Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Monstermike99/Archive

25 September 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

I'd hate to beat a dead horse… but there are more suspicious edits going on with the Alexander Mirtchev page. This page has already been brought up for sock puppet investigations more times than I would care to count, and it has also been established that Qorvis has been editing the the page. As much as I would like to assume good faith and believe that the usernames who have recently changed the page to almost the exact wording of the Qorvis version of the page, I am having some difficulty.

Beginning July 2nd, Monstermike99 opened a new section proposing a few changes to the Alexander Mirthev page. On July 3rd, Vistawhite commented and agreed with Monstermike99 On July 4th, Rjp422 commented and agreed with both of the editors above. Again on July 4th, Monstermike99 agreed with everyone else and proceeded to make changes to the page. Following up on this on July 4th, Vistawhiteagreed with the changes that Monstermike99 made, posting about two hours after Monstermike99 made the changes.

All four of these usernames edit infrequently--averaging about 10 edits per month.

The first edit on the Alexander Mirtchev page for three of the editors was on the talk page of Alexander Mirtchev, under the newly formed "Policy Analysis" section. 

The first edit on the Alexander Mirtchev page for the fourth, Stlamanda, was made the following day, creating a new section titled "Controversy section?"

From July 8 to July 17, Monstermike99 and Stlamanda discussed how best to remove the controversy section.

Are we to believe that it is a coincidence that three of the usernames were created within 24 hours of each other on June 22, 2012? And that the likely sockmaster, Monstermike99, which has been around since 2008, made an edit to LL Cool J's page approximately two hours before Stlamanda made his/her edit to LL Cool J's page ?

Are we to believe that it is a coincidence that it is a coincidence that among the first edits that each username made was to create a sandbox, all created within two weeks of each other?

Is it a coincidence that the edits of these usernames never seem to overlap?

I'm not going to try guessing how much money Qorvis is pouring into this effort, but they're trying really hard to hide what they're doing. KazakhBT (talk) 00:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' I just had a discussion with Mark Arsten and I do not control these accounts in question. If you want to say meat puppetry for being in agreement then that's another story. The accuser, KazakhBT, has only contributed to the Mirtchev page, not a single contribution elsewhere in a year. That is traditional sock puppetry. The Talk page is open for dialouge and that was had and can continue. I'm always open for dialouge and that is what I had with the editors who conrtibuted. Before this page was either a defamation page or a promotional page, depending on what editor had last at it. --Monstermike99 (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I have considered both technical and behavoiral evidence in my result here of . I find it odd that 4 accounts show up to at least two different talkpages and *all* of them comment in the same section. Along with a few other behavoiral queues, I came to that conclusion. As for pure technical data, you can place them all around the same location, it's just the timing and use of computers that isn't directly matching up. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  17:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked the three suspected socks indef. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

20 March 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

These three accounts have shown an interest in a marginally notable business executive Shaygan Kheradpir. MonsterMike has previously been suspected of non-disclosed paid editing and a prior SPI found it "likely" that he was using multiple accounts deceptively. The other two editors have not made substantial edits elsewhere. The article's history shows all three have editing patterns consistent with COI behaviors, such as adding awards and patents and removing outsourcing and layoffs. The version of the article written by these accounts before my involvement, included language like "where his operational and innovation agenda helped", an excessive focus on awards and other COI indicators.

MonsterMike99 has a much more robust editing history than the other two, which leans heavily towards writing about currently living wealthy BLPs and shows similar COI indicators, such as poorly sourced awards, fluffy language like "a nationally recognized divorce attorney", and "in the news" type sections. . He adds Philanthropy and award sections. Another example is Robert Kotick, where he wrote: "At Activision, Kotick set out to build "an institutional quality, well managed company with a focus on the independent developer." "Kotick is a visionary leader..." CorporateM (Talk) 21:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, still working on it and multi-tasking on some other stuff. I found this tool that will help me find the diffs. I saw your note, but I wasn't sure it was much use, since I've already re-factored my submission substantially and at this point need to finish it.

I think there is sufficient evidence that all three are paid editors and that all three are interested in the Kheradpir article, which would suggest they are from the same paid editing firm, unless he's hired multiple. But I don't see any way for me to generate evidence beyond that. The two SPAs don't have enough of an editing history for me to identify patterns and Monster himself only has about 900+ edits. Many of them are just minor citation fixes used to drown out his sponsored edits, which are basically just a dozen or so currently living, wealthy BLPs.

I'm also hesitating as to how appropriate it is for a paid editor to investigate another paid editor to this extent, especially considering one of his clients is apparently a former executive from one of my clients. I actually have a guess as to who it may be and I think the sock-master may actually be someone I know and have had business relations with. CorporateM (Talk) 22:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I've spent a couple hours looking over MonsterMike99's contributions over the last couple days. Long story short, I'm no longer convinced they are a sock of the other two accounts or that they are a paid editor. Some of the promotion I presumed was his, was actually edited by another account. Paid editors don't typically let tags remain up, such as the one at Paula Poundstone. On Rajat Gupta, he doesn't give the impression I would normally get from a paid editor. If appropriate, I'd withdraw that one. CorporateM (Talk) 21:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Two SPAs on the same article with similar COI editing patterns and a bit of tag-teaming going on. When I gave Juniper an assessment about a year ago I noted that the article gave me the impression of paid editing. If not socks, probably meats, off-wiki canvassing or different employees at Wiki-PR or something. But the thing I've never understood about SPIs is all we can really do is guess, because nobody on Wikipedia has access to any actual hard evidence; we're just looking at diffs, which seems pretty frivelous to me. How could anyone possible create harder evidence than this with the limited tools and information we have access to? I don't see any way to get firmer evidence, whether they are socks or not. CorporateM (Talk) 13:59, 22 March 2015 (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
I know this is hard for you, but more evidence by way of diffs is needed to establish a connection between the master and the two puppets. MM has a lengthy contribution history covering a broad range of articles (the puppets do not). Are there diffs showing a significant interest in Shaygan Kheradpir by MM? The diff about MM being suspected of paid editing doesn't support your claim and, in any event, is just an opinion by a user. There's no doubt that MM has already been found to be a sock master (see Archives), but only his puppets were blocked. If he has new puppets, that affects not only them but also MM. So, bottom line: I need more. Don't focus only on Kheradpir unless you believe that's the only connection between the three accounts, which seems dubious to me if these are actually puppets of MM. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * First, don't refactor your comments, even if you update the time of your sig. Add brand new comments if you're adding new evidence. Second, links to sections of articles are no good; the diffs are needed where the user is doing something to the article. Third, you appear to be adding lots of stuff about MM but not about the puppets. That won't help. The puppets must be tied to the master or there's no evidence of sock puppetry with these two accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What you're saying is you're no longer claiming that MM is a sock. What about the other two accounts? Are you still claiming those two are related? If so, does your refactored evidence (I haven't re-reviewed it) tie the two accounts together sufficiently, or at least as sufficiently as you can? (Note: Pauloperry is the older of the two accounts. I would not move this SPI, though, until after we've completed the evidence phase.)--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I've re-reviewed the updated evidence, and the only diffs are those of MM's edits. I am therefore closing this case for lack of evidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)