Select Page

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ApostleVonColorado/Archive


ApostleVonColorado

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

22 September 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Hoshigaki is an account that has recently become very active after making only two minor edits in the past. Hoshigaki backs ApostleVonColorado consistently in the caste dispute. There's also an ANI thread about this. In that thread admin User:The Blade of the Northern Lights said they should both receive the same sanction. The two users also have a similar way of addressing other editors, see for instance this section. They both write "X - blah, blah" when they address editor X in the discussion. Their edit summaries do look pretty different though. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 declined - They share a common interest and perhaps perspective, but the timing of edits and technical behaviors are not consistent enough to justify a Checkuser dig deeper, or to make a definitive link between the two editors. Closing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

29 December 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


Ms Sarah Welch (MSW) and ApostleVonColorado (AVC) have same timings, writing style, edit summaries, interests, same POV and also both of these accounts are greatly interested in arguing with Fowler&Fowler across number of namespaces like no one else.

I was looking at WP:CASTES, and found an extensive ANI thread which was started by AVC against Fowler&Fowler.[1] I read the allegations made by AVC and recalled that they have been recently made by Ms Sarah Welch as well in recent months.

The ANI thread resulted in topic bans on 3 editors.[2] AVC got topic banned from all caste articles for 6 months,[3] and since that day AVC never edited again, possibly due to increased scrutiny by editors.

  • MSW's 1st ever edit was made on Culture of India,[4](clearly doesn't sound like new editor) and this article has been heavily edited by AVC. 2nd edit was creation of userpage[5] while 3rd edit was to restore[6] paragraphs that were removed over 8 months ago,[7] but were originally added by AVC[8] on Child labour in India.
  • Like AVC added on Tamari on Caste,[17] MSW added Tamari on Caste system in Africa, providing same details "{{cite journal|author=Tal Tamari| year= 1991|title= The Development of Caste Systems in West Africa| journal= The Journal of African History| volume= 32| number= 2|", pages "221-250" [18]
  • Added "Richter", "Further considerations of caste in West Africa" on Senufo people[19] and Caste system in Africa,[20] this source was also used by ApostleVonColorado on Caste for expansion.[21]
  • Added a "1977" journal with "pages=398" to "412" "volume=47" on Amhara people[22] for saying that they have a "caste" system. This discovery was originally made by AVC on Caste.[23]
And indeed both expanded Caste systems in Africa.[24][25]
  • On Culture of India, AVC added "The percentage of self-arranged marriages (called love marriages in India) were also increasing, particularly in the urban parts of India. A 2006 article reported that between 10 and 20 percent of marriages in urban India were self-arranged." [26]
MSW updated this part, "A 2014 article reported that the proportion of “love marriages” has soared in India in the most recent decade, still some 70% of unions are arranged." [27]
MSW further added "The average age of marriage for women in India has increased to 21 years". [28]
  • MSW added more stats("By 1995, of all") on the paragraph originally added by AVC on Dalit.[29][30]

Same writing style, and using same sentences:

  • "Let us focus on this article here" [31] (AVC)
"Let us focus on this article please" [32](MSW)
"Let us focus on what this article actually states" [33](MSW)
"Let us focus on the dispute, and more importantly on ways" [34](AVC)
"Let us focus on the scope, and how we can improve this article" [35](MSW)
"let us focus on suggestions to improve this article" [36](AVC)
  • "Specific suggestions to improve this article" [37] (MSW)
"Specific suggestions to improve this article" [38] (AVC)
  • "welcome you to join me in" [39] (MSW)
"invite you to join me in" [40] (AVC)
  • "I encourage you to read" [41](MSW) [42](AVC)
  • "I am open to creating" [43](AVC) [44](MSW)
  • "I will read it, reflect on it and then get back to you" [45] (AVC)
"I will like to read the context and source, then get back to you" [46] (MSW)
  • "wikipedia must include many aspects of one subject" [47] (AVC)
"An encyclopedic article would provide depth and cover the many aspects of this subject" [48] (MSW)
"An encyclopedia covers many aspects of one subject" [49] (AVC)
"encyclopedia is by definition a resource that summarizes "many aspects of one subject"" [50] (MSW)
"Wiki is an encyclopedia, and a good article would include many aspects of article subject" [51] (AVC)
  • "Allow me to skip your attempts to lecture" [52] (AVC)
"Allow me to skip your personal views" [53] (MSW)
"allow me to skip where I disagree" [54] (AVC)
"allow me to skip the rest of the WP:TEXTWALL" [55] (MSW)
  • Both have used this sentence: "take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without" [66][67][68]
  • Other common lines are:
"I am delighted" [69][70][71][72]
"please identify where" [73][74]
"please identify which" [75][76]
"a few days to review and".[77][78]

Both users have same issues with Fowler:

  • "Allow me to politely ignore Fowler&fowler" [79] (AVC)
"Fowler&fowler: Allow me to ignore" [80] "Allow me to ignore your editorializing" [81] (MSW)
  • Claims that Fowler gives "lecture":
"talk page's purpose is to help reach consensus, not to debate or lecture me or anyone else" [82]
"I have explain you this, given how you lecture others" [83]
"image that you question and lecture", "that another editor questions and lecture" [84]
  • Told Fowler to try DR:
"You must follow the wikipedia guidelines and community agreed consensus process/DRNs/mediation/etc." [85] (AVC)
"take this to bigger forum and dispute resolution process" [86] (AVC)
"You are welcome to initiate WP:DR" [87] (AVC)
"I suggest you try DRN" [88] (MSW)
"Take this to DRN etc" [89] (MSW)
"Try RSN / DRN" [90] (MSW)
  • MSW warned for edit warring, but asked admin to warn Fowler[107] which is not too different than the ANI thread I linked above since both instances are about seeking administrative action. While AVC claimed that Fowler harassed him, MSW said that Fowler is "bullying".[108]

MSW and AVC tell others about the trips they have made, to influence a content dispute:

  • "I have spent weeks and months in places such as Rio/Cairo/etc visiting" [109] (AVC)
"I was in Kerala a while ago visiting their archaeological sites / monasteries / temples" [110] (MSW)
"my recent trip through Norway, Sweden and Russia - each of which have an equivalent template that Mrt3366 is proposing" [111] (AVC)
"I remember from my visits to Ajanta" [112] (MSW)
  • MSW and AVC tell others "wikipedia is not a democracy" [117][118] and not "majority vote", after failing to find consensus.
  • MSW and AVC have used the same guideline quote "used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." [119][120]
  • I will note only a few distinctive similarities with edit summaries below:
Often provide both "WP:V" and "WP:WWIN" as reason for the edit.[128][129][130][131]
Writes "reply to" on edit summaries when writing a message.[132][133][134][135] and sometimes "+" [136][137][138][139][140]
"after checking source" [141][142][143][144], "revise per" [145][146], "simplify section" [147][148][149], "later section" [150][151][152][153], "request pending".[154][155][156][157] Lorstaking (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ms Sarah Welch: You are saying that because ApostleVonColorado hasn't edited for years that's why there is no case of socking, but ApostleVonColorado was topic banned under WP:CASTE after WP:ANI. The behavior that resulted in the topic ban are same as yours. ApostleVonColorado would be at least indefinitely topic banned if that account was used. According to WP:SOCKLEGIT everyone has to disclose their past accounts on userpage unless it's a cleanstart but this was not a clean start since first edits of your account. You have restored long removed edits that were originally made by AVC and you have continued his WP:BATTLE here.
I am not understanding why you are fabricating information. Contribution history [158] shows that you edited Vastu Shastra 8 hours after you got notified of this SPI[159] and you found that article from my recent contributions. The 4 years old section and the information still remains on the article despite you wanted to get rid of it and your deceptive edit summary, canvassing and the fringe claims that you made on talk page didn't even helped. Johnbod had no interaction with me nor we ever reverted edits of each other, but you have edit warred with him[160] and he believes that you engage in WP:SYN and omit mainstream view.[161] In short words you were just WP:WIKIHOUNDING on Vastu Shastra, that's why you can't use that article as justification for overlapping with ApostleVonColorado.
Also problematic is your claim that there should be no such SPI because there has to be "evidence of abuse or disruption that harms the project", but according to WP:SOCK creating new account "to avoid detection" is itself a form of disruption. Lorstaking (talk) 04:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no relevance of irrelevant stuff like 2 years old self-reverted edit of mine to this report. You should consider talking about this case only.
I have not mentioned "please provide" anywhere on this report. I am sorry to see that your comments are overly descriptive of "please provide".
Seeing that you have oddly defended ApostleVonColorado by claiming that the account wasn't optimally disruptive, despite being one of the only five editors who were topic banned from WP:CASTE in 2013 2012, you are also saying that if you are ApostleVonColorado's sock still there was no violation of sockpuppetry policy, but you are wrong because if you had ever edited again from ApostleVonColorado, you would be subject to heavy scrutiny and the account would be topic banned again or indefinitely blocked given the problems with your editing on same subject and continued WP:BATTLE with Fowler. Lorstaking (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ms Sarah Welch: just because you can find several similarities between yourself and dozens of other editors, it still doesn't means that any of them amounts to the similarities that you share with ApostleVonColorado and all of these editors that you have mentioned are very far from that many similarities, let alone any other single account having as many same characteristics as yours. Lorstaking (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After checking the histories and the interaction tool again, I have discovered two more accounts that have same timings, interests and other characteristics as MSW and these accounts edited when MSW was also editing. I have compared these accounts with MSW below and specified where I am comparing them with AVC.

WeyburnFarm:

  • With the latest edit of MSW on Nāradasmṛti, I saw that nobody cared about adding more bytes to the article since 2008, except AVC,[162] MSW,[163] and WeyburnFarm.[164]
  • WeyburnFarm made their 1st ever edit on an article,[165] and 2nd edit was creation of own userpage,[166] just like MSW, whose 2nd edit was also creation of userpage.[167]
  • "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly"[168] this particular sentence has been used many times by MSW.[169][170][171]
  • "I have no interest in a forum like discussion with you on this talk page, see WP:TPNO"[172] (WeyburnFarm)
"I have no interest in a forum-y discussion, per TPNO"[173] (MSW)
"read and respect WP:FORUM"[180] (MSW)
  • Used the word "versus"[181][182] for section heading on talk page discussion for discussing relevance of two aspects.
  • On Yamas, both used same edit summary, "add sources", for expanding content of same sections[183][184], it is a common edit summary but the edit was more than just adding sources.
  • Same edit summaries:-
"add for NPOV",[185][186] "merge two versions"[187][188], "re-arrange"[189][190][191]

Lisa.davis:

Other account is Lisa.davis. Like Lisa.davis,[192] AVC also stated on their talk page that they prefer messages on article's talk page.[193]

  • Like MSW, Lisa.davis made their first ever edit on Culture of India[194] an article both MSW and AVC heavily edited like I have mentioned. MSW and Lisa.davis edited Culture of India together during the last months of 2013.[195][196][197]
  • Both "can read Sanskrit",[198][199] MSW also claims on userpage to be capable of reading Sanskrit.[200]
  • Lisa.davis uploaded an image on Commons, named "File:(A) Hindu wedding, Saptapadi ritual before Agni Yajna.jpg"[210], MSW slightly modified this image[211], then inserted it on Agni by removing existing image[212], and also inserted this image on Vedic wedding ceremony[213], Yajna. [214]
  • While MSW and Lisa.davis have overlapped much, there are some articles where you won't really expect others to edit some particular section, an example is Temperance (virtue)#Hinduism, a section where both accounts have added content.[223][224]
  • Same edit summaries:-
"c/up",[225][226], "add summary of"[227][228][229][230][231][232] "check sources",[233][234][235][236][237][238] "revise to match", [239][240][241][242][243][244], "cite pending request".[245][246][247] Lorstaking (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


After reporting WeyburnFarm as suspected sock, I planned an experiment, and it worked. I removed the WP:ORIGINALSYN added by WeyburnFarm[248] (in 2014) and now that I had successfully defended the removal on talk page and the discussion became stale, I am seeing that Ms Sarah Welch went ahead to defend this content added by the suspected sock.[249]

MSW never edited the article[250] or the talk page[251] ever before, nor the article appeared in my recent contributions[252], then why MSW is aggressively defending pure WP:OR added by WeyburnFarm over 3 years ago?  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me Lorstaking (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark.muesse:

Mark.muesse is another account that I have discovered. It overlaps much with MSW and was used during the same time when MSW was being used for editing as well.

  • Like AVC[253] and Lisa.davis,[254] Mark.muesse[255] stated on talk page that he prefer messages on article's talk page. The note is almost same as the one from Lisa.davis.

I have compared only MSW with Mark.muesse below:

  • Removed same sourced content[265] using a misleading edit summary,(such "version" never existed) that Mark.muesse had also removed on Vastu Shastra.[266]
  • Restored completely same lead[267] that was written by Mark.muesse on Dharma.[268]
  • Mark.muesse uploaded another image on Commons, named "9 Grid Pitha Mandala Hindu Temple Floor Plan Vastu Purusa Mandala Architecture.svg"[275], MSW inserted this image on Matsya Purana[276] an article that is barely ever edited by anyone and this image has not been inserted anywhere else except this article.

@Ben MacDui and Capitals00: Thanks for the comments. MSW filed a retaliatory SPI against me, because it seemed like the only way to get rid of this SPI. MSW prefers using alphabetic numbering("[b]" "[c]") like you can see in their comments here[279] and also on other pages[280][281], which is also same as AVC.[282] As for WeyburnFarm (WF), MSW recently restored the problematic version of WF[283] on Adultery[284] using a misleading edit summary and without getting consensus or ever editing the article before.[285] Lorstaking (talk) 08:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Ben MacDui: thanks again for the comments. I have found no difference between the attitude of AVC and MSW. MSW's characterization as "coldly polite",[286] by Fowler that you have already mentioned, or "also being polite",[287] is same as his characterization of AVC:
"AVC is always polite".[288]
"I grant you, you have been overtly polite".[289] Lorstaking (talk) 14:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have mostly provided the evidence of connection of these accounts with MSW above, but if we were to look for connection of AVC with other accounts than MSW, then we would only end up finding more substantial evidence.

Like I have already mentioned but not all together, there are too many similarities that are found here. For one, these accounts misspells "focused" as "focussed". (AVC, MSW, MM, LD)

WeyburnFarm and AVC have expanded same content on Nāradasmṛti#Source and Authority,[290][291] apart from the edits from WeyburnFarm, MSW and AVC, this article has no substantial edit since 2008.(article history)

I have just checked history of AVC and this time focused on discovering similarities with Lisa.davis:

  • AVC and Lisa.davis share a great interest in Child labour in Africa, and both have greatly contributed to this subject in July 2012. AVC created Child labour in Africa[292] on 22 July 2012, while Lisa.davis has uploaded a number of images regarding this subject on Commons,[293][294][295][296] during July 2012.
  • Lisa.davis uploaded an image named "File:Child Shepherds in Ethiopia.jpg" on 01:21, 24 July 2012 on Commons.[297] On 13:36, 24 July 2012 AVC used this image on Child labour in Africa.[298]
  • On 5 February, 2012, Lisa.davis uploaded an image named "File:Jaipur-Delhi Highway.jpg" on Commons,[301] this image was added on Indian road network by AVC on 10 February 2012.[302]

It is evident that they are sharing same amount of interest in subjects that are completely different to each other. I can provide more evidence if it is needed. Lorstaking (talk) 10:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Joshua Jonathan, Kautilya3: It's a deliberate violation of policy. There have been cases where the indeffed editor was not abusing several accounts since the creation of sock account but was ultimately a sock of a user that was sanctioned for the editing same subject, but MSW has abused multiple accounts to make significant edits on same articles for years. MSW had to stick to AVC. MSW was aware that editing as AVC would take no time to face another topic ban or indef block on AVC account. That's why MSW used new accounts to avoid scrutiny and engage in same disruption as AVC. Lorstaking (talk) 11:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Topic ban increases scrutiny by other editors and easily increase chances for further sanctions. Many editors create new accounts to avoid scrutiny and those chances. Sockpuppetry is more than just violating a topic ban with another account and MSW was violating the policy since their first edit. Lorstaking (talk) 15:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

  • The #1 instruction for an SPI accuser states, "please be sure that: The problem is current; if the suspected sock puppets have not edited recently, the case will likely be closed as stale." The last edit by ApostleVonColorado: September 2012. There is zero overlap:
Editor Interaction Analyser
This tool shows the common pages that two or more editors have both edited, sorted by minimum time between edits by the users. In other words, if the editors made an edit to the same page within a short time, that page will show up towards the top of the table. In general, when two users edit a page within a short time, chances are high that they have interacted directly with one another on that page.
Click on the "timeline" link to see the edits that both users have made to the page in chronological order.
Ms Sarah Welch (talk) edit count: 28278
Apostle von Colorado (talk) edit count: 0
Elapsed time: 6.561 seconds.
18:34:41, 03 Jan 2018
The same wikitool suggests that the accuser Lorstaking and I have overlapped in 10+ articles with edit timeline gap as short as a few hours. The most recent overlap was in Vastu Shastra article, where the accuser edit warred with several editors, starting with Johnbod then I to restore, what Johnbod called 'highly dubious' content. I agree this is dubious, as do other editors on the article's talk page. Lorstaking was trying to restore a fringe non-RS and the dubious claim that Hindu architecture texts have roots in 6000 and 3000 BCE era.
Another foundation of SPI is the evidence of abuse or disruption that harms the project. The accuser is seemingly alleging that using language such as "please provide" .....to.... "request pending", or collaborating with Cordless Larry and others to add scholarly sources to Horn of Africa / Somalia / Ethiopia / West Africa space articles during the Africa de-stub-athon initiative, etc was abuse or disruption of the wikipedia project. It is not. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bbb23: Indeed, I typed the name wrong. I struck out that part above. Lorstaking: No, you reverted Johnbod and restored the "highly dubious" source before this case. What you did was inappropriate. That was not the first time you did something like that. You have done so before in Shahr-e Sukhteh article, an edit that LouisAragon called an attempt of "deliberate misinterpretation" of source by you (to your credit, you self-reverted and did not edit war). You have less than 500 edits so far, and this case is by far your largest post on wikipedia. Interesting. You make sweeping allegations about "like no one else" etc above!... but you are wrong, if you look at the facts and study the disputes in Kashmir / FA-nominated colonial era Indian famine articles / etc space articles. You mention "Please provide" etc as evidence of abuse or something, but over 150,000 wikipedia pages have the same phrase!, and my total edits are a fraction. I do read talk pages and their archives before reviewing and editing articles; what I read does influence my choice of words and style. For example, some of my phrasings are similar to Joshua Jonathan, RegentsPark, Doug Weller, Vanamonde, Kautilya3, etc. I do so because I learn from them and I admire editors such as them. Now on the technical issues here: [a] one account is stale, we are in 2018, the stale account has had no activity since 2012; [b] the stale account seems to have never been indefinitely banned, only topic banned for a few months, according to your own submission above; [c] wikipedia policy does allow WP:CLEANSTART etc, we don't gather here to witch-hunt and bludgeon people behind their keyboards, we gather here to build an ever-improving free encyclopedia that hopefully our poorest sisters and brothers worldwide can access; [d] you have not shown one specific evidence of abuse or behavioral issue. Phrases such as "please provide...", or if two editors cite the same scholarly source(s) to an article, fwiw, is neither abuse nor a "behavioral issue". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bbb23: A question: On top of this page are links. If I click on the "block log" at the top I don't see anything, for some reason. Where can one search for anyone's block(s) and restrictions placed on their accounts? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lorstaking: In my view, words matching without evidence of any abuse can be a source of hounding because as wikipedia grows older, you will find ever more two or more words matches. Consider your two or more word phrases (working backwards from your list):
Of course, one can say, well those are single matches and what are the odds of "a combination of matches". I submit that if you take two active users in a particular topic area, you will find plenty of two-words and more-words matches between the two. For example, consider Joshua Jonathan and I... we are both active in Indian religions space. Lets see the common phrases between JJ and I:
  • "As I said before" (JJ: [307], MSW: [308])
  • "does not mean" ([309], [310], [311], [312])
  • "should be noted" ([313], [314])
  • "I agree with" ([315], [316])
  • "wikipedia is an encyclopedia" ([317], [318])
  • "rely on" ([319], [320], [321], [322])
  • "see talk" ([323], [324])
  • "You probably missed" ([325], [326])
  • I see matches for "Allow me to", "problematic way of editing", "kind of POV-pushing", "this is OR", "undue for the lead" etc etc (I am tired of copy pasting links; some of these are not edit diffs because that takes time to locate; if you search for the phrase and then trace who posted it, you will see it). JJ also has had content disputes and charges of behavioral issues from a wide range of editors.
The third hypothesis can be, well what about inactive accounts and a combination of word matches. I submit that if you find any old dormant account with over 1000 significant edits, and a currently active editor with more than 20,000 non-minor contributions, you will find numerous two words and more words matches. This follows from the Bayes' theorem on probabilities and the nature of English language. Another consequence of the same theorem is that if you gather 40 random people anywhere, two of them are highly likely to have the same birthday. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bbb23: I see the list now. There was a 6 month topic ban that started in September 2012. Lorstaking claims above AVC was banned with five people in 2013. I don't see the second five-people-2013 ban. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: For years I assumed good faith with Ms Sarah Welch, even one editor in good standing claimed that MSW asks only me to join discussions.[327] I have been watching this SPI since Bbb23 notified MSW and I have found no reason not to believe that MSW is a sock. These accounts are coming from an unusual location, having strong dedication towards Culture of India, Indian road network, Nāradasmṛti, Moksha, Caste system in Africa, same timezone, obsessing over particular images, same distinctive views and same battleground mentality. It is impossible to have more than one person having these all traits. Also after seeing that since SPI, MSW is continuously attacking Lorstaking, hounding his edits, harassing him,[328][329] filing frivolous revenge SPI,[330] restoring edits of listed socks, instead of showing remorse for long term sockpuppetry, MSW has proven to be a net negative to the project.

The pointed ANI complaint against Fowler&Fowler by ApostleVonColorado[331] has reminded me of a similar ANI complaint filed by MSW against Soupforone.[332] Both complaints are nothing but huge wall of text about personal attacks and not even a single reasonable diff was provided. Both complaints starts with {{userlinks|}} and notes down the issues in numbers. And the last paragraph of these both complaints has specifically highlighted how their complaint is not a content dispute, but seeking justice for personal attacks. Just like ApostleVonColorado's complaint was found to be frivolous, MSW's complaint against Soupforone was found to be frivolous as well and there were no personal attacks.[333][334]

Feud with Fowler&Fowler is spot on. I am also remembering that even Fowler&Fowler mentioned AVC-related incidents from Caste on the Talk:Cow vigilante violence in India since 2014.[335] AVC was engaged in expanding the scope of Caste, while MSW was engaging in expanding the scope of Cow vigilante violence in India since 2014,[336][337][338] and both AVC and MSW have bludgeoned the discussion. MSW was frequently edit warring, that even I had to convince MSW against this approach,[339] and I requested protection.[340] MSW was also taking this feud with Fowler&Fowler to a higher level by commenting on an ANI thread where Fowler&Fowler was participating, feuding on Jhatka,[341] Cattle theft in India, Cattle slaughter in India,[342] MSW was focusing on being anti-Fowler&Fowler. Frequently alleged Fowler&Fowler of misbehavior and WP:COI on Talk:Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, and wondered if Fowler&Fowler "should be editing this article and related articles at all".[343][344][345] Fowler&Fowler gave up on this article,[346] however MSW still taunted him.[347] Fowler&Fowler also gave up on Cattle theft in India.[348] Finally, it is clear now that there was no reason behind this unnecessary aggression from MSW, other than taking revenge on Fowler&Fowler because of the ANI complaint that was lodged by AVC against Fowler&Fowler, it instead led to loss of reputation of AVC.

Over here, MSW is treating a 6 month topic ban to be nothing, but MSW reminds other formerly topic banned user about the past "sanction"[349] when engaging in content dispute. MSW is trying to justify sock puppetry, claiming that sock blocks depend on the "behavioral issue", despite Lorstaking's comment that socking is itself a disruptive, but MSW is not getting it. MSW has severe behavior issues, such as edit warring,[350][351][352] misrepresenting sources,[353][354][355] WP:SYNTH,[356][357] and when someone happens to challenge MSW's edits, you would see talk pages getting filibustered. Not every editor is willing to rack up long talk pages such as:[358][359] [360] [361][362] and this is similar to AVC who filibustered:[363] [364]. Even this SPI is enough evidence of disruption. Despite the diffs provided by Lorstaking where AVC and MSW edited same articles, MSW still claimed that "'there is zero overlap" with AVC.[365] MSW falsely claimed 3 times that Lorstaking mentioned "please provide" as a similarity,[366] reverted DoRD to restore off-topic sock comment in order to derail the SPI,[367] and then mentioned names of the editors and very commonly used phrases, irrelevant to SPI or these socks. You see this same lengthy disruption on articles and their talk pages from MSW. Capitals00 (talk) 03:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Given the the one week block and the "pending further investigation," I'd like to comment that MSW is a solid editor, with a very good command of the sources. Past behavior on talkpages, and the resulting topic-ban, is only relevant in as far as this behavior has continued up till today, in a problematic way. That's a discussion that belongs at ANI or Discretionary Sanctions. The relevant question here is: did AVC/MSW use socks, recently, to inluence debates or aticles, using them in tandem against other editors? MSW's account only came to be used substantially after an initial phase in which all accounts had been used. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Joshua Jonathan. I don't see any evidence of abuse of multiple accounts being presented. The present one-week block is already a bit much for me to swallow, given the high level of contributions of MSW in quantity as well as quality. There is no question of AVC/MSW connection supporting any such abuse either. I recommend that the investigation be closed unless there is any evidence of abuse is forthcoming. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I get that AVC got topic-banned from caste articles for six months in September 2012. Did any of the mentioned accounts represent a violation of that topic ban? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to admit that I find the parallels quite convincing; if these are the same accounts, it is indeed a violation of our sock-policy. Which is a pity, given her valuable contributions to the project; it makes me wonder too why this happened. Nevertheless, you make a couple of assertions which I cannot fully agree with:
  • "was ultimately a sock of a user that was sanctioned for the editing same subject" - she was not blocked indefinitely, but had a topic-ban for six months. The new accounts were created after the topic-ban had expired.
  • "MSW has abused multiple accounts to make significant edits on same articles for years" - she seems to have used multiple accounts for a short time, and then sticked to one account.
  • "MSW was aware that editing as AVC would take no time to face another topic ban or indef block on AVC account. That's why MSW used new accounts to avoid scrutiny and engage in same disruption as AVC." is an assumption ("avoid scrutiny") and an accusation ("engage in same disruption as AVC"), not a fact.
  • Was MSW ever topic-banned, or in any other way blocked, for disruptive editing, or for any other reason? og?page=User%3AMs_Sarah_Welch&type=block No. Why should she have been blocked indefinitely, while she hasn't been blocked at all the past years?
  • The statement "engage in same disruption as AVC" is presumptious, I think. Editors are allowed to disagree; that's not the same as being "disruptive." Some editors can learn; apparently she did.
Ultimately, you (we) don't know what their motive is; you (or we) should simply ask. Nevertheless, if you think she's been disruptive, you should make a separate case about that. The question here is: did she abuse multiple accounts, recently, to push a specific point of view, and create a false sense of consensus? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The evidence is convincing, having reviewed a selection of talk page posts independently of the above analysis, there's definitely also a distinct tone of voice that AVC and Ms Sarah Welch share, whilst sure, there can be common phrases between editors, this goes further than that- it's almost as if they speak the same and phrasing linguistic wise is also similar. I disagree with the above "well, MSW hasn't done anything wrong, so let's just leave it" comments above. This is clear evasion of scrutiny- and as Bbb23 notes blow, there's no way AVC would be entitled to a clean start. I'm personally of the opinion we should move this over to AN and let the wider community decide what to do. Side note- I'm completely uninvolved in this, haven't interacted with any of the editors here before, and have no interest in India caste-related articles. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jcc: @Joshua Jonathan: @Kautilya3: @Capitals00: @Lorstaking: All things considered this may be wise and I will open a thread at ANI. Ben MacDui 18:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

@Ms Sarah Welch: I'm not expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations, but you ran the Editor Interaction Analyser incorrectly. The usernames must be exact, and you misspelled the master's username. There are intersections between the two of you. Obviously because the master has not edited in years, the timeline is very distant.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ms Sarah Welch: There is no way that AVC would be entitled to a cleanstart.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ms Sarah Welch: I assume you're talking about the links for AVC. They have a clean block log. Restrictions are harder because they are normally noted, but depending on the restriction, they can be in a variety of different places. In AVC's case, look at WP:GS/Caste and then click on Show in the section "Expired sanctions" because the restriction expired six months after it was imposed.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note In attempt to make sense of the multitude of comments and allegations I attempted a broad brush overview.

MSW edits commence 15 Nov 13.

MSW and LD

  • LD Edits from 24 Jun 13 to 27 Apr 14 making 622 edits, of which c. 354 (57%) are on articles also (almost all later) edited by MSW.
  • During the period of LDs activity MSW makes only about 45 edits and I think the only article they jointly edit during LDs active period is Culture of India. Their approach is not identical but has similarities [368].
  • Edit counter for LD and MSW also shows some similarities - almost 100% edit summaries, 2/3-3/4 of edits >20 bytes, >15% are >1000 bytes.
  • From about mid-November 2013 (when MSW commenced editing) LD's edit summaries start to change and become more brief - typically "add citation" "add summary and citation" etc.
  • LD is disinclined to discuss anything on her talk page and habitually just removes messages from there.

MSW and MM

  • MM Edits from 5 Nov 13 to 28 Jan 15 making 142 edits, of which c. 105 (74%) are on articles also edited by MSW.
  • Edit counter has similarities to above but with a much higher percentage of >1000 bytes.
  • MM is disinclined to discuss anything on his talk page[369] "Dear visitor, Please leave any message on the article's talk page. Thank you. Kind regards", which resembles [370] "Dear Visitor, I prefer messages on an article's talk page. I do not respond here. Peace, Lisa.davis"
  • LD and MM have no interaction analyser articles in common.

MSW and WF

  • WF edited from 27 Sept 14 to 25 Nov 14
  • WF undertook 57 edits of which 5 (9%) are on three articles aslo edited by MSW. Some of the edit summaries used by WF on those articles - "add sources"- are similar to some of those used by MSW.
  • Edit counter shows few similarities to the above.
  • WF does not have a talk page
  • There are no common articles involving WF and LD or WF and MM.

MSW and AVC

  • AVC Ceased editing Sept 2012.
  • AVC makes 4325 edits, of which c. 486 (11%) are on articles also edited by MSW.
  • Edit counter stats have similarities to LD and MSW.
  • As noted above by Lorstaking, AVC prefers not to use talk pages. AVC often blanks or deletes stuff from their talk page. MSW does this a few times for bot messages only to begin with but then archives them.

Use of def and indef article. Perhaps this is OR but in my experience some speakers of English from the Indian sub-continent often omit 'a' and 'the'.

Of course this in itself suggests nothing other than that the editors may be from India, Pakistan or Bangaldesh, which is hardly surprising given the interests they have. However, it rules none of them out.

I hope that the above provides some reasonably objective information (perhaps bar my use of 'similar').

This is a complex case and I am fairly new to WP:SPI investigations so I am loathe to draw definitive conclusions. I do however think that MM and LD are the same person, which itself hints at a sockmaster who is of Indian origin and who is not averse to assuming both male and female identities. If pushed I'd say that a connection with MSW is definitely worth further investigation, that the link to AVC is possible but I have not seen anything conclusive in the above overview and that WF may be a red herring.

Finally, the above was all written without any attempt to go through the details of the above remarks and diffs provided by the involved parties. Having now done that the links between AVC and the other parties seems stronger and I conclude that:

  • LD and MM are likely the same person
  • AVC is probably related to LD and MM (perhaps also to WF).
  • There is a distinct possibility that MSW is also related to the above but that as a long-standing editor who has clearly made signficant contributions, MSW deserves a more experienced eye on this than I am able to provide. Ben MacDui 15:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC) PS I note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bladesmulti with some weariness.[reply]

I had another long look at this issue. My initial intention was to search for evidence unequivocally linking Ms Sarah Welch with ApostleVonColorado. Such evidence certainly exists (and I include the Bladesmulti link above) but I couldn't say it was unequivocal. AVC is pompous and confrontational, MSW seems to have established some cordial relationships and (according to Fowler&fowler) is 'coldly polite'. For me, that case is not proven, as we say in Scotland.

I then went back and looked at the other alleged socks. (I note that MSW has not referred to them above.) The conclusion I have reached is that Ms Sarah Welch, Lisa.davis and Mark.muesse are all the same person. I will provide more detail if requested.

If someone with more experience wishes to endorse this conclusion and propose suitable sanction (or otherwise) I am prepared to take action. However, I do not intend to act as judge as well as a jury in this case. Ben MacDui 08:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some more research and taken a little advice. Lisa.davis and Mark.muesse have been indef blocked and tagged as socks of Ms Sarah Welch.
Ms Sarah Welch has been blocked for one week pending further investigation of the relationship between that account and AVC. Ben MacDui 17:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to clerk: per the above, a thread has now been opened at ANI (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ms Sarah Welch) about this topic. Ms Sarah Welch has been unblocked in the meantime. Ben MacDui 19:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My closing comments:Further to the discussion at ANI I am returning to this venue. The discussion there boils down to either:

  • follow policy and mete out sanctions accordingly, or
  • use IAR on the grounds that MSW has made useful contributions.

Either way, there is the possibility that the work of building this encyclopedia will be damaged. However, although MSW has supporters I have seen little that would suggest that the latter course of action is either one that has very significant net benefits or that the community is very strongly in favour of it.

In the meantime I also undertook some further research and I am now fairly certain that MSW is linked to both Weyburn Farm and AVC. I have therefore:

  • indef blocked MSW and WF
  • tagged both of them and LD and MM as suspected AVC socks
  • blocked AVC for the remainder of the original week that MSW did not serve - the account is of course long inactive and a longer block would seem to be pointless. Ben MacDui 11:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ben MacDui: The only change I've made to what you've done is to remove the block notice from AVC's userpage as it doesn't belong there. If you want to post a block notice on their Talk page, that's up to you. Just in case you're thinking of it as an alternative, a sock tag should not go on AVC's userpage either; a sockmaster normally only gets a tag if they are blocked indefinitely, which is not the case here. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

21 February 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


If you are familiar with this SPI or want to know background, I recommend you to read this discussion with Bbb23 first. I would repeat here too that this SPI is not meant for changing the blocking decision. This SPI is filed only for making it sure that more accounts were abused and the list of all socks was never revealed by AVC, despite requests and this report will be helpful in future to evaluate conduct.

  • Same section name:
MSW: "Issues with this article, explaining the POV tag"[372]
MTH: "‎Issues with this article and inclusion of charts with data"[373]
  • MTH and MSW added same image on Pushkar and Padma Purana. MTH added "Pushkar after monsoons, Rajasthan India.jpg" [374] and this file was later merged for being duplicate[375] and MSW added it on Padma Purana, by using the new file name.[376]
  • Restored much of the same version of Forestry in India, written by ApostleVonColorado,[382] mostly after removing 12,000 bytes from the article.[383]
  • Quoted same specific sentence of "WP:Primary", that "original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people".[384][385]
  • Quotes the same part from WP:OR: "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist". [386][387] [388][389]
MTH: "update old income data in lead"[396]
AVC: "update data from peer reviewed journal"[397]
  • MSW created userpage as "Hello. I love travel and culture."[398]
MTH created it as "Hello wikipedia users,...." and "I am also interested in culture and history."[399]

Same writing style, and using same sentences:

  • "your desire to do original research"[413] (MTH)
"Your desire to do OR"[414] (MSW)
  • "policy is to not pick sides"[415] (MTH)
"goal is not to pick sides"[416] (MSW)
"don't pick sides in wikipedia"[417] (MSW)
  • "we collaboratively help build an article"[418] (MTH)
"willing to collaboratively help you build the article"[419] (MSW)
  • "I would welcome addition of content"[420] (MSW)
"I welcome addition of more information"[421] (MTH)

Same edit summaries. I have left out many slightly common ones:

  • "per WP:LEAD and WP:WWIN"[428] (MSW)
"per WP:WWIN and WP:LEAD" [429] (MTH)
  • "update per MOS:IMAGES"[430] (MTH)
"update MOS:IMAGES"[431] (MSW)
  • "revise lead per WP:LEAD" [432](MSW)
"revise lead per WP:LEAD" [433] (MTH)

Account needs to be indeffed for sure and tagged as suspected sock of AVC like rest of the others had been, about 11 days ago. Lorstaking (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • @Lorstaking: Do you want any action to be taken or are you just filing this for the record? Sro23 (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note I have run this through the AVC sock detector and it looks like another one to me. You could argue that blocking a stale account is unnecessary but I think what Lorstaking is getting at here is that dealing with this account raises the stakes. Very generously you could have argued that the MSW account was a fairly well-behaved and upgraded AVC and if they practised a bit with a couple of other short-lived accounts, well, what’s the harm? Including this account suggests that AVC was in fact running four different accounts all at one time for a while and at least two for over a year. Indef blocked and tagged. Ben MacDui 20:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

24 April 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


This name was emailed to me (don't know why email rather than just filing a report) as a suspected sock. The account has only 145 edits and ceased editing in early 2015. There are clearly similarities with Ms Sarah Welch e.g. an interest in female genital mutilation, similar edit summaries etc. and I'd say 'highly likely' on behavioural grounds. The timeline also overlaps with AVC socks: M Tracy Hunter. Lisa.davis, Mark.muesse and WeyburnFarm.

As the admin on previous AVC socks it did not seem right to act in that capacity and as filer here. Ben MacDui 18:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I was the person who emailed Ben MacDui, on 12 March, to ask him to look at the MissMargaretBlack account, because he had become familiar with Ms Sarah Welch. I thought I had spotted a similarity and wondered whether he would notice it too. He didn't respond and I forgot about it, so I'm surprised to see this. The reason I felt this mattered is that MissMargaretBlack caused considerable problems with poor source use in articles related to FGM and Islam, particularly at Religious views on female genital mutilation. If that account was Ms Sarah Welch, and if they ask to be unblocked, then the MargaretBlack edits ought to be taken into account. But that's assuming it was the same person; hence the query. SarahSV (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that Ben did reply (discussion), but it must have gone into my spam folder. SarahSV (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

We don't normally evaluate or block an account that hasn't edited in years. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]