Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kilz (2nd)

< Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Kilz

edit
Suspected sockpuppeteer

Kilz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

idby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Idbyou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
IDontBelieveYou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) "IDBY" = "I D B You" = "IDontBelieveYou" ([1])
StVectra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Loki144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
 McConathy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
 Swiftdove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

WalterGR (talk | contributions) 22:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Kilz has repeatedly used sock puppets during edit wars, and continues to generally disrupt the edit process. Of Kilz's approximately 1,200 edits, over 90% are related to edit wars and controversy he has stirred up Swiftfox, Office Open XML, and Standardization of Office Open XML. He uses wiki-lawyering to push his POV. He has previously been blocked for suspected sock puppetry, had his IP blocked as it was "used to avoid 3RR detection," and has been blocked for violating the 3 Revert Rule. (Full disclosure: I reported the 3RR violation.)


Evidence based on similarity of language and phrasing used in edits
  • Use of Loki144:
  • Kilz argues for the removal of a reference for benchmark data which shows Swiftfox is faster than Firefox:
  • "The site is also a private site listing the findings of only one person with no editorial oversight and is therefore not a creditable source [WP:RS]..." (diff: [2])
  • Loki44 backs Kilz up:
  • "The browser speed test site is also a private site and not a reliable source." (diff: [3])
  • Use of IDontBelieveYou:
  • When Kilz argued for the removal of the reference for benchmark data, he also said:
  • "If we cant find information on the 2.0 version from a reliable source the section needs to be removed IMHO." (same diff as above: [4])
  • IDontBelieveYou backs Kilz up:
  • "I agree with you Kilz... This article should be about 2.0. If we can't find references for the speed section for 2.0, the section should be removed." (diff: [5])
  • Kilz doesn't believe Swiftfox is faster than Firefox.
  • Kilz removes the text "The name Swiftfox implies a faster browser than Firefox" (diff [6]). It gets added back in. Kilz then adds a {{fact}} tag (diff [7]). It gets removed. Kilz adds an {{unreliable}} tag to the section instead (diff [8]). It gets removed. He adds it again (diff [9]). It gets removed again.
  • IDontBelieveYou comes to Kilz's aid:
  • He makes the following edit: "The name Swiftfox comes from the animal Swift Fox which coincidently implies speed". (diff [10])
  • That edit gets removed, then Kilz "restore[s] edit of idontbelieveyou" (diff [11])
  • Use of IDBYou and StVectra:
  • "It dose not pass WP:SOURCES it is a self published source." (diff [12])
  • StVectra agrees with Kilz:
  • "Microsoft in this instance is not a reliable source. It is writing about itself WP:SELFPUB clearly says it cant be used as a reference when it includes claims about third parties." (diff [13])
  • Kilz later responds:
  • "You cant use the source. It is self published , and has claims about a third party." (diff [14])
  • Sock pupped IDBYou backs Kilz and StVectra up:
  • "WP:VER is very clear, you can not use self published sources. I think the section needs to be removed as it also has claims against a 3rd party" (diff [15])
  • Kilz later argues that blogs cannot be used as sources:
  • "This is from a Blog, blogs are not usable as sources WP:SPS." (diff [16])
  • StVectra agrees:
  • "I agree that blogs should not be used as sources or references. They all to often have bias that is impossible to remove." (diff [17])
  • Kilz agrees with the bias point:
  • "Every blog has bias." (diff [18])
  • Kilz later disagrees with blogs I have removed:
  • "FanaticAttack is not a blog in my opinion but an news site that covers a wide range of topics. The article is neutral. That it has a place for comments is besides the point. GrokDoc is a wiki, but it is not an 'open wiki'." (diff [19])
  • StVectra agrees with Kilz:
  • "Fanaticattack is not a blog IMHO, and the neutral style they use is that of most news sites. I am not so sure about Grokdoc more because of a neutral point of view problem. Open wiki's are those that allow anon posting, it is not open." (diff [20])
  • Kilz removes information (diff [21]) that later gets restored. IDBYou removes the same information (diff [22]).
  • IDBYou removes some quotations from the same section (diff [23]) that are later restored. Kilz removes some of them again (diff [24]).
  • Use of Swiftdove:
  • Kilz confuses "creditable" with "credible", "creditability" with "credibility", etc. On the Office Open XML talk page he makes that mistake about 15 times. He's the only person to make that mistake, except Swiftdove:
  • "As such the creditability of the references is in doubt and gives the appearance of impropriety." (diff [25])
  • Use of McConathy:
  • On the Office Open XML talk page, Kilz argues frequently with a User:HAl. Everyone else that mentions HAl's name uses the "proper" capitalization. Except two people:
  • Kilz, who capitalizes it "Hal" more than 10 times.
  • And McConathy: "Hal you have an WP:NOR problem with the quotes." (diff: [26])
  • Loki144 and StVectra:
  • Loki144: "But my internet time is limited." (diff [27])
  • StVectra: "My internet time is limited to when I am at school." (diff [28])


Previous suspicion of sockpuppeting
  • Another user noticed Kilz's use of the "IDontBelieveYou" and "Loki144" puppets, here and here. Kilz denied the charges, arguing that just because someone agrees with him doesn't make them a SP. It was never reported.
  • Another user noticed the suspicious use of "McConathy" agreeing with Kilz here. Kilz again said that the suspicious user was simply agreeing with him.


Timing of account creation and edits

Swiftdove:

15:11, 6 March 2008 - Swiftdove's account is created
15:25, 6 March 2008 - Swiftdove immediately goes to Talk:Office Open XML to argue Kilz's case
15:27, 6 March 2008 - Swiftdove modifies Office Open XML and makes no further edits
Swiftdove isn't heard from for 2 weeks, until...
12:29, 20 March 2008 - Kilz posts to Swiftdove's talk page about the SSP, asking Swiftdove to state Kilz's innocence
14:01, 20 March 2008 - Swiftdove appears, agrees to help Kilz out, states Kilz's innocence (diff [29])
14:05 - 14:11, 20 March 2008 - Swiftdove modifies 3 articles in 6 minutes: one about a soap opera actor, one about a Vietnamese poet, and one about an American football player. These are simple spelling and linking fixes. In every edit before these, Swiftdove had edited a single section and provided no edit summary. In these 3 new edits, Swiftdove uses "Edit this page" and leaves an edit summary.

StVectra:

14:43, 7 March 2008 - Account is created
14:50, 7 March 2008 - Edits 1 article, about comic books (this is an important theme)
15:00, 7 March 2008 - 17 minutes after account creation, agrees with Kilz's opinion on Talk:Standardization of Office Open XML (diff [30])
19:42, 11 March 2008 - After making only 1 intervening edit - of its user page - StVectra again supports Kilz during an argument (diff [31])
13:11, 13 March 2008 - No intervening edits this time. Just agreement with Kilz (diff [32])
StVectra isn't heard from for a week, until...
12:28, 20 March 2008 - Kilz posts to StVectra's talk page about the SSP, asking StVectra to state Kilz's innocence
18:58, 20 March 2008 - StVectra does so (diff [33])
StVectra has made no edits since then.

Loki144:

22:16, 26 March 2007 - An edit war breaks out between Kilz and User:Widefox with this edit by Kilz described as, "Revert to replace valdalism of Widefox." This edit war will continue for about 2 weeks - until 10 April 2007.
During the edit war...
15:57, 31 March 2007 - Loki144 account is created
16:00, 31 March 2007 - Immediately goes to the Swiftfox page and makes an edit. The edit is innocuous.
16:04, 31 March 2007 - Agrees with Kilz on Talk:Swiftfox (diff [34])
21:40, 16 April 2007 - Edits its talk page to respond to a user who previously suspected this account was a sockpuppet of Kilz
21:48, 16 April 2007 - Edits an article about comic books
Loki144 has made no edits since then.

IDontBelieveYou:

16:42, 28 December 2006 - Account is created. Makes a single edit until...
16:49, 12 January 2007 - Edits Swiftfox page twice. These edits are innocuous.
The edit war described above breaks out between Kilz and Widefox.
23:17, 1 April 2007 - IDontBelieveYou agrees with Kilz (diff [35])
00:50, 2 April 2007 - Makes same edit that Kilz had made but had been reverted (diff [36])
22:03, 8 April 2007 - Denies being one of Kilz's sockpuppets (diff [37])
22:11, 8 April 2007 - Edits 1 article
IDontBelieveYou has made no edits since then.

McConathy:

23:11, 18 March 2008 - Account is created.
23:22, 18 March 2008 - Edits an article about comic books
23:26, 18 March 2008 - During an edit war between Kilz and User:HAl, agrees with Kilz's viewpoint and says he's going to revert one of HAl's edits (diff [38])
23:38, 18 March 2008 - I add the McConathy account to the list of SSPs here
23:43, 18 March 2008 - HAl notices McConathy's suspicious timing: "are you a new user having made one edit now directly entering a discussion citing WP rules ?"
Not surprisingly, McConathy never performs the revert he threatened, and has made no other edits.

IDBY:

02:14, 8 January 2008 - Swiftweasel, an article which Kilz created and has been the primary contributor, is nominated for deletion
00:45, 9 January 2008 - Kilz makes the first edit on the AfD page in support of the article
14:25, 9 January 2008 - User IDBY is created but makes no edits.
4 users who have very little (or in some cases no) additional edit history come out in support of the article (Special:Contributions/Guilden NL, Special:Contributions/B647888, Special:Contributions/58.69.117.23, and Special:Contributions/Tblu). Ultimately the article is "saved" from deletion.

IDBYou:

13:29, 7 March 2008 - Kilz violates the 3RR during an edit war with this edit. He is later blocked for 24 hours.
17:21, 7 March 2008 - IDBYou's account is created. The user's page says, "I used to have the name IDBY but lost the password. I have come back with a new name."
17:28, 7 March 2008 - Makes an edit to the Photocopier article. Kilz in real life is a photocopier repairman.
17:36, 7 March 2008 - 15 minutes after account creation, supports Kilz's viewpoint on Talk:Standardization of Office Open XML (diff [39])
17:37, 7 March 2008 - Removes information that Kilz had been removing during the edit war (diff [40])
17:41, 7 March 2008 - And removes it again. (diff [41])
IDBYou has made no edits since then.


Account names, and the significance of comic books

IDBY = IDBYou = IDontBelieveYou

Swiftdove

  • The Swiftweasel article was created by Kilz and he is the primary contributor
  • Swiftweasel is a web browser, and Swiftdove is the associated e-mail client. (Like Firefox and Thunderbird.)
  • Kilz added a Swiftdove section to the Swiftweasel page in this diff: [42]

Comic books

  • 3 of the socks have edited articles about comic books to try to create an edit history: StVectra, Loki144, and McConathy
  • 2 of the socks have names that are related to comic books: Loki and McConathy have both been comic book characters
  • Kilz is a fan of comic books


Checkuser findings.


FYI, Kilz has also confirmed a different IP (his static home IP) in this discussion. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 06:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

This is insane. WalterGR has collected ancient history. 2006 edits of Swiftfox, and 2008 edits of OOXML articles on pages where people have agreed with me in an attempt to prove that I am puppetmaster. I am not. I have a static ip. I am 100% sure that none of these so called puppets have my ip address as no one but I can have it. I have never used a sockpuppet, the first case against me was a sham. It was for a not logged in edit. I have a static IP, read the case. Kilz (talk) 03:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC) His proof that 2 editors that agreed with me have close names is a coincidence. We have no idea what the idb of idbyou stands for, or if they are in fact the same people. Kilz (talk) 03:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Kilz asserts "I am 100% sure that none of these so called puppets have my ip address" helps to confirm my suspicion that he is, indeed, using Tor (anonymity network).
As I've shown above, the puppets use almost the same language as the master. If necessary, I can provide proof beyond language and similarity of names. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 06:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No what it means is that I know I have a static ip address and no one else can have it. Since I know that, none of these other people can have it. It is also unsubstantiated that any of these people used tor. Similarity of some manes does not prove anything. The burden of proof should fall on the person making these libelous comments that I have done anything. This is an attempt to use the admins to settle a difference of opinion in editing. Since I dont agree with WalterGR and neither do others, in his opinion we must all be sockpuppets. That is a huge case of wiki-lawyering taken to the extreme. Kilz (talk) 11:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I signed on this morning and found a message on my talk page from Kilz. I'm not a puppet of anyone. The administrators can check my ip address. Swiftdove (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline:
15:11, 6 March 2008 - Swiftdove's account is created
15:25, 6 March 2008 - Swiftdove immediately goes to Talk:Office Open XML to argue Kilz's case
15:27, 6 March 2008 - Swiftdove modifies Office Open XML and makes no further edits
Swiftdove isn't heard from for 2 weeks, until...
12:29, 20 March 2008 - Kilz posts to Swiftdove's talk page, asking Swiftdove to state Kilz's innocence
14:01, 20 March 2008 - Swiftdove appears and agrees to help Kilz out and leaves the comment above
14:05 - 14:11, 20 March 2008 - Swiftdove modifies 3 articles in 6 minutes: one about a soap opera actor, one about a Vietnamese poet, and one about an American football player. These are simple spelling and linking fixes. In every edit before these, Swiftdove had edited a single section and provided no edit summary. In these 3 new edits, Swiftdove uses "Edit this page" and leaves an edit summary.
As with most of Kilz's other puppets, I've figured how the name of the account is meaningful. In this case, "Swiftdove" is the e-mail part of the "Swiftweasel" project. Kilz has edited the Swiftweasel page around 40 times. He added a Swiftdove section to the Swiftweasel page in this diff: [43]. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 15:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That doesnt prove a thing Walter. It only proves that someone used a name of a very popular program to edit with. If you are so sure they are me, why not have a checkuser done? Kilz (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone used the name of a program that you are involved with and added to Wikipedia; comes to your aid in an argument weeks ago minutes after creating their account; mysteriously shows up when you need help here; and then proceeds to try to create an edit history for themselves?
There's really no point in my requesting a checkuser. There are so many ways to change what IP you're coming from. So, either
  • you were careful and masked your IP, in which case the checkuser will show nothing, and you'll use that as proof that you're innocent, or
  • you were careless, and used your home's static IP or your web server's IP to use your puppets. But I don't need this additional proof, because I have enough proof already.
WalterGR (talk | contributions) 17:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What you have are wild theory's and coincidence using posts on a talk page. You refuse to go after any real proof because you know it will prove me innocent. You have filed multiple reports including 3rr violations on me in an attempt to solve a editing dispute with the admins doing your dirty work. Kilz (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We've never had an editing dispute. Your editing disputes have been with HAl and separately with Widefox. And all of you have been blocked at some point. As for you and me - we've argued on talk pages, but that's it.
Kilz, I don't have some huge grudge against you. I just want you to stop being disruptive, as I've said before. So far I haven't seen any change in behavior. I really have no desire to go forward with proof - I will take no pleasure in it - but I am willing to do so. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 18:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sockpuppet. My internet time is limited to when I am at school. When there is a little free time. Up until recently I was editing without an account. I posted the comments attributed to me on this page. I would not have found out about this page except Kilz placed a notice on my talk page. I had only planned to do school research today. But I cant stand by and see someone blamed for something they did not do.StVectra (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Kilz/StVectra/Swiftdove/whatever, I'm tired of this. Please, just stop being disruptive. That's all I want. Stop being disruptive, listen to people's arguments on that talk pages, and we can just drop this whole thing. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 19:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not them, and I'm not trying to be disruptive. But as I see it the point of view of open source and its users is missing from the ooxml pages. That point of view is just as important as any of the points of view that tries to remove it. I only ask that Wikipedia policy be followed, quoting it all the time. That some people agree with me is not strange. But sadly a lot of them get scared away by the edit warring that goes on there. As soon as new people say something they get questioned and written off. Some, never to return. Kilz (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Some more evidence. Identical edits by user:Kilz, above named sockpuppet user:Idbyou and 3 anonymous sockpuppets/toraccounts:

user:Kilz edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML&diff=196632900&oldid=196629997

user:Idbyou edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML&diff=196570098&oldid=196559388

Anonymous sockpuppets/ Tor user edits:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML&diff=prev&oldid=196708882 Hao.gl.ntu.edu.tw

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML&diff=prev&oldid=196692730

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML&diff=prev&oldid=196683456 tor.anonymizer.ccc.de

I think above evidence does not need a lot of explanation hAl (talk) 11:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence HAL? That multiple people were involved in an edit war and you and me both got banned for it? [44]The above edits and reports are part of that edit war and that multiple people were involved is no surprise. That you have been in a long heated argument with me and are now posting this hoping I will be blocked and you can win said argument? [45] [46] [47] Just as I am filing the first steps toward mediation? [48] Kilz (talk) 12:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made only three revert in the entire standardization of Office Open XML article. I am very disgusted that an admin found that to be called an edit war as you were reverting a lot more and have told him so. And especially now I have seen the sockpuppet claims on you from user:WalterGR on how you and your army of sockpuppets go about it, it is truly shocking behaviour. I have no need for mediation untill your suspected sockpuppetry issue is solved. Also interesting to see you have been doing this to the Swiftweasel article and are now doing to the Office Open XML article as well and that you have been banned for this before. hAl (talk) 13:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HAl, while I appreciate your trying to help me here, I'm afraid that there are already too many people involved. Could you leave it to me, and I'll let you know if the admins request a 3rd party opinion? Thanks, WalterGR (talk | contributions) 13:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other individuals with knowledge of the situation are often helpful, as long as the page does not degenerate into bickering. Thatcher

Have fun, find me guilty, I'm out of Wikipedia for awhile. Kilz (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the evidence I've presented above, I find it strange that Kilz added a comment saying,
"But as I see it the point of view of open source and its users is missing from the ooxml pages... That some people agree with me is not strange... As soon as new people say something they get questioned and written off. Some, never to return."
I'm curious how Kilz knows that these users are "never to return," especially when the earliest comment/edit by a sock puppet related to OOXML was only 2 weeks ago. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 05:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I find strange is that Walter GR is editing , changing, and removing things from this page. Done indent this Walter. Yesterday he did 13 edits. Adding everything from What others are editing, to questioning why I said others have never returned. Thats obvious to anyone who looks at the edit history of the OOXML pages. Hal and now Walter have scared off anyone that doesnt do Microsoft biased edits like them. WalterGR has now hidden discussions I made on those pages in archives and has told noticeboards where I asked questions not to answer them. Before he jumps to conclusions, yes, I have now started to use tor.Kilz (talk) 12:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My allegations haven't changed at all - nor has the substantive text of this page. My edits added additional evidence, as anyone can clearly see by looking at the history. I also removed this, as the checkuser didn't back up the claim:
Given his admission to now using TOR, my removal of that text is exceptionally ironic. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 00:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Enlighten us, exactly where in Wikipedia policy is it against Wikipedia policy for a signed in editor, using one account, to use a proxy? Kilz (talk) 02:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope it isn't against policy...that would effectively kill my Wikilife, as during the summer I'll be posting almost exclusively through TOR while I'm on co-op in China. our TOR page gives me the impression that we're allowed to use TOR as long as we have an account. If this isn't the case, I'm kind of horrified. Celarnor Talk to me 15:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The text was there originally simply to note that Kilz knows what TOR is. The implication being that a checkuser may not be helpful.
I didn't say it was against policy for a logged-in user to use TOR. I hope I didn't imply that. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 17:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having just come here a couple hours ago, you do seem to be giving the implication that established editors using proxies should somehow be discouraged. Celarnor Talk to me 18:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

There are a few, so I'm going to handle this one in chunks. GBT/C 12:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the socks in no particular order :

  • Loki144 - not enough to go on, as one swallow does not a summer make. In any event, the account is stale (no edits for over a year), so assuming good faith I'm not prepared to block in this instance.
  • Swiftdove - this quacks much louder, and the use of "creditable" is a bit of a giveaway. Indef blocked.
  • McConathy - threatens to revert, but doesn't. Probable sock, but there's really not enough to block on.
  • StVectra - also quacks - indef blocked.
  • Idbyou - ditto.
  • IDontBelieveYou - ditto.
  • idby - no contributions, deleted or otherwise, and it is claimed that the password has been lost. May or may not be linked to the other two accounts, but...meh.

The main account :

  • Kilz - blocked one week for sockpuppetry.

Note - I suspect that User:66.116.112.4 is also involved, but as it's an IP I don't propose any block at this stage.

Right - that's it, I think. GBT/C 12:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Kilz_(2nd)&oldid=1050706590"