Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Imveracious/Archive

26 December 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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


 * Imveracious and Shyncat have been editing for several years each
 * DavidCarson73 and Niki Goss are new and have been editing for a month or two

This report is based on behavioral evidence including similar editing styles on a number of closely-related topics. Imveracious has been editing since 2009 and Shyncat has been an editor since March 5, 2012. Niki Goss created an account on October 13, 2014 and DavidCarson73 was created on November 18, 2014. I began having encounters with Imveracious and Shyncat beginning in September 2014 and suspicion was immediately aroused with the creation of the two later accounts.

The behavioral evidence is editing habits that are found across all the user accounts. It's not likely to take a sampling of four random editors and come up with editing traits that are this similar. The habits are: unlinking red links, "updating" dates on maintenance templates, placing "citation needed" tags in articles, and the modification of the default "undo" edit summary. These traits are all apparent even while the two newer accounts have less than fifty edits.

The two newer accounts (DavidCarson73 & Niki Goss) began editing some of the same articles that Imveracios and Shyncat were working on. The DavidCarson73 account really got my attention though, as it was created during an open RfC at St. Francis Dam. From my perspective, there's obviously something fishy going on here, and there's a chance that it's not good for Wikipedia, and that's why I've taken the time to prepare this report.

I just think it's pretty astonishing that Imveracious and Shyncats' editing patterns (articles worked on and time of day that both are active) are so aligned. They seem to agree on several issues that have come up (one being the RfC) and I think it's over-the-top unbelievable that the two newer accounts were created and immediately show up on some of the articles that the two longer term editors were working on and have something to say on the St. Francis Dam dispute.


 * 12:18, February 3, 2009 User account Imveracious was created
 * 11:54, March 5, 2012 User account Shyncat was created
 * 05:39, October 13, 2014 User account Niki Goss was created
 * 09:00, November 18, 2014 User account DavidCarson73 was created


 * Editor Interaction Analyzer

These two links show
 * Editor Interaction Analyzer for Imveracious and Shyncat
 * Editor Interaction Analyzer for Shyncat, DavidCarson73, and Niki Goss

Shyncat, Niki Goss, and David Carson exhibit similar editing styles in several key categories.
 * Behavioral evidence


 * Time cards

Imveracious and Shyncats time cards are aligned very well.


 * Time card for Shyncat
 * Time card for Imveracious


 * Assessing an article as a brand new editor

As a "new" editor, Niki Goss assessed the St. Francis Dam on their twelfth edit.

Both Imveracious and Shyncat have talk page discussions that are ended with these templates. DavidCarson73 and Niki Goss don't have much talk page history yet and so this characteristic is not present.
 * Use of the done template on their talk page.


 * The "done" template by Shyncat on talk page
 * The "done" template by Imveracious on talk page


 * Unlinking red links

Not many Wikipedia editors spend their time making these repetitive changes to articles. This is somewhat of a unique trait that is shared by these editors; unique enough that it stands out when looking at their contributions. This sampling is also a good indication of the very similar article types that are edited.


 * Shyncat on Fluid mechanics
 * Shyncat on Cheyenne language
 * Shyncat on List of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments in Downtown Los Angeles
 * DavidCarson73 on Cable television
 * DavidCarson73 on List of National Historic Landmarks in South Carolina
 * Niki Goss on List of Historic Civil Engineering Landmarks
 * Niki Goss on Direct reduced iron
 * Niki Goss on American Society of Civil Engineers
 * Imveracious on American Society of Mechanical Engineers
 * Imveracious on List of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments in Downtown Los Angeles
 * Imveracious on Turbine
 * Imveracious on California Highway Patrol
 * Imveracious on Failure analysis
 * Imveracious on RealFlow
 * Imveracious on List of places with "Silicon" names
 * Imveracious on Burbank, California

There are very few editors who choose to modify the default edit summary when using the undo feature. This editing characteristic is prevalent across almost all these editors (In fity or less total edtis, Niki Goss has not undone any).
 * Modifying the default "undo" edit summary

This usually amounts to unlinking the username (the person who's edit is being undone).


 * DavidCarson73 on 1971 San Fernando earthquake
 * Shyncat on 1971 San Fernando earthquake
 * Shyncat on Compaction (geology)
 * Shyncat on 1925 Santa Barbara earthquake
 * Shyncat on 1925 Santa Barbara earthquake
 * Shyncat on William Mulholland
 * Shyncat on Montana
 * Shyncat on Cheyenne
 * Shyncat on Oxnard
 * Shyncat on William Mulholland
 * Shyncat on Hollywood Reservoir
 * Shyncat on Kaplan turbine
 * Shyncat on William Mulholland
 * Imveracious on Reseda, Los Angeles
 * Imveracious on Sepulveda Dam
 * Imveracious on Six Flags Magic Mountain
 * Imveracious on San Fernando Valley
 * Imveracious on Cauchy stress tensor


 * "Updating" maintenance template dates

This editing habit really stands out as these four editors habitually make this (making the date portion of typical maintenance templates current) part of their editing routine.


 * Niki Goss on Carl E. Grunsky (this article is related to the St. Francis Dam event (see the RfC section below)
 * Niki Goss on Mechanical overload (engineering)
 * Niki Goss on Electric arc furnace
 * Niki Goss on Nonbuilding structure
 * Niki Goss on Fracture
 * DavidCarson73 on Fracture
 * DavidCarson73 on Hydropower
 * Imveracious on Frequency-division multiplexing
 * Imveracious on Universal City, California
 * Shyncat on Watercourse
 * Shyncat on Computational fluid dynamics

Some editors do not concern themselves with placing maintenance tags in articles at all, but each of the four editors spends a good portion of their time placing these tags in articles, either as section items or at the tops of pages. This is one of those things that would also be unlikely to find to be uniform when selecting four random editors.
 * Placing "citation needed" tags


 * Imveracious on Computational fluid dynamics
 * Imveracious on Permeability (earth sciences)
 * Imveracious on Chevrolet Cavalier
 * Shyncat on 1927 Jericho earthquake
 * Shyncat on Strain energy release rate
 * Shyncat on Los Angeles River
 * Shyncat on Consolidation (soil)
 * Shyncat on Volt
 * DavidCarson73 on Dodge Challenger
 * DavidCarson73 on Ford Escape
 * DavidCarson73 on Strong ground motion
 * Niki Goss on Water-tube boiler
 * Niki Goss on Mohr's circle
 * Niki Goss on Material failure theory
 * Niki Goss on Concrete
 * Niki Goss on Dam


 * Short break with a return to editing on December 17

Niki Goss (December 2) and DavidCarson73 (December 4) were not found to be editing from these dates and both returned to editing (within the same hour) on December 17.

These users all seem to have at least some focus on water science (especially dams) or water-related articles, as well as some earthquake articles. This is the editor interaction analyzer for the three users that common articles that were edited.
 * Articles

Editor Interaction Analyzer


 * RfC at St. Francis Dam


 * Editor Interaction Analyzer - Timeline (St. Francis Dam RfC) (For edits made by DavidCarson73, Niki Goss, and Shyncat)

All these editors have shown an interest in the St. Francis Dam article. Not just an interest in casual editing, but a enough to be concerned with an open RfC at St. Francis Dam. Another user was debating Imveracious about the content and opened the RfC. DavidCarson73's account was created after the discussion entered the user statement phase. The discussion was about a week old at the time, but the account was created the day after a list for users to state their stance on the matter was created. Interested parties then came in and posted their own comments on whether to retain or remove the content that was being debated.

Imveracious, Shyncat, DavidCarson73, and Niki Goss were aligned on their stance in the debate. They all shared the same "retain" comment. Niki Goss responded at the debate several hours after it was initiated, and Shyncat posted at the debate on the day that the DavidCarson73 account was created. DavidCarson73 then responded about twelve days later.

Here are the comments made by all four participants:


 * Retain It adds to the balance of the section and helps to clarify the differing ideas. Niki Goss (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Retain This is the accepted view and this is not already discussed in the Analysis section. Outland's views mentioned only concern a possible eastern abutment failure scenario Imveracious (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Retain I don't find any problems with it or any need to remove it. Shyncat (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Retain I don't see how it seems like OR in it's current form but a little rework maybe. Overall, I think the section adds balance. DavidCarson73 (talk) 16:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC closure (22:25, 28 December 2014‎)

The editing characteristics of the two older accounts and the two newer accounts are just too strikingly similar to ignore. Those habits by themselves mean nothing about the integrity of Wikipedia, though, and it's really about the St. Francis Dam that brings the real dilemma. It appears to me that the two newer accounts were created as tools to manipulate that discussion and that there were some other edits made to blend in. Those efforts to create an editing history haven't worked out very well due to the similar articles that were touched and the specific type of edits that match the style of Imveracious & Shyncat. I did ask DavidCarson73 about that one being his only account but did not get a response about that.
 * Summary

Comments to the defendant: Please don't take this personally. I've always tried to defend Wikipedia, and that is all this amounts to. Dawnseeker2000  17:05, 26 December 2014 (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
. A lot of evidence has been presented here. Some of it is not that compelling (e.g, removal of red links), but some of it evinces unusual characteristics (e.g., updating maintenance templates with a later date). Some of it also doesn't work (e.g., the done template, which I don't even see, and the links to certain tools that work only about half the time if we're lucky). Despite the deficiencies, although there may not be enough here to block based on behavior, there's enough to warrant a CU in my view. I'm also hesitatant to block long-term accounts without some technical evidence or at least more obvious behavioral similarities.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Much to my disappointment, flat out ✅ across the board. NativeForeigner Talk 00:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We were checking at the same time,, and I was going to go with highly . but absolutely see why you called it confirmed. Courcelles 00:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I indeffed and tagged all the accounts. The puppet accounts were easy. The hard thing was how long to block the master. I felt that a significant block was warranted, and I vacillated between one month and indefinite. On the positive side, the editor has been here for a long time and has a clean block log. On the negative side, it's a lot of puppet accounts and there are blatant lies if you look at the user pages of the accounts. Also, despite the duration of time, the master account doesn't have that many edits. The tool doesn't work (natch), so I don't have a precise number, but it looks like fewer than 2,000. Anyway, the negatives tipped the balance for me in favor of indefinite. If, however, after a certain amount of time elapses the editor convinces an administrator who is familiar with the facts that he (some accounts it's a he and some it's a she) should be unblocked because he acknowledges his wrongdoing and credibly promises not to sock again, the block, of course, is not infinite. I would not, though, grant an unblock request right away.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps one month duration minimum, after which unblock requests will be accepted? I did that a fair bit when I clerked in 2012. NativeForeigner Talk 01:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

18 January 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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


 * Block evasion, vandalism/trolling, and creation of new account

Imveracious has been using proxies since his block on December 26. These IPs have been easy to track because they've been used on my talk page, talk pages of other users that I've warned for vandalism, and Imveracious and his sock's user and talk pages. Because they were used to leave messages on the talk pages of vandals that I'd warned, it was obvious that Imveracious was checking my activities, and that made discovering the new account easy as well.

For example, I placed a warning on a vandal's talk page and several hours later 162.250.190.92 comes in and leaves a nice message there. That IP was also editing User:Niki Goss (a sock of Imveracious) and was blocked that same day (January 7).

So these IPs were following my work and leaving messages for me. Fine. When Voiceinthecrowd began editing, I left a welcome message and several hours later I get a message on my talk page stating "Don't mess with old people" from 76.191.100.110.

All good, but when Voiceinthecrowd began editing, several of their very first edits (Santa Clarita Valley and Frederick Eaton) were made to articles that either Imveracious or Shyncat (sockpuppeteer and sockpuppet) also edited.

So, knowing that my edits were being monitored, I noticed something striking. Thirty minutes after I modified the 1953 Ionian earthquake article (that event was damaging on the island of Cephalonia, Voiceinthecrowd modified the Cephalonia article.


 * 1953 Ionian earthquake – 07:32, January 8, 2015‎
 * Cephalonia – 08:02, January 8, 2015‎

The problem now is that family members may now be involved: See this rant from a supposed relative of Imveracious

The original blocking admin was mentioned in that rant so pinging.

This user's focus on WP has been the St. Francis Dam article. No matter which sock (or accused sock) you look at, there is a clear interest in that article. Voiceinthecrowd is not a casual editor on St Francis Dam. Like Imveracious, he also has a good working knowledge of the dam and its failure, as well as a book source (Outland 2002) used on that article that was the focus of the RfC in November. Here, Voiceinthecrowd uses the Outland book that Imveracious also has. (Look up at the top of the RfC where it's stated that the material that they're debating comes from the Outland book.) The book is not available on Google Books.


 * Timeline
 * 17:11, December 29, 2014 Bbb23 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite
 * 09:04, December 30, 2014 User account Voiceinthecrowd was created automatically


 * 76.191.100.110


 * 10:33, January 8, 2015 – User talk:Dawnseeker2000 ‎(→‎Don't mess: new section) – trolling
 * 10:25, January 8, 2015 – Requests for page protection ‎ (→‎Current requests for increase in protection level) – trolling (modified entry at WP:RPP)
 * 11:28, January 4, 2015 – Cheyenne – normal edit (article edited heavily by Shyncat (sock of Imveracious)
 * 10:12, January 4, 2015 WikiProject Fact and Reference Check/Participants ‎ (Undid revision 640955856 by Dawnseeker2000 (talk))
 * 10:06, January 4, 2015 – WikiProject Earthquakes/Participants ‎ (Undid revision 640951304 by Dawnseeker2000 (talk))
 * 10:00, January 4, 2015 WikiProject Archaeology/Participate ‎ (Undid revision 640952898 by Dawnseeker2000 (talk))


 * 5.134.117.171
 * – 12:36, January 17, 2015 Ronhjones (talk | contribs) blocked 5.134.117.171 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours (Personal attacks or harassment: an Vandalism)


 * 11:08, January 5, 2015 User talk:Dawnseeker2000 ‎ (→‎Why do you edit User:Mikenorton talk pages: new section) – trolling
 * 10:50, January 5, 2015 User talk:5.134.117.171 ‎ (→‎Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:Dawnseeker2000/sandbox X) – trolling
 * 10:43, January 5, 2015 User talk:Mikenorton ‎ (→‎Why do you edit Dawnseeker2000 talk pages: new section) – trolling
 * 08:56, January 5, 2015 User:Dawnseeker2000 – vandalism


 * 79.120.211.170
 * – 09:55, January 17, 2015 Ronhjones (talk | contribs) blocked 79.120.211.170 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours (Vandalism)


 * 08:07, January 6, 2015 – User talk:Niki Goss ‎ (←Replaced content with ' == January 2015 == ') – trolling


 * Voiceinthecrowd


 * 10:13, January 9, 2015 User talk:Dawnseeker2000 ‎ (→‎January 2015: new section)
 * 08:35, January 9, 2015 Santa Clarita Valley ‎ (borderes)
 * 08:02, January 8, 2015 Cephalonia ‎ (Little fixes)
 * 07:52, January 8, 2015 St. Francis Dam ‎
 * 11:47, January 5, 2015 Electric power ‎ (→‎Electric power industry: sounds better)
 * 09:36, January 2, 2015 Frederick Eaton ‎ (→‎Los Angeles Aqueduct)


 * 162.250.190.92
 * – 12:55, January 7, 2015 Bbb23 (talk | contribs) blocked 162.250.190.92 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month (Block evasion)


 * 09:22, January 7, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+37)‎ . . User talk:170.158.70.249 ‎ (→‎January 2015)
 * 09:21, January 7, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+106)‎ . . User talk:2001:470:8B99:0:94E4:71BE:EB76:FF1E ‎ (→‎January 2015)
 * 09:05, January 7, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+105)‎ . . Wikipedia:WikiProject Archaeology/Participate ‎ (Undid revision 640971524 by Dawnseeker2000 (talk))
 * 09:04, January 7, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+221)‎ . . Wikipedia:WikiProject Earthquakes/Participants ‎ (Undid revision 640971845 by Dawnseeker2000 (talk))
 * 09:04, January 7, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+219)‎ . . Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check/Participants ‎ (Undid revision 640972481 by Dawnseeker2000 (talk))
 * 09:00, January 7, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+805)‎ . . User talk:Niki Goss ‎
 * 08:47, January 7, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+54)‎ . . User:Niki Goss ‎

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
. As usual, the filer has presented a mountain of evidence. Nonetheless, I'd like confirmation because of the impact on the master. Assuming the puppet is confirmed, I will indef the master. If it's something less than confirmed, I will decide based on a combination of behavior and technical evidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Technically ❌, however it could be through use of proxies. PhilKnight (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I will have to ponder this a bit. However, my comment about about the master and indef is incorrect. It's true that I did address the issue of how long to block the master (see the archives), but I opted for indefinite. Another clerk's opinion on this case would be welcome if they are inclined to review it. ? --Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've checked all five of the IPs listed on this case and they all have port 80 (http) and 443 (https) open (and I successfully accessed 443), so I have issued year long blocks. I think it's safe to assume the IPs were used by the same individual and taking the behavioral evidence into account, it's very likely that both accounts belong to the same user. Mike V • Talk 17:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, I was leaning toward a block before your technical comments, so that only cemented it. I've indeffed and tagged the named puppet. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)