Unbelievable Sockpuppet Accusation Options

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I am posting this without comment at the request of a visitor to the Review:

Dear Wikipedia Review,

I formerly edited on Wikipedia under the nic "SSS108" and was "blocked indefinitely" for exposing a sockpuppet used by Wikipedia Administrator Mel Etitis.

On October 13th 2009, I was contacted through my website by a person named "Scott" (a person unknown to me) who informed me that no less than three Wikipedia Administrators supported banning him from editing because he was accused of being a sockpuppet for "SSS108" (me). After viewing the talk page for Sbs108, I was shocked to discover this fraudulent information against me. After a gap of two and half years, I was forced to return to Wikipedia and I posted the following comment on my talk page:

I Am Not Sbs108
It has come to my attention that some administrators have ridiculously accused me of being Sbs108. I am NOT Sbs108 and the arguments made by admin that I am are wholly absurd. I was banned for exposing Mel Etitis and his Wikipedia Sockpuppet. If you look at that page, I provided a screencap that shows my IP. If you compare that IP with my IP here, you will find they are the same and they not anonymous or proxy IPs. I think it is really quite pathetic that I have to be pulled back on to Wikipedia to defend myself from stupid rumors started by conspiratorial admin who apparently have nothing better to do than play psychic instead of assuming good faith like they are supposed to do. Practice what you preach, Admin! SSS108 talk-email 05:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

No matter how much information "Sbs108" gave about himself, he was constantly accused of being me and Wikipedia Administrators Jéské Couriano and Hersfold even implied a "Check User" was implemented to confirm "Sbs108" was me (i.e., "SSS108")!

Since there are no Wikipedia templates to address this type of issue, I created another account "SSS108b", which for some reason did not work. I apparently refreshed the page and didn't realize the registration went through and it said the account was taken. Therefore, I created another account "PSSS108" and made comments on Wikipedia Administrators Hersfold, Jéské Couriano and Jzg's talk pages. I promptly divulged that I used the account of "PSSS108" on my SSS108 talk page. My comments were disregarded and the new account was promptly blocked. "Sbs108" was accused of using my new account of "PSSS108"!

I used the "helpme" Wikipedia template and a user named "Intelligentsium" simply told me "There is no cabal."

I finally found an email to Wikipedia Admin and informed them that if they did not remove the fraudulent information fraudulently published against me on Wikipedia by three official Wikipedia Administrators, I would be forced to contact a lawyer. A prompt investigation was conducted the results were:

Cleared Of Sbs108 Sockpuppet Claim
To all interested readers: I have been CLEARED of the patently absurd and conspiratorial assumptions & speculations made by Hersfold, Crotalus horridus, Jéské Couriano and Jzg / Guy who spuriously and unremittingly alleged I was using the sockpuppet of Sbs108.

Sockpuppet Investigations For SSS108

Relevant accusation by Crotalus horridus: 01 - 02

Relevant accusations by Wikipedia Admin Jéské Couriano: 01 - 02 - 03 - 04 - 05

Relevant accusations by Wikipedia Admin Hersfold: 01 - 02 - 03 - 04

Relevant accusations by Wikipedia Admin Jzg / Guy: 01 - 02 - 03

Relevant retractions and apology by Wikipedia Admin Jéské Couriano: 01 - 02

SSS108 talk-email 06:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

[Guido den Broeder]

These things are so common now.

Admins make false accusations of sockpuppetry all over the place as part of their daily game routine.

[LaraLove]

Would be interesting to see what a reliable CU has to say.

[The Joy]

Would be interesting to see what a reliable CU has to say.

Isn't that an oxymoron?

[Herschelkrustofsky]

CU is a common "street" acronym, like FU.

[LaraLove]

Would be interesting to see what a reliable CU has to say.

Isn't that an oxymoron?

It is indeed. I was speaking on the person running the check rather than the check itself, however. If a reliable (or trustworthy, if you will) CU says these two people are in different countries or something, then it would pretty well put an end to this guy's drama and open up the project to some much needed admin reform that my desysop opened up the doors for.

[No one of consequence]

Would be interesting to see what a reliable CU has to say.

Sbs108 was cleared 4 days ago.

This post has been edited by No one of consequence: Tue 20th October 2009, 12:26am

[LaraLove]

Would be interesting to see what a reliable CU has to say.

Sbs108 was cleared 4 days ago.

Where's the discussion that followed calling for the admin bits of those who dropped indef bans with no evidence and lied about CU confirmation?

[Malleus]

Where's the discussion that followed calling for the admin bits of those who dropped indef bans with no evidence and lied about CU confirmation?

Was that really a serious question?

[LaraLove]

Where's the discussion that followed calling for the admin bits of those who dropped indef bans with no evidence and lied about CU confirmation?

Was that really a serious question?

Of course not, honey. Real damage was done here. Editors were affected. This isn't the sort of thing admins get desysopped for.

[gomi]

If they stripped the chevrons of every admin who made an inappropriate block and then lied about it, there would be no admins left on Wikipedia. Of course nothing will happen to the offensive idiot Hersfold (T-C-L-K-R-D) , or to the offensive idiot Mel Etitis (T-C-L-K-R-D) , or to anyone else.

Nothing to see here, move along.

[carbuncle]

Where's the discussion that followed calling for the admin bits of those who dropped indef bans with no evidence and lied about CU confirmation?

Was that really a serious question?

Of course not, honey. Real damage was done here. Editors were affected. This isn't the sort of thing admins get desysopped for.

To be fair, it must be difficult to tell one Sai Baba cult member from another.

[Malleus]

Where's the discussion that followed calling for the admin bits of those who dropped indef bans with no evidence and lied about CU confirmation?

Was that really a serious question?

Of course not, honey. Real damage was done here. Editors were affected. This isn't the sort of thing admins get desysopped for.

I'm staggered even now that administrators like Chillum demand that their undisclosed alternate accounts (nice shift of phrasing there from "sock" accounts) should be trusted. Why the Hell should anyone trust him any more than anyone than they'd trust anyone else? Just because he's an administrator? Yeah, right.

[A Horse With No Name]

I'm staggered even now that administrators like Chillum demand that their undisclosed alternate accounts (nice shift of phrasing there from "sock" accounts) should be trusted. Why the Hell should anyone trust him any more than anyone than they'd trust anyone else? Just because he's an administrator? Yeah, right.

Let's not forget that Arbcom mama Risker, while denouncing The Undertow, made it clear that she felt there was no problem with some people having "undeclared alternate accounts" (translation: her friends can sock).

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name: Tue 20th October 2009, 2:32am

[Peter Damian]

This is ridiculous. Mel did edit briefly as the philosopher Peter King (his real identity) but there was no abusive socking, i.e. the two accounts stayed away from one another. Both have since left anyway, due to the general madness. King was one of the people I really wanted to keep on Wikipedia – he knows his stuff on philosophy - and we had a long correspondence about this. But in the end it was too much.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

These things are so common now ... Admins make false accusations of sockpuppetry all over the place as part of their daily game routine.

a) Frankly, they could not give a fuck. They are worse than parking attendants trying to meet their parking ticket targets at the end of the shift.

b) There are a lot of fucks who have nothing better to in life than endless trying it contriving snitches on others in order to advance their own game.

The two get on very well together, like a pack of little doggie behind a big doggie.

To be fair, it must be difficult to tell one Sai Baba cult member from another.

Or any cultie from another cult member? They all think the same and are programmed to repeat the cult PR.

Repeating the cult PR - hagiographic version of their "truth" - is a key component to cult practise and used to increase devotional sentiments. It is is all about 'acceptance by repetition' rather than 'understanding through logical, critical analysis' ... because, of course, most faiths fail anywhere near any "logical, critical analysis". And it is all reward by the cult ... so the cult becomes an external player in Wiki-dynamics.

It is a personal problem for them, when they are confronted with elements who do not accept their hagiographies or logical fallacies, because, of course, it forces them to have to think and question. They do not want to. Nor others to.

What this leads to on the Pee-dia is even more "gopher bashing" as the adherents (... whether religious, racial or even just Pee-dian) projection their internal conflicts and unresolved issues onto others ... bashing down or attempting to block out 'other voices'. Voices which are actually in their heads. Voices of non-adherents which echo thoughts, or facts, their gurus tell them are "evil" and dangerous etc.

Just as their practise is based on blocking out such thoughts, facts or reality, so to they import that onto the Pee-dia and expect us to conform. If we do not, we become the evil enemy upon which righteous fatwas can be practised.

The 108 figure is a dead give up to anyone that knows anything. It has some mystical significance from a lot of the culties and orthodox Asian religions, the number of beads on their rosary.

I find it kind of interests the way culties move around each other on the Pee-dia like large mental dinosaurs, each of their gurus, gods or exclusive theodicies contradicting all the other culties' gurus or gods but never been brought into conflict with each other. Indeed, from time to time, collectively turning on non-cultie others. I cannot offer 'herbivores on the savanah' as a better analogy, because they can be quite dedicated or ruthless in their acts.

In this CU, the admin highlights that they use "user agent" signatures to determine likely identities ... that is, not just IP address but what browser, what OS the Pee-dia prole is using ... I suppose they could tell what resolution the screen is too.

I asked the question before, "how much other information do they scrub?" ... how much 'speculative' checkusering, and sharing of information, goes on behind the scenes either amongst mailing list members or the various cabalists?

Poor Mac, Linux or Opera users ... make a mental note to always sock off a Windows box or learn to how to change your user agent, Firefox has plugins to do so, and keep a spreadsheet of which user agents, which OS and which resolution relates to which sockpuppet. Not that I do or would know ... it just seems the logical way to do it. It is about time someone built an application to do just all that.

And never quack like a duck.

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: Tue 20th October 2009, 10:02am

[CharlotteWebb]

Poor Mac, Linux or Opera users ... make a mental note to always sock off a Windows box or learn to how to change your user agent, Firefox has plugins to do so, and keep a spreadsheet of which user agents, which OS and which resolution relates to which sockpuppet. Not that I do or would know ... it just seems the logical way to do it. It is about time someone built an application to do just all that.

And never quack like a duck.

That last part might be harder to program (though probably not impossible).

One can infer from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence, User:Alanyst/Vector space research, etc. some of the bases for a starting framework.

Once you understand how all this shit works (yeah I'm still struggling with that part) it might be feasible to design some kind of dialect-coach-on-a-stick which warns you prior to submitting any edit which would increase the similarity score of your account(s) by a factor greater than X (where X itself might be computed based on situational factors into which I need not delve quite yet), highlights the suspicious portion, and suggests an alternative turn of phrase.

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb: Tue 20th October 2009, 3:57pm

[Somey]

This is ridiculous. Mel did edit briefly as the philosopher Peter King (his real identity) but there was no abusive socking, i.e. the two accounts stayed away from one another. Both have since left anyway, due to the general madness. King was one of the people I really wanted to keep on Wikipedia – he knows his stuff on philosophy - and we had a long correspondence about this. But in the end it was too much.

As I recall, Mel Etitis (T-C-L-K-R-D) somehow got aligned with the SlimVirgin/Jayjg "gang" on WP, which rubbed a lot of people the wrong way (justifiably, to some degree). I believe he was also very keen on removing "fancruft" wherever possible, for some reason... In fact, I think the fancruft problem was what ultimately caused him to leave WP, more than anything else. (I could be wrong, of course.)

Regardless, I don't recall anyone accusing him of being unqualified at his profession or lacking editorial talent...?

Also, this thread probably belongs in the "Editors" forum...

[Kelly Martin]

As I recall, Mel Etitis (T-C-L-K-R-D) somehow got aligned with the SlimVirgin/Jayjg "gang" on WP, which rubbed a lot of people the wrong way (justifiably, to some degree). I believe he was also very keen on removing "fancruft" wherever possible, for some reason... In fact, I think the fancruft problem was what ultimately caused him to leave WP, more than anything else. (I could be wrong, of course.)

Mel had a bad habit of baiting people who made edits to articles about music that he did not approve of into 3RR violations. I have long suspected, although never proved, that he used socks to aid in that process. Often the "disapproved" edits were manual of style "violations". Basically he was a petty edit warrior.

I spotted this back in 2005, called him on it, and thereby put myself on the firing line from a number of people who were apparently Mel's "friends", including both SlimVirgin's posse and, I believe also, the Geogre/Bishonen/Giano axis.

[Guido den Broeder]

If they stripped the chevrons of every admin who made an inappropriate block and then lied about it, there would be no admins left on Wikipedia.

Which would be a good thing. If subsequently all banned/indef blocked users would be made admin, we might even find a glimmer of hope.