Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ansonrosew/Archive

Report date 07:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC) (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Synchronism (talk)

Attempts to preempt a speedy deletion review by admin through the use of single purpose accounts. Edits of socks pattern the content covered by the article Glenn Rosewall, a CEO of the BBY Group and the subject of the suspicious activity revolving around the gaming of the speedy deletion process. 

Synchronism (talk) 07:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * TTrevor is actually a meatpuppet I believe by Ansonrosew's admission, yet for the same purpose.]


 * Synchronism (talk) 07:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

TTrevor, my real name and not a 'sock puppet' for someone else - is a genuine supporter of the page for Glenn Rosewall. I know of the page for Glenn Rosewall and was looking at it, when I noticed that it was nominated for speedy deletion. I do not believe it should be speedily deleted. It is my personal and professional opinion that Glenn Rosewall is a notable public figure. I have seen his comments in a variety of newspapers and this is what I wrote in my 'discussion' section of the page. I am now being accused as a sock puppet for another person, however I AM NOT a sock puppet. I did not previously have an account, so I could not make the comments necessary to add to the discussion on Glenn Rosewall. I knew that Ansonrosew was creating the page, and I supported the creation of the page, as do many others who have heard about it. This is an unfair accusation of sock puppetery, and it totally untrue and unfounded. I deleted the item around speedy deletion, as I thought it was also unfair. This is not 'gaming'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TTrevor (talk • contribs) 07:47, 14 January 2009
 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

My name is Anson Rosewall and for the past three days I have been working on the 'BBY Group' and 'Glenn Rosewall' (who is CEO of BBY) wikipedia articles. I am not a sock puppet. I have edited both articles using my account and on the IP Address 192.83.119.34 and 58.173.8.36. It was not my intent to commit any acts as a Sock Puppet by making revisions on my user account and my work and home IP addresses (I simply just didn’t login to my account on occasion at home and at work to make revisions- thats not a crime!). Furthermore, Tereasa Trevor (txt@bby.com.au), is a colleague of mine and she knows Glenn Rosewall and supports the creation of his page. Just because she expressed her thoughts on the 'Glenn Rosewall' discussion page, which happened to consist with my own, doesn’t mean that her or I are sock puppets. Trevor was the last person to delete the speedy delection request on his page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansonrosew (talk • contribs) 08:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this over yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansonrosew (talk • contribs) 01:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Also User:Burly jose's account was created at 11.09 UTC and its sole edit is in defence of the article nominated for speedy deletion. BencherliteTalk 13:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users

imported from Suspected sock puppets/Ansonrosew -- lucasbfr  talk 22:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

This is a slightly messy case, because there is a chunk of WP:COI muddying the waters. Ansonrosew would appear to be a relative of the subject (son?), and also works for him. Further it is clear that TTrevor, is an employee of the subject. Both have a conflict of interest. It would be fruitless to speculate the extent to which the bosses son might exert an undue influence over an employee to collude on such an article, and it is always a grey area as to where the line between common purpose and meat puppetry lies. I accept the explanation for the IP edits as being reasonable. I think it that Burly jose is a sock of on or the other (per WP:DUCK), but it was a single edit, and I suspect that we will hear no more from that account. Both parties would be well advised to steer clear of this article in future on account of their COI. Continuing to co-operate on this article in particular would make it increasingly difficult to continue to accept that the co-operation falls on the right side of the meatpuppet line. Mayalld (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Report date April 6 2009, 07:05 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by LibStar (talk)

Edits to indicate a sockpuppet of previously suspected sockpuppetuser Ansonrosew. Editor has admitted connection to Ansonrosew and potential conflict of interest. 


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Other indications [of possible sockpuppettry notwithstanding admissions of meatpuppettry] include similar edits to to BBY Ltd and cut and paste page moves regarding Glenn Rosewall and Glenn A. Rosewall which are similar to chaotic cut and paste page moves made by User:Ansonrosew at BBY Ltd that resulted in a history merge. During this confusing period, Zip1010 ceased editing (until recently) and Ansonrosew began editing for more or less the same purpose as Zip1010. Synchronism (talk) 07:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC) (modified Synchronism (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Comments by other users


 * At first this case just contained evidence of editing similarities comparable to the previous one. Now this case appears to be taking a similar course to the the previous case, which is upsetting me. There was no action taken previously when the accused sock admitted to something that resembled meatpuppetry other than the strong advisement to not collaborate and adhere to wikipedia's policies about conflict's of interest. However, in User:Zip1010's admission, we can see that User:Ansonrosew has apparently contacted another person to carry out specific and seemingly benign and productive tasks, but User:Zip1010 is self-reportedly a colleague of Glenn Rosewall and thus an officer of BBY Ltd; User:Ansonrosew disregarded the advisement given at the closure of his previous case, as well as repeated reminders of our conflict of interest policies.


 * The pagemoves linked above were disruptive for many parties. Incidentally, they obscured the editing histories that detail much of the prior case, making the reversal and history merge necessary. The history merge itself means that I am unable to link to some of the evidence for this case. I feel that checkuser should be used this time because of the many similarites, but, in the likely case that there is no observed IP address correlation, I feel the following is a valid opinion and remedy:


 * I feel User:Ansonrosew should be warned more strongly this time about the disruption caused by editors whose goals are incompatible with our policies on adhering to a neutral point of view, the policy on article ownership, and how meatpuppetry is essentially embodies these incompatibilties. Other parties should also be reminded of our conflict of interest policies. I would further urge that all parties continue to edit the encyclopedia (Ansonrosew wrote the two articles in question, and should not be discounted as he is a potentially good and valid contributor), but not the mainspace pages of entities they are closely associated with. Instead they should propose changes on the articles talk page. Any further disruption relating to conflicts of interest involving the articles BBY Ltd and Glenn Rosewall should be reported to the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.Synchronism (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * CheckUser requests    Requested by Synchronism (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)  User:Ansonrosew has been accused of sockpuppettry twice, in both cases (which stemmed from disruptions caused by conflicts of interest) the other editor has claimed to be a distinct yet associated person, however, there is no evidence of other interests, all accounts indisputably serve the same purpose, which is to control the primary mainspace pages associated with this case.Synchronism (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * No CU necessary, no evidence of sockpuppetry presented. Meatpuppetry isn't a CU matter, but a patrolling admin may decide to issue a warning or other remedy. Leaving this open for that purpose. Avruch  T 01:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, the evidence I supplied in my initial comments is about sockpuppetry. These accounts's edits are almost entirely similar. The accused never edit simultaneously; one disappears the other appears. Even the similar devolvements of these SI cases can itself constitute evidence. Would you please reconsider?Synchronism (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

There is, indeed, some question as to whether sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry is the issue here. However, notwithstanding this, CheckUser is NOT a tool to be used frivolously, or on every suspected sockpuppet. It is clear to me that this user has breached WP:SOCK whether as a sock or meatpuppet, and as such a CU would be entirely unnecessary. Mayalld (talk) 12:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * I am going to have to agree with my colleagues above that the evidence of sockpuppetry is not sufficient enough to warrant a CheckUser being ran. The reasoning behind this can be found by reading Wikimedia's privacy policy . That said, the confession above by clearly indicates that meatpuppetry is afoot.


 * From WP:MEAT: "'It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Wikipedia and support your side of a debate.'"


 * I would like to note that the above does not state that meatpuppetry is a block-able offense, but instead that it is something that is looked down upon. So, what I am going to recommend is that you start a discussion at WP:ANI, and see what comes of that. Personally, I would recommend educating the users involved as Zip1010's statement seems to indicate that all he wants to do is help.  Tiptoety  talk 20:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)