Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andrewlees/Archive

08 March 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I think he is now editing as the IP to avoid scrutiny in editing an article about himself, after receiving a few different warnings about this on his talk page. User and IP have both edited only this article. IP traces to London where user resides according to the article, Andrew_Lees_(neurologist). Taylornate (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Comment while it seems rather likely that the IP is the user, and the IP geolocates to Institute of Neurology, London University, I don't see any evidence that identifies the user or the IP with the named person (it might well be a colleague, friend or student). Best not to speculate on the real-life identity of the user and concentrate on whether or not they are abusing the anonymity of the IP.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Did you catch the username?--Taylornate (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I see no evidence that User:Andrewlees has claimed to be Professor Andrew Lees of University College London.  Please explain your thinking on WP:PRIVACY policy here.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Either it is him or he is in violation of WP:Realname, but that is an aside. If you really think this is outing, then you should request WP:Oversight on this report and on several sections of his talk page rather than draw attention to it.--Taylornate (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * refers to him as Mr. Lees on his talk page but he's never outed himself on-Wiki unless it was done in a now-deleted edit. She may have received an email as it appears that the account has never used a talk page.
 * I could have sworn that, also from University of London, claimed that both had come to Wikipedia with the same goal (creating an article about themselves) but I can't find that edit now.
 * I should note that in my experience with COIs, academics often have students editing their pages and whether or not they're directed to is usually impossible to determine.
 * You could always try the easiest method of simply asking them especially since you've never left a message on their talk page or even notified them of this investigation. It works more often than you'd think.
 * The WP:USERNAME violation is rather pointless at this stage as the account has made 1 edit in 5 months. Even so, it would only address a symptom and not the problem.  Ol Yeller21  Talktome  19:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "you've never left a message on their talk page or even notified them of this investigation" - really? Please see this, posted an hour before your comment.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I left a COI warning back in September and there have been other related warnings since then, including two from you. So I guess I don't understand what you're getting at.  By calling himself Andrewlees and editting only a single article about a guy by that name, he has outed himself.  My point about WP:Realname wasn't to point out a violation but to point out that WP treats real names in usernames as real names.--Taylornate (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have seriously considered the WP:PRIVACY aspect and concluded that it does not apply then I certainly don't feel strongly enough to have a dispute about it. But it was worth checking that you had explicitly considered it before making an assertion about this editor's real-life identity.  As I say, I don't think it's needed to resolve the SPI issue, which is not the same thing as a COI.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The IP has not been notified: . As an act of good faith, I would appreciate it if you would correct the error and your tone in response to me pointing it out.  Ol Yeller21  Talktome  21:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Like I said on my talk page, my first comment wasn't even directed at you. Taylornate, the person who filed the complaint, didn't notify all involved editors.  This is why my comments followed his and not yours. I have no idea why you snapped at me when I pointed out his errors and asked that you correct his error and your tone in response.  This really isn't worth arguing about.  If you don't want to issue a notice on the IP's talk page, then don't, and if you think that your response was justified towards a person that wasn't even talking to you, then I'm not going to take the time to correct that.  Ol Yeller21  Talktome  21:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't realize you were talking about the IP and that was my mistake. Notifying involved editors is not a requirement of this board, but if you want to do it I won't object. --Taylornate (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Cusop: I agree that the COI is not the focus of this report, but it is relevant as a motivation for socking.--Taylornate (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Never said it was required but if you want to know if the person is a puppet, meat or sock, letting them speak for themselves often helps and notifying them gives them the chance to do that.  Ol Yeller21 Talktome  22:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
As I see it: All in all, I see no indication of multiple account abuse. He should try to remember to always log in since it is helpful for collaborative editing, but that's pretty much it in my opinion. Amalthea 12:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's reasonable to assume that a user with username "Andrewlees" who edits an article on a person named "Andrew Lees" is that person. Pointing that out is not outing.
 * Based on contributions I agree it's very possible, maybe even likely that they are the same person. I would operate under the assumption that they are.
 * However, even under that assumption, I see no inappropriate use of multiple accounts:
 * We allow editors to edit anonymously
 * Inexperienced editors simply sometimes forget to log in, or don't care.
 * Someone who has a named account may even deliberately log out provided they don't do so to mislead/deceive/disrupt.
 * I don't see that the IP has ever pretended to be someone different, or even implicitly tried to gain advantage by editing with named account and anonymously
 * Andrewlees received the first COI warnings in September 13, 2011. Since then, the IP has made 3 edits of 15 in total. This year, the named account has made 66 edits, the IP 2. This doesn't appear to be intentional evasion of scrutiny.