the most evidence. Roguegeek (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

:::* Again, you didn't start it. G2bambino did 1 day earlier at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive217#Jonawiki_and_sockpuppetry.

:::* And I think you're lying when you say that you brought most of the evidence. I believe G2bambino did. He provided a link at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive217#Jonawiki_and_sockpuppetry pointing to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:G2bambino/temp where most of the evidence provided above originates. In addition, you wrote "I have started a sock puppet report on Jonawiki. It looks as if you've done far more research than I have so please contribute to the report. Let me know if there is anything else you can recommend. Roguegeek" on G2bambino's talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:G2bambino on March 18th. The page you initially created on March 17th http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Jonawiki&oldid=115901065 doesn't have that much evidence.

::::*It seems as though you're very clearly attempting to draw attention away from the evidence above by trying to discredit the editors making the cases against you. I think you're underestimating the admin's ability to identify this as such and, therefore, have nothing more to say about it other than I leave it in their hands. Roguegeek (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

In comparison to other sockpuppet cases in the archives, the one advocated by Roguegeek and G2bambino contains flawed reasoning, factual errors, very weak evidence (for such a serious charge) and the taint of political retribution.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.20.13.2 (talk • contribs){{#if:{{{2