List of users unjustly banned as sockpuppets, CreepyCrawly wasn't the first... Options Rating

[Shalom]

CreepyCrawly (Likipenia on this forum) posted two weeks ago that he was "falsely accused of being a puppet" and was indef-blocked by Raul654.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=16715

I read that post, and after hours of effort, I succeeded in convincing Raul654 to unblock. However, everyone walked away unhappy.

Raul654: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=199615699

CreepyCrawly: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=199627655

Shalom: http://yrobinso.livejournal.com/2008/03/20

The story does not end there. After continuing to read this discussion board, and based on my extensive experience as a Wikipedia insider, I discovered that CreepyCrawly was not the first user who was blocked on a completely false allegation of being a sockpuppet. There are at least three others:

User:!! is the most well-known example. Durova blocked him as a sockpuppet, without specifying who the sockpuppeteer was, because she didn't know. At least she had the good sense to unblock 75 minutes later and admit it was a "false positive." At least she had the wisdom to resign her adminship when she realized what a horrible mistake she had made. That's more than I can say of Raul654, who wrote in his final comment to CreepyCrawly that "it's possible that it's not necessarily Scibaby."

User:Gerry Lynch was blocked by Dmcdevit as a sockpuppet of Runcorn as confirmed by Checkuser. Four days later, Mr. Lynch complained on ANI (see IncidentArchive276), and Alison eventually unblocked him. Dmcdevit has not explained his actions, nor has he apologized to Gerry Lynch, as far as I am aware.

User:Mackan79 was blocked by Georgewilliamherbert because the former "self-identified as Judd Bagley / User:Wordbomb." Viridae unblocked him after one hour, and later added a line to Mackan79's block log with "Absolute proof this user isnt a sockpuppet," provided by Alison. The controversy caused a massive tempest on ANI (IncidentArchive384) and Georgewilliamherbert's talk page. To his credit, GWH eventually apologized to Mackan79. When queried further, he offered this priceless insight: "Admins who are actively fighting long term abusers have made some pretty bad missteps - Durova a few months ago, me here. I don't know if that's symptomatic of an attitude shift coming from doing too much wielding the banhammer."

Do you agree?

Can you present any other cases of innocent users who were unjustly banned as alleged sockpuppets? In order to belong on this list, a case must meet the following criteria:

1. The user must have been blocked. If the user was listed on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets but was never actually blocked, it doesn't count.

2. The stated reason for the block must be that the user was a sockpuppet of someone else. If the user was blocked for any other reason, and was later identified as a sockpuppet, it doesn't count. (This excludes User:Molag's Ball, who was blocked for trolling and later misidentified as a sockpuppet when it didn't matter anymore. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shalom/D...nterproductive)

3. You must present convincing evidence that this user was not a sockpuppet as alleged. Simply stating that the blocking admin failed to present compelling evidence is not sufficient. (If it were, any block based on checkuser could be challenged because we can't independently confirm what the checkusers claim.)

I hope you can inform me of such cases other than the ones I already listed. Thank you in advance.

This post has been edited by Shalom: Wed 2nd April 2008, 11:40am

[Sceptre]

Before everyone else gets in, Poetlister. The checkuser evidence that got her was, by admission of the checkuser (Kelly Martin), very flimsy. The ban has been brought up on AN several times, and there is opposition to her ban, but she (apparently) needs to go to AC to appeal.

I've just remembered another user who was banned as a sockpuppet: Qst was banned as a sockpuppet of Molag Bal. Turns out he wasn't.

Note to prospective checkusers reading this thread: if the IP resolves as British, give it up as a bad job. One mistake is fine, two isn't.

This post has been edited by Sceptre: Wed 2nd April 2008, 6:27am

[Shalom]

I've just remembered another user who was banned as a sockpuppet: Qst was banned as a sockpuppet of Molag Bal. Turns out he wasn't.

On May 13, 2007, a checkuser was run on Molag Bal's sockpuppets:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req.../Case/Molag_Bal (scroll to the bottom)

Tellyaddict and The Sunshine Man, which are account names formerly used by Qst, were included in the checkuser request, but Voice-of-All responded that "they are likely not related to the others."

Qst's block log, which begins on July 7, 2007,

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...k&page=User:Qst

refers to this case on Suspected sock puppets:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sus...ock_puppets/Qst

Qst is alleged to have engaged in a revert war, using an IP address while not logged in to avoid 3RR. In a nearly simultaneous request for checkuser, where the link between Qst and Molag Bal was suggested for a second time, the result again came back negative:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...ckuser/Case/Qst (scroll to the bottom)

So I must exclude Qst from my list of innocent users unjustly banned as sockpuppets. Qst's block log does not identify him as a sockpuppet of Molag Bal, and two checkusers said he was not a sockpuppet of Molag Bal. Qst was community banned for unrelated reasons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Com....B7_contribs.29

I'll have to look into Poetlister later.

[No one of consequence]

Before everyone else gets in, Poetlister. The checkuser evidence that got her was, by admission of the checkuser (Kelly Martin), very flimsy. The ban has been brought up on AN several times, and there is opposition to her ban, but she (apparently) needs to go to AC to appeal.

Kelly checked Poetlister and the others in 2005-6, and the evidence was inconclusive. (Actually, she appears to have been banned then unbanned.) There were new checks run in 2007 when the accounts were banned for good. Kelly was not a checkuser in 2007 so she has no idea what the evidence actually was.

I have no opinion as I have obviously not seen the evidence either, but I wanted to make sure the timeline is right. People keep holding up Kelly's blog as evidence that Poetlister was unjustly banned when it's actual value as evidence for the 2007 ban is zero.

[guy]

What Kelly said was "I was convinced (pressured, really) by others to set aside my doubts regarding the reliability of the conclusion and so reported the lot of them for sockpuppetry, in what was almost certainly a miscarriage of justice." That isn't "the data were inconclusive; she may or may not have been guilty" but "almost certainly she wasn't guilty". However, Kelly said this after the second ban.

Now there cannot be any 2007 Checkuser data to link Poetlister to Runcorn, or there wouldn't be a string of checkusers and ArbCom members defending Poetlister. She was convicted because of the old link to Newport, which was not discredited at the time of the second ban. Now that it is discredited, there is no real evidence against Poetlister at all. The same, incidentally, is true of Londoneye and Taxwoman, who are also freely editing on other wikis with no objections. (I make no comment on the evidence against the others. They haven't made a public fuss, for whatever reason, so I suppose nobody's looked at it.)

Incidentally, who provided the 2007 checkuser evidence? Dmcdevit, who on the same evidence also blocked Gerry Lynch who was subsequently acquitted.

[Random832]

Kelly checked Poetlister and the others in 2005-6, and the evidence was inconclusive. (Actually, she appears to have been banned then unbanned.) There were new checks run in 2007 when the accounts were banned for good. Kelly was not a checkuser in 2007 so she has no idea what the evidence actually was.

I have no opinion as I have obviously not seen the evidence either, but I wanted to make sure the timeline is right. People keep holding up Kelly's blog as evidence that Poetlister was unjustly banned when it's actual value as evidence for the 2007 ban is zero.

It can be seen as evidence that someone had an agenda to get her (or RachelBrown, the other name in common between the two cases) banned. Whether that makes it more likely that the ban was unjust depends on how easily you think the system can be manipulated. I know what I think on that; you can decide for yourself.

This post has been edited by Random832: Wed 2nd April 2008, 2:13pm

[No one of consequence]

What Kelly said was "I was convinced (pressured, really) by others to set aside my doubts regarding the reliability of the conclusion and so reported the lot of them for sockpuppetry, in what was almost certainly a miscarriage of justice." That isn't "the data were inconclusive; she may or may not have been guilty" but "almost certainly she wasn't guilty". However, Kelly said this after the second ban.

How can Kelly have been pressured by others regarding the 2007 block if she was neither a checkuser nor on Arbcom-L in 2007? She may have said it after the second ban, but she had no role in the second ban, and could not have had "doubts" about the conclusions since she was out of the loop at that point. I am quite prepared to believe that the 2005-6 evidence was shaky, because she says so and because the bans were in fact lifted. I can not offer an informed opinion one way or the other on the 2007 ban, but neither can Kelly, and I suspect she is deliberately muddying the waters if she says or implies otherwise.

[thekohser]

I don't know about "unjustly", but User:Ray Regan was blocked as a sockpuppet of mine, and I have no idea who that guy was.

Likewise, User:Antonio Stradivari.

Absolutely User:Espio's da man had a lengthy contribution history, had nothing to do with me or my business, but he was damned as a Wikipedia Review sockpuppet. I have no idea who he is or was.

Then there's User:GonzalezM. At quick glace, he seemed to be an appropriate, non-disruptive editor focused on Cuban topics. He's banned as me. I have no clue who it really is.

Maybe GonzalezM is related to User:Laredo Bru, also blocked as a Wikipedia Review sock.

This guy got banned as a Wikipedia Review sockpuppet for just one edit! Not to sound like a broken record, but I have no idea who User:Odin clan is in real life.

This account got blocked just for creating an account! I didn't create the account. Again, no idea who did.

This should give everyone a fairly clear idea that Check User is not effective, and/or it is not even employed in a vast number of "confirmed" sockpuppetry cases. And, just to preempt the counter-argument, most Wikipediots will frankly say, "So what? It doesn't matter which puppeteer we assign the block to, they're clearly a sock of SOMEONE."

And they think that's sufficient justification.

Greg

[Jonny Cache]

I don't know about "unjustly", but User:Ray Regan was blocked as a sockpuppet of mine, and I have no idea who that guy was.

Likewise, User:Antonio Stradivari.

Absolutely User:Espio's da man had a lengthy contribution history, had nothing to do with me or my business, but he was damned as a Wikipedia Review sockpuppet. I have no idea who he is or was.

Then there's User:GonzalezM. At quick glace, he seemed to be an appropriate, non-disruptive editor focused on Cuban topics. He's banned as me. I have no clue who it really is.

Maybe GonzalezM is related to User:Laredo Bru, also blocked as a Wikipedia Review sock.

This guy got banned as a Wikipedia Review sockpuppet for just one edit! Not to sound like a broken record, but I have no idea who User:Odin clan is in real life.

This account got blocked just for creating an account! I didn't create the account. Again, no idea who did.

This should give everyone a fairly clear idea that Check User is not effective, and/or it is not even employed in a vast number of "confirmed" sockpuppetry cases. And, just to preempt the counter-argument, most Wikipediots will frankly say, "So what? It doesn't matter which puppeteer we assign the block to, they're clearly a sock of SOMEONE."

And they think that's sufficient justification.

Greg

These sockpuppet threads are always the most clueless discussions we ever waste our breath and server space on here at DaRevue. It never does the least quantum of good talking to Wikipediots with their Fantasy Of Infallibility (FOI), and all it does is perpetrate the myth that there's any reality behind the myth.

Jonny

[No one of consequence]

Maybe GonzalezM is related to User:Laredo Bru, also blocked as a Wikipedia Review sock.

This guy got banned as a Wikipedia Review sockpuppet for just one edit! Not to sound like a broken record, but I have no idea who User:Odin clan is in real life.

This account got blocked just for creating an account! I didn't create the account. Again, no idea who did.

Those last 3 examples are blocked as socks of User:CBOrgatrope, who is in turn a sock of John Awbrey, and seem to have nothing to do with you.

[Yehudi]

How can Kelly have been pressured by others regarding the 2007 block if she was neither a checkuser nor on Arbcom-L in 2007? She may have said it after the second ban, but she had no role in the second ban, and could not have had "doubts" about the conclusions since she was out of the loop at that point. I am quite prepared to believe that the 2005-6 evidence was shaky, because she says so and because the bans were in fact lifted. I can not offer an informed opinion one way or the other on the 2007 ban, but neither can Kelly, and I suspect she is deliberately muddying the waters if she says or implies otherwise.

You aren't very good at reading submissions, I'm afraid. What Guy correctly said was that Kelly was pressured regarding the 2005 block. There was no reason at all, whatsoever, to ban Poetlister on the basis of the 2007 evidence. She was only banned because she was supposed to be linked to Newport. The same is true of RachelBrown, who had not edited for over a year before the 2007 ban. (And really, you should know the difference between a block following a checkuser as in 2005 and a ban following an alleged ArbCom case as in 2007.) Thus when Kelly Martin made her confession, the ban should have been reviewed.

I make no comment on the evidence against the others. They haven't made a public fuss, for whatever reason, so I suppose nobody's looked at it.

Maybe they've got better things to do with their time than beat their heads on brick walls.

[Sceptre]

I've just remembered another user who was banned as a sockpuppet: Qst was banned as a sockpuppet of Molag Bal. Turns out he wasn't.

On May 13, 2007, a checkuser was run on Molag Bal's sockpuppets:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req.../Case/Molag_Bal (scroll to the bottom)

Tellyaddict and The Sunshine Man, which are account names formerly used by Qst, were included in the checkuser request, but Voice-of-All responded that "they are likely not related to the others."

Qst's block log, which begins on July 7, 2007,

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...k&page=User:Qst

refers to this case on Suspected sock puppets:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sus...ock_puppets/Qst

Qst is alleged to have engaged in a revert war, using an IP address while not logged in to avoid 3RR. In a nearly simultaneous request for checkuser, where the link between Qst and Molag Bal was suggested for a second time, the result again came back negative:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...ckuser/Case/Qst (scroll to the bottom)

So I must exclude Qst from my list of innocent users unjustly banned as sockpuppets. Qst's block log does not identify him as a sockpuppet of Molag Bal, and two checkusers said he was not a sockpuppet of Molag Bal. Qst was community banned for unrelated reasons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Com....B7_contribs.29

I'll have to look into Poetlister later.

Riana blocked Qst because of the CU evidence linking him to Molag, from how I read the SSP.

[Miltopia]

thekohser, several of the accounts you referenced were blocked as sockpuppets of an account identified by "them" as an account of Jon Awbrey, not of you... just thought you should know.

[No one of consequence]

How can Kelly have been pressured by others regarding the 2007 block if she was neither a checkuser nor on Arbcom-L in 2007? She may have said it after the second ban, but she had no role in the second ban, and could not have had "doubts" about the conclusions since she was out of the loop at that point. I am quite prepared to believe that the 2005-6 evidence was shaky, because she says so and because the bans were in fact lifted. I can not offer an informed opinion one way or the other on the 2007 ban, but neither can Kelly, and I suspect she is deliberately muddying the waters if she says or implies otherwise.

You aren't very good at reading submissions, I'm afraid. What Guy correctly said was that Kelly was pressured regarding the 2005 block. There was no reason at all, whatsoever, to ban Poetlister on the basis of the 2007 evidence. She was only banned because she was supposed to be linked to Newport. The same is true of RachelBrown, who had not edited for over a year before the 2007 ban. (And really, you should know the difference between a block following a checkuser as in 2005 and a ban following an alleged ArbCom case as in 2007.) Thus when Kelly Martin made her confession, the ban should have been reviewed.

Here is the statement of Poetlister's 2007 ban. It doesn't mention RachelBrown, but does mention seven other accounts, all of which had edits in May 2007 when the ban was instituted. Let's say that the RachelBrown identification from 2005 was wrong; that still leaves 7 other accounts that were named as sockpuppets of each other that had current edits in the checkuser database. I fail to see the relevance of Kelly's "confession" under these circumstances.

[thekohser]

Those last 3 examples are blocked as socks of User:CBOrgatrope, who is in turn a sock of John Awbrey, and seem to have nothing to do with you.

Okay.

Then, why do they each say...

sockpuppet

not of CBOrgatrope

but of Wikipedia Review?

I mean, if the greatly respected Wikipedia administrators of supreme knowledge, Morven and Krimpet, can't even come together to form a solid consensus of two, what do you think is happening with 90% of the other Check User investigations?

Furthermore, what is going on with the other non-Awbrey accounts that have been similarly plastered with my emblem of sockpuppetry? Apparently, they're ALL CBOrgotrope, whom Krimpet determined falsely was Wikipedia Review. Except for Ray Regan. His only crime was to mention Centiare.com in a thread being read by JzG and Calton. When those nitwits saw the word "Centiare", that was their own little "inside scoop" version of Check User. They didn't need evidence. ANYONE mentioning a site that was mentioned in over 180 news media outlets (including Washington Post and USA Today) just HAD to be guilty of being me.

The logic leaves me stupefied.

[The Joy]

Mod Note: Moved to Editors forum

[EricBarbour]

These sockpuppet threads are always the most clueless discussions we ever waste our breath and server space on here at DaRevue. It never does the least quantum of good talking to Wikipediots with their Fantasy Of Infallibility (FOI), and all it does is perpetrate the myth that there's any reality behind the myth.

It could be worse. Someone could start on a rant that the "Cabal" is in fact an evil Illuminati plot to enslave us all under a New World Order. And that they are operating under evil regulations, such as being required to ban a certain number of users every week to retain their admin status.

Or maybe it's Xenu! Hail Xenu! All Glory To The Hypnotoad!!

I don't see quotas in the sockpuppet business, I just see outright insane incompetence. Not to mention some conspiracy paranoia among the admins themselves....

Things like conspiracy theories often take on a life of their own, no matter how stupid they sound.

Maybe they've got better things to do with their time than beat their heads on brick walls.

We all do.

[guy]

Here is the statement of Poetlister's 2007 ban. It doesn't mention RachelBrown, but does mention seven other accounts, all of which had edits in May 2007 when the ban was instituted. Let's say that the RachelBrown identification from 2005 was wrong; that still leaves 7 other accounts that were named as sockpuppets of each other that had current edits in the checkuser database. I fail to see the relevance of Kelly's "confession" under these circumstances.

Are you denying that RachelBrown was banned by Dmcdevit along with the others?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ser:RachelBrown

"20:39, 30 May 2007 Dmcdevit (Talk | contribs) blocked "RachelBrown (Talk | contribs)" () with an expiry time of indefinite ?ÇÄ (Per ArbCom: abusive sockpuppetry, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...puppets_banned) "

Are you saying that it was a mistake? If so, please unban her now.

And obviously RachelBrown was not banned on Checkuser evidence, only on her association with Newport, so how can anyone know if there is any Checkuser evidence (as opposed to the sort of evidence that Dmcdevit had against Gerry Lynch) against Poetlister, or anyone else?

[Shalom]

Thanks, y'all. I'll come back to Thekohser's points later. Let me first address the recurring suggestion that Poetlister is innocent.

Encyclopedia Dramatica has a long item on the case of Rachel Brown, Runcorn, Poetlister, and the other "beautiful people:"

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/The_beautiful_people

The bottom of that page links to a thread on ANI where Firsfron of Ronchester, based primarily on Kelly Martin's regretful ruminations, argues that "No connection is made, however, between these accounts [Runcorn's other alleged sockpuppets] and the Poetlister account, other than an earlier sockpuppetry accusation from 2005."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...oetlister_block

Here's a link to Kelly Martin's blog post. (Someone please tell me how to use anchor text in links.)

http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/...08/regrets.html

I spent way too long reading through most of this junk. At the end, I decided to examine Poetlister's contribution log and make my own evaluation.

Having done so, I am absolutely convinced that Poetlister is a sockpuppet of Runcorn. Kelly Martin's statement that the Poetlister block was "almost certainly a miscarriage of justice" is not supported by the evidence.

Poetlister made more than 1,000 edits to Wikipedia, but only a small percentage of these were to AFD, CFD or RFA votes. Her participation in these votes aligns with parallel votes by known sockpuppets of Runcorn. When she votes "delete," they vote "delete." When she votes "keep," they vote "keep."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cat...nounced_Judaism

Holdenhurst: Comment ("I won't vote keep")
Runcorn: Comment
Poetlister: Delete

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cat...wish_Christians

Runcorn: Delete
Brownlee: Delete
Poetlister: Delete

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...nship/Acalamari

Holdenhurst: Support (number 24)
Poetlister: Support (number 25)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...Seraphimblade_2

Runcorn: Oppose (number 2)
Poetlister: Oppose (number 3)
R613vlu: Oppose (number 4)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...d_nomination%29

Poetlister: Keep
Brownlee: Keep
Holdenhurst: Keep

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...inship/Fan-1967

R613vlu: Oppose (number 19)
Poetlister: Oppose (number 22)
Runcorn: Oppose (number 30)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...Zsa_Zsa_Riordan

R613vlu: Keep
Poetlister: Keep
Brownlee: Keep

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...d_nomination%29

Poetlister: Keep

I make a point of noting that this AFD, which occurred on December 1, 2006, is the latest AFD on which Poetlister votes without any Runcorn socks. On all of the later votes, which I have tried to cite without missing any, Poetlister coordinates her vote with at least one, and usually two, sockpuppets of Runcorn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...n/Skirlaugh_AFC

Poetlister: Delete. Again, no other sockpuppets voted here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...ship/Rockpocket

Poetlister: "Support Obviously, anyone nominated by SlimVirgin must be OK."

None of the other sockpuppets voted, but for that comment alone, Poetlister has forever forfeited my sympathy.

It doesn't end there. Here Poetlister edits a subpage of RachelBrown, titled User:RachelBrown/watch:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=78696448

Poetlister herself also had a subpage titled User:Poetlister/watch:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Poetlister/watch

I suspect that this particular title for a user subpage is quite uncommon. The fact that both users have one, and each page follows a similar structure, adds further support to the link between Poetlister, RachelBrown, and the Runcorn sock farm.

I could continue to trawl through Poetlister's contribution history, but it's not worth my time. I've made my point clearly and unambiguously. Poetlister was a sockpuppet of Runcorn and was justifiably banned.

(Given her continuing good work on Wikiquote [assuming Poetlister there is the same person, and I think people accept that as fact], I would support allowing her to return to the Wikipedia community on the one-year anniversary of the ban, viz. the end of May 2008. People have done worse things and been banned for "only" a year, not forever. But that's a separate question.)

Is there anyone who still believes Poetlister is innocent? If I have failed to convince you, please explain why you think she is innocent. It's my understanding that Poetlister is a member of this forum: I wonder if she has anything to add to this discussion.

[jorge]

Is there anyone who still believes Poetlister is innocent? If I have failed to convince you, please explain why you think she is innocent. It's my understanding that Poetlister is a member of this forum: I wonder if she has anything to add to this discussion.

Poetlister is not a sockpuppet of anybody although she did vote similarly on afds/cfds- the exact same accusation could be made against SlimVirgin/Jayjg at al and noones ever bothered suggesting they were sockpuppets. Runcorn may well have been sockpuppeting, but Poetlister, Taxwoman, and Londoneye were not involved in that. To understand all this you have to look at what the user Antidote was doing back in October-November 2005 (see here, here, here, and here). Nothing was done about Antidote despite him blatantly sockpuppeting which led RachelBrown to ask her friends (who were already editing Wikipedia) to vote to keep the articles she had created.