Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NLP/Archive

01 November 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * (note: personally I have no reason to suspect S, but his name has been mentioned)
 * (ditto)
 * (ditto)


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This is a request for a general CU on recent contributors to Neuro-linguistic programming. That article has a long-term history of problems, and has recently been linked to User:HeadleyDown. User:Snowded has a page that might be useful: User:Snowded/nlp case. 76.243.106.37 made a number of accusations (which I don't endorse): see for example some deleted revs at FT2 talk page which are still visible elsewhere. And there is an ANI thread. William M. Connolley (talk) 09:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Man... after going through some of the edits, I dunno why but my sock senses are going a-klaxon-ringing again. This is going to be interesting. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 10:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

See-also: Sockpuppet investigations/HeadleyDown.

Also may be worth noting that User:ANJPL filed the HD SPI against HD, LKK and S, which was dismissed as bad faith. But ANJPL turns out to be a sock of User:Irvine22, just to add to the confusion. William M. Connolley (talk) 11:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Casting the net too widely: OK, I see. I was trying to avoid prejudging this. But following e.g. Cailil's comment I've struck some that I don't believe need to be checked William M. Connolley (talk) 13:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Hello. Here are a couple other related editors from recent attacks on the NLP talkpage and other editor’s talk pages:

The editors in these cases were likely more related to an ongoing problem on the NLP article in connection with an NLP company: Inspiritive.com as expressed in user Snowded’s page  rather than the off-article problem with user Irvine22. Your investigation is appreciated. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 10:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Alas - I think this is mere fishing - for which this board is ill-suited. I suggest Bass Pro Shops :) . Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Quick check on one of these accounts: User:Colemchange is very likely indeed to be a sock. He could easily be a sock of Irvine22 (compare pro-NLP sock user:Brenda Lo88), or a "reverse sock" of HeadleyDown - the latter impressions can't be discounted lightly since it's known Headley's done that before and Colemchange despite an opposing position has "giveaways" that are strikingly close to those for Headley. Either way Colem's surely a reincarnation of one of these two blocked/banned sock warriors, and the sockmaster has surely done it before judging by giveaways and behavioral evidence. If any Checkuser wants the basis for this or wants to add CU data let me know. [Updated 22:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)]


 * I haven't looked at any other named users yet. The presenter of the case really needs to substantiate the case with actual evidence (diffs, indicators, and so on) and give a clear concise point by point of the clear evidence of who they claim may be a sock of whom and what evidence gives it away. A mere list of names doesn't tell people unfamiliar with the case, what they should be looking at from thousands of edits or why it's likely certain users may be socks. Without this the case is likely to be dismissed. FT2 (Talk 15:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Just for the record I'm happy for anyone to investigate me in anyway they want on this one, and happy to provide personal details off wiki if required. This article is clearly subject to meat puppetry as well as sock puppetry (I started to assemble evidence for that  here and there was a fair amount of off wiki attacks etc.  Given that there is an arbcom ruling in place I think the behaviour of editors in making constant accusations without evidence should also be looked at.  Thanks to Cailil & William by the way, appreciate your hunting down yet another Irvine22 sock but this is wider,  I think his involvement is just opportunistic.  -- Snowded  TALK  21:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I am a little bit confused? Are you asking us to check user on all recent contributors to the article? We can't do that, . Even with the accounts presented, I'd personally like to see a little bit more evidence before a CU is done, but others may think differently. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  09:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * HeadlyDown is a serial socker with a long history of abuse. However I'm still iffy on endorsing.  Alexandria   (talk)  10:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking through the compare report, I see occasional tag-team reverting, but it's not common enough or widespread enough for me to feel there is some WP:DUCK issues. I'd imagine that any two editors with similar interests might occasionally team up and the tag-team does not show up every time there is reverting involved.--v/r - TP 13:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * From an outside perspective I'd be more inclined to see the IP 76.243.106.37 as another Irvine22 sock (same behaviour as ANJPL same accusations, carrying on personal vendetta against Snowded from other areas of WP) or simply a troll (see their contributions at. I'd personally only lean towards this wide of a checkuser net being cast to catch even someone as disruptive as HD if ArbCom sanctioned it (I'm not commenting on the merits of it just that it is a very wide net for an ordinary SPI)-- Cailil  talk 13:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sort of going to be bold here and endorse this. NLP is (or was) under arbcom sanctions due to a prior sock farm slowly but surely POV pushing.  Any CU or clerk is welcome to either email me or contact me on IRC for additional info if needed.  Alexandria   (talk)  13:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As a side note, would a request for clarification about the continuity of remedies (ie if AE today could use the findings to deal with issues at NLP) from HD/NLP RFAR be useful at all? Remedies to deal with HD are already covered by the LTA report but if we are dealing with other sockmasters that RFAR might be useful-- Cailil  talk 16:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Checking AGK  [&bull; ] 22:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Taking into account the broad overlap in editing (on a single article that is not of wide interest), and the history of problems with this topic, I agree that there was a basis for this check. However, technical data suggests that a link between the named accounts is . Behavioural evidence will have to be relied upon in determining the likelihood of a link. AGK  [&bull; ] 22:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, that makes it fun, doesn't it. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  22:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not fully clear on what went down here, but this looks to be meatpuppetry. Relist if necessary, or consider reporting to other venues (3RR, e.g.) —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)