Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Meanie/Archive

31 December 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

User Meanie was involved in paid editing as shown in: this COI. There were numerous AfDs that followed the user including Robert Ray Fry where Meanie created the article and lobbied for keep. A new "Keep" was posted by Boatingfaster. This user is a redlink user, freshly created, and the first thing it did was create an infobox in their sandbox, proceeded to edit articles Meanie also edits, and voted keep on Robert Ray Fry. Upon closer inspection it appears Meanie2012, Persiacultured, Canadaindiefilms, Amuletandtalisman, and Craddock1 might also be puppets as they revolve around the same articles, created infobox/articles as their first task, redlinks, etc. lots of activity  here here PeterWesco (talk) 04:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * After opening this case I also noticed another case was opened earlier citing some of the same users here PeterWesco (talk) 05:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Comment - Peter, if you read my user page, you will see I do in fact take $5.00 to help people edit Wikipedia articles. You'll also note, and the site logs would confirm, that I have a Canadian IP address - because that is where I live. My Venti Bold + Espresso shot costs just under $5.00 - in short in return for my help I ask that people buy my coffee - because I love love love love coffee shops. In keeping with my Canadianess - I got asked to assist with an article on French wiki - and for whatever reason I could not log this account in to French Wiki (I think it might have something to do with how old the account is) - and had to create Meanie2012 to edit at French Wiki, but then noticed it logs in over here - and it has been logged in over here and edits have probably been made using it. WP does not like alternative accounts but in situations like above recognizes they can be necessary - and by protocol you are supposed to name a necessary second account using the first name as a root - what I have not done - and should have done is link them on the user page. I will do it immediately.

I would also like to point out WP does generally consider it to be appropriate and courteous to actually notify an individual who you are going to accuse of sock puppetry. The logs and other pertinent details will back up the fact I am not into, nor am I interested in sock puppetry. Suffice to say I am assuming good faith on your part, you are just trying to keep Wiki clean and who could blame you. I do think Wiki does need to discuss the GNG but thats a topic for elsewhere - as there are sufficiently notable subjects who are AFD - You invoked Fry as an example, the man fits the WP Crime GNG and you are convinced he isnt notable. Yet he committed multiple crimes, faced multiple trials for those crimes, and has been the subject of multiple media articles every year for 12 years in New Mexico, and some beyond. He will also, barring a change in statute be the last person to die under the current NM death penalty statute. He is the only person in American history to face 3 separate death penalty trials because other crimes came to light. He also became the subject of discussion between the candidates for New Mexico governor when each pledged not to sign any bill which would spare him. And the best part is its all backed up by citations. You might understand why it is becoming harder to for me to assume good faith - I don't take the Stephen Aarons discussion personally, but you can't blame me for starting to feel a bit bullied here.

Ill close with the following idea for you: Ultimately at the end of the day every wiki user has a real person behind it, and like real people they have real feelings, and care about wikipedia (I always decline to help people with articles which I feel dont meet GNG, Always Always Always), and fundamentally you care about Wikipedia and the project. But the continued success of the project depends on new editors coming in and adding new articles - wikipedia is a living tree, its policies, procedures, and ways need to be pruned as it grows so it doesn't become unruly. - If you attack and systematically go after every creation (which another user more or less said they were going to do with anything I created, and gave the impression subject notability or suitability for wikipedia be damned) which I and other new users contribute, even the good ones - like Fry - then soon you're going to find there are not enough editors to prune this huge tree, and the result will be the tree will become unkept and grow like a weed. Perhaps you hadn't thought of it this way, but hopefully you will. Me I am just trying to help people improve upon existing articles, or create articles and build them properly:Good citations, categories, not an orphan, NPOV language, etc, and in return I let them buy me a cup of coffee - and I don't hide, or try to hide that fact. But, I am nearly ready to sign off for good - good faith is just an expression which gets bandied about on here, I have found few users who actually exhibit it - and there is an individual who has made it his mission to undo anything I do - no matter how sourced, no matter how notable. In truth if Wikipedia doesnt fix the issues it has with its culture, it is going to face major problems, and an uncertain future. Anyway Enough from me for now. Meanie (talk) 02:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Moved comment Meanie (talk) 02:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * My primary concern is identifying WP:PAID/WP:SPIP/WP:COI when it crosses my path.  Your lengthy response is about some perceived slight that took place in AfDs when my only concern is identifying Sock/Meat Crews intent on flooding wikipedia with WP:VANITY pages with no notability via WP:PAID and then trying to sway votes on the resulting AfDs via puppetry.   Admin: as discussed above, a new user WP:User:Boatingfaster voted on an AfD that Meanie has been involved with here.   BoatingFaster then edited Wedlock (band) here which is an article that Meanie also edits frequently.  BoatingFaster then made numerous edits to Amirite.  Amirite was then put up for AfD and Meanie then voted to keep: here.   After this SPI was filed, Meanie2012 then acknowledged it was a duplicate account.
 * The other accounts listed have overlap with each other an either Meanie or the Boatingfaster user. Most following the same pattern:  dump an article into the sandbox, post the article (usually WP:VANITY or failing WP:GNG -- Always with an Infobox -- Always promoting something or someone).
 * Canadaindiefilms Dump into Sandbox later edit Wedlock(band}
 * Amuletandtalisman Dumping articles and then edit Wedlock(band)
 * Amuletandtalisman, Pugdemskuf, Meanie all editing here: edit history
 * Continue use of under scores in file names: here here here here here
 * tag team
 * tag team bulk ref dump on WP:VANITY page
 * tag team PeterWesco (talk) 05:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The pattern persists but with variations with the other users. In my opinion, this is either sockpuppetry or an organized WP:PAID crew.   PeterWesco (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have never tried to Hide Meanie2012 - Its so named Meanie2012 because I wanted there to be no mistake it was my alternate name (I have legitimate reasons for needing the alt). Nor have I hid that I allow people to buy me coffee for my work. To date for all paid contributions (which are not all of my contributions - I dont take pay to do AFD) I can declare I have been paid approximately $100.00 over the past month (from several different people), at an average of $5.00 Hardly enough to cause COI. If I lived in a country where that was a lot of money - I could see there being COI but, I live in a country where gas for a small car costs $55.00 a tank. For COI to exist it has to be material - government officials are generally allowed to keep gifts under $50.00 as long as they are declared. (and I dont hide it - and have no interest in hiding it - its on my user page and has been since I started taking the money.) By your own logic above - Your edits heavily overlap several other users - but it doesnt make you a sock - its just the nature of a Wiki. As for me, the evidence is quite clear: I have no interest in hiding Meanie2012 - and have declared it, and I declared my WP:PAID - though its very nominal - and I am very selective about who I help. As you can see my policy is transparency. Meanie (talk) 03:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * CLOSING ADMIN - I am obviously pleased with the check user.   I still firmly believe, regardless of IP match results, that all of the names listed are involved in a coordinate WP:PAID/WP:PROMO scheme.    The editing overlaps, the types of articles being spewed out (WP:VANITY), and how they all seem to revolve around the same articles.   I suspect Meanie to be the master and the others to be the "cut and paste" workers from low wage locales.   It seems impossible that they all produce the same tripe, edit the same articles, and have no involvement with each other.   PeterWesco (talk) 15:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Reposting from /Craddock1:
 * this case seems to be a bit malformed, can a clerk help clean it up please? --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ T. Canens (talk) 03:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The following are ✅, though obviously these results are also consistent with the explanation given by Craddock1:
 * The following are ✅:
 * The two groups appear to be ❌ to each other.
 * The following are ✅:
 * The two groups appear to be ❌ to each other.
 * The two groups appear to be ❌ to each other.
 * The two groups appear to be ❌ to each other.
 * The two groups appear to be ❌ to each other.
 * The two groups appear to be ❌ to each other.
 * The two groups appear to be ❌ to each other.
 * The two groups appear to be ❌ to each other.

There's a few other accounts listed here, but they did not come up in the checks I ran in the Craddock1 case, and I'm not seeing abuse of multiple accounts in their contribs at a quick glance, so I have not yet checked them. T. Canens (talk) 10:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have now blocked and tagged the remaining accounts of the Meanie group including Meanie2012 where I fail to see a valid reason for an alternate account. I have also extended the block for Meanie proper to indefinite because the multitude of confirmed accounts makes me fail to see how this is to going to stop when Meanie gets unblocked. As to Craddock1, there have been offers of mentoring for him at WP:ANI and I'm actually inclined to give him a chance. Pending the final outcome of the ANI thread I'm not acting here yet. Regarding the other accounts on the list I agree with T. Canens: While there are lots of overlapping edits, e.g. at Marlene Maheu, the behavioral evidence for a tag team sort of editing is still too weak in my opinion. De728631 (talk) 11:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like this has been handled. Closing. (ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 18:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)