Posted by: GoRight | May 27, 2010

Classic sock puppeteer technique …

Well, not long after suspicions of Hipocrite being a sock puppet of William M. Connolley are raised publicly, Hipocrite suddenly begins disagreeing with WMC and chastises him on his own talk page.  This is a classic sock puppeteer move.  In this case the maneuver serves two purposes: (1) it allows WMC to air a baseless smear against Fred Singer, a BLP violation even on his talk page BTW, and (2) it attempts to give Hipocrite some plausible deniability against charges of being WMC’s sock puppet.

Sorry there, Willie, but no one’s buying it.  This response is just too predictable.

UPDATE:

And in other news we take note of the fact that WMC warned Marknutley about removing sources given his restriction on adding them, and threatening to seek added restrictions if he persists.  When Mark doesn’t back down Hipocrite comes out of no where and requests the very sanction that WMC threatened.  Note that Hipocrite messes up his diffs along the way and, presumably after switching accounts, WMC notices and helpfully fixes them up for Hipocrite.  This is a brazen move on WMC’s part but clearly indicative of his faith in his compatriot’s ability to defend him, if needed.  He will likely get away with continuing in this manner because he has had the puppet for long enough now that it’s history is now well established.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. You noticed that too? 🙂

    I also like how WMC feels he can edit Hipocrite’s complaint at RfE…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement&diff=364373294&oldid=364373173

  2. Hi GoRight, the idea that Hipocrite is WMC’s sock puppet is an exceptional claim and needs exceptional proof. Interesting theory though. What was the context of Hipocrite’s joining? Are there writing style similarities? WMC has a, er, distinctive personality. I think it’d slip through from time to time if he was editing through a sock. The fact that they support each other doesn’t get you all that far I don’t think.

  3. I have got to agree with Alex on this one. While there certainly seems to be a number of coincidences, considering my past experience with being accused of sockpuppetry, I think the bar has to be set much higher.

    During my attempt to clear my name, I found a number of usefull tools to compare user edits to find sockpuppets. Perhaps I’ll use them on WMC and Hipocrite.

  4. Dan,

    As I’ve said before, I’m not sure if Hipocrite is WMC’s sock, someone else’s, or a legitimate account, but his main activity levels are during typical business hours in Britain, which means a checkuser could discover if he was a sockpuppet *if* the IP could be traced to a business and not just some local ISP which is what a smaller company would probably use.

  5. I am not saying that Hipocrite is, or is not, definitively a sock puppet of William M. Connolley. It is clearly possible that he is not. I am merely pointing out the suspicious aspects of their relationship for future reference and use.

    Clearly this is all circumstantial evidence. But alas getting definitive evidence requires privileges that I do not have on-wiki. It would require checkuser to determine if the two accounts had ever shared an IP. However, if TGL’s conjecture about Hipocrite being a business hours account and WMC being a home account the likelyhood that they would share an IP is low to begin with and a lack of such evidence is NOT proof that one of these users is not a sock puppet.

    I will simply point out that even if Hipocrite is not a sock puppet of WMC he certainly is acting like one and the effect on the project is likely the same.

  6. I would definitely agree that there is some meatpuppety going on between WMC and Hippocrite and the off wiki coordination between the AGW cabal (lets just call it what it is) is the worst kept secret on the project. Digging through the RfArb archives, there was a case not too long ago where off wiki collaboration was a key reason that ArbCom imposed such heavy sanctions on the editors involved.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list#Mailing_list_sent_to_Committee
    Now all we need is our own version of “climategate” to get a look see at the internal workings of the AGW cabal’s gaming.

  7. William M Connelley is still abusing people at Wiki

    Re: My experiences when attempting to make changes on Wiki by Andrew Judd

    Wiki is preventing a true description of the ‘greenhouse effect’ being shown on Wiki.

    Wiki wants you to believe that the atmosphere heats the Surface. Anybody attempting to show that the surface heats the atmosphere will be banned.

    As required by Wiki my comments were supported by the references already on the page.

    I went as far as to phone up the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory Senior Scientist, Yochanan Kushnir Ph.d, who wrote reference 9 and he confirmed that the surface heats the atmosphere, and the surface is warmer because the atmosphere slows down the heat loss from the surface and the colder atmosphere cannot heat the hotter surface. That was the main point that I wanted to get onto the Wiki page.

    Wiki administrator Dave Souza who may well be Connolley since Souza cannot possibly be the ten year retired local authority architect he claims to be with the energy of a fifteen year year old to prevent changes, said I had an odd unsupported opinion that the atmosphere heats the surface and was always intrumental in getting me sanctioned.

    After I was banned my wife informed the editors that Dr Kushnir fully supported what I had said and even after this editor Dave Souza kept up the obfuscation that Kushnirs telephone comments were not valid for Wiki. Souza referred to my wife as das Weib when he reported her. Obviously he knew the abusive content of that expression when used to describe another mans wife. My wife was banned.

    Connolley appears to be the chief abuser of anybody who attempts to make unapproved changes, but he has other names he can use to ensure no disputing editor can make changes.

    Connolley did a write up of his behaviour with me on his blog where he kept up the insulting behaviour in the comments continually saying i did not know what i was talking about.

    Fairly well known climate scientist James Annan called me a loon, and on his blog when i asked for an explanation he deleted the comment and said ‘do go away silly troll’. He followed up with more comments on Connolleys blog that if he told me what he did on the internet he would have to kill me. Connolley thought this was all a big joke.

    http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/03/how_not_to_edit_wikipedia.php

    These people behave like children but evidently they have some power to alter our reality.

    Other editors have tried to make similar changes and been banned.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:William_M._Connolley&diff=next&oldid=337450239

    The whole experience was very odd and it was only later that i found out this had all happened before and Connolley was a well known activist.

    Please feel free to use this information as you wish

    Regards

    Andrew Judd


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: