Login
Login

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rjensen

: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 {{NAMESPACE}} talk:{{{nosubst. 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:Rjensen===

;Suspected sockpuppeteer

{{user5|Rjensen}}

;Suspected sockpuppets

{{user5|Obow2003}}

{{user5|Jozil}}

;Report submission by:

-- Cielomobile talk / contribs 07:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

;Evidence

The accounts User:Obow2003 and User:Jozil seem like obvious sock puppets. They suddenly both voted in support of moving an article in a close time period, in the exact same style ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AConservatism_in_the_United_States&diff=101859977&oldid=101757130 diff]). They had very few edits before this vote (in fact, Obow only had one previous edit, see here for Obow, here for Jozil), and all their edits were on talk pages voting for some proposition or another (no mainspace edits). Rjensen has voted along with these sock puppets every time they have edited (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abraham_Lincoln&diff=prev&oldid=88843782 this] for example, or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAmerican_Revolution&diff=68199855&oldid=68195239 this], or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FDemocrat_Party_%28United_States%29&diff=58279926&oldid=58157713 this]), and he's already been banned [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User:Rjensen&action=edit§ion=new multiple times] for 3RR violations. I'd suggest that he is permanently blocked, as he repeatedly violates Wikipedia policy with ill intent. At the very least, these sock puppets need to be banned, and Rjensen needs to somehow be reprimanded.

;Comments

:Rjensen comments:

Obow2003 and Jozil are real people and not me. They have an interest in American conservatism and I alerted them to the problems and encouraged them to join in the discussion. Rjensen 07:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

:: Note that asking others to join in a debate, unless careful, may be seen as "meat puppetry". Wikipedia debates are a collaboration to find what's best, not a question of "voting numbers". So it's important to be aware of that. Whilst "good faith" newcomers are more than welcome, there are dangers of non-neutrality if a number of people visit an article in response to a request from one "side". Take a look at WP:SOCK for the policy in this area. Especially, note that if it's unclear, then previous decisions have held that inappropriate meat-puppetry can be treated the same as sock puppetry would be. Something to be aware of. FT2 (Talk | email) 08:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

:Wjhonson comments:

You're right it smells. Not completely clear-cut but definitely suspicious. And on another count, what user needs EIGHT 3rr violations before they learn the rule? Apparently one who doesn't care to play by the rules. Wjhonson 08:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

::As I said they are real people and different people, so I will ask them to comment here. This came about because I strongly objected to Cielomobile's renaming a major article (American Conservatism) with no discussion or vote. Rjensen 08:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

::: Even if so, that may well be seen as an inappropriate action. "I didn't like the action so I stacked the editorship in the article" would still be seen as highly inappropriate, and you may have inadvertantly put those concerned in a difficult position of now being seen as sock or meat puppets, both classified under the same policy. The non-neutrality of the action can be seen in that for example, there was not really the chance of people arriving as a result of your invitation, who disagreed with your stance for any reason. And as you point out, none did. So it's a bit of a stacked deck. In future, if you disagree with a decision, I strongly suggest you post a request for help internally, for example on Wikipedia:Requests for comment, so that those who contribute and check it out, come with a neutral slant, and from any and all viewpoints equally. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

:::I did not move the article with no discussion or vote, but you can judge for yourselves at Talk:Liberalism_in_the_United_States#Page_move. But please, keep that out of this discussion. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 05:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

::I openly invited people on the talk page to protest what I considered a blatant disregard for Wiki rules. And I invited people to protest by email. I indeed tried to be persuasive rather than "neutral"--it is false that Wiki policy requires editors be neutral in disputes. On the contrary it encourages them to take sides: to Vote. I requested help from all editors on the Talk page and on the WP incidents page, and I tried to be persuasive.

Of course this is a discussion page about alleged sock puppets, defined by Wki as "A sock puppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name." and "to invent a separate user. This may be used for fictional support of separate people in a vote or argument by falsely using the account as a separate user." I categorically deny that allegation. As for "stacked deck" that is what I was protesting: that editors did not have a chance to vote on renaming the important article that I and many others had worked hard on for months. I am surprised that a sticker for rules is uninterested in that issue.

As for "meatpuppets" --it means to "create brand new accounts specifically to participate in, or influence, a particular vote or area of discussion." That did not happen here. Rjensen 10:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

::: It might be worth recapping WP:SOCK a bit. A sock-puppet is when one person operates two different accounts, which act like two different people. It's allowed, provided the different accounts aren't used in the same debate to give a false appearance of multiple participants. Meat-puppetry is when one solicits non-neutral participants to join a debate because one believes they will add weight to one's own side. Its a problem because although the people are independent, the views added are not, and it can sway a debate which is not really about "opinion" but should be about finding neutral presentations and consensus. Because it can sometimes be hard to tell whether two editors of this kind are the same person or not, and because the effect is generally the same even if they are different people, it's generally the rule that the same rule applies to both, whether separate people or not. Wikipedia is not about "I didn't like their view so I added more voices to the debate". if there was a problem then WP:RFC (Requests for comment) as above, is the right venue for more input. See also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

::I believe FT2 has misstated the Wiki policy on Meat Puppets. I followed the guideline: An arbitrator clarified the position: "Briefly, I think a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine.... If there are a small handful of editors who share your taste and/or philosophy, it is sometimes acceptable to contact them with regard to a specific issue as long as it does not become disruptive." ' (from WP Canvasssing.) I quoted the rule ("create brand new accounts specifically to participate in, or influence, a particular vote or area of discussion.") and said that did not happen here. Note that the root problem was that American Conservatism was moved without a discussion and without a Request for Move. That violates Wiki rules and I protested strongly against Cielomobile's actions,and now Cielomobile is making these false allegations in retaliation. Rjensen 17:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

::: You need a little more familiarity with how Wikipedia works, and especially with the definitions in WP:SOCK. The quotation you give from WP:CANVAS goes on to state, in the same sentence:

::::

style="border:1px solid black"

| '"Briefly, I think a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine. Aggressive propaganda campaigns are not. The difference lies in the disruption involved. If what is happening is getting everyone upset then it is a problem. Often the dividing line is crossed when you are contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article."''

::: It's hard to imagine you read the first half of a short paragraph, but not the second half. New accounts were created, and others were upset.

::: Separately, you are mistaken a second way. If you are discussing specific issues, and feel that more competent input to the discussion is needed, then yes, seeking input is valuable. That is in the main, what WP:CANVAS ("Canvassing") is referencing. You need to read WP:DP ("Deletion policy") though, since these accounts were used in deletion discussions:

::::

style="border:1px solid black"

|

"It's worth noting that (...) the purpose of a discussion is to bring out a "sense of the community" and the valid points for or against each view." [Background]

"It should also be noted that packing the discussion with sockpuppets (multiple accounts) and meatpuppets (advertising or soliciting of desired views) does not reflect a genuine consensus, and usually doesn't raise much in the way of novel policy considerations. A deletion debate is not a popular vote, but a way of obtaining editors' views as to whether an article meets policy guidelines or not, so these kind of activities don't achieve much." [Abuse of deletion process]

::: What use were these additional accounts? Even if genuine, did they add any additional policy based views to the discussion? How could they - they could only reflect lack of policy-related knowledge (if other individuals) or your point of view already stated (if socks). So it was a bit futile in any case, whatever the nature of the new accounts. Whether you were acting in good faith and just wanted to honestly prevent a move you felt was harming the article, or whether in bad faith and wanted to stack the process, protesting a move is not any kind of grounds for stacking an ensuing debate, whether on AFD or the talk page, and selective quoting from guidelines is just not going to help to make it so. I imagine this is still likely to be a fairly clear breach of WP:SOCK and WP:DP. But others may make the final decision. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

:Cielomobile comments:

Here is why these accounts are definitely sock puppets, Rjensen. The comments made by them imply a knowledge of wiki policy, and every single one of their few edits is on a vote for an AfD, RM, etc.. Obvious sock puppets. They are your sock puppets because you are the only editor to vote in more than one of the discussions in which the puppets have voted (I know "vote" is not the proper word). Even if they are not your accounts (this could be checked by an admin viewing the IPs of all involved parties), you have undoubtedly asked these people to vote in your discussions every time, which is meat puppetry (considered that the accounts are only used for voting). However, in the discussion for moving Conservatism in the United States, they used the exact same style of writing (see the bolded "SUPPORT") voted within a relatively short period of time ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AConservatism_in_the_United_States&diff=101859977&oldid=101757130 diff]). That is mighty fishy. I checked against User:Isolani, the other editor vehemently who vehemently supported moving back the article, and he did not make a single edit in the previous votes of the sock puppets, so he's out of the picture. You're the only candidate, Rjensen, and the evidence against you is a bit overwhelming. An IP check could confirm all of this, although it wouldn't necessarily rule you out, as you could have edited under these accounts from a different IP. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 05:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

::I don't think Cielomobile has much credibility -- he NEVER contributed to the article on American Conservatism until he successfully fooled an administrator into moving it without a poll or vote. Normally Wiki defers to the numerous editors who worked long and hard over a period of months rather than to some outsider who seems to have no interest or knowledge of the topic (he is unaware that the people, ideas, events and sources of American Liberalism are very differnt from American Conservatism, claiming instead they are very similar. That proves a lack of interest.) Rjensen 05:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

:::This is the kind of accusatory language that I'm talking about—it's an ad hominem argument. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 05:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, the puppets and Rjensen all use similar, accusatory language. For example, they like to accuse me of POV for moving the page (which is completely uncalled for), see Talk:Conservatism_in_the_United_States#VOTE:_Move_back_to_.22American_Conservatism.22. I hope this doesn't come off as a personal attack, but in general their language in general is a bit childish and definitely similar in several aspects. See the diffs I posted in the initial evidence. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 05:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

::well anyone who wants me to follow the rules exactly should, I suggest, follow the rules and definitions very closely themselves. I quoted the official rules and suggest that FT2 do the same. Sock puppet = Same person, and that is false. (try emailing them and asking if they exist.) Likewise Meat Puppet rule was not violated. I have charged that Cielomobile deliberately violated Wiki rules and he has yet to respond to that allegation. I also note that his editing record shows zero interest in the topic of American conservatism, which makes it unfortunate indeed that he tried to make major changes without discussing them. Is that not against Wiki rules? Rjensen 10:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

:::I have not violated Wikipedia policy. I'm beginning to sound like a broken record here—I followed the procedure mandated by WP:RM, specifically: "If you are proposing that multiple closely related pages should all be moved for the same reason (see Multiple page moves), it may be advisable to create this discussion on only a single talk page and provide links from the other talk pages to this centralized discussion." That is exactly what I did. It is not a violation of Wikipedia policy. Stop accusing me and other editors of doing so; it borders on a personal attack. Besides, this is not the appropriate venue to discuss the page move; this is about your alleged sock puppeteering. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 11:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

::What happened is that I complained loudly and said there was a serious violation of Wiki rules going on. Obow2003 and Jozil agreed with me but had their own unique, new reasons for complaining. Thus Jozil said "Most Americans refer to our country as America, not the United States. I find when I travel that non-Americans are the ones that refer to us as the United States." That was new and not something I said. Likewise Obow said: " I am a college student and lots of my friends use wikipedia and we want to make it useful for them. Changing the title makes the article hard to find." Again that is not part of my own argument (I am long past college age, by the way). Those quotes refute FT2's incorrect assertion that: "Even if genuine, did they add any additional policy based views to the discussion? How could they - they could only reflect lack of policy-related knowledge (if other individuals) or your point of view already stated." The refutation is that Obow203 and Jozil made original contributions based on their own experience--both have been active in political debate in colleges which I never attended--and they did not merely echo my position. Furthermore it is not true that new accounts were created to engage on this issue, which is a basic requirement for meat puppetry. Finally, I suggest that when a page move was made illegally it should be changed back immediately, not open to a new round of debate. Rjensen 11:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

:::You have ignored all the substantial evidence presented against you. All of their edits are in votes on talk pages which you had previously voted in (none in the main namespace), and each of their edits reflect the same view as you, i.e. support, oppose, etc.. This is the fundamental issue here, not the silly language issues that you are nitpicking. In one of the edits, Obow said he was in college, and you are not in college. Here's an idea: you fabricated the "I'm in college" comment to throw suspicion off yourself. Whether or not this was your intent is irrelevent, however; like I said, the main evidence is that each one of their edits have been in votes in which you have also voted in the exact same way. There is nothing you can say to refute this; it is no mere coincidence.

:::You admitted to telling them that these votes were occurring; however, there is no message on their talk pages, so you must have contacted them outside Wikipedia. If you did this, it was meat puppetry, but it really has no logical sense. If these people do actually exist, isn't it a bit odd that the only edits they've made were to talk pages for votes? They claim to know about Wikipedia policy (they obviously do not, but that is an entirely different matter), but they haven't made any edits to the main namespace. If these are in fact real people, I suspect they would've made at least one edit in the mainspace. The only logical explanation is that you made these edits yourself, that these are your sock puppets. At the very least, they are meat puppets, but if I were Rjensen and wanted to try to sway consensus in my favor, I wouldn't contact my friendd and ask them to register accounts on Wikipedia and vote. I'd just do it myself. Regardless of whether or not the accounts are operated by another physical person, you obviously control the accounts, as they have voted the exact same way as you, and you admitted to contacting them to help in the votes, so they are effectively your sock puppets. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 11:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Cielomobile goes on and on, but he has no standing to do so since he never edited the article under discussion. Rjensen 19:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

::::That doesn't destroy my credibility in regards to your sock puppetry. This discussion is not about the move; it is about your sock puppet activities (which, again, you have yet to respond to). -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 23:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out Wikipedia's policy regarding cases in which it is difficult to ascertain whether the puppets are sock puppets or meat puppets. According to Wikipedia:Sock_puppet#Meatpuppets, "when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one individual." This was a decision made by the ArbCom; so there is no wiggling room here. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 23:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

::I flatly deny the sock puppet charge. The other two folks are real people who have their own opinions (different from mine) and did not create new accounts to join this debate. If any administrator wants to check he should ask them directly. Rjensen 23:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I suggest that a checkuser be filed. --BenBurch 13:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, I can do that, but it wouldn't be able to clear him if the results are not conclusive, seeing as he could have easily edited these accounts from different IPs, used proxies, or had other people make these edits (if they are meat puppets and not sock puppets). -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 06:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I began to file a request, but this case did not fit any of the situations which call for a CheckUser. These accounts are obvious sock/meat puppets, and it is rather obvious that Rjensen is the puppeteer. Whether or not he himself made the edits is irrelevent, as I've already explained; in cases in which it is not clear whether the puppet accounts are meat or sock puppets, they are to be treated as sock puppets. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 06:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It would be nice if an admin could take a look at this case. It's been sitting here for over 3 weeks. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 06:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The charges are false and were brought by Cielomobile in revenge for my allegations of fraud on his part, for systematically deceiving administrators. Rjensen 14:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you have a link to where your allegations of fraud are? Wjhonson 15:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • yes: Talk:Conservatism in the United States is where it all happened. Rjensen 22:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The discussion there only prompted me to realize that Rjensen was using sock puppets to create the impression of consensus. The two puppets in question both voted "SUPPORT" in the exact same style within a short period of time. Upon further investigation, it became obvious that Rjensen was controlling the puppets. I actually considered one of the other users who had voted in the discussion might be the puppeteer, but he had no link to the puppets, unlike Rjensen, who was linked to them in every possible way. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 03:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Cielomobile was deceiving administrators then and has not changed. His allegations are based not on "a short period of time" (whatever that means) or revenge, and are false. He has never denied the allegation of systematic deception on his part--that there was no need for a debate or vote on changing the name of the article. Rjensen 04:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Your assertions are not only absurd, but irrelevent. Your attempt to discredit my argument by attacking me is what is known as an ad hominem argument. I do deny your assertion that that I have decieved administrators, but I'm not going to play any of these ridiculous games with you anymore. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 03:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It's now been one entire month since this was filed. Any admins out there? -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 03:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Cielomobile still does not deny his guilt in tricking administrators. Rjensen 04:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "I do deny your assertion that that I have decieved administrators." That was one line up. Now I'm truly done playing your games. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 05:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Cielomobile tricked administrators into moving American Conservatism without any discussion or votte whatsoever--does he deny that? It's what the fuss is all about. He never once edited the article. His statements on this page are an effort to gain revenge. Rjensen 05:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I've already explained the move several times, but it has nothing to do with your sockpuppetry. You have yet to make any valid explanation for the voting patterns posted in my initial evidence (except that you asked them to vote for you, which in itself is meat puppetry and a violation of WP:SOCK). -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 17:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

;Conclusions

:Confirmed socks see:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Betacommand/Sandbox&oldid=110357752] for evidence. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 16:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

----