Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FranzLidz/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

CLERKS: PLEASE NOTE THAT I AM WITHDRAWING THIS SPI IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF WIKIPEDIA

On 17 September, the first IP (198...) posted on Talk:Franz Lidz, identifying themselves as "a journalism professor at a liberal arts college in the United States". They complained that chages to Franz Lidz had removed information whcih they had found useful in their course work, and they also relayed in anecdote in which Franz Lidz was asked about paid editing of the article and denied that it had occurred, calling the charge "silly and utterly ridiculous." I responded to the comment, explaining that no one had said that Lidz was involved in the paid editing, or that he had knowledge of it, but that the evidence of a sockfarm inserting promotional material about Lidz in articles was indisputable, and included one editor who admitted being connected to one of Lidz' publishers.

I also asked what college they taught at, and they replied (with the second IP): "I teach at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor." . I found this odd because "liberal arts college" would more usually be applied to a smaller institution, such as Dartmouth, Oberlin or Vassar, and not to a large public university such as UM. Also, UM has no journalism department, and does not list a professor of journalism on its faculty, as far as I could find. Students interested in journalism are told they can take courses in a number of areas, including Communications.

The IP also showed a insiders knowledge about the book publishing industry, writing: "I can tell you from experience that no U.S. publisher keeps tabs on or updates the Wikipedia page of an author whose book is at least five years out of print. PR departments are stretched too thin these days and barely promote NEW books. Plus, turnover is high and few book publicists last more than a few years." Again, this seemed to me slightly odd information for a journalism to have of their own personal knowledge.

The IP pressed the issue of the sockfarm, and I repeated the information that we had about it. And Premeditated Choas repeated that we had made no charge against Franz Lidz being involved or having knowledge of the sockfarm's actions. (All this can be seen here, the version of the thread on the current talk page has been courtesy blanked by Ivanvector.

The IP continued to press the question of the cautionary tags on the article, showing a very strong interest in the article, beyond one would expect from someone who had simply shown up to complain about specific information being removed. Their argument was answered by PMC, who pointed out the Lidz' public statement of not being involved was not really dispositive of whether socking had been going on, because if he wasn't aware, it doesn't mean it didn't happen without his knowledge, and if he 'was aware, he had nothing to gain by admitting it publicly.

At this point it appeared to me to be very odd that this "journalism professor" was taking just a strong interest in an article in which paid editing had been proven, and promotionalism had been rampant before various editors had reduced it, and I backed out of the discussion, somewhat convince that all was not as it seemed. That was on 19 September. 

On 20 September, the account User:FranzLidz was created, claiming to be Frank Lidz, and proceeded to post in a number of places a long complaint about how the article Franz Lidz was being treated. The complaint (an example is here says that they received information from a "college professor" and read the article talk page and was "horrified" by what they saw. Their complaint essentially repeated the evaluation of the "journalism professor", but it also contained a quasi-legal threat (that they had gotten the opinion of their company's counsel who said it could be "libelous" and "actionable" - despite the fact that no one has ever accused Lidz of any involvement). The letter was signed by "Lidz" as Vice President of Communications for PS&E, the owners of the Detroit Pistons.

Since then, Ivanvector has taken action on the basis that the complaint by User:FranzLidz was a legitimate BLP complaint, despite the fact that the owner of the account -- despite being told a number of times they they needed to do so -- has yet to identitfy themselves with OTRS. (I don't fault Ivanvector's actions, since BLP concerns have to handled with an abundance of caution, although I do not think I would have taken the same action in their place, given the lack of confirmed identity).

Ivanvector has said that they e-mailed ArbCom, and FranzLidz and (since I started writing this) said they they've heard from ArbCom. They seem at this time to be eager to establish their identity, which is fine. My concern with this report is not so much that FranzLidz is not Franz Lidz, but that Franz Lidz may have presented themselves as the "journalism professor" from UM, Ann Arbor, before deciding that the ante needed to be upped by coming forth under their own name.

This venue cannot, of course, establish FranzLidz' identity, but it can establish whether the three IPs which complained about Franz Lidz before User:FranzLidz every appeared were used by that editor. Since this is an ongoing concern, with the article the subject of a BLP-based AfD, the actions of FranzLidz are of immediate concern to the community, so I urge that this case be handled with as much expedience as possible. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Amendment: While I was preparing this SPhilbrick, an OTRS team member, has posted on AN/I confirming that User:FranzLidz is Franz Lidz. This complaint, nevertheless, does not rest on FranzLidz' identity, but asks whether they used the three IPs prior to creating the FranzLidz account. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I am withdrawing this SPI in the best interests of Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:13, 23 September 2017 (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

 * BMk requested that I close this case as withdrawn, but I briefly skimmed it to see if there was anything actionable (if there was, I might have submitted a new case myself). Of the three IPs, two edited only before the account joined (thus, cannot be considered "logged-out editing"). 198.111.164.34 has overlap and a skim of the evidence does show some possibile attempt at deception but nothing jumps out at me as horrific and there are plenty of eyes on the AFD and the account already so that I'm not worried that by closing this as withdrawn we are somehow allowing continued disruption. Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  02:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Closed as withdrawn. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:22, 23 September 2017 (UTC)