Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ɱ/Archive

20 November 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets
 * (no COI disclosure)
 * (no COI disclosure)
 * (no COI disclosure)
 * (edit summary paid COI disclosure editing Articles_for_deletion/Frank_Shiner, but none in text, or that they are the creator, some don't say who paid, none here )
 * (edit summary COI disclosure does not meet letter of ToU as fail to say who's paid  )
 * (edit summary COI disclosure does not meet letter of ToU as fail to say who's paid  )


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Editor has disclosed this IP is the same person as the account. The main thread is at ANI, this is just to document it, not to forum shop. Deceptively attempting to evade scrutiny / evade imminent block 3 or 4 indef !votes at ANI while continuing to edit paid COI article (and edit war (not per se a sock issue)) per WP:ANI Widefox ; talk 08:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Restate: ILLEGIT is deception / imminent block evasion / WP:SCRUTINY (per my comment at ANI) "With 3 or 4 indef block !votes above, consensus is editor should be blocked, and at that point they deceptively state User:Ɱ "This user is taking a long, probably indefinite, wikibreak" then make 1 more account edit, then continuing to IP edit, thus attempting to go under the radar of scrutiny here (at ANI). That trick of avoiding sanctions only works if they actually go away, they haven't. "  Widefox ; talk 08:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Widefox has made no case of WP:ILLEGIT uses, because I have not inappropriately edited with this IP. I would like to note, per the above link, that this appears to be a "bad faith" accusation; the "editor making a fake case for an "attack"". Per that link, please disregard, ignore, or remove content of the above accusation that is not relevant to this case.
 * About the 'restate', I'm not "Using alternative accounts" or "[creating] alternative accounts", nor am I doing it to deceive. There has been no crossover on articles or topics between the IP address and my former account. I never said I changed to editing logged-out to avoid any scrutiny. That being said, you can't accuse me for 'switching accounts' in order to 'deceive' when I never used it to 'deceive' or stated the change was to 'deceive'. You're making up motives to support your wild accusations. I'm beyond sick of arguing how moot all of your points are.--2601:643:1:FF00:799F:A536:C6D4:2096 (talk) 08:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to inform or remind readers that Widefox has been on a relentless mission to get me banned from Wikipedia. He will not stop until I am banned, and started right-away after I complained to him about his conduct. I can provide diffs. He will continue to forum shop until he gains enough anti-COI editors to establish some sort of lopsided consensus against me.--2601:643:1:FF00:799F:A536:C6D4:2096 (talk) 09:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "no crossover on articles or topics" is factually incorrect , it's a lie as it is self-disclosed as the same paid COI article! i.e. solely crossover Frank Shiner. Which is it? Are they the same paid editor or not? They can't have it both ways and deceptively try to fall in between. This is just further WIKILAWYERing rubbish when the facts are obvious and preserved for all to see. Also note, there's no disclosure here that this is about a COI with a paid COI editor per WP:PAID / WP:COI (there's no disclosure at the IPs talk or on the article - apart from the one I put on).  Widefox ; talk 09:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I really don't see the point of opening this SPI. There is no "suspicion" ... he has admitted to using one of the IPs, and we can probably assume he has no control over what IP he gets assigned by his ISP, especially given the extended range of the former available under IPv6. Yes, I think he should have stopped editing at all when he said he was going to, but if he were going to sock then disclosing that he was the user of the IP is a pretty poor way to do it. Unless you have evidence that this user has used other accounts or IPs that you are prepared to share, I recommend to the clerks quite strongly that this be closed as a request for a fishing expedition. Daniel Case (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I said above this was to document, not to forum shop. (The issue being a vote of no action at ANI due to halting editing, which the IP activity needed to be noted somewhere to document, plus the original issue at ANI of disclosure per TOU & WP:PAID & WP:COI). Please close. Widefox ; talk 19:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The "I" in SPI stands for "investigations" not "allegations". If documentation was indeed your ultimate goal it constitutes willful misuse of this page, and certainly stands to further support the user's complaint that you are overexploiting this issue to harass him unduly. Documentation of possible sockpuppetry can and should be done in your own userspace or in a private text file if you wish to save evidence for a future more formal, more substantial complaint. Daniel Case (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree that I think COIN is the right place, which is where "I" put it. Relevance to SOCK: "one editor, one account. Do not use multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, vandalize or disrupt; ... or to circumvent a block, ban, or sanction" so the former applies but not quite the latter. I've used SPI before to document editor aspect of COIN following suggestion by User:DGG (which were AFAIR just closed). I think this fits perfectly in the cracks here (between TOU and PAID, between limited-consensus for indef block at ANI and deceitful logged out evading that), but I agree ultimately a time waste per spirit of WP:PAYTALK. As for my actions - they have been extensively checked and cleared at ANI, so repeating discredited allegations seems double jeopardy. I opened with "The main thread is at ANI, this is just to document it, not to forum shop." so this is, despite being annoying and clearly not welcome, a good faith attempt, although I take the point of proportionality. This is somewhat of an example case which has identified issues with the TOU, PAID, COI (but that's for those places, not here). This is WP:DWH / WP:HA where Ɱ has "...gain attention from administrators and other concerned users as a result...". Widefox ; talk 21:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Your crossover diffs are incorrect. The tool you used is automatic, and thus fails to see that I actually only edited User:Ɱ/sandbox23 under that user account. And I only ever edited Frank Shiner as an IP. That distinction is lost using that automatic tool. 2601:643:1:FF00:176:DF6B:530A:B59A (talk) 20:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That distinction (a page move) is irrelevant to SPI, COI, paid editing, copyright, diffs, tools, reasonable people, and it's only relevance is to pedantic wikilawyering per WP:PAYTALK, plus as you're denying they are the same article, this SPI is relevant to determine that trivial fact (rather than to just document as designed). Widefox ; talk 21:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Given that the user has fully disclosed the connection, I don't see the problem here. Closing. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)