Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Geoff NoNick/Archive

Report date April 14 2009, 00:07 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Spireq (talk)

User:173.35.69.137's first edits ever of an article were this very targeted sequence of edits made within a 9-minute period. That sequence of disruptive POV edits was correctly reverted by ClueBot and other editors as vandalism. User:173.35.69.137's very first edit ever of any kind was to a talk page, a clear indication of having had significant prior Wikipedia experience.

The three points above indicate that User:173.35.69.137 is obviously another user's sockpuppet.

User:Geoff NoNick edited the very same page and talk page a few days before suspected sockpuppet User:173.35.69.137, expressing the very same POV and the very same complaints about the very same sections that his suspected sockpuppet User:173.35.69.137 later did:

User:Geoff NoNick wrote: "''I've put a POV tag on the Cost of the war section. This section reports in exhaustive detail various accusations, theories and beliefs of those opposed to the war" ... "it appears to have been created piecemeal" and he complained in particular about the section "Repeated cost overruns (a subsection header that is, itself, POV).''"

Sockpuppet User:173.35.69.137 makes the very same complaints: "Why does this article need so much coverage of the anti-war movement? Far too much emphasis is placed on perceieved government mismanagament. Also why does it need pages upon pages of financing the war?" "The finance problems of the war seems too large. and subsection of run-off is a little much for an article about the invasion. This page just seems like a mess."

No complaints had ever been made about these sections in all of the time they've existed, but now all of a sudden 2 accounts make exactly the very same complaints within days of each other, with one of the accounts making the complaints and disruptive edits as its very first and practically only edits ever.

Suspected sockpuppetUser:173.35.69.137's only other edit ever of an article has been to the page of a Canadian politician, further matching User:Geoff NoNick's clear pattern of editing pages of Canadian politicians, with similar edits of the pages of over a dozen different Canadian politicians. 

Spireq (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Spireq (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests
 * You indicate code letter F which stands for other reason, can you please provide that reason? Otherwise a check is likely not to be preformed. ——  nix eagle email me 06:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Nixeagle,


 * I understand from WP:CheckUser that: "The CheckUser feature is approved for use to prevent disruption, or investigate legitimate concerns of bad faith editing. Grounds for checking: The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet activity, to limit disruption or potential disruption of any Wikimedia project, and to investigate legitimate concerns of bad faith editing. ... A checkuser need not suspect who is behind the abusive behaviour of an account before checking, but they must suspect there is abusive sockpuppetry."


 * I suspect that there is abusive sockpuppetry to make disruptive edits (please see below as well) and feel that a CheckUser is needed to "check for sockpuppet activity, to limit disruption or potential disruption of any Wikimedia project, and to investigate legitimate concerns of bad faith editing".


 * Spireq (talk) 05:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * comparison of edit histories doesn't show any instances that look like deliberate logging out to hide an identity. Whilst the IP and user may be one and the same, and whilst the edits may be problematic, forgetting to log in is not a breach of WP:SOCK. Unless there is evidence to show that there has been some deliberate logging out to perform these edits, I don't see that SPI can help. Mayalld (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Mayalld and Nixeagle,


 * If I may point out, the very targeted sequence of disruptive POV edits made by User:173.35.69.137 within a 9-minute period that was reverted by ClueBot and other editors shows evidence of abusive sockpuppetry beyond forgetting to sign in.


 * I've looked through all of User:Geoff NoNick's previous talk page edits and I see enough similarities to be even further convinced that it's the same person, while seeing enough differences to also think that there was a deliberate attempt to appear as a different person.


 * Similarities:
 * complaining about the very same points and sections as previously outlined
 * chronological coincidence of those complaints
 * frequent use of parentheses in their writing (like this). Compare IP account:  to named account:
 * subsequent edits to fix or add to their comments - Compare IP account: to named account:
 * asking for thoughts at the end of their comment - Compare IP account: ' to named account: '


 * Now it could be that it's just an amazing coincidence that two users make the same complaints about the same sections at the same time and have the same habit of using parentheses and asking for thoughts at the end of their comments, but it seems to me to be a little too much of a coincidence.


 * Differences:
 * IP account deliberately not signing their comments when the named account has always assiduously signed their comments in almost 3 years of editing
 * IP account deliberately inserting typos when the named account has fewer typos in their comments
 * IP account deliberately not indenting when the named account has always indented their comments


 * So if you're able to see that the named account operates from the same IP address as the IP account, then there does actually exist enough evidence to show that the person deliberately tried to appear to be a different person in order to make their disruptive edits that Cluebot and other editors reverted: in other words, there would be clear evidence of abusive sockpuppetry that goes beyond forgetting to sign in.


 * A simple IP check on the named account would determine that abusive sockpuppetry did occur if the IP matches.


 * Spireq (talk) 05:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

the evidence that this is the IP address of the user is meagre, to say the least, and the IP has made a total of 9 edits. There is no way that this is sufficient to justify running CU here. In any case, if the IP and the user are the same, the edit patterns would signify forgetting to log in, rather than deliberate actions. Finally, I note that the reporter registered the account less than two days ago, and has made exactly two edits, one to file this case, and a second to write a great deal of text explaining policy to the clerks. It seems clear to me that the reporter has a prior editing history (whether as an account or as an IP) that he has failed to mention in filing this case. Given that this is a case asking for a public link to an IP address, rather than a link between two accounts, and given the new account of a user who is clearly not new to Wikipedia, I would, even if there was an apparently good CU case, have to consider WP:OUT and WP:HARRASS most carefully. In this case, a lack of a good case, and consideration of those policies leads me very firmly to the conclusion that CU is not appropriate. Further, even assuming that the user and the IP are the same, the edits do not constitute abusive sockpuppetry. Mayalld (talk) 10:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 10:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions