Open main menu

Requests for comment/Acquisition of the Boarische Wikipedia by Sockpuppets

< Requests for comment
The following request for comments is closed. inactive already; it has already been inactive for 2 years. the last comment was made at 05:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


A recent Checkuser inquiry at the German Wikipedia has proven that several accounts, which are mainly active in the Boarische Wikipedia (bar) are sockpuppets. These Accounts have taken control of the Boarische Wikipedia and driven away other Users. At the moment, they form the userbasis of the Boarische Wikipedia, the sockpuppet User:Bua333 holds the office of a Bureaucrat. While it could not be proven due to the lack of data, there is reason to suspect an involvement of User:Matthias Klostermayr, administrator of the boarische Wikipedia. In both, the German and the Boarische Wikipedia, these Accounts have been manipulating votes. Few votes at the boarische Wikipedia have more than 10 participants, it was easy for the person behind these accounts to take controll of that project. Due to the Situation at the Boarische Wikipedia, where the group of active users has diminished to these sockpuppets, these accounts won't stop themselves from their abuse. It seems likely, that there the sockpuppet holder employs more sockpuppetes at the Boarische Wikipedia.

As the situation may not be solved otherwise, I request comments in order to restore the order at the Boarische Wikipedia to allow other, non-abusive Users to re-take the project. On the administrative level, I suggest that every User, who has been proven to be a sockpuppet may be blocked globally and that a second Checkuser inquiry may be conducted in order to determine the size of this sockpuppet-group at the Boarische Wikipedia. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Conclusions and ActionsEdit

a summary by --Gschupfta Ferdl (talk) 10:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC) (will be updated if necessary)

  • all detected high-probability sockpuppets are blocked on bar.wikipedia
  • Bua333/Rotzbua will resign as of 9th january from all functions and from the project (all his sockpuppets, even if they never voted on bavarian wikipedia or on other wikipedias will be blocked; the one who voted on de.wp is blocked already)
  • as of 10th january I will request a checkuser of all users who voted 2013/2014
  • any admin (like El bes who is not involved at all) may add other suspected users, any additions to the list by stewards and/or checkusers of de.wikipedia will be welcome and respected

*Note: Prejudized? As far as I know I am the only admin on bavarian Wikipedia, who was voted without any contra vote. (I know that I'm not liked by all users or exusers, especially the ones I have blocked.) --Gschupfta Ferdl (talk) 10:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Checkuser on all users is clearly an abusive request that will never be honored. You have to demonstrate first that all of them abused their rights.
If you want to secure decision votes to avoid duplicates, there are other systems (previously on Toolserver, now in Wikimedia Labs, and that must obey to all Privacy policy rules and can only target the votes themselves and nothing else).
If WPBAR starts using such requests, many of the remaining users will just leave the project because they will feel they are all collectively attacked by the demand of a single user thay wants t control everything, as abusively as other spammers or attackers using sockpuppets. So please be more specific. Anyway such request requires trusted and independant admins. The WPBAR community is clearly not large enough to offer this warranty of neutrality and security. You need to negociate better with admins from other wikis that will all want uoi to be more specific and demonstrate your need. A few admins cannot work alone and decide everything otherwise they will bite every newcomers. You should then look for creating good emabssies (and for WPBAR, develop good relations with WPDE and the WMDE chapter, plus possibly some nearby chapters such as WMCH or WMAT).
verdy_p (talk) 14:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

CommentsEdit

I agree with this comment (permalink). If the involved users could just admit it, and then abandon their sock accounts, that would be better. Also they would lose all admin-related rights until the community trusts them again. If that is not possible, then I believe block (at least 6 months) would be a less optimal solution. I hope this can be resolved locally. PiRSquared17 (talk) 14:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

First we have nothing against any checkuser inquiry on Bavarian Wikipedia concerning all users who ever voted, to stop rumours and false accusations as on top. Second we can take care of ourselves.
Bua333 already anounced his total retirement (cause of his block on de.wikipedia) immediateley after the successor is voted, but clearly stated that he was never involved in any vote manipulation on Bavarian Wikipedia. I believe him. The four blocked users on de.wikipedia (Gugaruz, Schnoatbrax, Tauni Lemauni, Papa Kern plus Edelweisspirat) will be blocked on bar.wikipedia by myself. Please note: These users never had any major influence on any vote, Edelweisspirat even never voted. --Gschupfta Ferdl (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

As the acting Checkuser at de:-Wikipedia I am not happy with the conclusions of Liberaler Humanist. I have not proven that there are sockpuppet players at bar:-Wikipedia (I can't, I'm not a checkuser there). I have concluded that with a high probability there a two groups of accounts acting as sockpuppets on de:-Wikipedia. The Matthias Klostermayr account was not checked and thus I couldn't say anything about this account. There has been a Checkuser @ bar:-Wikipedia less than a year ago (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Checkuser/2013-01#Matthias_Klostermayr.40bar.wikipedia) where Matthias Klostermayr was concluded as "Unrelated". --Drahreg01 (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you for the information. I guess there is nothing to do here then. PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
" have not proven that there are sockpuppet players at bar:-Wikipedia" If Accounts are sockpuppets here, they are also sockpuppets there. Appart from the checkuser request, that mentioned above, there has been other requests, that were not executed: [1], [2]. These two requests raise suspicion and bring evidence against several other accounts. These accounts have been mainly active in the Boarische Wikipedia. A checkuser inquiry there would be able to provide informations that could not be retrieved in the German Wikipedia. Drahreg mentioned, that there were attempts to prevent the common identity of these accounts from beeing found by checkusers. I would see this as a reason for further investigations, as this camouflage may have prevented the full size of this sockpuppet group from beeing discovered. The confirmed sockpuppets have also been active at the Englisch Wikipedia, where there seems they seem to have at least attempted to pretend majorities in discussions. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Liberaler Humanist, who is a sockpuppet here is also a sockpuppet there. And yes, further investigations should be done to clear the situation in the Bavarian Wikipedia. This language version was built over the years with a lot of commitment by many dedicated people. Ok, it always remained one of the smaller language versions, but it would still be a petty, if the whole project declined for good. But when allegations like this occur, such small language versions need help from outside, and a profound CU-service is such an essential help. In a project with a number of really active users of less than 20, such essential quality management cannot be done from within the project. --El bes (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
"who is a sockpuppet here is also a sockpuppet there" absolutely true. bar.wp is responsible for fraud in our project, they cannot care for themselves, they need correction from outside. -- Andreas Werle (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
The crat of barWP who has always been scandalising others' mistakes and who never seemed to value mediation attempts defrauds in elections in another community but still is fully trusted by the most prominent co-admins in barWP, Matthias Klostermayer and Gschupfta Ferdl. There does not seem to be a good reason to be confident about a self-made catharsis in barWP. → «« Man77 »» [de] 10:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment. Man77 you are prejudiced (befangen). You have been a direct counterpart of Bua333 on Bavarian Wikipedia. Bua333/Rotzbua is the user with the most edits of all users on bar.wp, he had done something good for the Bavarian Wikipedia. Furthermore he clearly stated what he had done and he anounced his total retirement for the end of the ongoing crat/admin elections.

You should ask the most productive users on bar.wp right now, Mugglschoas and Luki, which are clearly unrelated in any conflict, what they think about Matthias Klostermayer and others and what they think about the helpful climate on Bavarian Wikipedia. You would be very astonished. I assume we have a much more positive and helpful atmosphere than on German Wikipedia (my POV only).

We are happy with any check user to stop rumours. After the ongoing elections (new crats, new admins) I will request a check user of all users who have voted. Further help we definitely don't need. All (detected) sockpuppets have been blocked immediately after the detection. The admins and users of the German Wikipedia should take care of their project. I think there is a lot to do. Especially on ongoing conflicts of lowest levels (my POV only), which are much worse than all the conflicts I saw on Bavarian Wikipedia.

sorry, just my 2 cents --Gschupfta Ferdl (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Listen guys, we won't even accept any outside help, except check user! Outside help and advise from guys like Man77 we need the least. His incompetent, manipulating outside action with Melancholie on Bavarian Wikipedia some years ago is well remembered and made all things worse. But now, the Bavarian Wikipedia is in top shape and made heavy improvements in the last years in every respect. Maybe the German Wikipedia needs outside help. If the public would know what's going on behind the doors (e.g. personal attacks on a daily basis, below every standards of civilized communication) the reputation would be ruined in seconds. And sockpuppetry on German Wikipedia is not an exception like on Bavarian Wikipedia. (Btw, and not my main point, it would be interesting too, if a competent steward check user would verify the "high probability" results of Drahreg. Schnoatbrax gave us in a mail to Matthias some interesting and very specific details, which make us doubt, but maybe he is just a lier, I don't know.) --Joe Watzmo (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

@ Joe Watzmo: I am very much interrested in those details. If it is, "I'm not doing sockpuppetry, I'm surfing with Javascript" it wouldnt't help, because surfing with Javascript doesn't change Checkuser results. Apart from that you can't really edit Wikipedia without. --Drahreg01 (talk) 07:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
You have all information if Schnoatbrax is not a liar, and I really don't know if he is. So I don't see any reason to discuss this with you right now. I know your opinion. Btw, its not about JavaScript only. --Joe Watzmo (talk) 07:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I've never said that Schnoatbrax is a liar. I've even never said he's a sockpuppet player. I've stated that with "high probability" he is. So this is pretty much a hypothesis. If you have information that could lead to falsification of this hypothesis I would be very happy if you (or Schnoatbrax) could tell it to me (or another checkuser, or the Ombudsmann). --Drahreg01 (talk) 08:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I will discuss this with Matthias and Gschupfta Ferdl and maybe we will contact you by mail. As I said, we are not sure too. But on the basis of the information we got from Schnoatbrax, we doubt the statement "high probability", which lead to a block of Schnoatbrax on de.wp and bar.wp. So he is already branded as a liar. --Joe Watzmo (talk) 08:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I know I am not neutral in this debate but neither are you. → «« Man77 »» [de] 01:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
@Joe: Writing nonsense does make nonsense written nonsence but not true. → «« Man77 »» [de] 01:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
wow, great statement, as we know you :) --Joe Watzmo (talk) 07:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
btw "wow" is a typical interjection used also by Gschupfta Ferdl. --Hoferaanderl
wow, if one has nothing to say one says things like that :D --Gschupfta Ferdl (talk) 10:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Joe Watzmo's contribution is a perfect example for how disscussions work for you in bar if you are a member of the so called "group". It does not require any more comments. Apart from my recent comment here http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Diskussion:Checkuser/Anfragen/Schnoatbrax_et._al.&section=4 I just want to mention that it would be highly desireable to extend the CU to this list https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Checkuser/2011-09#Sockpuppets.40bar.wiki , but at least include Klostermayr, Saxndi and Gschupfta_Ferdl. The users who where voting recently for the substitute of Bua seem to be suspicious as well (they started the votes without any comments to the recent developments at all). The "excuse" of Bua does not deserve this term it is merely a "Salamitaktik" were only the prooven things where admitted. Any sign of regrett is immediatly relativated. A pattern of behaviour alltoo well known from the group members. --Hoferaanderl
We know your destructive behavior and your opinions very well, dear Hoferaanderl. You are an indefinite blocked user, blocked by Holder and not by your friends and blocked for multiple sockpuppetry! --Joe Watzmo (talk) 07:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Listen, you are in an advantage if you read what is written above. Gschupfta Ferdl already announced a check user request for the ongoing votes. Matthias Klostermayr, Gschupfta Ferdl and myself already voted, so we are checked again. --Joe Watzmo (talk) 07:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
That's very typical behaviour that you try to make other users untrustable who bother you, Joe Watzmo. By the way Hoferanderl never used his sock puppets for an election. --Buachamer (talk) 10:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
@Geschupfter Ferdl: I don't know Mugglschoas and Luki because I left the bar Wiki several month ago after it was too much for me. So they are relatively new to the bar Wiki and probably don't know how the friends around Prjaeger, Klostermayer, Bua and Schmei react in the long lasting conflict in the bar Wiki. --Buachamer (talk) 10:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Yesterday I looked into the regulars' table in the bar Wiki ([there]). As far as I see nobody of the friends of Bua is shocked that he used a sock puppet in an election in the de Wiki but they write "He never did something bad in the bar Wiki and we fully trust him and we don't let us frighten..." --Buachamer (talk) 10:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
If a new CU is done Prjaeger and Broadhogg (similar to Schnoatbrax) and maybe Saxndi would be interesting candidates. --Buachamer (talk) 10:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Hoferaanderl used his multiple sockpuppets for aggressive personal attacks and endless meta discussions to blame others, nearly always supported by you. He voted with Manny Lenny. Even with his first account he was blocked several times for worst name calling. During years he didn't change his behavior at all, not a bit. He never drew the consequences like Bua did. --Gschupfta Ferdl (talk) 11:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

User User:Bua333, https://bar.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutza:Bua333 has stated that User:Rotzbua, https://bar.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutza:Rotzbua is a declared sock puppet of himself. May not be true that. Compare https://bar.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Bua333&offset=&limit=500&target=Bua333 , 20. Nov. 2013 , Time Index 19:09 .... 20:32 and https://bar.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Rotzbua&offset=&limit=500&target=Rotzbua

* https://bar.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=M%C3%BChlhausen_%28Begriffskl%C3%A4rung%29&diff=prev&oldid=371824 Time Index 19:15, 20. Nov. 2013
* -> https://bar.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oarlengde_Woimuichsau&diff=prev&oldid=371825 , Time Index 19:33, 20. Nov. 2013
* https://bar.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=M%C3%BCihausn&diff=prev&oldid=371826 Time Index 19:36, 20. Nov. 2013

Why did he change here during its processing, the subject and the account? (weblinks corrected)--RöntgenTechniker (talk) 16:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

@Geschupfter Ferdl: The behaviour of you and some of your friends is very similar in trying to make users untrustable who bother you. The technique is that you bring some parts that are true but leads the reader to a wrong and bad conclusion to make the reader think that the person you don't like e.g. Buachamer is a bad person and you and your friends like Bua are the good persons. I don't want to go into the discussion about what really happened here but I can discuss it. Only a short comment, Hoferanderl did not use two user accounts in a single discussion or in a vote. --Buachamer (talk) 12:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a lot Meta can contribute at this stage to tackle the local situation contructively in a RfC format and would tend to close this debate. If there is something more substancial to be evaluated, a more fitting deliberation can be started in a more efficient format and with the help of the local De.WP meetup in Munich - which seems to have users capable of both speaking the language and providing required non-language skills butat the same time not being involved in the actual bar.WP project. Best regards, --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 23:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

"De.WP meetup in Munich" What ist that and when is it? --194.166.1.201 06:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
They meet regularly, as you can infer from this page. However, I will also come to Munich for stuff at the LMU next month and could look at the situation with the involved Bar.WP parties over lunch in case you/they are interested. Your wikis situation is not a case Meta has never seen but sorting these things out takes local efforts. Regards from Madrid,--Jan eissfeldt (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)