Sockpuppets of Orderinchaos: DanielT5, Zivko85, arbitrator FT2 blanks evidence of administrator sockpuppetry Options

[Proabivouac]

Administrator Orderinchaos…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Orderinchaos
…stacked Australia related deletion debates (among others) through most of 2007, using his sockpuppets User:DanielT5…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DanielT5
…
and User:Zivko85….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zivko85

Upon being caught by Checkuser, he concocted a "gay lover defense", whereby his ex-gay lover and his ex-gay lover's new gay lover spent the evenings at his apartment, huddled around one computer, participating (and invariably agreeing) in deletion debates and communicating with one another on user talk pages even though "they" were all the same room...

Now Arbitrator FT2, acting, no doubt, on a request from the dishonest and corrupt still-administrator Orderinchaos, blanks the evidence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=151083404

I have this backed up in full, and will republish it here if it's deleted from Wikipedia.

[Proabivouac]

It might also be noted that, when Arbitrators Morven and FT2 were trolling my real-world identity back in September 2007, I received an e-mail from User:Orderinchaos attempting to exploit the situation to cover up his socking:

Given recent revelations, can I ask you in good faith to consider nominating your case against me in your userspace for U1?

A non-sequitur, except by the logic of power and vulnerability.

Unfortunately, Orderinchaos failed to actually offer anything to my RWI outed and beleaguered account, which may be why nothing was done. The key point is that OIC has been itching to have this material deleted for some time now, to cover up his long term dishonesty and abuse of the system.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Wed 16th April 2008, 12:12pm

[Random832]

Unfortunately, I chose to allow my friends to use my computer on a number of occasions when they stayed here, and my own addiction to Wikipedia wasn't enough to keep me off it when I was at theirs.

um...

What reason do friends have to sign onto eachother's accounts (or edit from eachother's computers), on more than one occasion?

'course, keeping in mind who that blog post was about, it'd really be just as odd (some might go so far as to say "hypocritical") to support accusing OIC of sockpuppetry whilst generally being opposed to considering Poetlister et al sockpuppets, either. (I'm not saying you do, I don't know your personal position on the Poetlister issue - just pointing out some interesting parallels in general)

And "communicating with one another on user talk pages even though "they" were all the same room..." - maybe they wanted to maintain transparency? After all, isn't it better to communicate on user talk pages where all can see then to use, say, IRC?

This post has been edited by Random832: Wed 16th April 2008, 5:00pm

[jorge]

What reason do friends have to sign onto eachother's accounts (or edit from eachother's computers), on more than one occasion?

'course, keeping in mind who that blog post was about, it'd really be just as odd (some might go so far as to say "hypocritical") to support accusing OIC of sockpuppetry whilst generally being opposed to considering Poetlister et al sockpuppets, either. (I'm not saying you do, I don't know your personal position on the Poetlister issue - just pointing out some interesting parallels in general)

And "communicating with one another on user talk pages even though "they" were all the same room..." - maybe they wanted to maintain transparency? After all, isn't it better to communicate on user talk pages where all can see then to use, say, IRC?

The allegation relating to Poetlister et al was not really about them using each other's accounts- I think that happened on just one occasion when the flatmate of RachelBrown(who would later start the Newport account) made a comment- but on that occasion she stated clearly it was not Rachel posting.

[LessHorrid vanU]

Why gay lovers?

Is this because one does not wish to bismirch Orderinchaos by suggesting he has straight lovers (ex or otherwise), or this is a practice presumably not found amongst straight (ex) couples? I guess that I have only ever once been able to communicate on a reasonable basis with an ex-lover, and I concede that the presence of a current lover of hers would have wrecked that tentative post intimate relationship, but I am not often in the habit of judging heterosexual relationships on the basis of how I deal with my shortcomings.

Perhaps most gay people are more relaxed about past and current relationships, and those gay friends of mine are the exceptions - our mutual emotional inadequacies being the lynchpin?

Oh, and what has it to do with admin abuse?




I know that the above is fairly flippant, and I realise the main point of this thread is airing the alleged hypocrisy of an admin who may or may not operate sockpuppets, but I actually do have friends who happen to be gay - I rather like them, and note their struggles and wishes to not be stigmatised by their sexuality. Don't mind me.

[guy]

And "communicating with one another on user talk pages even though "they" were all the same room..." - maybe they wanted to maintain transparency? After all, isn't it better to communicate on user talk pages where all can see then to use, say, IRC?

One of the charges made against Poetlister et. al. is that they hardly ever left messages on each other's talk pages - an odd way to prove sockpuppetry, but there you are.

Why gay lovers?

Straight people do it too. A prominent editor here has noted that he and his wife both edit Wikipedia.

[Proabivouac]

Why gay lovers?

I understand your objection. There is an asymmetry here, however - it would be more unusual (though not unheard of) for straight couples to maintain this kind of social arrangement.

[Proabivouac]

Unfortunately, I chose to allow my friends to use my computer on a number of occasions when they stayed here, and my own addiction to Wikipedia wasn't enough to keep me off it when I was at theirs.

um...

We have strong reasons to believe that, had JoshuaZ used this defense, his sockpuppetry would have been similarly overlooked. See how FloNight is prompting him to offer an alibi, but JoshuaZ was too clueless to take the hint:

So you do not use any other accounts...only JoshuaZ? Do you have a close friend that edits with you? Someone that might at times supported your same views in discussions? Have you ever told a friend about an issue on wiki-en and they supported the view...what we would call a meatpuppet? It is important to know this because there seems to be strong ip evidence of multiple accounts from the same ip doing stuff that is outside of what would be expected from an experienced and trusted user like yourself. We are trying to consider all options in a case where the evidence is so strong that most users would have already had their multiple accounts blocked. We are being as open minded about this as possible…
To the point of your email, the issue of the old edits having different interests and style has been brought up but does not entirely clear you since it could be argued that you took over a friends account to make the edits. Or you had a friend make the edits for you…
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15878&st=0

[Shalom]

[

Unfortunately, I chose to allow my friends to use my computer on a number of occasions when they stayed here, and my own addiction to Wikipedia wasn't enough to keep me off it when I was at theirs.

I've checked Proabivouac's subpage and Orderinchaos's statement, and my first impression is that OIC is telling the truth. I have no motivation to delve deeper into the issue because it was resolved many months ago.

Orderinchaos's confession of "my own addiction to Wikipedia" is spot-on. From 22 November 2006 through 3 July 2007, OIC edited Wikipedia at least once on every single day, without exception. His streak of 224 consecutive days editing Wikipedia should earn him an Ironman Barnstar.

Why I bothered to find out that last bit of information will have to remain a secret for now.

[Castle Rock]

Another thing that struck me was that, despite their supposed close relationship, they never once mentioned anything regarding their offline lives. You would think that there would've been some joking talk messages along the lines of "How was your day" and "Don't hog the remote." It's nonsensical to believe that there never would have been any contact suggesting the "lover" situation over all those months before Elonka's RFA.

[Giggy]

Why gay lovers?

Because that's what they are. Gay lovers. Friends. People who share a common interest in WP, and who (for some reason) ended up on the wrong side of Proabivouac. Orderinchoas' story is completely true, and FT2 is correct, this time.

Another thing that struck me was that, despite their supposed close relationship, they never once mentioned anything regarding their offline lives. You would think that there would've been some joking talk messages along the lines of "How was your day" and "Don't hog the remote." It's nonsensical to believe that there never would have been any contact suggesting the "lover" situation over all those months before Elonka's RFA.

...do you ever go onto a friend's talk page and ask them not to hog the remote? No, really?

[Knight]

The word gay is clearly just being used as an embellishment to add color to an otherwise dry story. The good old tabloids do it all the time. I guess Tim either thought an extra salacious little detail was needed to get people to care or wanted to make things uncomfortable for those concerned if they aren't entirely "out". Fairly cheap either way - like me throwing his first name into this post...

[Proabivouac]

Because that's what they are. Gay lovers. Friends. People who share a common interest in WP, and who (for some reason) ended up on the wrong side of Proabivouac. Orderinchoas' story is completely true, and FT2 is correct, this time.

I'm absolutely confident that the evidence presented here…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Proabivo...kpuppets_of_OIC
…demonstrates that at least some of these edits propagate from the same individual. It may well be that distinct people Zivko85 and DanielT5 exist, and opened their respective accounts; there is no way to disprove this. Presumably, this is how OIC would have defended himself (See, here is a photograph of the three of us, that’s Zivko on the right, and there's Daniel on the left!) If so, Orderinchaos was given access to their passwords and was posting from these accounts.

Actually, Orderinchaos didn't deny this, though the question was posed to him directly and repeatedly:

"I have but one further question, if you'll indulge me, Orderinchaos: granting that DanielT5 and Zivko85 are individuals distinct from one another and from you, was there any time at which you'd posted under their usernames, or any time when one of them might have posted under yours?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=149685219
"Gnangarra, I asked a straightforward and specific question that was not directed at you. My intent is to see if there if there might not be a scenario which is consistent with both Orderinchaos' previous explanations and the observed evidence."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=149749022

"He got caught with red handed and has presented a story that is consistent with some parts of the violations he has been accused of, but far from all of them. The question being asked -- "was there any time at which you'd posted under their usernames, or any time when one of them might have posted under yours" -- can be answered with a simple yes or no without requiring any disclosures of personal information, and will go a long way to putting this matter to rest."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=149750666
"Getting a straight answer to the simple question -- "was there any time at which you'd posted under their usernames, or any time when one of them might have posted under yours" -- would help define the nature and severity of the issue at hand. It's time Orderinchaos answered this question, himself, with a simple yes or no."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=149770277

His response:

"remove trolling, my talk page is not the place for it."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=149796278

So even if "Orderinchaos' story is completely true," this is not much of a defense, as he never denied posting through these accounts.

As for "end[ing] up on the wrong side of Proabivouac"…I'd never come across the fellow before, and when assembling the evidence found myself agreeing with him and his socks most of the time. He seems like an intelligent and capable administrator. What got him "on the wrong side of" me was nothing but what you see here: long-term abusive socking.

The word gay is clearly just being used as an embellishment to add color to an otherwise dry story.

Oh, clearly. It couldn't just be my natural language; that would be too simple.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Thu 17th April 2008, 2:05am

[Giggy]

The word gay is clearly just being used as an embellishment to add color to an otherwise dry story.

Agreed.

In response to claims they come from the same individual...since they blamed MSN, and I have had an MSN conversation with OIC and DT5 (as in, a group conversation), I'm going to AGF that they were doing as the edit summaries say.

Thus I'm opening myself up to looking like a moron if you're proven right. I concede that. Good luck.

[Milton Roe]

Why gay lovers?

I understand your objection. There is an asymmetry here, however - it would be more unusual (though not unheard of) for straight couples to maintain this kind of social arrangement.

To say the least. There's three usernames at least here. So, if some or all are gay men sharing absolutely everything, there's the unique possibility of wikipedia sock-editing whilst all editors are simultaneously involved in a gay sex train. Which would make confusion and sharing of passwords, and who knows what else besides, more likely. Thus, I submit there needs to be new creaping WP policy to cover this. WP:TRAINSPOTTING.

[Proabivouac]

The word gay is clearly just being used as an embellishment to add color to an otherwise dry story.

Agreed.

Actually, I think the word "gay" here is clearly being used to knock the conversation off-topic, and portray Orderinchaos as the victim of semantic homophobia, rather than as an abusive sockpuppeteer who never denied posting through his friends' accounts.

[Giggy]

Nor he did never admit to it, nor was it ever proven. Why waste his time with a denial that those out to get him will inevitably claim is a lie?

[Proabivouac]

Nor he did never admit to it, nor was it ever proven. Why waste his time with a denial that those out to get him will inevitably claim is a lie?

Why would you say I was "out to get him?" I was out to get him to admit to his socking. And you're right, I would called it a lie because it would have been a lie. That's why he didn't deny it, Giggy.

You see, this is the entire problem with socking on Wikipedia. Sure socking is possible, but they can be identified, correct? Ah, but that's rarely the end of it.

If someone has few friends, then their socks are cleaned up without a fuss. They can even be falsely accused, as Matt57 or BhaiSaab, and no one even feels the need to apologize or retract the false charges, even when everyone knows they're false.

If someone has friends, they will inevitably line up to defend them, regardless of the strength of the evidence - see Mantanmoreland - while their wikienemies will line up to demand justice. Other times, these friends are merely ideological allies who will inevitably say, "You are on a witchhunt to get him because of his POV!" (Alienus, SevenofDiamonds,) no matter what your actual motivations.

If there's no checkuser, this will be held up as proof of innocence. When there is checkuser, you just make up a story, and if you have friends willing to believe you, or at least pretend to believe you, you're in the clear .

The bar of proof is set so high - see again Mantanmoreland - that it can never be satisfied where these social conditions are present.

My motivations were actually very simple: administrators sock all the time, they use these socks to rig the system, knowing that even if they're caught, they can wiggle out of it, and I'm damned sick of it.

Remember, assume good faith!*

(*applies to administrators and their favorites only)

[Giggy]

Nor he did never admit to it, nor was it ever proven. Why waste his time with a denial that those out to get him will inevitably claim is a lie?

Why would you say I was "out to get him?" I was out to get him to admit to his socking.

Emphasis mine.

Seriously though, I agree with you that in some cases, people get away with socking because of who they are and where they are.

That doesn't make every admin a sockpuppet(er).

I've spoken to OIC, prior to this thread, about this (as it was raised around the time of an Elonka RfA...so it inevitably came up next time Elonka was at RfA). I believe his explanation. You're free not to. You're free to try and prove me wrong. And I'm free to disagree with everything you say.

(In other words, I don't really have any more to say, in absence of new evidence. We agree in the majority of cases, I'm guessing, but in this case I think you're seeing socks. You're not the only person who does this...)

[Proabivouac]

In response to claims they come from the same individual...since they blamed MSN, and I have had an MSN conversation with OIC and DT5 (as in, a group conversation), I'm going to AGF that they were doing as the edit summaries say.

All the listed shared phrases aside, how do you explain this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=134925924

Is it really possible that DanielT5 and Orderinchaos are so close that Daniel cannot remember if he wrote something, or if Orderinchaos did?

"The other day I... uh, no, that wasn't me."