Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Martinvl/Archive

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Can someone take a look at the recent actions by account User:Garamond Lethe and see if they agree with me that there is a series of events that, at least, require closer scrutiny, specifically its relationship with account User:Martinvl, which is now indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing and topic banned from measurements related articles.

The Garamond Lethe account had laid inactive for 6 months from 20 April 2013. Then at 18:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC), just after a 48-hour block for disruptive editing had expired on the Martinvl account, Garamond Lethe sprung back into action, its first use in 6 months was to join a discussion in defence of a postion held by User:Martinvl at Template talk:Systems of measurement, which had reached deadlock and with the template locked following edit-warring involving account Martinvl. Note that although the Garamond Lethe account is not listed in the prior history of either the template or its talkpage, the opening remark made by Garamond Lethe is: "Hi Michael. I've worked with Martinvl before in this area;...".

That template discussion then progressed until Martinvl appeared to misinterpret the view of one of the other contributors as an agreement with his position there - the "compromise version". At that point, account Garamond Lethe made a u-turn, withdrawing a proposed change to instead support the mistaken interpretation given by Martinvl using these words: "Per offline discussion with Martinvl, I'll withdraw this an support the compromise version. I think that means we've reached a consensus." (my bold) Note the "offline discussion" element.

In the meantime, a discussion which started at 15:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC) about the disruption caused at WT:MOSNUM by the Martinvl account was progressing at WP:ANI. By 19:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC), a proposal to consider a topic ban on Martinvl had been added. In its 5th edit following its 6-month break, at 14:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC), the Garamond Lethe account was used to oppose the proposed Martinvl topic ban. The Martinvl account was, however, topic banned shortly after.

At 16:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC), after losing a 1st topic ban appeal of 21:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC), Martinvl launched a 2nd appeal. An early result of of that discussion, which is still open at the time of writing this, was that at 17:30, 28 October 2013 the Martinvl account was indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing, on top of the topic ban. Shortly after that block, at 18:55, 28 October 2013, account Garamond Lethe contributed to the discussion, calling for that ban to be relaxed. That comment still stands, despite the majority there seemingly supporting the ban and even the indefinite block.

Then, after I had performed a series of 5 changes to the measurements related article mesures usuelles (an article I arrived at following links from the recently promoted GA article History of the metric system) which Martinvl had contributed to previously, but which Garamond Lethe had never been involved with, at 22:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Garamond Lethe jumped heavily on my changes there, and with an inflammatory edit summary. I immediately reverted that change, and complained about it on the Garamond Lethe talkpage.

Shortly after that exchange, at 23:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC), Garamond Lethe raised this SPI against me and also against User:EzEdit, the account used to challenge Martinvl's actions at Template talk:Systems of measurement and elsewhere in the measurements articles, following it up with a direct appeal to an administrator, presumably in the hope of a swift and decisive response to his report in an attempt to prevent further challenges to the work of Martinvl.

It appears to me as though Garamond Lethe is acting on behalf of, or is in some way controlled by, the user of the Martinvl account. Could this be the case? Credibility gap (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Shortly before I submitted the above report, Garamond Lethe posted another attack to Talk:Mesures usuelles. Credibility gap (talk) 14:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Clerk note: copied the argument from WP:ANI into this case page so that it doesn't get lost. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 16:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• Clerk endorsed - After discussion with a few others, we're caught in a strange place. On the one hand there are significant behavioral dissimilarities which suggest these are not the same user. On the other hand, there are significant similarities that suggest that they are related. Strangely, this is not a "gray area" case but rather one with conflicting information. I'm endorsing this for a check to clarify the conflicting information. There is enough positive evidence here to warrant a check. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 16:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
• Unrelated Across continents, and really no overlap in any technical capacity. NativeForeigner ^Talk 17:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
• Administrator note Closing this case with no action. It is possible that the two users are influencing each other, but it is clear with the added clarification from checkuser that these are not the same user. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

When discussing these things it is always slightly tricky to decide what evidence to provide without rendering that evidence useless for future detection. I have experience of socks changing their style when their style ticks were revealed as evidence. So I tend to be a little cagey about the precise style points that I use to justify my point.

Basically I agree with what Wee Curry Monster has said. Behavioural evidence convinces me that JJada was Martinvl. I rather felt at the time that the case against JJada was stale and that there was no real benefit in pursuing it. I was aware the Martin would likely pursue unblock at some stage, but there was no actual unblock request or discussion of unblocking, and the edits were by that stage a month in the past.

I find this reasoning less convincing today for two reasons:

• Martin's unblock request explicitly invoked WP:STANDARDOFFER. The last edit by JJada was 28 August, meaning that Martin has not waited 6 months without socking before requesting unblock. While the formal request on his talk has been declined, there has been active discussion on that page about the circumstances in which unblock might be permissible. I note that I am on record as opposing unblock at this time for reasons unrelated to sockpuppetry, and I probably wouldn't be pursuing this even now if this were the only factor.
• Martin has insisted that an SPI be filed, and given previous conduct if it wasn't we would never hear the end of it. Sound like turkeys voting for Christmas? Maybe, but as WCM notes, it wouldn't be the first time.

I finally note that Martin's first request for a limited unblock in fact came on (or soon before) 1 September, 4 days after JJada's last edit, by e-mail to an admin who then posted it to WP:AN. We do know that Martin was also active at that time. Note that that request is different from the request I cite in my bullet point above that invoked WP:STANDARDOFFER, filed using {{unblock}} the day after the expiry of the topic ban (26 October). Kahastok talk 17:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a clear case of mistaken identity.

• I checked my diary against the postings made by JJada. JJade mde three posting on 5 May 2014. At that time I was travelling in the Netherlands. I took the photograph for this Wikimedia Commons image on the previous day and posted it a few days later when I returned from my travels. I am willing to forward copies of the relevant e-mails confirming my travel arrangements for that period to a person who has Check User clearance. They can then compare the IP addresses for 5 May 2014 against the other IP addresses used by JJade.

• Had I made the changes that JJada made here, I would have followed the convention used on Page 2 (Para 1.1) of this document and used the word "quantities", not "expressions".

• JJade finished this sentence with a preposition. Although my writing style is far from perfect, I am always careful to avoid finishing sentences with prepositions.

Whoever JJada might be, I am not JJada. -- User:Martinvl, copied from his talk page.

Note: my understanding is that we would normally post such defences here for blocked users. This appears to be breaking the letter of WP:EVASION, so I'll say that I'm happy for admins to remove this and my response as they see fit. Kahastok talk 21:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Now there's some interesting arguments in here. First, I have no idea if CU can actually check as far back as 5 May (it could well be impossible). Patently it is not impossible to edit Wikipedia from the Netherlands, so the fact that Martin might have been in the Netherlands is not really proof of anything. And I would argue that it is almost always bad practice for admins to ask for or accept personal information from an editor as proving that they are not sockpuppets, because there is no guarantee that the information is accurate and because of the issues surrounding the privacy policy. We should avoid this becoming an expectation on those accused of sockpuppetry.

The truth is that the case for Martin to be blocked has never relied on sockpuppetry. He is not currently blocked for sockpuppetry, and will not be unblocked if JJada is not his sock. One senses that this process (like his going on about edit warring) may become another distraction from the real issues with Martin's editing - the Wikilawyering, the IDHT tactics and so on. Martin is already blocked, and the discussion on Martin's talk has basically stalled. It's not exactly impossible that regardless of the position here, Martin will still be blocked on the six month anniversary of JJada's last edit. Kahastok talk 21:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• The use of "revoke" instead of "revert" in this edit summary is a Martinism (see similar use at , , , and .) The fine distinction between "measurement" and "expression" in that edit is one that only Martinvl think to make (and think to check in the relevant literature, per his comments above). There are a couple of other tells that I'll withhold for now. The account should be blocked as a sock. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Oddly, when I saw that revert (or revocation, or recantation, or whatever you want to call it) I initially thought it was another DeFacto attack. A young account with a few edits that starts disrupting anything to do with measurement. But I agree with the comments above that it's not really DeFacto's MO. On the other hand, Martinvl has no history of socking that I'm aware of (the only previous accusation that I can find against him was a spurious one raised by DeFacto, accusing Garamond Lethe of being his sock, which was obviously silly). Archon 2488 (talk) 13:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Archon 2488, when I started looking into this I was certain I was going to find that DeFacto was the sockmaster. I just couldn't get the evidence to line up that way (and believe me, I tried). If Martin was indeed socking and he chose to own up to this, I don't see it being that big of a deal in the greater scheme of things; the edits weren't disruptive, they stopped well before the SPI began, and by all accounts this was one-off. I could see pushing the the next indef block review down the road six weeks (but not six months). The fact that Martin tried to raise a defense makes this a little more awkward, but not impossibly so. On the other hand, if this isn't Martin socking, then the sockmaster can probably repeat this performance at will. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 00:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Update: Martinvl and I have been discussing this offline, and while the points he raises are not individually persuasive, how he's raising them has shaken my confidence in my earlier conclusions. If you're willing to grant that DeFacto was aware of the revoke/revert distinction, and that DeFacto eventually got bored and wandered off when he realized Martinvl wasn't around to torment, then the rest of the evidence can easily point either way. Given that Martinvl has no history of socking and that the IP addresses are likely stale, I would prefer that this be closed and archived without further action. As what has persuaded me is my reading of a private converation, I don't expect my summation here will be persuasive to others, but there you go. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there is conclusive evidence in support of any of the candidates. Some of the edits seem typical of DeFacto. He did recently adopt a standard patttern of 10 edits on an unrelated topic, often adopting a different persona, even nationality, possibly related to the country of the proxy he was using for that particular account, but before that his pattern was to make a few constructive edits on metrication topics, such as copyedits, as here. There are some superficial similarities with Martinvl's choice of vocabulary etc. but otherwise it does not look typical of Martinvl. The distinction between "expression" and "measurement" or "quantity" is something Martinvl would pay attention to, but Jjada merely reverted an edit by Archon 2488, and there could have been all sorts of reasons for that. The sloppy style of some contributions also looks like something that Martinvl would probably find himself incapable of writing. The contributions to WT:MOSNUM look like like trollish parodies of pro-metrication people, for instance appearing to agree with another editor and adding a comment on the lines of "SI is better. We should always use SI".

I have considered a number of theoretical possibilities.

I would say it is possible but unlikely that this is a sock of Martinvl and possible but fairly unlikely that this is a sock of DeFacto.

It could be an anti-metric editor other than DeFacto, trying to discredit those in favour of metrication, possibly one familiar with other editors' styles. Some elements of the contributions seem to present a caricature of metric positions. I have looked at WT:MOSNUM for similar caricatures but found no convincing evidence of this being a sock of any specific, known anti-metric or pro-metric editor.

It could be an unknown troll, not necessarily a sock, with no pro- or anti-metric agenda, just looking for a controversial topic but there are probably more rewarding topics.

It could be a troll who has previous involvement with metrication but not necessarily a previous contributor to WT:MOSNUM, i.e. a socking troll. On balance, I think this is the most likely possibility.

Checkuser data, if available, might at least provide evidence of the country of origin and the proxy used. --Boson (talk) 14:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Declined. There are several problems with this report. First, JJada has made only a handful of edits, so there's little to go on. Second, despite the lengthy discussions by the editors who are apparently familiar with Martin, there's been barely any diffs presented linking the two accounts. If all we have to go on is the interest intersection and the use of revoke, that's pretty thin. Third, it appears that the main reason for filing this report months after JJada's last estimate is based on Martin's behavior, meaning we should block JJada to punish Martin for his misbehavior. A CU would be possible as the last edit by JJada was at the end of August, but given all the problems with the report, I'm not inclined even to endorse a CU. As for a fishing expedition based on other possible masters, I don't think so.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)