Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JohnDopp/Archive

17 December 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

User JohnDopp is a SPA who was found to have a COI with regard to the Humane Society of the United States. Specifically: he runs a website devoted to attacking critics of the HSUS. Almost all of his activity on Wikipedia has involved attempting to silence critics of this organization. This COI is properly indicated on the HSUS talk page, but is NOT indicated on the article about Wayne Pacelle, the president and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States. Clearly a COI with regard to the organization extends to its president, but that isn't the issue here (and I have in fact flagged that on the appropriate talk page). The issue is that on Dec. 7 this user popped up on the Wayne Pacelle talk page to do what he was accustomed to doing on the HSUS page: silence critics. Simultaneously - Dec. 7 - a brand new SPA began to do radical edits on the HSUS page.

Now, this new user, AlexDawson62, may not be a sock or meat puppet of JohnDopp, but that seems highly unlikely. The edits are precisely the same as the ones that JohnDopp used to argue for in the HSUS article - and one in particular reverts to a JohnDopp edit found to be especially misleading: that the HSUS has accounted for all of the funds raised (34 million dollars) to deal with animal rescue during Hurricane Katrina. An organization critical of the HSUS examined tax forms and determined that 48% of the funds raised are unaccounted for. This new SPA blanked the criticism, insisting that the source did not meet Wikipedia's validation requirements, because it was "a personal blog, presenting personal opinion."

(UPDATE: AR-HR does seem to be a single researcher - Dopp/Dawson may have a minor point - but the relevant story is simply an accurate analysis of linked HSUS documents. And, unless this is a lie: "AR-HR.com articles have appeared on the Wall Street Journal Digital Network, the Indiana Post-Tribune, USA Today & the Chicago Sun Times". None of this has any bearing upon the SPI - just want to be accurate.)

The new SPA made 13 edits on December 7/8, some of them major. This is, as I say, the same time that JohnDopp emerged after almost a month of silence to edit the Wayne Pacelle talk page. Please look into this - the HSUS article has been little more than an ad for the organization ever since JohnDopp began to police it. NaymanNoland (talk) 05:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

JOHNDOPP DIFFS:

Here's JohnDopp's emergence on the Wayne Pacelle talk page (coincidentally, at the same time that AlexDawson62 began slash-and-burning the HSUS article) - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWayne_Pacelle&diff=584946932&oldid=584905881

ALEXDAWSON62 DIFFS:

This is AlexDawson62 blanking criticism by AR-HR - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Humane_Society_of_the_United_States&diff=585047265&oldid=584168640

Here is an attempt to bury a widespread criticism of the HSUS with their standard (and inadequate) response - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Humane_Society_of_the_United_States&diff=next&oldid=585047265

Attempt to diminish the authority of a critic of the HSUS (arguably a legitimate move, but here it's clearly strategic) - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Humane_Society_of_the_United_States&diff=next&oldid=585051398

Section blanked for "inaccuracy" - with, tellingly, no effort to make it more accurate - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Humane_Society_of_the_United_States&diff=next&oldid=585052929

Section blanked because it was redundant (but one crucially not-so-redundant bit was also blanked: that the HSUS was awarded a grade that means UNSATISFACTORY) - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Humane_Society_of_the_United_States&diff=next&oldid=585054311

Blanking an embarrassing story from an important source (Sports Illustrated) - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Humane_Society_of_the_United_States&diff=next&oldid=585055143

Crucial diff related to Hurricane Katrina (cut important criticism, added puffery) - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Humane_Society_of_the_United_States&diff=next&oldid=585058393

Whitewashing - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Humane_Society_of_the_United_States&diff=next&oldid=585060541

Attempt to bury the embarrassing title of an article (which may be a legitimate thing to do, according to Wikipedia standard formatting, but that's not what this is about) - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Humane_Society_of_the_United_States&diff=next&oldid=585061461

Note that not every one of these edits is completely insupportable. Taken as a whole, however, we're talking about an avalanche of propaganda. All over the course of two days. The HSUS is hardly the most evil organization on earth, but it's extremely controversial, and this editor is doing his best to make sure that readers don't know that. (It's either one editor, or two acting in tandem - either way, they share the same serious COI). NaymanNoland (talk) 07:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Further observation - the story that JohnDopp was trying to squelch on the Wayne Pacelle page just happens to be the same one that AlexDawson62 conveniently erased on the HSUS page: Sports Illustrated's embarrassing article about Michael Vick's dogs. Whatever you might conclude about AR-HR, Sports Illustrated is an impeccable source.

As I say, however, what matters here is not any one point; a couple of Dopp/Dawson's edits might prove defensible. What's indefensible is the way in which this is being done: sockpuppetry, and COI. NaymanNoland (talk) 08:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Hi folks, Since I was declared to have a COI on the basis of my knowledge and opinions, I have not edited these pages. I have only expressed my concerns and perspectives in the Talk section. I do not use sockpuppets or meatpuppets, and have actively confronted others who do so to push an agenda. My goal is NOT to silence critics, but to ensure that criticism is properly sourced, and not presented as fact when it is actually opinion. I also wish to see a factual article that adheres to the NPOV appropriate to a biography of a living person. That has apparently offended NaymanNoland, who then declared that readers "deserve to know" about [|"disgusting biographic information"] for a living person who he feels "coddle[s] a monster". I do wish that people wouldn't resort to screaming "sockpuppet!" when a difference of opinion arises, but please investigate; hopefully, that will set everyone's mind at ease, and we can discuss the tone and balance of the articles in question. JohnDopp (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * This does not depend upon whether I find Michael Vick a monster, or find people disgusting who coddle him. My views are completely irrelevant. ALL that matters here is whether you are AlexDawson62. Are you? And if not, is he someone posting on your behalf? Is he a member of your organization? NaymanNoland (talk) 02:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * As previously stated, I am not AlexDawson62, and I do not use any account on Wikipedia other than this one. I do not ask others to edit Wikipedia entries on my behalf. I do not use sockpuppets. I do not know AlexDawson62, and I suggest you pose your questions to him. As for your personal views, I agree, they are irrelevant to the content of the article, and should not color that content with judgments about who is or is not a monster, or who is or is not disgusting.  I recognize that these are your opinions, but they speak of an underlying bias that's every bit as much a COI as my supposed conflict. JohnDopp (talk) 04:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Where's the diffs? --Rschen7754 06:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's how I see this: Showing that two people are both proponents of a broad topic is insufficient evidence to check the accounts against each other, as it is circumstantial evidence. It is not unlikely that there is more than one proponent of the society. Therefore,. If evidence is provided that supports the third point above then I will reconsider running a check. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 15:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Evidence was presented to demonstrate that JohnDopp has a conflict of interest regarding the Humane Society of the United States article, namely, external websites indicate he is a proponent of the society.
 * 2) Evidence was presented to show that the alleged sockpuppet, AlexDawson62, has been editing the Humane Society of the United States with the point of view of a proponent of the society.
 * 3) Although the filer of the case claims that AlexDawson62 is making edits that agree exactly with JohnDopp's opinions, no evidence of this was actually provided.
 * Closing per Deskana's comments. Feel free to re-file if new evidence emerges. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)