Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smedpull/Archive

Report date May 1 2009, 23:27 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Possibles:


 * Evidence submitted by Georgewilliamherbert (talk)

This is related to a long term vandalism issue on Katie Couric and a recent ANI discussion and series of complaints made by the IP editor above about an administrators' response to the vandalism. The specific content issue is continuing to add South Park scatalogical references to the Katie Couric article.

Baseball Bugs noticed that Mexicomida had been edit warring that content in to the Katie Couric article for some time, most recently on March 8, and then stopped editing completely after some other edits on March 18. On March 19, IP 87.69.176.81 began adding the same content to Katie Couric persistently, and got into a dispute with another editor who has for a long time been trying to protect the article by removing the content.

IP denies being Mexicomida, but the timing evidence is highly suggestive.

As a result of the goarounds with KeltieMartinFan the IP is pressing an ANI abuse case. Very persistently. Baseball Bugs noticed the similar timing and other edit patterns and asked IP editor if they're Mexicomida, which they have denied. However, edit pattern review of the set of accounts makes me very suspicious.

If this IP is, or is connected to Mexicomida, then we need to slam the door on an ongoing disruption. If not then we need to deescalate the dispute neutrally. My behavioral conclusion is that they're related, but I'm not quite confident enough in that to block at the moment. AGF seems to say ask for CU review first to try and disambiguate whether they're related or not... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Re to Nathan - The two possibles were added because they're obviously related to each other (Smedpull left a "this is my new account" note when they retired ) and between Jan 5th and 7th prior to retiring Smedpull was actively involved in repeatedly inserting the same content onto the Katie Couric page -, , , , and . These could be unrelated - as could the IP and Mexicomida - but the overall pattern over several months seems like a serial sockpuppeter who keeps coming back to that particular scatalogical content on Katie Couric.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * MORE He's starting to generate more IP socks.
 * And this edit suggests he's figured out how to change IP's frequently, which I assume is significant from the technical standpoint, and probably also relates to a question he asked about the checkuser process on the ANI page, or someplace, but I can't find it now. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 11:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And this edit suggests he's figured out how to change IP's frequently, which I assume is significant from the technical standpoint, and probably also relates to a question he asked about the checkuser process on the ANI page, or someplace, but I can't find it now. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 11:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And this edit suggests he's figured out how to change IP's frequently, which I assume is significant from the technical standpoint, and probably also relates to a question he asked about the checkuser process on the ANI page, or someplace, but I can't find it now. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 11:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not either one of these users and I am willing to undergo any kind of examination to prove it. Again, we are dealing with false accusations of vandalism when in reality all I did was try and insert a legitimate cultural reference from a popular TV show (explanations can be found here). This biased view of what is "scatological" enough to be excluded from an article (purely based on whether the particular editor personally likes Katie Couric) is unacceptable. It is also not particularly smart to assume that all editors that disagree with your view are each others' sockpuppets. All that aside, it was immoral not to notify me of this "trial." 87.69.176.81 (talk) 00:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users
 * I find it unlikely that the user in question has not edited previously based on his/her edit history of less than two weeks. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC).
 * Agree with Bzuk. I find it extremely unlikely that this isn't in fact the same editor or somebody familiar.  User:87.69.176.81 has been blocked another week but it's likely to rear its ugly head again.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree as above. For purposes of tracking, the IP is now editing at User:87.69.131.47, and now User:87.69.177.8. Dayewalker (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested by Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * After reviewing the edits by a couple accounts, there is reason to suspect.  Syn  ergy 22:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Quick review of the contribs of the suspected accounts reveals no recent edits to the noticeboards or Katie Couric. Can you explain why you've included them? Nathan  T (formerly Avruch) 23:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

for now. It seems entirely possible that the accounts are connected, but CU (via SPI) is generally reserved for cases where a violation of WP:SOCK is indicated. I'm not seeing attempts to create a false consensus, use socks or edit logged out for the purposes of edit warring, segregating edits to avoid scrutiny, etc. Perhaps I'm missing it here, so I'm happy to reconsider (and any other clerk or of course CU may do so as well) upon further evidence. Nathan  T (formerly Avruch) 00:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Note this additional comment by Georgewilliamherbert. Returning this to the approval queue; privilege of the clerk trainee is the option to punt. Nathan  T (formerly Avruch) 01:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply to clerk note: This witch hunt just won't stop, will it? Let's see:
 * "One, using socks to keep up inserting the content on Katie Couric and avoid detection as the same editor making the change. The edit is not blatantly bad in the "must block now" sense, but the ongoing pattern amounts to a slow motion edit war and disruption, if it's the same person doing it. This has been going on for months, and changing accounts (if that's it) does amount to serious abuse under the circumstances - even if they're not simultaneous, it makes it look like multiple people support putting it in." Once again, I have no connection to this affair whatsoever. I was reminiscing about the episode a couple of days ago, saw the Katie Couric article (for the first time actually, since I am not American and did not even know her name until I saw the South Park episode) and thought that the information was worthy of inclusion. I've already dropped this idea, this is not as important to me as it may seem.
 * "Two, the IP editor is now pushing very hard for sanctions on the editor who's been working to defend the article, who clearly did get BITEy for a bit. Forum shopping, wikihounding off to other articles, etc. If the IP editor is not the same person then this is just a case of mutual disengagement and calmdown required. If they are the same person then all this is clearly very bad faith and very disruptive, attempting to play the "new, injured party" card to get someone who's been trying to defend the article in good faith sanctioned for it and thus win the edit war." After a couple of attempts to insert the information and being reverted by KeltieMartinFan (with their edit summaries being either "irrelevant to Katie/article" or simply blank), I have received this heartwarming message from that user. Do I really have to explain why this made me mad as hell? Yes, I am pushing for sanctions on the notice board because I was assaulted for no apparent reason other than simply disagreeing with the other editor. They never even tried to contact me civilly beforehand. As for the multiple board issue – since it is not normally my nature to "squeal," I am not familiar enough with procedures in such cases. This, though, is out of hand and cannot be tolerated. Finally, wp:wikihounding??? Where??? Ever since this circus has begun, I'm going back and forth between forums trying to understand where I can get proper help. I've been already wrongfully accused on at least ten counts – this makes it number eleven.
 * Seriously... if your only lead is that everyone who thinks inserting this kind of information "must be" the same person (because there cannot be two... or three... or 2349874 people that might have a different view on this particular subject, right?) then I'll start preparing myself for the electric chair. It's a real shame that I came to make some positive and constructive contributions to Wikipedia, get heavily insulted because of another editor's opinion on how much of a non-constructive vandal I am in general and when I dare complain about it, I'm being tried myself for endless counts, with this sockpuppetry issue topping the cake. I'd take a polygraph test if I'd have to. I'll answer any question – please don't hesitate to inquire. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 07:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

-- Avi (talk) 04:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * ✅ Currently available behavioral and technical evidence indicates that the following accounts are related.
 * ❌ Currently available behavioral and technical evidence indicates that the following account has no relation with the two above:
 * ❌ Currently available behavioral and technical evidence indicates that the following account has no relation with the two above:
 * ❌ Currently available behavioral and technical evidence indicates that the following account has no relation with the two above:


 * Blocked and tagged.
 * Could a clerk more familiar with the bot/wikicode fix the header? I moved it to Smedpull, not from Smedpull. I can't figure out where that bit is coming from. :) Peter Symonds ( talk ) 11:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That template uses that page it's on for the "destination", and as such it should not be used on cases themselves, but only left behind when a case is moved... I think. I removed it, but someone can always fix it in the archive if I screwed it up.  We'll find out, won't we?  Anyway, everything else looks good.  Archiving.  —  Jake   Wartenberg  14:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)