Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gaborlewis/Archive

01 October 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

at Gaborlewis defends today a Predatory open access publishing source inserted today by 66.241.90.160 at. Using a predatory journal may be considered an attempt to game the system. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC) Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

at Gaborlewis has reinserted today the predatory journal source previously inserted by 66.241.90.160. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Evidence for being predatory:

"with low publishing fees paid by authors or their institutions."

- http://www.mdpi.com/journal/behavsci

Jeffrey Beall (18 February 2014), Chinese Publisher MDPI Added to List of Questionable Publishers, Scholarly Open Access: Critical analysis of scholarly open-access publishing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

"Fees paid by authors" is the very definition of vanity press. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

at Chrislyte inserted the made up claim that the DSM never specifically/formally considered porn addiction (see No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 29), and at  the IP inserted the same WP:OR claim, which Gaborlewis defended at. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I understand that you will make no statements about the IPs of named accounts. Something has changed meanwhile, and a checkuser could compared two named accounts which have made similar original research claims in pretty much the same subject. Chrislyte even made a strange comment at defending his original research claim, namely that there could be no reliable source that an event did not happen. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I assume that Chrislyte is no longer stale. For the record, both are WP:SPA editing more or less the same articles. Also, calling me vicious, unprincipled and abuser of the Wikipedia system is enough to warrant a checkuser. Do notice that both SPA accounts have accused me of gaming Wikipedia system, see the other SPA account doing it at. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The behavioral evidence is: they are both SPA accounts, since they edit more or less the same articles (having to do with masturbation, pornography and sex addiction), those articles are under discretionary sanctions and Chrislyte got warned about that, their edits are based upon weak sources (which do not pass WP:MEDRS) or are even original research (see WP:NORN above), they push a similar POV (namely that masturbation and pornography are bad and sex is addictive), their edits don't stick since are reverted by different established editors, they accuse those editors of bias and gatekeeping, they have made or defended strikingly similar edits. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Reliability of the source was handled at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_197. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

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


 * This is ridiculous. Of course I am not the same person as Gaborlewis. I have no idea how to prove this (without outing myself to someone who is vicious and unprincipled) other than to say this is just another example of Tgoergescu's abuse of the Wikipedia system. October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrislyte (talk • contribs)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I've declined the CU request. We almost never publicly disclose the IP of a named account.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't compare the two named accounts. Chrislyte is .--Bbb23 (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Chrislyte is not stale anymore.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  16:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you endorsing the CU?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not. After reviewing this case carefully, I can't find any strong evidence to connect Chrislyte to Gaborlewis. But, the IP is most probably Gaborlewis. See, for example, this and this. IP inserts a claim, which gets reverted, and he is warned on the talk page. Then, just a few hours later, Gaborlewis inserts almost the same material.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Since both Gaborlewis and IP are not active since early October, short term blocking is not necessary. I issued a final warning to Gaborlewis against IP socking, and I'm closing the case now.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)