Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Computer Guy 2/Archive

14 January 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Computer Guy 2 and Solo I Fatti are Single Purpose Accounts, sharing the identical purpose of editing ATF-related articles from a critical point of view. Fatti has only 25 mainspace edits, but 100% of them are to articles previously edited by Computer Guy 2. Along with sharing an identical POV, on identical articles, the talk page comments made from both account are almost invariably signed "In Good Faith". This signature from Fatti, and this one from Computer Guy 2 are just a couple examples for illustration, but I can supply numerous diffs showing the same for both accounts if required.

Computer Guy 2 is quite familiar with Wikipedia's policy on sockpuppetry, as he has filed at least one SPI case before (see Sockpuppet investigations/AceD/Archive), and as he explains in this related discussion with an Admin.

This use of multiple accounts does not meet Wikipedia's exception criteria for legitimate socking. Commenting on an article as Computer Guy 2, then editing that same article 22 minutes later as Solo I Fatti seems deceptive to me. Starting a discussion about an article as Computer Guy 2, then three comments later arguing in that same thread, from the same POV, as Solo I Fatti, is also deceptive. When I referred to Computer Guy and Fatti as two separate individuals in a discussion about consensus, he didn't correct me and let me believe they were indeed two different people holding the same view -- and that is definitely deceptive.

I noted Fat Eddie and IP:70.184.248.6 for record-keeping purposes only. Fat Eddie is stale, and only made a few edits on a single day, but apparently references an edit war involving Computer Guy 2 in his edit summary. The IP may be public access, apparently used by Computer Guy 2 while not logged in to continue a talk page discussion while he was travelling (see Diff). I'm not concerned about these 2 accounts, but I listed them here in case it may be useful information to a checkuser. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Yes, I think there's enough evidence here to take a look. Fat Eddie is stale, but the other two aren't. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Compliments to you for your clear and well-cited report. Computer Guy 2 and Solo I Fatti are ✅ matches. Fat Eddie is indeed and no comment on the IP. WilliamH (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Confirmed sock blocked and tagged; master blocked 3 days for socking. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * please feel free to relist if socking continues or if Fat Eddie becomes active again. SpitfireTally-ho! 16:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

31 January 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This is a formal complaint against User: Computer Guy 2 for orchestrating "meatpuppets" to validate his singular POV on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives webpage. Computer Guy 2 has been a single purpose editor that has consistently established a blatant anti-ATF sentiment in almost all of his material, and, up until the last two days, was SOLELY responsible for the "controversy" section in this article. As you can see from the history of this page, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bureau_of_Alcohol,_Tobacco,_Firearms_and_Explosives&limit=250&action=history, very little editing traffic had been conducted on the page after a consensus against Computer Guy 2's POV had been established for enumerating individual and isolated wrongdoings in the comprehensive and concise entry. In fact, only two revisions had been made in the preceding six(6) weeks. However, in the past two days the above users and IP's have joined in Computer Guy 2's endeavor and have systematically conducted over 70 revisions. Each of these individual accounts and IP's have only registered and posted on Wikipedia in the last few days, and only specifically on and for those articles for which Computer Guy 2 is currently editing.

Computer Guy 2 has alluded to these multiple users as individual and independant entities that he is building a "consensus" with- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABureau_of_Alcohol%2C_Tobacco%2C_Firearms_and_Explosives&action=historysubmit&diff=474108366&oldid=474089239

Computer Guy 2 has repeatedly referred to and claimed membership to a blacklisted anti-ATF website- cleanupatf.org as a great source for material to post against ATF interest-

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bureau_of_Alcohol,_Tobacco,_Firearms_and_Explosives&diff=prev&oldid=447647662 As "Solo I Fatti", a confiremed sockpuppet of Computer Guy 2- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ATF_gunwalking_scandal&diff=prev&oldid=470982199

He has also repeatedly asked for assistance from that website when trying to "win" a discussion on wikipedia. There are two many of these examples to list, but here is a clear example-

As User "Ike", post 17 in the thread on 7 Sep 11 at 1:10 pm- http://cleanupatf.org/forums/index.php?/topic/148-professionalism-in-atf/

Which was less than an hour after receiving a point from this user about ATF "Shooting to Kill" and "duty to retreat"- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABureau_of_Alcohol%2C_Tobacco%2C_Firearms_and_Explosives&action=historysubmit&diff=449019040&oldid=449011050

This is relevant because User Ike asked for assistance from the cleanupatf website on the 28th, which coincided with at least five(5) individuals coming over to Wikipedia to initate the edits and revisions on this topic-

http://cleanupatf.org/forums/index.php?/topic/153-atf-operation-gunrunnerfast-furiousphoenix-division/

User Ike acknowledges posting the material, which was the material posted by Computer Guy 2 less than an hour before, and also asks for assistance with other examples that can be listed-

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bureau_of_Alcohol,_Tobacco,_Firearms_and_Explosives&diff=next&oldid=473698190

Also note that Pipergrey93 acknowledges her identity as "Sandra Davis" here on wiki- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=473740798, and that Mrs. Davis is in fact the webmaster over at Cleanupatf.org- http://cleanupatf.org/forums/index.php?/user/621-sandy-davis/.

With this information, it becomes clear that Computer Guy 2, who was just suspended less than two weeks ago for sockpuppetry, in fact is enlisting help from outside resources to promote his own isolated POV. Beyond that and more egregious to the principles of Wikipedia, Computer Guy 2 is attempting to present these new sources as isolated and completely independant sources who happen to support him completely, in ways that nobody else has despite this being an endeavor he has been involved in for well over a year. A textbook example of "meatpuppetry" as I read the guidelines.

Thanks for your time and attention. AceD (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * In the archive of this case, CG2 attempted to explain the multiple accounts before. If these are him again - and it does seem they might be - then we have an issue. Adding a CU for confirmation. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * All of the above are actually ❌, either to each other or to . No comment on the IP addresses. This doesn't preclude the possibility of meatpuppetry, of course, but there doesn't seem to be socking going on - A l is o n  ❤ 03:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright then. Closing with no action taken. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)