Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Viapastrengo/Archive

14 March 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Registered user and multiple IPs making similar arguments at Articles for deletion/Whirling. All accounts have edits on Whirling or other Middle-Eastern dance topics. Activity on IP addresses coincides with recent period of activity of Viapastrengo. Viapastrengo also has a history of edits to Memphis-related topics, which is the location of 38.29.152.83 and 128.177.108.246. 188.155.91.39 is in Switzerland and may be a proxy or meatpuppet. Ibadibam (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Adding 195.226.4.124, which is also in Switzerland and on the discussion page. Ibadibam (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Adding 71.67.107.138, inactive IP associated with Viapastrengo. Like most of these IP edits, edits made from 71.67.107.138 do not appear abusive. The only abuse is at Articles for deletion/Whirling. Ibadibam (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Removing the Swiss IPs, as they don't appear to be directly associated with Viapastrengo. However, given that these are located in Zurich, and several of the performers discussed in whirling are based in Zurich, it is possible that these IPs are one or more conflict-of-interest editors, recruited to the discussion. Ibadibam (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry at deletion discussion:
 * Evidence

IPs editing in same timespan as Viapastrengo:
 * Special:Contributions/Viapastrengo, recent period of activity begins 10 March.
 * Special:Contributions/38.29.152.83: first edits two minutes before, on 10 March
 * Special:Contributions/128.177.108.246: first edit was, a page created by Viapastrengo and also edited by 71.67.107.138.
 * Special:Contributions/188.155.91.39: sole edits are related to deletion discussion
 * Special:Contributions/195.226.4.124: sole edit is a comment by 188.155.91.39
 * Earlier case: Special:Contributions/71.67.107.138: In 2011, this IP edited at the same time as Viapastrengo, such as immediately after Viapastrengo,

All edits by 38.29.152.83 are to pages created by Viapastrengo, or creating links to such pages: Ibadibam (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Links to Steven J. Mulroy (also note per revision history that Viapastrengo and 38.29.152.83 are the sole content contributors)
 * Links to Whirling (also note per revision history that Viapastrengo, 38.29.152.83 and 128.177.108.246 are the sole content contributors)
 * Links to Whirling (also note per revision history that Viapastrengo, 38.29.152.83 and 128.177.108.246 are the sole content contributors)
 * Links to Whirling (also note per revision history that Viapastrengo, 38.29.152.83 and 128.177.108.246 are the sole content contributors)
 * Links to Whirling (also note per revision history that Viapastrengo, 38.29.152.83 and 128.177.108.246 are the sole content contributors)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Comment as reporter - I did not see the note buried at Template:Sockpuppet explaining who is supposed to template accused users until I had already applied Uw-socksuspect to the user pages in this investigation. My apologies for not leaving this task to an administrator. Ibadibam (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Defense as contributor. I am a professor at a large US research university, and a committed Wikipedian going on ten+ years of very heavy editing, contributions, and so forth, both from this account, and various IPs when unable to log in.  I spread word regarding my contributions widely, and this sometimes spurs immediate allied contributions to the pages in question, and others, by my colleagues and affiliates in the academic settings.  I propagandize WP to my students and encourage all, young and old, to become active contributors.  That's kind of the point of WP.  The sockpuppetry accusations are very troubling, given their chilling effect in this context.  The circumstantial checkuser evidence shows that there are multiple edits being made from more or less similar geoWhoIs coordinates; however, the analysis notes, but fails to fully wrestle with the fact that the edits appear to be coming from a university IP address or IP addresses related to a university.  Given the ubiquity of proxies, if there really was an attempt to sockpuppet, don't you think the "tracks" would have been hidden a wee bit better.  C'mon!  The same response goes to meatpuppetry.  Really!?  On a topic as relatively uncontroversial as this, does anyone really think that there is a need to puppet this little beast.  A Murphy's Law explanation is actually far more convincing here, which, incidentally, falls squarely in line with the observed reality of the situation and checkuser data:  a notable topic was discovered, written up and wikified by an experienced wikipedian.  The page, like any other, was then broadcast to potential interested parties with an encouragement to cite-check, expand, further link, translate, source, and so on.  The English-language page was then immediately translated into German, and expanded, sourced, wikified, and so on, and the effort continues globally.  If anyone is going to checkUser on this point, why don't you go ahead and check usage and see where visitors are coming from and what they're doing to the page.  The problem with the whirling article discussion from the beginning, and what contributed to this mess, was an AfD nomination with a highly spurious set of related baggage, evident in bumps to unlikely and totally inappropriate places like "list of Islam-related deletion discussions."  I initially let it slide with the hope of making the substantive edits and encouraged affiliates to focus on substance, rather than delve into the netherworlds of impugning ill-will or motive to other contribs/editors/admins.  At this point, I can't help but suspect some sort of implicit bias on the part of Ibadibam towards either the topic that triggered this discussion--Whirling dance as distinguished from particular types of religious movement techniques like Sufi spinning--and highly doubt his/her partiality.  Attempts to repackage a substantive or notability dispute into a sockpuppetry offense, when all the checkuser evidence pointed to edits originating from an academic institution (with the corollary being that there are multiple good faith contributors working from within the same geographic or IP space) are simply disingenuous. Viapastrengo (talk) 18:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The unblocked IPs are stale. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)