Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Edstat/Archive

Evidence submitted by Iulus Ascanius
Editor uses home and office computers (IP addresses specifically match location to references that they posted in the article) as well as occasionally using the username Edstat as a 3rd voice. Virtually all edits occur on one page (Shlomo Sawilowsky), but some on other pages, for the purpose of pushing content by that person. The home/office thing obviously isn't that big of a deal, but the editor constantly poses as 2 or 3 separate people to outvote, troll, WP:SOUP, and otherwise WP:OWN Shlomo Sawilowsky. On the talk page, they will often say things like "me and XX are the only ones who..." This directly violates sockpuppet policy. Editor also uses personal attacks, calling those who disagree bullies, "wiki warriors," and Anti-Semites (the subject is Jewish). They refuse to accept consensus of other users.

As an interesting twist, 68.43.236.244 once self-identified as the subject on the talk page ("Response from the Prof"), so the issue is more than just sockpuppetry, but of direct COI self-promotion.

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
141.217.105.228 blocked 3 months, 68.43.236.244 blocked 2 weeks, and Edstat blocked 2 weeks for the sock puppetry. –MuZemike 21:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

12 December 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

The first SP investigation of Edstat listed only two of these four socks, User:141.217.105.228 and User:68.43.236.244. I newly list two additional socks, User:141.217.105.21 and User:68.43.236.4. Only User:68.43.236.244 remains active. The good news is that most of the User:68.43.236.244's sock-edits appear to be good-faith edits (with a sloppy signature). The bad news is that even the previously warned sock continues with some problematic edits and a continued failure to disclose the socks, even when asked (and reminded of WP policy about linking accounts, under usual circumstances):
 * (A) Edstat denies sockpuppets (or other violations of WP policy) alleged by me in November of 2010.
 * (B) On 26 October 2010, Edstat signs revived sock 68.43.236.244; soonafter, Edstat agrees that he need not have exclusive use of the IPs, without addressing the remarked similarity of interests or the WP policy that notice be given of linked accounts.
 * (C) On 17 October 2010, Sock 68.43.236.244 replaces signature of Edstat.
 * (D) After returning from a temporary block, on 13 April, Edstat denies sock-puppetry, stating "Some of the allegations and comments you made (and most made by Smartse and Lulus [sic., User:Iulus_Ascanius ]) were incorrect or apparently deliberately taken out of context. I chose not to defend myself, because it is petty. The fact that an Admin [ User:MuZemike ] can be persuaded to block without checking is just another nail in the coffin of what Wikipedia describes itself as: nonprofessional." The next day (April 14), the sock returns with a passive aggressive edit.

The first SP investigation of Edstat noted behavioral concerns. In addition to that investigation, five additional discussions of Edstat's behavior are known to me. Current discussions include
 * (1) Edstat's talk page,
 * (2) WikiProject Statistics, and
 * (3) the talk page of the Shlomo Sawilowsky article;

previous discussions include
 * (4) (twice) at the conflict of interest page and
 * (5) a 2007 mediation.

These discussions are relevant to assessing whether Edstat has used of sock-puppets since 2007 in "acting in a disruptive or forbidden manner" on WP (although the most severe cases occured before the Spring blocking). The warning (1) by administrator EdJohnston concludes that Edstat's disruptive editing warrants an ANI notice. The warning (3) by administrator Charles Matthews warns of a potential request for comment on the behavior of Edstat.

Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 14:50, 12 December 2010 (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

 * All of this is exceedingly stale. Of these four IPs, the only one that edited in the last six months is 68.43.236.244. That IP's last edit was leaving a note on VernoWhitney's talk page, which was followed twenty-five minutes later by Edstat signing for the comment. So taking a bunch of good faith here, it seems like the editor just forgot they were logged out. But beyond that, I'm not seeing any malintent or misuse of logged-out editing or anything else here. So as such, I'm marking this for close. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I alerted SP primarily because the first investigation did not list the other socks. Item (C), in October, the sock replacing Edstat's signature, is a civil edit. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)