Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ButtonwoodTree/Archive

26 October 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

I was engaged in back-and-forth editing with ButtonwoodTree on the Sanford Weill article. Suddenly both of the anonymous IP addresses started mirroring ButtonwoodTree's edits and criticisms of my edits. Both of the anonymous IPs trace to the same physical location. The anonymous IPs appeared when ButtonwoodTree would have been liable for violating the 3R rule. The anonymous IPs then continued to mirror ButtonwoodTree's reversions of my edits and then accused me of a 3R violation on my user page. I believe that ButtonwoodTree is using these IPs to revert edits in excess of three times while appearing to not personally violate the rule. Cjs56 (talk) 00:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

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

I have labored over whether or not to even respond to this. Given that this is a process, I suppose I would be remiss if I said nothing, however. I will not dignify this any further than as follows:


 * The quality of my edits over the last 10 years speak for themselves.
 * Cjs56 is blatantly abusing this process by leveling an allegation of sock puppetry. This allegation is designed to mask his own abusive edits in a veneer of propriety and distract Wiki Admins from focusing on his behavior.
 * My behavior in the underlying dispute is beyond reproach, as is my fidelity to Wiki standards for editing. Cjs56 behavior, however, is not. This editor has edited in bad faith from the start.
 * I have provided multiple sources, of the highest quality, to support the characterization of Sanford I. Weill, as a philanthropist. My sources include the New York Times, Fortune Magazine and a half dozen others.  Cjs56 simply wants to insert his opinion over my well sourced facts.  It should come as no surprise that there are other editors who share my view. The notion that I would need to resort to sockpuppetry is laughable.
 * Cjs56 has seems to have a personal bias in the edit. He went to Cornell University where the subject of the article is an active (and apparently controversial) donor. Without independent sources to support his argument, Cjs56 has repeatedly alleged that a man who has given away hundreds of millions of dollars does not meet the definition of a philanthropist but is, instead, a greedy, "selfish", "misanthrope", bent on 'self-aggrandizement".  I am concerned not only because of the obvious bias, but as Cjs56 pointed out to me on my Talk Page, edits can be libelous.  If it turned out that Weill was falsely characterized as a philanthropist, I cannot imagine what damages he could claim.  However, implying he's greedy and explicitly labeling him a misanthrope, bent on self-aggrandizement, seems far more problematic.
 * As mentioned, I believe Cjs56 is abusing this process. He is using it as retribution for my insistence on using well sourced data, instead of his original research and opinions.  Based on the timing of the reverts, if a Sock is actually involved, the Sock is likely Cjs56 himself.
 * I imagine someone will check IP addresses. There will be no match. Can I suggest someone check Cjs56's IP addresses as well?
 * As a precaution, I contacted an Admin for assistance and the page is now locked. I'd be delighted to resolve this matter amicably.  When Cjs56 can provide multiple, high quality sources to support his argument that Weill is not a philanthropist, as that term is commonly understood, constructive edits may be possible.  Based upon his past behavior, however, I don't see how that will be possible.

As a final thought, I'd like to point out that I wasn't even aware I was being reviewed for Sockpuppetry. I found this while looking at Cjs56's contributions page. I think we should be notifying people when they're being reviewed like this. I could have easily missed this. ButtonwoodTree (talk) 12:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Please check my IPs as well. ButtonwoodTree has been nothing less than belligerent throughout this process, accusing me of personal bias (without substantiation), sexism, abusiveness, libel, and silliness (as well as engaging in original research). I will be glad when his/her latest accusation is proven unsubstantiated. --Cjs56 (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I should also add to ButtonwoodTree that this is a good-faith accusation on my part. I made it when two anonymous IPs originating from the same physical location began mirroring your edits and language. These are hallmarks of Sockpuppetry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjs56 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 27 October 2015

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
 * 1) At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
 * 2) At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
 * 3) In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  10:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Since the case filer does not want to provide more evidence as requested, I'm closing this with no action.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  15:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)