Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sarsaparilla: Difference between revisions

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

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

– A checkuser has completed a check on relevant users in this case, and it is now awaiting administration and close.

• Markshale (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

It seems odd to start an official sock investigation on this editor, considering that he has been blocked so many times by Alison, WP:ArbCom or the WP:WMF without one (sometimes with my help), but I'm going ahead and reporting him in case Alison is busy or doesn't want to take on this case. While almost starting an official case on him today under the Tisane title, I was reminded (when looking at past evidence) that I started a case on him in 2015 under the Sarsaparilla name.

Anyway, I recently stated the following on my talk page:

I am 100% certain that Markshale is Tisane (talk · contribs)/Sarsaparilla. I would rather not divulge these easy ways to recognize Tisane here out in the open since he will likely try to change his editing style afterward, but the following is how I know that Markshale is Tisane....

• For one, we know that Tisane is interested in law topics and child sexual abuse topics. The first few edits by Markshale show that he is as well; see here, here and here.

• Tisane has a habit of signing his edit summaries with a dash. This is seen here, here, here, here and here.

• • Tisane did the same as Yev Yev (talk · contribs). See here.

• • He's doing the same as Markshale. See here, here and here.

• Now while some other editors have signed their edit summaries with a dash, Tisane does something that I don't think I've seen any other editor consistently do... He has a unique habit of adding an asterisk (*) to his edit summary when adding something to the See also section or when making a similar edit. See here, here, here and here for examples.

• • He did the same as Yev Yev. See here, here, here, and here.

• • He's doing the same as Markshale, as seen here, here, here, here

• What led me to immediately recognize Markshale as Tisane is that after I'd recently noticed that Tisane, while editing as Yev Yev, created the Types of rapist article a month after I kind of opposed it, I saw that Markshale recently created the Sex robot article a month after I opposed it. Coincidence? I think not. Tisane does stuff like this, keep track of my edits and then goes against them by creating an article or similar, because he feels that I'm not doing all of what needs to be done for sexual topics. That (in my own words) I have gotten lazy. He's stated this on my talk page. Of course, laziness is not what has me and others disagreeing with a lot of Tisane's edits.

Now because the Sarsaparilla and Tisane accounts are stale, you will need to compare the Markshale account to one of Tisane's more recent socks. Beembly (talk · contribs), Valuable content creator (talk · contribs), Zenitnaya (talk · contribs) and Hitotsume (talk · contribs) are recent ones...in that order. Even if the checkuser data does not connect Markshale to these accounts, I assure you that Markshale is Tisane. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, what other accounts did you compare Markshale to? And can we leave this case open long enough to have Alison or the WP:WMF weigh in? I'll contact Alison on her talk page, making my case, and I'll have the WP:WMF contacted via email. I'm not sure how Tisane beat the checkuser tool this time, but going by checkuser evidence is not the be all and end all for sock investigations. Behavioral evidence should also be a factor. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jdogno5/Archive; it is a cautionary tale about relying solely on checkuser evidence. That editor managed to beat the checkuser data. It took me compiling additional behavioral evidence just to get that editor blocked. He was free for a year to roam with destructive edits. The behavioral evidence for Tisane/Markshale is here, especially his consistent use of an asterisk (*) for his edit summary when adding something to the See also section. I ask editors: How many other editors have they seen do that, or consistently do that? More examples are here, here and here. In addition to what I stated above, Markshale is also preoccupied with redirects, just like Tisane was. See here, here, here and here for examples. At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sarsaparilla/Archive#30 June 2012, Eastlaw, for example, noted Tisane's preoccupation with redirects. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Behavioral evidence so far

• Markshale, like Tisane, is interested in child sexual abuse and law topics.
• Markshale, like Tisane, has a habit of signing his edit summaries with four tildes (I previously stated a dash, but I meant tildes).
• Markshale, like Tisane, consistently uses an asterisk (*) for his edit summary when adding something to the See also section. Have you seen any other Wikipedia editor do that, or consistently do that?
• Markshale, like Tisane, is preoccupied with redirects.
• Markshale, like Tisane, created an article for a sexual topic one month after I opposed the creation.
• Markshale, like Tisane, consistently includes the template in his edit summary when adding a template to an article (see the new evidence below).

All of that does not add up to one big coincidence. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, just like Tisane, he is currently ignoring the fact that I've identified him. It usually isn't until after his latest account is blocked as a Tisane account that he then does a drive-by assault to my talk page, complaining. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, I appreciate you clarifying. As for contacting others, a second checkuser opinion, such as Ponyo's, wouldn't hurt. But either way, it's become clear that this case needs to be decided on behavioral evidence, not checkuser evidence. You mentioned that the case "will be closed whenever a clerk or an administrator decides it's appropriate." To that, I state that it will be a big mistake to close this case without an administrator/checkuser blocking Markshale as a sock of Tisane. Above, I linked to a previous sock case where the sock beat the checkuser tool. That sock roamed free for a year even though it was obvious that he was a sock. It's like common sense was lacking in that first SPI and didn't come along until Floquenbeam and Courcelles heard me out. It wasn't until after I added more behavioral evidence that the sock was blocked, but that block should have happened in that first SPI. It should not have taken a second SPI. As you know, socks can be blocked on behavioral evidence alone. I feel that the behavioral evidence I've presented above is strong. Consistent use of an asterisk (*) for an edit summary when adding something to the See also section is a unique trait and I have never seen any other editor except Tisane with that trait. It is one of the main ways that I consistently recognize him. And the odds of the behavior I've presented under "Behavioral evidence so far" belonging to two different people are not good. Like I used to note on my user page, odds (use of mathematics) is one way I would consistently catch socks. Editors such as Beyond My Ken have noted my accuracy. I have never been wrong when 100% certain that an editor is a sock. I do not have anything else to state on this matter, except that I did contact the WP:WMF, and that they may be considering this case. I ask that the clerk or administrator close this case wisely. If Markshale is allowed to roam freely, Tisane will have won. Then again, if it's this easy for him to move about as Markshale, I have no doubt that he has been easily moving about as other accounts as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanvector, thanks for weighing in. Regarding what you've just stated, I have seen various new editors (and a few experienced ones) include four tildes in their edit summaries. I have never seen an editor consistently use an asterisk (*) for his edit summary when adding something to the See also section. And that fact is one of the reasons I've been able to consistently identify Tisane. So I do think that, in context, this evidence is particularly useful. It's things like this that have made it capable for me to easily identify socks. Editors rarely deviate from their mannerisms. I cited the asterisk (*) evidence along with the other evidence, and all of that evidence adds up to Markshale being Tisane. Furthermore, last year, during the WP:ANI thread I started about Tisane, Tisane sent me all sorts of emails (that I no longer have). He has boasted about the day he would be able to beat the checkuser tool and sock as much as he wants to. If this case closes without the Markshale account being blocked, the Markshale account will suddenly start editing again (he's watching right now), and will likely move on to the topics Tisane is known to be interested in (mainly law and child sexual abuse). This case is also currently being watched by pedophiles. All that stated, Tisane is clever, and a block on the Markshale account would not stop him anyway. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note: If it's the case that newbie accounts are more prone to the asterisk popping up, keep in mind that the Tisane account was not new (as in very new; it lasted from February 2010 to August 2010) and that Tisane has used this asterisk style for just about all of his accounts. For instance, he also did it with Leucosticte (as seen here and here) and with his Ferberson account, as seen here. As far as this type of asterisk use goes, the common denominator is Tisane. There is no other editor who has consistently used the asterisk like this, and no other sock who has used it like this across almost all accounts. And edits like this one, the two-style asterisk that he will sometimes use, indicate that this style is not (or at least not always) an automated thing with him. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More evidence

Something else that Tisane consistently does and across almost all of his accounts is include the template in his edit summary when adding a template to an article.

He did it did as Tisane, as seen here, here, here, here, here and here.

He did it as Yev Yev, as seen here and here

He did it as Leucosticte, as seen here, here and here.

He did it as Ferberson, as seen here.

And he is doing it as Markshale, as seen here, here, here, here and here.

Really, the more I look at all of these accounts, the easier it is to see that it's Tisane who has operated all of them. His mannerisms mainly remain the same. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanvector, the reason that I must disagree with you on the edit summary stuff is because these are traits that Tisane has consistently displayed across almost all of his accounts and I have never seen another editor consistently edit like this in all my years of editing this site. You even stated that you "have not been able to reproduce [it yourself]"...as far as an automated response goes. I am certain that Tisane has an actual habit of editing this way. I've looked at all of these accounts, down to every minute detail. This is the same person. Think about how unlikely it is that all of these accounts would consistently display that same edit summary style (the four tildes, the asterisk use, the templates). Add that on top of the other evidence and this does not logically add up to one big coincidence. I don't know what else to state. I really don't. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I can't add to Flyer22's evidence but I do urge that this be addressed based on the behavioral evidence, which is compelling. While there is no acute disruption, the past activities of the sock master have led to a firm bar on their participation in WP or any WMF project. Jytdog (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I also find the behavioral evidence compelling. It is also astonishingly easy to simply edit from multiple locations (go to a different coffee shop), so even if CU draws a blank, it is not dispositive that it is not the same editor. Montanabw^(talk) 23:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Let's face it, checkuser only works on somewhat unsophisticated vandals (e.g. teens and college kids who thing they are being funny). The type of user we're talking about here is both highly knowledgeable of how Wikipedia works and has an ideological agenda, and thus are more that willing to put in the effort to work around common detection methods. The circumstances under which the sock master was banned mark this as a very serious matter, above mere vandalism, and so a thorough evaluation of behavior is required to determine if they are related.Legitimus (talk) 13:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• just want to add here that Flyer has a nose for this kind of thing. Please see (if you are not aware): User_talk:Bishonen#Boilingorangejuice_again. Flyer was raising alarms about that person and it wasn't until somebody on Wikipediocracy pointed out the account that WMF and others took action. Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Markshale is  Unrelated to, for example, Hitotsume--Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Flyer22 Reborn: You're welcome to contact whomever you like, but the case will be closed whenever a clerk or an administrator decides it's appropriate. I am aware of the accounts Alison blocked in August. They are all  Technically indistinguishable from each other and are unrelated to Markshale. There are no other accounts you've listed that are checkable.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: no comment on this case at this time. Just pointing out that the unusual edit summaries described by Flyer22 Reborn are explained by a feature which automatically fills the content of the edit as the edit summary if it is left blank, which entirely explains that behaviour by all of the accounts, and numerous others. I believe it is turned on automatically for accounts newer than some date, but it's off for me and I don't know how to turn it on to demonstrate. So, unfortunately, that evidence is not useful at all to indicate sockpuppetry. I'll be back later if someone doesn't beat me to it, but right now Ivanvector needs coffee. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: Oh lord, you know you're in trouble when you start talking about yourself in the third person.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Flyer22 Reborn: the templates and asterisks appearing in edit summaries is the behaviour that I described above. When the user makes an edit that adds two bullets to a list, the two bullets are filled into their edit summary, hence a double asterisk. I've inquired to verify this is programmatic behaviour since I have not been able to reproduce it myself, but at the moment I am reasonably convinced that those edit summaries are not evidence of sockpuppetry. To everyone else commenting: sockpuppetry is always a behavioural investigation, CheckUser is just one of the tools we can use to demonstrate a behavioural link. An "unrelated" result is not the final word; I assure you we are reviewing all of the evidence. I at least am not familiar with this case, so unless someone with more experience steps in, it will take some time. If you can provide more evidence which is not related to the accounts' use of edit summaries, that will be helpful. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Flyer22 Reborn: I understand what you're saying, and I'm taking it into account. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found another sockpuppet. User:Kim Bruning has an editing pattern that demonstrates he clearly is the same person as Sarsaparilla/Tisane/Leucosticte. For example, in this edit, this edit, and this edit, he ends his edit summary with a dash and four tildes. He also begins his edit summary with an asterisk when adding new items here, here, and here. He also has many of the same interests as Sarsaparilla, including pure wiki deletion; compare this edit by Kim Bruning, to this edit by Tisane. This couldn't be coincidence. SSP Patrolman (talk) 23:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]