Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SentientContrarian/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


SentientContrarian

SentientContrarian (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
01 October 2012
[edit]
Proven socks
Suspected sockpuppets
  1. User_talk:Moderatelyaverage#Regarding_WP:COI: on_certain_articles Getting back on the whole WP:COI issue, when I see an editor clearly violating WP:OWN in an article, I immediately will start to wonder if the person has any connection with the subject of the article. So, I'm going to google his or her username, especially if that username happens to look like a real-world name. And if I see this exact real-world name being connected with the subject of the article in question, then I will have every reason to believe that there is a clear violation of WP:COI and WP:OWN at the same time. And if the person that violates WP:OWN and WP:COI has misled Wikipedia arbitrators to punish those who have pointed out the WP:COI and WP:OWN violations, then we also have a WP:GAME violation and the arbitrator in question has proven to be utterly inept at arbitrating, since he (or she) has failed to investigate matters, has taken someone's words at face value without doing the slightest bit of research to see what's going on in the dispute at hand and has been tricked into an unfair decision. Sorry, but that's the way it is. --Moderatelyaverage (talk) 12:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Declaring his WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and clearly alluding to the supporters of Takis Fotopoulos And this is a 4-day old account, established 4 April 2012 and four days into his wiki-career is talking about Arbcom and COI, OWN etc. That's as WP:DUCK as it gets.
  2. Bougatsa42 goes to SentientContrarian's talkpage to voice his support: Latest revision as of 09:48, 7 July 2012 Bougatsa42: Have the criticisms of the Takis Fotopoulos article been addressed? Articles in Wikipedia in English about matters Greek tend not to reflect well on Wikipedia, and I personally tend to like people who point out their flaws.
  3. Latest revision as of 17:40, 8 July 2012 Moderatelyaverage talking to Bougatsa and agreeing at talk:Meligalas. The neo-nazis of Greece think they can sway Wikipedia their way by spreading disinfo. Moderatelyaverage (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  4. Revision as of 20:41, 20 May 2012 Moderatelyaverage seconds Elp.gr: Seconded. The Security Battalions in Greecee were indeed founded by the Nazi occupation forces and it's a bloody shame that Greece's right wing tries to gloss over their collaborationist nature... at talk:Meligalas
  5. Revision as of 16:46, 23 July 2011 (edit) Elp gr (talk (Removing vandalism done by Greek pro-nazi trolls.) (at Meligalas).
  6. Revision as of 16:42, 23 July 2011 Elp gr (talk (Removed vandalism (Greek pro-nazi trolls again)) (at Meligalas).
  7. Revision as of 11:50, 27 July 2011 79.129.27.37 (→‎Mass execution of 1,144 nazi collaborationists: Removed the last bits of vandalism committed by that pro-nazi troll.)
  8. Revision as of 20:38, 20 May 2012 Moderatelyaverage (Undid revision 490272888 by Alythes (talk) Removing NPOV vandalism by pro-nazi user.) (at Meligalas).
  9. Fender Musical Instruments Corporation Revision as of 07:46, 12 February 2006 Elp gr
  10. Talk:Fender Jazzmaster Revision as of 01:44, 27 November 2010 Elp gr
  11. Fender Stratocaster February 2006 Elp gr
  12. Fender Swinger: Difference between revisions Revision as of 21:57, 2 September 2012 Moderatelyaverage
  13. Revision as of 10:42, 8 September 2012 Moderatelyaverage (→‎Evidence of Golden Dawn being a neonazi party: Truly a party that is "not racist" and "not neo-nazi", as its Greek sockpuppet supporters in here claim. Indeed. Political attack on other editors. at Talk:Golden Dawn
  14. Talk:Golden_Dawn_(Greece) Revision as of 10:14, 5 September 2012 Moderatelyaverage There's plenty of material to substantiate the claim that Golden Dawn is a neonazi party. Golden Dawn's trolls here on Wikipedia have perused and abused the language barrier for far too long to misinform other Wikipedians.
  15. Well, the faction of Fotopoulos takes advantage of the language barrier.Revision as of 07:16, 13 January 2012 (edit) (undo) Elp gr (talk | contribs)
  16. Revision as of 03:38, 27 August 2012 Bougatsa42 Oh dear ...I suppose any article written by the far-right in conjunction with the KKE is not going to be be notable for its veracity. A couple of things that someone could look at, provided they belong to neither group Political attack on other editors at Talk:Communist Party of Greece
  17. Revision as of 19:34, 30 September 2012 Bougatsa42 What is needed is for the whole thing to be reworked by an objective contributor, who is NOT a member of the former royal family! Political attack against other editors and the former royal family of Greece. at Talk:Frederica of Hanover
  18. Latest revision as of 22:18, 1 October 2012 Bougatsa42 accusing me of Vandalism during the 3O process at Talk:Frederica of Hanover and while this SPI is still open
  19. Edit-warring on Georgios Grivas adding POV terms like "quisling" and calling it vandalism on my part Revision as of 01:59, 2 October 2012 Bougatsa42 (Undid revision 515459314 (vandalism) by Dr.K. (talk))
Comments by other users
[edit]

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

This is a malicious complaint of course.

My principal reason for involvement in Wikipedia is to contribute to the pages on Greek history. My understanding of the subject has developed as I have followed a course of reading which began with novelists like Mary Stewart and Louis de Bernieres through Greek novelists, reports of British special agents, academic works and the relevant British Foreign Office documents. I have no family or political affiliations relating to Greece or Greek history.

The English-language pages on the period are clearly a disaster. Anyone at all can see that there are very few references cited. Anyone with knowledge of the period can see that an extreme-right view predominates. Look at the entry on Organization X. Until I edited it the impression was given that this was a rather noble resistance organisation that fought the Germans and then saved Greece from the communists, the one reference being to a biography of the founder. I have also noted that for any older Greek cultural icons who were members of the leftist resistance (most of them), their membership of ELAS, EPON etc. is suppressed - I have edited Veggos, but see Theodorakis.

There has been considerable comment on the lack of objectivity in the Frederica of Hanover page, which led to me suggesting back in May that it needed a neutrality warning. This I eventually did myself this week. I explained my reasons and what needed to be done, joking, ‘not by a member of the royal family’. This is not a personal attack – who is the person? Defending myself is not a personal attack, see the relevant Wikipedia guidelines.

Within hours of all this (minutes?), I am accused of being a sock-puppet. What is happening here is an harassment campaign.

This highlights an essential flaw in Wikipedia. It appears to be almost impossible to be part of a small minority trying to improve things in a controversial area (as we are urged to do). It seems very easy to edit another person’s comments, even on the talk page, leaving the impression that the targeted person has launched a personal attack, and then editing their defence. Frankly, I feel quite discouraged by this.

The only time I remember noting ModeratelyAverage is when s/he commented on the Meligalas page. I have no knowledge of SentientContrarian, but seeing what is happening here, I find it hard to believe that s/he was a sock-puppet, rather than simply another victim of the far-right campaign to control perceptions of Greek history, especially those of non-Greeks such as myself.Bougatsa42 (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read the case. So, just because I'm Greek, opinionated and happen to have worked (with such users as User:RJFF and User:Dolescum) on the Golden Dawn (Greece) article, as well as the Meligalas article, I'm accused of being a puppet? Greece has at least a million internet users. Many are active in discussions regarding the far-right (a part of the political spectrum that I detest). The evidence is, at best, circumstantial. I don't know the users you are referring to and am unaware of their editing history (I saw that one of the users I am accused of being had edited several entries 6 years ago, long before I created a proper account - until that time, I was experimenting in the Sandbox as a mere IP editor, trying to learn the ropes before committing to become a Wikipedian). Oh, and discussing with the "Bougatsa42" user once (and even agreeing with him) does not make me the same person as him. Furthermore, I have contributed numerous other edits to all sorts of different articles, ranging from passenger aircraft to computers and from music to dogs. I also would like to point out that my main interest is copyediting, perhaps much more so than anything else.
Also, on my references to the WP:COI, they were not made in reference to Takis Fotopoulos (of whom I have no knowledge whatsoever, therefore I can have no opinion on - be it negative or positive), but in reference to conclusions I reached by reading (and editing) the Saint-Gobain entry. Read my contemporaneous edit of that article's talk page (which is clear evidence of my awareness of that article and the COI issue brought up by other editors regarding a former employee of the company, who served as a single-purpose account with the sole intention of editing that particular article, perhaps promoting the company's interests) and you'll see exactly what I'm referring to. So, in other words, it was this section in the talk page of the Saint-Gobain article and not a dispute of other users on a person I have no knowledge of and no opinion on. The time stamps confirm it, too: I edited the talk page of the Saint-Gobain article on 12:44, 4 April 2012 and then edited my profile to reflect the opinion I formed based on what I saw there on the same day, between 21:25 and 22:33. The evidence is all right there on my user contributions for everyone to see. Moderatelyaverage (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What about this (Revision as of 10:49, 19 April 2012 (edit) (undo) Moderatelyaverage (talk | contribs) (New question: Question on WP:COI) /Questions&diff=prev&oldid=488150337):

Question on WP:COI Here's a question regarding (potential) violations of WP:COI. I have seen a certain Wikipedia editor, whose entire list of contribution consists of editing, edit-warring and engaging in fights with other Wikipedians on very few articles that are about a certain political movement and its spin-offs. Searching for his name (as he lists it on Wikipedia, where he uses it as his username), I can see that he is in fact a member of this movement. However, contrary to what Wikipedia urges people to do, he does not state his affiliation with the movement, thereby misleading editors, administrators and arbitrators. Is such behavior considered to be a violation of Wikipedia's Terms of Use? Furthermore, if someone goes to that article's talk page and outs him for being affiliated with this movement and misleading Wikipedia's editors, administrators and arbitrators, will that be a violation of the Terms of Use? Thank you. Moderatelyaverage (talk) 10:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Your enquiry mentions a "political movement" not Saint-Gobain, a French company. Could it be the one led by Takis Fotopoulos? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. You see, I don't even know who Takis Fotopoulos is. I don't know what he stands for, what he does and I haven't heard of him until now. Is it impossible for someone to not know Takis Fotopoulos? Is it impossible for someone to not even care about him? Again, please leave me out of any disagreements you may have with Bougatsa42. Having read your exhange with User:Ian.thomson, I gather that the source of it all was your disagreement with Bougatsa42 on an article about the former royal family of Greece, a subject I'm not interested in at all. And I don't like Bougatsa42's reply below, either. Moderatelyaverage (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I will not ask any more questions. I will leave this for the admins now. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Until today, I was minding my own business, happily correcting typos and syntax errors (like every copyeditor does) while idly surfing where curiosity led me, as well as contributing in the Golden Dawn (Greece) article, assisting (and learning from) User:RJFF and other, more seasoned wikipedians. Now, it is an investigation instigated by you because of a disagreement you had with someone else that has caused me this plight. OK now. Let's assume that the CU determines one of the IP addresses I might have used shares some digits with offending users I have no relationship or affiliation with. Then what? Oh, not to mention that you came across my edits, but never bothered to come to my talk page and ask me about them. Did you see that userbox on my page? It says "This user tries to do the right thing. If they make a mistake, please let them know." Did you leave me any feedback? No. Did you tell me about your concerns? No. I'm going to put this reply of mine on the investigation page's comments, just for the record. Moderatelyaverage (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, I was referring to a certain course of action that violates Wikipedia's terms of service. Why are you asking me if I was referring to Takis Fotopoulos' movement? Did they violate Wikipedia's terms of service in this manner? Please inform me - I don't know who Takis Fotopoulos is and what he stands for, but your question only makes me wonder why you insist that this reference of mine must be about Fotopoulos' movement. Are there elements of my text that can be attributed to actions of this movement? If there are, then it's not my problem, it's theirs. If there aren't, again it's not my problem and this time it's not theirs, either. Besides, user pages are for us to write our opinions, thoughts etc, without implying that Wikipedia has any responsibility for them. Not to mention I don't owe any apology or explanation to anyone for what I post on my user page; I could very well say that I don't like motorcycles or iPods. Moderatelyaverage (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no longer any purpose for any more exchanges. I asked you a question about Fotopoulos you said you don't know him, end of story. You asked that I don't involve you any longer in this, I replied ok. So let's end this useless discussion here. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And let me go on record for admitting that I not only have no idea who Takis Fotopoulos is, but also that I don't know what libertarian socialism is in the first place. Yes, I'm totally ignorant when it comes to both Fotopoulos and libertarian socialism. And if there was a dispute or controversy between supporters of Takis Fotopoulos (whose ideas I'm entirely unfamiliar with) and other people on Wikipedia, I don't want to know. Moderatelyaverage (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, on the Golden Dawn (Greece) article, there were at least three users (including me, User:RJFF and User:Dolescum) who reverted attempts by IP editors (mostly) who removed properly sourced material and falsified quoted material. These other two Wikipedians I'm referring to, with whom I worked closely on that article, clearly labeled these attempts by the IP editors to remove sourced material and falsify quoted material as vandalism. Perhaps they are sock puppets too? Moderatelyaverage (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Additionally, I would like to point out that, as per Judge Gary Brown's verdict earlier this year, an IP address does not identify a person. Neither does origin from the same geographic location (country or even prefecture or even city) mean that two persons are the same. Two persons might very well be editing from the same city or the same region (which might entail a number of cities and towns, served by a central hub that is in one of these cities, therefore making users from different cities appear like they are actually connecting from the city where the hub is located). Does this mean they know each other or are the same person? I'd say this is a bit of a long shot. And also, agreeing with someone else on the internet on a certain matter, or a number of matters, does not mean you are the same person as the one you agree with; and it doesn't mean you'll agree with that person on every other matter you might happen to discuss with him or her. Moderatelyaverage (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Umm ... there doesn't seem to be a lot of overlap in our CVs, except perhaps an interest in the truth ... And an ignorance of Takis what's his name. I didn't even remember who he was - I must have blundered onto his page and then SentientContrarian's talk page during some idle surfing. Guess I won't do that again!Bougatsa42 (talk) 20:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could I please request to be left out of any disagreements you may have with anyone else? I really don't like being involved, especially against my will and/or without my knowledge, in controversies I never participated in. I don't know who Takis Fotopoulos is, I didn't know who SentientContrarian and Elp Gr are or were, I don't know who you are and I have no interest in the former royal family of Greece whatsoever. Could I please be left alone and out of these controversies that I simply don't care for? Moderatelyaverage (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to reiterate, there does not seem to be a great overlap between the backgrounds, interests and priorities of the other 'sock-puppets' and myself.Bougatsa42 (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 'Latest revision as of 22:18, 1 October 2012 Bougatsa42 accusing me of Vandalism during the 3O process at Talk:Frederica of Hanover and while this SPI is still open.'

My complaint was made before the SPI, or at least before I knew anything about it. I rather assumed that the SPI was some kind of pathetic tit for tat - if I'm wrong about that I apologise.

The above list looks rather like an attempt at character assassination than actual evidence.Bougatsa42 (talk) 23:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only commenting because I was asked to by Moderatelyaverage, leaving after this: While I was not convinced by Dr K's case that Bougatsa42 is connected (he's complained about both the far-right and far-left without using the word Nazi), I do find convincing the evidence connecting Moderatelyaverage with Elp.Gr (both use "pro-nazi" discussing Greek politics, both into Fender instruments). I also find it odd that both Bougatsa42 and Moderatelyaverage started claiming ignorance of Takis Fotopoulos here though, and would see a CU result of "likely" as damning. I do find it odd that 79.129.27.37 (who also uses "pro-nazi" discussing Greek politics) went after the Takis Fotopoulis article. Considering this, I'm...
  • Certain that Moderatelyaverage is Elp.Gr/SentientContrarian,
  • Certain that 79.129.27.37 is either Moderatelyaverage or Bougatsa42,
  • Open to the possibility that 79.129.27.37 might be both Bougatsa42 and Moderatelyaverage,
  • Open to the possibility that Bougatsa42 may be connected or totally unconnected.
...Consequently, I have to say that all the accused belong in this investigation, if only to sort out who's who. I recommend indefs for any one who comes out "likely" on the CU. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else not heard of Takis Fotopoulos before? If so, for God's sake don't mention it. If two defendants happen to refer to the same points, raised by Dr. K. and nobody else, does that mean they are one and the same? Should we have colluded, agreeing that one defendant deal with half the points, and the other the others? Bougatsa42 (talk) 01:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the past 24 hours Dr.K. has 1) unjustifiably accused me of personal attacks 2) launched an SPI against me, on no grounds 3) endeavoured to start an edit war, by reverting my edits on the Georgios Grivas page (of six weeks ago) without explanation ,and then accused me of doing the same.

Is this what was done to Sentient? There seems to be nothing I can do to stop this kind of harassment. Feel free to kick me out of your club - I won't mind.Bougatsa42 (talk) 02:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now let's get to the use of the "language barrier" term. I suppose the use of a standard English language term (see the wikipedia entry here: Language barrier) by more than one persons makes them one and the same. In the same essence, usage of the words "in", "out", "and", "if", "or", "red", "green", "blue" etc by several editors under similar circumstances is a sure-fire way to say that they are the same person. There's a logical error here. By the way, I am using OTE's Conn-X service. This means that I am on a dynamically assigned IP and, well, I have no control over what IP will be given to me when the need arises for me to reset my router or after the connection has failed and has been restored again. Of course, this means that anyone from the IP range of a randomly chosen hub could be... me. Look, I'll play along, since you have determined that I must be all those different users. Just go and block OTE's entire IP range, because everyone using OTE is a sockpuppet of mine. Similar IPs or IPs coming from the same provider... Usage of pretty much standard-issue English language with standard, perhaps unimaginative, terms (the one we foreigners learn through private tuition and then proceed to mix American English and British English elements in a mid-atlantic recipe)... Sensitivity towards the rise of racism, fascism and nazism in Greece... Oh, and I have talked about Fender guitars in the past (although I personally own an Ibanez). Although there are literally thousands of people like me in Greece, all of them have to be me. In that vein, perhaps we should consider all authors of scientific articles to be one and the same person, because they all write in exactly the same way that is dictated by the preferred manuals of style. And if they're from the same country or city, well, they all are the same single person. At first, I was annoyed and even angered by User:Bougatsa42's confrontational approach. Now I'm extremely amused by the whole situation. Moderatelyaverage (talk) 04:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

Sorry if this is in the wrong place, but I find Coren's response unsatisfactory. Firstly, there is no explanation or evidence given for his/her conclusions. I would be interested to know how far these were influenced by the somewhat umm... unimpressive observations of Ian.Thomson. Secondly, Dr.K. has clearly been waging a hate campaign against myself (vandelism, sock-puppetry, edit-war all in the space of a few hours) and maybe the other 'accused'. As his/her accusations are clearly vexatious, surely they are invalid, regardless of whether the other 'accused' are sock-puppets? Has any action been taken about the vexatious complaints and the harassment of myself by Dr.K.? Am I perhaps due an apology? Does anyone care? Bougatsa42 (talk) 02:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • information Note: The previous tags and blocks were a mess, so I have re-blocked and re-tagged Elp_gr with the former account taken to be the master. I've indeffed and tagged Moderatelyaverage as a new sock of this group, and I am taking no action against Bougatsa. I'm also leaving the IP alone, given that it hasn't edited since January. Marking for closure, AGK [•] 22:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess hate campaigns are OK on Wikipedia ... Bougatsa42 (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SentientContrarian/Archive&oldid=1079420298"