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:Kernow

[edit]
Suspected sock puppeteer

Kernow (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by
Evidence

User:Kernow is the subject of the Jonty Haywood article. He was previously blocked for spamming his website www.losethegame.. on wikipedia, subsequently blacklisted.

User:Jessi1989 is a relatively new user, who started editing in August 2008. They made mostly minor uncontroversial edits, but on 9 November, [1], starting getting interested in the status of Haywood and his site on wikpedia. They have since gone to quite extraordinary lengths for a relatively new user in order to add get a part of Haywood's website whitelisted to quite innappropriately have claims in the article about him be verified by an mp3 file hosted on his own website [2] (note:the link here is not an mp3, but a link to a meta discussion).

User:Wiw8 has editted since March 2006, and has frequently been in or around the Haywood article, insisting Haywood is a notable person beyond the one incident he actually gets attention for about him, to the point of, for example, describing him in the lead of his bio as a notable 'hoaxer' [3] (based on the fact he created one hoax that made the news, described in the very next sentence).

Most recently, both of these users have been trying to add material to the article, frequently appearing within hours of each other, often after long absences from wikipedia, 5 December for example, but are never seemingly able to edit at the same time as each other, and not appearing at all on the same days, 6 December for example. (Haywood is aware of the checkuser function from a previous case [4]).

There seems to be a wider issue at play, as all the 'sources' for the Haywood article are effectively extracts from interviews with Haywood, in pieces about the Game and not Haywood himself. This seems to be a concerted campaign to game the sourcing requirements, to use these obviously self-promoting and non-independant sources to promote Haywood on Wikipedia. Sources are variously being manipulated and misrepresented to make unsupported claims. (c.f. Haywood is the creator of the biggest site about a made up game - based on one very dubsious interview which is full of claims reported directly from Haywoods mouth. He is also now apparently "known in various countries", extrapolated from various titbits that don't show this at all.

Either both of these accounts are related to/used by Haywood, or the Jessi account is an alternate of Wiw8 who are both attempting to promote Haywood, but are not necessarily him. (Wiw8 plays the experienced moderator actor to Jessi's apparently novice edit style, although Jessi picked up aspects about the spam whitelist and other things pretty quickly).

P.S. Even today, Wiw8 edits up to 15:59, disappears, Jessi edits from 16:50 to 17:40, but doesn't have time to hang around and address the evidence, and then Wiw8 returns at 18:06, 9 December 2008 to get his reply straight in. MickMacNee (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
hahaha, so this article in the paper is all part of a big conspiracy by haywood to boast about himself on wikipedia. if all haywood cares about is self-promotion do you really think he's bothered about about what wikipedia says after having 3 million people read about him. think about what you're saying! haywood manipulated influential british journalists into writing about him in one of the uk's most popular newspapers so that his army of sockpuppets could add some sentences to his wikipedia article... are you being serious? Jessi1989 (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing the notability of the beach hoax. I'm talking about the constant attempts to promote the game-related website and attempts to puff up his article. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i'm not talking about the beach hoax, i'm talking about the metro article about the game. it has 3 million readers and is one of the most popular papers in the uk. almost the whole of page 3 was about the game and haywood. there was even a bit about it on the front page. have you even read the source or looked into its significance at all? or do you just comment against anything to do with haywood no matter what? forgive me for being a little surprised that you are an admin here... Jessi1989 (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me for being against advertising and self-promotion on Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

grr! this shows exactly what i mean! whenever anything related to haywood is mentioned anywhere on wikipedia, you always show up, assume that it's "advertising or self promotion" or some other bad thing, and chip in against it, usually with "evidence" that is either manipulated or just plain false then ask people to contact you privately for more info as if you want to avoid your "evidence" being scrutinised by anyone else. of course if anyone tries to point out that what you are saying doesn't add up, it doesn't mean you might be wrong, noo, it must be yet another sockpuppet of the big bad haywood who, despite being covered in tons of media sources with huge readerships, clearly still cares so much about "advertising himself" on wikipedia (whatever that actually means) and has a huge gang of friends willing to spend hours helping him in these devious endeavours. with you it seems that any editor that doesn't think haywood is the scum of the earth must be a sockpuppet or one of his pals who deserves to be banned. please, here and now, explain what it is you really have against this guy. and this time make sure that whatever "evidence" you give is actually true, and no, an ani report written by you a couple of months ago which is full of tripe is not "evidence" in any way. Jessi1989 (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wiw8 made in the evidence section moved here

MickMacNee (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the first evidence paragraph that mentions me:
This is a rather deceptive account of my history of involvement with this article. The article was created nearly two and a half years after I registered to Wikipedia. I came to the article after getting involved in this AFD and the subsequent DRV, which was raised by the accuser, User:MickMacNee. Note that this wasn't the first I'd heard of Haywood, as I had seen his porthemmet hoax in the news and have been mildly involved with discussing the The Game (mind game) article, in which his website has been frequently discussed on the talk page. Anyway, I !voted keep in the AFD because I disagreed with the rationale for deletion, and was immediately accused of foul play. So I made a post detailing my opinions on the matter. I was not the only keep voter. After the AFD was closed as no consensus, the closing admin, User:lifebaka, posted on my talk page here asking me to rewrite the article. So I did. It has been on my watch list since then. User:MickMacNee immediately took it to DRV, which was also closed as no consensus. Even at this point, User:MickMacNee basically suggested I was a sockpuppet of the article subject. Anyway, User:MickMacNee fought hard for the AFD to be overturned and the article deleted, but the DRV was closed as no consensus. User:MickMacNee immediately went through the article removing most of what I'd added. Although I didn't disagree with all his edits, the way he did it grated on me a bit so I just let it be for a while. A few days later I added a lead-in to the article per WP:LEAD, which User:MickMacNee reverted. I did not "describe him as a notable hoaxer based on the fact he created one hoax that made the news", as the accuser claims above. I simply used the word "hoaxer" because that's what a number of the sources, such as this news article, call him. Other than this, although I've been watching the page, I've made few (if any) further edits to it until this incident. Wiw8 (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the paragraph below the list of editing times:
Most of what you say in the above paragraph about the sources is plain false, but this is not the place to continue the editing dispute that you raised this SSP to help "win". I don't know, maybe there is a "concerted campaign to game the sourcing requirements", whatever that means, but if there is, it's nothing to do with me. Wiw8 (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the comments about editing times
This analysis is daft. Not everyone edits with exactly the same habits. Not everyone lives in the same timezone or has the same lifestyle that dictates when they can and can't edit. While I'm not a very heavy editor I do log in to Wikipedia almost every day. Sometimes I'll edit articles, a lot of the time I will just read, sometimes I will notice something going on on the pages that are on my watchlist and get involved, and sometimes I will just respond to stuff. As for your PS...what did you expect? Us to suddenly start making our edits at exactly the same time? Wiw8 (talk) 19:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Jessi1989

mick, even if we do make edits at the same time, we'd obviously just be friends of haywood rather than haywood himself so i'm sure this would hardly clear my name.

for any admins wondering what exactly the dispute was that lead to mick making these accusations, here is a what i said on his talkpage.

firstly, this is how mick says we should write wikipedia articles: "Just follow the example in the current article [that he wrote]. It is quite simple. "In source X, claim X was made. In source Y, claim Y was made.""

and my response (which he has ignored other than calling my edits "pure crap"): "let's take a look at an article you've been involved with a lot, such as Ireland. according to your ridiculous misrepresentation of how wikipedia should work, the second paragraph should read "In a 2006 report by the Central Statistics Office of Ireland, the claim that the population of the island is slightly under 6 million was made...The Demography and Methodology Branch of NISRA claim that there are almost 1.75 million in Northern Ireland." this is not how wikipedia works and you know it. the entire reason we have a referencing tag system is so that we don't need to include the names of the sources in the text. and we don't have to infer that everything is untrue by using the word "claim" (which is clearly non-neutral). that is why sources must satisfy wp:rs"

Jessi1989 (talk) 06:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to assert that the claim that "Haywood is known around the world" and is a "website entrepenuer" is a fact in an article, a biography of Haywood, based on a single source attributed to the wording of an interview of Haywood by a rock station, verified by linking to his (blacklisted) site where he has conveniently hosted the interview for the good of wikipedia. And you are trying to compare that to the inclusion in an article of verifiable fact-checked statistics from reliable sources? Do you actually honestly want to assert that one is even remotely comparable to the other, based on WP:RS, WP:VER and WP:NPOV, never mind WP:ADVERT and WP:PEACOCK?. I did not reply to this absurdity, because I could not take this post in any other way than an insult to my intelligence. If anyone disagrees, they can say so here. And you are quite wrong, I never said that that is the way all articles are written, only the ones which are screaming cases of self promotion and abuses of every policy written about BLPs, such as this one. MickMacNee (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no, i said that "haywood is known in various countries". and not based on a single source, based on him being covered in the metro (with 3 million readers) and his kerrang radio interview (with hundreds of thousands of listeners) both in the uk, in a number of nation-wide canadian press publications and by a kiwi journalist for wikinews. his website was further mentioned in other countries as can be seen from the other sources. i sourced this claim appropriately until you changed it all so that it looked like it only had the single source you are now complaining about. Jessi1989 (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is classed as synthesising conclusions from sources. MickMacNee (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jessi1989, those sources are not reliable. Kerrang may have hundreds of thousands of listeners, and the Metro 3 million readers, but that does not make that site a reliable source. You did not specify the Canadian sources, so I can't say anything about that, and wikinews is certainly not reliable. If I read the sentence that is sourced by the link that I whitelisted, then I don't think that it adds much to the article, and on the basis of that interview I would not really call it properly sourced. Interviews hopefully represent reliably the things that are said by the person that gets interviewed, but opinions/thoughts/remarks of the interviewer are not true because they say it. Please be careful with the assertions you want to source. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hi dirk, thanks for trying to explain this to me but now i'm really confused. what you've just said is the exact opposite of what mick and jamie have been making out which is that stuff said by the interviewer (a journalist/media reporter) can be generally taken as reliable but anything from the mouth of the interviewee can't be relied on.
i wasn't using the wikinews article for any info other than to respond to the barrage of insults i received from mick for suggesting that haywood is known in different countries. i thought that this was a more reasonable way of wording what the interviewer says about him being "famous around the world" and this is simply supported by the fact he has been in media sources from different countries.
there is more information in that interview that i want to use for the porthemmet beach section of that article but i haven't got round to that yet because my very first edit was immediately reverted by mick who has now attacked me with this stupid SSP trying to get me banned without any reason for suspecting that i am wiw8's sockpuppet other than the fact wiw8 supported some of what i wrote. oh and that he didn't make any edits at exactly the same time as me... which isn't really that shocking unless he is also at GMT+5 and has the same lifestyle as me. Jessi1989 (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I live in the UK, GMT+0. Wiw8 (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

I recommend:

  1. Stripping all the info out of Jonty Haywood that is not supported by a reliable source.
  2. Nominating that article for deletion per WP:BLP1E

I am probably going to block the two sock accounts on behavioral evidence, and block the main account. The sock accounts could be sock or meat puppets. Their editing around Jonty Haywood has been purely disruptive, and their editing elsewhere has been trivial minor. On balance, we are better off without them. Kernow has had more than enough warnings about sock puppetry. The sock accounts show no sign of understanding the criticisms here, nor of desiring to change their ways. These accounts seem to be playing games with us. Jehochman Talk 17:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like to block and run so I'll probably take care of this later in the afternoon when I have more time. Jehochman Talk 17:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
oh my god. you mean you buy all this "evidence" above, most of which isn't even true? i have nothing to do with kernow, i haven't broken any rules (that i know of) and i have gone to great lengths to ensure that all the information i add to that article (or any article for that matter!) is referenced to reliable sources. to say that you are better off without me is really hurtful. it may not seem like much to you because you edit wikipedia fulltime, but over the past 6 months or so i've really put in quite a lot of my spare time and effort to editing wikipedia. i'm living in a country where electricity and net access aren't in continuous supply. and when i've had power and net at the same time, which happens randomly on/off every day, i've been doing what i can to contribute to wikipedia. i would like to have made lots more edits, but my edits to several topics so far have been met with so much resistance that it has taken up most of my time just trying to explain my point of view to other users. i guess all this has been a waste of time anyway since you just said that i'll the work i've put in is "trivial" :( Jessi1989 (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
by the way, isn't trying to accuse me of being a real life person outing? even if the accusation is false (which this most definitely is, although looking at wp:outing i guess i'm not supposed to deny or confirm that!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessi1989 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you agree to avoid further editing of Jonty Haywood and related pages, and refrain from further attempts to create links to his website, and avoid any further collusion with User:Kernow or User:Jessi1989? That seems to be the area where you are having difficulties. Wikipedia has millions of articles. Surely you can find other things of interest. Jehochman Talk 19:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I second Jehochman's recommendations. Pretty clear case of WP:DUCK to me. The parade of new accounts with an inexplicable interest in Haywood related articles is getting to be ridiculous, and the pattern fits Haywood's stated goals of promoting himself and the game as much as possible. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To prevent further disruption, I think we should block these sock or meat puppet accounts. If they undertake to avoid each other and avoid anything related to Jonty Haywood, they could possibly be unblocked. Jehochman Talk 20:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More