Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/189.148.186.149/Archive

02 October 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets






 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The first two accounts cited, CandaceWare (talk • contribs) and Larkinvonalt (talk • contribs), are meatpuppets asked by the sockmaster to retaliate against the deletion of puffery and the questioning of his notability on his vanity page and AfD. The sockmaster's page had been cleaned up somewhat and was nearing a "KEEP" consensus when he tried to blank it. When he was banned, the newly created puppets arrived to continue the disruptive edits, out my legal name and "fix" the page. Larkin Vonalt and Candace Ware are friends of the subject, Douglas Anthony Cooper, and have no prior history with Wikipedia. I have redacted my name in these Facebook screenshots but they demonstrate some of the collusion between the (now-banned) sockmaster and his meatpuppets, and the intent to harass rather than contribute:  The other two users, Moricolilatham (talk • contribs) and Atelantix (talk • contribs), are suspicious single-purpose accounts working solely on the sockmaster's interests, but I do not have persuasive evidence of meatpuppetry for these two other than their WP:SPA status and Moricolilatham's admission of a conflict of interest on the AfD. -- JohnDopp (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' The "screen shots" used by JohnDopp are from Douglas Anthony Cooper's facebook page. JohnDopp's use of them is considered by Facebook to be theft of intellectual property. JohnDopp is not a Facebook friend of Douglas Anthony Cooper, and is in fact blocked by me on Facebook, so he should have had no access to anything I had written there. Clearly he is using another account to steal this information. I only recently became acquainted with Cooper over a blog piece I was researching and subsequently wrote about the immoral and unethical tactics used by Animal Rights extremists in promoting their agenda, Fighting Dirty. This "sockpuppet" accusation is a direct retribution by JohnDopp in response to a complaint which has been brought to the attention of Wikipedia administrators via the Noticeboard. I was not notified of this "sockpuppet investigation" by JohnDopp, but was alerted by someone else he purports is a "sockpuppet." Given that a "sockpuppet" by definition is multiple accounts held by one person, clearly this is not the case in this instance. It is useful to not that everyone who disagreed with JohnDopp in this instance is the subject of this specious attack. Larkin Vonalt (talk) 01:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I would recommend this expedition be dismissed without admin or checkuser action. It's borderline disruptive. Please contact me if you need more information. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Those wanting more information can find it at ANI, and I can now also refer you to a couple of threads at the bottom of my talk page. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, Larkinvonalt has been indeffed today "for battleground behavior and multiple edits over time requiring revision deletion (oversight)." Tznkai has also announced at ANI to investigate the conduct of CandaceWare and JohnDopp. De728631 (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Zzuuzz I didn't even give it a look. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  03:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

17 October 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

So to begin with, I've had nothing to do (ever) with the discussions related to the Humane Society of the United States which seems to be where most of this has come from. I came across this at WP:COIN.

The primary IP address was blocked on 28 September for a month for harassment and an unblock request the following day was denied. Since that day, a number of IP addresses from the same range have appeared at related discussions and on various talk pages to plead the case of the original IP, refute claims by one of the editors the original IP was accused of harassing or provide general commentary / opinion on related matters.

Each comment is signed off in exactly the same way:  TIME, DATE (UTC)Douglas Anthony Cooper.

It seems plainly obvious that the IPs in this range belong to the same person who is now using a string of them to evade the original block. Regardless of the WP:NOBLE cause of the editor, evasion is still inappropriate. Stalwart 111  (talk) 04:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * And sorry, I wasn't aware there had been a previous SPI for this IP either (Sockpuppet investigations/189.148.186.149/Archive). But those issues seem entirely different. Stalwart 111  (talk) 05:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The original SPI was requested by me: it was a request to look into Cooper's friends/meatpuppets who had been specifically requested to intervene on his behalf, not about Cooper's evasion of the block through multiple IPs. The original investigation was closed at the request of Zzuzz on the belief that the problem was over -- a decision I agreed with.  Unfortunately, Cooper is unwilling to let it rest and persists in his disruptive behavior. (Today's IP is 189.148.179.35).  -- JohnDopp (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Response from IP editor (moved from WP:COIN):


 * This is a bit strange. How could I be a "sockpuppet" if I sign with the same name? We have two wireless IP addresses at home, and I don't check to see which I'm using.  I am me, I assure you.   (FWIW, the "voting" comment was intended as a joke.   My mother doesn't know the meaning of the word "sockpuppet." And neither do I, it appears. But if it means having "a bunch of people show up," all of them with the same name, that is not what is happening here.) And I've respected the ban, which I was told meant not to edit articles.  Nobody suggested I couldn't discuss -- on talk pages -- circumstances relating to the ban itself (which was of course very much about JohnDopp's COI).  In fact, I've done so a number of times, with no complaints. More information has in fact been *requested*, which I take it was an invitation to post. As for his character, I am going out of my way not to impugn it [ here, in this discussion ] -- I am restricting my remarks to his COI.  It's an attempt to be polite, which I believe is appropriate. But I have said what needs to be said about the COI, and most people here seem now to be aware of the relevant facts.  If you take the concept seriously -- and I believe you do -- I have no doubt that you'll come to the appropriate conclusion.189.148.245.39 (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Douglas Anthony Cooper
 * I suppose this could have been raised at WP:ANI as a straight WP:EVASION issue but because it involved multiple IP addresses (as noted below) I chose to raise it here first. Your original block was for "attempting to harass other users". I am now aware another admin has since given you a chance to discuss those issues. But I don't believe (even in "spirit") that the original block was intended to apply to articles only. Nor do I believe that the other admin's "request" amounted to tacit approval to start editing elsewhere again with different addresses. You were blocked from editing entirely, including your own talk page. There are ways to address that block (to ask for it to be reconsidered) and other ways to address some of the other issues you have raised. But you have effectively ignored the block and just moved to alternate IP addresses (7 so far, not 2, and something you don't seem to have "accidentally" done prior to being blocked) and continued editing, albeit limited to non-article-space content. Stalwart 111  (talk) 01:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Before we address this, let's have a full disclosure: Stalwart111, were you asked to register this complaint by JohnDopp?  That's kind of important.  As far as multiple IP addresses:  I write on a laptop and an iPad.  We have two IP addresses at home; I work at a cafe as well.  If you found seven (and I suspect you didn't), then it's because I must have checked in from a restaurant as well.  As I say:  this seems exaggerated, and it seems as if it's at the behest of JohnDopp. I am NOT editing articles. I am addressing matters related to my ban.  Period. That ban involved JohnDopp's COI, with regard to me and animal welfare general, in particular the HSUS.  I have discussed nothing else, nor shall I.  If someone wishes to clarify this business -- someone rigorously neutral (and they're becoming difficult to find) -- I would welcome the clarification.  Until then, I shall continue to restrict my remarks to JohnDopp's COI.  If you'd like to decide that case without my input, then that simply indicates that you (Wikipedia) do not take WP:COI very seriously.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.151.26.154 (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No - not in any way, shape or form. I've never met JohnDopp or the person "behind" the username. He and I (and you may check both my edit history and our respective talk pages) have never interacted (except in this SPI and in the sense that I highlighted this SPI in a discussion he had contributed to). To make it easier, I have also never edited (as far as I know and despite my occasional random page patrol activities) any article relating to the subject (as broadly construed as you'd like). I have no particular opinion on the subject or the organisations being discussed or the people involved or the editors who have so far contributed to related discussions. And I'm from Australia, so any activities undertaken by said organisations are unlikely to ever impact on me. I didn't comment on the COI discussion, except to note this SPI, and my only comment (for what it's worth) would be that while COI editing is strongly discouraged and non-NPOV edits from COI editors can be (and regularly are) removed by other editors, COI editing is not strictly prohibited. Harassment, however, is prohibited. In fact, WP:COI specifically says - "Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over this COI guideline"
 * Noble causes and COI accusations aside, your conduct was unacceptable. Evading the block you received for your unacceptable behaviour is also unacceptable. There are 7 IP addresses listed above - you have used every single one to edit in the same way (check the "contributions" for each) and each has been used in relation to comments you have signed off with your full name. The one you used to post the message above makes 8. It doesn't really matter if you are IP-hopping intentionally or accidentally; you are blocked, you know it, and any further editing ( in any space ) is clear WP:EVASION as far as I am concerned. As it stands, other editors would be well within their rights (I think) to simply strike your contributions to any discussions as they clearly come from a blocked user. If you want to contribute again (article space or otherwise), appeal your original block (properly this time). If I could be so blunt - there are very clear (and frankly very easy) ways to deal with your block, restore your reputation here and make an ongoing contribution. In fact, it might be worth noting that is exactly what I suggested to admins below. There is a reason WP:FRESHSTART exists. Stalwart 111  (talk) 22:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The bureaucracy is remorseless. Hello. I'm an involved uninvolved admin who doesn't want to get more involved than I have to. The editor has clearly edited my talk page. I state for the record that I invite the user to use my talk page to resolve problems on Wikipedia, particularly concerning attacks on his article even when blocked. I am sorry if that interferes with the blocking admin's decision. I'll leave the rest of the drama to someone else. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the current IP address. SPI can't do much, it appears the IP just needs to be blocked on sight for block evasion, since they continue to evade.  Closing. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 19:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies, guys, for re-starting any drama. I didn't look too closely at the content of the comments after seeing this at WP:COIN - seemed like a fairly straight-forward case of evasion. I initially thought this might be something that could be enforced with a narrow range-block for the remainder of the original block (approx. 10 days) given the fairly specific (from what I can see) range of the IPs in question. My intention was more in relation to precedent - reinforcing that it is not acceptable for a blocked IP editor to immediately and blatantly jump to another IP (or multiple ones) and continue editing without recourse. I'm not going to question the original premise for the block but perhaps if there are now actions in train to give the editor in question some rope then perhaps the block should be ended earlier. Otherwise we have one admin enforcing a block while another attempts re-integration, both of which seem appropriate and acceptable but they happen to be in conflict. Just my 2c. Stalwart 111  (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)