To:
The Arbitration Committee
EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG
<arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Date: 04 March 2017
Sirs,
Subject : COMPLAINT of harassment, sockpuppetry, undisclosed paid edits etc. by Administrators and Oversighter(s) to deceive the readers / users of Wikipedia
This is just a hurried preliminary note to ascertain ARBCOM's stand on certain incidents which I am describing below concerning behaviorial issues of your editors / administrators and including deceitful editing and sock-puppetry. I had already "pinged" your members "Doug Weller" and "Ira Brad Matetsky" ("NewYorkBrad") on Wikipedia but had my talk page blocked for it. Hence this email.
I, am your project's user. I also have the account name "INLINETEXT".
I, am constrained to inform you (in brief) as follows in connection with
(i) the ARCA unban request for your banned user "OCCULTZONE",
(ii) Deceitful paid editing sponsored by your user:Vipul,
(iii) Deceitful paid editing by certain users and administrators, and accompanied by sockpuppetry (including meatpuppetry) and other abusive practices.
1) That I conveyed certain cautions on the ARCA discussions linking the banned user OCCULTZONE's records to other abusively used accounts and suggested that the user not be unbanned. I especially drew attention of ARBCOM to OccultZone's edit
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =646969360
which bore the curious comment "haven't socked for 3 years+" and which removed 'inter-alia' the following warning notice to the Internet users
Code: Select all
"This account has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser evidence confirms that the operator has abusively used multiple accounts."to replace it with text glorifying the blocked user.
This suspicious editorial action by your ARBCOM banned user engenders concern that user:OccultZone is either user:La_goutte_de_pluie or their sockpuppet.
(NB: I use the terms sockpuppet and meatpuppet interchangeably as described in your community policies)
You may also verify from your records that your indefinitely blocked user "La goutte de pluie" was previously your user account "NATALINASMPF" till November 2007 and an administrator for about 6 years. That despite being "indefinitely blocked", I believe the user continues to abusively edit Wikipedia under multiple accounts, using technology to evade detection, and including, as I am informed, as the User "FlyerReborn_22" (previously FlyerReborn) or suchlike.
I am sure you will find that these users extensively used IP addresses from Singapore, and in fact are originally from Singapore.
2) It is highlighted that the sockpuppet investigations into user:OccultZone was mainly carried out by your Checkuser:DoRD, who was previously known as user:Department of Redundancy Department, who holds very high permissions on your project, self described as "I am an administrator, CheckUser and Oversighter on the English Wikipedia.".
I cite the evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 86.92_DoRD
containing certain phrases
"Also, the self-amusement of the name has long passed." and
"Done - both accounts belong to the same person"
3) That on 28.March.2017 your administrator 'DoRD' replied to me on the ARCA as follows
"@Inlinetext: If there was a connection between OZ and any other sockfarm, we would have discovered it, so your concerns are unfounded. —DoRD (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC) "
followed up with
@Inlinetext: You strongly disagree with what, and what does your anti-paid editing crusade have to do with OZ's unban request? —DoRD (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@Inlinetext: I'm sorry that you dislike the term I used, but the fact remains that you are mistaken. You are seeing a connection that does not exist. I'm not going to rehash OZ's SPI here, but IPs from Singapore had nothing to do with it. In addition, there was no indication of paid editing raised in the ArbCom case, and apart from your accusations, I am unaware of any suspicions being raised elsewhere. —DoRD (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
4) That my own responses included:
DoRD I disagreed with If there was a connection between OZ and any other sockfarm, we would have discovered it. My concern with paid editing is directly connected to the recent harassement I encountered, OZ's edit to Natalinasmpf's user page and harassment of several other users over time by this ring in furtherance of their paid editing. IMO, there were too many botched CU's over time involving Singapore IP's, editing in specific areas and "my brother did it" excuses. This is very long term "slow" abuse by computer experts, which I am not prepared to discuss publicly with this community until its policy on Outing is altered to allow it. I object to the term "crusade", especially since it refers to massacre of Asians by Anglos. Inlinetext (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
..
DoRD I don't know how you can state that the issue of sockpuppetry allegations for editors with CU'd Singapore IPs was not raised at OZ's Arbcom case. 1) OZ removes a CU badge from Natalinasmpf's User page and replaces it with the user's original content. 'Natalinasmpf' edited in the Singapore topic area, and its very unlikely that the editor has stopped editing. 2) There is some on-wiki evidence linking Natalinasmpf and Simfish, eg. link and considerable off wiki evidence about the person(s) behind the names. 3) User:Simfish is (now) a declared paid editor for User:Vipul. 4) It is unclear where User:Alamkonayun has vanished (great server crash?) along with their edits. Natalinasmpf is indeffed and User:Bonkers The Clown continues seamlessly, it goes much further than this and connects to WP:LTA/OM, editors who rant that CU is magic pixie dust "My brother did it", and WMF finally taking over child protection from Arbcom. Inlinetext (talk) 03:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
5) That on 2nd April 2017, while browsing the notice boards or Wikipedia, I came across a request for edits to be made on behalf of a paid editor "Wiilliam Beutler" of Beutler Ink in the Wikipedia article "Robert A. Mandell". While comparing the extant article to the version proposed I was shocked by the levels of deceit proposed to be practiced on the readers of Wikipedia by Mr. Beutler and I replied to hm on the article's talk page with my objections. I then checked Mr. Beutler's similar past requests for edits and discovered that considerable quantities of text
ghost written by him were being slipped surreptitiously into "article space" on his behalf. I say surreptitiously because these edits made on Mr. Beutler's behalf miserably fail to comply or conform to the PAIDATTRIBUTE guidelines for conflicted edits settled by the community under their "COI guideline" and "PAID policy" for additional compliance to the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use.
Accordingly I removed those edits vide the following trackback
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =769061051
reverting to a earlier version with the clear comment
"Reverting to old version 730150525 by Jasonanaggie (talk | contribs) at 02:18, 17 July 2016, reason => WP:COIRESPONSE edits fail WP:PAIDATTRIBUTE"
However, my edit was reverted a few hours later by another administrator account "Ivanvector" who is part of the Check User team (as a clerk or suchlike). The facts that my revert was made solely for failure to comply with WP:PAIDATTRIBUTE was ignored.
I then came to know, through my confidential sources, that your Administrator "DoRD" accesses an alternate accout (whose "handle" I am not disclosing presently) which is also used for inserting Mr. Beutler's paid editing assignments. Specifically, I have reason to believe the content I reverted on 3 March 2017 on the lobbyist Hilary Rosen's (another client of Mr. Beutler) Wikipedia article was mainly inserted by the said other account which is, at least, very closely connected to, if not actually the same person, as user:"DoRD".
I also surmise that I was subsequently blocked (indefinitely) at the instance of Mr.William Beutler, who is a lobbyist for paid editing at Wikipedia (which involves many of the notorious paid editing scandals afflicting Wikipedia, ie. "OrangeMoody", "Wifione", "Wiki-PR") etc, some of whom had also attempted to extort monies from me.
Accordingly, I would request ARBCOM to kindly ascertain
A) Why the Wikipedia articles bearing deceitful paid promotional commercial edits ghost written and inserted on behalf of Mr. Beutler do not prominently disclose these promotions on the readers in a way easily noticed by Wikipedia's readers, and especially the mobile users?
B) Why the articles with paid edits commissioned by your user:Vipul also deceitfully do not bear a similar prominent notice or disclosure of paid editing, (except intermittently when the WMF needs to raise donations from European Union readers through WP:COVERT advertisments from readers of these articles) ?
Please see an automatically archived example at http://archive.is/EimX8
C) Certain curious aspects and deceits re: your Administrator, Checkuser and Oversighter "DoRD". (I am highlighting that an "Oversighter" has the permissions to silently erase, delete, tamper or modify the pages of Wikipedia without leaving an easy trail, requiring that all the relevant electronic records be carefully preserved.).
Since this is also a WMF "Terms of Use" related complaint, kindly acknowledge this email within 48 hours indicating your course of action. Once the Arbcom indicates their stand on my complaint, I shall share certain evidences in these matters along with additional submissions after first satisfying myself that ARBCOM is competent and interested in genuinely resolving the matter in the interests of their users.
Kindly note that I am not here seeking to be unblocked at the English language Wikipedia.
sincerely
USER:INLINETEXT
