Posted by: GoRight | June 30, 2010

Well isn’t that special?

IMPORTANT: See my statement found here regarding my own use of sock puppets.

I had an email waiting for me this morning pointing me to a couple of things on Wikipedia.  The first is yet another accusation of sock puppetry, although this time from someone not normally associated with team AGW.  Viriditas is probably acting in good faith here, however their “evidence” leaves a lot to be desired in terms of actual, well, evidence.

Wikistalk returns six hits, an unusual number of matches considering Rush’s Algore (now TheNeutralityDoctor) only created his account on 11 June 2010. Similarities in edit summaries are numerous, including the use of identical punctuation, and unique use of words in the same context as GoRight, such as “irony”, “clarify”, “Connolley”, “vs.”, “Reply to X”, “Restore”, “Fix”, “Typo”, “These are”, “I believe”, and dozens more. It isn’t necessarily just these words that show a match, but how they are used. Keep in mind that GoRight had 6,406 edits before he was banned, whereas TheNeutralityDoctor has only 107. For there to be this many matches in such a small set of contributions is highly unlikely, and points to a direct match. Rush’s Algore’s style of endless argumentation on Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Hipocrite_should_self-revert. is what tipped me off. Viriditas (talk) 06:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess I am unique in my use of such esoteric words and phrases as “irony”, “clarify”, “Connolley”, “vs.”, “Reply to X”, “Restore”, “Fix”, “Typo”, “These are”, and “I believe”.  If this is true then I shudder to think what it means for the language skills of the average Wikipedian.  I haven’t tried but I strong suspect that if one goes to any of the talk pages edited by TheNeutralityDoctor (formerly Rush’s Algore) or one of the administrative notice boards and search for any of these that you will find plenty of hits that are from users other than TND or myself.

Oh, and notice that TND and myself use “identical punctuation“.  Yep, it’s true.  We both seem to have used periods, commas, and probably the occasional question mark or two.  It’s hard to argue against evidence like that.

Full Disclosure: I must admit, however, to knowing how to actually use all of these phrases and punctuation as well.  I have no doubt that I have.  🙂

That Wikistalk tool looks pretty damning, doesn’t it?  Here are a couple of other comparisons that you might find interesting: GoRight/Hipocrite and GoRight/Viriditas.  Please checkuser both of them as my sock puppets immediately.

The simple truth of the matter is that anyone who is either a skeptic or a supporter of AGW theory and edits Climate Change pages is going to have a strong overlap with me.  Hell, even if you don’t edit Climate Change pages (as Viriditas is not a frequent editor there) you may end up with a significant overlap with me as we see in this case.

Reply to Fut.Perf.: It isn’t the similarities in the words, but how they are used in the edit summaries and on the talk pages. Both users have the same set of words in their vocabulary that they use more than other users (“item”, “confusion”, “provided”, “no longer”). Same English style, and same obsession with Al Gore in the contribution history (Aside from Fred Singer, GoRight’s second highest number of contributions was to Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth) I would invite you to look at their edit summaries closer and their style of communication on random talk pages. They appear to be the same user. Viriditas (talk) 06:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Just more of the same.  Apparently I am also unique in my ability to use “item”, “confusion”, “provided”, and “no longer” as well.  This does add a new wrinkle, however.  It seems that because early on in my Wikipedia career I chose to quibble over the falsehoods portrayed in An Inconvenient Truth that somehow translates into having an obsession with Al Gore.  Sorry but I wouldn’t give Al Gore the time of day.  Keeping team AGW from misrepresenting the facts about global warming and the “science” presented in An Inconvenient Truth?  That’s more my speed.

Some kind soul posted a pointer to a User Compare report that compares myself with TND.  This is interesting.  Note how obsessed we both are with Al Gore.  Out of my 6,000+ edits I have managed to rack up ONE edit to Al Gore and that was to clean up some grammar.  Talk about having an obsessive attack fetish on Al Gore?  I have to admit that I was totally unaware of my problem here.  I’ll have to work on that by cutting back.

Now, there are a couple of obvious (at least to me) differences between TND and myself based on what has been presented thus far:

  • The first is TND’s use of the term “Connolley” to refer to WMC.  Now I admit that you may be able to find an example or two of my calling him “Connolley”, but the vast majority of the time I actually use WMC or fully spell out William M. Connolley.  I do this to avoid fighting over stupidities.  This is one of WMC’s preferred modes of being addressed and I have simply trained myself to use WMC.  I have even chastised other editors for NOT complying with WMC’s request on-wiki, and I tend to use WMC even here on my own blog which is off-wiki.
  • The second difference is how I tend to append my comments to the section titles in the edit summaries.  While I don’t universally do this by and large I have a tendency to put a “-” (dash) between the title and the comment.  Note that TND doesn’t really have this same tendency.  Go look at the user comparison report to see what I mean.

I know, I know.  These are mere minutiae in comparison to the weight of the evidence presented thus far, right?  How do I expect a little thing like a dash to be convincing when my accuser has things like periods AND commas.  Indeed.

I have seen nothing to suggest whether TND is a legitimate user or just another sock puppet (master unknown).  I am noting a trend here, though.  When these puppets look exactly like WMC because of such common phrases as “Old Fruit” and “septic” they are blamed on me.  When they supposedly look similar to me  because of such totally unique phrasings as “I believe”, “typo”, and “clarify” those too are blamed on me.  Hmm.  It’s like someone’s out to get me, but who?

I’m beginning to understand just how Scibaby and WMC must feel.

The other thing in my email this morning was a pointer to this edit which was so thoughtfully placed there by Ncmvocalist.  NCM has had a long record of trying to have me banned so this isn’t really surprising behavior but he should be more careful.  In the “he who smelt it, dealt it” principle of sock puppet investigations he may just have tipped his hand (puppet).  🙂  I doubt it is him, though, but his motives are not pure.

And speaking of impure motives, it is also worth mentioning that ChrisO likewise has a record of trying to get me banned or otherwise enjoined, so his edit here should be viewed as similarly non-neutral.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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


%d bloggers like this: