Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/1houstonian/Archive

04 February 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Both accounts are editing Steve Stockman exclusively. Both accounts are making the same points in their talk page comments and are using the same phrasing. Here's Achtungberlin: Stockman, Ron Paul and Rand Paul are 3 of the most outspoken elected constitutionalists in US legislature. Whn biased editors can put out of context quips to describe the tenure Protecting our Constitution is the best way to describ them. Additionally bear in mind US Senat elections is Stockman vs Cornyn, Wikepedia is a non-profit neutral ground if we allow on candidate to put his Policy Position it is not writ to write the othr persons policy positions AchtungBerlin diff And here's 1houstonian: "There is a election Cornyn vs Stockman and seems Stockmans position on issues is being deleted instead of being edited thereby removing the neutrality of Wikepedia and non issues being introduced as his policy position ie him not voting for the violence against women act when it applies to non biologically women has been changed by you into a quip taken out of context to describe his tenure. If that is not bias I do not have the definition of bias. 1houstonian diff"

Note that both misspell wikipedia the same way ("wikepedia"), both refer to a comment by Stockman as a "quip" taken "out of context" and both type out their name at the end of their comment rather than using 4 tildes.

The behavior is disruptive since neither editor seems willing to justify their position with a policy-based argument. In both cases they talk about fairness and neutrality and Wikipedia's non-profit status but they aren't willing to address concerns about sourcing (material cited only to Stockman's press releases) or tone. There has been an edit war on this article for several days. GabrielF (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I know you all can't use checkuser against IP addresses, but there seems to be some relation to the following. Some are admitted cases of probably accidental logged-out editing and all-round incompetence:
 * &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Now this new IP:
 * Just readded all of 's deleted edits and also called me "Laylah" on Talk:Steve Stockman right here, exactly as 1houstonian did here. It's clearly the same editor.  Anyway, I put in an RPP, so whatever the outcome of this maybe that'll at least keep them editing while logged in.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Just readded all of 's deleted edits and also called me "Laylah" on Talk:Steve Stockman right here, exactly as 1houstonian did here. It's clearly the same editor.  Anyway, I put in an RPP, so whatever the outcome of this maybe that'll at least keep them editing while logged in.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Now here is calling me "Laylah" on the talk page as well.  I think the behavioral evidence is strong here.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Endorsing check per behavioral evidence above. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Technically, the results are . They are both in the same geographic location, but one is editing from residential IPs, and the other from a commercial IP. . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Per behavioral evidence I've blocked the suspected sock indef and the suspected master for one week. I've also semi-protected the article in question. Closing now. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

02 March 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

This is the same pattern as the previous case regarding, editors are looking to remove material that portrays Texas politician Steve Stockman in a negative light. Patterns of grammar and spelling indicate that these are all the same person using multiple accounts in order to make themselves appear to have a consensus. Consider the miscapitalization of the phrase "negative AD" by Kroger 952: "Personally I would raise the same question and put this PAC negative AD question on Cornyns page." and by George125: "Some biased editors are turning Stockman page into a negative AD page for Cornyn and also keep removing sourced material from Cornyn page to make it look like Senator Cornyn's reelection AD." and then by Justin5075: "Agree the Super PAC run by Senators former staffer, bombarding Texans with negative AD's against Senator's opponents in the election requires a mention in his bio preferably by a neutral editor, especially as this PAC has been sued for libel and malicious lies." and by Javagalleria675 Also consider the misspelling of Wikipedia ("wikepedia") by George125: "There is a primary going on in Texas. Cornyns PAC and Cornyn are spending millions of dollars in mostly negative AD's against Stockman and it seems to be playing out in Wikepedia." and by Justin5075: "It is public knowledge that Cornyn campaign is spending millions of dollars in negative Ad's against Stockman we just don't want Wikepedia to become another medium for this negative campaign, and lets not forget about other 6 contenders in this race" GabrielF (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Also, look at the dates on which each of the four accounts began editing. Only "George125" had any edits before about February 23, 2014, and he made only a few edits (back in November 2008). Looks like the other three accounts were probably created very recently. Javagalleria675, Justin5075 and Kroger952 appear to be, at best, special purpose accounts. Famspear (talk) 01:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The repeated use of the phrase "negative AD" was also something that I noticed immediately. I've never seen anyone write the word "ad" (short for "advertisement") as "AD" -- but suddenly several users with the same agenda editing the same two articles are using this same idiosycratic spelling. Famspear (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

If you guys cannot tolerate NPOV its a problem Javagalleria675 (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you can't understand Wikipedia policy it's a problem. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅ match to :
 * ✅ match to :
 * Dallas1963 ties the two groups together and confirms sockpuppetry in the archived case.
 * is ✅ from 1houstonian, but is editing from a different ISP in the same geographic area. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Already blocked, I've fixed a couple of tags (all confirmed to 1houstonian). Closing now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Dallas1963 ties the two groups together and confirms sockpuppetry in the archived case.
 * is ✅ from 1houstonian, but is editing from a different ISP in the same geographic area. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Already blocked, I've fixed a couple of tags (all confirmed to 1houstonian). Closing now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * is ✅ from 1houstonian, but is editing from a different ISP in the same geographic area. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Already blocked, I've fixed a couple of tags (all confirmed to 1houstonian). Closing now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

27 February 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

All 3 of these aliases were created in the same timeframe: javagalleria675 and justin5075 on 2/23 and kroger952 on 2/25. The first edits for both javagalleria675 and justin5075 were to John Cornyn. All 3 editors' contribution histories are similar (in addition to editing John Cornyn): Javagalleria and Justin edit the Architecture sections for articles on cities in Texas, Justin and Kroger both edit articles on the oil industry.

All 3 aliases have been involved in edit warring over the same or similar content at John Cornyn: 1 2 3 4 They were warned about using socks at this point, but continued editing They were warned again about socks at this point, but continue to argue using multiple accounts: 1 2 CFredkin (talk) 04:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I suspect that George125 is also a sockpuppet. Registered in 2008, the account has been dormant for over five years and has now returned to support the other accounts listed above in trying to insert claims onto John Cornyn's page. Tiller54 (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, 24.149.197.34 re-activated after over 7 months of inactivity to engage in this edit war here and here.CFredkin (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In addition to their attempts to insert negative claims on Cornyn's page, the accounts are now editing Steve Stockman's page. He is a primary opponent of Cornyn and they are removing information they don't like from Stockman's page and inserting unsourced and poorly sourced puffery. For example, Justin5075 here, here and here; Kroger952 here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here; and Javagalleria675 here, here and here.
 * While they could be separate people from the Stockman campaign, their edits on the article talk pages make it clear that they are not. They use the same turns of phrase as each other, for example saying "negative AD's" as Javagalleria675 does here and here, as Justin5075 does here, here and here and as Kroger952 does here, here and here. George125's edits are solely confined to talk pages, where he also uses the phrase "negative AD's" here, here, here, here, here and here. Tiller54 (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
These are actually all sockpuppets of 1houstonian, see Sockpuppet investigations/1houstonian/Archive where CU has confirmed the connections and found all of the above named editors. All accounts already blocked and tagged. When archiving, please move to the proper archive. --  At am a  頭 20:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)