User:Olivierd/Olivierd/Benio76/Zelig33 "sockpuppetry" case

(This page is under construction)

The following is the "history" of the January/February 2007 sockpuppetry case that was mounted against three users - Olivierd (myself), Benio76 and Zelig33. The latter two were accused of being my sockpuppets; after having been blocked, and had various administrators state that the checkuser results were "definitive", we were all three cleared after two weeks of protest.

My intention is to copy here all the relevant exchanges I have in my possession; as much as possible, in chronological order. The only pieces I will leave out are the private mails that have been sent to me, if I do not obtain the permission from their author. Actually, that won't amount to much; a salient feature of this controversy is that we have protested quite a lot, and obtained very little responses. No answer was the main answer. We didn't exist, we had been blocked, two of us had been declared non-persons.

I copy these exchanges verbatim (as much as feasible), without comment. The exchanges are in chronological order, as much as possible; in some cases, text already listed is repeated, to give context; it appears in a grey font.

The checkuser plot is conceived

The foie gras informal mediation had started, with ST47 as a mediator.

From the mediation page:

Mediator response

(...)

Another thing. If anyone's a sock puppet, it will save everyone a lot of pain by choosing one account to edit with. I can request checkuser if need be, and if I have to do that it will make your point look so much worse to me. Thanks, ST47Talk 23:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

What are the conditions for running this checkuser test ? Alex Pankratov 22:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Some would call it a paper dragon, unless you have direct suspicion, if so, why don't you email me. Otherwise, I just wanted to make sure that I had a "I warned you" quote if there was any foul play. ST47Talk 01:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If there is any suspicion of Benio76, Zelig33 or myself having created a sock puppet, I think that it can only be of having created a Straw man sock puppet. "They will often make poor arguments which their "opponents" can then easily refute." But unfortunately, I think we are facing real people... David Olivier 20:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The plot thickens

From SchmuckyTheCat's talk page:

A doubt

Hello, Schmucky. I have a feeling that Zelig33 might be a sock of Benio76. Same languages on their userpage, similar writing style and attitude. Do you know what the process would be to find out for sure? If you think they're not the same person and it's not worth checking, please also feel free to let me know.--Ramdrake 20:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Noting that I've seen this. WP:RFCU is a serious step which I'd rather not take without proof, as there are stringent requirements on cases. Zelig does indeed look like a single purpose account, and the times of editing look similar. Do you want to RFCU? The page lists WP:AN/I as an alternative, and there may be a way to determine it without doing that, possibly through writing style - typos, grammatical errors, and the like - all of which would be excellent for RFCU. ST47Talk 01:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser complaint by ST47

Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Olivierd, 21:43, 17 January 2007 revision

OlivierD

• Olivierd (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Zelig33 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Benio76 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

• Code letter: C, D, E

User:Olivierd, User:Zelig33, and User:Benio76 are involved in a dispute on Foie gras which has gone to medcab. They have similar writing styles, may have used sockpuppetry in a straw poll I tried to do, all say they hail from Italy or France, have similar babelboxes, edit at the same times(the same time range, not actually 5 minute apart edits), several 3RR near-violations and edit warring: [1] [2] [3]. 2 of the accounts are only used for this article and were created recently. I would like to know if those accounts are from the same IP, and have them blocked for disruptive sockpuppetry. ST47Talk 11:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

ST47 is supposed to be our mediator at the foie gras informal mediation. Yes, there is an ongoing controversy, and both sides have engaged in edit warring; to attribute it to us or to speak of disruption is hardly what one can expect from a neutral mediator. ST47's statements about 3RR violations are heavily one-sided too. To accuse us of "Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism" (code C) is ludicrous - and codes D and E are too, since the only reason we might be sockpuppets is that we all disagree with the pro-foie gras side. The other information given by ST47 is vague and unsustainable, such as the assertions about writing styles - while the pro-foie gras side is certainly acting entirely of a same accord, one user even calling two others to help in in that straw poll! (here and here).

ST47, who took up this case, expresses that he doesn't care for the arguments - after one side showed that foie gras is not known to have been produced by the Egyptians, he answers that "This is not an argument about foie gras, its history, or its production, but about the article." He doesn't care for the arguments; it's easier to simply take sides. The foie gras case is not an easy one; it would have been understandable for ST47 to desist, but not for him to fall in to the pressure of the "majority" just because that is the more comfortable option.

David Olivier 13:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to comment very briefly on Olivierd's statement that I called two others to help in the straw poll. These two users were at that time already named as parties to the mediation, and my very wording on their talk page was only to point out to them that the mediation had taken a new turn, and that they might want to express their position if they so wished. The reason I left these users a note is that, contrary to all other users names in this mediation, these were the only two left who hadn't been active on the mediation page since ST47 tried to restart the mediation. Please let me know if I broke any rules, but this was only done to ensure all named parties had a chance to express their opinion and wasn't trying to influence the "vote" (as the mediator, ST47, said at that time this was a listing of arguments for or against each of the positions he perceived).--Ramdrake 14:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course you were trying to influence the vote. And I wouldn't be so petty as to hold it against you if those on your side, and now ST47, didn't themselves have such a track record of petty slurs. When every edit on our side is described as a disruption while all your manoeuvers, tricks and disinformation count as normal practice, it is necessary sometimes to note a few facts. David Olivier 14:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

On ST47's talk page

ST47's talk page, archive 10

Your mediation of the foie gras article

The wording of your checkuser request, and that request itself following one-sided discussion with one of the parties ([4], [5]), appear to be in violation of the What mediators are not guideline:

2. Mediators are not Private Investigators. Mediators do not "work for you," nor will they work to build a case against someone or research the facts in an article. (...)

3. (...) Mediators work with all parties as a neutral third party; they cannot and will not counsel or give advice to either party involved in the dispute.

4. Mediators are not Advocates. Mediators will not take sides or promote one person's point of view or request over those of another person. (...)

In my opinion, you have handled the foie gras mediation poorly, through the above violations and on the counts that I have stated on the checkuser case page. That mediation case was a difficult one, and I am not implying that you cannot be a good mediator. I do feel it important to note those shortcomings.

David Olivier 17:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with both of your diffs. The first one was a response to a question asked to me, the RFCU had cause and I was contacted outside of the mediation with suspicions and was simply asked for advice. The second one was also a friendly suggestion to one of the sides, just like I suggested that you all try to come up with helpful suggestions with my edit this morning to the mediation page. I don't see how these situations can be resolved without more interaction beyond "look, here is a page, feel free to nuke each other on it, I'll sit over here and watch", especially when one side is suspicious of foul play. Until those concerns are alleviated I do not see how this can be resolved. ST47Talk 20:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The first diff seems quite acceptable, except that you suggested that user Apankrat email you behind the scenes regarding his suspicions of sockpuppetry. (That diff was a double edit, I am not questioning the second part of it.) Any user can request checkuser, it is not up to the mediator to "work to build a case against someone". It was not your role to "counsel or give advice to either party involved in the dispute". That you clearly did; you gave advice to one party on how to mount its sockpuppetry case against the other; and you are found doing it even more openly in the second diff (second diff, not second part of first diff): "there may be a way to determine it (...), possibly through writing style - typos, grammatical errors, and the like - all of which would be excellent for RFCU." Then you went as far as requesting the checkuser yourself, acting on behalf of one party. In that request, you use heavy language, that is not only biased but offensive - calling our edits "ongoing, serious pattern vandalism" and "disruptive" - if that is not "taking sides and promoting one person's point of view and requests over those of others", I don't know what would be!

What you say about the difficulty of resolving the situation is no doubt true. I recognize mediation is a difficult task in general, and that the foie gras article is a particularly difficult case. I am not competent to advise on what you should have done, except this: to do your work correctly, you would have had to pay much more attention to the arguments. You would then have realized that any resolution of the conflict implies obtaining of Trevyn, Ramdrake and the others that they accept to act in a less blatantly POV manner.

And also, if you had read the arguments, you would have realized how different the writing styles of Benio76, Zelig33 and myself actually are, and how implausible it is for there to be sockpuppets among us. Instead, I believe you panicked, and in substance allowed yourself to become the sockpuppet of one side. That is not a good outcome for a mediation.

David Olivier 22:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I got bored after the first 50 KB of bickering, and lost my faith in humanity after the first 100KB. It is obvious both sides don't need my help, if all you plan to do is what you've been doing on the article for weeks. I am going to read some stuff then I will be back. ST47Talk 11:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi ST47, I just took notice of your request for checkuser concerning me and the editors of my party in the controversy about foie gras. Well, it was plainly incorrect to do this without even saying it in the mediation page, i.e. in hiding. I see now that the other party contacted you, that they alerted each others when it was needed to charge against us, that you have had contacts all the time. Personally, I never dared to contact other editors who contributed to foie gras (not even to alert those who did not come to the Mediation Cabal, to ask them to come), fearing that it would have been incorrect; I never even thought of writing to you indipendently of the Mediation Cabal page, because it was obvious to me that all the discussion - and making questions, and raising suspects eventually - was supposed to take place there, and every attempt to contact you would have been dishonest. I see now that I've been too naive.

You say that you got bored: you should have said it before. Instead, you stayed silent for a while, then you choose to reduce our request to have precise and verifiable statements in the article (concerning historical facts and scientific definitions) to a question of sockpuppetry. From the very beginning of this mediation, the other party has repeatedly tried to remove attention from the poorness of their sources and the speciousnees of their arguments by making speculations about the identity of their opposants, before accusing everybody to come from PETA, now accusing us to be sockpuppets. And you got bored, you followed their suggestions and your priority now is to help them to see if I'm a sockpuppet or not. You don't care if I contributed to disveal an historical fraud, if I showed the unreliability of a book which was listed as an historical source despite its author was clearly biased and incompetent. You didn't even express your opinion about this, about the necessity to remove that stupid book from the sources, to edit more carefully, to give not speculation for truth. Your priority is just to see if I'm a sockpuppet, because you got bored.

Well, I don't now how many mediations you take, maybe this case is specifically hard or annoying compared to the others, I don't know; but I think that if there were serious problems in our case, you should have said it openly. I worked seriously to demask deliberate disinformation, I wrote a lot, yes, but I always thanked you for your attention: you stayed silent and I thought that you were thinking. Now I see that you lost your neutrality, now I read that "you got bored": it's me, really, who have lost my faith in humanity.

Benio76 16:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This user has been confirmed as a disruptive sockpuppet at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Olivierd. ST47Talk 11:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, ST47, I think you will find out that it is not enough to assert something for it to become true. David Olivier 18:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

ST47, you are accusing me, among other things, of "several 3RR near-violations and edit warring" [6]. Could you please substantiate your claim ? Please provide evidence supporting this accusation, or please publicly apologize for false accusations. I don't think you can any longer be a legitimate mediator after this. Anyway if you want to act as a mediator, you cannot just ask editors "to compromise" without looking somewhat into the issues involved, into why for instance some editors refuse to accept that claims not grounded on credible sources be inserted into the article. You have to look at the arguments themselves, not just ask people to compromise. If that is more efforts than you want to put into this, fine, it is you right, then just say it and don't pretend you want to be a mediator. To me contributing to a Wikipedia article is not about making editors compromise, it is about stating facts that are grounded on credible sources.

Zelig33 10:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello ST47 just wanted to let you know that, after speaking with my colleagues, we decided best to continue the conversation on the talk page of the article (which has been severely archived already) rather than going back to the mediation page. I guess you can close that one right now, and say it was successful, but in an unforeseen kind of way. Please feel free to jot down any remarks or such you feel are appropriate. Thank you again for all your help.--Ramdrake 12:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser complaint: removal of comments, removal of 3RR accusation, and result

Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Olivierd; the comments were removed to the relative talk page.

OlivierD

• Olivierd (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Zelig33 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Benio76 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

• Code letter: C, D

User:Olivierd, User:Zelig33, and User:Benio76 are involved in a dispute on Foie gras which has gone to medcab. They have similar writing styles, may have used sockpuppetry in a straw poll I tried to do, all say they hail from Italy or France, have similar babelboxes, edit at the same times(the same time range, not actually 5 minute apart edits), several 3RR near-violations and edit warring: [7] [8] [9]. 2 of the accounts are only used for this article and were created recently. I would like to know if those accounts are from the same IP, and have them blocked for disruptive sockpuppetry. ST47Talk 11:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Clerk note • Moved discussion to the Talk page. Also, please provide provide some more information pertaining to code letter E. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll just remove it, the diffs cover my concerns there. ST47Talk 11:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

 Confirmed Olivierd = Benio76, Zelig33 is  Likely. Essjay (Talk) 09:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. ST47Talk 11:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I am neither Zelig33 nor Benio76. The lack of serious enquiry by Essjay before stating as a fact a damaging assertion that he has not taken the trouble to ascertain is appalling. David Olivier 13:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Essjay, on what ground do you claim that I am "likely" to be Olivierd and Benio76 ? Please elaborate on the checks you have made before making these public accusation. Zelig33 08:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocking of Benio76

From Benio76's block log:

10:50, 19 January 2007 MacGyverMagic (Talk | contribs) blocked "Benio76 (contribs)" (account creation blocked, autoblock enabled) with an expiry time of indefinite (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/OlivierD)

Benio76's user page was then blanked and replaced with a large banner stating "This user is a confirmed sock puppet of Olivierd, established by CheckUser, and has been blocked indefinitely."

On the Administrators' noticeboard / incidents

Archived here.

Erronous checkuser outcome against Olivierd / Benio76 / Zelig33

Today (09:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)), following a checkuser complaint by ST47, mediator in the ongoing foie gras controversy, administrator Essjay has declared that I (Olivierd) am the same person as Benio76, and probably the same as Zelig33.

I happen to be neither Zelig33 nor Benio76, and I also know for a fact that they too are two different real-life people. We are three different and independent contributors, and I have neither dictated to them their contributions nor have they dictated mine.

If Essjay had chosen to do his work correctly, it would have been easy for him to determine those facts up to a high degree of certainty. He could have done it even without contacting any of the parties; and even more clearly by contacting them, which he has not done.

I am writing to Essjay to give him the relevant facts. I am expecting a reversal of his decision and an apology.

David Olivier 14:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The three of you all use the same internet connection, right? And have the same opinion on Foie Gras? Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hipocrite, you do not have checkuser status, and whatever you may say about that is anyone's guess. What you do have is access to our contributions, and that should be enough to demonstrate what I have said. David Olivier 14:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What Hipocrite meant was that if you all use the same connection, and edit the same articles, the checkuser will turn up true. Try to stay civil, please. yandman 14:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I have remained civil; perhaps you could also comment on the lack of civility and respect for ourselves and for the integrity of Wikipedia on the part of an administrator who declares true what he could have ascertained to be false had he simply bothered to contact the parties. David Olivier 18:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[10]. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to hear this explanation as well, because I've run my own check the results seem pretty darn conclusive. Regards, Mackensen (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, just wanted to report that the user above (Olivierd) is now issuing what seems to be direct threats of continual disruption of an article and its mediation page as per this diff. [11]. Not sure what this should be classified under, but I figured it was worth reporting.--Ramdrake 19:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOCK#Meatpuppets seems to think that it's irrelevant if you three are actually the same person or not: "Neither a sock puppet nor a single-purpose account holder is regarded as a member of the Wikipedia community. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that, for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one individual." —Trevyn 23:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we just trust the checkusers on this one. When they say it's conclusive, then its conclusive. When they say they're the same person, then they're the same person. Checkusers don't fool around with results. They don't say something unless they're sure. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

If there was any doubt whatsoever (as there was with Zelig33 in this very request, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Olivierd, possibly because of a shared IP - I don't exactly know), Essjay would not have {{confirmed}} it, but rather used the spectrum of {{likely}}, {{possible}}, {{unlikely}}, {{inconclusive}} etc. Daniel.Bryant 00:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Notice on Essjay's user page

Archived here.

Erronous checkuser decision

See WP:AN/I#Erronous_checkuser_outcome_against_Olivierd_.2F_Benio76_.2F_Zelig33. I will email you shortly. David Olivier 14:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Mail to Essjay

I sent the following mail to Essjay through the Wikipedia mailing facility.

Date 19/01/07 18:09 UTC.

In itself, my having to write to prove that I am not the same person as
Benio76 and Zelig33 is not only a strange occurence, but also a case of
the burden of proof falling on the accused. I do not consider this situation
normal.

Before going further, I remind you that you are bound by a strict policy of
privacy. The information that I give below, as well as the information that
you can access through your checkuser status, is not to be disclosed on
Wikipedia or elsewhere without consent.

Given that Benio76 and I share the same ADSL connection behind a NAT router,
I was expecting you to contact me for enquiry. There is nothing in Wikipedia
policy that says that two users living in the same household and sharing the
same IP amounts to a case of sockpuppetry. Benio76 is an independent person,
who is entitled to her own opinion and whose contributions result from her
own work.

It is even more surprising that you have declared Zelig33 a "likely"
sockpuppet. He has never edited from an IP connected to Benio76 or to myself,
and the only presumption you have that he might be a sockpuppet is that he
is on the same side in the current foie gras dispute. It would seem that in
your mind, holding opinions similar to those of Zelig33, Benio76 and mine
implies that we are one and only person; and that *is* very surprising, given
that you claim to "maintain a strict policy of neutrality and non-intervention
in controversial issues". For your information, there are over 20 thousand
people who have signed the online call for the abolition of foie gras,
<http://stopgavage.com/en/signatures.php>. You have a problem if that means
that for you, there are 20 thousand potential sockpuppets.


If you have examined our contribution IPs and times seriously, you will
have found that:

- Benio76 has edited consistently from IP 82.230.142.190, which reverses
to par69-5-82-230-142-190.fbx.proxad.net.

- I have edited both from that same proxad.net IP and from IP 159.84.6.105,
which reverses to myrtille.univ-lyon2.fr.

- Zelig33 has edited from one or several IPs that have nothing to do with
those two above.

- At times Benio76 and I have edited during the same time periods, from the
same proxad.net IP. That was the case during evenings and week-ends, and
during the last week of December (Christmas holidays). An example is December
30.

- At other times, I have edited from my univ-lyon2.fr IP. Often, such as Jan.
17, Jan 16, Jan 10 and many other workdays, Benio76 and I have edited during
the same time-period, she from the proxad.net address and I from the
univ-lyon2.fr address.


If you have attempted a whois on the domain proxad.net, you will see that it
is owned by the same company who own the domain free.fr. The site
www.free.fr makes it clear that they are ADSL providers. They also give the
NAT router option for home users. That should confirm to you that our
proxad.net address is indeed a shared home ADSL address.

If you have tried a traceroute on the proxad.net address, you will see that
the final nodes have "lyon" in their name. If you do the same on Zelig33's
address or addresses, you will certainly find different results, and perhaps
nodes referring to Bordeaux - he lives, as he states on his user page, in
the Bordeaux region, about 500km away from Lyon.

All this amounts to my having an ADSL connection at home, used both by Benio76
with whom I live, and a university connection (domain univ-lyon2.fr), because
I happen to work at the Université Lyon 2. You can check that on the Universty
website, http://www.univ-lyon2.fr/ - type david olivier in the box at the
top, and you will see that I belong to the "Centre de Ressources
Informatiques" - i.e. am a computer engineer.

You can also check that the address zucca.david.olivier.name also resolves to
that same ADSL address. You can check that that domain david.olivier.name is
registered through gandi.net to myself, David Olivier, since 2003 (go to the
www.gandi.net site and click on whois).

In that whois, you can even see my address, 20 rue d'Aguesseau, 69007 Lyon,
and judge by googlemaps
(<http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&z=17&ll=45.752373,4.839939&spn=0.004215,0.008004&om=1>)
that the said rue d'Aguesseau is about 500 meters from the Université Lyon 2;
which would have made it quite a feat for me to run back and forth from my
home to my workplace on those days where my edits from the university appear
interleaved with those by my purported sockpuppet Benio76 from the home address:

Olivierd: 12:21, 4 January 2007
Benio76:  12:42, 4 January 2007
Olivierd: 12:57, 4 January 2007
Olivierd: 13:20, 4 January 2007
Olivierd: 14:02, 4 January 2007
Benio76:  14:20, 4 January 2007
Olivierd: 14:47, 4 January 2007
Olivierd: 15:36, 4 January 2007
Benio76:  16:12, 4 January 2007


Concerning Benio76: you can do a whois on the address benio.it, and you will
find that that domain is owned since 2002 by Maria Agnese Pignataro, who (at
the time she registered it) lived at Rome; she is indeed from Rome, as stated
on her user page. You can look at her website, http://www.benio.it/, and see
that it is a real site corresponding to a real person; a person who has a
degree in philosophy ("laureata in filosofia") if you click on the "chi sono"
("who am I") link. If you click on the "filosofia" link, you will see she
has interests in many subjects, among which particularly Descartes (third
link on that page); you can go to the Wikipedia article on
History_of_the_molecule and see the references she makes to Descartes on the
talk page.

You can look at her contributions on the foie gras controversy mediation
cabal page, and see that her contributions, particularly in relation to the
ancient Egyptians, imply skills in archaeology and history that a computer
engineer such as myself do not typically possess, but that a student in
philosophy may very well possess. You can see she displays skills in
interpreting latin on the Good Article review page, Archive 12; that again
is much more typical of a philosophy student.

You can also look at the style of the contributions of Benio76, Zelig33 and
myself. Of course, in theory, someone can fake that. I would have to be
skilled indeed to do such a good job at it; and to be able to understand
latin and interpret texts in latin, Roman history, archaelogical evidence
about the Egyptians, write about Descartes, contribute as heavily as I have
done to the foie gras controversy, and also, some time in the past, to
articles about neutron stars, microwave ovens, taurine, triple point and
so on; and to some articles on math on the French Wikipedia (user
David_Olivier).

If this is not enough to convince you that there is one person, myself,
called David Olivier, and another person, called Maria Agnese Pignataro,
and that their contributions are independent, then I will go into still
more detail. What I have said has already been a lot of work for me,
work that I shouldn't have had to do. I shouldn't *in any case* have been
brought to justify my existence and that of Benio76 *after* having been
judged, and after, she tells me, our home IP has itself been blocked.
All this amounts to a serious failure of proper standards of respect and
fairness.

I ask you to rapidly reverse your decision, unblock Benio76's account,
and state plainly your error on the relevant checkuser case page, our
user pages and the WP:AN/I page, in the relevant section. I ask you to
apologize for having acted without carrying out the most elementary
steps to ascertain the facts.

David

Second mail to Essjay

Second mail sent through the WP mail facility.

Date 21/01/07 21:02 UTC.

I sent you an email before yesterday (i.e. Jan 19, 18:09 UTC),
relative to your statement that Benio76, Zelig33 and I were the
same person. I would like to know if you plan to answer.

On Essjay's talk page

Archived here.

Answer expected

I sent you an email before yesterday (i.e. Jan 19, 18:09 UTC), relative to your statement that Benio76, Zelig33 and I were the same person. I would like to know if you plan to answer.

David Olivier 21:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't; if I answered all the angry emails I get from sockpuppets, I'd need a secretary. I've given my report, and that's the end of it. Essjay (Talk) 21:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet, and your calling me one is insulting. I have sent you a detailed message demonstrating that I am not a sockpuppet. If you do not even accept to read it, you are not doing your work correctly, nor are you showing any respect for your fellow Wikipedians or for justice generally.

I ask you again to read my message and to answer me. I do not intend to accept this injustice.

David Olivier 18:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to accept or reject whatever you like, it doesn't bother me in the least. I've given my report, I've listened to the same litany of excuses every sockpuppet from Wik to Lightbringer to Willy on Wheels has used, and I don't believe it any more from you than I did from any of them. Find someone else to harass. Essjay (Talk) 19:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I have not given you excuses, I have given you evidence. I am not "harrassing" you; you have declared me a sockpuppeteer, which I happen not to be. I am asking you to examine the evidence and to revert your decision.

To declare that I am "welcome to accept or reject whatever [I] like, it doesn't bother [you] in the least" amounts to saying "I have might, so I am right". You may, or may not, have the might; that we will see. In any case, it doesn't make you right, and it does say something about your fitness for the work you are supposed to be doing.

David Olivier 20:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocking of Olivierd and Zelig33

From Benio76's block log and Zelig33's:

20:29, 24 January 2007 Pschemp (Talk | contribs) blocked "Olivierd (contribs)" (account creation blocked, autoblock enabled) with an expiry time of indefinite (abusive sockpuppet per checkuser case)

20:34, 24 January 2007 Pschemp (Talk | contribs) blocked "Zelig33 (contribs)" (account creation blocked, autoblock enabled) with an expiry time of indefinite (sockpuppet of Oliverd)

Our pages too were ornated with the accusatory banner.

Mail sent to CyclePat

I chose CyclePat as my advocate and mailed him through the mailing facility.

Date 28/01/07 22:17 UTC.

Hi Pat,

I am writing you to ask you to serve as my advocate on Wikipedia.
I have been falsly accused of sockpuppetry, and have even been banned
from editing, along with two other users. My user name is Olivierd,
my real life name is David Olivier.

I am not a sockpuppet, and have never created a sockpuppet. My friend
Agnese Pignataro (user Benio76), who lives with me and shares my
Internet connection, is a real person. Her edits are independent
from mine. She is not a meatpuppet either, except if the meaning of
the term is stretched beyond all reason.

Another user, Zelig33, was declared a "likely" sockpuppet of mine,
and is now banned too. I don't know how he is supposed to be my
sockpuppet, since he has no IP numbers in common with me, and his
IP or IPs probably point to addresses 500 kilometers away from mine!


All this arose from a content dispute about an article, Foie gras.
Benio76, Zelig33 and I - and a few others - were on one side, and a
number of other editors on the other side. Last Jan. 17, they opened
a request for checkuser against the three of us:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Olivierd

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Olivierd

I knew that the fact that Benio76 and I have (in part) edited
from the same IP would make us appear as potential sockpuppets.
I expected us to be *contacted* about that. I didn't expect the
checkuser administrator to declare outright that we *were* the
same person - and his having done just that still appears to me
incredible and deeply problematic. Still more problematic is his
refusal to even examine the detailed mail I sent him following his
verdict and his reaction when I protested his not responding:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay/Archives/51#Answer_expected

On January 19, following the checkuser "result" ("Confirmed
Olivierd = Benio76, Zelig33 is  Likely. Essjay"), Benio76's account
was blocked indefinitely. On January 24, following my protests to
Essjay - ten minutes after my last message on his talk page, see
above link - my own account was blocked indefinitely, and so was
Zelig33's. It seems that protesting against an unjust decision
can only make your case worse!

I am not a sockpuppeteer; Benio76 and Zelig33 are not me, they are
real, independent people and their edits are theirs. I ask you to
help me. However, I first wish to establish to you, beyond reasonable
doubt, that Benio76 and I are two real independent people. I do not
ask you to just take my word for it. I wish first to convince you
that the sockpuppetry verdict against us is mistaken, and I have
enough evidence - the evidence that I sent to Essjay and that he
refused to examine - to show it. If you agree to help me, I will
send it to you; I believe it to be convincing, but it will take
you some minutes to read it and to check it. Please tell me if
you agree to help.

I thank you for anything you can do.

David

Second mail to CyclePat

Again through the mailing facility.

Date 29/01/07 23:41 UTC.

Hi Pat,

I wrote you a message yesterday. I don't want to press you unduly,
but could you at least confirm you have received that message and
that you intend to respond? I am currently unjustly blocked from
editing, and furthermore I have seen that the evidence that can
prove that we are not sockpuppets has a limited lifetime
(http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser_Policy - "This information
is only stored for a short period"). I don't want to give that
evidence time to disappear.

Thank you.

David

CyclePat then answered. The exchange is omitted here.

Discussion on Culverin and MacGyverMagic's talk pages

Benio76 discovered the Wikipedia advocacy system, and chose Culverin as an advocate. Culverin apparently contacted MacGyverMagic, who contacted Essjay:

From MacGyverMagic's talk page:

Benio76

I have recently received a email from User:Benio76, that in which he claims he was unfairly blocked. He has stated that the supposed sock puppets of himself are from an shared IP and not of his making. He says that he has tryed to contact you be he has received no response. Please respond on my talk page. Cheers. Culverin? ^Talk 10:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Benio has stated that ha lives in an apartment with which is a shared IP address. Who was the administrator that delt mostly with this incident? Did you ever receive Benios messages? Benios has also said he would like to take this to arbcom or the medition commitee. If Benio is truly innocent what do you think should happen? Cheers. Culverin? ^Talk 23:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

From Culverin's talk page:

Benio

He/she did receive a response. I said I'd pass on their message to the user who performed the checkuser investigation. I haven't heard back from them. If you consider unblocking him, first have a look at the disputed article. Both accounts share the same POV. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• I received a complaint about the block, and said I'd pass it on to User:Essjay. Later I received a message complaining about the fact I hadn't gotten back to them yet. If Essjay isn't responding, I will look into it again tomorrow. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Question by MacGyverMagic to Essjay

From Essjay's talk page, Archive 52:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Olivierd

Quick question: Did any of the users involved in this request use other IPs to log in - other than the one they share? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That question obtained no response on Essjay's user page.

Mail sent to Mackensen

Mail I sent through the WP mail facility.

Date 1/02/07 2:03 UTC.

Hi Charles,

When I protested on WP:AN/I on Jan. 19 following my having been
declared a sockpuppeteer, you commented:

> I'd love to hear this explanation as well, because I've run my own check
> the results seem pretty darn conclusive. Regards, Mackensen

I take your word seriously, and I include that explanation below. It is the
text of the mail I had sent that Jan. 19 to checkuser admin Essjay.

Essjay has declined to respond to that mail. I suppose he didn't even read
it. I believe that the information in it is convincing.

Since you asked to hear that explanation, I think I am entitled to ask you:
How are Benio76 and I supposed to be the same person, when it appears, in
particular, that we have edited in an interleaved fashion from different
IPs, that are demonstrably on computers at least 500 meters apart, during the
same afternoon? And could you please explain to me what makes you so "darn"
positive in the first place that we are the same person?

Lastly: I have been trying to obtain from Essjay that he confirm the data
relative to the IPs that Benio76 and I have used that I have stated on my talk
page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Olivierd#My_IPs_and_Benio76.27s_IPs

Since this seems difficult to obtain from Essjay, and since you too have
checkuser access, may I ask you to confirm it?

Thanks,

David

============ My Jan. 19 mail to Essjay:

 ... (copy of text above)

Unblocking of Benio76

From Benio76's block log:

23:41, 2 February 2007 Mel Etitis (Talk | contribs) unblocked Benio76 (contribs) (sock-puupet claim reassessed (after discussion with blocking admin and other admins))

Benio76's user page was restored by Mel Etitis.

Question by Culverin to Essjay

From Essjay's talk page, Archive 52:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Olivierd

Did any of the users involved in this request use other IPs to log in - other than the one they share? User Benio is contesting the decision to block him per checkuser as he states his Ip is shared between him and his roommate. Although its intresting to see they have the same editing habits. Anyway your input into discussion would be highly valued. Cheers. Culverin? ^Talk 04:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not permitted to reveal that information. The "it was my roommate" excuse, however, is one of the classics; it's been used by nearly every sockpuppeteer out there. Essjay (Talk) 04:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Essjay I should of known you cant say but are you completely sure their one and only? Beio has contacted via email trying to prove his innocence. Cheers. Culverin? ^Talk 03:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

All I can say is that the technical evidence supports the conclusion that they are the same user; checkuser is unfortunately not a precision instrument, so I'm not able to check DNA samples or anything. ;) The way that cases get to RFCU is because someone notices that two or more users are behaving and contributing in a similar manner; they come to RFCU to have us check and see if the technical evidence supports this, which is all we do: Perform a checkuser investigation and report the state of the technical evidence.

Experience says that roommates generally have diverse interests, different writing styles, and other personality traits that differentiate them; when two users who have been acting exactly alike, especially editing the very same articles in the very same way, then they are one person, not two. As I've said before, many sockpuppeteers claim to be two different people, but it all goes back to what brought the issue up to begin with: They were exhibiting behavior that led other users to believe they are the same person, and the technical evidence supports that conclusion.

Another important point here: Even if two suspected sockpuppets *are* two different users, if they are acting like sockpuppets (i.e., if they are meatpuppets), then they are to be treated as sockpuppets, per the ruling of the Arbitration Committee. "For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets." [12] Users are not permitted to circumvent Wikipedia policies by recruiting proxies to act on thier behalf.

I'm not surprised that he's emailed you; he's emailed several dozen other people, and he's spammed me to the point that I've put him on filter in my email. The more important point is, however, that I didn't block any of them, so I'm not the person to be talking to: The blocking admin is the one you need to discuss the matter with. If you're concerned about the evidence, I'd suggest asking the users who filed the RFCU, as they are the ones who noticed the main evidence: Editing pattern. My point has been, and remains, that my only job here is to check the technical evidence and report on it, and that report was, is, and remains that the technical evidence is consistent with these users being the same person. Essjay (Talk) 07:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Third email to Essjay

Mail I sent through the WP mail facility.

Date 3/02/07 12:42 UTC.

From your talk page:

> > Did any of the users involved in this request use other IPs to log in - other than
> > the one they share? User Benio is contesting the decision to block him per
> > checkuser as he states his Ip is shared between him and his roommate.
> > Although its intresting to see they have the same editing habits. Anyway your
> > input into discussion would be highly valued. Cheers. Culverin? Talk 04:00,
> > 3 February 2007 (UTC)
>
> I'm not permitted to reveal that information. The "it was my roommate" excuse,
> however, is one of the classics; it's been used by nearly every sockpuppeteer
> out there. Essjay (Talk) 04:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

That sockpuppeteers say "it was my roommate" does not imply that those
who say "it was my roommate" are sockpuppeteers. That murderers classically
say "I didn't do it" doesn't imply that whoever says "I didn't do it" is a murderer.
See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Guilt_by_Association>.

You also received from us detailed and convincing information showing we are
not sockpuppets. That information went much further than "it was my roommate".
You declined to answer us in any way, and when I insisted you called it "harrassment":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay/Archives/51#Answer_expected

The only effect of my appeals was that ten minutes after my last message, my
own account was blocked, and Zelig33's too.


You say you are not permitted to reveal the information about our IPs, but
you are, because I have revealed the IPs themselves on my own talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Olivierd#My_IPs_and_Benio76.27s_IPs

I have requested that you simply *confirm* that information. For you to say
that in name of privacy you don't want to confirm that information is absurd,
and is a case of using a rule that is supposed to protect us against us;
in addition to the fact that you have already made mockery of that protection,
since by saying that Benio76 and I were "confirmed sockpuppets" you have
in effect publicly implied that we share an IP, without any prior notice
and giving us any chance to defend ourselves.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser_Policy#Wikimedia_privacy_policy

> On Wikimedia projects, privacy policy considerations are of tremendous importance.
> Unless someone is definitely violating policy with their actions (e.g. massive bot
> vandalism or spam), revealing their IP, whereabouts or other information sufficient
> to identify them is likely a violation.
> 
> CheckUser requires the level of confidentiality one would apply to our most confidential user data.
> 
> ...
> 
> If you're in any doubt, give no detail.

You were apparently in no doubt, but the fact is that you were wrong.

I ask you again to confirm the IP information I have stated on my talk page.

David (Olivierd)

Copy of this message to: Culverin, MacGyverMagic, CyclePat, Mel Etitis, Benio76 and Zelig33