Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stavgard/Archive

06 March 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Stavgard has been edit warring at Grooves (archaeology). This morning a new user User:Archaeoa took up Stavards argument. Archaeoa's contribution, as well as sharing Stavgard's persecution ideas shares Stavgard's peculiar inability to tell censor from censure. Stavgard added a link to stavgard.com which self-identifies him as Sören Gannholm resident on Gotland. (the grinding grooves have been lively debated here on Gotland.) This location and the timestamp pretty much rule out the possibility that User:Archaeoa is a meatpuppet. Archaeoa's user page was written by Stavgard. Bazj (talk) 07:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

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


 * We're probably dealing with a team effort by the brothers Tore and Sören Gannholm, who reside in the same zip code area on Gotland according to birthday.se. Stavgard admits to being Tore. Archaeoa, who identifies as a "group", is most likely Tore + Sören. During the same period as Stavgard has been edit warring about the grooves on English Wikipedia, user Ammunden (who admits to being Sören) has run a similar campaign on Swedish Wikipedia. In 1993, Sören self-published a book whose title translates to "The grinding grooves of Gotland: Stone Age calendars". The whole thing goes back to their father K. Erland who self-published a book on the same subject already in 1974. The Gannholms are a local patriot amateur scholar dynasty. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 09:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * These are grave undfounded accusations. As far as I know Sören Gannholm has no account on English Wikipedia. He writes in Swedish and to my knowledge he has only been on the Swedish Wikipedia.
 * Why do you think I am alone? We nowadays use SKYPE for our discussions and have during the last few weeks worked this out together in order to get a balanced article. There are many more valuable references we could enter, but the article would be too clumsy.
 * We all in the group have the same information on our SKYPE chat. You say the rest of the group can't register and have their own signature and defend our improvements of the article. We will then be accused of Socketpuppetry????


 * Our biggest problem is our opponent that deletes our necessary references in order to have a balanced article. :Stavgard (talk) 09:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I can confirm that the explanation of the situation by Mrund is basically correct. I have no idea if "Archaeoa" is both brothers together, though, it may very well just be Stavgard that is doing this. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Martin, you are as much an amateur in this than anybody else. And I don't know if you are working alone or you have somebody else. Your problem is that you can't accept legitimate references. The group includes professors in Stockholm and Uppsala and they are not too pleased with your actions. I have asked more in the group to register and defend our case.


 * Sören Gannholm is not involved in the English Wikipedia. He is a very learned scholar and it is insulting to call him amateur. One of his teachers with whom he worked close with was Roslund at the University of Gothenburg.


 * You wrote the following:


 * You are, as usual, correct. We, The Swedish Branch of the Holy Order of Illuminati, are dead set to make sure the truth about the ancient calendars on Gotland will never reach the public eyes. We have more power than you can imagine. Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated. Don't forget to put on your aluminum foil hat. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This comment from you speaks for it self.
 * Stavgard (talk) 10:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Even after being notified that the second account is not allowed, he continues to use it:, . --OpenFuture (talk) 12:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's clear from the edit history that Stavgard actually wrote the user page for Archaeoa, and Stavgard makes it clear on his own talk page (and elsewhere) that the Archaeoa account is a 'joint account' representing himself and (he asserts) a number of other archaeologists. Stavgard is aware that sockpuppetry is not allowed (having accused others of it) and I have linked the policy for meatpuppetry for him too. I suspect this is fundamentally a matter of competence rather than a more typical sockpuppet situation; but perhaps if the latter is dealt with first we can get back to the former via WP:AN or a similar venue. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  14:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It may be, as you say, an atypical case, but it IS nonetheless sockpuppetry. I know I'd give short shrift to anybody who rang up at 7am local time asking me to create an account on a website and weigh in on their side of an argument. Maybe the account is for a group, but the hands on the keyboard are Stavgard's.
 * He's been on enwiki for over 2 years. If it's ignorance or competence it isn't innocent, this is culpable ignorance. Bazj (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It is much easier to copy and paste. We all have the same writing on Skype when it is once written. After that when we have agreed on wording we just copy and paste. Of course you will get the same wording in more than one place if more than one person uses the text.


 * Stavgard (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know that there's much more any of us can or needs to say on this; the facts have been set out and discussing them between us isn't going to change them. One final piece of the jigsaw might be helpful; this question to the person editing as Stavgard. You have identified yourself in your own edits as Tore Gannholm and you presumably set up the Stavgard account and have possession of the password for that username, enabling you (Tore) to log in and edit as Stavgard. Do you also have possession of the password for the second account known as Archaeoa - regardless of whether you see this as a personal/individual account or a group account? In other words, does the one human editor have access to two different WP accounts or not? It would be helpful (though not essential) to know whether or not this is the case. As I say, apart from that missing detail I'm not sure there's much more to say here. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  18:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - There is potential for a CU to be involved if we have people sharing accounts, but I see 4 diffs and a lot of accusations, please give more diffs explaining the connection between the two. The editors go back several years, and we can't go through all of them and make your case for you. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  15:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The Stavgard user does go back a couple of years, but didn't become active before February. The Archaeoa user was created just days ago.
 * Archaeoa claims to be a group of academics. Stavgard has admitted to being a part of the supposed Archaeoa group (it is otherwise unheard of) despite not being an academic. The Archaeoa user page was created by Stavgard. The Archaeoa user makes the same language mistakes as Stavgard, in particular his writing of "censure" instead of "censor", compare Archaeoa  and Stavgard . Stavgards explanations are that the members of the group (which the other members are supposed to be is unknown) discuss what to write on chats/emails before. If this is true (which I doubt) this would be dangerously close to meatpuppeteering which isn't allowed either.


 * POV: I really don't see how Checkuser is needed or useful here. This is an obvious case of sockpuppeteering where the Sockpuppeteer more or less has admitted to it. The Archaeoa user should be banned, not just because it's a sockpuppet, but also because group accounts are not allowed in the first place.
 * However, we need to be able to see this from Stavgards point of view. It is for him unthinkable that he could be wrong. As a result he is in fact convinced (despute evidence to the contrary) that every one that argues against him are Mrund's sockpuppets, because obviously there is no possibility that several independent people would disagree with him, they must therefore all be Mrund with different accounts, in his world view. He has been blocked for accusations to this effect and as a result he then thinks it is OK to make sockpuppets, because Mrund does so, but not OK to accuse somebody of it. He then naturally created another account, thinking that anyone who claimed he was creating multiple accounts would be blocked. I think that by now he realized that this is not how it works. I think Stavgard has learnt his lesson, and I honestly doubt that he will create more sockpuppets. Therefore all that is needed is to ban the Archaeoa sockpuppet, IMO. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Checkuser shows that the two accounts are ✅. That said, neither of them share a similar useragent, making it likely that each account is operated from a different computer. So, the idea that it could be brothers/co-workers/roommates/what have you, is plausible. Tiptoety  talk 04:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * We know who this person is, he is perfectly open with that. He is born in 1940, and I think blaming it on co-workers, roommates or even his brother is a less likely explanation than that he is using two different browsers for the different accounts. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Stavgard blocked for 1 week for obvious socking at Grooves (archaeology), and Archaeoa indeffed as a sock AGK  [•] 20:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * All blocked and tagged AGK  [•] 20:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)