Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sazp1985/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Sazp1985 edited Joe Blackman in January and somehow knew he was no longer a judge. On Feb 15 Joeblackman1984 uploaded several PR photographs to Commons. Half an hour later, Sazp1985 enquires about how to make a major edit to an article. Later that day, Sazp1985 logged into commons for the first time. One week later, Sazp1985 updated the article including one of the photos uploaded by Joeblackman1984. Yesterday at 7:50 Joeblackman1984 logged in here for the first time and 45 mins later (and after no edits for over a week) Sazp1985 asks for more advice. I asked Sazp1985 to explain the sequence of events surrounding the photo uploads, but the explanation is far from convincing to me. SmartSE (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


 * RE the comment below, using Wikipedia for promotion and failing to disclose conflicts of interest (as well as now producing more and more elaborate reasons why CU could produce a false positive) are clearly disruptive. SmartSE (talk) 11:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by other users
I’m disappointed by this and I feel that User:SmartSE and User:Jytdog are ‘biting’ the newbie in contravention with WP:BITE. I have clearly explained that I know of Joe Blackman and have previously met him. It’s common knowledge that he was no longer a magistrate. It’s on his webpage, and hence I included this in a previous article revision. I also know this first hand from people that know him. He has not done it for a number of years. I also have mutual friends in an external environment to Wikipedia. He is a member of the same members club as me and works in the same industry. I have declared a conflict of interest after considering matters and reflecting on them. Since a COI was raised, I have not made any edits to the page. I am not familiar with what ‘sockpuppetry’ is but reading the guidelines it’s perfectly possible that we have been in the same place at the same time on occasion. We belong to the same members club in London and I work in a shared workspace. The comments made by User:SmartSE are heresay and don’t have weight. I have actually now emailed off Wikipedia to Joe Blackman and he has responded. He said he is happy to discuss or confirm directly that he is not connected to me. Alternatively if you want a few of your users to meet with me, I can do this too! I would also add, regardless of SmartSE’s assertion, there has been no violation of site policy regardless. Joeblackman account has uploaded photos, and not made any seperate attempt, that I can see, to promote, change, edit or comment on the article. The policy on sockpupetery clearly says “Do not use multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, vandalize or disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position; to stir up controversy; or to circumvent a block, ban, or sanction”. There clearly has been no attempt by my account to do any of these things. I would add that CheckUser as a tool is an intrusive power and should not be used lightly. I don’t think SmartSE has made out an appropriate case for community damage in any event. If you decide to accept rather than decline the request, then the investigation should be a full technical investigation not just on perceived user behaviour.
 * I disagree with the added comments. Clearly it’s relevant to have considered the possibilities of ‘false positives” as you would term them. That’s highly relevant. I should also say that I did not edit Wikipedia in a intentionally promotional way. I was aiming to contribute to the article, and yes perhaps I did not correctly cite all the information, however there were sources relating to the amendments. You also assert that’s I was guilty of a COI. I did not perceive there to be a COI originally however it was I who talked myself into thinking there was. In any event, I added discussion on the article’s talk page rather than editing the article directly after User:Jytdog was unhappy with my initial edits. I’d also say that a COI does not, in any event, preclude someone editing an article anyway. There is a strong suggestion that it shouldn’t be done but that is not an absolute. To ensure there is no COI in this review, I’d like whoever reviews this matter to have no personal connection, friendship or regular reviewing partnership with other relevant editors to this case so there is no COI on the determination of this matter. However, I should add that this is totally destroyed my trust and confidence one Wikipedia anyway. This seems like a ‘boys club’ where experienced users gang up on new users. There was no damaging comments on pages, my edits were normal edits of someone reasonably new to Wikipedia.Sazp1985 (talk) 11:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Although I have edited for about four years this is I think the first time here. I came across User talk:Sazp1985 when checking an edit to an article on my watchlist, probably . Although it was not ideal, as it added unsourced material, I decided against reverting or warning and instead welcomed the new editor. After a while I was asked to help by Sazp on my talk page, and as I thought there were encouraging signs, I spent some time and care in responding . After the first suggestion of a COI I tried to give some guidance with a pointer to patience in dealing with frustration. I had not seen anything as blatant promotional editing. The removal of Category:English judges I took to be based on reading the article where he was sourced as being a magistrate or JP rather than a judge. I did not check to see if the category includes magistrates. I did not think it  was based on Sazp's personal knowledge though I think they have said subsequently it was. Other editors then got into dialogue with Sazp and I left things alone. User:Joeblackman1984 had uploaded to commons some photos whose copyright status I think is possibly not correct. They could have been taken by the subject but more likely by another person.  A CheckUser should be able to find if there has been economy with the truth. It would be a shame to lose an editor who has learnt so much in such a short time. I am sorry if this is not the sort of comment expected.SovalValtos (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * User:SovalValtos thanks for your note, and I appreciate your efforts to welcome a new user. However the behavior of the two accounts as described by Smartse strongly implies socking at worse or at best, undisclosed offline coordination which still violates the SOCK policy per WP:MEAT.  Sazp1985 has still refused to explain that coordination (please mark that), and their explanation of their relationship with Joe Blackman (the person) has grown increasingly baroque.
 * They first wrote I know of this individual through a networking event but do not have an established relationship.
 * Then here: I do knot know them personally or have a personal or paid relationship and I do not feel I should be restricted to making edits to the articles....I have no personal relationship with him and I can’t see it right that I would be conflicted...There is no external relationship apart from knowing of this individual, in the same way I know many other people in this world that’s i have never met and have no personal connection in.
 * Then here: As I mentioned above, I was at an event where Joe Blackman was talking and specifically he discussed Wikipedia with a group of people present and he also came up in a conversation with another person the other day too....I mentioned this above - I did not say I had never been in contact with him. After this event, I then Googled him and read and article and thought I would amend this. The London entrepreneur circle is reasonably small and so it doesn’t surprise me there is some co-incidence there! I did think the photo was particularly poor and Joe Blackman had also joked about this too. I should also add that he lives in a similar area of London and I have seen him around there too. I did not mention this before and I didn’t really think It still met the COI test, as far as I can see
 * Then here: Further to my previous update, I have now just thought back and spoken to a girlfriend who I was discussing the article with and she had just told me that had spoke to Joe Blackman about me editing it and so that’s perhaps what happened here. Sorry, it didn’t occur to me this would have all created a COI at the time. It may be best if I don’t do any further direct edits. It also might be work me reaching out to Joe Blackman directly and ask him to contribute as my friend had said he was watching this discussion and laughing about it! I feel a bit embarrassed trying to edit it now and so much for my anonymity!
 * Some of that may be true, but there is also a definite change of story from basically no relationship to at least one direct conversation about WP per se.
 * Importantly, nothing there explains how he (a new user) knew to go to the commons and get the new image.
 * What concerned me is that on their userpage they had written I am a writer, who has an interest in entrepreneurs and businesspeople. Entrepreneurs and business people often believe that WP is a vital platform for promotion and many paid editing companies directly feed that, and feed on it.
 * My initial, standard, COI note to them bends over backwards to say that having a COI or editing for pay is fine as long as the person discloses and posts edits for prior review and takes time to understand our mission and the policies and guidelines.
 * I remain uncertain as to what really happened here, but it seems that Sazp1985 has still not fully disclosed their relationship with the subject, and it remains not unlikely in my mind that the two users are the same person. SOCK or MEAT is still the most likely thing going on here.
 * They appear to have retired and cited BITE. That is unfortunate and in my view Smartse and I have each been careful and respectful. Jytdog (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have just checked back on here and seen some new comments, and indeed it seems like there has been an adjudication below. I refer to my previous comments and that of User:SovalValtos. I have been very honest in my comments. When you first think about exactly the ways you come into contact with someone, crossovers are not always apparent. I have tried to detail these as I thought about them. I said at the very start I have came in contact with Joe at an event. I also have generally discussed how ridiculous this whole matter is with friends face-to-face and on the phone. Some of them know Joe Blackman very well and have fed this back to him apparently. I had no control over this. I mean, how am I supposed to know when I am speaking about someone on the phone to a friend whether they are going to say something to that person or not ?! This is real life, things like this happen all the time!
 * I would also say, on reflection, I have only tried to be friendly and polite to User:Jytdog and User:SmartSE however I absolutely feel harassed by their behaviour. They seem to be on some form of recent, sustained campaign to discredit me with only circumstantial evidence. There is nothing concrete in the above only vague personal opinions. I also, on reflection, feel some of the rejections of suggested changes to the Joe Blackman article are without merit and vexatious.
 * The CheckUser investigation has seemingly validated what I said. There is a mention of it being “possible” that I was at some point on a similar technical connection to Joe, if that’s what is checked. I already disclosed this above. If we were the same person surely this would be strongly likely, or confirmed?? It’s absolutely possible, and probable, that we could have been using similar internet connections, especially where it’s a shared members club or at an event as we are in the same industry.
 * I have also been explicitly clear about the different methods I have come into contact with Joe Blackman. The chronology above is correct. I would say the fact there is no initial, elaborated story and you see me through multiple messages racking my brains as to the different personal connections we could have surely shows this is genuine. The fact I have bothered to actually comment on here and argue my point (it seems like most people don’t do this) also surely shows that I am being genuine. I think it’s quite honestly laughable that you are trying to imply that I am Joe Blackman, if that’s what your implying! I’m pretty sure he would have better things to do than be on here and that’s Rita heresay! I don’t understand what all these references to socks and meat are, but it’s also unhelpful using technical terms to a newbie. I have fully set out the ways I know Joe Blackman and have elaborated on them as time as time has gone by and also as required. I actually don’t think I have edited in a promotional way regardless of this. I have been very cautious with my edits on all of my different articles, and yes, sometimes you get things wrong. Jytdog seems to be intent on trying to get me to release my personal details or name by asking me to prove my personal connection to Joe and I think the attempt and getting me to ‘Out’ myself isn’t right. I don’t want this to come up when people look for me forever and I think it’s wrong trying to constantly make me feel like I should be releasing my personal identity.
 * The point of this referral to a CheckUser was for an adjudication to be made and it has been.
 * Wikipedia’s definition of harassment is: “a pattern of repeated behaviour that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing.” That is exactly what is happening here and I didn’t even realise it. By Jytdog reverting my edits, refusing well detailed COI amendment requests, making me scared to edit pages when even Wikipedia says that people with a COI can edit pages (although discouraged) has made me totally scared and frightened to now do any form of action on Wikipedia. In real life if a guy did this to a girl in a normal workplace, constantly putting someone down and making them scared to do their work, he would absolutely be committing workplacee harassment. I just think that people shouldn’t be able to get away with this.
 * I would also like to point out the requirement to Assume good faith. The (AGF) guideline states that unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, editors should assume that others are trying to help, not hurt the project. The guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence of intentional wrongdoing. However, do not assume there is more misconduct than evidence supports. Given equally plausible interpretations of the evidence, choose the most positive one.”
 * Jytdog is clearly not assuming good faith. I’ve provided an explanation, and the results of the CheckUser clearly don’t show any absolute proof of any of the things alleged - and surely if somethings just ‘possible’ then there can be other explanations. I don’t think there is any “obvious evidence of intentional wrongdoing”. That is a high threshold to meet. There are plenty of positive explanations, and I have been clear about those in my attiempts to try think about how any false positives could have arose.
 * Can an administrator please warn Jytdog about their conduct. I don’t think this treatment of me is fair and I have tried to be civil to him and SmartSE at all times. There are lots of policies on harassment and assuming good faith but I feel this seems to be totally skewed against new users. It can’t be right that experienced users can get away with anything, reverting edits, quoting policies and making allegations which are unsubstantiated and a new user just accepts the abuse? That just doesn’t seem right to me.
 * I didn’t answer a comment above about finding photos, as SovalValtos said, I’m a fast learner. There was already a photo of Joe Blackman in the commons on his page before I edited it. I just found a new one to replace it. When I was reading the page code when editing it was clear where photos are held. Again, I would stress Jytdog is “uncertain” as to what happened here, there is no concrete evidence of anything - this is all circumstantial speculation. It’s ridiculous to try and assert I am Joe Blackman! I would urge people to follow the guidelines and assume good faith unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, which there clearly isn’t - and that’s as I expected.
 * Look, I absolutely regret perhaps not self assessing at the beginning a COI - I’m not sure really I still have one as I would say I still don’t meet any of the thresholds set down in the guidelines but I am happy to adhere to those guidelines. If I have edited things badly then I accept that and will move on. I have tried to think about more ways there could be a connection with Joe as time goes on but I am absolutely a totally different person to him. I can’t disclose a personal connnection that I don’t have - and all of this stuff trying to imply that I am writing for pay is rubbish! I’m sure I would do a better job and not be having conversations on how to do things openly on here if I was getting paid or working in a professional capacity. I mean, how bad would that look! Sazp1985 (talk) 05:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * , very weakly bordering on . I don't think there's any need to take administrative action here; if there was a connection between the two accounts then the above comment from Sazp1985 tells me that they're not likely to do it again. --Deskana (talk) 12:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The back-and-forth in the above section is not serving any useful purpose, so per my comment above I'm closing this case with no action taken. --Deskana (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)