Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Summerfine/Archive

Evidence submitted by Evergreen Wakita
On May 7, 2010, a brand new account, User:Pourous, began immediately editing the article Smile Train, seeking to defame that organization's co-founder. Pourous' edits included conjecture not supported by sources. Example 1: "the reputation of Smile Train has been tarnished by the theatrics of founder Mullaney, in his repeated attempts to attack and besmirch the original cleft palate charity, Operation Smile"; and note the deliberately misleading edit summary. Example 2: changing a section heading from "Richmond Times" to "Mullaney's Attacks on Former Employer". Pourous clearly had an agenda with the Smile Train article, and immediately after joining Wikipedia went into POV attack mode.

About 15 hours later, User:842U came to the Smile Train article to apply a very light touch, "reverted to less inflammatory title", while leaving 95% of the other inflammatory and unsubstantiated claims in place. 842U also has a history of packing the article with information about the Richmond Times.

While this may seem unusual to request an investigation after only one possible case of collusion, I feel that considering the damaging content additions that were attempted by Pourous (including falsified edit summaries), followed by such a light clean-up effort by established user 842U (who also bears a similar interest in emphasizing the uneasy relationship between Smile Train and Operation Smile, and also "tagged up" with Pourous on the Operation Smile article), it warrants an investigation.

If socking is proven here, I would recommend at a minimum a topic ban for these two editors on both the Smile Train and Operation Smile articles. If no collusion is proven, I still think a stern warning is due to each editor, that shoehorning unsubstantiated defamatory conjecture into these articles will not be tolerated.

Indeed, we can see that 842U has a long and repeated history with sockpuppeting, and there was a promise to cease. If socking is proven again here, how many "second chances" do we offer?

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

I actually don't have a "long history" of sockpuppetry. I'm very up front about the fact that I once sockpuppeted -- as in, several years ago. In an effort to be transparent about it, I made an open declaration that I had once sockpuppeted on my user page. But I gave up sockpuppetry then, and have not participated in it since. It's wrong, doesn't work, etc.

I'm not sure what to make of the "light edit" and "packing the article" accusations. I originally wrote the Richmond Times section, however, using full references -- and I'm not exactly sure if the "Richmond Times" incident is in and of itself "good" or "bad" for Smile Train -- but when I did note that Porous had pretty much inclined that section against Mullaney -- I reverted it, with what I thought was a pretty open reasoning -- also inviting discussion. And I have no bias about either of the two organizations, having included what I consider both positive and negative comments in each.

For the record, I'm not user Porous. 842U (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Evergreen Wakita (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything else that shows that 842U is also trying to defame Smile Train's co-founder besides not removing content? –MuZemike 15:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There is this effort to "reduce puffery" which removed favorable claims about Smile Train and about Mullaney, all of which were cited back to independent sources. There is also this edit which "tones down" the fact that Smile Train was responsible for the life-changing surgery that was documented in an Academy Award-winning film.  And here is removed the fact that other co-founder Wang contributed $10 million of his own money to the cause.  And 842U introduced an entire section drawing what could be construed as undue emphasis to a single advertisement placement in a single local newspaper, but that admittedly may not be as strong a point of evidence. Evergreen Wakita (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

–MuZemike 01:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

✅ =

appears to be related. J.delanoy gabs adds 04:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Pourous and related socks blocked (not by me). 842U remains unblocked, as I don't see enough evidence to support the sock claim, which CU seems to support. Marking as closed. TN X Man  17:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * please note that this was originally opened at Sockpuppet investigations/842U SpitfireTally-ho! 17:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)