From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Tobeortobebetter

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

09 April 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

The nonprofit science organization GISAID played a pivitol role in the development of the COVID-19 vaccine, and is therefore a prime target for anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists to seek to denigrate. The three accounts have edited almost exclusively in recent months on GISAID (Tobeortobebetter exclusively so) or related topics, in a coordinated effort to add negative content to the article.

Overall, there is at least undeclared meatpuppetry going on here, and likely illicit sockpuppetry thinly disguised by a late-added claim of "legitimate" sockpuppetry. BD2412 T 16:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
  • I posted this as a response at the Help Desk but no reply so posting here for reference: This looks like a rabbit hole between this discussion (at the Help Desk), the page in question, and the SPI. I think privacy should always be given top priority. I also think you need to understand how it looks from Wikipedia's point of view and why an admin filed an SPI. New accounts who claim to be unrelated all come to Wikipedia to edit the same topic, all claiming to be a permissible use of alternative accounts. It gives an impression of SPI or at least potentially WP:MEAT users who may be here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Not saying that is the case, but it does give the impression of it. I guess my question would be if you are using AncientWalrus in a permissible fashion to edit GISAID because of fear of retaliation, why are you continuing to edit other topics with that account instead of using your actual account? Since those topics are not connected to GISAID (as far as I can see), I don't see why using this account for anything other than GISAID (the claimed permission purpose) is warranted. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 20:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    To respond to a small part of this, I just wanted to clarify that only two accounts here are claiming WP:SOCKLEGIT; the other is a named account. For my part I can say that I am not here to right great wrongs, but I did want to make an effort to rebalance an article that I believe has until recently been very far from NPOV – though so far I have contributed only a few words towards that. I do think your last question is valid (although it's interesting that further up I am called out for not editing other articles). Tobeortobebetter ( talk) 15:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply
I don't think that would be considered "called out." It is stating your editing activity which is an indication of whether or not you are engaging in SOCK or MEAT. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 07:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Fair enough. To respond to the WP:MEAT issue (not your allegation, I know): I think it doesn't really make sense that I am engaging in MEAT given that I arrived long before e.g. ArcticWalrus. It also doesn't really make sense to me that they would be, given that they are much more active on this than the other accounts, and pretty clearly an experienced Wikipedia editor. Tobeortobebetter ( talk) 12:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Response by accused master Tobeortobebetter

I welcome this SPI, which will find that I have not edited this page from multiple accounts. I do not accept that being a GISAID user would disqualify me from editing the GISAID article. This would exclude most virologists in the world (there are >50k users) from such editing – the equivalent to preventing Google users from editing Google. GISAID are neither a competitor, nor an opponent of mine.

As you can see, I have been attempting to edit this page for some time. My only attempted contributions have been: to add a single half-sentence to the article (requiring multiple edits to reach consensus); to comment on the talk page defending the addition of that half-sentence; and recently to object to a separate proposed edit. I can't speak for other editors who have become involved more recently, but their arrival may relate to the ban of a number of users from GISAID on 21 Mar which attracted considerable attention. I indeed posted WP:SOCKLEGIT on my page to explain the single-purposed nature of my account to allcomers, and had previously posted the same explanation on talk on 12 Feb.

You suggest that my fears of retaliation are without merit. I would point to this article from 2021:

"I am so tired of being scared all the time, of being terrified that if I take a step wrong I will lose access to the data that I base my research on," says one scientist who declines to be identified."GISAID has that sword hanging over any scientist that works on SARS-CoV-2."

(The person interviewed is not me.) - Tobeortobebetter ( talk) 17:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Tobeortobebetter: There is no way to know that the anonymous person interviewed is not you, or is not themselves making an irrational claim or disseminating misinformation. More to the point, is it accurate to say that for over four months between November 11, 2022, and March 24, 2023, all of the edits made from your account were from a then-undeclared sockpuppet account? Are you willing to disclose your main account at this time, to insure that you have not edited in such a way as to make your edits from this account cumulative to that of another account? BD2412 T 18:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC) reply
The statement that all the edits made between Nov 11 and Mar 24, 2023 have been made from this account is, by chance, accurate. (By chance in the sense that having read the policy in some detail, I do not believe that edits to entirely unrelated articles would have been in violation.) I am not willing to disclose my main account, for the reasons outlined above. You are correct that I cannot prove that I am not the unnamed person interviewed. However, a named person in that linked article also claims reduced access, while a different named person in a more recent article describes the same, and a report on Twitter from a third individual claims that critical tweets led to a complete loss of access. Tobeortobebetter ( talk) 19:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Tobeortobebetter:, so, to be clear, yourself and AncientWalrus are separate scientists, both of whom would stand to lose access to GISAID data if you were to be found out to be focused on highlighting negative claims about GISAID, and you both happened to have previous Wikipedia accounts from which you have edited other articles, but not the GISAID article apparently at the center of your expertise, and you both happened to decide to work on adding negative claims the GISAID page at the same time, including adding the same WP:SOCKLEGIT claim at the same time? BD2412 T 20:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC) reply
I can't speak for @ AncientWalrus. I suspect a fair proportion of internet-savvy academics have Wikipedia accounts. I would not describe the GISAID article as 'the center of my expertise'. I began my attempt to introduce this half-sentence on 11 Nov 2022. AncientWalrus appears to have started editing four months later on 24 Mar 2023, but you would have to ask them. I made my SOCKLEGIT claim on Talk on 12 Feb 2023, my first talk post. I put this on my user page on 25 Mar 2023. AncientWalrus appears to have placed the same content onto their own shortly afterwards. This occurred alongside them posting on my User:Talk page, suggesting that they received the wording from my user page, but again you would need to ask them. Tobeortobebetter ( talk) 21:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC) reply
So to prove that his privacy concerns and wish for anonymity are legitimate @ Tobeortobebetter should tell us who he is? Nice use of Catch-22 logic. Random person no 362478479 ( talk) 10:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
The concern here is that multiple accounts may be improperly engaged in activities coordinated to create a false appearance of unrelated action. It can not be the case that any person can claim to have a reason to fear retaliation from any current entity as a cover for activity that is impermissible on Wikipedia. BD2412 T 13:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
I understand that and agree with it. But demanding someone give up anonymity to prove that he needs anonymity is not a particularly promising approach. I think the best way forward is to go through the arbitration committee. See also:
"Editors who have multiple accounts for privacy reasons should consider notifying the arbitration committee if they believe editing will attract scrutiny." WP:ALTACCN
Random person no 362478479 ( talk) 14:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Yes, that should have been done. BD2412 T 14:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Honestly, I am very surprised that I attracted scrutiny here. I have simply tried to add a single well-sourced half-sentence to this article: "After a legal clash with the SIB, in which GISAID was ultimately compelled by an arbitration tribunal to pay out more than $1M,[..]". I would be grateful if you could point to anything that led you to suggest that I might be an 'anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist'. Tobeortobebetter ( talk) 17:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply
I have been an administrator on Wikipedia for over a decade and a half, and in that time I have seen just about everything you can imagine. There are countless reasons why an individual or group may desire to paint a negative picture of an entity—competition, disgruntlement over personal treatment, a political agenda—and such an intent is usually accompanied by SPA editing, and use of multiple SPA accounts. I have rarely seen an editor assert a WP:SOCKLEGIT claim. I have never seen two editors working on the same article simultaneously asserting WP:SOCKLEGIT claims. As I work extensively in vaccine-related topics (I actually created the COVID-19 vaccine article), I am cognizant of an additional dimension of concern relating to topics in this area. I respect that to an editor newly approaching the field, this may seem excessively skeptical, but I do hope you understand that my skepticism is born from long experience, and that there is an objectively unusual circumstance undergirding my request for additional information. BD2412 T 00:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Response by accused sock Leomrtns

The only evidence put forward that I might be a sockpuppet is that I edited the page during the same time as others, which is far from a good faith argument.

1. It is natural that the page had increased activity given recent events. [1] Thus having bursts of activity should not point to a "coordinated effort".

2. I am not anonymous, as can be seen from my user page. In particular I am certainly not anti-vax, as can be seen from one of my recent publications. [2] I am not, to the best of my knowledge, a conspiracy theorist either.

3. My single edit, which was reverted with the accusation of WP:SOCK, was the removal of the word "open" when the registry changed GISAID's status from "open" to "restricted", in line with the aforementioned current events (of March 2023). I fail to understand how this would "add negative content to the article". (For completeness, a few days later I added more content to the page, again only looking into the open vs restricted data aspect and careful not to add any "negative content to the article").

4. The opposite apparently have happened in the past, going by the talk page: an editor in 2020 mentioned for instance "[m]uch of this page appears (i) overly positive, to the extent that it serves as an advertisement for GISAID and (ii) uses sources that simply quote GISAID's positive description of itself". Which is in line with more recent mentions of WP:OWN behaviour. So it is only natural that editors feel less inclined to participate, unless important events happen (see point (1) above). One editor's "denigration" is another's NPOV.

5. Just in case, let me explicitly declare it here that I have no control or previous agreement with the other editors accused of WP:SOCK. There is no coordinated effort whatsoever from my part. I do not agree that the other defendants must divulge their identities, however, since the retaliation against current users of the database is a real possibility. Leomrtns ( talk) 21:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Cohen, J (24 March 2023). "New clues to pandemic's origin surface, causing uproar". Science (New York, N.Y.). 379 (6638): 1175–1176. doi: 10.1126/science.adh9055. PMID  36952417.
  2. ^ Eales, Oliver; de Oliveira Martins, Leonardo; Page, Andrew J.; Wang, Haowei; Bodinier, Barbara; et al. (28 July 2022). "Dynamics of competing SARS-CoV-2 variants during the Omicron epidemic in England". Nature Communications. 13 (1): 4375. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-32096-4.
Response by accused sock AncientWalrus

Neither of the other two accounts is my master account. Yesterday, I wrote a notification email to Arbcom from my master. If there is still any doubt, I am happy for this to be confirmed by a CheckUser.

1. Why did I join just now? Because GISAID was in the news for having removed important data and it had revoked scientists' access. On the date I created my alt account (24th of March 2023) GISAID's pageviews were as high as they hadn't been in the past year. Also, as a scientist working in SARS-CoV-2 bioinformatics I have been to busy working on pandemic tools until recently.

2. Why did I use the notification statement from Tobeortobebetter on my user page? I was reviewing the talk page and associated editors and noticing the statement on Tobeortobebetter's user page copied it to mine as it also applied to my situation. Later, I learned that there are dedicated templates for this purpose and hence I replaced it.

3. Why do I claim fear of reprisal as legitimation reason for using an alternative account? Because GISAID is known to retaliate against scientists whom it disagrees with. You don't need to take my word for it, it has been covered in one of the most reliable sources of science journalism: ScienceInsider from Science: "Scientists live in fear of losing access to the GISAID database".

4. Why does this not mean I have a conflict of interest? GISAID is the most important database for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza genomes. Every scientist working on these viruses requires access to these genomes for their work. GISAID has ten thousands of users. Considering this a conflict of interest would be like considering it a COI for registered Wikipedia editors to be editing Wikipedia's Wikipedia article. Neither have I ever worked for GISAID, nor have I got any personal relations with anyone working for GISAID (even in the broadest sense of the word). I am an ordinary user, like ten thousands of other bioinformaticians and virologists.

5. Why am I not a meat puppet? I have not been recruited by the other two editors in this SPI. A quick look at the Talk page will demonstrate that I "consistently exercised independent judgment" ( WP:MEAT. I do not comment on others' discussions unless I feel that I can contribute a new (policy) argument. None of the discussions have involved formal voting/dispute resolution. I have rarely reverted, and if so the other two users were not involved.

6. I don't have an agenda to add criticism, I am trying to ensure the article obeys WP:NPOV. In a positively biased article (as was arguably the case in the past) those two often look the same. But if you review my edits it will become apparent that I am basing edits on the most reliable sources available, often replacing sources of questionable reliability. This only looks like a "coordinated effort to add negative content to the article" because the article has been biased positively. This is not a coincidence: the article was created by GISAID employee Cherylbenett ("A spokesperson says the correction was made after a GISAID employee named Cheryl Bennett contacted the newspaper." from this Science news article. In addition, there has been ownership behaviour by the most active editor of the article. An admin has raised this point as well, see: this talk reply.

7. The anti-vaxxer motive is completely off the mark. I could not be more pro-vax. The current criticism of GISAID has nothing to do with vaccines. It is about sequence sharing, see for example: The Economist, Nature news, Science news. Surely anti-vaxxers would write about vaccines, not about sequence sharing, a topic that has very little to do with vaccines.

I would be more than happy to receive feedback on any edits considered disruptive on my talk page so that I can try to improve. For example, I thanked the accuser for this language edit of content I had recently added. Being disruptive to this amazing community is the last thing I want to be.

I apologize for the WP:TEXTWALL. I have looked at dozens of recent SPIs and none seem to have the complexity of this case in terms of the breadth of the accusations. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. AncientWalrus ( talk) 23:43, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  Clerk endorsed - based on BD2412 report, I endorse a check on Tobeortobebetter and AncientWalrus, but not Leomrtns, for whom compelling evidence has not been presented. For a topic that is controversial and currently in the news, mere topic overlap (or even sharing POV) is not too meaningful. MarioGom ( talk) 12:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    Also note that, as this may involve a legitimate privacy alt, my request is to determine whether Tobeortobebetter and AncientWalrus are the same user, and not whether one of them has a previous account. MarioGom ( talk) 13:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  •  In progress - -- RoySmith (talk) 13:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I haven't forgotten about this, but it may take me a while to run down some things. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • OK, I've run checks on Tobeortobebetter and AncientWalrus; the result of which is  Possible. I've also had some off-wiki consultation. I don't see that the strength of my CU investigation is enough to justify a block so I'm going to close this with no action. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    In response to a query, I'll clarify that my off-wiki consultation was with another checkuser. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • An additional note before archiving this: Tobeortobebetter, AncientWalrus: please, read WP:SOCKLEGIT and WP:MEAT carefully. Also WP:TAGTEAM, which is an essay (not policy) that can shed some light about a meatpuppetry behavior that can be particularly problematic. When using an alternative account for privacy, there is no guarantee that your activity won't be scrutinized and there is no guarantee that your alternative account won't be publicly connected to your previous account. So tread carefully, be civil, respect WP:3RR, avoid disruptive behavior, etc. MarioGom ( talk) 08:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    I acknowledge and am grateful for this comment. I am of course disappointed not to have had a clearer exculpatory outcome from SPI, but must live with this. I have previously read all these documents – in light of the issues here – and have just done so again. I do believe that I have complied with them until this point. For example I really don't think that tag team behaviour has applied here: Reluctance to incorporate new sourced perspectives, Reluctance to request opinions from the wider community, Ninja editing, Ownership, and Ad hominem are all in fact strategies that have been employed by the main editor of this article, but I know that's not a discussion for here. Anyway, thank you for your advice which I intend to follow entirely. Tobeortobebetter ( talk) 11:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tobeortobebetter/Archive&oldid=1151205013"