User talk:Proabivouac/Oldwindybear&Stillstudying

Discussion

WOW, this is amazing, I'm glad Wikipedia has such dedicated people on it. Good Job! :) --User:Atomic Religione

Thank you. However, none of this should have been necessary: it was already obvious that OWB and SS were one and the same to anyone who looked, as was stated quite plainly on WP:ANI and in two previous reports. When it comes to sockpuppetry, completely obvious apparently isn't enough. This is not a story of OWB's clever deception, but of WP's collective incompetence. Several individuals blew the whistle at various points, but were completely ignored. Thus, OWB was encouraged to continue a pattern he might otherwise have abandoned.Proabivouac 02:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all this proof perhaps you can finally bring this to the attention of everybody. I was surprised to see OWB's page still up after reading all this, mush less him being an admin. Good luck. Atomic Religione 03:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been casually interested since the RFA and the subsequent ANI discussion (I recall wondering what the shortest tenure as admin is). Your evidence looks pretty damning and I'm curious to see the fall-out. Cheers! Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 05:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can add me to the list of folks who are thoroughly convinced by this comprehensive research. Shalom ^Hello 06:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

impressive... although, seeing OWB's stout refusal to admit to sockpuppetry, I find it conceivable that SS, FWS etc. is in fact a different person, a personal acquaintance (nephew, son, or similar -- which would also explain the similar idiomatics). That'd still be meatpuppeteering, I suppose, but the line between simple off-wiki communication and blatant meatpuppetry is less clear. dab (𒁳) 11:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking very hypothetically, it might, in some uncanny serendipitous world, explain the idioms. I wouldn't accept it, but you could make that argument. It would not explain the shared invariable spelling errors, unless this influential older relative also taught the younger one how to spell. Such a scenario also ignores the editing times, per Barneca. In any event, OWB denied it just as surely as he's denied sockpuppetry.[1]Proabivouac 11:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see (just playing devil's advocate here). I must admit, seeing that OWB has also explicitly denied meatpuppetry, your case here would seem to be rather overwhelming. dab (𒁳) 11:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

here's another thought: this sort of thing might be abused by really dedicated trolls in the future. Suppose one of my trolling nemesises really really wants to see me de-adminned. Their best hope would be to sign up as a new user who is adoringly supportive of me and follows me around supporting whatever I do. At first, I would probably be flattered and feel pleased. And after a few months, bang, I'm exposed as a double-voting sockpuppeteer. Now because of checkuser, this would only work if the troll happened to be from the same metropolitan area. It's still worth a thought. A computer-literate troll could even scan for open proxies in my neighbourhood. Obviously, somebody going to such lengths would need to have some sort of strong motivation, viz. either real-life or on-wiki enmity. I am not suggesting this is what we are looking at here, I'm just asking you to consider the scenario in general... dab (𒁳) 12:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, a man planning to sock could promote that as a plusible scenario he could cite it later in his defense. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind, the evidence connecting their writing styles was entirely post-facto - I was already convinced this was the same writer upon viewing a few passages. From there, it was only a matter of distilling this feeling into some presentable form. I am certain that, were I funded to do so, I could write a book on the OWB/SS style. The circumstantial evidence was only what made me look. Imagine being me, having already assembled all those points, and then yesterday, finding something like this. It would take an expert who had thoroughly reviewed and analyzed your contribs to convincingly create that.Proabivouac 12:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I see. You have done an impressive piece of detective work here, Proabivouac. dab (𒁳) 12:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lessons?

I see this has already been resolved. I didn't want to beat a dead horse on ANI, but by God I'll beat one here. I've had a few things to get off my chest, and resisted the urge while this was ongoing. In no particular order, as they pour out of my brain:

Dbachman, your dedicated trolling scenario is concerning, but (a) they would have to live in the same metropolitan area, and (b) the victim of such trolling could not help but notice, early on, that they were being set up, and would have a chance to nip it in the bud. Here, OWB/SS/FWS/HLB/etc had, I believe, approximately two years to know something was up, including Mac1953 claiming to be their brother.
I originally considered the "close relative theory", but Proabivouc's extraordinarily comprehensive "grammer" and style evaluation leave no conceivable doubt it is the same person.
I still have to be careful about holding my tongue, because I'm very angry and want to remain somewhat civil, but I gave OWB numerous chances, on-wiki and by voluminous private email, to find a face-saving way out. I was quite willing to have his supporters think that he gave up his admin bit for the good of the community, and that my previous accusations were frivolous. Instead, he tried to play me for a fool. His claims of concern for the community at this point are not believable. As I went through a vast sampling of his contributions in the last few days, any tiny shred of doubt was rapidly erased, and I have grown to deeply resent the effort he forced (especially) Proabivouac and I to go through.
For anyone who believes there is the tiniest chance that we've driven an innocent, or even technically-guilt-but-relatively-harmless editor away from here, I ask you to spend just half an hour looking through random samplings of his article talk page contributions. Try Talk:Battle of Tours, if you can make heads or tails of any of the early stuff.
I will put this bluntly, and can be this blunt only because I am completely, 100% backed up by the diffs Proabivouac and I have dug up: In spite of the warm feelings OWB has generated in many people, on the majority of the talk page discussions he has participated in, he has been a bully. Essentially from day one. Really. Please, if you think I'm overstating it, look at some diffs. He accuses every single editor that disagrees with him of having a vendetta, or a POV, or of persecuting him because he is a vet. Just off the top of my head, he initially treated Katefan0, Mytwocents, and Butseriouslyfolks this way. If I didn't dread looking through any more diffs, I could easily find five more such editors. Only when confronted by editors that will stand their ground and not go away does he change gears and buddy up to them.
I'm satisfied with the voluntary desysoping solution, because I think it might be in our best interests to not draw this out.
I say "might", because, like Proabivouac, I think there needs to be an evaluation, by the community, about how we allowed someone who so obviously gamed the system for a long time to (as he loves to point out) unanimously gain our trust. I say "our" trust because I am not at all confident that I would have caught anything if I had voted in that RfA. Probably: "Been here a long time, lots of experienced admins and editors supporting; why not?" A half hour look through his contributions raises a warning flag; the resulting further review should have resulted in alarm bells. Proabivouac's exhaustive research is necessary to convince strong doubters, but a reasonably short, diligent study of OWB's contribs is all it takes to realize that something is not right. I have not really participated in RfA much before, but if and when I start, I know one thing for sure: no one is ever going to get my support before I spend a minimum of an hour digging deeply into their contribution history. I will never again assume others have done so. If a decent-sized group of people spend a half hour going through random samples of a candidate's contribs, this kind of thing can be discovered earlier.
OWB has threatened to leave, over the last two years, approximately a dozen times. When he comes back this time, I hope others will keep a close eye on him, because I am done with looking at his edits.
Proabivouac rocks. Look through his contribution history the last few days and note how much time and care he put nto this. I would have taken two weeks to come up with something half as comprehensive. (And Pro, just so you know, I'm still going to spend an hour looking through your diffs when your RfA comes up).

</rant> --barneca (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not as if OWB was particularly devious, as someone else already said. By editing from different ips he guaranteed checkuser would find edits from different ips. The larger problem is not that a sufficiently knowledgeable and committed user can abuse multiple accounts and get away with it. That's always going to be true. The problem (one problem) is we rely way too much on checkuser, and that over-reliance is a flaw people use to their advantage. It is just a tool, not a magic spell to reveal a user's true identity. Sometimes it gives an obvious answer, sometimes not. If we use it mechanistically we leave a big opening for abuse. Also, good points about RfA above. I rarely vote, but I will be especially careful in the future. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

checkuser is an important facet in building a case. Checkuser is most useful because the would-be sockpuppeteers know we have it, and are forced to invest much more pains in covering their tracks than they would otherwise have to. Remember that checkuser isn't just about IPs, it's also about browser identification strings. Yes, you can circumvent checkuser, but you need a certain determination to bother doing it. In the case at hand, checkuser only provides circumstantial evidence.

barneca: yes, this case should be taken seriously. Just because there won't be an arbcom hearing doesn't mean we shouldn't learn from it. Ultimately, there will always be isolated cases like OWB, but I doubt they are a big threat to Wikipedia. People with such determination to deceive will always be rare, and they will always need to keep up a semblance of good faith, which in itself translates to benefit for the project. I maintain that the danger emanating from tag-teams of (truly plural) editors with some agenda (nationalist or otherwise) to subvert encyclopedicity is much graver (since nationalism and religion are capable of breeding true communities of people with an interest in falsifying our coverage of a certain topic). Still, it is a good thing OWB was caught, as it is damaging to our credibility to have such cases among our admin population go unnoticed.

the flaws in RfA are well known, and well-discussed. RfA is just the 'least bad' system. The comforting part is that with our large admin population, a single bad egg doesn't get to cause too much damage. But a rogue admin is still a great liability, and I have long thought that we need a clean de-adminning process for problem admins.

dab (𒁳) 14:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested in checkuser on all the many names + ip addresses cited ... (the various Blairs et al). OWB/SS has also grossly abused Mytwocents in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Oldwindybear ... I'm not sure why more attention was not given to OWB's bizarre creation of SS's talkpage, noted by Mytwocents. I must say I agree with all Barneca's 'rant' and am surprised, given all this, that there is any support for OWB (or any of his clones) ever being welcome back in any capacity. (There was an email sent by OWB to Jonashart 'from work' earlier this month - might that reveal an i.p. address in its headers?) -- roundhouse0 14:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the creation of SS's talk page by OWB is very damning, and in retrospect should have lead to a more careful investigation of the original sockpuppetry case. OWB was very effective in being offended and attacking his accusers. Looking at the WP:SSP case it is likely this that prevented an investigation. He did this again in the Checkuser case and ANI thread of last week, and I see the same thing today. He did a "very good" job creating the charade. This case shows that WP:AGF, which works well in general, can be used to deflect suspicion. OWB's sockpuppetry was only exposed because two people decided to look more carefully. Kudos again to Proabivouac and Barneca! -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 15:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to thank Proabivouac and barneca for carrying the water for all of us who suspected that OWB and SS were one and the same person. Based on the list of user names at the head of the page we were being fooled by a master puppeteer. I made a concerted effort to avoid any comments during OWB's RFa. I wanted to avoid what would have been seen as sour grapes if I had would voted oppose to OWB's nom, based on my old suspicions of his sockpuppetry. This would have lead to a showdown on the RFa page. I now see in hindsight that such a showdown was inevitable. Using Occam's razor, the evidence presented here, shows that the simplest answer is that OWB and SS are the same person, posting from work and home. End of story. I agree with a point raised on this page, that we must improve the process of determining sock puppetry, and nipping in the bud such trollish and hurtful behaviour before it grows. The history of OWB's conflicts with Salty Pig, Katefano, myself, and several others shows that the person behind the OWB persona should have been constrained from such melodramatic behaviour, years before he/she had any chance at getting an adminship. Mytwocents 16:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The more I follow leads on OWB, the stranger it gets. Here is an interesting page; User:CyclePat\building a case for RFC\Bonnie and Clyde that highlights the "confrontation" between User:SaltyPig and OWB. Looking at the story laid out on this page, it looks like the Pig was some sort of archnemesis of the Bear.... I remember seeing this when I searched OWB's editing history during my run-in with him last year. At the time I rationalised that the bad experience he had with the Pig may have led to him being so defensive with me. He mentions Salty Pig in some of his earlist posts regarding his content dispute with me over the Bonnie and Clyde page. Now, I'm thinking strawman... Is it possible that Salty Pig was an evil doppelganger of OWB? This had occurred to me at the time, but I dismissed it because of the dissimilar tone of their posts. Perhaps a closer scrutiny would reveal a similar use of phrases. I suppose it's a moot point now though. But here's a link I find chilling, reading it at midnight. Note the spot on prophesy of 15th February 2006 "they'll (wikipedia) never be rid. bet you live to be 105. bet you're an admin within a year, with anybody born with half a clue still trying to polish your worthless "contributions" into embarrassing articles. you're the special olympics of the "do-gooder" wikipedia moron squad. and i will drive to the local tavern to buy everybody a round when that admin slot gets your name." I'll have to say, the more one looks into OWB's past the more it feels like 'Alice through through the looking glass' Mytwocents 04:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what comes from thinking about this at midnight. For a while, I was seeing potential socks everywhere too, and there might actually be a few left with a couple of edits we didn't catch. But I'm confident SaltyPig was not a sockpuppet, he was just a truly mean-spirited troll, who spewed so much verbiage that one or two things, by chance, turned out to be right. I'm really quite sure OWB was not some master puppeteer bent on dominating WP; he just wanted to get his way all the time, and SS, FWS, et al were ways to achieve that.

It seldom makes sense to go very far into the looking glass; for one thing, you never end up confident of anything, and end up scared of every shadow you see. For another, few people are so clever and devious to pull that kind of master conspiracy off, and I doubt they would focus on historical articles on WP. Sometimes a troll is just a troll.

While you're here, though, let me say: "good catch last year". A shame it wasn't followed up on. It looks like you took quite a bit of flak for that, and I'm glad you stuck around. --barneca (talk) 12:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right of course. Looking at this in the cool light of day makes the saga of OWB clearer. Salty Pig was prolific in his vitriol and OWB's encounter with him as his first experiance with wikipedia was unfortunate for him. It may explain (but not excuse) why he became a bully himself. This whole saga serves as a cautionary tale. RfA is a vetting process that needs all people that have any history with a nominee to voice thier vote without fear. Any disputes in a noms history need to be aired so that people can make an informed vote Mytwocents 17:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might be appropriate to present this at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

There may be some "RfA patrollers" who would be interested in this case and have not seen it on AN/I.

I had no prior editing experience with OWB, and only became aware of him when his RfA came up, which I just glanced at and didn't even vote. After that, the issue of OWB and socks was brought up on AN/I and just looking at a few contribs of SS and OWB, it was blatantly apparent they were the same user. That said, I don't know that the folks that participate a lot in RfA would ever have caught this, it seems to me that the people in the best position to point this out were the people that edited alongside OWB and his socks. If one person would have presented a very small portion of this evidence on the RfA, it probably would not have passed.

There must be some lesson to be learned from this... not quite sure how we can avoid this at RfAs in the future, but perhaps someone there has an idea.

Anyways, like everyone has said, this is amazing work you have done compiling evidence. daveh4h 17:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well an idea I presented in the past is that only people who actually know the candidate should vote. RFA is frequented by regulars who vote on everyone regarless of whether they actually know the candiddate or not. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what exactly do you intend to do with all this evindence? OWB has semingly left Wikipedia, but I beleive with this evidence you can get him blocked for being a MeatPuppeteer. --ÄtΘmic R€£igione ^sїgñ

He's lost his admin status, and his reputation. That is a pretty big deal.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he hasn't lost his admin status yet. See here and here. ElinorD (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

01:09, 26 July 2007 by m:User:Shanel (see 2nd link immediately above.) Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 03:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty big considering Wikipedia puts a crap load of trust in their administrators, and denouncing that there are any corrupt admins. Well I guess we found one. --User:Atomic Religione

What are you talking about. Several admins have lost thier admin bit in the past. You appear to have some sort of agenda here. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know what the hell thats supposed to mean, but ok my mistake. Atomic Religione 22:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks

Shame on me, in the turmoil I neglected to mention that both User:New England and User:Roundhouse0 each found and supplied several diffs of very useful information that helped make this case stronger. --barneca (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where to put this, but I just had some time on my hands and decided to check out WP:AN/I. I saw the link to this under one of the discussions, and I must say that as a new user, I'm a little surprised to see that a person could create some many accounts and fool so many people for such a long time. Its almost scary. I mean, I've ran into some socks before, but usually I can spot them right away, and there not as disruptive as this user appeared to be. The work done by the four people who put this report together is amazing to me. Pats Sox Princess 17:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank you for both your time spent working on this, I thought I had discovered this a while back, certain posting styles/times of account usage jumped out at me, but I didn't believe I would be able to put anything this elaborate together, this is more detailed and damning then anything I could have managed. Dureo 07:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]