Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dagoldman/Archive

19 December 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

User:Dagoldman, who self-identifies as the researcher Daniel Goldman, appears to be largely a single-purpose account for promoting the conclusions of Goldman's research on Wikipedia. Goldman was the third author of a 2003 paper arguing that Franklin D. Roosevelt had Guillain-Barre Syndrome rather than polio, and a majority of this account's edits have been to "correct" references to FDR's polio in Wikipedia in various Wikipedia articles or insert mentions that FDR more probably had Guillain-Barre. Based only on his paper, he changed the language of Franklin D. Roosevelt to state that GBS was more likely a diagnosis than polio, and even succeeded in proposing a spinoff article titled Franklin D. Roosevelt's paralytic illness, which was primarily built around his paper, and did not include any other medical research on FDR. The user was blunt about the fact that outside Wikipedia Goldman's work was being mostly ignored, writing on a talk page that "If the idea ever does get generally accepted, I think it will be largely attributable to the exposure in wikipedia."

The four IPs listed above all participated on the talk page of Franklin D. Roosevelt's paralytic illness, arguing at strenuous length for the retention of Goldman's conclusions while never explicitly identifying themselves as Dagoldman, the primary author of both the Wikipedia article and the journal article in question. The four IPs are similar in both the tone of their arguments and the obsessive focus on the same journal article. (Please note that Dagoldman still had access to his named account, as he returned in August 2012 to try to insert a section on a program of his design to the article Sexually transmitted diseases.([]) These IPs effectively halted the reduction or removal of this information by uninvolved editors for five years. Yesterday, one of these accounts (71.212.125.238) switched mid-paragraph from talking about Dagoldman in the third person to speaking of him in the first person: "Does anyone else think all my past edits on the topic should be subject to reversal, simply on the basis that I made the edits? Does anyone else think the article is "tainted" because I edited it? ... I protest this threat to revert my past edits."

Thanks for your attention. Khazar2 (talk) 17:29, 19 December 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

 * Even without the apparent admission, these IPs are obviously him. I've blocked the two that have edited recently for a while. Closing. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 19:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)