Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andy Dingley/Archive

05 April 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Evidence presented by Jytdog

Milligansuncle is an account created on April 4. It appeared in the midst of an ANI that was filed against me on March 31 by Andy Dingley, who is very, very unhappy with my editing. That ANI turned against Andy as he began hounding me, reverting me at various articles (e.g. here and then here), and a one-way interaction for him with regard to me me is under discussion there.

This new account appeared after the ANI had turned against Andy, and its first edit was to Calvert's Engine, an article created by and edited only (!) by Andy, per its history). The account's next edit was to the Talk page of Conzar, a new user I was trying to help (see history of that Talk page; the account's next edit was reverting me at another article.

There is a small chance that this account is a sock of User:Conzar who recently kind of threatened to start socking in the face of a topic ban (dif), but that seems less likely.

It feels weird to file this, but the behavior of this new account is too strange to not do it. Jytdog (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Cirt
 * 1) First edit ever by = turns userpage from redlink to bluelink with one-line-long-userpage at DIFF.
 * 2) 3rd edit ever = turns user talk age from redlink to bluelink with one-line-long post at DIFF.
 * 3) 5th edit ever, posts to user talk page for = knows how to create subsection. knows how to sign post. Directly below a prior conversation above on the page between  and  = at.
 * 4) 7th edit ever to Wikipedia, reverts Jytdog at article Fibromyalgia = back to version by IP user at DIFF.
 * 5) 9th edit ever to Wikipedia = somehow is adept at Wikipedia enough to find himself and post at this SPI page itself, at DIFF.

Good block by admin, per WP:DUCK.

Further sockpuppet investigation is required of other accounts named by SPI filer, above.

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

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

I am not a sockpuppet of either Andy Dingley or Conzar. Milligansuncle (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * For an absolutely brand new user, it is remarkable that you found this. And the pattern of your editing is also just... weird.  Why are you following me around? Jytdog (talk) 01:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I was banking on Conzar given that comment on their talk page...  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 01:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * There is also weird stuff going on at the Fibromyalgia article with a series of IP editors (3 so far) showing up to advocate for low-dose naltrexone as some kind of proven treatment for the condition, and Milligansuncle may or may not be the same person or part of a group... confusing. I laid that out here. That doesn't make sense out of the first stop at Andy's article nor Conzar's talk page.  This is all just weird. Jytdog (talk)  02:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * JzG/Guy has banned Milligansuncle without waiting for the outcome of the sockpuppet investigation. This is unhelpful. I think the sockpuppet investigation should be allowed to reach its conclusion because otherwise Andy Dingley and Conzar will remain under suspicion and this is unfair to them. 62.255.240.157 (talk) 10:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree - it looks like in this case, Milligansuncle is guilty until proven innocent. 173.162.170.106 (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * For the record, I'm not a sock(pupppet|master) of Milligansuncle either. Nor of Conzar. Thankyou though to Milligansuncle for one of their first edits being a correct and constructive fix to a wl in an article I wrote.
 * "Andy Dingley, who is very, very unhappy with my editing." might just have something to do with WP:ANI, wherein is catalogued a series of abuse from Jytdog, such as awarding me a "Moron Diploma", describing adding needed sources as "crappy, OFFTOPIC content", other editors' work as "Garbage content based on garbage sources" and "demeaning to WP"?
 * Harrassment by SPI isn't a new tactic for Jytdog. He did it a few weeks ago to CaptainYuge after another content dispute. In that case he also refused to accept the decision of the SPI and continued to harrass and insult the presumed innocent Yuge. User talk:Jytdog Although in that same thread he says he wouldn't try it on me! Mind you, given his other statements of ":I am unwatching this article. I have no desire to be in this discussion." and " I do not pursue Andy; this has not happened and you will not see it." and their retrospective lack of accuracy, we can't place too much faith in any such statement.
 * I would remind Jytdog again: baseless accusations of socking with no other purpose are considered to be a form of harassment.
 * It is no surprise at all that the latest uninvolved comment on the Jytdog ANI thread (the one I started, not the others) is "I must say that it's incredibly surprising how many WP:BATTLEGROUND complaints there are about Jytdog here. Almost every time I check this noticeboard, in fact."
 * If "It feels weird to file this", then maybe that's a hint that you shouldn't be doing it? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with Andy. I recently made a contribution to fibromyalgia, and Jytdog fought me every step of the way. He has accused me of, in order:
 * Writing the opposite of what a citation said here
 * Entering an edit war (the irony...) also here
 * Advocacy, for some reason, here
 * For the record, it seems to have been decided by that my contribution was relevant and appropriate to fibromyalgia, as it currently still stands. I don't know what your agenda is Jytdog, but I'm sorry to say that it seems at least partially malicious. To be fair, though, we had a good exchange last night in the LDN section of the fibromyalgia talk page, and he has increased my awareness of accurately summarizing source material. 173.162.170.106 (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * @JzG - this is a bad block. There are a couple of edits that are anywhere near a contentious area and even if (I haven't yet studied the backstory) those were to be judged as "disruptive"  (in a context that is obviously technically complex and where a large number of editors posting to ANI have already found their own problems with Jytdog)  then that is no substantial basis to indef block any editor as NOTHERE. We DO NOT BLOCK EDITORS FOR OPPOSING VACCINATION, even if that is a position that could be applied to editors involved here (and as I say, I haven't yet read this content in detail).
 * If this block was issued as a response to this SPI, then it was a particularly bad block. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I too request checkuser to be run between these two accounts. I would like to have this baseless allegation cleared up properly. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * @Cirt - competence is not guilt. I would also remind you that this is Sockpuppet investigations/Andy Dingley. Until you have any evidence against me here, then it does not belong at this SPI.
 * It is also interesting what brought you here so promptly. Was it perhaps the ANI comment I posted only minutes earlier, in a thread that you're only part of because you have followed me here from Commons  Andy Dingley (talk) 14:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Already asked and answered and promptly ignored by in violation of WP:AGF. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Conzar is ❌. Andy Dingley and Milligansuncle are . The behavioral evidence is not strong enough to take any action in opposition of the technical evidence. I'm closing this with no action taken. Mike V • Talk 18:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)