Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Davidcpearce/Archive

18 April 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

See Articles for deletion/Wild animal suffering. There were three votes in a row from accounts with few edits and red names, so it seemed like once again someone with multiple accounts voting at AfD as commonly seen. I have brought many such cases here before.

I also looked at some of the edits and there were some similarities. However the accounts were made months before, so it's a bit out of the ordinary. I think the core thing to check would be the red accounts since I estimate at least two will match each other.

Oh and Eric is less suspectible and I apologize to him for including him here, but I found some similarities in writing style so I thought it best to just make sure and clarify. It's likely just a coincidence. CheckUser will if anything likely just find two red names related and that's about it. I hope no ill will is held. Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Additionally I just noticed that the accounts for the exception of one have also voted in unison at Articles for deletion/Earning to give. Some of the accounts had also voted at Articles for deletion/Abolitionism (bioethics). There was a red-name account with few edits there as well: Fredrik Bränström, but possibly unrelated as it was created many years ago. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think NeatGrey is a sockpuppet. They've given fairly objective critiques on EA-related articles and haven't been consistently "pro-EA" or "anti-EA". Eric Herboso and Fredrik Branstrom are both real names of people in the EA movement, so I doubt that those accounts belong to the same person, though Branstrom was recruited to the abolitionism page through canvassing.Pawg14 (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2016 (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

 * Group 1 – the following accounts are ✅ to each other:
 * Group 2 – the following accounts are to each other and ❌ to Group 1:
 * Davidcpearce is ❌ to Groups 1 and 2.
 * I did not check Eric Herboso based on lack of evidence, not to mention conviction, presented by the filer. If a clerk wishes to endorse a check of this user, I will reconsider.
 * I've blocked without tags the accounts in Groups 1 and 2.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Given the lack of temporal overlap between NeatGrey and Spectra239, this seems to be a valid WP:CLEANSTART. Drmies has unblocked NeatGrey. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Closing without further action. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 19:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not check Eric Herboso based on lack of evidence, not to mention conviction, presented by the filer. If a clerk wishes to endorse a check of this user, I will reconsider.
 * I've blocked without tags the accounts in Groups 1 and 2.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Given the lack of temporal overlap between NeatGrey and Spectra239, this seems to be a valid WP:CLEANSTART. Drmies has unblocked NeatGrey. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Closing without further action. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 19:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

23 April 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

I was brought to this by a related COIN filing, actually filed by one of these socks, here. I've reviewed things and is is clear that the two sets of socks listed below argued with each other; opposing sides in most AfDs.

This is focused on the Neatgrey/Spectra239 sock and master. I want to note that I wouldn't be surprised if there is more socking on the Tempo mage/Empamazing side. Empamazing said they were recruited at facebook in their first dif and I opened an ANI on the recruiting at facebook here.

I've gone through the edits by Neatgrey/Spectra239 and they are sophisticated editors. Spectra239 is older (Dec 2015) than Neatgrey (April 1, 2016) - there is an older Master somewhere. The Neatgrey account created about a dozen articles and they are all pretty good - from their topics (a slew of different kinds of internet startups, which are common paid editing-type jobs) they seem to be editing for pay but they do have a transhumanist focus in non-article-creating editing, mostly on gutting them, but sensitively. It is really strange. Their sock Spectra239 acknowledging being a transhumanist to me and also lied to my face about not having more than one account here, which I hadn't even asked them out; they also urged me to bring my concerns to the community. So just wow.

But these two accounts (plus a third) have a focus on deleting/gutting certain transhumanist articles, nominating them and voting and arguing strenuously. Here are AfDs they participated in
 * WP:Articles for deletion/Animal Charity Evaluators nominated bu Spectra
 * WP:Articles for deletion/Abolitionism (bioethics) (delete) Neatguy voted to merge, Pawg (see below) voted to delete
 * WP:Articles for deletion/Wild animal suffering ongoing. nominated by Pawg. Neatgrey voted keep but also said the article is FRINGE and gutted it during the discussion
 * WP:Articles for deletion/Earning to give -nominated by Pawg after gutting. Neatgrey voted keep, si
 * Center for Applied Rationality gutted by Pawg as they noted in this edit note
 * exchange between Pawg14 and Neatguy here about deleting/gutting Natasha Vita-More
 * Julia Galef gutted by Pawg

I've listed two more above that seem not unlikely socks of Neatgrey/Spectra239


 * has had their account since 2007 and hasn't done much their contribs, but recently "woke up" and started editing in a way coordinated with the Neatguy/Spectra account
 * see history of this article created by Spectra, and edited (with the exception of 1 admin) only by Spectra, Neatguy, and Scole01: here
 * likewise the history of this article editing by Neatguy and just thereafter by Scole01
 * only Neatguy and Scole01 have edited this article per its history.


 * is a new account and per its contribs has been 100% focused on these issues in a way aligned with Neatguy.
 * first edit was !voting delete in an article nominated by Spectra here
 * soon after, created Articles for deletion/Wild animal suffering
 * and see stuff listed above.

Would you please check those two, and if you would check more broadly around both sets of socks? There is some really intense ideology going here and I reckon folks will be coming back and back. Jytdog (talk) 13:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Pawg14 is the user Lrieber. I hadn't used that account in a while and had forgotten my username and password. I guess I didn't realize how serious it is to open multiple accounts, sorry. You'll see that Lrieber's contributions are mostly (but not exclusively) EA-related, though more additions than gutting. Some of my original work on Wikipedia was through an EA project to improve EA-related articles. I'd been inactive for a while, but was reminded of the project by the FB post on the abolitionism article. I think that many EAs have been trying to use Wikipedia for advocacy, so I've been trying to do some quality control. I apologize if I was overzealous in calling for deletion; some of those articles should have actually been "major cleanup" or TNT. Note that I haven't been indiscriminately gutting and calling for deletion: most of the articles I've checked (e.g. Eliezer Yudkowsky and MIRI) have been in decent shape, so I've left them alone. I've also done minor edits on EA articles without gutting. If you look at the history of the pages that I gutted, they really needed it. For example, the Julia Galef article was full of trivia such as anecdotes from her childhood, which is inappropriate for anyone other than the most notable figures. Finally, I'd like to note that I've done some other work through the Pawg14 account, on chromosome conformation capture, my area of expertise. This will be my next "project" on Wikipedia.Lrieber (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2016 (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

 * Scole01 and Pawg14 are ❌ to each other and to any other accounts thus far in this case. Closing with no action.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

I'm on the fence about this one: not sure if meat or sock puppetry. But seemed to warrant an SPI.

Both editors have been removing the same content on Thomas Pogge regarding sexual assault allegations.
 * Davidcpearce:, , ,
 * Janepharper: ,

Both refer to the allegations as being from Buzzfeed in their edit summaries. Davidcpearce:
 * Wikipedia is not Buzzfeed.
 * The Buzzfeed Effect.
 * Buzzfeed stuff

Janepharper:
 * recycling again tacky and ill-substantiated Buzzfeed allegations cheapens Wikipedia
 * the Buzzfeed-reported allegations are unsubstantiated; Yale stationery usage scarcely merits a section; and 'consensus' normally indicates agreement.

Last, their usernames have the same pattern of First Name, Middle Initial, Surname, all one worth, only first letter is uppercase.

There is some overlap in their edits but neither of them is a prolific editor (see interaction checker here)

Again, not sure if meat or sock. But that Janepharper showed up out of the blue at Thomas Pogge and was using the same language as Davidcpearce and continuing their edit war, seemed like a possible sock to me.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2016 (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

 * The accounts are ❌.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I've taken a look at Janepharper's edits. The account was created on 13 May 2014 and has made 30 edits, all but one to articles, regularly in support of Davidcpearce's edits or positions (he has said they're friends). There's no talk-page engagement.
 * The account wasn't used between 20 Sept 2014 and 12 June 2015, when it posted a "strong keep" in Articles for deletion/Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. David is an IEET fellow and had voted keep two days earlier.
 * It wasn't used between 12 June 2015 and 30 May 2016, when it restored several references to Wild animal suffering, including two authored by David.
 * It was used only once between 30 May and 17 July 2016. On 17 July, after David was blocked for 3RR at Thomas Pogge, the account arrived at that article (one it hadn't edited before) and reverted twice to remove a section David had removed 20 times since May.
 * David and Jane share an unusual use of a preposition that makes me wonder whether it's the same person, though it's possible she was copying him. But regardless of that, there's little or no independent contribution, so per WP:MEAT I'm thinking of treating them as one person and blocking indefinitely. SarahSV (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that transhumanists will often use very similar phrasings and subcultural jargon even though separate people, so that's not necessarily a tell. However, Davidcpearce has past form on meatpuppetry - David Gerard (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the link. Does anyone have a view on an indefinite block of Janepharper? Pinging and . SarahSV (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I would favor an indef block. So far User:Janepharper has never posted on talk, so we don't know if they are aware of the problem with their edits. If blocked, it is possible they might appeal and we could consider the future at that point. EdJohnston (talk) 03:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I'll wait a bit to hear from, then I'll probably go ahead and block. I'll make it clear to her that she can appeal. SarahSV (talk) 05:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I would go a little further than Ed and block Janeharper indefinitely and Davidcpearce for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the comment. I've blocked Janepharper indefinitely. I'm not thinking at the moment of blocking Davidcpearce, though if someone else does, I'd have no objection. SarahSV (talk) 02:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)