Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto

DeFacto

DeFacto (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto/Archive.

11 February 2013

– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.

Suspected sockpuppets

• Bill le Conquérant (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

I believe that User:Bill le Conquérant is a sockpuppet of User:DeFacto. Like many of Defacto’s Sockpuppets, an apparently new user exhibits a remarkable understanding of Wikipedia, creates a few “random” edits to build up a cover, but very quickly starts disrupting articles on which I have been working.

Firstly, User:Bill le Conquérant appears to be highly conversant with Wikipedia processes:

• In his 6th edit he successfully inserted an image into a Wikipedia article.
• In his 7th edit, he correctly used the {{lang-fr| xxx}} construction .
• In his 35th edit he knew how to lodge a complaint on the ANI. He was also aware that he had to leave a message on my talk page about the complaint.

Given this very rapid learning curve, he is either a wünderkind, or he has been on Wikipedia before. I believe the latter and that he is a sockpuppet.

Secondly, both User:DeFacto and User:Bill le Conquérant made small changes to the article Kilogram.

• The changes were Bill le Conquérant's 2nd edit. User:Bill le Conquérant disagreed with the detailed wording of a piece of text in the article, but he removed the entire sentence together with its citation.
• User:DeFacto spent a considerable time on the same article trying to justify this change. The discussion, which lasted from 7th November 2011 until 20th November 2011 can be viewed at Talk:Kilogram#Is "kg" also the symbol for "kilo"?.

Is it just coincidence that both User:DeFacto and Bill le Conquérant both tried to disrupt the same article?

Thirdly - both have a habit of disruption by the removal of text that does not meet with their views when slight change of wording would be appropriate.

User:Bill le Conquérant in the artcile Kilogram (above) and User:DeFacto here. (The actual document that was cited in this case has now been archived).

Fourthly, both User:Bill le Conquérant and User:DeFacto seems to attack or belittle anything to do with the metric system or organisations associated with the metric system.

• User:Bill le Conquérant's handling of the article Legal metrology is a good example of this.

• In the opening line he wrote "Legal metrology is … delivering measurements that are credible and…". According to the Oxford Concise Dictionary, the word "credible" means "believable". Legal metrology is concerned with "accuracy", rather than "credibility" – a much stronger term. I believe that this was a deliberate belittling of the role of legal metrology.
• Furthermore, he summarised the phrase "and, in some countries, customary units", taken from page 66 of the book Metrology in Industry - The Key for Quality to read "In some countries, traditional units such as the United States customary units or the British imperial units are used." Where did the bit about the United Kingdom and the United States come from? I believe that his failure to give either the page number or the URL from which the book can be downloaded to be a deliberate attempt at obfustication so that he could misquote the source in order to emphasise non-metric units.

• DeFacto also went to extreme lengths to promote non-metric units when he reinstated an addition by User:VsevolodKrolikov into the article Metrication in the United Kingdom. The item that was reinstated was a totally non-notable one-off promotion of a single product being sold by the pound rather than the kilograms by a single supermarket chain. The ensuing argument continued over this thread (1), this thread (2), this thread (3), this thread (4), this thread (5) and this thread (6).

Fifthly the creation of many stub articles that he never develops. Stubs are created in user space rather than in a sandbox and show that very little research has gone into the identification of suitable citations.

• In the course of a week, User:Bill le Conquérant created the articles WELMEC, Legal metrology, Euromet (redirect), European Association of National Metrology Institutes (redirect), European Collaboration in Measurement Standards (redirect), Château de Beaumesnil and Beaumesnil Castle (redirect). Apart from the article Legal Metrology, all of User:Bill le Conquérant’s articles look like they could remain stubs.
• Over the course of six years, User:DeFacto created 139 articles (list here). An examination of a random selection of these articles show that he seldom developed thembeyond the stub stage. Extensions beyond the stub stage was done by other editors. Typically, when DeFacto lost interest in the artcile DAF 46, it contained 1067 bytes. Other editors took it to its current 3846 bytes.

Sixthly Like many of DeFacto's other sockpuppets, article created by User:Bill le Conquérant have a look and feel that the the person concerned does not really know much about the subject, but is trying to create an image:

• I believe this to be the case in all of User:Bill le Conquérant artciles (see above). Apart from one citation in Legal metrology, none of his artciles contained any information that could not be gleaned from the home page of the topic concerned.
• Other articles created or edited by DeFacto's sockpuppets included

• This series of ten edits by User:Ornaith did not really anything new to the artcile, it only sought to give the sockpuppet (posing as being Irish) an interest in something Irish. I believe that User:Bill le Conquérant is doing the same with Château de Beaumesnil.
• The first ten edits of Portas Pilot Areas were made by User:Stevengriffiths to try and create an identity sepoarte from DeFacto's or any of hius sockpuppets, but the editong style has the same look and feel as the new articles by made by User:Bill le Conquérant and User:DeFacto.

Finally I do not believe that User:Bill le Conquérant is from Normandy. I believe that this is just a cover to justify the username which he is trying (in a very amateurish manner) to justify by the creation of the article Château de Beaumesnil. If User:Bill le Conquérant were from Normandy, he would almost certainly have used or at least linked to fr:Château_de_Beaumesnil. Martinvl (talk) 12:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I had asked Martinvl several days ago when he was going to start the SPI process. Having dealt with a couple iterations of Defacto sock puppets (although not nearly as many as Martinvl) this one was particularly easy to spot. I think this instantiation can be blocked on behavior evidence alone, although at CU report might be useful for the next time around. GaramondLethe 14:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

This looks like a witch hunt to me. You two appear to be conniving in a conspiracy to block anyone who challenges your POV that the content of metric system related articles does not have to comply with the normal Wikipedia policies on neutrality and verifiability, and should never be challenged. That stance is unjust and unsustainable. 212.183.128.202 (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There are also similar contributions (all contribs on 10 and 11 February) from:

• 212.183.128.129 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 212.183.140.5 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

--Boson (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Similar in what way? Are you suggesting that anyone who disagrees with Martinvl or Garamond Lethe must be a sockpuppet? 212.183.128.206 (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

For behavioural evidence of anti-metrication editing by same person using different IP addresses, see also edits on 15 February from

• 212.183.128.192 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 212.183.128.236 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

--Boson (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Anti-metrication? Where? Show us your evidence showing anything other than an editor trying to improve the neutrality and verifiability of those articles. 212.183.128.206 (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for page protection. There's the beginning of an IP account edit war at Metric system and the same user has an interest in International System of Units. The behavior fits Defacto. Would it be appropriate to semi-protect those pages? I'd suggest a week, but even 48 hours would be helpful. Garamond Lethet
c 22:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I see that the editor you are accusing of the mortal sin of disagreeing with you has already stated that they have no intention of edit warring. Were you hoping nobody would notice, and that your POV would get locked into the article if you came trolling here? 212.183.128.206 (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You use the third person. That would suggest that you you are not the same person as any of the editors listed above? Do you claim that?--Boson (talk) 10:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

• CheckUser requested - Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention - Per all of the evidence provided, I believe that a check is justified here. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The account is not editing from the same range as previous socks, but its range is very dynamic, and it is likely to be a mobile range. From a checkuser standpoint, I'm going to have to call this  Inconclusive. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Another IP not listed above but in the same range, User:212.183.128.225, is making trouble. They are complaining that I blocked User:212.183.140.33, yet another IP in the same range and also not listed above, as a puppet of User:ROBERT TAGGART, as that IP was confirmed as a puppet in 2010. The idea is that the confirmation is too old for a dynamic IP and may now be used by another individual. Now, Geolocate says the IPs are static, not dynamic, but I don't know how accurate Geolocate is on that score. Assuming it is accurate, then a block as as a puppet of Taggart was correct. If it's not, I'm inclined to believe that these IPs and the others are puppets of DeFacto and may be blocked per WP:DUCK. Any guidance on this from the more technically savvy?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• I've looked at Geolocate more closely, and I'm guessing that the reason it labels the IP (.33) as static is because it also says the IP belongs to a "wireless broadband". But in Geolocate's FAQ, it lists several different flavors of wireless broadband, including network (a home or officer router), service (hot spots available commercially and in universities), and mobile (through one's cell phone). Unfortunately, Geolocate doesn't say which kind is being used by the IP. What am I supposed to conclude from all of this?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• I e-mailed Geolocate, and this was their remarkably quick response: "Static vs dynamic is an educated guess based on a number of criteria. In review, since this IP belongs to a carrier that provides wireless service it is unlikely a static IP but rather assigned to various customers on an as needed basis."--Bbb23 (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

For the record, IP ranges 212.183.*.* are allocated to Vodaphone which, according to its Wikipedia article is the world's second-largest mobile telecommunications company - it is of course possible that they allocate certain ranges to specific countries - the article states that they operate in 30 different countries. Given the rate at which our jumping-IP editor is changing IP addresses make it highly likely that IP addresses are being allocated dynamically. I made a record of the addresses that were being used over the period of five days:

• 212.183.140.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (12 February 2013 - 13:00 to 13:21)
• 212.183.140.4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (16 February 2013 - 09:32 to 09:45)
• 212.183.140.5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (11 February 2013 - 20:08 20:42)
• 212.183.140.38 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (13 February 2013 - 13:26 to 13:31)
• 212.183.128.129 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (13 February 2013 - 17:41 to 19:56)
• 212.183.128.192 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (15 February 2013 - 11:29 to 12:47)
• 212.183.128.207 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (12 February 2013 - 11:07 & 13 February 2013 - 16:20 to 16:38 & 15 February 2013 22:32 to 23:02)
• 212.183.128.211 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (13 February 2013 - 14:01 to 14:11)
• 212.183.128.236 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (15 February 2013 - 14:03 to 16:09)
• 212.183.128.242 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (14 February 2013 - 19:25 to 19:45)

I hope that this helps.

Martinvl (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• • See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Hackneyhound. This is the Vodaphone mobile broadband range = those last half dozen IPs are a crossover with the Hackneyhound range, although there dont seem to be any actual IP matches. and the other things that the CU tool shows are not a match. Note also that User:Factocop has revealed himself as Hackneyhound on my talkpage. So I'm scratching my head and wondering whether we have two sockmeisters on the one range.

Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

There is another possible explanation, radical maybe, that the IPs listed above are not being used for socking. There is no disruption evident, and some of them have been used for nothing more sinister than adding valuable information to motorway articles. I believe that the issues here that need to be investigated are the motives of the complainant. He seems to be on a pro-metrication mission; using policy gaming as one of his tactics. He has been in trouble elsewhere for it. 212.183.128.131 (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Almost 20 years ago I worked at Vodaphone. While I was there, we had an in-house sweepstake to guess when the company would sign up its millionth customer. The company (and the mobile phone network in general) have since increased dramatically so having two sockmeisters using the same range is not improbable. Martinvl (talk) 07:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

 IP blocked I've issued a couple of rangeblocks for these two obvious socks:

• 23:00, 19 February 2013 Toddst1 (talk | contribs | block) blocked 212.183.140.0/26 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 months (Block evasion: obvious socks of user:DeFacto) (unblock | change block)
• 22:54, 19 February 2013 Toddst1 (talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for 212.183.128.128/25 (talk) with an expiry time of 3 months (anon. only, account creation blocked) (Block evasion: obvious socks of user:DeFacto) (unblock | change block)

It's under 200 IP addresses in total. I've also closed the related thread on ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

---

20 February 2013

– An SPI clerk has endorsed a request for CheckUser. A checkuser will shortly review the case.

Suspected sockpuppets

• Woo-ton-woo (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 212.183.128.212 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

The IP is already blocked as a DeFacto sock. Same UK anti-metric trolling on the same pages. Hans Adler 09:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Clerk endorsed Woo-ton is a self-declared (allegedly legitimate) sockpuppet [1]. His immediate edits though (basically his entire contributions history) is immediately contentious, so requesting checkuser to see whether this sockpuppetry is disruptive in nature, which is probably the case. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

---