Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tgeairn/Archive

06 March 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

New account created and used only in the past 24 hours. Complete edit history, prior to being blocked is seen here. It's first substantial edit, in which it appears to "thank" me for bringing the discussion of Landmark as a cult, is to be found here. While that is not perhaps damning, the next edit, here, is. In it the editor seems to be indicating that an "e-mail" it had received (let's ignore the fact that you can't e-mail an IP, which it said with it's first edit it was) indicated it needed an account, indicating I had sent such an e-mail. I of course have not. This gives an indication of possible attempts at, well, character assassination for bringing to ANI. Later edits, here and here add Landmark. Interestingly, the later article is not really the most visible and Tgeairn was as can be seen the last person to edit it, making it not unreasonable to think it a bit of a priority for him. The sock completely jumps the shark here, giving the rather amusing plural to the term to apparently indicate someone else (me, presumably) was working with him. I notified Drmies of my concerns about this sock shorty thereafter here and HJmitchell here. Amsuingly, in the same minute as the second message to HJMitchell, the sock then tried to cover its tracks, reverting a section title I had added, possibly thinking to hide the edits involved, to my talk page here, to presumably try to make me look guilty. In the interime Tgeairn appears to notice my comment to HJMitchell here. The sock's next edit here indicates support of Rick Ross's prior work at the Landmark talk page, perhaps to continue the ruse. Then, probably believing it was not likely to work, Tgeairn reverts the sock at Cult here, which the sock then immediately rereverts here. Some might see that as being a rather obvious attempt to deny identity - I certainly do. With his last and final edit, here, it is amusing to see that the sock now shares Tgeairn's rather pronounced concern with NPA, something Tgeairn has demonstrated repeatedly in his own edits, even though Tgeairn's understanding of it seems extremely weak. It is worth noting that the number of people who were demonstrably editing at the time and who share the aversion to criticism of Landmark the sock demonstrates is rather limited.

I am requesting checkuser even though I cannot in absolute philosophical certainty say I "know" the two to be the same, anymore than I can assert in an absolute sense places I have never visited absolutely existed. But the content is under discretionary sanctions and there is I believe clear evidence that it is the sock of somebody. Tgeairn seems per his edit history and the timing of the sock edits to have been one of the few editors sharing the apparent beliefs of the sock at the time, shares some of the same personal concerns, such as an excessive concern for and I believe mistaken understanding of NPA, and the rather remarkable similar interest in the List of new religious movements, which is, frankly, not one of the first articles would think but which Tgeairn has been actively editing which would presumably make it one of the first of which he would think. John Carter (talk) 23:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Response to Tgeairn, First, I notice the explicit refusal to accept the possibility of even the basic honesty of others as per [{WP:AGF]] and failure to make even a basic attempt to understand the amount of time such filings as this can take, all of which, under the circumstances, could not unreasonably be seen as itself being a form of rather poorly supported personal attacks as per WP:NPA I had clearly and rather explicitly stated on the ANI thread that I had started the preparation of this document before I got the ping. I had also seen the comment on HJMitchell's talk page in which he had pinged, who in the last AE regarding Tgeairn indicated that he had reviewed this already, and said that he had seen evidence of both WP:COI concerns and using apparently nonproblematic IP socks here. Also, in all honesty, despite really amazing presumptuous comments from Tgeairn to the opposite, I think it might be worth noting that, as my record as an admin indicates and as I said in the RfA, I wanted to be an admin to edit protected templates, and that was, honestly, pretty much the only thing I did as an admin. That being the case, the assumption that "I know very well how to." while somewhat true (I remember having read the rules I think), also makes implicit, rather obnoxious and somewhat laughable ones that every admin automatically is competent in every area of adminship, a view I think most past and present admins would find extremely laughable. I was, reasonably, waiting for Callanecc to respond there, and, honestly, my comments made on the various talk pages, all more or less in response to comments by others, were made in the assumption that Callanecc would review those as well. It is I believe although worth noting the rather I believe well-documented evidence there and elsewhere of WP:CIR problems regarding the above editor, despite his rather strident denial of both here. Under the circumstances, I am more inclined to trust a clearly competent administrator, Checkuser, and arbitration clerk than a questionably competent editor with what I believe several editors have perceived as having a reasonable POV problem.


 * In short, I believe that the apparent request below that this request be basically prejudged without consideration as a form of personal attack raises very serious questions, at least in my eyes, whether the individual who made those accusations might perceive himself with as it were, his back against the wall, and start striking out in any way possible to prevent the possibly otherwise inevitable result that they wouldn't like arising. John Carter (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is of course also worth noting that the previous sockpuppeting by Tgeairn Astynax adds below raises causes Tgeairn's own claims to have never used IP sockpuppets referenced above to be even more questionable. John Carter (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Regretably, we only have your word that you have never edited logged out, and, well, considering that there seem to be questions regarding the accuracy of other statements you have made, it is not unreasonable to allow independent checkusers to verify if those statements are necessarily accurate. John Carter (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have also raised some I think reasonable concerns which might be relevant to this particular circumstance on the talk page here. They almost certainly do not necessarily qualify as evidence per se, but I think it may well be reasonable to consider the matters they raise and how they might be relevant to this particular matter. John Carter (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

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

It should be noted that the editing domain here is subject to Discretionary Sanctions, and reviewers of this filing should take those increased expectations into account in any decisions here.
 * Statement by Tgeairn


 * This filing was made after I requested a block of the filer at ANI for repeated personal attacks and accusations.


 * Per "Defending yourself against claims", this filing is a bad-faith attack intended to chill discussion and influence DR mechanisms. The filer has made bad-faith accusations of puppetry in at least six different locations prior to coming here, despite having been told repeatedly and by multiple admins to focus on content and not contributors.  The filer has also made a number of other personal attacks at a number of venues.  Ample evidence of the filer's aggressive behaviour and proclivity for bad-faith accusations may be found throughout their edit history, and I see no need to defend myself further here.


 * Given the active DS ruling in this topic area, I do request that the reviewing admins and/or checkusers take action on this bad-faith attack. Thank you, Tgeairn (talk) 03:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * - you are both falsely representing what a functionary (, for those interested) said. I have never edited logged out, and I have never edited with any other account.  No one with any authority to say so has ever said differently, and this was just reviewed at AE this week.  Again, stop with the harassment and attacks.  --Tgeairn (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are correct. It is completely reasonable for checkusers to investigate where there is evidence of wrongdoing.  It is completely unreasonable for you and Astynax to misrepresent what Callanecc said and make it sound like anyone has said that I participated in socking in any way.  No admin or checkuser or functionary has said that, none could rightfully say that, and none will say that.  You, however, say above "the previous sockpuppeting by Tgeairn" and Astynax says below "a functionary has stated off-Wikipedia that this incident represents socking".  Both of these statements appear to be saying that I have socked or been found to sock.  That is completely false. --Tgeairn (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for providing a clear and thorough finding, as well as the useful note for any future checkusers. --Tgeairn (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * For the closing clerks and/or admins, as I noted above, this case is a clear example of an editor making a fake case for an "attack" and promulgating that attack in a variety of other locations. Given this completely unsubstantiated attack, the history of the editor making the report, the editors piling on additional bad-faith (and false) statements, and the existence of Discretionary Sanctions in the areas they and I edit in common, I request that closers seriously consider the imposition of additional sanctions. --Tgeairn (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * - I would have thought 's CU comments were clear. The IPs listed are absolutely not my IP, and the edits are absolutely not mine either. Please explain your statement in light of Risker's findings.  Thank you, Tgeairn (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It would be useful to add the following sequence to this request, as a functionary has stated off-Wikipedia that this incident represents socking: This incident has previously only been reported to functionaries as part of a COI finding request, but should likely also be here as socking is disruptive. &bull; Astynax talk 22:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Statement by Astynax
 * 08:20, 30 January 2015‎‎ Theobald Tiger restores material representing massive blanking over the previous hours by editors Tgeairn and MLKLewis
 * 08:35, 30 January 2015‎ Tgeairn reverts
 * 09:39, 30 January 2015‎ Theobald Tiger undoes the reversion
 * 16:10, 30 January 2015‎ 173.161.39.97 reverts to Tgeairn's last version (after which Tgeairn continues to delete material in 6 of the next 7 edits)
 * 18:42, 30 January 2015‎ Astynax reverts to the version Theobald Tiger restored
 * 19:00, 30 January 2015‎‎ 173.161.39.97 reverts to Tgeairn's last version
 * 19:05, 30 January 2015‎ IronGargoyle undoes the reversion by 173.161.39.97
 * 19:15, 30 January 2015‎ 173.161.39.97 reverts to Tgeairn's last version
 * 19:35, 30 January 2015‎ Legacypac undoes the reversion by 173.161.39.97
 * 19:48, 30 January 2015‎ 173.161.39.97 reverts to Tgeairn's last version, and is subsequently blocked for 36hrs for 3RR
 * 22:03, 30 January 2015 173.161.39.97, in an attempt to get the block lifted, disingenuously adds a red herring reference to Tgeairn in listing those accused of having added "falsehoods" to the page (on the contrary, Tgeairn was the only person to blank the material to which the IP objected and had blanked further information rather than added anything)


 * Statement by Manul


 * Callanecc has said through email that it is "obvious" that Tgeairn used IP sockpuppet, citing a few diffs from Astynax's list as an example. Though I can't imagine Callanecc denying this, I will send the email with full headers to another functionary for verification, if needed. (Elsewhere HJ apparently indicated that mentioning Callanecc's conclusion is an aspersion. I don't agree. Callanecc based his conclusion upon evidence; that's not an aspersion.)


 * There is evidence that further confirms Tgeairn using socks and, allowing the Tgeairn account to avoid a 3RR violation. This is not CU evidence. A functionary may contact me or Callanecc for more information. (Elsewhere HJ apparently indicated that only arbcom may handle such evidence, but Callanecc disagrees, saying that functionaries may as well. Note that AN thread is unrelated to this case.)


 * Regardless of whether JoltAsResearch is a sock of Tgeairn or not, I would add an additional reason to run checkuser on JoltAsResearch. From the account's creation, JoltAsResearch was engaging in obvious WP:BADHAND (or strawman) activity over the course of an hour. Then after three hours of inactivity the last edit is made, revealing a completely different position and personality. Before it was histrionic over-the-top camaraderie with John Carter (e.g. ), then in the last edit John Carter is suddenly an enemy. Also in the last edit we have the comment "I have been involved in the Soka Gakkai material for some time now", but the account was brand new. In the intervening three hours the person appears to have simply forgotten being logged into the bad hand account.

Manul ~ talk 03:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

, would you mind clarifying your remark " It is likely that geolocation of the underlying IP addresses is inaccurate" - do you mean that the IPs had possibly been 'spoofed' in some way to give the impression that the edits had been made in a different geographical location from where they actually were? Thanks. DaveApter (talk) 09:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Question from DaveApter
 * Thank you, I was just trying to understand what that meant, and this is now clear. Sorry to have taken up your time. DaveApter (talk) 11:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * To clear up a few things: I warned John and Astynax to stop making the socking allegations (and casting aspersions generally) unless it was in an SPI. JoltAsResearch is clearly somebody's sockpuppet (and I blocked them as such), so SPI is in order, and checkuser would be useful. John has a good-faith suspicion that the account belongs to Tgeairn, so I don't have a problem with him expressing his concerns in the proper forum. Personally, I doubt JAS belongs to Tgeairn, but it's not beyond the realms of possibility. As for the IPs, I don't believe they were ever conclusively linked to Tgeairn; checkusers almost never confirm a connection between an account and an IP address (because it's possible to identify a person, or at least uncover a lot of information about them from lookups on the address); in my own email conversation with, he suggested that the most likely explanation was that the IP was Tgeairn logged out, but that the evidence wasn't conclusive, so let's not discuss suspicions as tough they're proven fact. The rest is up to the CUs.  HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And to make it specific, up to now there have been no CU checks on Tgeairn. Dougweller (talk) 10:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * All parties, please cease the back-and-forth discussion. Unless you are presenting evidence regarding abuse of multiple accounts by Tgeairn or JoltAasResearch, please do not comment further until and unless we get a determination from a checkuser as to whether or not the two accounts are related. If COI issues are being investigated elsewhere, please stop bringing them up in fora that can't resolve them. Discretionary sanctions are in force, and editors who disrupt this SPI may find themselves blocked or restricted. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  11:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Checkuser comments: The following accounts are ❌ - no technical similarity. It is likely that geolocation of the underlying IP addresses is inaccurate (noting for future checkusers).
 * Noting as well that there were no indications of any other socks related to either account.  Risker (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Noting as well that there were no indications of any other socks related to either account.  Risker (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Noting as well that there were no indications of any other socks related to either account.  Risker (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

*I've looked over the diffs provided above and I do feel confident that it was Tgeairn editing while logged out. However, it's been close to 2 months since that occurred, so a block wouldn't be right in this situation. I've issued a warning to Tgeairn noting that further sockpuppetry/editing while logged out will lead to a block. Mike V • Talk 22:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Checkuser commment: I've been asked to clarify about the IP address mentioned in this SPI.  At the time that the IP edited, there was no active registered account associated with that IP address.  While I do not normally comment very much about IP addresses, in this case I will note that it is not Tgeairn's IP.  Risker (talk) 22:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your note. I've retracted the warning. Mike V • Talk 22:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * , I mean nothing of the sort and I don't understand why you would have thought it a possibility. Some ISPs provide fairly accurate geolocation; others geolocate to their major service locations or head offices, regardless of where the user is from; still others are completely unreliable in their geolocation. It's a message for other checkusers to be aware of this, particularly as we have at least one other fairly new checkuser observing this case.  It seems pretty obvious to me that there are serious concerns about the editing of one if not both of these accounts. Problem editing is problem editing, and should be addressed as such. Sockpuppetry does not appear to be a factor in this particular case (and checkuser won't tell anyone anything about other behavioural issues like meatpuppetry or co-ordinated editing), so focus on the actual problems here.  Risker (talk) 11:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)