Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Llywelyn2000/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Llywelyn2000

Llywelyn2000 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

26 October 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


In a discussion at Talk:Tom Pryce, Sian EJ left a reply (diff) to one of my posts that used phrases such as "...my mouth", "I said...", "...what I suggested..." and "...my request...". The only problem being that the message I was responding to was supposedly written by Llywelyn2000 (diff). In addition to their use of first person singular tense, the usage of punctuation and formatting (in particular the bolding) is identical between Sian EJ and Llywelyn2000's posts.

Looking closer at their edit histories, it is very clear that Sian EJ is not in any sense a regular contributor, but does seem to have a very similar concern with Welsh and other minority nationalities as Llywelyn2000, and has the happy knack of appearing just in time to lend support to Llywelyn2000 when the latter is engaged in heated debates. As well as the above debate, this includes an RfC at Talk:Carles Puigdemont where, after having not edited for weeks, Sian EJ was the very first person to comment in favour (diff) of the form of words that Llywelyn2000 had been advocating for (e.g. diff) during the discussion that had precipitated the RfC. A further instance occurred at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography, when again Sian EJ appeared after four weeks without an edit to lend support to Llywelyn2000's preferred solution (diff).

Sian EJ appeared in December 2016, during a period in which Llywelyn2000 had stepped away from English Wikipedia and was only making detail edits to talk pages, templates and the like. Sian EJ then went entirely quiet during 2017, a period that saw Llywelyn2000 returning to making more substantial content edits here. Subsequent behaviour shows that, unless commenting in support of Llywelyn2000, all of Sian EJ's edits are made during periods of multiple days when Llywelyn2000 is apparently silent.

The pattern of edits and sudden appearances to support Llywelyn2000 are absolutely classic sockpuppet behaviour. The slip-up made today can only be explained by a sockpuppeteer forgetting which account he was logged in with. Basic but unequivocal. That he then tried to cover himself by making a fatuous "thanks for that" edit merely 5 minutes after Sian EJ posted (diff) is almost offensive in its assumption that other editors would think this was in any way normal. A Checkuser has been requested because I suspect Llywelyn2000 will need hard proof of their duplicity, but it is up to the judgement of the clerk whether it is actually required in this otherwise pretty straightforward case. Pyrope 21:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I work from a home office where I also train other people, and hold Wiki meetings, and have done so for over 5 years. Sian EJ was here all day, working on the AWB to substitue infoboxes on cywiki with the new Wikidata infoboxes. I trained her / helped her to tweek the AWB, so that in a few weeks it will run automatically. I have worked with Sian for around 3 years on Wikidata and cywiki. She did not log out, and I subsequently went on that computer, and posted the comment, which went under her name. I have not tried to hide that fact, and have left her name under the comments (and thanked her for not logging out!) I have also logged my trainees (including Sian EJ) with Wikimedia UK on civi, every quarter. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Choosing my words very carefully, bullshit. Your comment under 'her' comment read "Agree. Thanks Sian." Nothing there about the previous comment being you. No attempt to clarify your 'error'. You in fact agreed with yourself, which is not something you do if you are trying to claim authorship of the previous comment. You have blatantly lied twice now, so are clearly not adverse to using deception for your own gain, and who knows how many times in the past. How many times have you rolled your meatpuppet colleague out in your support? How many times have you made use of her open login and not forgotten that it was supposed to be she and not you commenting? As I said before, the overall pattern of "Sian's" comments are classic sockpuppet behaviour, and discovering that she is a meatpuppet of a dishonest admin/bureaucrat/Wikimedia employee/whatever you are, does not make things any less offensive to those of us who try to act within the ethos and policies of this project. You are not a fit and proper person to hold any sort of responsible role within the Wikipedia community. Pyrope 13:30, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: - that's understandable. Sian EJ informs me that her commitment is to cywiki, and will refrain from editing again on enwiki "as there are too many bullies". And having read Pyrope's comments, maybe I should too. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 13:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: - Given that Lywelyn2000 has now been caught in two easily identified lies, and the pattern of behaviour of Sian EJ is so obviously that of a sock/meatpuppet, why are they not blocked now? Pyrope 13:46, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, it looks like meat-puppetry. I'm going to assume that one of the editors will no longer be involved with any discussion that the other is in. GoodDay (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

@Llywelyn2000: These are serious allegations. You are an admin and a bureaucrat at cy.wiki. Please address the allegations in the "Comments by other users" section. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Llywelyn2000: I can't speak for what you and Sian EJ do at cy.wiki or anywhere else other than en.wiki, but I don't see anything obvious in the discussions you and she have participated in to make it clear to other users that you and she are sharing computers but are different people. Quite frankly, if you are going to be responsible for training her here, I don't think you and she should be involved in the same discussions at all, especially given the few edits Sian has at en.wiki. I came very close to blocking you both yesterday.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Llywelyn2000 and Sian EJ: Based on your representations, I am closing this report without any action other than what both of you should consider a warning for the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

03 October 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Llywelyn2000 and Cell Danwydd have both been involved in discussion at Talk:Welsh Not and seem to have posted as each other on 1 October, suggesting they may have been sharing a computer. Cell Danwydd says he was trained by Llywelyn2000. This looks similar to the earlier Llywelyn2000 SPI, after which Llywelyn2000 was warned about participating in any discussions where his trainee was also involved. His trainee was going to withdraw from enwiki "as there are too many bullies".

27 October 2018
diff Warning from Bbb23 on Llywelyn2000 talk page "I want to formalize my warning to you from the above case. Do not participate in any discussions if [your trainee] is also involved without a full and express disclosure of the relationship between the two of you. The same holds true on other pages where the two of you are supporting each other. If you violate this warning, you risk being blocked for meat puppetry."
25 October 2019
diff Cell Danwydd user page "I was trained by Robin Owain, or Llywelyn2000 on wiki, and impressed with how he has transformed Wikipedia, and brought the naturalists of the Edward Llwyd Society and many other organizations into the 21st century!" Via Google translate
1 October 2021
diff Llywelyn2000 says he started the RfC at Welsh Not, when Cell Danwydd did
diff Llywelyn2000 posts as himself
diff Cell Danwydd edits Llywelyn2000’s post, pinging Cell Danwydd
diff Cell Danwydd says he started the RfC
diff question about the posts from Llwyld "Something strange is going on here. Llywelyn2000 claimed to have chosen the voting style at 14:03 UTC. Then, at 14:10 UTC Cell Danwydd changed Llywelyn2000's comment to note that "Cell Danwydd did. It's his RfC.". It's odd that Llywelyn2000 would first erroneously claim that it was his own choice. And doubly odd that Cell Danwydd would effectively edit another user's post (which is bad form, as I understand it). Could either or both of you explain what happened? "
diff answer from Cell Danwydd "I discussed the RfC with Llywelyn, I think he was trying to clear me, as DeFacto is attacking which format was used. It was my decission, not his. And as for the list against him (see below), he's taking advise."
2 October 2021‎
diff Cell Danwydd says "Resigned. Gone... mentally exhausted by bullying" TSventon (talk) 12:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I found Cell Danwydd's explanation of what had happened inadequate and highlighted the problems diff. There was no response from either Cell Danwydd or Llywelyn2000.

Both Cell Danwydd and Llywelyn2000 consistently use the word 'advise' instead of 'advice' - diff, diff, diff, diff

I further note that the pattern of editing is strikingly similar to the archived case. Llwyld (talk) 04:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the last 9 years, my home-office is the Wikimedia UK drop-in for Wikimedians, especially in the north-east of Wales. Mike Peel has called round to one of our sessions and met some of these good people. Some come for a chat and training, most are good friends, and all like coffee and wiki editing. If that's a crime well I'll be damned! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)\[reply]
    • I can confirm this. Robin's been working with Wikimedia UK for a long time, and having multiple editors sharing his IP address to make edits makes complete sense given the way the work has been done. Think of it like a meet-up in a pub - you wouldn't be surprised to see lots of editors editing from the pub's IP address. Also, bear in mind that these accounts generally have more edits on cywiki rather than here. I haven't looked into this in more detail, so I can't say whether there's been 'meat-puppeting' here or not/whether the correct lines have been drawn between Robin's talk page comments and those of others he's been working with, but I'm really not surprised by checkuser coming back positive here (it's a clear false-positive case). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Peel, per WP:CHECK, it's not just a common IP address that the CU will be looking at, there is also 'other technical data stored by the server about a user account or IP address', and that they have a tool that can 'establish whether two or more accounts are being operated by one individual or group of people'. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto: I've never looked into checkuser in detail, but I thought it was just IP addresses and things like lists of edits. The 'other technical data' seems to be very vague - I could imagine that browser versions, mac addresses, etc. would be useful in the checks, but I didn't think they were stored for privacy reasons. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Peel: In addition to a list of IPs, the CU data also shows for each IP "The last ten user agents (browser, operating system, system language, and versions) for each user for edits made in the IP or range are listed afterwards." You can see more about this, including screenshots, at mw:CheckUser.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: Thanks, I've added that to the explanation here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is of course possible for different people to use not just the same IP, but also the same device, without being the same person. I don't believe it is possible for checkuser information to distinguish between good-faith editors sharing a computer, and one person creating multiple accounts. The Land (talk) 08:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(This is going off-topic, but the edit I linked to above was reverted, @DeFacto, Bbb23, and The Land: might be interested in the follow-up discussion at Wikipedia_talk:CheckUser#Technical_detail. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment: This is an absolutely ludicrous accusation. Of course these users recognise when there is a case that is of interest to Welsh speakers and rally round to ensure that the discussion isn't hijacked by English-speaking monoglots, as sadly so many have been. User:Llywelyn2000 is a bureaucrat on Welsh Wikipedia, as am I, and I can completely vouch for his integrity. "Advise" for "advice" is a common spelling error and the checkuser indicates only that multiple people may have used the same computer. Perhaps that was unwise but it does not follow that these are either socks or meatpuppets. It is quite wrong for the nominator - who has made only a handful of edits on Wikipedia - to suggest sockpuppetry the moment more than one person disagrees with him/her. Deb (talk) 07:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It should also be noted that the Welsh Not is a highly controversial topic to Welsh speakers - which, obviously, all the accused are. That they should all wish to contribute to a discussion on the topic is not in any way surprising. Deb (talk) 08:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I noticed another spelling mistake made by Llywelyn2000 and Cell Danwydd, they both misspelt 'inquiry' as 'inquiery':
diff for Llywelyn2000
diff for Cell Danwydd
And one made by Cell Danwydd and Monsyn, they both misspelt 'ridiculous' as 'rediculous':
diff for Cell Danwydd
diff for Monsyn
It seems unlikely that there would be this overlap of three (including 'advice'/'advise' pointed out above) spelling mistakes amongst three different users. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • All of these accounts are written by people who are Welsh speakers. Welsh is a phonetic language where every letter, unless accented, is pronounced consistently, so it is no surprise that Welsh speakers quite often make the same spelling mistakes when writing in English. inquiery gets 32 thousand hits on Google; "rediculous" has almost 6 million advise and advice are both correct English words which are commonly mixed up by many native English speakers. Two or more users using common misspellings is not evidence of sock puppetry. AlwynapHuw (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Deb, I am not worried about more than one editor disagreeing with me, if I was I could have requested an (unjustified) SPI when Llywelyn2000 posted on my talk page on 1 September. I decided to ask for an investigation as Cell Danwydd and Llywelyn2000 seemed to have been using the same computer and I then saw that Llywelyn2000 had been warned about a similar incident previously. I am sure you know much more about Wikipedia policies than I do, but there is guidance for editors sharing an IP address at WP:SHARE. TSventon (talk) 10:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For your information: here's an image of myself (on the right) together with Robin Owain (Llywelyn2000) on the left. I can assure you that we're both alive and well, and are two individuals! Please stop the attack on Welsh editors! Monsyn (talk) 11:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm their identities from personal knowledge. I don't know who User:Cell Danwydd is in real life, but their contributions show they are someone with an interest in natural history, something that as far as I know does not apply to User:Llywelyn2000. Deb (talk) 12:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I may lack the experience here for my comments to be considered, but the idea of a group of editors, editing together, exchanging accounts (whether intentionally or not), hiding that sharing, ignoring a previous warning, and rallying around to ensure that a particular discussion of interest to them isn't hijacked by editors they perceive as English-speaking monoglots, doesn't sound like a good idea for Wikipedia to me - even if it may not be sockpuppeting. Deb does say above that such hijacking has happened before ("as sadly so many have been"), again I lack personal knowledge, but I do wonder if there aren't better ways to address such possible hijacking. Llwyld (talk) 12:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The dozen or so of us who contribute most often to cy Wicipedia have regular meetings at the National Eisteddfod and in the National Library. These meetings have been reported on in the Welsh media and are included in the Wikimedia User Group Wales reports. Many of the so called "sock puppets" have given addresses in the same Celtic Knot conference. The idea that we are all one person is patently ridiculous. Over the past few years there have a number of politically motivated attacks on cy Wicipedia and Wales related content on en Wikipedia. This appears to be a continuation of the same. Robin Llwyd ab Owain ( Llywelyn2000 ) is a well known poet, author, librettist and Folk singer, this assault upon his good name is more than just a complaint about sock puppetry on a website, but a libel against a highly respected public figure. AlwynapHuw (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @AlwynapHuw, would you say they were a WP:TAGTEAM then, or WP:MEATPUPPETs? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • DeFacto It seems to me that they are the Welsh-language equivalent of a Wikiproject. They have much in common with the groups of users who meet regularly in person at various locations throughout Britain and the rest of the world. It would be rather surprising if they did not agree on many things. Deb (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • :DeFacto Because en Wikipedia can be a very hostile place at times, it might come as a surprise to you that most of us who contribute regularly to cy Wicipedia are actually friends. We meet each other, we follow each other on social media, we chat on the phone, we have an occasional pint together. Because we are friends we will also defend each other when attacked for no good reason. Being friends who have each other's backs does not a sock puppet or tag team make. AlwynapHuw (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Being friends who have each other's backs is the definition of tag teaming. ‑ Iridescent 21:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think there is any doubt that many of the logins that Llywelyn2000 has been using belong to realworld people. However, it is very clear that now, as in the previous investigation, that Llywelyn2000 has been using them, either with or without their owners' consent. Put bluntly, there are just too many times when Llywelyn2000 has mixed up which login he is operating with, and his explanations are almost insultingly facile and stretch credulity to breaking point. He asks if chatting about things offline with his real world buddies is a crime. Well, in Wikipedia rallying your mates to a cause, and having them start to weigh in on a discussion to which they previously haven't been party, is our equivalent. It is almost a dictionary definition of "meatpuppeteering". Wikiproject members aren't allowed to do that either, and we have rules against canvassing favourable editors for exactly the same reasons. So, no, this is not like a Wikiproject situation. Add in the obvious times when he has used open logins for his own ends and you also have a form of sockpuppeteering, too, and that has to result in serious sanction. As I said in the previous case, admins and Wikmedia employees should be held to a higher standard than regular editors, not given a free pass just because they happen to have done some good work elsewhere. What Llywelyn2000 has done (at least twice now...) would have earned a run-of-the-mill editor an indef block. Llywelyn2000 and his buddies may be seeing anti-Welsh sentiment and may think that they (just he?) are breaking the rules for a justifiable cause, but these situations are why we have other mechanisms within Wikipedia to bring in uninvolved editors. You do not decide to take the law into your own hands and undermine the structures put in place to keep this place running. Pyrope 18:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pyrope, the tone of this comment concerns me greatly. You are, in short, assuming bad faith. I won't argue with the statement that Llywelyn2000 may have behaved unwisely, and indeed he should have declared his connection with the other users as he'd been told to do. Nor am I suggesting that his actions in failing to do so should go uncensored. However, those you are labelling puppets are real individuals, not alternative IDs, in most cases with long-established Wikipedia accounts of their own. They are neither idiots nor people who have no will of their own. That they have been (in some cases) influenced by Llywelyn2000's views I don't doubt; that they have blindly done as they were told is far from proven. Deb (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Deb, as stated at the guideline page, the dictum of AGF holds only so far as bad faith isn't demonstrated. Once bad faith is shown, AGF is out of the window and you call a spade a spade. From his actions in this occurrence and the last, from his flagrant lying in the past case, and from his exceptionally shaky explanations in this case, it is clear that Llywelyn2000 has used more than one account. Why then have none of the real world users pointed out which edits were him and which they made themselves? Either those accounts are not held by real people, or, possibly more likely, his buddies don't want to drop him in it and so are remaining pointedly silent. The dog that didn't bark in the night, and all that. Pyrope 19:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Pyrope: I don't think your vitriol is at all helpful. As I recall, you were similarly attacking in 2018. It's up to GeneralNotability to control the flow of comments here, but if it were I, I'd remove this last one of yours.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Bbb23, there is no vitriol here. Deb questioned my statement, so I explained. I am perfectly willing to believe that each and every account is held by a real person, but it is also plain to see that Llywelyn2000 has used at least two of them. The rest then follows. What's your take? Pyrope 20:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Deb, further to my previous comment, and wishing perhaps to dispel some impression that what I am saying is any way "vitriolic", I'd point out that WP:MEATPUPPET defines a 'meatpuppet' in the following form of words: "Some individuals may promote their causes by bringing like-minded editors into the dispute, including enlisting assistance off-Wiki. These editors are sometimes referred to as meatpuppets, following a common Internet usage." There is no suggestion there that they are idiots, nor have no will of their own. Pyrope 20:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Pyrope, The word "puppet" is in itself suggestive of people just doing what they are told. Regardless of the circumstances, that is not the case here. I could show you countless examples of discussions where like-minded editors have supported one another and backed up each other's statements and opinions without being accused of meatpuppetry. Deb (talk) 08:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, Deb, in this context it does not. The term 'meatpuppet' is well understood by Wikipedia editors in the context of Wikipedia policies and editor behaviour, and certainly is once you start talking about discussions at SPI. Normal interactions between groups of likeminded editors are how this place works, but the behaviour under discussion here is not that. There is no implication that the people involved are blindly following orders, but they are certainly acting at the request and on behalf of another editor. That is a meatpuppet in Wikipedia's understanding. Pyrope 14:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tangential comment and personal attacks GeneralNotability (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Comment This is blatant abusive sockpuppeting by an editor who definately does know better. This is not their first rodeo. The excuses above, particularly by WMUK members not only lack any credibility whatsoever, but give the impression of wagon circling by a closed group. The only question for me here, is if people with advanced tools like Deb are making such efforts to excuse clear abuse, what else are they turning a blind eye to/covering up. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As nominator, my guess was that Llywelyn2000 and Cell Danwydd were separate people using the same computer to contribute to a Wikipedia discussion and not disclosing their cooperation as required by Wikipedia sockpuppet policy. My guess isn't that important as people with more knowledge and experience will contribute. I was also concerned about the lack of Wikipedia:Civility in the Welsh Not discussion. TSventon (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not involved with this - just a distant observer, have no interest in Wales despite being English, not a fan of any type of ethno-nationalistic politics of any sort (I take aversion to the English nats more so than the Welsh ones) - but the idea that the accounts are all separate individuals is not totally out of the question. It does fit with the culture of folks with mutual interests and passions coming together. This is certainly less concerning than governments or institutions trying to pile-on edits from those under their wings to sway topics in one direction, which has happened before on en:wp and others. Like I said, I really don't approve of canvassing as groups with shared interests, but I'd rather see good editors capable of good edits being kept if possible. The user at the center of this has a habit of accusing everyone who they come into conflict with as being "biased because they are English". This is a personal attack, an ad-hom and has no place on Wikipedia. I think this has been the most underlying issue with their editing conduct. Ta, --Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if it's not sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry on such a massive scale is beyond the pale and in my view worthy of an indefinite block. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I hope that those looking at this will look at contributions on cy:wiki, as well as en:wiki. Without condoning the mess that has occurred at the Welsh Not article - and certainly not accepting claims of "bullying" or "colonialism" - it seems pretty obvious that what we are dealing with here are a group of several individual Welsh-language editors, committed to improving coverage of Welsh issues, who occasionally meet with each other for editing binges. The editors all have separate accounts at cy-wiki, in most cases going back some years (Llywelyn2000 since 2007, CellDanwydd since 2014, etc.). Usually they have edited Welsh-language articles, but it is not surprising that they have turned their attention to English language articles on high profile Welsh language issues. This is simply activity by an enthusiastic group of editors who usually edit in another language and have shared interests. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ghmyrtle, RE: it seems pretty obvious that what we are dealing with here are a group of several individual Welsh-language editors, committed to improving coverage of Welsh issues, who occasionally meet with each other for editing binges — actually, it isn't obvious to me. While it's possible that this is in fact the case, from my vantage point, even with AGF maxed, it's at best a 50:50. My own sense is that its likelihood (realistically) is considerably lower, but whatever, who knows. Ultimately, conclusively resolving this uncertainty doesn't matter that much.
Because, say that it is true, this is still a MEAT violation. If Welsh editors meet with each other for editing binges [aimed at] improving coverage of Welsh issues, it's perfectly fine if it concerns pages on the Welsh Wikipedia (barring some internal partisanship of note, that is its community after all). But once it also encompasses pages on other language projects, that's where any coordination (which of course need not be expressly stated as 'let's do this next,' etc.), becomes a policy violation. This since consolidating positions generally favoured by like-minded individuals (affinity to Wales and the Welsh and Welsh), may erode the agency (impact) of editors who are uncoordinated.
It sets a very bad precedent, I think, to excuse such egregious violations in the name of countering systemic bias. There's legit, on-wiki avenues to advance that admirable aim. All of that and more is why I am in favour of 'erring' on the side of severity here. El_C 14:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You make good points. Personally, I think what has happened is akin to an editathon being carried out in someone's house, and we all know how easily an editathon can unintentionally go down a dodgy path. A few years ago, when I got involved in a live editathon being carried out in a studio at the BBC, I found that the Wikipedian who was directing it had failed to explain the "conflict of interest" rule and people were writing articles about themselves! And yet not many of us would regard an editathon as a bad thing. Deb (talk) 14:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree with those who say we should be careful not to show favouritism to editors just because of their positions or friends. Nor because their concerns may garner some sympathy. If we would be blocking editors if they were doing the same thing when trying to improve our coverage of articles of interest of something that tends to be of interest to Polish people or Serbians or Chinese or Indians or whatever when they've shown either sockpuppetry or an extreme level of off-wiki collusion we should do the same here. And in my mind, editors saying they know someone personally and they would not do something does not count for much. What happens on other Wikis is ultimately their decision. Nil Einne (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting that you raise that older case Deb, as I have first hand memories that differ (and diffs to back that failing faculty up). In that case, Llywelyn2000's summary is absolutely not what happened. During a discussion at Talk:Tom Pryce, Llywelyn2000 made a comment taking issue with some of my comments, and asking for a reference (diff). I then provided a reference and questioned why he was asking for something that had already been provided, along with some probably inadvisable conjecture about his motivations (diff). (My bad on that last point, only human.) 'Sian EJ' then replied to my comment, but using lots of first person singular phrases such as "I said", "I suggested", "my request", and so on (diff). Clearly, that comment was not made by Sian EJ but actually Llywelyn2000. Less than five minutes later, Llywelyn2000, logged in as himself now, commented "Agree. Thanks Sian." directly under 'her' comment (diff). There was no attempt to take ownership of the comment made by 'Sian EJ', and he certainly didn't thank her for leaving herself logged in. The comment was explicitly a thanks for 'her' addition. At no point before his actions were brought to this page did Llywelyn2000 ever try to take ownership of the comment made as 'Sian EJ'. So we have two easily provable lies: the first one when he thanked himself for supporting himself in a discussion, and then his explanation of the situation once he was caught red handed. So, no Deb, "those people" don't. All we have evidence for is that Llywelyn2000 uses his friends logins.Pyrope 15:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

This case is being reviewed by Tamzin as part of her training as a clerk. Please allow her to process the entire case without interference. You may pose any questions or concerns either on her talk page or on this page.

  • The filing and Llwyld's comments make a strong case that soemthing is happening here that goes against policy: sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, or canvassing. What next steps to take, though, depends on which of the three it is—especially given that the suspected master is a sister-project bureaucrat—so  Clerk endorsed. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 03:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can see,  Confirmed:
John Jones (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Llywelyn2000 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Cell Danwydd (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Sioned Llyfr a Gwin (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
AnnaFychan Llyfr a Gwin (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
BOT-Twm Crys (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Monsyn (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Sian EJ (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Gwerful Mechain (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Either way this is going to need a hell of an explanation to get around this. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on Amanda's findings, this is an egregious case of using sockpuppets to manipulate consensus, at least seven years in the making (Cell Danwydd having been created in 2014). With Sian EJ confirmed, that means that Llywelyn actively deceived the community in the 2018 SPI. Bbb23 assumed good faith and let him off with a warning, and Llywelyn seems to have returned that favor with just more manipulation of consensus. Between the level of deception and the previous warning, I do not think a "first-offense" tempblock of the master account would adequately prevent disruption. Pink clock Awaiting administrative action for indefinite blocks of Llywelyn2000 and all confirmed sox (including the softblocked bot account; while it's not per se a sock, please modify its block reason to "alternate account of a blocked user" or similar).
    As I look at this, I can't help but notice the extent of the impact on cywiki. Four of these accounts (five if you count the bot) have over a thousand edits there. They make up a significant portion of cy:Special:ActiveUsers. Pinging Deb as cywiki's other bureaucrat. It's not my place to wade into a sister wiki's internal goings-on, but I thought I'd draw your attention to this if you weren't already aware. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 06:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Note a previous case from a few months ago, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John Jones, which was eventually deleted by an experienced admin as "what appears to be a retaliatory SPI" after the nominator, User:Britishfinance, was himself/herself blocked for sockpuppetry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deb (talk • contribs) 07:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  On hold - I'm going to be taking over from Tamzin here, this case is getting quite messy and I think it would be better for a full clerk to handle this. I've asked AmandaNP whether the CU data she's seen agrees with the statements made above by the suspected editors, and will try to perform a thorough review today or tomorrow. Moving to on-hold pending further analysis - I'd rather not have the sword of "awaiting admin action" hanging over this case at the moment. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, GN. For what it's worth, I think Pyrope's hypothesis makes the most sense here. That may well mean a path away from an indef for users who can show that they "only" lent their accounts to Llywelyn. I'll leave you and Amanda to it from here on out, but for the record, I stand by my indef recommendation for any account that's unwilling to come clean about what's been going on. Especially if they're going to pair their denials with accusations of libel and of bigotry. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 19:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC) important one-word clarification 09:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple things I'd like to remind everyone of before getting into the meat of this case:
    • Collaboration is the spirit of Wikipedia, and there is nothing wrong with multiple editors collaborating in-person on a topic they are interested in.
    • It is natural for people with strong interests in a particular topic to share similar opinions in that topic area.
    • When someone intentionally canvasses people with similar opinions (on- or off-wiki) or asks others to make particular comments in a discussion, that is when collaboration becomes problematic.
  • I expect the key to this SPI to be the various editors' actions surrounding Welsh Not and its talk page, as well as Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom and Talk:Welsh fiscal balance. I see five accounts active across those: Sioned Llyfr a Gwin (limited to a pair of one-off edits around Welsh Not), Monsyn, Llywelyn2000, John Jones, and Cell Danwydd. For the purposes of this discussion, I'm ignoring the rest of the CU findings.
  • The first question on the agenda: "are all of these accounts operated by the same person?" I do not see clear behavioral evidence tying them together (other than Cell Danwydd/Llywelyn2000 per TSVenton's filing, more on that later). After talking with Amanda on IRC about the results of her check, I am willing to AGF that these are different people meeting in person.
  • The second question, then: "were these people collaborating in a deceptive or disruptive way?" That one is harder to answer. The members of the group all showed up to support each other in multiple discussions, there is no doubt about that. It is also clear that the members of this group have strong opinions on the Welsh Not, so they could all be independently showing up to the discussion. There is no apparent on-wiki canvassing, but seeing as how (by their own admission) they know each other in person.
  • I have strong reason to believe that the group was intentionally collaborating in these discussions without being transparent about that. Consider the following: Sioned Llyfr a Gwin's global contribs (where that account comes after 2ish years inactive to add one of the CG images that have been central to this controversy), this commons deletion discussion (including the bizarre part where Cell Danwydd thanks himself for creating the image, despite the image being created by John Jones), Monsyn's global contribs (where they show up to a Commons deletion discussion before becoming involved in the enwiki discussions). Also note in general an uptick in enwiki activity on these accounts starting in mid-September.
  • The other question is on the precise relationship between Llywelyn2000, John Jones, and Cell Danwydd, since there are odd behaviors between the three of them that suggest one person using multiple accounts. I ask the three of you directly: were any of you logged into one of the others' accounts at some point?
  • So the question is...now what? Honestly, I'm still figuring that out. I basically have three buttons at SPI: do nothing, warn, block. I feel that this behavior does meet the threshold for canvassing, so I'm not going to choose "do nothing," and I feel that a warning would be insufficient (plus, Llywelyn2000 was warned about this sort of thing in the past). On the other hand, a block seems excessive to me. Perhaps a topic ban would be in order, but I can't hand those out on my own, I would have to go to AN for that. I will have to think about this some more. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • GN, I followed maybe half of that, so obviously am super-confused. If those accounts are CU confirmed, how can they be disparate individuals? (What, in the same room every time?) Maybe I'm just not getting something basic about the CU process, but how can that be? Also, a warning? For long term abuse of multiple accounts (to bolster a POV)? Disconnect there, too, I'm sorry to say. El_C 18:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • El C, not a CU so I obviously can't say for sure, but my understanding from talking to Amanda is that there's a lot of "same connection, same time," but maybe with enough wiggle room that it could be multiple people meeting up. Remember, CU findings are based on the technical data, and that's only half the battle. As for warnings, well, I agree that warnings aren't a great option for most of the accounts here, I just don't have a lot of options here - like I said, I basically have three buttons to resolve a case. I'm considering a block for Llywelyn (since this is not the first time there have been shenanigans involving them accidentally using other peoples' accounts), possibly blocking Cell and John Jones, and giving a stern warning to the other people in this group about canvassing. I think a TBAN for the five accounts I listed above from Wales, broadly construed, would also do the trick. However, a) I'd have to roll the dice at AN in order to get the TBAN (or turn this into an ArbCom case, I guess, but I don't think this is ready to go there), and b) given the context of this SPI (an article about suppression of the Welsh language) I think that it would be very bad optics to topic-ban a cywiki sysop+crat and their edit group from Wales. Not that I particularly care for that kind of politics, mind you. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • GN, someone just emailed me about this. Their email reads (in full): and per WP:MEAT, citing arbcom, '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.' FWIW. El_C 19:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GeneralNotability I don't see how a TBAN would be appropriate here. A TBAN is for a situation where somebody is fundamentally trustworthy and productive, but gets crazy about a particular topic. The question here is whether a single person runs more than one of these accounts (i.e. socking). If we decide that's case, then they fail the "fundamentally trustworthy" test. I know each project has their own governance, but an admin/crat? Seriously? They should be held to a higher standard.
I have no problem with like-minded people getting together and collaborating on projects. I'm a member of WP:Meetup/NYC, and that's exactly what we do, but we're totally open about it. Sometimes we even get together in one place and share an IP address, but people show up with their own laptops. Are we to believe that these people show up in one place and pass a keyboard around during a pandemic? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, RoySmith, "these people" do, as was stated here and, years ago, here. Wales has had different guidelines from other UK countries throughout the pandemic, and the edits being complained of here appear to have happened either before the pandemic or after the restrictions were relaxed. Deb (talk) 14:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know Llywelyn2000 in real life and find his explanation entirely convincing. It's possible these people were sharing a computer and weren't sufficiently careful about logging out. But the Welsh Wikipedia is a small community and it's hardly surprising that they would have overlapping interests, especially about a topic so emotive concerning Welsh identity. In fact, I'd be surprised not to see Welsh (and especially Welsh-speaking) editors turn out in force at a discussion like the one on the Welsh Not talk page, just as I would expect American editors (for example) to be interested in a discussion about American identity; the only difference is that there is a much larger contingent of American editors contributing to the English Wikipedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, but I wouldn't expect them to forget who they're logged in as, and I wouldn't expect them to post anti-English screeds on their userpage either. Black Kite (talk) 21:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sharing a computer? In this day and age? To what end? For the life of me, I can't conceive of what the point would be to share a computer among so many disparate individuals. And then also do so sort of in relative isolation, absent any MEAT coordination? Anyway, really odd. The MEAT coordination I usually encounter nearly always involves separate computers. Granted, there's the occasional WP:LITTLEBROTHER claim, but it I rarely see it extend beyond one person (though ScrupulousScribe did have multiple "roommates," as I recall). Weird. El_C 21:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @HJ Mitchell: Since you are not a CU or clerk, and by your own admission you're posting this because you know Llywelyn2000, don't you think this comment would be better placed in the section above? – Joe (talk) 07:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to step on GN's toes, but if it were me I would indefinitely block all these accounts. Between the CU evidence and the very similar writing style in some comments (I don't buy the excuse that all Welsh speakers make the same spelling mistakes in English), we at least have people sharing accounts, not just sharing a computer. And even if we let that slide, there seems to be no doubt amongst uninvolved observers that a problematic degree of off-wiki collusion has been happening. Llywelyn2000 has been warned about this at SPI before. I highly doubt we would even be having this discussion were it not for their connections to WMUK and the high-profile editors willing to show up here to excuse them. – Joe (talk) 08:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, sadly. They're all CU-confirmed, and a number of accounts have acted in concert (for example, Monsyn and John Jones reverting the same material on Welsh Not). Since they're indistinguishable from sockpuppets, I don't think we actually have much choice but to actually treat them as such. HJ may have met Llywelyn2000 in real life, but I have trouble with the idea of a clique of Welsh editors (some of have lkess than 10 edits) all meeting at their house to edit Wikipedia. In fact, I don't believe it at all. One or two people? Sure. Ten? Sorry, no. Edits like this (which is this account's only edit) just yell "sockfarm". Black Kite (talk) 12:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to remind the comments section that this is not a vote. Please restrict commentary to the facts of the case. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For once, I agree with User:Joe Roe. I actually do find it perfectly possible that these are all different people and we're looking at a situation where a group of like-minded people were chatting IRL about a particular Wikipedia page, and then each took it in turn to edit that page. (It's not particularly implausible—normal people don't take their laptop with them when they visit friends and the mobile editing interface sucks like an Electrolux, so if the conversation turned to "let's edit Wikipedia!" everyone would take it in turn to use the same computer.) That doesn't make it legitimate, and while some of these editors are primarily cy-wiki editors who might not be aware that en-wiki has different rules, most of them aren't. The precedents for this situation were argued in excruciating detail at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list. (Disclaimer that I've once met Llywelyn2000 in real life so am probably technically WP:INVOLVED, although it was ten years ago and I doubt we exchanged more than fifteen words.) ‑ Iridescent 14:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regrettably, I believe the best path forward is to block the editors who were clearly involved in canvassing/meatpuppetry. There is nothing wrong with editors meeting up in person (and, in fact, that is something we should encourage!). The evidence, however, suggests that several editors were specifically invited to join discussions to support someone else, which fundamentally violates community trust. I am aware that Llywelyn2000 is a respected Wikimedian and sister-project sysop, but that does not give them a pass - if anything, it means that I have higher expectations of their behavior, and they've already been warned in the past. I have no doubt that if this were a less respected editor, they would have been blocked already with minimal fuss. I emphasize that this block is only based on inappropriate off-wiki coordination, not their POV or them meeting up to edit. I also note for the record that this is not a CU block (despite Amanda's findings above) and so the block may be reviewed by any administrator. No tags. And since I know someone is thinking it - yes, I am quite aware of the optics of blocking pro-Welsh editors for their behavior at Welsh Not. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the optics would only be poor if it were clear that we were blocking multiple physical Welsh editors who were working independently. The CU evidence, unfortunately, suggests that we are not doing so, or that multiple editors are working in concert on contentious topics, which is effectively the same thing. Black Kite (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Llywelyn2000/Archive&oldid=1048929150"