Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OpenSeven/Archive

Report date June 12 2009, 20:08 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Jehochman

OpenSeven's first edit was 12 September 2008. Their second edit was to nominate an article for deletion. They made a variety of seemingly productive edits until 18 November 2008, and then went silent. They resumed activity on 8 June 2009, focusing almost exclusively on Sam Blacketer controversy. In the deleted history of David Boothroyd, real life identity of Sam Blacketer, there is checkuser confirmed activity by Grawp and his IP socks. Grawp is known to register numbers of sleeper accounts and to then activate them later for trouble making. See Long term abuse/Grawp.

TAway first edited 14 December 2008. Their eighth edit was to nominate a featured picture candidate. This account appears to be controlled by somebody who has edited Wikipedia before. They made a variety of productive edits over subsequent months. They were responsible for recreating deleted content about David Boothroyd that violated WP:BLP for which I blocked them. A private checkuser came back "unrelated" for Grawp. However, Grawp is known to have a "helper" in a different geographic region. Jehochman Talk 20:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that activity looks suspicious but I guess I am not clear on what you want. The evidence itself seems a bit week to justify a block at this point, and should you request a CheckUser it would surely be declined as fishing. On top of that, I highly doubt that this is Grawp as it simply does not meet his MO. Maybe you could clarify things for me? Tiptoety  talk 04:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not fishing to have a closer look at suspicious activity. The two accounts could be related to each other.  They could be related to established user(s) avoiding scrutiny.  They might even be Grawp or his associate(s) playing games. Read the long term abuse report I linked.  These accounts do fit his MO.  He often makes productive edits for a while before causing trouble. I am not asking for blocks (yet).  I'd like more eyes to look and help identify what's going on here. Jehochman Talk 09:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Grawp was recently caught writing a stub about Sharon Wilkinson (now deleted), another UK city councillor. I am not sure what game he's playing, but the coincidences here are eyebrow raising. Jehochman Talk 10:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * I'm quite happy that Jehochman was nice enough to alert me to this SPI. I don't think CoM or I fit the Grawp MO. However, this entire matter has had a fair bit of conspiracy theory mongering about this surrounding matter so I guess a little bit more won't hurt. Given that I was one of the people who argued for giving Grawp another chance when he was still JarlaxleArtemis (before he really went off the deep end) I suppose that thinking I'm related to Grawp has some semblance of reasonability to it. I'm not at all connected to ChildofMidnight and I've disagreed vocally with him in the past. I presume that checkuser will be run anyways on all the accounts. Given what I've been found guilty of, it makes sense for the standard of evidence needed to checkuser me to be much lower than normal (my own protests of innocence aren't at all relevant to that). I suspect that the other three accounts are all unrelated but it would be nice to have a checkuser confirm that especially in regards to TAway and Open Seven. I strongly doubt that CoM has anything to do with either of those accounts. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * A few minutes before you posted, I took you and CoM off the report upon reflection because I feel that the risk of damaging drama exceeds the risk of you socking. I'd like checkuser to look at OpenSeven and TAway and see if they match up with any established users. There's a question pending at WT:SPI concerning the notification bot. I am not sure if it is delivering notifications or not. Jehochman Talk 21:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? If either of the primary users involved in pushing for an article(I'm not pushing for an article. I just want a fair hearing but since everyone seems to think I'm pushing for it we might as well operate under that counterfactual assumption for checkuser purposes) is sockpuppeting we have a serious problem. If you think it is minimally likely that either of us is involved you should include us. Indeed, to do otherwise and say then that you'd rather not to minimize drama has the result of leaving hanging in the air a set of pretty nasty accusations that then won't get resolved. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There's always a sliver of risk that somebody could be socking, even well-respected arbitrator, but if that risk is below a threshold, we don't bother to check. There is no nasty accusation hanging at the moment. As I said, I removed that content. Jehochman Talk 21:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * There is little doubt in my mind that the two users named above aren't new users, they've been here before. This alone isn't enough to warrant a CU.. what connects them, apart from an interest in the Boothroyd issue? IMHO, the grawpalike connection is incidental to the Boothroyd issue, and not these specific users. -- Versa geek  14:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WMF policy, checkusers have broad discretion to use the tool to prevent disruption. As an arbitrator Sam has crossed paths with many disruptive users who might like to create a new account to harass him.  I believe countering harassment against a named person is sufficient reason to check for that possibility.  If we discover that these accounts are adversaries operating in violation of WP:SCRUTINY, they should be blocked to prevent further disruption or harm to the living person's reputation.  Jehochman Talk 15:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Count how many times Hochman uses "could be" or "might be" in this report. Notice how he basically included everyone he's been in a dispute with over David Boothroyd as suspects. CheckUser is not for fishing or retributive harassment. TAway (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to know what was done in the "private CheckUser" Hochman mentioned that absolved me of being "Grawp" (I was not informed of it having taken place), who executed it, and what has been done with my private information. I do not trust Hochman to abide by any of Wikipedia's privacy policies given how far he has taken his dispute with me. This sockpuppet investigation is a witch hunt against those support a David Boothroyd article. TAway (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a direct answer to this question, "Have you edited Wikipedia before with other accounts?" Jehochman Talk 22:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure! Clearly, as you have reported here, I have edited as User:JoshuaZ and User:ChildofMidnight. Have fun Hochman, I'm finished with this little fishing expedition of yours. =p TAway (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That may not have been the most helpful answer. I think there's some legitimacy to the question. Would you be willing to answer it privately to a CU or ArbCom member? ++Lar: t/c 19:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Added the CU completed template; remaining item for this case is an admin evaluation on whether socking identified by Nishkid merits a block. Nathan  T 16:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * is ❌. As for, there appears to be some sockpuppetry violations with regards to the Sam Blacketer controversy. = . Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! On my talk page another user pointed out a possible connection between those two accounts. It is reassuring that the behavioral evidence matches up with the technical evidence. Jehochman Talk 21:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am that user, but it wasn't an independent confirmation. I guessed that this was what Nishkid64 was referring to and was just curious if I remembered the content of the deleted talk page correctly. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Both confirmed accounts blocked and tagged. — Jake   Wartenberg  00:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note also the stylistic similarity of the edit summaries for OpenSeven and for AdmiralKolchak. They are consistently detailed, often started with "Adding" or "Changing", never just "add" or "change". LeadSongDog come howl  21:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)