Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/One1two2three3/Archive

25 June 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Three accounts with mumble-mumble-asdf usernames that have all been editing the same section of the Susan Greenfield article, and nothing else, the latter two appearing after the first was warned about edit warring. The first and third have both tried to add different copyvio images to the Greenfield article's infobox. McGeddon (talk) 16:19, 25 June 2013 (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

 * There is a lot of sudden interest but they aren't tag teaming. Not sure what to make of it yet.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; © &#124;  WER  19:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is necessary for the edits to approach 3RR frequency to be considered abusive sockpuppetry; edits separated by a few days can create a false sense of consensus., , and are sufficient for a check IMO (or even WP:DUCK perhaps). King of  &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 02:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * - - The three diffs pointed out by King of Hearts show an apparent attempt to cast the subject of the article in a negative light an marginalize her contributions. Endorsing to see if this is sockpuppetry. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * All three accounts and are ✅. WilliamH (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Socks indeffed, master not blocked due to no recent activity. Although Superfanpage2012 was created earlier, I am continuing to treat One1two2three3 as the master since the former has no edits. Closing. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

23 July 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Another keyboard-mashing username arrives to edit the same section of the Susan Greenfield article. User:One1two2three3 was warned earlier in the month against creating further sockpuppets. McGeddon (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2013 (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

 * - - Brand new editor with a strange interest in the infobox photo of Susan Greenfield . Worth checking. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ to Superfanpage2012:


 * Possilikely - the middle between and  that EncyclopediaEditer098765 is related to the above group. --  DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  16:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Socks blocked and tagged. Since 123 turned to socking immediately after getting into a dispute after his first few edits, and because this is the second time he's been caught, I've gone straight to indef. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

16 August 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Another account focusing solely on Susan Greenfield and rebuttals to Goldacre's criticism of her. The blocked sockpuppet User:EncyclopediaEditer098765 added http://www.susangreenfield.com/assets/Reference-List.pdf as a ref with an edit summary "response to Goldacre's commentary" last month; User:Kirbyem has since added individual references from that list to the same section "in response to Goldacre".

User:Kirbyem [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Susan_Greenfield&diff=prev&oldid=527713674 added a "however..." rebuttal in December 2012], and the sockmaster User:One1two2three3 added the exact same sentence in June 2013. McGeddon (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2013 (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

 * - - Given that, in the past, sleeper accounts were uncovered, and given that the behavioral evidence isn't conclusive (though it is definitely suspect), I would like a checkuser to check this case. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * . Did not find any other accounts. Elockid  ( Talk ) 13:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I've blocked Kirbyem as a sockpuppet account. Closing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

15 April 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

User:One1two2three3 got through six sockpuppets in 2013, all of them editing the Susan Greenfield article and no others. The majority of the edits related to (1) updating the photo in Greenfield's infobox with some copyvio or other and (2) rearranging the article to make it appear that Greenfield's academic history served a rebuttal of the criticism of her unpublished theories on autism and technology. User:Sagpa13 has been making edits in both these areas since November 2013, three months after the most recent sockpuppet was blocked.

Example edits:
 * In June 2013, User:One1two2three3 adds "However, Greenfield has published in peer-reviewed journals on the basic brain mechanisms involved in addiction and reward..." at the end of the section describing criticism of her unpublished speculation.
 * In April 2014, User:Sagpa13 moves and rewords a paragraph "Greenfield has nonetheless published some 200 papers in peer-reviewed journals, including studies on the basic brain mechanisms involved in addiction and reward..." to the same place.
 * In June 2013, User:One1two2three3 adds a copyvio infobox image from an unspecified Penguin publication, mistakenly formatting the image as a thumbnail and giving it a border.
 * In November 2013, User:Sagpa13 adds a copyvio infobox image from an unspecified BBC publication, mistakenly formatting it in the same way.

Sagpa13 has openly identified themselves as Greenfield's personal assistant, and has ignored three requests to follow COI policy and not edit their employer's article directly. McGeddon (talk) 10:19, 15 April 2014 (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
If this really is Greenfield's PA, that's interesting. But I have trouble believing it, because usually such people will update an image with something candid that they have access to, being close to the article subject, and don't need to steal a published image online. My guess is that this is someone who thought that masquerading as her PA would give their edits more weight. In any event, this is clearly another sockpuppet, and I've blocked and tagged them as such. --  At am a  頭 19:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

18 August 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Somebody claiming to be Susan Greenfield's PA was blocked along with six other WP:SPA sockpuppets between 2012 and 2014, all but one of them editing Greenfield's Wikipedia article to add WP:SYN "however..."-style rebuttals immediately after the paragraph on the criticism Greenfield has received for her statements on autism (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). User:Sarasare's first edit was to add the WP:SYN "However, these criticisms have been rebutted." in exactly the same place, and has made edits to no other articles.

User:Sagpa13 claimed to be Greenfield's PA and said "I have read the Conflict of interest policy and will take note of this in future" in December 2013. User:Sarasare has recently stated after some halting "I don't know what you mean" and "I'm a supporter" that they "work alongside Susan". McGeddon (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Dear McGeddon, as I mentioned before, I'm sorry to see this message about sockpuppet, I only wanted to contribute to Susan Greenfield Wikipedia page. I don't have more than one account, it is my first time on Wikipedia. I'm not Susan Greenfield's personal assistant. As I stated I work alongside Susan and the 2 changes I did in her text are the first ones I have added. I hope my explanations are clear and hopefully this will be resolved. Because working alongside Susan Greenfield makes it easy to know about what articles or information are news, I would like to know what it is the exact procedure you would like for me to follow to share a reference (a newspaper article or scientific publication) on wikipedia? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarasare (talk • contribs) 07:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Unless there's a non-stale puppet I didn't notice, there's nothing to compare against, so I'm declining the CU request.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The behavioral evidence presented above is not convincing enough to block Closing this case with no action.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)