Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lester2

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:Lester2

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Lester2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

John and James (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Brendan.lloyd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 23:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Another user and myself believe serial edit warmonger Lester2 has taken our repeated requests to find consensus too literally and has now engaged in sockpuppetry, and is using socks to "votestack" and claim consensus on the contentious article John Howard. A vote to include article content is being conducted at the John Howard talk page here [1] "John Howard's secret ancestry revealed". User:John and James has made one edit to the entire wikipedia and is included in this vote. Brendan.lloyd also loves a good edit war on the Howard article and seems to divide his wiki time with Lester2. If you check their contribution history you see that;

They are never on wikipedia at the same time. One logs off while the other logs on,
They make the same edits, (see here and here)
For people involved in the same edit wars they never acknowlegde or talk to each other.
All three refer to 'New Guinea" instead of it's more popular "Papua New Guinea" or "PNG".
Lester/Brendan have edited here using the "comment" tag. The first two twoto do that on this thread, in recent Archive histrory.
Both "read" the same. See for yourself below in the long winded off topic replies.

I think all parties concerned have made comments and discussed at length. Both Lester/Brendan have claimed they have nothing to hide and freely submit to a "checkuser". Both are posting around wikipedia demanding apologies, and decrying how humiliated they both are. I think everyone agrees that the checkuser has to take place. Due to my failure in due process I already have a Checkuser request posted at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lester2. The admin Lar advised waiting until this page had run it's course. I believe all parties agree this should be taken to checkuser to settle this once and for all. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 00:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

As the "other user" referred to above, I echo Prester John's evidence above. I freely confess to massive and very naughty sockpuppeteering during my long ban,[2][3] and I gained familiarity with the techniques for hiding sockpuppets. It seemed to me that Lester2's contributions contained a good deal more wikilawyering and familiarity with procedures than a new account should, as well as being a single purpose account dedicated to adding negative material to the John Howard article and then being disruptive on the talk page. I was also suspicious of the fact that Lester2 was not continuously logged into his account, occasionally making anon edits which he later claimed. This is a common mistake amongst sockpuppet/eers logging in and out of accounts. --Pete 00:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Lester2

Hi everyone. I'm not a sockpuppet, so you can run all the checks as I've got nothing to hide. Did I forget to login before making a comment on a talk page? Maybe I did, but I'm not aware of it. Firefox browser automatically signs me out of Wiki after a period of inactivity. Look at this recent edit by Jimbo Wales where his comment is "duh, forgot to sign"[4], and nobody says he's a sockpuppet! Also, I would have thought that someone would have to actively use an IP address and a user-account together to be accused of misusing the system.

Just looking at that link to the talk page posted by User:Prester John. Prester mentions that I'm trying to avoid consensus on the subject "John Howard's secret ancestry revealed"' by what he calls "votestacking". I just looked through that section of the talk page and I can't find an example of where I forgot to log on, let alone using that to manipulate a "votestack". It seems to be a case that a consensus was achieved on the talk page, which is how Wiki is meant to work, but the consensus was not the verdict that 'Prester' and 'Skyring(Pete)' wanted, so they're bringing the issue here, with no other evidence except to link people who voted against Prester & Skyring(Pete)'s ideas.

To put this into context, though, User:Prester John and User:Skyring(Pete) have a long history of listing me on every complaint board they can think of, so this one is the latest of many from those two users. It would be kind of amusing, except that it wastes the time of Wiki volunteers to follow up these fallacious complaints.

User:Prester John seems to be desperate to find a way to have me blocked, and has filed 2 erroneous 3RR reports about me in the past few weeks. One resulted in User:Prester John being blocked himself after filing the report. Another 3RR is on the list here which turned out to be 3 edits over 3 days so the case was dropped. You'd think the administrators would be getting a bit bored of this string of false complaints. So now I get to learn what a sockpuppet report is. I don't know how to defend it except to say I haven't done anything, and I hope the investigation doesn't waste too much of your valuable time. Cheers, Lester2 01:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Lester gets our accusation here. It has nothing to do with forgeting to sign on. Let me clarify. we are charging that he created sock number 1 called User:John and James to introduce contentious material on the articles talkpage to make it look like someone else has introduced this particular point. This user has only ever made one edit to wikipedia, has never been heard from again, yet made a link to reference Lester/Brendan have repeatedly tried to reinsert. This original sock has the benefit of being added to the straw poll that is going on. Lester then uses User:Brendan.lloyd a sock he previously created to continue reinserting the reference. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 02:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be fooled by his Bart Simpsonesque "little boy lost" act in his above statement. The entire statement is a lie and a smokescreen. He knows we are not talking about IP edits. Check his block logs to see the real story about his numerous 3RR violations on this articleand how "erroneous" they are. And his accusations of wikilawyering are are the biggest case of WP:KETTLE yet see here and here. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 04:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Lester2: The accusation that I log out of my account and use a anonymous IP address was made (above), so I answered that accusation. The claim I resemble Bart Simpson is silly and irrelevant.

If the IP thing is not the reason for this complaint, the only evidence left is that I voted the same way as 2 other editors, which was the opposite way to what User:Prester John and User:Skyring(Pete) voted. I would have thought a bit more evidence would be required before bothering the Wikipedia Admins with a complaint.

I filed that previous Wikiquette report about User:Prester John because I was tired of him following me around calling me "troll", "liar", "votestacker", "Bart Simpsonesque" and other completely unnecessary terms. Unfortunately, use of such terms continues.

User:Prester John is obviously trying to portray me as some kind of heinous person, but has that got anything to do with the subject? Isn't this to look purely at the Sockpuppetry allegation? Do I need to defend all the other personality accusations as well?

So now the arbitrators have now learned this is part of an on-going war between editors where every Wiki "court" under the sun is used against the other. It's like a schoolboy fight. I hope it doesn't deter the other two Wikipedians who are co-accused in this. Lester2 07:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down, please. I mentioned the IP address thing because it demonstrates that you log in and out of your account, and I recognise that as a symptom of sockpuppetry, because I've been there myself. Your edit history itself is suspicious. An account created over a year ago and left dormant, and then suddenly revived to commence robust edit-warring on one article, including appeals to wikiprocess. The appearance of a fresh account that makes one edit on a talk page to kick off a new round of conflict also rings alarm bells.

I'm not saying that where there is smoke, there is fire, but I'm within my rights as a wikicitizen to report the smoke. --Pete 17:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Lester2, for jumping into your commentary section, but crikey, Pete, mate, from the moment you maligned us on the talkpages, you clearly were saying "there's a fire". Who are you to tell us to calm down? You and Prester John fire off accusations, flout numerous Wikipedia policies, engage in Wikilawyering, mark our Userpages as suspected sockpuppets, attack me despite my relative "newness", and then, as the inevitable dawns that you are incorrect on this occasion, you expect those who you falsely accuse to just happily shrug it off? And Prester infers (on the Hicks talkpage) I am the deluded conspiracy theorist... goodness gracious! The honourable thing and civil thing would be for the two of you to apologise before your foolish accusation embarrases you both any further. Jeez Louise! --Bren 18:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Lester2: I also would like an apology, and I'll tell you why. If User:Prester John and User:Skyring(Pete) really had true concerns about sockpuppetry, they would have researched and compiled some strong evidence (not just who voted which way on an issue in the talk page), and they would have quietly provided that evidence alone and let the arbitrators deal with it. The completely unnecessary humiliation comes from the personal embellishing of the complaint, and the use of colorful but derogatory language designed to paint a poor image of myself. But that was not all. User:Skyring(Pete) first raised the issue by plastering it on the John Howard talk page for everyone to read, and to cause maximum humiliation, and to drum up support against myself. User:Skyring(Pete)'s previous public announcements that I am a sockpuppet are probably what inspired User:Prester John to file the complaint, after the two discussed it.

So, after destroying the reputations of myself and Brendan, User:Prester John and User:Skyring(Pete) will probably skulk away giggling to themselves at the humiliation they've caused, having the term "sockmonkey" headlined on the user pages of their opponents, and on the discussion page. I ask the arbitrators to take a look at that John Howard discussion page that User:Prester John links to at the top of this page, to see how this whole accusation started.

As for the other user, John and James, I can't be responsible for another user who makes his first Wikipedia edit by making a comment on the John Howard talk page. What an introduction to Wikipedia! First edit and he ends up entwined in this. I hope he returns again. It should be noted that the John Howard article recently made huge newspaper headlines in Australia, so large numbers of people are coming to view the page for the first time, and the discussion page is full of new entrants who followed the newspaper headlines.

I don't know if it's against Wiki rules to launch sockpuppet allegations on a high profile discussion page, but my view is that sort of action is very wrong and counter-productive, serving no other purpose than to humiliate. I wish there were some Wikipedia rules against airing such allegations publicly Lester2 23:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from User:Brendan.lloyd

Despite User:Skyring and User:Prester John tag-teaming to judge contributors instead of content, deny/avoid concensus, and avoid substantive relevant discussion on the Howard talkpage (re: Howard "New Guinea interests" mention & reference), I am not discouraged from contributing to Wikipedia. I am no "sock puppet" nor "puppeteer". I have never created multiple Wikipedia accounts. I have never masqueraded as another Wikipedia entity. His "evidence" concerning me is flimsy for good reason -- the inferences Pete has made about me are false. I'm happy to give my contact number to the adjudicator for private independant verification, if emailed a request by them (to my email address recorded on my Wikipedia account) to end to this farcical diversion. I eagerly await the only credible outcome of the part of the inquiry involving me, after which I expect an unreserved apology and commitment from User:Skyring and User:Prester John to participate more constructively on talkpages, in good faith, and duly acknowledge concensus when it occurs instead of overt wikilawyering. --Bren 16:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Checkuser returns as unlikely.
No blocks required.
Sock tags deleted from userpages.
Closing case. Sarah