Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/4by40/Archive

Report date April 3 2009, 04:18 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by TrustTruth

After very sparse editing by the Wikipedia community of several George Wythe University-related articles (including Oliver DeMille), all three users appeared near the same time and have edited virtually nothing but GWU-related articles (in every case pushing for more-positive coverage). All three tend to have the same tone on the talk pages, and all three have made personal attacks against me. The individual I believe is behind the suspected sockpuppets has gone to some lengths to make them appear like separate entities, including making cordial comments on their talk pages. For example, after making aggressive comments toward me (like this and this), user 4by40 left this  comment on the Arationalguy talk page: "I really respect you for taking a stand on that GWU article. Maybe it's just a guy thing and I should be braver, but that guy [TrustTruth] kinda scares me from wanting to work on it." Here is another example of one talking to another. Any possible tools someone could run to confirm or allay my suspicions would be awesome! I could be completely wrong on this, and if I am then I apologize. Thanks! TrustTruth (talk) 04:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Could we get a checkuser run on these editors? --TrustTruth (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I am not a sock puppet, and TrustTruth has not provided any evidence with respect to me--only the accusation. I think his accusation is in bad faith, and may be relevant to the fact that I noted on the talk page of DGG that TalkTruth and TheRealGW might be one and the same, which TrustTruth subsequently acknowledged on my talk page. He included explanatory notes that he had "studiously" avoided using TheRealGW for the past couple of weeks (although both users make multiple edits to Oliver DeMille in the past two weeks) and with explanation that he had created the alternative user because he had felt personally threatened. He gives no explanation of what that meant, or how this might have been a protection against the unnamed threats, or why, after feeling the need to create an additional user to protect himself against personal threats, he continues to use the original one.

Or perhaps his accusation has something to do with the fact that he was reminded two days ago (Oliver DeMille) and today (George Wythe University) of the 9/28/08 final warning against violations of BLP, and is trying to discredit editors who might have occasion to point out new violations, which would result in him getting banned. (Speaking of which--how many final warnings does one get?)

He cites as evidence against the accused that the three editors in question have tried to move certain articles to a more positive point of view. That appears to be true, and owing. This user has been the principle editor on several articles, as he puts it, "related to George Wythe University," and has historically and recently been noted for violations including OR, BLP and POV. With editors appearing on the scene to try to improve the quality of these articles, he resorts now to what may be bad faith accusations. I looked up the citations he provided as evidence against the accused, and I'm not sure I detect the "aggression" he cited. And the comment between the users 4by40 and Arationalguy looked sort of, I don't know--normal.

Feel free to check into my IP. I'm not 4by40 or Arationalguy. I've not even edited the same articles as either of them, so I don't know what we're talking about here. The accuser IS, by his word, TrustTruth and TheRealGW, has used both users to edit the same article on the same day (Oliver DeMille), the same article over an extended period of time (OD & GWU), to edit the same article with different pet subjects, resulting in the appearance of a separate entity (George Wythe University), and has an agenda. (I can give ample evidence of this, and will provide it if asked.) He has stated in his talk page that he believes Oliver DeMille is a liar who misrepresented his educational history, and in the GWU talk page that George Wythe College is not a "real" university. He claims that these prejudices do not color his NPOV in editing, and yet he is continually under scrutiny for violations. Now, with what I believe to be a bad faith accusation and the ironic preponderance of evidence of his own engagement of sock-puppetry, I wonder at what point he will choose to simply stick the the good work he does on so many articles and retreat from the tactics he uses with these articles he collectively calls, "related to George Wythe University". --Ibinthinkin (talk) 12:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me interject that I have a legitimate alternative account, TheRealGW, that I set up to take over the TrustTruth edits on George Wythe University articles. I have never used these two accounts simultaneously or to build consensus. The intent was to no longer edit these articles as TrustTruth, as I felt personally threatened by GWU adherents and wanted to separate my other edits from these edits to keep a safe distance. Unfortunately I was pulled into this edit war as TrustTruth, and since that time have NOT used TheRealGW. I have already given the Arbitration Committee a heads up on this account. Thanks. --TrustTruth (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * A simple check into the histories of "TheRealGW" and "TrustTruth" will show significant overlap in the editing of the same topics... which include about a dozen pages created for the purpose of reinforcing his hypothesis about GWU. His blog links to several of these pages as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibinthinkin (talk • contribs)


 * Yes that's the point. TheRealGW was meant to take over the editing of these articles. --TrustTruth (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No puppet here either. From the guidelines on handling sockpuppetry accusations: "If an accusation on this page is "bad faith" (an editor making a fake case for an "attack" or to prevent their own editing being examined) then you may wish to say so briefly." This sums it up. TT has a long history of disruptive editing and multiple warnings from administrators for such abuse. Specifically, he has been tendentiously editing numerous pages surrounding a single topic for the purpose of attacking its subject, and has even created a blog for this singular purpose http://themakingofauniversity.blogspot.com/. He has been abusing WP as a way to effectively mirror his blog as his "hobby." Whatever drives his obsession, WP is not or soapboxing and creating thinly veiled attack pages.--Arationalguy (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I had one warning from one administrator in September 2008 and have since tried to follow his advice. Please do not distort the facts. --TrustTruth (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That warning was repeated on 4/2/09 on TrustTruth's talk page, and an edit was undone today by DGG, with the reason cited as BLP.


 * DGG was noting the previous warning as I had blanked out my talk page a few months ago. It was not a new warning. --TrustTruth (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In addition, the reasons cited for maintaining two users do not coincide with the facts. The edit history speaks for itself, there is no evidence in the comments on TheRealGW's blog that he was threatened personally, and if he had been, how would it then follow that his response would be to create a user here with the same name as the blog, and to generate links between the pages he edits and the blog?  He must have some other reason for maintaining two users which edit the same pages than the one he has supplied.


 * All this being said, may I make a suggestion that if admin should determine that action against TrustTruth is warranted that he not be banned from WP entirely? He is a talented and dedicated editor, and I think a large majority of his contributions are a credit to WP.  I would hope that he simply be banned from editing the pages that he calls "related to George Wythe College".  --Ibinthinkin (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a sock puppet either. This accusation is a distraction to hide what TrustTruth doesn't want people to see. This |talk page clearly shows that TrustTruth has an agenda and an administrator has been involved (DGG). The administrator warned TrustTruth |again and then cleaned up more of TrustTruth's biased edits in the GWU article.--4by40 (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

As an admin who has been involved in this dispute, I think that a CU would be appropriate in this case, so we can put the issue to bed one way or the other. It's spilling into WP:ANI, admin talk pages, and is causing major disruptions at Oliver DeMille and related articles. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users

Endorsed - X clamation point  02:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

✅ Arationalguy = 4by40. Ibinthinkin is. Dominic·t 10:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions


 * Jennavecia blocked Arationalguy. Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 12:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)