Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Problemsmith/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

User Problemsmith admits on his user page to having used multiple accounts in the past ("I lost track of the other accounts I originally have used")

I was alerted to this user when he took exception to edits I made to the Types of chocolate article. He posted multiple problematic entries on my talk page and was subsequently blocked for 48 hours. During this period he also posted a message to another editor of the article.

It was the wording and content of this message which alerted me to likely sockpuppetry. Note the use of flattery ("I recognize your work as competent and well-done on this article! I liked the improvements you made to my work and the article in general.") followed by a request for action against another editor ("What do we do about him hacking up the article?").

On his user page, Problemsmith is identified as David J. Wright, previously known as D. Jeffrey Wright. He is listed as "secretary general" of an organization called Globcal International. This article was created by user Ingenosa. Ingenosa's very first and many subsequent edits to Wiki were regarding David J Wright, including creation of an entire article about him (subsequently deleted).

At one point Ingenosa complained to an admin about edits to the D Jeffrey Wright article. Contains the same signature flattery ("I have reviewed your work and it appears that your work is very essential") followed by request for action ("User:Lacbolg is involved in a personal vendetta with Wright and should be removed from Wikipedia immediately").

Another example here: "Cirt is conscientious and a good Administrator" then "I would like to know who he is so further action can be taken to find out exactly who he is. Please inform me if there is a way to see from which IP this person logged in from."

Similarly, following edits to the Globcal article: "You were involved with the removal of something having to do with Globcal, GREAT WORK, I applaud your watching" then "It would be very helpful if we could still find the IP addresses of the people who were spamming".

In 2009 Problemsmith created the article Facebook diplomacy which was nominated for speedy deletion. Little over an hour later and following a title change, user Ingenosa removes the deletion tag and makes several further changes to the article.

Anonymous user at 201.209.205.71: their only three contributions to Wiki were to object to the deletion of the D. Jeffrey Wright article . They refer to Ingenosa in the third person ("an administrator should really come in and clean this article up based on the references originally inserted by User:Ingenosa") but it is quite clear from the verbose style of writing that this is Problemsmith/Ingenosa.

User Rokrunestone was another defender of the D. Jeffrey Wright article. User was blocked indefinitely shortly afterwards. The writing style is again identical.

Ingenosa's final contribution is made on 9 November 2011. Problemsmith stops editing from 15 March 2011 until 11 October 2015.

Enter Shamansfriend, who makes their first edit on 1 May 2012. . Shortly after joining they encourage another editor to contact David Wright. "I have been investigating Wright's research and work, he is in Caracas, Venezuela and very easy to contact via Facebook http://facebook.com/problemsmith". They go on to make several changes to the Globcal International page including a major rewrite. When the existence of the organization is questioned he jumps to its defence and maintains the pretence that he is unconnected to Wright - "I corrected the information as to who the current coordinator is who I believe is the founder."

At one point the Globcal International is tagged for failing WP:N and WP:V. Without making any improvements to the article, Shamansfriend deletes the tags. Later, an advert tag is placed on the article. Again, without making significant improvments, the tag is deleted by Shamansfriend

David J. Wright is apparently a Kentucky Colonel. Shamansfriend goes on to edit the Kentucky Colonel article. When one of his edits is reverted he takes to the talk page to defend it with the signature writing style of Problemsmith. Problemsmith has also edited the article and its talk page many times - these are only a few examples

The chances of two distinct editors having major interest in such obscure subjects as Globcal International and Kentucky Colonels are surely slim.

Shamansfriend makes their final edit on 24 October 2015, thirteen days after Problemsmith returns from their several year absence.

I have recently nominated the Globcal International article for deletion. At the discussion page Problemsmith has denied sockpuppetry. His claims:
 * "Ingenosa is a person that I knew who died in 2020"
 * "Rokrunestone was one of the cofounders of Globcal, Dr. Peter James, that was deceased in 2012"
 * "sorry, not sure who Shamansfriend is exactly? It could be any one of several people that were working in our office in Caracas in 2013, when we had an office in Caracas. People were calling me the 'Shaman' around that time". Barry Wom (talk) 08:15, 9 February 2022 (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

 * Preface: For what it's worth, technically all of these edits are in violation of Problemsmith's 2009 unblock condition, but I'm hesitant to hold that against him; he's essentially obtained adverse possession after 12 years of no one trying to enforce that restriction.Moving on: It sounds like Problemsmith's defense here is a tacit admission of something approaching meatpuppetry, or at least inappropriate off-wiki coördination. If this SPI had been filed contemporaneous to when these accounts and IP were concurrently active, I would have likely found that blockable or at least warnable. However, at a certain point our policy WP:BLOCKP functions as a sort of statute of limitations, to keep the legal analogies going. It would not serve a preventative purpose to block someone for meatpuppeting 10 years ago.But, let's consider if their defense is false, and these really are old sox. Of the three accounts, one is blocked. It's a block from 12 years ago, and the community has indicated opposition to categorically applying "blocks apply to the person" to very old blocks. See and my analysis of that precedent at Sockpuppet investigations/Hogeye/Archive. So whether evasion of that block would itself be blockable is a fact-dependent question. Rokrunestone's block was for personal attacks, and Problemsmith recent block was for personal attacks, so that may be the case here, but all but one of Rokrunestone's edits have been suppressed, so I can't assess that. As such, I am placing this  Oversight_logo.png for oversighter review. If an oversighter finds, based on the suppressed edits, that Rokrunestone is likely the same person as Problemsmith, or someone who appears to have been working closely enough with Problemsmith that he can reasonably be held accountable for their actions, a block may be in order, although by default my inclination, if a link is found, would be to refer this to AN/I as a long-term disruption/COI matter, unless the past personal attacks were extremely egregious.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 11:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I took a look at Rokrunestone's suppressed edits. It is going to be very difficult to make behavioral conclusions between edits that are more than 12 years apart—few of us are the same person we were 12 years ago. This case is no different. The suppressed edits contain rants that are very similar to the user's one unsuppressed edit—they appear to have been suppressed because they improperly speculated about the real-life identity of another editor. I'll note that Problemsmith acknowledges knowing the real-life identity of Rokrunestone and Ingenosa. I definitely understand the suspicion of sockpuppetry here—I feel like I wouldn't remember what a friend of mine did on Wikipedia 12 years ago if I wasn't an editor here, and the long-winded defenses of subjects related to this David J. Wright seem pretty idiosyncratic. Nevertheless, because of the lengthy time gap between the previous incident and the current incident, I don't think there is enough evidence to block Problemsmith for block evasion specifically. Mz7 (talk) 10:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Mz7. I'll note, just to be clear, that Problemsmith was already a Wikipedian at the time of these 2011 edits, and had been since 2005... but it sounds like we agree that, to justify any block for evasion, one would need exceptionally high confidence levels both that they were socking and that their past and present edits form a pattern of disruption that a block would prevent recurrence of. And it sounds like that's lacking here. . More general evidence of long-term COI/disruptive editing (which can reference the admitted apparent meatpuppetry as background information, with the understanding that it's not itself blockable a decade later) can go to WP:COIN or WP:AN/I. If new evidence of sockpuppetry emerges, feel free to re-file, but I'm hoping that, even if this was them back in 2011, it was a mistake they won't repeat.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 16:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

In the midst of the Articles for Deletion discussion regarding Globcal International (an organization formed by user Problemsmith), newly registered user 1Tr1BeLi7g8 contributed to the discussion. This user went on to draft an article on the parent organization which was also founded by Problemsmith. Problemsmith had already been warned about declaring a COI on the Globcal International page. User 1Tr1BeLi7g8 appears to be a single purpose account set up to avoid declaring a COI on the new article. Problemsmith denies any connection with 1Tr1BeLi7g8. Barry Wom (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2022 (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

 * The evidence is compelling. I've blocked and tagged, increasing the master's current block to indefinite. However, I have not closed it in case a clerk wants to endorse a checkuser to confirm. There is a reasonable possibility that this is meat puppetry rather than sock puppetry. Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think CU is necessary, especially considering that it could be meatpuppetry. Closing. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 08:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)