Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Depauldem/Archive

14 April 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

On April 1, a veteran editor noticed that User:Depauldem was making what she called Disruptive changes to the budgets of, as it turned out, several films, all with the same M.O.: Analyzing tax-rebate figures, sometimes using primary sources, and changing infobox budget fields to give different figures than reported in most secondary sources.

This soon attracted other editors' attention, particularly since Depauldem unilaterally began making this same synth change across several articles. Finally, discussion was centralized on April 11 at Template talk:Infobox film.

On that very day, User:FilmGuy4444 created an account. He began making the exact same sorts of tax-rebate synth changes to articles here, here, here, here and elsewhere. Given that virtually no one else has ever made similar edits by going to primary-source tax-rebate documents, his arrival on April 11 to make the same edits as Depauldem seems suspicious at the very least.

More significantly and troublingly, the purportedly new FilmGuy4444 entered a complicated policy discussion in support of Depauldem using highly similar language, here and here. This is a pattern we've seen time and again, of a bogus account being created solely to give support in a discussion. Tenebrae (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

They also leave a tell: FilmGuy4444 always puts in raw URLs (see diffs above), just like Depauldem (for example here, here, and here).


 * Addendum. These accounts now claim they work for the same place, which seems a way of explaining why their IP addresses may or may not be similar. And if they are indeed two people, working in the same office, this is classic meat-puppet behavior. One cannot get a friend or colleague to make the same edits and to support you in RfC discussions.


 * As for the reverts, aside from there being no consensus on the film-budget issue at the RfC, I'm following dirty-hands protocol. Until this SPI is concluded, FilmGuy4444 should not be editing.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * And incidentally, "hate" has nothing to do with anything. Sockpuppet investigations happen regularly, based on familiar patterns such as exhibited here. It's not personal. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I take back the hate comment Tenebrae. I actually just agreed with you on the other page about splitting the budget.  I will tell "Filmguy" not to edit until this is complete.  Other than staying off of what the other is editing, is there a way to indicate what may be a shared IP?  As you can tell about my (our?) reliance on tax reports, I am all about disclosure. Depauldem (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Tnenbrae really hates me. I welcome a review of his actions and comments towards me, as I feel they will explain why, once again, he is attacking me personally. As for FilmGuy, based on the source he is using, I suspected he worked out of the NY film office. Can the IP tell us that? Would that even be disclosed? I work at the Los Angeles film office. We have over 100 people here. The NY tax credit report came out last week and numerous copies were printed, but I doubt anyone other than myself would use it (and I haven't). Depauldem (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Depauldem, as I have just informed him, works at the same place as I do. If I shouldn't have had an opinion on film info boxes, I will happily remove my comments if it's allowed. We can also avoid commenting on the same pages, if that will make Tenbrae happy. BTW Tenbrae, really great way to be welcomed to wikipedia. Thanks alot buddy. FilmGuy4444 (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, Tenebrae reverted every single one of my valid edits because he hates Depauldem. Is that allowed? Can I change them back?FilmGuy4444 (talk) 17:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Such BS. Is reverting every edit on separate pages a violation of the 3 edit revision rule? You should report him. Depauldem (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The two accounts are . Among other things, the location of the shared IP is the same. Even assuming they are two separate individuals, it seems like clear-cut meat puppetry based on the timing of the creation of the new account.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Admin action needed - From the presented diffs, and based on the CU result, it's not difficult to conclude that the two accounts are either operated by the same person or that they are collarborating (meatpuppetry). Wikipedia policy holds that such accounts may be treated identically to multiple accounts operated by the same person if they make similar edits; it would be impossible to enforce our policy otherwise. Admin, an indefinite block of FilmGuy4444, as well as a time-limited block for Depauldem, would be appreciated. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 21:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I am supposed to comment down here, so I apologize in advance if I am not. Since this started, we have disclosed our connection here and also on FilmGuy's talk page.  He also halted editing when this started and also agreed to remove comments on the page where we overlapped.  We also agreed to avoid editing any of the same pages or commenting on them.  Finally, even the editor who initiated this has since become a valued colleague, as evidenced by our recent contributions.  Filmguy has self-imposed a block on himself during this time, and I would hate to see him prevented from joining the ranks as an editor.  Depauldem (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I blocked the master for one week and blocked/tagged the puppet. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)