Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeff.science/Archive

20 November 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Jeff.science is adding a lot of commentary to an AfD debate (Articles for deletion/MADNESS) on an article that he created (Article History). 130.202.3.35 then comes in and sides with Jeff.science diff. This is the only contribution that 120.202.3.35 has ever made Contribs. Seems a bit odd to me. Normally I would check with the user and make sure that it wasn't accidental editing while logged out, but in this case the ip is also !voting and referring to Jeff.science in the third person. So if it is the same user, then he is intentionally being misleading. MisterUnit (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Mallonna has now entered the mix. This user has only has one edit (Contributions), which is at the same AfD siding with Jeff.science and specifically calling him out as "having good points" (diff). MisterUnit (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

In my own defense, you can see |here that 130.202.3.35 is the IP address of Argonne National Laboratory, which employs thousands of people, including hundreds of computer scientists, applied mathematicians and chemists, more than a few of which are interested in MADNESS. People I know at multiple institutions have commented on Articles for deletion/MADNESS, but they've done so as independent experts, not sockpuppets. If people wanted to sockpuppet for me, I would lose all respect I had for them as scientists (and they know that). Jeff.science (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If I wanted to sockpuppet, I would not be so dumb as to use the same IP address, but I have far better things to do with my time. I'm also fairly certain that it's a violation of Department of Energy cybersecurity regulations to misrepresent my identity online at work.  Jeff.science (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2012 (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

 * . Whether sock or meat, the account is surely related somehow, so I don't think running CU will tell us anything new. As for the IP, CheckUsers do not publicly discuss the IP addresses associated with an account. WilliamH (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say that somebody has likely canvassed all these other editors to come support keeping the article in the AFD. The closing admin should weigh the consensus with that in mind Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking into it, it's more likely he independently vented in real life to colleagues, who came because they wanted to help him. It was by no means direct or purposeful canvassing. Nonetheless, the circumstances should be taken into account. I just wanted to clarify that I don't think Jeff.science did anything wrong knowingfully. NativeForeigner Talk 20:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)