Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PiCo/Archive

17 September 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Recently we conducted Requests for mediation/Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, during which Contributions/101.119.15.65, Contributions/101.119.15.6, and Contributions/101.119.14.82 edited the mediation - I subsequently semi-protected it. There are least 2 AFDs that I could find where these IPs edited together: List of birds by flight heights, Alex Wissner-Gross. Here this IP editor explains a bit why he is strategically anonymous:.

Based on this I think we are dealing with a "clever" POV-pushing sock. These users are coordinated on pages such as Historicity of Jesus and Gospel of Matthew. It's hard to point to someone specific because there is such a similar pattern and range of editing for many of these users. These users all have a habit of blanking their own talk pages and the use of retired/semi-retired tags even while continuing to edit. They also have a history: Ignocrates (whom I removed from the list per below) and John Carter had an interaction ban from ArbCom from Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3, in which In ictu oculi commented. That first IP also edited PiCo's talk page, and PiCo spoke to another. Also, one edit by an IP is "per PiCo comment", so I have listed PiCo as the sockmaster here, but could also be one of the other participants, or a different blocked user evading their ban. Perhaps the evidence points more strongly to StAnselm, based on his "thou doth protest too much" below.

For example:
 * Rbreen: "I'm too long in the tooth to find talk page messages intimidating, but some people certainly would. "
 * PiCo: "putting it here starts to look rather like an attempt to intimidate, which I'm sure is not your intention."


 * In ictu oculi edits about Vietnam.
 * PiCo is based in Southeast Asia.
 * 103.23.134.0 maps to Starnet KH- Cambodia.


 * User:StAnselm is located in Melbourne and has edited on Australian topics
 * 101.119.15.210 maps to Vodafone AU.
 * PiCo has edited Australian art extensively and created Hill End, New South Wales

I figure if one of the other users is 101.119 that would do it. I believe this IP range may have other socks, I would like to see if these IP ranges are behind any of the other mediation participants with similar POVs, interests, and editing styles, namely User:StAnselm, User:In ictu oculi, User:John Carter, as well as User:Rbreen who is not listed but recently participated with a talk page discussion involving PiCo. Several users appear to be in Cambodia or Australia. PiCo, StAnselm, and John Carter have had a relatively recent block log so might have been using these IPs to evade blocks. Andrevan@ 21:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Comment: What a ludicrous fishing expedition! Talk about clever! This would be a most elaborate nine-year hoax. Pico, Ignocrates, and Rbreen have been editing since 2005; John Carter and I have been editing since 2007. The obvious answer is, of course, that the editors in question have some common interests. This is an absolutely ridiculous accusation by a rogue admin. As to the semi-retired tag that I have on my talk page, it is things like this that are pushing me away from wikipedia. StAnselm (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe Ignocrates and John Carter will be surprised to find out that they are one and the same. And probably a shock for you that you are them ;) Iselilja (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I don't believe all of these users are the same, but that one or two of the registered users is the IPs. Andrevan@ 22:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: Just as an fyi, I brought this issue up previously. diff1, diff2 Nothing was done. Interesting (and ironic) to see my name here now. Ignocrates (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you that is useful. Perhaps this should excuse you from contention here but I think for completeness, we might want to take a look. Andrevan@ 23:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You might also want to check out banned or vanished users. That's what I was thinking at the time. Ignocrates (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I am going to remove you from the list since it feels like a stretch and I had lumped you in. Andrevan@ 23:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Just to clarify, I am currently working in Cambodia and the Cambodian ISP is me - I just forget to log in sometimes (maybe often). I also live in Australia, and am Australian, and so a lot of past edits have been from an Australian ISP. Andrevan, calm down, it's not a conspiracy, nobody's out to get you. PiCo (talk) 00:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not accusing anyone of being in conspiracy, but if you are editing the same articles (e.g. Gospel of Matthew) using alternate IPs when you forget to log in, that should be disclosed to avoid the appearance of sockpuppetry. Could you tell us which ones are yours? Andrevan@ 00:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You're accusing all these people of being meatpuppets/sockpuppets, but there's no conspiracy? I don't know which ISPs are mine - but anything in Cambodia, there can't be too many Wiki-users here :). PiCo (talk) 00:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said, I am looking for one or more sockpuppets; it's unlikely that all of these users could be sockpuppets. So the Australian IPs aren't yours? Andrevan@ 00:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know - I'm not computer-literate enough to find out. But I've been in Cambodia this year since May, before that in Canberra. (I'm doing research on Cambodian belief and society - a topic area I never edit). PiCo (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * No objection - I have no objection to being included in this. I think any use of socks is contemptuous of the project. I have never edited as an IP or under any other name. However, if as above it's just PiCo having either forgotten to log in (or been logged-out due to a connectivity break, which happens with poor connections), then I recall that innocently before once (on the the Gospel of Matthew Talk probably? about a year ago?) and the continuing discussion showed that there was zero intention to deceive. One of things about editing as IP vs IP with intent to sock is that the sock guideline isn't clear. I know this because there was a rampant case of deliberate logging out, tweaking archives, logging back in from a User who at the time was not sanctioned for it because editing as an IP requires proof of intent to deceive. To compare that editor with PiCo having forgotten to log in a couple of times would be ludicrous. User:PiCo can you specifically indicate which of the IPs are you? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * See my reply to Andrevan in the post above this. PiCo (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * User:PiCo, Andrevan is suggesting you right click on contribs to see if any are yours. If so is Vodafone a mobile ISP? Because if so getting logged out of Wikipedia may be due to mobile phone settings. I don't edit Wikipedia from my mobile but my old phone was constantly logging me out of Yahoo and Google, it could be something thats correctable on the settings of the phone "stay logged in" can be set for different sites using the mobile's browser software. 01:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by In ictu oculi (talk • contribs)
 * I've been in Cambodia since May this year, so... And I don't have a mobile phone. (I've found that if I have a phone, people keep ringing me on it).PiCo (talk) 01:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * User:PiCo thanks, that rules you out then, sorry. In the meantime looking at the diffs something else comes to memory:
 * Missing someone beginning with E? - this latest Gospel of Matthew stir up (I'm sorry I haven't been attentively watching) starts with RetProf again bringing up the Papias Hebrew Matthew theory, and a crowd of academic-sources based editors (all named above) trying to keep out the WP:fringe. Annual occurence. But I do remember 2 years ago on the penultimate stirring of Hebrew Matthew there was an editor with a name beginning with E (something vaguely Biblical?) who was assisting in rebutting RetProf's theories. Checking the Matthew talk page archive should find the E name. That maybe would coincide with the ANI posting by the Vodafone User about being driven away. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There was a User:Eusebeus? Is that who you meant? Andrevan@ 01:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. But looking at the edits reminds me what a useful User:Eusebeus was. If someone was trying to make a case that this is Eusebeus fed up and not bothering to log in, that really wouldn't concern me since the edits are long after the named account retired, and frankly both Eusebeus and the IP are making the case for mainstream scholarship - it could just as easily be any IP with some awareness of mainstream scholarship. And, I'm sorry but that's exactly the problem with this "fishing expedition" - there's nothing too distinguishing or remarkable about making the case for mainstream scholarship. Your group SPI seems to have been primarily based on "these editors are all opposing fringe" - which is not exactly a typical SPI problem. Usually fringe is the prerogative of socks. You don't seem to have picked up either on the basic issue in the last month of activity by all editors (including your own edits) why is one outlying scholar being overweighted into the article? It's not what the scholar says about date, it's the WP:SYNTHESIS that can be made from that. I'm sure it's AGF as an outsider to the topic area, but honestly, looks like you are trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, whereever that essay is. Sorry. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by uninvolved DRN volunteer Guy Macon: The content dispute is being discussed at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * . Andrevan, you've been here even longer than I have, so I shouldn't have to say this, but . Several editors agreeing with one another, particularly long-term editors like those you've accused here, is not an indication of sockpuppetry. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is slightly speculative, but did you see the pattern of IP editing? To me this is more than fishing based on the IP activity. Andrevan@ 02:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, from a technical standpoint... All of the IPs in the 101.119.0.0/16 range above are for CU purposes, so there's nothing we can do there. I do see that the range has been used for sockpuppetry before, but as it is a mobile range in Australia's largest city, that's not really saying anything. As for the Cambodian IP, PiCo did say that they forgot to log in. I haven't looked at the behavioral evidence, so there may be something there, but as it stands now, I don't think that there is a case for CU. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, I guess that is fair. Thanks Andrevan@ 02:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not even seeing a reason for behavioural review here. On looking further, I'm going to close this entirely. Risker (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)