Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

User:Elonka

      run at Fri Jul 27 16:07:41 2007 GMT

Category talk:	56
Category:	300
Help:	1
Image talk:	2
Image:	100
Mainspace	23742
Portal talk:	47
Portal:	28
Talk:	2814
Template talk:	84
Template:	293
User talk:	2164
User:	561
Wikipedia talk:	839
Wikipedia:	1240
avg edits per page	1.54
earliest	21:01, 16 September 2005
number of unique pages	20891
total	32271
2005/9 	11 	
2005/10 	7 	
2005/11 	4 	
2005/12 	223 	
2006/1 	1395 	
2006/2 	1103 	
2006/3 	357 	
2006/4 	472 	
2006/5 	363 	
2006/6 	884 	
2006/7 	3585 	
2006/8 	1256 	
2006/9 	4644 	
2006/10 	4851 	
2006/11 	4013 	
2006/12 	1766 	
2007/1 	343 	
2007/2 	1410 	
2007/3 	872 	
2007/4 	769 	
2007/5 	2063 	
2007/6 	1220 	
2007/7 	660

Elonka's editcount summary stats as of 17:07, July 27th 2007, using Interiot's wannabe Kate's tool. (aeropagitica) 16:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That'll teach people to edit in the article namespace. Mackensen (talk) 00:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry[edit]

Switching hats for a moment, there are socks afoot. Orderinchaos (talk · contribs) is also Zivko85 (talk · contribs) and DanielT5 (talk · contribs). From a scan of the contributions this has implications for a number of previous AfDs as well. Up to the bureaucrats what they want done in this instance. Mackensen (talk) 02:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, as far as the RfA goes -- but this should have disciplinary implications for this sockpuppeteer as well, no? Andre (talk) 02:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Socking during RfAs got Runcorn desysopped, and Just H banned. These actions by Orderinchaos should require the same remedies. Sean William @ 02:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the magnitude. We found a long history of RfA disruption with Just H. Orderinchaos appears to make good contributions otherwise, also as I said before, some AfDs might merit re-visiting. Mackensen (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're sure that there isn't some kind of public Australian proxy or something? Andre (talk) 02:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes (rather, there might be, but he's not on it). I can discuss the findings in private if you'd prefer. Mackensen (talk) 02:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as this process is concerned, is it safe to strike the sockpuppets' !votes then, dear Mack? Phaedriel - 02:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people cited "per OIC" in their comments. Jehochman ^Talk 02:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're not votes. Just make it clear to the bureaucrats that the person or person in question is being a bit of a wanker. If someone makes a good point it doesn't matter how many socks he has. --Tony Sidaway 02:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony has a very valid point. A note for the bureaucrats at the RfA main page to make these news more visible may well be all it takes, then. Phaedriel - 02:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked Zivko85 and DanielT5 indefinitely, and Orderinchaos for one week. Adjust as needed. Grand master ka 02:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucrats do take numerical strength into account, however, and if they're definitely sockpuppets, we can indent 2/3 of them, to more accurately reflect the numbers (a source of data but not the source of a decision itself -- thermometer, not reaction). But I think we should wait to hear from Orderinchaos himself before doing anything. I also think that block was a bad idea. Don't you think Mackensen could have blocked himself if it was necessary? I won't revert because I don't want to get into a wheel war. Andre (talk) 02:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, because checkusers generally don't do the blocks themselves. Oderinchaos can post on his talk page, and we can adjust things as needed. But trying to votestack like this has always brought on long blocks in the past. Grand master ka 02:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, I see both points but I would have prefered Orderinchaos to have a chance to explain/defend himself first before he was blocked. Anyway, it probably would be courteous to leave him a message explaining why you have blocked him. WjBscribe 02:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's even the point of blocking for a week? Blocks are preventative, not punitive. When he comes back after the week, what's going to be different except that he won't have edited for a week? Andre (talk) 03:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er wait, Orderinchaos is an admin? Jesus. He should be blocked just for knowing better. But just in case he's innocent, I've asked him to explain on his talk page. pschemp | talk 02:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to Phaedriel: You didn't need to revert yourself, your comments were fine. We might indent them as well, but you can revert yourself back if you want. Andre (talk) 03:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, dear Andre - I preferred to err on the side of caution, and leave it you or another bureaucrat, since that's far closer to your attributions than mine. So please, go for it :) Have a nice day, Phaedriel - 03:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I've done so. Andre (talk) 03:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I'm very, very surprised by this. Orderinchoas is a valuable contributor, so I very much hope there is some explanation for all of this.--cj | talk 03:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that OIC voted for himself at his own RFA in March. See 7. here. Can we look at the overlap between the voters in that RFA and this one and look for more socks? Jehochman ^Talk 03:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, myself and twelve others (so far) posted in RfA Orderinchaos and RfA#2 Elonka: Ageo020, Captain panda, CJ, Cometstyles, DanielT5, Garion96, Gnangarra, IronGargoyle, Jreferee, Orderinchaos, Ozgod, PeaceNT, WJBscribe. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 03:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's particularly relevant.--cj | talk 03:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of these 13, the only one that stands out in the overlap is DanielT5. DanielT5 was adopted by Orderinchaos [1]. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 04:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If so, it should go without saying that he must be desysoped forthwith. Might someone point me to the relevant discussion?Proabivouac 03:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please lets give him a chance to explain himself. The checkuser evidence is damning, but its possible that there is an explanation for the connection discovered between the accounts. He was until recently a contributor in high standing - I think he's earned enough trust that we should be willing to hear him out... WjBscribe 03:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Please all maintain the benefit of the doubt.--cj | talk 03:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation, but from a little poking around it would seem that the three users claim to live in the same town, and Orderinchaos seems to have interacted with Wikipedians in real life. If they're all real people, and have met, then they might simply have logged in with the same internet connection at one point. Does the checkuser show them using different IPs at all? -- Ned Scott 03:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the alleged sockpuppets signed up for that meeting. If only Orderinchaos was there, that doesn't prove anything. Grand master ka 03:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying they met at that meeting, but only that Orderinchaos seems open to meeting other Wikipedians in his area. -- Ned Scott 03:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a thread on WP:AN:WP:AN#Alleged sockpuppetry by Orderinchaos.Proabivouac 03:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now it gets interesting[edit]

See the unblock request on User talk:Zivko85. Grand master ka 03:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the information that so damming I dont see any links to back up these accusations, Gnan garra 03:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mackensen's a checkuser, he checked the IPs. Andre (talk) 03:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be nice if the checkuser process was there as no request has actualy lodged [2] Gnan garra 04:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A public request is not required. pschemp | talk 04:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mackensen is a checkuser. There doesn't need to be a request for a checkuser to perform a check, as happened here.--Chaser - T 04:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to affirm here, for those that haven't seen my responses elsewhere, that I have checked the CheckUser results in detail, and have come to similar conclusions to Mackensen. Orderinchaos and Zivko85 are almost definitely the same person (I fail to see any possible other explanation for these edits); DanielT5 is either a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet for the purposes of this RfA. Rebecca 04:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Investigating Additional Users[edit]

Mackensen, could you check these also, or should I go through all the formalities?

Twenty Years (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This post is odd: [3]. Seems to be the same user as the next one. This user has edited this RFA. [4] [5] [6]

Smbarnzy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User talk page was deleted by OIC: [7]. Commented at OIC's RFA, then changed identities to above and appeared at this RFA.

Could be innocent activity, or not. Thanks! Jehochman ^Talk 04:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Save you the time TY and sbarnzy are the same person a student at Aquinas College in Perth, he and OIC very rarely agree on anythiing. Gnan garra

Besides the current RfA, they agreed on one thing.[8]Proabivouac 04:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is again irrelevant.--cj | talk 04:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(x3 edit conflict) This is un-necessary and irrelevant. These two accounts are by their own admission the one person, and there is nothing to suggest they are being used inappropriately here or at all.--cj | talk 04:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~For the moment I wont make further comments about this as it appears to have done in bad faith solely for the purpose of ensuring that Elonkas RfA is successful~~ Gnan garra 04:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's very out of line for an admin since Nov 2006 to say. Andre (talk) 04:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is very, I'm just upset with the realisation that I too was probably check in this process, my apologies to all concerned and give that I do appear to be a little to affected to be solely neutral in this I wont make any further comments Gnan garra 04:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly understandable, dear Gnangarra - this kind of episodes, no matter the outcome, can surely test anyone's temper as they unfold. Your offer of an apology and your thoughtful comment speak highly of you. Let's hope this matter is cleared soon. All the best, Phaedriel - 04:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. --cj | talk 04:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Phaedriel said. Andre (talk) 04:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Fellow editors, what raised my eyebrow was the following comment from TY's extensive block log: "Abusing multiple accounts: helping a blocked user evade a block by surreptitiously creating an account for him." I dare say when such a user appears at an RFA that is already suffering an attack of sock puppets, the matter deserves close scrutiny. Jehochman ^Talk 04:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not doing a seperate CheckUser, but as someone who has worked with them both, there is about zero possibility of Twenty Years being the same person as Orderinchaos/Zivko85. They both write and behave in a completely different manner. There was also no sign of any link in the CheckUser searches I did on the three accounts at the heard of this matter. Rebecca 04:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman's just performing due diligence here. He's not the type to rush to conclusions. Naturally, though, there are reasons to scrutinize this RFA now that one checkuser result has come in. Durova^Charge! 05:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that TY could be the same as one, or more, of the other accounts that have commented here, not necessarily OIC. We have established the existence of two sock puppets originating from Australia. TY is from Australia too, and he has a history of sock puppetry, and dagnabbit, they're all here at this same RFA. Jehochman ^Talk 05:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to allay those concerns, as I happen to speak with TY on a frequent basis myself and would happily vouch for him not being a sockpuppet of anyone (despite his previous history of operating them). While TY has commented on the RfA, my understanding is that he only became aware of it as he has been watching the contribs of other local project editors who have been mentoring him since returning from a ban, in order to gain some insight into how he could become a better editor. Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that comment. It's very late and I am not going to make any more edits tonight. Could you please alert him to this discussion and ask him to comment? Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 05:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i dont see what the issue is here. I previously operated under the account of Smbarnzy. I stopped using that account near the start of the year, and changed to this username. I informed a few local editors of this change (this is also verified, by my copying of SmbarnZy chatlogs to this users chat archives.

My blocks were the result of helping User:Auroranorth evade a block. I am currently on a probationary block at the discretion of 4 WP:WA administrators (mainly User:Hesperian). I have in the past operated sock-puppets to evade that particular block. But at no other time have i operated sock-puppets. I was involved in no behavior that was against any wikipedia policy. If you have any questions regarding this, please feel free to contact me.Twenty Years 15:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth noting that i am not watchlisting this, because i have no further comment to make. If you wish for further comment, use my talk page or notify me of your question on my talk page. Cheers. Twenty Years 15:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolving the drama[edit]

Orderinchaos, myself, and several other editors have been attempting to work this out on IRC, and I'm reasonably convinced that the other two users concerned are not indeed his sockpuppets, but rather meatpuppets who have edited from his computer specifically to support him. This has little practical effect on this RfA - any votes from Zivko85 and DanielT5 should remain stricken as meatpuppets. However, I suggest that the attempted witchhunt against their fellow Western Australian editors is unwarranted and unhelpful. Rebecca 07:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear about this: I spent over an hour reviewing the evidence before I went public, and I only did so with the gravest reservations because I'd seen Orderinchaos around and he seemed like a good fellow. It's pretty damning though, and I'm left with the impression that he and his friends have Wikipedia editing parties at his house, or something. Which is fine, but if true you guys need to not visit the same RfAs or AfDs. There were no other related accounts that I noticed. Mackensen (talk) 10:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What witchhunt? If I were Mackensen, I'd almost certainly would have come to the same initial conclusion. El_C 10:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Rebecca was referring to the above post, not Mackensen... --Dark Falls ^talk 11:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think she meant the questions about Twenty Years and other WA editors not within the scope of this who happen to vote in similar ways in similar places. I have undertaken to abstain from voting completely for a few months, and I have acknowledged the stupidity of my actions and omissions at the AN and elsewhere. The others, well, it's up to them what they do on their own computer, but no-one who comes around here will be allowed to use Wikipedia, as to be honest the accusations today really did ruin my day and make me feel awful, as well as risking denting the trust of those I have worked with for more than a year, and I don't want to be in this situation again in the months ahead. Orderinchaos 12:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OIC, thank you for your constructive responses. I hope you feel better, and I respect you more because of your response. Jehochman ^Talk 13:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify: I was mainly responding to the allegations of a witch-hunt. I endorse the steps taken by Rebecca to resolve the situation. Mackensen (talk) 11:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~What witchhunt were you referring to Rebecca? It's not very nice to use such words when referring to fellow editors. Please come to my talk page so we can discuss this further.~~ Jehochman ^Talk 12:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A witch-hunt is an intensive effort to discover and expose subversion or the like, usually based on slight, doubtful, or irrelevant evidence. We have proper procedures for all this stuff, including procedures on the use of check user, and it may become a witch-hunt or an attempted witch-hunt if those procedures are bypassed. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 15:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now. Thanks for that. Jehochman ^Talk 16:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Putting in a good word for Jehochman here: he's a longstanding contributor at WP:COIN and WP:BLPN. I'm sure he wouldn't suppose rushed or frivolous accusations, especially in a contentious situation like this one. Very level head on his shoulders. Durova^Charge! 18:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say this, if I see a friend in real life comment on an AfD or an RfA, and I feel I have a valid, independent point or view to make on the same issue, you bet I'll comment. I don't know the personal judgement of OIC's friends, but I don't think a simple real life connection means you can write off concerns as always being meatpuppets.

This whole issue should have been discussed with OIC before making it "public", as a simple matter of respect and assuming good faith. It disturbs me to think how easily swayed the checkusers were because they only considered the checkuser results and ignored everything else, such as behavior and reputation. Didn't we just have an arbcom case about this, about contacting the user first before making drama? -- Ned Scott 21:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take some issue with that statement. I spent close to an hour thinking about it before I went public. I reviewed the contributions over all three users, noting the similar contributions to the same AfDs and the fact that two of them had commented on the same block. That, taken together with a damn near identical IP history between the three users didn't leave much doubt. The kind of meatpuppetry that Orderinchaos admitted to is essentially indistinguishable from sockpuppetry, and usually treated in the same fashion. It's a testament to OIC's reputation and friends that his explanation has been accepted--that's up to the community, and the community is rarely so forgiving.
Yes, drama. I do regret that I didn't contact him privately beforehand, and I have privately apologized to him for not doing so. If someone wants to move a motion of censure for me not taking my own advice I'll accept that. Whether the outcome would have been any different is beside the point. Mackensen (talk) 21:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I gone done made an ass of myself again. My apologies. -- Ned Scott 21:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think so, Ned. You're just speaking your mind, and if that helps clear things up, go right ahead. Jehochman ^Talk 01:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no need for any action against Mackensen, doing check user can/does draw flak when its a troll. Its understandable and regrettable that when its a trusted and respect community memeber that flak will get a little more heated. You did a wonderful job in the most difficult of circumstance. Gnan garra 01:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]