Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rvcx/Archive

Report date August 23 2009, 19:47 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Series of editors that have inserted wp:blp-violating information into Carly Fiorina, leading to two lengthy spells of full protection in the last three months. Editing history of the first two shows precisely timed good hand/bad hand potential pattern in editing, while the anonymous editor has used phrasing almost identical to the two registered accounts. Each successive editor has named the former to show support for their cause. If, indeed, there is any connection, it shows a long-term, continued pattern of disruptive editing on a wp:blp, and shows a willingness to continuously reinsert material the editor would know (by now) is not acceptable for the article.
 * Evidence submitted by J


 * wp:blp-violating issue:
 * (not including subsequent reverts to reinsert)
 * User:86.151.43.30 inserting content:
 * User:Benignprank reinserting content:
 * User:Rvcx reinserting content:


 * Similar edits:
 * User:86.151.43.30 removing Lucent content: (calling it "puffery")
 * User:Rvcx again removing Lucent content: ("puffery" again)


 * Gaps in editing (with no instances of overlap):
 * User:Rvcx editing until 13 November 2008:
 * User:Benignprank editing on 28 December 2008:
 * User:Rvcx editing from 07 January 2009 until 17 April 2009:
 * User:86.151.43.30 editing from 22 April 2009 until 24 April 2009:
 * User:Rvcx editing on the 25 April 2009:
 * User:86.151.43.30 editing on the 27 April 2009:
 * User:Rvcx editing on the 28 April 2009:
 * User:86.151.43.30 editing from the 30 April 2009 to 03 May 2009:
 * User:Benignprank editing from 07 June 2009 until 27 June 2009:
 * leading to the article's full protection on 07 June 2009
 * User:Rvcx editing from 27 June 2009 to 19 August 2009:
 * leading to User:Rvcx being blocked for 48h for his edits at Carly Fiorina
 * User:Rvcx editing from 21 August 2009 to 22 August 2009:
 * leading to the article's full protection on 22 August 2009

I hope this provides sufficient background. Thanks. user: J  aka justen (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up:


 * User:Rvcx did not directly respond to an inquiry as to whether he had edited the article previously (presumably under his own name). Given the results that User:Benignprank was likely his secondary account, it simply reinforces the disruptive editing he's created surrounding the Carly Fiorina article:
 * Here User:Benignprank's repeated reinsertion of content resulted in the article being locked for "persistent" and "continuing BLP problems."
 * Here, here, and here User:Rvcx canvassed three editors who he believed would be supportive of his edits, under the guise of having "summarized [their] opinion[s]."
 * Here User:Rvcx is blocked for retaliatory disruptive editing on the article.
 * User:Rvcx, immediately after his block expiring, returns to the article and performs four reverts in just over twelve hours, including reinserting the long contentious wp:blp-violating content. This leads, once again, to a month of full protection on the article and the content having to be removed by an administrators.
 * User:Rvcx then engages in a campaign of harassment against the administrator who removed the content here.


 * I hope this helps. user: J  aka justen (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * 1) No template linking to this page has been added to my talk page.
 * 2) Please delete all the above allegations unrelated to account or IP abuse.
 * 3) The basis of these accusations seems to be two or three edits from the other accounts to an article that User:j is now edit-warring to protect, months and months before I even became aware of the Fiorina article. The accounts show absolutely no interest in any of the other articles I have edited, but a great many edits to many articles I have never edited. I don't see any pattern of collusion between these accounts, and certainly nothing that violates the sockpuppet abuse policy. The reference below to "tag-teaming" is completely groundless. There was no editing overlap between any of these accounts at all until I started editing Carly Fiorina last week, which was many months after the last activity (of any kind) from the other two accounts.
 * 4) Both my account and User:Benignprank had edits on 27 June. I suggest a checkuser look into whether these came from the same IP. Or the same city. Or the same country. Or the same continent.
 * 5) I am responsible for none of the edits from [86.151.43.30], which are clearly not specific to Carly Fiorina but rather seem to be a user who read the Portfolio list when it first came out and added it to every bio page. This IP was only active on Wikipedia for a week and it did not not overlap with any other articles I was editing at the time. Even if I had made these edits (which I did not), I have trouble seeing how this could be considered sockpuppet abuse.
 * 6) The "puffery" language---which I think does euphemize WP:UNDUE nicely---came to my attention from SarekOfVulcan. Clearly, then, that account must also be a part of the vast sockpuppet conspiracy.
 * 7) Given its complete lack of substance, this sockpuppet accusation is part of User:J's contention that there is a conspiracy among biased editors. This single editor has used every tool at his disposal in a war against the consensus. Sock puppet accusations are just one more.
 * 8) Please remove the allegation that User:Benignprank is my sockpuppet from that user page as soon as the checkuser tests have been done. If the account is a sock puppet it's certainly not mine.

Rvcx (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

While some of the evidence above does appear damning, I urge caution when reviewing. I'm not convinced this is a good-faith report, given some of J's edits on Talk:Carly Fiorina.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users
 * I can assure you, my only goal was to ascertain whether the same user was or was not behind the repeated reinsertion of material. I believe the evidence above is very disconcerting, and I only brought the issue to SPI after User:Rvcx posted something that significantly raised my concerns regarding the potential for alternative accounts.  I have no reason to believe that other editors who I have mightily disagreed with at that article are socks, although I may not appreciate the editing they do.  Only in the case of User:Rvcx have I ever had reason to suspect such concerns and they are not baseless, as you have yourself acknowledged, and only with significant evidence for concern have I brought the issue here.  I should add that I have made a number of RfCU requests in the past, all of which I believe were in good faith, all of which I believe were endorsed, and all of which I believe were confirmed.  I did not take this action lightly, and I most certainly did not take it in bad faith.  user: J  aka justen (talk) 20:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I accept your assurance that this is a good faith request. My apologies. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have noticed this pop back up in my watchlist a couple times over the last week or two. I understand the need for thoroughness, but it seems unfair to User:Rvcx that this remains unresolved at this point.  If the checkuser information is not conclusive, then can we just accept that as it is, assume good faith, close the case, and move forward?  user: J  aka justen (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested by user: J  aka justen (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC) on the fact that both registered accounts' recent edits are squarely fixated on the Carly Fiorina article. They seem to be tag-teaming on and off the article. Hence, technical evidence is going to be needed to help support the current behavioral evidence. With that said, the edits from the IP will be for CheckUser purposes, but it may be possible from that the same or similar IPs may be picked up from the check on the two registered accounts. MuZemike 21:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

It is that  could be, as one edits only from a school. It is that either of those are related to, but not impossible. J.delanoy gabs adds 22:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Requested to double-check this by J.delanoy. Three conclusions:
 * Benignprank is quite possibly a sock of some user, based on technical data. Given the behavioral analysis, it's then he is a sock of Rcvx. If the likelihood is disputed then I would not see it as unreasonable to seek a third opinion from another checkuser (if so, that checkuser should ask for the detailed technical evidence).
 * The IP user:86.151.43.30 may or may not be the same user - it is on behavioral grounds and checkuser doesn't rule it out, but no more. (It's also stale so can be ignored unless it becomes active again.)
 * I also did a search for other possible accounts. There may be one other involved account. I have asked for input from other checkusers before naming any names. Please leave the case open pending more input here.
 * I have not checked the IPs concerned, for open proxies. Another checkuser may wish to do so. FT2 (Talk 00:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Checked with FT2 today, still waiting on input from other checkusers. Please continue to leave this case open. Nathan  T 16:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nudged other checkusers today. FT2 (Talk 23:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * For the record, I am still the only other CU to have responded to FT2 (a week and a half ago or so). It would help if a third CU were to comment. -- Avi (talk) 05:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've commented on list. Brandon (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Folks, we've had four checkusers comment on this case and its been open for nearly a month. Can we close this up please? Nathan  T 22:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Nathan. CheckUsers cannot find a definitive technical connection between anyone. MuZemike 01:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Report date September 24 2009, 01:41 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by J

Just a few hours after a month of full protection, User:74.138.208.229 came to the Carly Fiorina article with similar edits as User:Rvcx (see previous, inconclusive RfCU for background). Despite having only two prior edits, the IP utilized quite competently in only their third edit. When the IP was reaching wp:3rr, User:Rvcx took up the same cause, with almost identical language.


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by user: J  aka justen (talk) 01:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * ❌. Brandon (talk) 03:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions