Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Swiss Mister in NY

Suspected sockpuppets
Emmanuel Lemelson has had a continuous stream of tenaciously promotional editors, over the past decade or so. See Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive355 and Sockpuppet investigations/MiamiDolphins3/Archive for examples, there are other threads. Swiss Mister in NY, and DownEastLaw, are two recent editors. The behavior of these two accounts and that of a recent arrival User:Wickster12345 appear similar. To quote User:Smalljim:
 * what is notable is their sequential nature: one stops editing, there's a gap and another starts. There has never been any overlap in their editing and none of them has ever communicated in-Wiki with any other. How unlikely is that? It could be explained as either one person carefully socking, or another organised sock farm with different people taking on the task. However, as GreenC has noted, there are definite similarities in the writing style of all these accounts. It seems to me that there is clearly some intelligence and much persistence behind this ten-year exercise, with an increasing awareness of the need to disguise behaviour – don't edit war, be polite, make edits to other articles, etc.

Note: The IPs listed above were noted by User:Smalljim as being COI between Sep '20 to Jan '23 and are included here for the record, none are currently active.

Most recent evidence: Emmanuel Lemelson (the person) is currently in a dispute with a school that his children attend, TASIS Switzerland. He wrote a public letter to the school Source alleging "woke" ideology. Lemelson's children are not invited to return next year, due to Lemelson's anti-"woke" campaign against the school.Source. User:Wickster12345 then made many edits about TASIS Switzerland, in which they emphasized some negative but factual information about the school's accreditation status. An IP reverted Wickster and claimed Wickster had a COI Special:Diff/1231047721/1231133171, but the IP never returned to explain the accusation. This was happening around the same time Lemelson was engaged in the fight with the school. Wickster12345 has now proposed making edits to the Lemelson article, that are generally aligned with previous accounts Swiss Mister and DownEastLaw.

In addition, Swiss Mister, Wickster12345, and Lemelson (the person) are fluent German Speakers. Also Swiss Mister, Wickster12345 both translate dewiki articles into enwiki articles. They also edit similar types of articles, political organizations, and corporate topics. Swiss Mister and DownEastLaw have edited other articles related to Lemelson.

The accounts will forcefully deny being socks, and/or accuse myself and User:Smalljim of being in a conspiracy. Concerns about Lemelson were first raised in 2013, when the article was created by the Wiki-PR sock farm: Sockpuppet_investigations/Morning277/Archive Green  C  01:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * This is simply not correct. If you actually analyzed them closely, my edits regarding TASIS Switzerland have consisted of addressing and reverting negative edits by this anonymous IP editor who has been reverting anything remotely resembling positive coverage of TASIS and additionally I have added citations to unsupported statements on the article. There has been no negative editing of TASIS articles on my behalf. I have no affiliation with either TASIS or Lemelson, that's it.  Wickster12345 (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Per protocol, please do not edit this section, use the "Comments by other users" section. -- Green  C  01:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Some additional things I have concerns with:
 * Within hours of this SPI creation, Wickster12345 filled out a user page; it was previously a red link. This is not necessarily a bad thing but is another potential red flag.
 * The first edits by Wikster12345 are not typical of a new user, such as the creation of the article AHL participation at the Spengler Cup; it demonstrates intermediate to advanced knowledge of Wikipedia methods and systems, in their 5th edit. The odds of this being a first account are very low. It doesn't equate to sock, but is another red flag.
 * Every previous non-IP sock has shown knowledge or interest in legal matters. Maybe Lemelson attracts legal-minded people or maybe it's coincidence, but is another potential red flag.
 * Every previous sock has engaged in denial of being a sock sometimes to the point of absurdity (GASLIGHT), including attempts to boomerang, with claims that I and others are the problem. I don't take this seriously but it is a recurring pattern. Of course putting up a defense in a SPI is expected.
 * Lemelson was formerly a priest in the same remote town of Switzerland where TASIS is located, the overlap between Lemelson and this school and Wickster12345 is striking.
 * Lemelson is/was Jewish (unusually for a Catholic priest) and Wickster12345 has edited on topics related to Jews in Switzerland. Potential red flag in connection with the others.

With all this said, I am willing to abort this SPI, based on Wickster12345's replies below. I am still concerned, there are a lot of overlapping topics for one editor, but willing to give Wickster12345 more time to demonstrate what kinds of edits they propose for the Lemelson article and see how they respond to discourse on the talk page there. If an SPI admin or other edits have comments please go ahead. -- Green  C  01:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I genuinely note that with appreciation and will explore ways to constructively continue the discussion on the Lemelson talk page and make sure any direct alterations to Lemelson's page are approved by consensus or are otherwise non-promotional in tone or content and NPOV.
 * I don't think, at this time, it is useful to go point-by-point as to the perceived similarities with Lemelson and myself you listed because a pre-eliminary withdrawal of this case is the outcome, for which I am grateful.
 * However, I went back and forth about whether I should write the following regarding one of the key perceived similarities between him and me, and concluded I should make a statement:
 * There is one point I wanted to address though, happy to elaborate in case you're curious, and that is the point about Lemelson being a past priest in Switzerland and the perceived overlap with my posting behavior. Like I said before, I know people (I guess one could say 'in the 2nd degree') who have a TASIS affiliation and of course, word got around in that community that Lemelson was initiating conflict on the basis of disagreeing with TASIS on something (initially sex-ed, but he semi-manically took his disagreement in a bunch of disparate directions), and they told me about this, which made me very curious about him so I googled him and saw his many online comments-(In using this word am trying to be NPOV in how I describe his writings, bear with me) about TASIS and his initiated conflict with the board and headmaster. From the limited amount I have read, I have already developed personal opinions about his campaign: I personally think he writes in a way that seems he gets his 'jollies' this way, because his (in my opinion) grandiose appeals to higher authorities (Supreme court etc) re: the SEC case have all been rightfully dismissed.
 * Bottom line: I have zero Pro-Lemelson bias (I generally try not to really have any biases, I just go by what the secondary sources say) and just wanted to add some up-to-date specifics and color to the Lemelson Wikipedia article about his documented conduct (what did he exactly do eg. manipulate documents, censor critical reviews of himself, engage in fake distorted analysis etc.) for which he was held responsible by the SEC.
 * PS. I also happen to have Swiss Catholic patrilineal heritage (My maternal heritage is a mixture of German protestant and German-Jewish) and German is one of the languages I speak very well (not exactly very useful compared to Spanish, which I also speak, in the Bay Area but you get my drift) so that is why I cover Swiss WWII and Swiss Jewish topics a lot, although I feel much more personal affinity with the Swiss "side" of the debate than the side of the critics of Switzerland's conduct, secondary sources permitting.
 * Best, Wickster12345 (talk) 20:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

This is simply not in accordance with the facts. If you actually analyzed them closely, my edits regarding TASIS Switzerland have consisted of addressing and reverting negative edits by this anonymous IP editor (who keeps changing his or her IP address) who has been reverting anything remotely resembling positive coverage of TASIS and additionally I have added citations to unsupported statements on the article. There has been zero negative editing of TASIS articles on my behalf. I have no affiliation with either TASIS or Lemelson, that's it. In other words: please provide evidence that I have made any negative edits of TASIS Switzerland because your argument seems to rest on that. I have my own suspicions as to why I'm being bullied and accused of being a sockpuppet without any concrete evidence (Besides the obvious fact I speak German and have an interest in Switzerland) but I actually believe in having evidence to back up claims before making aggressive assertions so I will desist from doing so. Wickster12345 (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC) Wickster12345 (talk) 02:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * PS. Furthermore Swiss Mister in NY has not edited any diabetes or continuous glucose monitoring related articles, (eg. noninvasive glucose monitoring which I have been very active in editing. If you look closely he and I, besides sometimes focusing on Swiss-related articles, have completely different editing interests and writing styles. Wickster12345 (talk) 02:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I just want to stress one more time that the COI (relating to TASIS Switzerland) that I was alleged to have was IN FAVOR of the article subject (after this edit where the anonymous IP editor suggested I was promoting the school by adding links to sources calling TASIS Switzerland prestigious) not AGAINST as would be Lemelson's expected interest.
 * Furthermore, I entered the discussion on the Lemelson talk page because a few days ago I asked an acquaintance who works in international school education in Switzerland about TASIS Switzerland and she told me about the Lemelson-TASIS dispute. So I googled him. Having worked in an externally reporting role at a startup company, and having been a researcher at a U.S. Law School before (administrators can see the alumni email of the school I use as my Wikipedia account email after all), I am very with familiar with Wall Street reporting rules regarding investor fraud and U.S. Supreme Court precedent and wanted to share my perspective. If you look closely at Lemelson's page I added coverage citations of Lemelson that are neutral (about his newest mediocre-performing fund) to negative (expounding on his conflict with his Vermont neighbours). I merely objected to the lack of depth of coverage on Lemelson's troubles not to the tone and position that was taken. Wickster12345 (talk) 03:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Final thing to consider: BAD FAITH INTENT I feel the complainant is themselves affiliated with Lemelson and is using this as a distraction maneuver to block criticism of both Lemelson and prevent removal of bad faith  criticisms of TASIS. If one looks at the Lemelson talk page it is the complainant who always takes Lemelson’s side in any discussion about editing the article. [/Wickster12345 (talk) 06:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I live in California not in New York, my IP addresses should show that to admins. I have edited the article on TASIS Switzerland in ways that are completely different(diametrically opposed) to what has been alleged here. If you deem me a sock puppet you are neglecting this crucial piece of evidence  Wickster12345 (talk) 16:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Furthermore I take issues with user:Bishonen stating that just because I angrily made an accusation against the initial user who alleged that I’m a sockpuppet and then using as the main basis to conclude that I am a sockpuppet without actually commenting on my TASIS Switzerland edits, which were more in favor of the article subject, thereby deviating from Lemelson’s official line.Furthermore, how do you explain zero overlap with the other sock puppets? What truly was I suggesting on the Lemelson talk page? Was it pro-Lemelson stuff, or was it actually more nuanced than that in that I suggested bringing up to date and maybe adding 1-2 sentences more about his SEC court case (sentences that would NOT portray him in a flattering light).  How will admins handle this? Will the punish me for being flippant and premature in blaming another user or will they actually focus on the substantive evidence (or lack thereof?)Furthermore, long before all of this controversy, I added a citation to a claim about the article Hamas supporting a statement made in the article that Israel killed more women and children than Hamas terrorists in its response. Just Google Lemelson and the people he surrounds himself with, they are overwhelmingly pro-Israel and conservative (not personally saying there’s anything wrong with that but it’s not me). I have also started a draft article about U.S customs officer misconduct, which no one in Lemelsons circle would even start.
 * I implore you to focus on the evidence as it pertains to this specific allegation, as opposed to looking at past patterns of conduct (“oh he criticized the initial ‘complainant’ he must be guilty” Wickster12345 (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if you've read any of the previous discussions on Talk:Emmanuel Lemelson and its archives, Wickster12345. I'd really appreciate it if you were to at least skim through those pages and then let me know your thoughts about the editing history of that article. —Smalljim 18:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I did look at them. There is obviously some group trying to, over time, relentlessly push a pro-Lemelson narrative. Swear to whomever, I’m not. I’m solely noting that Lemelson activity from 2018ish onwards is not reflected on the article. Second, just because there was discussion in the past doesn’t mean it can’t be reopened. Third, I added a sentence explaining what Lemelson actually did (how is that controversial?) in terms of falsifying newsletters, how is that consistent with a Pro-Lemelson POV? Wickster12345 (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Looking at this situation from a broad perspective, there are many possible ways in which it could play out. May I tentatively suggest that one way that would be favourable for all good faith editors and for Wikipedia itself would be if you could accept that because of the attention that has already been given to Lemelson, the related articles are at least adequately complete in their current state. And agree that it would be a better use of everyone's time - and much greater benefit to the encyclopedia as a whole - if you were to continue to help improve other, less complete, articles instead. Note that I wrote this before I saw your latest post above. Might this still be a way forward? —Smalljim  22:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree at this point in time, a better use of my time would be to edit other articles. of course, You all can rest assured that any edit I would make to Lemelson’s page, in the unlikely event I make any, would be consensus-driven, constructive and NPOV, taking into consideration the advice and feedback of more seasoned editors, such as you folks and of course the talk page will be consulted first. I still have concerns about the Lemelson page (NOT from a Pro-Lemelson perspective) but I’ll put those on ice because there’s many other bigger fish to fry on here.
 * bottom line: After this, I have very little general interest in editing the Lemelson page, as I hope you can understand. Wickster12345 (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes I do understand and I thank you for your appreciation of the problem. It is unfortunate (but inevitable) that there will always be people who come to Wikipedia with intentions other than improving the encyclopedia: their deleterious effects not only affect the articles they edit but the community of editors too. Best, —Smalljim  15:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Wickster12345 is the only one the three accounts that is not for CheckUser purposes, and CheckUser may not be used publicly connect IP addresses to accounts. As such, CheckUser won't tell us anything useful here. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I was on the fence about until I read this post of theirs above, where they suggest the "complainant"  is themselves affiliated with Lemelson and always edits in Lemelson's favor on article talk. That's untrue about GreenC's posts on talk, to put it mildly. I cannot take such a statement in good faith, and am now deeply suspicious of Wickster. The "No, you are" gambit is a classic "tell" for COI editors, though it's not often as blatantly false as this. Bishonen &#124; tålk 11:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC).
 * I’ll happily retract that statement and I apologize for it. I was just so frustrated because this shouldn’t even be a close case, there is ZERO overlap between me and any of the other alleged sock puppets. It’s insanely frustrating to have edited Wikipedia in good faith for years and to then because of a coincidence everything I have ever done is suddenly suspicious. This is just a very unfortunate case of coincidence where I know someone who works at TASIS and by extension got interested in Lemelson. Wickster12345 (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You're not a clerk, CheckUser, or patrolling admin, so please don't post in this section. Bishonen &#124; tålk 17:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC).