Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TonySpraks/Archive

20 January 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * (added --DanielRigal (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC))
 * (added --DanielRigal (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC))
 * (added --DanielRigal (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC))
 * (added --DanielRigal (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC))


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

This is somewhat of a complicated case here and I'll try to summarize it as best as possible. Long story short, there have been some BLP issues surrounding the article for Steve Comisar. From what I can gather, Comisar was trying to use the page to improve his image prior to release. One of the main areas of contention has centered around some small roles he had as an actor, as there's nothing reliable to verify that these roles happened or that they're major enough to include in the article. Given his history as a con artist, we need to have reliable sources to back this up.

At some point several editors involved in the page received multiple unsolicited snail mail letters from Comisar asking to have the info re-added. This is in addition to online messages on Wikipedia and through other avenues, which was seen as harassment by the involved editors. At one point one editor issued threats against these editors.

Since then there have been repeated attempts to add some mention of his acting career to the article and there have been at least two confirmed sockpuppets of TonySpraks, the above listed account and, both of which were blocked by. The common theme seems to be that the editor will go to various pages to request assistance with the article. It is almost certainly guaranteed that these accounts are either Comisar or someone he asked to come to Wikipedia and at one point Comisar lost his Internet privileges at his institution because of his activities on Wikipedia.

I'm also adding the account for Maniamit, as he has engaged in similar activities. To his benefit I will say that I don't necessarily think that he's a sockpuppet of TonySpraks - I actually think that he's likely someone Comisar hired. However since there are so many issues with the page, I'd like to have his account checked just to make sure. You may need to judge this based on behavior grounds, since their activity is extremely similar to the other editors, as their edit history shows that like the blocked accounts, they have a habit of going to multiple pages to seek assistance to get specific edits made to Comisar's article. I've asked them about their COI, but have received no true response. I've posted on their page again with a lengthy explanation of policy and an explicit question as to their affiliation with Comisar.

My main reason for opening this is that I would like to have a check ran to see if there are any other accounts. Given the history of this article, it's extremely prudent to know exactly what's going on here with the editors and if this is Comisar editing from his institution, they may need to be contacted about this to restrict his Internet usage again. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  17:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

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

I don't claim to know exactly what is going on here but I do know that it is as fishy as a fish in fish hell and I'm pretty sure that there is some sock or meat puppetry going on. We have SPAs who only use Wikipedia to lobby and canvass on the perceived behalf of Comisar and do so in pretty much the same way. (I say "perceived" because I don't actually think that he benefits from this. In fact, I think that anybody reviewing his case would quickly discover this behaviour and draw adverse inferences from it. I have sincerely advised him and his friends to reconsider whether they are actually helping him by carrying on like this but it has fallen on deaf ears. They seem so misguided that I actually feel a bit sorry for them all, although I am not sure how many of them there really are.) Maniamit is interesting. The account has been around since 2013 and in all that time they have used Wikipedia pretty much solely to canvas on Comisar's behalf. It sits uneasily with the biography on the user page. which sets out many interests. that they have never thought to edit any article about those subjects. Although I have no evidence, it certainly raises a suspicion of paid editing. The other SPAs are mostly short-term and probably considered disposable. I am genuinely fascinated to know what the checkuser turns up. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh and now we have an IP behaving in the same way on my talk page and others: 205.115.188.114. Added above. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Also being discussed here: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * TonySpraks and PediatricMD are ✅.
 * Curiouskitten777 is.
 * Maniamit is ❌.
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Closing the case.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)