Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mhannigan/Archive

11 December 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Greetings. My name is Evan Blass, and I strongly suspect that user mhannigan is making derogatory edits to my Wikipedia biography under the sock puppet account Wikigeek2. The user page for this supposedly new user admits that he joined Wikipedia as a Single Purpose Account ("No other reason than to contribute to the Evan Blass article"), and the history of this person's edits substantiates that claim: the account was created for the sole purpose of getting a page about a former business of mine deleted, as detailed here. Wikigeek2 remained dormant until a biographical article was posted -- since 11/17/14, he has made around 50 edits to the content, all of which are designed to either slight me or tarnish my reputation. However, in his latest edit, Wikigeek2 apparently made the mistake of being signed in under the "wrong" account -- he made a false claim under his other handle, mhannigan. The edit is as suspicious as it is unwarranted, considering the description of it is cited as "More specifics on drug abuse allegation," when no such allegations have ever been made, in Wikipedia, The Verge, or elsewhere.

My evidence that the two accounts are connected, although admittedly circumstantial, is as follows:

1. There have been exactly three (non-admin, non-IP) users who have contributed substantively to the Evan Blass article: one of them, EvanBlass, created the article and made mostly positive contributions. The other two, mhannigan and Wikigeek2, have made decidedly "negative" edits, with Wikigeek2 clearly being a SPA who holds a grudge against me (i.e. getting my first page deleted, and editing the biography in whatever ways he can think of to make me sound worse or lessen the impact of my contributions).

2. Wikigeek2 goes out of his way on his user page to point out that he is, in fact, a brand new Wikipedia editor, and not a sock puppet of a more experienced editor. However, the nature of his edits seem to be at odds with this assertion. It is clear (at least to me) that Wikigeek2 is well schooled in the policies, protocol, and procedures of Wikipedia, from his ability to adeptly debate in favor of the deletion of the "@evleaks" article, to the nuanced explanations accompanying each of his edits. This is a person who has clearly edited Wikipedia before, and is not learning the ropes as he goes along, as the user page is attempting to establish.

3. Off-wiki, I have an ongoing email dialog with user mhannigan, in which I have accused him of sock-puppetry. His response to this accusation was an email containing merely the words "Prove it", repeated dozens of times in a progressively larger font. Exactly one minute later, he sent another email, reprinted here in its entirety (the second two sentences of the message are in a much larger, boldface font): "Any proof yet?  LOL!!!!   I didn't think so!!!!!!   ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!" EvanBlass (talk) 08:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

IMPORTANT UPDATE (13 December 2014) Please note that my two most compelling pieces of evidence occurred during the discussion phase of this investigation. They are detailed in this comment (noting a behavioural similarity between the two accounts in the discussion), and most especially, this comment (wherein Wikigeek2 appears to have addressed a major flaw in the argument against this complaint -- a flaw I had just exposed in an email to Mhannigan). EvanBlass (talk) 10:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE (14 December 2014) Another distinct behavioural similarity is noted here (both accounts have inserted replies in the middle of other comments, breaking off the original comments' signatures in the process). — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvanBlass (talk • contribs) 07:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

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


 * When I first heard of Blass' suspicion of sockpuppetry, I'd have called it a fishing expedition with little evidence. Wikigeek2 clearly is a (self-admitted) SPA interested in putting a negative spin in the article, but there's little connecting him to Mhannigan. However, I was notified of Evan Blass' suspicion against Mhannigan before Mhannigan's latest edits on Evan Blass, where the content is partly unsourced and the edit summary even less so. This method of putting negative spin in the article while skirting the bounds of WP:BLP indeed reminds me of Wikigeek2's style (who for example wrote about the "fanfare surrounding his retirement" and added a "purported" for good measure). And the fact that Blass could predict Mhannigan's interest in the article gives me pause. Thus I'd endorse a CheckUser taking a look. Huon (talk) 23:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Please investigate with CheckUser. This accusation is made in bad faith. I have only one account - mhannigan. You'll notice the first edit (one of 3) was a request for protection after Evan directed me to the page. The request for protection was a gesture of good faith after Evan repeatedly accused me of vandalizing a previous Wikipedia page that he claims to have had. The recent edit (which is sourced - check the source) was a result of relentless provocation by Evan, to demonstrate to him that I am NOT Wikigeek. That is how he was able to predict the edit. Evan, thinking Wikipedia is very important to me for some reason, has been personally threatening to disrupt what little standing I have with Wikipedia. I have all the emails (over 100) from Evan that I will gladly provide on request. It will show, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Evan has an unhealthy obsession with me and what he believes my relationship to Wikipedia to be. This is a result of his hatred for me, and nothing else. CheckUser will prove that, so please do it and be done with this. And for those of you who want to talk about me on this page, I would appreciate you keeping your statements to facts/evidence. This is not the appropriate venue for opinions and speculation (see above comment). The only issue that belongs here is evidence about whether I am the owner of both accounts. I am not. Mhannigan (talk) 00:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I would like to note that User:Lixxx235 considers himself a friend of Evan's, and he has admitted reverting factual edits in the past based on his friendship with Evan.Hey, I'm sorry for reverting you earlier on Evan Blass; unfortunately, I'm a friend of his (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikigeek2#Comment_on_6.2F19.2F2014_by_Evan_Blass.2C_aka_.40evleaks).Mhannigan (talk) 01:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * For the record, here is the wording of the "gesture of good faith." EvanBlass (talk) 01:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Reviewing the link EvanBlass posted above, I would agree Mhannigan's request for article protection was a gesture of good faith, and that he was simply trying to protect his reputation against attacks by Blass. As you can read on the Talk page Evan_Blass, this is not the first time Blass has attempted to control his own Wikipedia article through intimidation. Wikigeek2 (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: I've notified the subjects of this SPI. -- L235 - Talk Ping when replying 00:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Response from the accused party (Wikigeek2): Please investigate me with CheckUser. Please be as thorough as possible. I am not a sockpuppet and I have no idea who Mhannigan is. My aim is to add balance to the Evan Blass article, which appears to EvanBlass's friends as being negative because the article was originally written in a self-promotional manner. Thus any changes back to neutrality seem "negative" by comparison. I have also added valuable information, such as Evan's post-retirement leaks; corrected spelling, grammar, and punctuation; cleaned up the flow and format of the article; and kept an open dialog on the Talk page on any major edits that could conceivably be perceived as negative. Please review all my edits before assuming they are all negative. I look forward to the CheckUser investigation! Thank you! :) Wikigeek2 (talk) 02:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It's also worth noting that I had previously posted concerns about bias and attempted intimidation in this article, on Nov. 18--long before this sockpuppet investigation was requested. In this situation, we have a biographical article originally written by the subject of the article, himself, who is now attempting to eliminate two Wikipedia editors who have contributed edits to his page that he doesn't like. As far as I can tell, the easiest way to eliminate Wikipedia editors you don't like is to file a sockpuppet complaint based on tenuous and highly subjective "behavioral" evidence. Wikigeek2 (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I hope it is as obvious to the investigator(s) as it is to me how similar-sounding these two pleas are. Please consider this a submission of a fourth piece of evidence, continued from above.
 * 4.In their defenses against allegations of sockpuppetry, the "two users" begin their rebuttals thusly:
 * Mhannigan: "Please investigate with CheckUser."
 * Wikigeek2: "Please investigate me with CheckUser."
 * UPDATE: When taking into account the continued protestations of both screennames, two other underlying themes seem to suggest a commonality between them. Both accounts accuse this complaint of being in "bad faith" (once by Mhannigan and four times by Wikigeek2), and both also refer to the desire to see a penalty imposed upon the closure of the investigation ("I hope that you will be held accountable for this" - Mhannigan & "Once this is completed, I intend to file a complaint against EvanBlass for filing this investigation in bad faith" -Wikigeek2). [STYLISTIC UPDATE: I refuse to get involved in an "editing war" over this, but the record should show that this comment originally ended with the paragraph beginning "It's my understanding..." Wikigeek2 inserted the below response -- beginning with "The similarity," and cutting off my signature in the process -- and after I merged the comment back together, Wikigeek2 undid the edit and again broke the comment up and left this section without a signature. I am adding that signature now.] EvanBlass (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * (Sorry, I didn't mean to cut off your signature. Honestly I'm still getting used to using Wikipedia, and the text editor isn't the easiest thing in the world.) Wikigeek2 (talk) 08:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * That's all well and good, but it doesn't explain why you undid my edit which re-merged the comment -- the edit summary re-merging the comment clearly stated its purpose, and since your own edit summaries are quite nuanced and detailed in their citations of Wikipedia policy, I know that you are most familiar with their usage. EvanBlass (talk) 09:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Where did I undo your edit? Is that listed somewhere in the revision history page, because I don't recall ever doing that...? Sorry if I did something unintentional. Wikigeek2 (talk) 09:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Right here.EvanBlass (talk) 09:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * That's the result of us editing at the same time. I probably saved over something you were working on (note the previous edit was a merge), so I apologize for that. It wasn't intentional. Wikigeek2 (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It looks to me as if you made a 0 character, 0 byte edit -- meaning that it was a distinct edit whose sole purpose was to reinsert your reply in the midst of my comment. Maybe I'm wrong -- I'm sure the investigator(s) will be able to tell what really happened by carefully examining the timing and nature of that series of edits. It looks like user Mhannigan did the exact same thing to a comment by Wikigeek2, right here (the second of two edits made during that editing session). EvanBlass (talk) 06:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I literally have no idea what you're talking about. Are you saying the accused "sockmaster" is now messing with the accused "sockpuppet's" comments? Why on earth would that make any sense? Because it makes no sense. Period. Wikigeek2 (talk) 10:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You're misunderstanding the comment. Please read this update to the cache of evidence for a better, more concise explanation. EvanBlass (talk) 10:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * As I said before, this was the direct result of us editing at the same time, and I tried to publish my edits, which messed up your edits. I have no idea how I would even purposefully make a 0 character, 0 byte edit. I have already apologized for the unintentional error. Wikigeek2 (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The similarity EvanBlass is seeing is due to the fact it's obvious he has submitted this investigation in bad faith. Just because two people believe the same thing doesn't make them the same person. This is grasping at straws. Wikigeek2 (talk) 11:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll suggest that it's actually a sockmaster and his sockpuppet who hold that belief. At least two admins, one of whom was at first skeptical about this claim, endorse a CheckUser. Only one of them counts me as a friend (due to his help in getting my article up to the proper standards). To me, those endorsements outweigh your cries of bad faith, no matter how many accounts you make them under. EvanBlass (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Just because you suggest it doesn't make it true. Note that as of 2014-11-27, Lixxx235 did not believe I was a sockpuppet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikigeek2 (talk • contribs) 09:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * So, Evan, to be clear, you are saying the initially skeptical admin has endorsed the use of CheckUser, therefore he or she is also one of my sockpuppets? That is what your logic seems to dictate. That's even more absurd than your first accusation. And no, Evan, an endorsement by an admin does not outweigh claims of you reporting something in bad faith, nor does it entitle you to such behavior.Mhannigan (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Not sure where you got that from -- what I said was that the opinions of admins at Wikipedia are more germaine than those of the average user, because they have likely been involved in many more disputes of this nature. Speaking of other SPIs -- and this will be my final edit here -- I had a look at every single other investigation currently on this list. Unsurprisingly, not a single one is home to a discussion nearly this long (specifically, such drawn out pleas by the accused sockmaster/sockpuppet(s)); it immediately brought to mind a well-known Shakespearean aphorism: The lady doth protest too much, methinks. EvanBlass (talk) 07:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Me doth think you are a kunucklehead. I looked at the other investigations, too. Most of them are not long because the scores of other accounts ARE sockpuppet accounts!  One user couldn't possibly respond effectively to so many accounts.  Also, the VAST majority of them quack like a duck.  This one doesn't quack, doesn't waddle, doesn't even resemble anything in the Anseriformes Order .WP:DUCKMhannigan (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * @EvanBlass: There's probably a lot more discussion here than in other investigations because there are no other recent cases of this process being so clearly abused against two individual Wikipedia editors. As far as "protesting too much," both Mhannigan and I have agreed that we should conduct the CheckUser. I think we're all in agreement here we want to put this behind us. Wikigeek2 (talk) 08:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's for sure. It's an absolute disgrace that the Admins would not only let this go on like this, dragging us through the mud, but encouraging it, collapsing our comments, even personally "adopting" EvanBlass


 * It's my understanding that easily-spoofable or otherwise differentiated IP addresses are only one factor taken into account in sockpuppet investigations. Both of these screennames, which have only been active on Wikipedia recently for a strikingly similar purpose, are hoping that the technical evidence alone will quickly dismiss this investigation. Please take the time to thoroughly review -- and give considerable weight to --as WP:Sockpuppet_investigations stipulates, a "behavioural evidence investigation" as well. EvanBlass (talk) 05:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * IP addresses are not "easily-spoofable". That comment would only come from someone who has no knowledge of the technology underlying the internet. For two way communication (like posting to a web page) it is actually impossible to do convincingly. The page must respond back to an IP. If it responds back to a "spoofed" IP, the person trying to post would not be able to.  That comment approaches "silly". Read and learn - it simply isn't possible to do what you are suggesting - I don't care what anyone says to the contrary.  I've been a network engineer for 25 years.  IP addresses ARE a reliable way to identify users.  Why do you think it is the policy of WikiPedia NOT to associate IPs with user accounts - because IP addresses can be easily faked? LOL... that would make them meaningless and it would make all internet traffic unroutable.  Read, read, read. IP address spoofing Mhannigan (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This is a perfect example of EvanBlass filing this complaint in bad faith on a hunch. That Mhannigan and I simply used the same 4 words in saying "Please investigate [me] with CheckUser" is the most ridiculous evidence imaginable. This is an abuse of the system, and I'm not just saying that because Mhannigan says it in his comment below. Bring on the IP checks! :) Wikigeek2 (talk) 08:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Evan, stop this with the mean spirited allegations. This is absolutely silly - you are making a fool of yourself. I'm as sure as I can be, that the two different accounts can be seen as such by the appropriate people. Your opinions don't belong here. You are ABUSING this process and wasting the time of others. If you have evidence, post it. If you don't, shut it. You are making it more and more obvious that this is an ill conceived smear campaign of some sort, without its roots in anything related to fact. I hope that you will be held accountable for this Mhannigan (talk) 06:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

As an outside party I strongly support a CheckUser-check. It can not hurt, and may be key to prove weither they are sockpupets or not, unless their using proxies of course. (t) Josve05a  (c) 15:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * As the accused sockmaster in this case is a self-described "credentialed network engineer," and as both accounts have been quite vocal in their assertions that an IP check would exonerate him/them, I think it's fairly likely that, if this is indeed a case of sock puppetry, a proxy or other, secondary connection method (such as a tethered cellphone, perhaps) is being employed. EvanBlass (talk) 15:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Additional response from the accused party (Wikigeek2): While a CheckUser investigation will easily clear my name based on an IP search, I decided to go ahead and respond to each of the allegations. I am doing this not because I feel I need the defense--my IP address is all the defense I need--but because I believe EvanBlass is using this sockpuppet investigation in bad faith as a method to deter anything but positive, promotional edits to his article (which he originally wrote himself). In detail:


 * EvanBlass wrote: "The user page for this supposedly new user admits that he joined Wikipedia as a Single Purpose Account ("No other reason than to contribute to the Evan Blass article"), and the history of this person's edits substantiates that claim..."


 * This is true. See my page here. However, according to SPA, SPAs are not disallowed, they are simply encouraged to post neutrally on the topic and avoid any conflicts of interest and advocacy. On the contrary, I would argue EvanBlass himself is a SPA, as he has never contributed anything to Wikipedia other than his own article. EvanBlass falls squarely under conflict of interest and self-advocacy. Meanwhile, I have done my utmost to contribute neutrally on the article in question. More on that below.


 * EvanBlass wrote: "...the account was created for the sole purpose of getting a page about a former business of mine deleted, as detailed here."


 * This is true, as I describe on my page here. I was surprised to see the @evleaks entry was written by @evleaks' own personal assistant in a very biased manner, which was a clear conflict of interest, so I took the step of joining Wikipedia for the first time so I could correct the issue. In response, EvanBlass threatened me as detailed on my Talk page.


 * EvanBlass wrote: "Wikigeek2 remained dormant until a biographical article was posted -- since 11/17/14, he has made around 50 edits to the content, all of which are designed to either slight me or tarnish my reputation."


 * The is unequivocally false. In fact, neither of the examples EvanBlass links to even come close to "slighting" him or "tarnishing his reputation." The first example he links to (an example of allegedly slighting him) was merely an edit which pointed out the BBC show and feature on him accompanied each other and were not two separate, independent features. They were published at the same time on the same day and incorporate each other. Blass, however, would like to position them as separate features in order to promote his significance. (Note he personally added the original text.)


 * The second example he links to (an example of allegedly tarnishing his reputation) is stranger still, as the edit I made actually adds to the list of notable leaks for which Blass was widely covered (the Moto X [2014]). Perhaps Blass linked the wrong example here, because this doesn't make any sense as anything that would tarnish his reputation. It adds to his reputation as a famous leaker. In fact, this is an example of a positive addition I made to the article.


 * EvanBlass wrote: "However, in his latest edit, Wikigeek2 apparently made the mistake of being signed in under the "wrong" account -- he made a false claim under his other handle, mhannigan. The edit is as suspicious as it is unwarranted, considering the description of it is cited as "More specifics on drug abuse allegation," when no such allegations have ever been made, in Wikipedia, The Verge, or elsewhere."


 * This edit was not made by me; this is an assumption on EvanBlass's part. No edit should be contributed to the article which can't be substantiated by third-party sourcing, so I agree with deleting the offensive edit made by another editor.


 * EvanBlass wrote: "1. There have been exactly three (non-admin, non-IP) users who have contributed substantively to the Evan Blass article: one of them, EvanBlass, created the article and made mostly positive contributions. The other two, mhannigan and Wikigeek2, have made decidedly "negative" edits, with Wikigeek2 clearly being a SPA who holds a grudge against me (i.e. getting my first page deleted, and editing the biography in whatever ways he can think of to make me sound worse or lessen the impact of my contributions)."


 * It is EvanBlass's opinion that I've only made negative edits because he wrote the article in a self-promoting way to begin with. Below is a list of inarguably positive edits I have made since I have taken on the article on 2014-11-17:


 * Cleaned up grammar and comma splices. No notable content changes were made. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evan_Blass&oldid=634336057
 * Added Blass's leaks post-retirement. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evan_Blass&oldid=634341241
 * Corrected some citation formatting errors. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evan_Blass&oldid=634341832
 * Added citation for the date of @evleaks's retirement. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evan_Blass&oldid=634407571
 * Cleaned up grammar and punctuation. No notable content changes were made. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evan_Blass&oldid=634409437
 * Added Moto X (2014) to list of phones leaked since @evleaks's retirement. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evan_Blass&oldid=634410043
 * Capitalization correction. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evan_Blass&oldid=634430068
 * Added more detail (e.g. dates) to Early life, education, and early career. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evan_Blass&oldid=634496884
 * Added info about evleaks.at. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evan_Blass&oldid=634584441
 * Added Internet Archive capture of evleaks.at. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evan_Blass&oldid=634584918
 * Significant clean-up. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evan_Blass&oldid=634586519


 * (I have made many other edits, but am limiting this list to the inarguably positive edits. I am sure other edits which shifted article tone from self-promotion to neutrality are viewed as "negative" by Blass and his friends.)


 * If I am a sockpuppet who does nothing but "editing the biography in whatever ways he can think of to make me sound worse or lessen the impact of my contributions" (to quote Blass), why am I spending so much time contributing to the article and even adding valuable content such as his post-retirement leaks, evleaks.at, and researching citations to substantiate the article?


 * EvanBlass wrote: "2. Wikigeek2 goes out of his way on his user page to point out that he is, in fact, a brand new Wikipedia editor, and not a sock puppet of a more experienced editor. However, the nature of his edits seem to be at odds with this assertion. It is clear (at least to me) that Wikigeek2 is well schooled in the policies, protocol, and procedures of Wikipedia, from his ability to adeptly debate in favor of the deletion of the "@evleaks" article, to the nuanced explanations accompanying each of his edits. This is a person who has clearly edited Wikipedia before, and is not learning the ropes as he goes along, as the user page is attempting to establish."


 * This claim is laughable at best. EvanBlass using a hunch that I'm more experienced at Wikipedia than I am is a plain and simple example of him filing this complaint in bad faith.


 * EvanBlass wrote: "3. Off-wiki, I have an ongoing email dialog with user mhannigan..."


 * I have no idea who mhannigan is, but it would seem an email dialog outside Wikipedia (for which there is no proof) is hardly good evidence to file a sockpuppet investigation. However, I can vouch for Mhannigan's claim that Lixxx235 stated he is a personal friend of EvanBlass, as Lixxx235 admitted that on my Talk page after he reverted one of my edits.


 * Huon wrote: "This method of putting negative spin in the article while skirting the bounds of WP:BLP indeed reminds me of Wikigeek2's style (who for example wrote about the "fanfare surrounding his retirement" and added a "purported" for good measure)."


 * Huon's general comment is circumstantial evidence, at best, but his specific comment quoted here is confusing. My edit that had "fanfare surrounding his retirement" is positive for Blass. The word "purported," which I chose carefully, means "professed, but not necessarily in actuality." I believe this is an appropriate word to use in Blass's case because he retired from leaking products--news coverage about which (read: fanfare) he included in his own entry--but he has continued leaking products. "Purported" retirement is correct. It's not negative, it's a fact.


 * Bottom line: I respectfully encourage the Wikipedia editors to complete a thorough sockpuppet investigation on me so that I have an opportunity to exonerate myself. Once this is completed, I intend to file a complaint against EvanBlass for filing this investigation in bad faith. I believe his intent is a chilling effect to deter edits to his own article that strive for neutrality instead of bias in his favor.


 * I'd like to give that one non-sockpuppet ditto. The more thorough, the better. I'll be happy to provide my phone number or Skype ID to have a personal conversation with one or more admins to prove they my puppet-free identity is not shared with any other Wikipedia account.Mhannigan (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you! :) Wikigeek2 (talk) 06:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Last I remember, I formally requested you to stop posting to my talk page or pinging me, except required administrative notices. You can use the template for that. Also, would you mind me formatting your response so that it's more clear who's saying what? It's bad practice to respond to each section of a talk page comment individually, because it cuts off the signature from both your own reply and the person you're replying to. Also, replying to your repeated pings, you always seem to have a talent for putting a spin on things, especially the negative ping skirting the bounds of BLP that Huon noted. (Not as criticism, merely as an observation.) As I was saying, stop putting the spin on all your posts that I "admitted" I'm a friend of Blass- a) I'm proud of being such a friend, and b) I told you that specifically so we could enter a discussion, per WP:BRD. Now stop using it as a personal attack, and stop using it as a reason to make personal attacks against me. Wikigeek2: this will be my last post on this page, unless mentioned by a party here in an accusing or inaccurate way. Any evidence I gather will be sent to another editor for them to post here. If you have any further issues with me, just take them to ANI for heaven's sake. -- L235 - Talk Ping when replying 12:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC) actually, having read your entire response now(please shorten it so people bother to read it) never mind on my not editing this page. If you're going to make a complaint, just make the complaint; whether you do make a complaint is not relevant here, unless you're trying chilling effects against Blass. I'll be posting a full response here later. -- L235 - Talk Ping when replying 13:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry to ping you--I wasn't aware that's what it does every time I put your name, and I didn't know about . Contrary to what EvanBlass believes, I'm very new here and frankly don't know what I'm doing half the time. Learning as I go along. Getting caught up in this sure has been a great way to learn. ;) Side note, what is "spin" is merely your opinion because you're friends with Blass. My goal is neutrality, not Blass's self-promotion. Wikigeek2 (talk) 08:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, I will be filing the complaint against EvanBlass after this SPI is completed and I am exonerated. Obviously, any complaint that he is acting in bad faith makes no sense until the sockpuppet allegations are proven false. Just as obvious, I can't create a chilling effect on Blass for something he has already done (i.e., file this SPI request). Wikigeek2 (talk) 09:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You Wikipedians have a name for everything, don't you?Mhannigan (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Key Behavioral Differences


 * I'd like to draw the admins' attention to some key behavior differences between myself and Mhannigan. In my first edit to the Evan Blass article, I attempted to add a note about Blass's suspension from Twitter, which at the time I felt was quite notable for someone whose fame and indeed his entire business was run through Twitter. and Huon, being far more experienced Wikipedia editors than me, saw this was premature and reverted the edit. After some back and forth, I left the edit out and realized how polarizing a topic this can be when an edit is made that can be interpreted as negative. (Lixxx235 and Huon were right, it was premature.)


 * Subsequently, I have been very careful to open discussions on Talk:Evan_Blass about other edits that could be interpreted as negative. For example, I created a discussion about adding a list of leaks Blass got wrong. Huon helpfully advised that I was synthesizing different sources and not citing a single source of information. Based on that feedback, I never made the edit to the article.


 * In two other cases, I have opened discussions about Blass's claim he trained Joshua Topolsky and Nilay Patel, which was unsourced, and the veracity of the website Sorced.com. In the former example, I waited 8 days for comments from other editors before making the edit. In the latter example, I still have not made the edit because I believe a better source can be found that conveys the same information, I just haven't had a chance to find that source yet, and I won't make the edit until I find it.


 * In contrast, Mhannigan appeared seemingly out of nowhere to add a negative sentence about Blass and drug use, which was not discussed in the cited source. There was no discussion on the Talk page. There was no care taken to ensure balance or opportunities for other editors to weigh in before the edit was made. This is a clear behavioral difference between Mhannigan's edit that began this investigation and myself. That behavior difference is obviously explained because we are two different people. Wikigeek2 (talk) 08:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Investigator(s), please note that this comment was added almost immediately after I emailed the following to Mhannigan: "Serious question for you: don't you think the fact that both sockmaster/puppet have been so vocal in their calls for an IP-based investigation, means that the investigators will virtually ignore the technical aspect of the inquiry? I mean, if YOU were investigating, and read the thread, wouldn't you think that an experienced Wikipedia editor -- as the allegation claims that you are -- would know better than to create a sockpuppet using his real IP address? Especially when the accused are practically begging you to gloss over the behavioural aspect??" EvanBlass (talk) 10:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Evan, why don't you post my response to that email? Also the time of my response, if you don't mind. Mhannigan (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * How is an off-Wikipedia email, which is impossible to prove, any kind of evidence? Even if it's true, which I doubt, you're talking about entirely circumstantial timing. It proves nothing. Wikigeek2 (talk) 15:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Phone Discussion

Exposing EvanBlass's Lies and Manipulation

Information About WikiGeek2's IP Address


 * Admins, when running CheckUser, please confirm the following:


 * Almost every one of my edits have come from 2 locations, both run by Time Warner Cable.
 * IP location 1 will be on record until the third week of August. Time Warner Cable was my ISP. As of 2014-08-22, I moved to a new home in another geolocation exactly 25 miles away.
 * IP location 2 will be on record from 2014-08-22 to present. Time Warner Cable is still my ISP.
 * There MAY be one or two mobile device IP addresses on record (all AT&T), but 99% of my edits should come from the aforementioned 2 IP locations run by Time Warner Cable.
 * NONE of Mhannigan's IP records will match ANY of my IP addresses or, I assume, geolocations. (I don't know where he lives.)
 * EvanBlass's case is built on the belief that I am (a) IP spoofing AND (b) logged in to the wrong account (under Mhannigan) when the edit was made that started this investigation. All his other "behavioral evidence" is a subjective fishing expedition/witch hunt if it can be definitively proven that the IP spoofing/wrong account theory is false.


 * Logic then dictates:


 * IF I am IP spoofing but DID log in under the wrong account, then that edit should have my spoofed IP address attached to it, which would match other IPs on record for WikiGeek2. (You will see this is not the case.)
 * IF I am not IP spoofing THEN CHECKUSER PROVES WE ARE TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE.


 * When investigating, please confirm all the bullets I listed above about my IP addresses are what is shown in Wikipedia's logs. Thank you! Wikigeek2 (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I am at least 3 states away from the closest Time Warner service. All edits by me in the past year would have been a from Verizon FIOS or T-Mobile, making Evan's accusations that much more absurd. And no, the fact that this makes it less likely is not proof that it is more likely (Heading off Evan's argument that prof against Sock Puppetry is the very reason to suspect it.Mhannigan (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Between my final comment and the CheckUser (which, unsurprisingly, came back negative), there were a combined 15 comments left between Mhannigan and Wikigeek2 -- establishing the final word, so to speak, in almost every single thread. Once again I will suggest: The lady doth protest too much, methinks. EvanBlass (talk) 14:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I will also note that Mhannigan seems to think that that the investigation is now concluded, having sent me the following email this morning: "How stupid do you feel today? Hopefully you will learn many things from your defeat. -Mantastic" EvanBlass (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, Evan. I think the investigation is now concluded insomuch as it has been determined through an objective technical investigation, that the two accounts are unrelated (see below). Of course, this is because they are unrelated.  Anyone here who has said otherwise has cited some extremely general reason, like WikiGeek account seems to have knowledge of Wikipedia editing... There are 23,452,634 Wikipedia users as of this writing.  So, if the behavior link is that the WikiGeek2 account is familiar with editing, then it could be the sock puppet account of... say.... 20 million users.  It has been established that the accounts are not related. Meaning, it is two different people in two different places.  As far as I am aware:


 * 1. There are no Wikipedia policies prohibiting two people, each with their own account, from editing a particular article (I don't think I have ever been the sole editor of an article).


 * 2. There are no Wikipedia policies prohibiting the owners of two unrelated accounts both using some of the same words in their writing (otherwise, everyone who speaks and edits in English would be suspect.


 * 3. There are no Wikipedia policies against two Wikipedia editors being somewhat familiar, at the same time, with how to use Wikipedia.


 * 4. There are no Wikipedia policies against two Wikipedia editors making an editing mistake (that is probably very common) that is similar.


 * 5. There is no Wikipedia policy against two individuals being accused of Sock Puppetry requesting that a CheckUser be used to prove they are not the same person.


 * 6. There is no Wikipedia policy against two individuals requesting said CheckUser by using almost the same phrasing.


 * 7. There is no Wikipedia policy against two individuals expressing that their false accuser be held accountable for opening an investigation into them in "bad faith"


 * 8. There is no Wikipedia policy against two individuals using different IP addresses, living in different areas, and using their own accounts.


 * Nor do any of the above actions make the two individuals become one person.


 * There may be no rule about sitting and waiting months for the opportunity to file an investigation, which is exactly what Evan did with his Admin friend. I saw their discussion on the Evan Blass talk page, and it's clear that Lixxx235 wanted to find fault with the WikiGeek2 account, had openly declared that he was convinvced that it is not a sockpuppet account, and then, the moment I showed up (at Evan's persistent prodding), he and Evan Jumped on the opportunity to make something out of nothing.


 * Even on Wikipedia, users are innocent until proven guilty (well, they are supposed to be). But even in this case, where we were presumed to be guilty, we have PROVEN that we are not.  Still, none of you will admit it... still kicking around saying, "well, there must be SOMETHING we can link them together with".  That is obvious by some of the stretches you are making.  In fact, all the non-accused sound more like "sockpuppets" than the two of the accused.  I say, suck it up... be big boys and girls... admit you were wrong... and APOLOGIZE.Mhannigan (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Uh-oh, I also used a numerical list earlier in this thread. ANOTHER "BEHAVIORAL SIMILARITY!" /s — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikigeek2 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It's called defending oneself against a baseless accusation. It's my right. I think you would do the same. Wikigeek2 (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I Don't Understand...


 * ...why admins keep saying all my edits to EvanBlass's page are negative, despite extensive evidence of positive contributions I've provided, including a significant amount of article clean-up, spelling and grammar correction, citing sources, and adding new information such as Blass's post-retirement leaks. If I have such an overwhelming negative agenda, why would I do all this? As I've always said, I'm trying to add balance to the article, which was originally written in a self-promotional style by the subject of the article himself.


 * Moreover, if all my edits are negative, why are the other admins watching the page allowing them to stand? Why don't they revert my edits? Why is no one helping me to understand how my edits are being perceived as negative? I've asked repeatedly for help on the Talk page, and the only person who has ever helped me was Huon--and his help convinced me not to make the edit I was planning to make. So why is this entire process "shoot first, ask questions later?" Wikigeek2 (talk) 04:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Mike V, I find it surprising that I am here defending myself against your abuse of this discussion to express your personal dislike of the very person you have had to exonerate (because you had not other choice). Mike V, you are not on this page to point out fault with me, you are not on this page to decide if I am of any value to the site, you are not here to THREATEN me with a BLOCK, you are not here to rally others to file complaints about me. You are here to close this case, opened in BAD FAITH, because TEHRE IS NO EVIDENCE to support it. Don't come here and pretend with me like your opinion outside of this silly sockpuppet investigation means something to anyone. You are WAY out of line here. And if you absolutely cannot stand seeing your idol crash and burn, maybe you would have been best not to show up. Private emails are none of your damn business - what behavior is CHILDISH is not yours to decide (Evan's being FAR more childish - if you knew the truth - than anyone else here). Mike V, YOU are more likely to end up on the receiving end of a BLOCK for your ABUSE of your status here to blatantly support the person with whom you are "starstruck". You make me sick to my stomach. You know as well as I do that this case should NEVER have been open. And YOU, being the child you are, are throwing a TANTRUM over the fact that Evan's case couldn't just SLIDE through without the two "presumed innocent" people that were targeted by your sick and twisted little clique, actually sticking up for themselves. CONTRIBUTIONS? Well, I don't know... my edits seem to still be there. If they are inaccurate SHUT the mouth and correct the edits. How DARE you say you are closing the case because the "...commentary has gone on too long". That is an OUTRIGHT lie. And I want you to say why the case is closed. The case is closed because there was no evidence found to support it. To the contrary, evidence shows that the two accounts cannot possibly be the same person. Be a man, please, and own up to your mistakes. Own up to the fact that Evan LOST is frivolous complaint and that he WILL BE nailed to the cross for it. Because I don't care how long it takes me, I will se each of you who acted improperly, sanctioned in one way or another. I hope you are as willing to help ME file complaints as you are to ask OTHERS to drum up complaints against me because your baseless investigation came up empty handed. It's disgusting. If you knew this guy (and someday you will), you would be/will be ashamed of yourself. And I mean that with every fiber in my body. You have NO idea what you are talking about, and THAT is precisely the reason an investigation like this is supposed to stick to the facts of the allegation, which YOU and everyone around you, was unwilling to see too... because nobody wanted to upset Evan. You people make me physically sick. You disgust me with your flippant remarks and inappropriate THREATS. You will have your day, my friend. I haven't encountered a situation yet where someone has publicly besmirched my name and not paid a price with their own. I'm truly sorry that you didn't know any better. I truly regret that you were unable to recognize your place, and it is unfortunate that you failed to treat those that were accused - the two innocent people - with the same respect you pay to the false accuser. Evan tells me how the "Wikipedia Admins" spend hours in IRC conspiring about how to bring action against me. Please... BRING  IT    ON. Don't just talk about it. Bring it on, but have everything you possibly can to back it up, or you'll be quite sorry. I'm so adamant about this, it's worth repeating - you disgust me and you should be ashamed and embarrassed. If you had a pair, you would close this the way it should be closed - with a find that there was NO EVIDENCE OF the accusation and that the accused, who were presumed to be innocent, are still presumed to me. Maybe if not now, then when you grow up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhannigan (talk • contribs) 08:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I think checkuser evidence would be most helpful here. The accounts show a similar behavior in removing content that is favorable of the article subject and adding content that is not. The first few edits from Wikigeek2 suggests that they have familiar knowledge of Wikipedia policy and procedures rarely seen in new editors. The limited focus of both accounts is concerning and warrants some investigation. Mike V  •  Talk  04:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Technically, these two accounts are ❌. Courcelles 05:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm closing this case, as the commentary has gone on for too long. I don't see any bad faith by Evan Blass for opening the case, as evidence was presented. Wikigeek2 and Mhannigan have demonstrated childish behavior with sarcastic and rude comments, inappropriate emails, and an unhealthy level of contempt towards the article subject. Note that if both users are unable to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, it's likely they will be on the receiving end of a block. Should further issues arise (and after following the steps in dispute resolution), they can be brought to attention at the Administrators' Noticeboard. Mike V  •  Talk  00:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)