Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Maldoror2/Archive

02 October 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Maldoror2 is a self-confesed PR person, via his now deleted user page, who created the now deleted Blue River Press and one of their authors, Michael Gurnow. Also created two books by Gurnow, Nature's Housekeeper and The Edward Snowden Affair: Exposing the Politics and Media Behind the NSA Scandal. The Snowden book was redirected, but contested by Journalstudent. Journalstudent's only edits concern the Snowden book. Bgwhite (talk) 05:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC) Bgwhite (talk) 05:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Another SPA, Winner423, has popped up. All three have used the same IP address.  Maldoror2 was blocked and the sockpuppets were caught in the IP autoblock.

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

As my talk page attests, maldoror2's* block held up the show for an entire satellite campus. I had assigned two classes to make a single edit to Wikipedia as a display of the malleability of history and information. Clearly a computer misfit was quick on the uptake. I have a sneaking suspicion he knew all of this would unfold, i.e., his agenda was to either show off or deliberately cause trouble for the class (we're one month into the semester and I'm dealing with college freshmen right out of high school).


 * JohnValeron discusses that this user admitted he was a PR rep for the book's publisher. If this is the case, then journalstudent is a different person (the latter is more likely my mischievous student given the moniker).  I don't know the student whom I suspect (I've nonetheless pulled him aside and given him a supplementary, non-computer-related assignment) is the culprit well enough to suggest he's clever enough to feign working for the publisher however, the publisher is located in Indianapolis--seems HIGHLY unlikely the publisher would contract someone in the middle of America and then there be another in the same IP net follow quickly behind but, again, it was your job to determine the who and whats.

For any literate person who watches the news, it seems obvious that maldoror is a fan of Snowden, hence his attempt to hijack a website (which he did to an aplomb). My personal opinion? Not a PR rep and a Snowden wannabe. If this is the case and not without a bit of irony now that John has been kind enough to explain to me why the page is in its 2nd trial, the grounds for its first deletion are unfounded.

Regardless, how Wikipedia chose to handle this situation created a problem for many, many people.

As my talk page shows, I requested an administrator to block the individual account, not the whole IP but, alas, no one answered the call, which has subsequently set my curriculum back and entire week. (I am also working with low-income non-trads whose only access to a computer is our tiny campus; what resulted was 18-65 yr olds complaining to administration that our computer labs weren't working while I'm trying to tell them it's your fault. I truly cannot thank you enough for this because students with jobs and families had to now find the time to go off-campus to friends' houses, libraries, and the main campus.)

In the meantime (I had an open window since I wasn't cross-referencing my students' Wikipedia annotations which were due Friday at 11--I've had to allot extra time for them to find alternative computer systems), I sat down to look at what had transpired, found The Edward Snowden Affair uproar was the culprit, and took a consequential interest in the case.

Once the block ran out, I posted, which [User:Voceditenore|Voceditenore]] misconstrued as the trouble maker having returned under a different name (she obviously didn't bother to read my talk transcript). Much to my delight, she quickly blocked us again before stopping to consider whether I (as well as 49 other would-be Wiki users), might be caught in the crossfire (you can see the before and after of this commentary at the bottom of my talk page and her communications with JohnValeron on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Edward_Snowden_Affair:_Exposing_the_Politics_and_Media_Behind_the_NSA_Scandal_%282nd_nomination%29. She immediately lifted the ban but, as I note, failed to inform me of this.  Again, I love how Wikipedia does business.

Wikipedia needs to find a better way to handle these matters. I am quite unclear why you are blocking entire systems instead of individual users. Regardless, it is creating snufs like this (and I'm sure this isn't the first case).

Winner423 (talk) 02:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Winner423, I am not an administrator. I have not blocked or unblocked anyone. Only administrators can do that. It was quite easy for you to evade the autoblock, all you had to do was edit from a completely different IP. Before construing you as a sock/meat puppet of Maldoror2/Journalstudent, I had indeed read the tale on your talk page about you being a professor and the other two being one of your misbehaving students I simply did not find your claim remotely credible and still don't for the following reasons:
 * 1. Winner423 registered his account at 10:45 at night (Missouri time), one hour after Journalstudent had his talk page access removed and indefinite block re-confirmed.
 * 2. Winner423 then continued to edit his own talk page in an unsuccessful attempt to get the autoblock lifted until 3:30 am.
 * 3. A few hours later and presumably using a different IP, he headed straight to:
 * There he began refactoring other editors' comments and arguing for the article to be kept, using precisely the same arguments as Maldoror2/Journalstudent right down to the markup. . Like Maldoror2 and Journalstudent, Winner423 uses    to bold their !votes and  ' ''' for italics. Notably, Winner423 struck Bgwhite's "delete" comment and reasoning in its entirety. Note Maldoror2's earlier report at ANI accusing Bgwhite of "political or personal bias" and admin abuse.
 * 4. Note also the same tone and tenor of Winner423's comments here and at the AfD re the administration of Wikipedia and Maldoror2's, e.g. "Any administrative inconstancy will not only be placed on admin boards for admin privilege revocation consideration, but user names will be recorded from the history and become the subject of an upcoming work on Wikipedian hypocrisy, protocol inconsistency, and informative unreliability"
 * Voceditenore (talk) 08:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Voceditenore (talk) 08:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Voceditenore. I have read User:Winner423′s comments posted to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Edward Snowden Affair: Exposing the Politics and Media Behind the NSA Scandal (2nd nomination) at (a) 17:38, 4 October 2014, (b) 21:26, 4 October 2014, (c) 23:07, 4 October 2014 and (d) 00:43, 5 October 2014. I have also read User:Winner423′s comment posted above at 02:00, 5 October 2014, in which he attempts to shift the blame ("How Wikipedia chose to handle this situation created a problem for many, many people … I'm trying to tell them it's your fault") and dispenses snark ("I truly cannot thank you enough for this … I love how Wikipedia does business") instead of assuming good faith on the part of Wikipedia's editors and admins. Taken as a whole, these comments give us every reason to believe, and no reason to doubt, that User:Winner423 is another incarnation of the indefinitely blocked sockpuppeteer User:Maldoror2. As such, User:Winner423 warrants the same indefinite block as User:Maldoror2's earlier sockpuppet, User:Journalstudent. JohnValeron (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Amazing in that this tribunal finds itself in a glass house, i.e., benefit of the doubt and purported "good faith" are the responsibility of the the accused, not accusers. Admittedly I am unclear as to my own motivations in explaining my actions wherein, in a trial, it is the persecutions job to prove guilt but, what the hey, I'm game:

As I sit here ON A SUNDAY IN MY OFFICE FOR THE SAME REASON I WRITE IN THE WEE HOURS BECAUSE I HAVE TWO SMALL CHILDREN AT HOME AND MY WIFE GIVES ME 'GET OF OUT JAIL PASSES,' (you all issued benefit of the doubt, eh?) I shake my head--the "tone and tenor" (indeed strange words for a linguist since the terms she is looking for are "syntax and semantic choices" . . . a-hem, if you are going to claim being a linguist beware others who are can call your bluff), a Harvard prof would know the principle of atmospheric saturation wherein a group's language patterns, due to exposure and familiarity, will mimic themselves, all the moreso the longer the stimuli remain present and, even more if they are consistent. It doesn't take a linguist to see this, esp. in a realm in which policies bind expressive latitude.

The same mark-up? I do not possess a CS degree, I'm using what's in the code before me, which brings me to the head-scratching paradox of why I am being charged with using different IP address (which JohnV had to explain to me was possible) although I waited for the block to expire (I can't be guilty of both).

The reason I went to testify on the book right after the lift ban is because, AS I HAVE MADE ABUNDANTLY, UNEQUIVOCALLY CLEAR, I have taken an interest in the case because of the ban.

Using the same arguments as the previous posters to vote for the book? AS I MADE CLEAR ONCE MORE, I don't have the time or inclination to post more evidence even though, and again this is on the record, the author's website posits much more documentary evidence.

As for the 'shifting of blame' accusation: I didn't block myself or my students indiscriminately, so it is difficult to take the fall on that one guys.

There is no need for rebuttal. My students have went outside the campus to complete the assignment and I have no interest in being the subject of a witch hunt.

Good job guys, you've run off, no one, but 51 other potential Wiki users amid drastically declining retention numbers. I wont' bother citing this, Wikipedia ignores this but other RELIABLE (sorry, hard to type that without laughing) sources substantiate this.

Winner423 (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Every time User:Winner423 posts a new comment, he provides further evidence that he is not whom he claims to be—i.e., a professor of Political Science/History at Three Rivers Community College. Would such a learned fellow make such a stupid mistake as claiming "in a trial, it is the persecutions [sic] job" to prove guilt? The Freudian slip is a dead giveaway. This poor chap feels persecuted not because he's butt-hurt about some supposed inconvenience to his students, but because he's been outed as a stooge of the sockpuppeteer User:Maldoror2. The sooner User:Winner423 joins his marionette mate User:Journalstudent and their master User:Maldoror2 among the ranks of the indefinitely blocked, the better. JohnValeron (talk) 01:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I have added User:Brain1605 to the list. SPA at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Edward Snowden Affair: Exposing the Politics and Media Behind the NSA Scandal (2nd nomination), carrying on there in the same vein as Winner423 here, although the comment has now been revision deleted by an administrator and the editor hard blocked. Voceditenore (talk) 07:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * DeltaQuad, somehow your checkuser results ended up in the middle of this section. Shouldn't they go in the Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments below? Also, have you confirmed that all 3 suspected accounts are confirmed socks of ? - Voceditenore (talk) 05:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I've deleted Forlorn777's comment. I've also blocked them as a sockpuppet.  I haven't a clue on how to add another sockpuppet to the list after checkuser results.  Bgwhite (talk) 07:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅ -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  01:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Somehow the wiki screwed up. When I edited, I used a script as I always do and it took a in the middle of the page as the end of the case.  Also I removed the plus, as it was already in the report, I must have been tired, but yes all 4 accounts are the same person. --  DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  14:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I've added Forlorn777 to the report as well. All accounts are blocked and tagged. Mike V  •  Talk  04:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)