Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Screwjack1981/Archive

21 January 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

The two usernames are similar in structure.

Screwjack1951 is a WP:SPA for articles about a documentary movie, its director, and the medical "syndrome" that is the subject of that movie. Screwjack created the article on the documentary Unfiltered Breathed In - The Truth about Aerotoxic Syndrome, and on the same day, also created the article on the movie's director, Tim van Beveren of whom our article says "(born 1961 in Duesseldorf, Germany) is a German journalist, author, film director, pilot and renowned as a critical expert for technology, aviation and flight safety subjects. " The movie is about aerotoxic syndrome and Screwjack1951 (and the director) very much believe this is a real thing. Screwjack has made lots of edits to the article on the movie, making it a WP:COATRACK (we have advocacy for a somewhat FRINGE medical condition going on here)

The article was locked for edit warring between Screwjack1951 and another editor, which is how it was when I came across it. It became clear to me that there was some COI going on, and Screwjack1981 today disclosed a conflict of interest interest when I asked him about it (see here) and I think it was dawning on him that he wouldn't be able to directly edit the relevant articles due to the COI...  But in any case Screwjack1951 said of himself: "I personally know Mr. van Beveren as I have worked with or "about" him in the past (without any financial compensation or other interest). As he (van Beveren) believes it would not be appropriate that he personally writes about issues where he is involved personally or as a journalist and does not have the time to accomplish this, he asked me to do so and did provide all necessary information to me.  I'm from the aviation sector currently working on a PhD thesis about media related subjects with a special focus given on recent scientific research and implications on aviation." And in that diff he goes on to say that he took over the account from Van Beveren (i haven't dealt with the account-sharing part of that story yet as I was just trying to get the COI matter settled amicably before addressing that)

The article came off protection today, and suddenly a new account, Medidog1951, popped into being. That editor is also a WP:SPA, with their only edits going to the articles about the movie and the director, and were wiki-markup sophisticated as you can see from their first edit. All their edits continued the trend of making the article a COATRACK, as the first edit did, and just like Screwjack1951's edits did, and this editor's self-description is as follows: is "Hi, I'm a 65 year old free-lance editor on scientific subjects for numerous media outlets and I'm based in Germany. My field of expertise is in media (broadcast and print), environment, science, technology and aeronautics.". Here Medidog describes information about the documentary's coming release in the UK and speculates about the media interest that will follow etc. So hm.

Same small body of articles, bending those articles in the same direction, same impatience with WP policies and guidelines and claim that because it is a movie it doesn't need sourcing. See Screwjack here and note the suspicion about lobbying/interest groups, and Medidog here making similar arguments about it being a movie, and also seeming to indicate he has edited WP before (hence my SOCK concerns -- see here too where he says "And having been around here before, I believe I am quite familiar with your self-imposed code of ethics..."

In discussions tonight, Medidog dropped by Screwjack's page and left a message in German despairing of the idiots here and claiming "special interests", like Screwjack did.

It appears to me that we might have a case of SOCK or MEAT and I would appreciate a checkuser. They might just be two independent people with similar interests. But wanted to check. Jytdog (talk) 07:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

I also propose this is checked. Medidog1951 takes over where Screwjack1981 left off, on the same articles. The style and nature of additions are the same. The attitude is identical, claims of expertise on the talk page, pushing other editors away, and total unwillingness to work towards consensus. The only difference I can spot is that Medidog1951 formats their references more properly. Ariadacapo (talk) 06:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The two accounts are ✅. I read through some of the tortured discussion between Screwjack1981 and, both in English and German, as well as a similar discussion with the puppet. I'll refrain from using strong language, but it's all obviously untrue. Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)