Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tovojolo - Wikipedia
- 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.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Tovojolo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Caprisa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
UpDown 17:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
I would like to report two users I strongly suspect of being sockpuppets. These are User:Tovojolo and User:Caprisa. Caprisa first ever edit, on 13 June was to give Tovojolo a barnstar award. Since then they both edit similar articles, namely Shelley Long and Marty Feldman. Also in this edit [1] Caprisa asks a user about Jane Curtin, an article also edited by Tovojolo. In additon, a debate between myself and Tovojolo was intervened by Caprisa on Talk:Angela Thorne. Also, they both have voted the same way on a photo debate on Talk:Ursula Andress. They also both have done edits where they insist on inserting United Kingdom after England or Scotland in Infoboxes (see [2] and [3]). Another thing I've noticed is they both have made talk page comments where instead of writing one paragraph of text they have written several sentences each on one line (see [4] and [5]); this is rather unsual way to write a comment. They also always seem to edit shortly after the other. Further to that, both have no become involved on Talk:Honor Blackman and Honor Blackman, again a strange coicidence. Notice the same style of TalkPage comments. Also note that Caprisa asks that I compliment her like Tovojolo did (complimenting himself/herself). I find this suspicious; I never before come across a Wikipedia editor who asks for compliments because another editor gave her one. I would ask someone to look into this ASAP, especially as in the case of Talk:Ursula Andress they have both taken part in a "vote" (not sure if its official), which is vote-rigging. All the evidence put together I believe confirms they are sockpuppets.
- Comments
- Cyber-stalking
Man, you're seriously obsessive. The only copying going on has been you following me around Wikipedia. For example, I do edits on Karen Steele, Maggie Steed, Marty Feldman, Kelsey Grammer, Lindsay Duncan, Joanna Lumley, and others. Note how he turns up after me. As for the United Kingdom, UpDown says on his User Page, that he is English. Strange Englishman who doesn't know that England and Scotland are part of the United Kingdom. UpDown can criticise others but never do anything himself. Unfortunately for you, I will not take part in your charade of a witch hunt. As you seem to be an assiduous reader of my User Page, you know I have a novel to write and finish and publish. So I was always planning to go off. I should also like to point, in my defence, the great many edits I have done and the great many articles I have improved and the work I have done for the Wikiprojects I belong to. I hope that counts for something here on Wikipedia and that UpDown will be checked for the way he has followed me. -- Tovojolo 20:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ouch, what a mess. The fact that Caprisa's first edit was a barnstar to Tovojolo's page is in and of itself sufficient to raise suspicion. Given all the other evidence (which I haven't properly reviewed), the relationship is confirmed. I am singularly unimpressed (to paraphrase Seraphimblade) by the behavior of Tovojolo in responding here. Anyone who attacks his accuser instead of plainly stating his innocence while assuming good faith should be blocked indefinitely just for that. (I'm exaggerating, but not by much.) We can do without such people regardless of the good edits that they may contribute. Shalom Hello 21:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that it should be of anybody's business, but Caprisa is the account held by my wife. -- Tovojolo 21:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If thats the case you still should certainly not vote in the same things, and award each other barnstars. But to be honest I'm not convinced, just because you are married is no reason why you would edit in exactly the same way, which you do. And the reason I often check your edits, is because to be frank they often need checking, the constant inserting of United Kingdom after England/Scotland yet the removing of United States from American infoboxes. Also copy and pasting straight from IMDb cannot be accepted. --UpDown 08:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps someone should tell UpDown that one of the joys of marriage is sharing. My husband and I have similar tastes and style - couples who don't, do not stay married for long. (1) I hope you have all noticed that he has confessed to following my husband. His "testimony" needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. (2) As for Shalom's comments, when someone attacks you, you have to defend yourself, what else are you supposed to do ? (3) UpDown inserts the United States after a State's name but it's not right to enter the United Kingdom ? How can it be right for one but not right for the other ? (4) Having accounts as husband and wife - does not make us "sock puppets" - whatever that is. Does Wikipedia have a regulation against marriage ? (5) I hope you have all noticed UpDown's tone - the spleen of the man. I leave you to draw your own conclusions about him. UpDown does not own Wikipedia, so, fortunately, he does not need to be "convinced". I do hope the common sense of Wikipedia will prevail. (6) Barbara Bouchet - Yes, I gave my husband a Barnstar for Barbara Bouchet. The only "fault" is that nobody else gave him one sooner. I urge you all to view Barbara Bouchet and see the sheer number of edits, more than 400, and the huge amount of work that my husband did on Barbara Bouchet. Wikipedia would not have such an outstanding article without him. (7) My only fault is that I left a playful messsage for UpDown asking for a compliment. I'm sorry I did. He does not appear to be a nice man. (8) If Wikipedia have any rules for husbands and wives who have accounts, then we shall abide by them. My husband and I can only be what we are. I repeat my wish for the common sense of Wikipedia to prevail. -- Caprisa 12:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not just the same topics, you also write your talk page comments in the same way. This I find hard to believe, the way you write talk page comments (only one sentence per line, not a proper paragraph) is very odd. And lets be honest saying you are husband and wife would be a very good to avoid being called a sockpuppet, to avoid being blocked. Once again you attack me personally, very unnecessary - I do not think I own Wikipedia, but we have to stick by the rules and that includes not copying and pasting from IMDb. And there is a difference between England and the States, England is a civic nation, a "constituent country", the US states are not, there are states. --UpDown 12:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not think there is much point replying to UpDown. I hope everyone has noticed his bias and vitriol against us. As for style , I repeat : " Perhaps someone should tell UpDown that one of the joys of marriage is sharing. My husband and I have similar tastes and style - couples who don't, do not stay married for long." If you want proof, just ask any of the Divorced people on Wikipedia. Note how he attacks us personally but takes umbrage when we defend ourselves. I am sure that if any of the people on Wikipedia were attacked then they would defend themselves with full vigor. I am sure that people on Wikipedia would be angry and annoyed if they were followed around Wikipedia. UpDown has already confessed to following us. I invite people to draw their own conclusions about him. I help with my husband's edits, he helps with mine, that's what happens when you're husband and wife. Is there anything wrong with being married ? It never once occurred to my husband and I that having separate accounts would cause any trouble. It is not UpDown who will decide this matter but the common sense of the Wikipedia majority who will dismiss this matter. Caprisa 11:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I will keep this short, because this is not the place for two users to bicker. But again Caprisa/Tovojolo make it personal - I have not. I would just urge any admins, or whoever decides upon this, to remember that saying you are married would be a very good way to avoid being banned for being a sockpuppet. --UpDown 13:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If saying that we were married was just a ploy - then why isn't this page full of claims from other people saying that they were married too ? Wikipedia would be inundated with claims if it was a ploy. It is not a ploy. It is the truth. Caprisa 10:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because maybe others didn't think of doing so. Just because others haven't before is no reason to say that it isn't what you are doing. --UpDown 11:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All I can do is laugh. I hope everyone has noticed that he is scraping the bottom of the barrel. Caprisa 11:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, making it personal. Shame you never actually answer the points put towards you. --UpDown 11:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am getting tired of UpDown's comments. I hope everyone else is too. Caprisa 13:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, making it personal. Shame you never actually answer the points put towards you. --UpDown 11:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All I can do is laugh. I hope everyone has noticed that he is scraping the bottom of the barrel. Caprisa 11:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because maybe others didn't think of doing so. Just because others haven't before is no reason to say that it isn't what you are doing. --UpDown 11:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If saying that we were married was just a ploy - then why isn't this page full of claims from other people saying that they were married too ? Wikipedia would be inundated with claims if it was a ploy. It is not a ploy. It is the truth. Caprisa 10:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I will keep this short, because this is not the place for two users to bicker. But again Caprisa/Tovojolo make it personal - I have not. I would just urge any admins, or whoever decides upon this, to remember that saying you are married would be a very good way to avoid being banned for being a sockpuppet. --UpDown 13:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not think there is much point replying to UpDown. I hope everyone has noticed his bias and vitriol against us. As for style , I repeat : " Perhaps someone should tell UpDown that one of the joys of marriage is sharing. My husband and I have similar tastes and style - couples who don't, do not stay married for long." If you want proof, just ask any of the Divorced people on Wikipedia. Note how he attacks us personally but takes umbrage when we defend ourselves. I am sure that if any of the people on Wikipedia were attacked then they would defend themselves with full vigor. I am sure that people on Wikipedia would be angry and annoyed if they were followed around Wikipedia. UpDown has already confessed to following us. I invite people to draw their own conclusions about him. I help with my husband's edits, he helps with mine, that's what happens when you're husband and wife. Is there anything wrong with being married ? It never once occurred to my husband and I that having separate accounts would cause any trouble. It is not UpDown who will decide this matter but the common sense of the Wikipedia majority who will dismiss this matter. Caprisa 11:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not just the same topics, you also write your talk page comments in the same way. This I find hard to believe, the way you write talk page comments (only one sentence per line, not a proper paragraph) is very odd. And lets be honest saying you are husband and wife would be a very good to avoid being called a sockpuppet, to avoid being blocked. Once again you attack me personally, very unnecessary - I do not think I own Wikipedia, but we have to stick by the rules and that includes not copying and pasting from IMDb. And there is a difference between England and the States, England is a civic nation, a "constituent country", the US states are not, there are states. --UpDown 12:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps someone should tell UpDown that one of the joys of marriage is sharing. My husband and I have similar tastes and style - couples who don't, do not stay married for long. (1) I hope you have all noticed that he has confessed to following my husband. His "testimony" needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. (2) As for Shalom's comments, when someone attacks you, you have to defend yourself, what else are you supposed to do ? (3) UpDown inserts the United States after a State's name but it's not right to enter the United Kingdom ? How can it be right for one but not right for the other ? (4) Having accounts as husband and wife - does not make us "sock puppets" - whatever that is. Does Wikipedia have a regulation against marriage ? (5) I hope you have all noticed UpDown's tone - the spleen of the man. I leave you to draw your own conclusions about him. UpDown does not own Wikipedia, so, fortunately, he does not need to be "convinced". I do hope the common sense of Wikipedia will prevail. (6) Barbara Bouchet - Yes, I gave my husband a Barnstar for Barbara Bouchet. The only "fault" is that nobody else gave him one sooner. I urge you all to view Barbara Bouchet and see the sheer number of edits, more than 400, and the huge amount of work that my husband did on Barbara Bouchet. Wikipedia would not have such an outstanding article without him. (7) My only fault is that I left a playful messsage for UpDown asking for a compliment. I'm sorry I did. He does not appear to be a nice man. (8) If Wikipedia have any rules for husbands and wives who have accounts, then we shall abide by them. My husband and I can only be what we are. I repeat my wish for the common sense of Wikipedia to prevail. -- Caprisa 12:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If thats the case you still should certainly not vote in the same things, and award each other barnstars. But to be honest I'm not convinced, just because you are married is no reason why you would edit in exactly the same way, which you do. And the reason I often check your edits, is because to be frank they often need checking, the constant inserting of United Kingdom after England/Scotland yet the removing of United States from American infoboxes. Also copy and pasting straight from IMDb cannot be accepted. --UpDown 08:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that it should be of anybody's business, but Caprisa is the account held by my wife. -- Tovojolo 21:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia Judge
My husband and I presume that an independent and impartial Wikipedia "Judge" will be looking at this and we feel sure he will dismiss the matter. Caprisa 10:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conjecture
We hope the Judge will look at UpDown's comments under "Ploy" and see that UpDown has nothing to offer but conjecture. Any law student will state that no Judge anywhere can ever even consider conjecture. Caprisa 13:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A Judge would also not believe you without evidence. All the evidence says you are a sockpuppet, no evidence to the contrary. And again stop the personal remarks like "I am getting tired of UpDown's comments. I hope everyone else is too.", it frankly does not help your cause. --UpDown 18:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- UpDown Reported
Note that UpDown has been reported to WP:ANI for following us around Wikipedia - which he has confessed to on this page. Following is aggressive, intimidatory and highly distressing to those being followed. It is a form of cyber-stalking. We hope Wikipedia will take full action against him. Caprisa 10:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC). Tovojolo 10:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- From Patar knight
Being married does seem like a good ploy to avoid getting blocked. However, there are some facts that I would like to point out:
- User:Caprisa's first edit was to give User:Tovojolo a barnstar. It would be pretty uncommon for new users to be aware of this award that early upon their entry into Wikipedia, unless they had previously editted wikipedia, presumably under the guise of User:Tovojolo. This would be considered sharing accounts, which I believe is not allowed under WP:Username. Furthermore, under the same policy, it is stated in the section of Meatpuppets that: "Sometimes, multiple individuals create new accounts specifically to participate in, or influence, a particular discussion. This is common in deletion discussions or controversial articles. These may be friends of another editor or article subject, or may have been solicited by someone to support a specific angle in a debate. This practice of external solicitation is considered unacceptable."
- The removal of United States is unnacceptable. There are 50 states, which constitutionally are seperate entities (although not sovereign states). Also, the parts of the United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales) are more notable and prominent than an obscure American state such as Iowa. Furthermore, many American state names are the same as other geographical locations, the most notable example being Georgia (U.S. state) and Georgia (country), and may cause confusion.
- You stated that User:UpDown had been reported to WP:ANI for "cyber-stalking" you. Firstly, in all of your arguments, you have stated that many people will share the same interests, so his passion for the same subjects is entirely justified. If you edit an article on a pop star, chances are, the other editors of the article will also have some interest in pop stars, and they will occasionally get into arguments. Secondly, your report was reported by yourself, so there is a confliction of interest. Most important of all, it was "thrown out of court" by the other users and admins.
- It is hardly common to demand that another user or person compliment someone because their spouse did so. You will receive far more compliments from a caring and loving spouse than from another person outside of your family.
- Lastly, as UpDown has said, you cry for this case to be settled by a quote: "Wikipedia Judge". However, if this was in a court of law, the worst thing that can happen to the plaintiff is to be thrown out and pay legal costs. Here however, the "full action" that can happen is limited to this sockpuppet claim against you to be dismissed. Most of all, in a court of law, you would be required to provide hard evidence, which you have not done. Also, personal attacks, as many of your statements can be counted as, are against WP:No Personal Attacks. --Patar knight 21:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Another two comments.
- the tone used in Tovojolo's first post (below). He never mentions that Capris was his wife until an hour later. Also in the first post, Tovojolo accuses UpDown of stalking him around Wikipedia. However, when Tovojolo reveals that Caprisa is his wife, he and Caprisa begin using the pronoun we, although Tovojolo had not mentioned his wife, who shared many interests with him.
- even after all the stalking that UpDown allegedly committed, Caprisa only reported this two days after this suspected sockpuppet claim was created. Of course this report was unjustified as per what I stated above (#3). --Patar knight 21:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Multiple Comments
Don't you think it's strange how Caprisa and Tovojolo keep making comments on this. Most of the comments on here are from either one of them....it's kind of suspicious to me. Guitarman051392 2:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC) — Preceding comment signed as by Guitarman051392 (talk · contribs) actually added by 12.217.240.86 (talk · contribs) -- Jreferee (Talk) 17:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's one of the more obvious cases I've seen. Contra "Caprisa's" question, I have seen "husband and wife" claim before: it was a lie given for the same reason, fear of checkuser. Besides all the evidence given above, note the classic overcompensentory "Hi, I am Caprisa"[6] and most of all the edit summaries (These are all manual, not greylit):
We could go on, but that should be quite enough. The stuff about husbands and wives sharing interests or splitting up is laughable on its face, and in any case fails to explain such details. Eventually, "they'll" be forced to state that one was standing over the other, telling "her" what to type, or that one trawled the others contribs and slavishly copied them, etc. - anything but the obvious much simpler explanation. And we already know they're CU confirmed, or we wouldn't be hearing this tale of domestic wikibliss. Tovojolo, you've been contributing for awhile. This was a mistake, and I'm sure if you knew we'd be at this point, you'd not have done it. Sockpuppetry is a temptation to which many succumb; some are better at it than others. You've only succeeded in wasting everybody's time. So fess up, apologize and we can move on. -- Proabivouac 06:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Caprisa and Tovojolo are quite plainly the same individual. The ridiculous charade above constitutes a significant disruption above and beyond that which led to this complaint. A non-trivial block of Tovojolo (and an indefinite for his sockpuppet) is in order. -- Proabivouac 07:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We do not know how many times we have to say the truth and it is sad you have drawn the wrong conclusions. Caprisa 12:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC). Tovojolo 12:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of whether the are the same individual or husband and wife is somewhat moot, as the accounts have been used in a manner that would violate either WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT. I've indefinitely blocked Caprisa as the newer account, and blocked Tovojolo for 48 hours with an admonishment to avoid enlisting family members or friends to co-edit or co-vote on controversial topics. MastCell Talk 16:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]