Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth

User:Kossack4Truth

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Kossack4Truth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Fovean Author (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
WorkerBee74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Andyvphil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.31.80.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
70.9.72.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
70.9.18.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

LotLE×talk 00:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Kossack4Truth June 2 3RR:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:3RRNB#User:Kossack4Truth_reported_by_71.130.194.163_.28talk.29_.28Result:_48_hour_block_.29

Kossack4Truth May 20 3RR:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive73#User:Kossack4Truth_reported_by_User:Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters_.28Result:_blocked_24_hours.29

Fovean Author May 26 3RR:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive73#User:Fovean_Author_reported_by_User:Bobblehead_.28Result:_24_hour_block_.29

Fovean Author restoration of Kossack4Truth material after 3RR block of latter:

Comments

Accounts make identical edits on Barack Obama, and nearly exclusively on that page, generally as soon as one reaches 3RR limit. When one is blocked, the other takes up the edit war. Kossack4Truth was recently blocked (for second time) for 3RR on that page, at which time Fovean Author restored the material Kossack4Truth was 3RR'd for.

Kossack4Truth indicates on his/her user talk page that s/he is traveling today, and so allegedly unaffected by block. Traveling (if true) also makes it likely that s/he is using a different (temporary) IP address at that remote location. Traveling comment diff

WorkerBee74 is a new account added June 1, that also edits exclusively on the Barack Obama (talk) page, and that "argues" for the positions of blocked Kossack4Truth and Fovean Author, including stating the intended poll votes of those blocked accounts.

68.31.80.187 has only made edits supporting "polls" on Talk:Barack Obama.

That IP editor, like Workerbee and Kossack4Truth coins a group insult for those objecting to disparaging information: this time the "Whitewash Brigade"[1]. Wikidemo (talk) 06:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WorkerBee74 seems fishy. Brand new account, in first edit creates userpage with"So how do I get started?"[2]. Yet a few edits later is fully in the fray, participating in polls and talking about BLP and the BLP noticeboard.[3] Fast start indeed. Wikidemo (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the Obama campaign talk page Workerbee74 claims to invent term "Obama campaign volunteers" to describe people opposing insertion of derogatory material into Obama article, and repeats the term (and sometimes, "campaign workers") many times. Kossack4Truth takes the term as well. Both make many comments about wanting to include the term "unrepentant terrorist" in the Obama article in connection to William Ayers, and take up related causes with similar arguments in similar laguage. At the minimum, WorkerBee is a possible meatpuppet. Kossack4Truth also engaged in possible canvassing, and at a minimum widespread notifications, of people to participate in a a poll on how much about Bill Ayers to put into the Obama bio article. As vociferous participants in the vote (the vote has its own issues), if these are meatpuppets or sockpuppets this runs the risk of slanting and degrading an important article. Wikidemo (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I have just notified the three accused accounts. In the future, if you start a sock puppet report you should give a courtesy notice to each accountholder, e.g. {{subst:socksuspectnotice|1=Kossack4Truth}}. - Wikidemo (talk) 23:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andyvphil, long time contentious editor (4 blocks since December, 2 on Obama article), using similar language, making edits in support of same material, has also adopted phrase "Obama campaign volunteers".[4] Makes accusations of administrator dishonesty similar to Fovean Author (see below). If not sockpuppeting, this would seem to be meatpuppeting or some other game.Wikidemo (talk) 10:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. We just agree that you're POV pushers, probably volunteers for the Obama campaign, editing disruptively and tendentiously, and distorting Wikipedia policy. That's all. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added two more IP accounts that are being used for voting purposes on Talk page polls. There is obviously a ton of politically motivated garbage going on with this article. My proposal: do a checkuser, block whatever turns up, and then fully protect the article until after the Presidential election. An encyclopedia is not a current events blog anyway. Life.temp (talk) 13:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Fovean Author (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked 48 hrs. Next incidents of edit-warring could trigger escalating blocks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reply top comments made on user talk pages, the block was made on the basis of what seems a block evasion attempt. Even if a WP:RFCU is performed and results are inconclusive, the block is warranted as the Fovean Author was making the exact same edit reversions, while the other user was blocked. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, you have never held any Obama supporter to this standard - why is that? Fovean Author (talk) 13:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am frigging sick of this bs by Obama apologists to go after anyone who tries to put information that they don't like on the Obama entry, and the slavish attitude of admitted left-wing Wikipedia administrators who support them.

If you think I'm a sock puppet, then look at my IP address, which is NOT the same as K4T's. Specifically, it is 64.45.236.60, which is static.

By definition, if K4T's account is IP blocked, then if I were a sock puppet of his, then I would be blocked as well, as I would have the same IP.

What I would like to see is some integrity on the part of ≈ jossi ≈ (God forbid), and some penalty for the non-stop harassment that K4T, Andyvphil and I receive from talk and other Obama apologists.Fovean Author (talk) 02:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While we're on the subject - Kossack4Truth was created on 14:42, 15 March 2008 [5]

I've been through this crap myself. An IP picked up reverting a POV atrocity after I left off and we were both blocked, along with the 6RR violator, as sockpuppets of each other. When it turned out that we were 700 miles apart the admin, nothing fazed by that or a lack of any evidence for his hypothesis, assertd that I might have recruited a meatpuppet. And that block on bogus grounds is repeatedly advanced as an argument as to why I ought to think it true that I'm a bad editor. What it's really evidence for is of course the existance of a plethora of bad, arrogant, admins. Anyway, 64.45.236.60 is in or near Sebring, FL. 68.31.80.187 is in Indianapolis. Kossack? Andyvphil (talk) 10:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that even as I was adding the above comment, Wikidemo was further abusing process by adding my name to the list of sockpuppets. As I said, I've experienced this form of admin abuse before [6] and am absolutlely unrepentant about sharing Fovean Author's views on arrogant admins and editors acting as Obama campaign volunteers. I long since stated, however, that I am in Pacifica, CA, which is a long way from either Indiana or Florida, and the accusation that I am a sockpuppet is so void of any plausible excuse for belief that AGF cannot possibly requre that I write as ifbelieve Wikidema an imbecile rather than a liar. He's abusing process for the purposes of harassment. What rebuke will you administer to him? Well... I have no doubt admin solidarity will trump any other consideration, so I'm not expecting anything. Andyvphil (talk) 10:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My account was created before 00:45, 29 June 2007 [7]

So, I guess when he created my account as a sock puppet, he employed Mr. Peabody's Wayback Machine? Fovean Author (talk) 03:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking Fovean Author because he agrees with Kossak4Truth in reverting the deletions performed by the Obama fans is an arrogant abuse of admin power. As usual with those for whom an admin bit is an opportunity to stoke their ego by making unaccountable decisions, Jossi is uninterested in any evidence that he has fallen into error, and is prone to careless falsification of the record. As to the former, [8],[9] -- Fovean is clearly not a sockpuppet of Kossack. And as to the latter, although Fovean was reported as a potential sock and Jossi says above that that was the reason he blocked him ("the block was made on the basis of what seems a block evasion attempt... the block is warranted as the Fovean Author was making the exact same edit reversions, while the other user was blocked") he is unwilling to put such a disprovable assertion into the block log, but instead falls back on the all-purpose unprovable and undisprovable "edit warring without actually violating 3RR", ignoring the requirement in policy, apparently a dead letter, that if editors are to be blocked "even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period" it is to be done only "if their behavior is clearly disruptive"(emphasis added). Arrogant and unaccountable admins have taken this language allowing exceptional action and converted it to a licence for arbitrary intervention in content disputes being carried on within the rules. If Fovean "edit warred" without 4/24 reverts then the editors who have deleted the material from the page and repeatedly reverted its restoration have also "edit warred". Yet only Fovean's block log has been stained, and it will be used against him in the future by admins equally incurious as to the facts but eager to boost their fagile egos by pissing on any non-admin "peon" handy. Andyvphil (talk) 10:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is my beef right there - the admins are clearly not neutral. They're going to let the Obama apologists break whatever rules they want to with no consequence, then create a new standard for the rest of us. This article should ALREADY be listed as 'solved' and in fact there needs to be repercussion against LuluOftheLotusEaters Fovean Author (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]