Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/William M. Connolley/Archive

Report date November 7 2009, 21:41 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

I believe that there has been some meatpuppeting on List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.
 * Evidence submitted by ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs)

I should point out that I don't think any particular user is the "master" of this group, as I suspect meatpuppetry, not sockpuppetry.

Evidence:

Claim of a meatpuppeting group. Removal of mention of that claim. Same, again.

I should point out that both users have been warned about re-factoring talk page comments, and that I have brought WMC to the attention of AN/I for WP:OWN issues. I don't wish to bring those up here as it's not germane to a sock/meatpuppet investigation. (That is, I'm not trying to forum shop, I'm just trying to bring some separate issues up in separate places.)

I believe, however, that a CU is warranted as it might have affected the recent AfD of the article in question. (If this is sockpuppeting, and not meatpuppeting.) ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 21:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess the submitter of this doesn't like that others disagree with him, so therefore they must be meatpuppets... I hold many of the same opinions as WMC, but i certainly do not always agree with him (same is the case for polargeo (i suspect)). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
 * Sigh* Well - go ahead - i'm from Denmark, WMC is from the UK. I only edit from 3 internet lines, 2 of them are static ip's (80.62.90.39,62.243.229.122), and the 3rd new one is reasonably static (87.104.62.222 dynamic - but up 24/7 - so stays there). I also have an IPv6 address - but i don't think that WP is on IPv6 yet.
 * Sidenote - on 2nd thoughts, i have edited from various hotels on vacations, and i also own a mobile broadband connection (which i may have used - but can't remember). Certainly all very infrequently and in clumps (where i've been on vacation)). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Ig is a waste of space and should find something useful to do. Someone put this pointless case out of its misery William M. Connolley (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users

Actually, I don't think it bad faith, but I do think it unlikely. I admit to agreeing with the nominator on the substance of his complaint, but I don't see any possibility of these established editors being sock puppets. I do think it likely that they have coordinated activity, both on- and off- Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering some recent edits, if they were identical editors, then WP:3RR would have been violated, and there is circumstantial evidence of coordination. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop whining. Put up or shut up William M. Connolley (talk) 23:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh! (again) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Huh? My talk page comments were the ones that were removed twice, and, yes, it pissed me off to the point where I've been so successfully infuriated that I don't want to contribute to that godawful list talk page for a week. Yes, I thought it was rude and a breach of etiquette, and evidence that these folks are engaging as a group in a battle instead of writing an encyclopedia article. But if anyone should complain about this particular incident at the moment, I think it should be me, and if I were to complain, I wouldn't accuse anyone of being a sockpuppet. As for meatpuppetry, I've always thought the idea is kind of cute. Just the visual of a meatpuppet makes me smile and diffuses tensions and makes me think of silly things. What was I talking about? Oh, yeah. The suggestion for investigation seems silly. If it was meant as some kind of show of sympathy or support for me being infuriated by this guy's talk page behavior, I appreciate the sentiment. But I can sure understand the view that asking for a sockpuppet investigation when you don't suspect any sockpuppet is a misuse of Wikipedia. I hope you withdraw this request. Flying Jazz (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * They do make for a cute couple of meatpuppets though, posting one minute apart like that...and engaging in identical talk-page blanking behavior. Flying Jazz (talk) 00:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Requested by ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 21:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

Apparent bad-faith nomination. TN X Man 22:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * If you suspect meatpuppetry, why are you asking that a checkuser query be run? . Furthermore, Special:ReadMind does not redirect to Special:CheckUser; I cannot use CheckUser to monitor every action that people take anywhere, because there are probably close to an infinite number of ways that people can communicate. If these people are meatpuppets, CheckUser would almost certainly show emphatically that they are ❌. J.delanoy gabs adds  02:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * per J.delanoy. I'm personally not seeing enough evidence that matches our standards for meatpuppetry to continue this matter further, and will close it based on Tnxman307's note. NW ( Talk ) 02:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

Evidence submitted by Thegoodlocust
First off, I'm not sure if this is William Connolley's sock or of checkuser confirmed sockmaster Ratel - it is difficult to tell the difference due to their highly similar behavior and personality.

First off, I believe Freakshownerd is not a new user for the following reasons:

1) His first edit was the creation of a new article - unusual for a new user.

2) 10 minute later he reverts an editor

3) 7 minutes after that he leaves a message for a user on their talk page - and asks them to take the article "through the deletion process if you don't think it's worthy of an article"

4) 4 minutes after that they figure out how to redirect

5) The next day he uses a template

Wikistalk comparisons of Freakshownerd and WMC and comparisons between Freakshownerd and Ratel and his Unit 5 sock (name of his sock suggests that he has at least 5 accounts).

The biggest intersection between all the accounts is the Fred Singer set of articles including satellite articles like SEPP and I believe this is why the account was created - this area is one of Freakshownerd's main focuses and the account was created on May 22nd, which was during a time period where WMC's ban on that page was being discussed - banned on the 20th, upon appeal (on the 22nd) admin Flonight recommends a full topic ban and immediate ban from Fred Singer and hours later the account is created (note: Topic ban was upheld here - note WMC's reaction to this ban by calling the admin "malicious and stupid").

Freakshownerd's edits to Fred Singer are similar to what you would expect from either WMC or Ratel as seen here and here.

Typical edit summary one would expect from WMC or Ratel.

Typical tagging of articles common to WMC when he doesn't get his way.

Tries to push discussion off the Singer page - just like WMC did against the same user.

And Freakshownerd complains when SlimVirgin moves the discussion to the article talk page - which is exactly the same complaint that WMC had on the same page and with the same user.

Note: WMC is highly motivated to break his topic ban since after his ban he posted on his talk page a document which gave out the article subject's telephone and address - and implied that this person was committing tax fraud. He later linked to a blog entry he wrote saying this person was insane.

Also, I have some more minor behavioral evidence that is rather specific and don't want to release publicly that indicates this is most likely WMC, but i'd be happy to email it to the checkuser/clerk. However, as I said before, it is difficult to tell the difference between longtime sockmaster Ratel and WMC and it could indeed be Ratel instead, which is mostly evidenced by both of them editing the article on Arthur Rubin, a wikipedia editor that both WMC and Ratel do not like and a few other esoteric articles (see wikistalk).

As for editing times, they are generally pretty similar, but the sockpuppet, mostly on weekends, has been staying up a bit later than WMC (whose edit times are unnaturally consistent) - this would not be surprising considering how motivated WMC is to slander Fred Singer and his extensive knowledge of sockpuppetry and how to avoid detection.

Finally, there were several socks that were designed to look like obvious socks of WMC - Cursing Gnome (named after a WMC subpage) and Stoatblog (WMC's blog). These accounts were created in early June, reported by WMC's friend as socks that "simulate or repeat edits made by WMC" (I believe they helped him edit war, but I'm not too familiar with their edits) - and two days after these socks get blocked the real sock, Freakshownerd, begins editing the Fred Singer article extensively. I believe those initial socks, due to their names and actions, were meant to distract from the real sockpuppetry and as some weird sort of defense against accusations of sockpuppetry.

Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
Bizarre paranoid careless bad-faith report; I've been disagreeing with FSN at Science & Environmental Policy Project. But I have no objection tot he CU being run, since this isn't me William M. Connolley (talk) 09:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you provided a good case for being a returned user. I checked and I didn't find anything out of the ordinary. However, I refuse to check WMC based on this evidence. Brandon (talk) 09:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)