Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wtshymanski/Archive

14 June 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

BackgroundWtshymanski has had a history of tendentious editing (and has recently returned from block for same.  In particular, Wtshymanski also has a history of attempting to hammer into articles his view on what article should contain regardles of anyone else's point of view or even article talk page concensus.  The subject in question is Wtshymanski's attempts to force into the article at Power factor the view that power factor can never be negative.  This in spite of an extended discussion at Talk:Power factor where everyone else put forward the view that it can be negative.  The article in question even acquiring no less than 12 references supporting the view.  However, Wtshymanski would not accept this view and decided that his unreferenced lone opinion was enough to edit war in the article and kept reverting any attempt to make the article conform to the provided references. Wtshymanski did attempt to rely on an IEEE document that proved to be contradictory (and one of the authors, also an unrelated Wikipedia editor, stated that the document was in error.

Enter a relatively new editor 174.118.142.187. 174.118.142.187 has not been around that long but almost from the start exhibited tendentious editing behaviour. Although somewhat different, the same 'I am right, everyone else wrong' attitude was present (and some admins have expressed concern). His technique has been a bit different, mainly making frivolous ANI complaints against any editor who opposes his viewpoint on article talk pages (none have been upheld). The different approach may be to hide the sock - Wtshymanski is known to be adept at manipulating the system to his advantage.

For various reasons, I had begun to suspect that 174.118.142.187 and Wtshymanski were the same editor. This was reinforced today when 174.118.142.187 made a contribution to the Talk:Power factor supporting Wtshymanski's view that negative power factor was not possible, but also supporting Wtshymanski's view that the 12 references were bogus (which they are not - they are perfectly acceptable with the Wikipedia guidelines).

Another user, 212.183.140.50 observed that he 'smelt a sock' somewhat confirming my suspicions. .

This must have touched a nerve because 174.118.142.187 almost immediately deleted the comment (contrary to WP:BLANKING) attempting to pass it off as a 'personal attack'.

There are too many similarities between 174.118.142.187 and Wtshymanski for it to be a coincidence.

Wtshymanski's geographical location is well known as he uses his own name for his account (W.T.Shymanski - revealed in an image upload). He has a considerable internet presence. 174.118.142.187 geolocates to the same location. (My thanks to 212.183.140.50 for that one)

Wtshymanski removes embarasing material from his talk page very quickly. So does 174.118.142.187. . Relatively few Wikipedia editors clean up their talk page.

Wtshymanski can never resist making a non sensical (and often sarcastic) edit summary when he cleans his talk page. The edit summary for the above reveals the same characteristic to make a non sensical edit summary. 174.118.142.187 is also compiling so called 'evidence' at User talk:174.118.142.187/Sandbox2 where he appears to be compiling evidence against those editors that have opposed Wtshymanski. [Note: An admin has just deleted it as WP:ATTACK.]

174.118.142.187 has also raised an ANI (clearly as 'tit for tat') where he once again ralies to the defence of Wtshymanski in spite of the fact that is an established tendentios editor (recently blocked for this) and I am not aware of anyone else who sides with him.

They are clearly the same editor.

Now bearing in mind the comments that 174.118.142.187 has made in his ANI, what's the betting there will be another 'tit for tat' SPI case (oh it won't be the first).

174.118.142.187 has now taken to accusing me of 'slander'. Also accuses myself and other editors at the ANI of being hoodlums. This is completely unacceptable. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

174.118.142.187 has just hopped IP address to 174.118.156.9 as evidenced by the abusive remarks left on my talk page in response to a prfectly civil post that I left at his ( - deleted with characteristic Wtshymanski sarcastic edit summary).

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

[Note: The comment below was in response to a claim from 174.118.142.187 where he claimed that he was located closer to me than to Wtshymanski. A geolocate on that IP address confirmed that the claim was totally false (as both are in Canada). 174.118.142.187 has since deleted the claim.]


 * Geolocate would say otherwise. It doesn't even put you in the same continent as me, so that claim is nothing more that the usual Wtshymanski smokescreen to divert attention - yet another characteristic they share in common.  Keep digging.  DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Please note the latest disruption from this account[] as this editor's last ditch attempt to save his account.


 * I don't buy it. First of all, this would be a major change in behavior for Wtshymanski. I am no fan of Wtshymanski's disruption of the Engineering articles, but the idea of him being deceptive runs against all previous experience with him, and the idea of him fabricating support though sockpuppets also rings false -- Wtshymanski has never shown the slightest indication that he cares about whether other editors support him or not.


 * Second, the geolocation is off. 174.118.142.187 geolocates to Collingwood, Ontario Canada (closest major city: Toronto). Per Wikipedia policies, I cannot reveal any personal information about Wtshymanski that he has not himself revealed on Wikipedia, but at File:RedRiverFloodwayInletStructure.jpg, File:HP 95LX Pocket Computer.JPG and File:Mercury emissions by light source EPA 2008.svg he reveals that User:Wtshymanski is W. T. Shymanski. W. T. Shymanski makes no effort to hide his identity, and his location is easily found by a searching the usual place. He is over 2000 kilometers (1200 miles) away from 174.118.142.187's location.


 * Lastly, Wtshymanski has reverted 174.118.142.187 at least once. and the content and style of their contributions fails the WP:DUCK test. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * ""In the clearing stands a boxer, and a fighter by his trade;


 * "And he carries the reminders, of every glove that laid him down,


 * "or cut him till he cried out, in his anger and his shame;


 * "'I am leaving, I am leaving', But the fighter still remains..."


 * "--The Boxer by Simon & Garfunkel


 * --Guy Macon (talk) 04:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Just logged on and found this mess notified on my talk page. As Guy says, this does not square with previous Wtshymanski behaviour. Wtshymanski has developed a talent for staying within the rules, but only just. He may well have his toes over the line, but little else. It should be noted that he may well abide by the letter of the rules but seldom the spirit. I had occassion to delete some outing material on Wtshymanski from another talk page (as WP:OUTING) from an unrelated editor. If the material was correct (and I have litle reason to suppose that is not), Wtshymanski's location does not square with the reported location of 174.118.142.187 (herinafter refered to as 174). Right continent, and even the right country, but not quite the right location. However, as everyone knows, IP addresses can easily be spoofed or even a gateway used, and I have little doubt that Wtshymanski is familiar with such practices (if the areas on which he edits are any guide). So lets put that to one side. I do not know exactly what criteria the administrators use to make their judgement in a case like this, but let's look at what has been presented. DieSwartzPunkt has laid out a series of coincidences above. Examination of 174's editing history does show some troublesome edits (bordering on tendentious in some cases). Maybe tendentious users exhibit similar characteristics when editing? I cannot answer that one. This could just be a coincidence. There are, however, some points that stand out far too much.


 * 1) 174 was compiling a list of 'enemies' (this description from an administrator, so don't blame me). Said administrator has deleted that list.  But the problem is that 174 is a relatively new user, but the list he was compiling was not of his enemies.  The list made it quite clear that they were Wtshymanski's enemies.  I myself was included on it, despite the fact that I had had little interaction, with 174 at the time he added my details (Almost my only interaction since was when I raised an ANI over this list, but that was after the event).  So the question is: what is a relatively new user doing compiling a list of 'enemies' of what is supposed to be a completely different user?  Unless they are the same user and Wtshymanski was hoping the list would go undiscovered in the sandbox of 'another' user.  I found it quite by chance.
 * 2) 174 was very keen to get DieSwartzPunkt's work in progress Request for Comment on Wtshymanski deleted. This despite the fact that 174 was not mentioned in it anywhere.  So as he has no vested interest in its existence whatsoever - why?  Unless, of course, he really does have a vested interest as he really is the subject.
 * 3) 174 stated above,


 * This would appear to be where he completely shoots himself in the foot. As already pointed out, prior to the ANI that I raised on the list of 'enemies' I had had precious little interaction with 174.  But he is claiming that he is "...sick'n tired..." of this practically non existent interaction.  However, I have had plenty of interaction with Wtshymanski.  It's difficult to avoid when he insists on reverting any and all improvements that one tries to make to any article that is regularly patrolled by him.  It cannot be 174 that is "...sick'n tired..." because there is nothing to be "...sick'n tired..." of.  But as Wtshymanski, he may well be "...sick'n tired..."  of others attempts to improve Wikipedia which he believes that he owns (and there was plenty of evidence of that in the draft RfC before it was deleted).

174 appears to be implying that my self, DieSwartzPunkt and god knows how many other users are the same person (his list of 'enemies' certainly attempted to imply it). A look at the (now deleted) draft RfC contained a good indication that this is not the case. All the diffs included by me were identified with the standard double ended pointer (as in the link to this page . For some reason, DieSwartzPunkt's diffs appear with a completely different symbol (a padlock - examples above).  I have no idea why this is.  Oh, and DieSwartzPunkt always leaves an edit summary on talk pages, even if it is a terse "cm".  I generally don't, but there are exceptions (but never terse).  Can't comment on the list of IP addresses, but most seem to be a legitimate user who also suffers continual reversion of good faith attempts to improve Wikipedia, so there is a pattern here.  I B Wright (talk) 15:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The different symbols are easy to explain. You and I use different Wikipedia servers.  DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with I B Wright's analysis. It is certainly suspicious, but if I was accused of sockpuppetry I would expert better proof than that. On the plus side, if this is a sockpuppet of Wtshymanski, he now realizes that any new user who suddenly pops up and starts supporting Wtshymanski will naturally be scrutinized, simply because so few people in the engineering community hold the same fringe views that Wtshymanski holds. If I am right, we won't have any further problems no matter what the truth is.
 * As an aside, I do intend to start a discussion about asking for the visibility of the deleted DieSwartzPunkt draft RFCU to be restored. I have mixed feelings about this; on the one hand, drafting an RFCU in userspace is perfectly legitimate and the page was not in any way an attack page. On the other hand, it appears to have stalled, and a draft RFCU in userspace really does need to either move on to becoming an RFCU or be deleted. Right now I am leaning towards asking to have the history unhidden and asking DieSwartzPunkt to blank the page with a note marking it as a failed attempt. IMO that discussion is best left until this one is closed. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Didn't read all this blather. It's not me. I don't edit Wikipedia under any other name but my own. And curently I'm a great deal further from Collingwood Ontario than 2000 km. ( I don't know if I've ever been anywhere near Collingwood Ontario - IP addresses have little to do with physical locations, no matter what they show on CSI.) I'm also terribly, terribly, disapointed at the low level of intelligence attributed to me in this putative scheme - surely someone who spends every waking moment plotting the overthrow of Wikipedia would be clever enough to produce a sockpuppet who isn't idiotically obvious. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It might even be that someone is being idiotically obvious in order to make it look like Wtshymanski is using sockpuppets. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case the IP needs to be blocked for impersonation. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Based on the timing and other factors, it is very unlikely they are the same person. Closing. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; © &#124;  WER  21:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

18 August 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

No check user required here. These accounts are the same duck quacking.

was engaged in an edit war at Headlamp (outdoor). Following an WP:AN3 complaint, he was formally warned not to continue the edit war or he would be blocked diff.

Almost immediately afterwards another account, who has never edited the article previously resumes the edit war (always a reliable sign of a sock account in itself). Now Wtshymanski is smart enough not to resume it using the original reverts, but in spite if the different approach is nevertheless warring over the same essential point (whether a single blanket and vague reference is acceptable to cover multiple claims in an article section). [Quack]

There are, however a number of characteristics that both Wtshymanski and Bgwhite share in common.

Both Continually revert without discussing the issue on the talk page

Wtshymanski:, , (Claims pre-existing blanket reference covers the additions)

Following my added request for a better referencing

Bgwhite:, , (Arguing that a vague reference is adequate, though carefully avoiding the blanket nature).

Both accounts are equally edit warring against concensus as 5 editors have stated that the referencing is inadequate. [Quack]

Following another editor's warning of edit warring without discussion, an attempt at discussion is made. But it is not a genuine attempt to discuss the issue of the blanket referencing, but just addressing the lack of precision in the referencing for one claim. This is also a standard Wtshymanski technique. [Quack]

The next contribution to talk is Wtshymanski right down to his socks. I am right, the other 5 editor's are wrong - I am not discussing this further and promptly reverts the article against consensus for the 4th time, though not within 24 hours. [Quack]

Note also the crafty allegations that another editor is pursuing a vendetta (against himself). That must mean that 5 of us are.

A check of both account's edit history shows that they have exactly the same characteristics. Both accounts correct, and revert other editors' contributions, but neither contributes any new material. [Quackety, quack quack]

I have not included diffs to Wtshymanski's similar behaviour because it is far too well documented here and here. 85.255.234.85 (talk) 11:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * For what it's worth, not me. "None genuine without this signature."  Of course, if I was an evil sockmaster, that's exactly what I'd say to throw the indefatigable watchdogs of justice off my trail. If I was really energetic and insane, I might even *be* 85.255.234.85, trying desparately to get more attention to myself by being a combative editor and a righteous crusader. But who has the energy for that? --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: Bwahahahaha! A quick look at the two editors' user and talk pages, plus any familiarity at all with them, will show this to be an accusation that should be referenced under the dictionary entry for "ludicrous" (and as a particularly extreme example). It's tough to imagine two editors with more different Wiki-styles. Wtsymanski religiously cleans out his talk page, deleting "old business," saying ~"it's in the page history if anyone wants it." (Well, it is.) Bgwhite religiously archives his talk page and goes to some trouble to format it prettily besides. Wtshymanski has several times been accused of sockpuppetry, tendentious editing, and no doubt in other contexts, mopery and dopery in the spaceways. Bgwhite has collected over two dozen barnstars and similar accolades from his peers and proudly displays them (on, again, a user page that shows considerable attention to formatting), while Wtshymanski maintains a user page nearly as empty as his talk page. Bgwhite's nomination for adminship (did the reporter realize Bgwhite is an admin?) collected over 100 "support" votes and only 13 "oppose", most of the latter over disagreements over deletion policy, and none of them showing even a hint of the animosity with which many address Wtshymanski. Can you really imagine the "tendentious" editor you accuse W. of being, building and maintaining this alternate persona for over nine years? (Or vice versa?) Oh well, this sort of nonsense is what I would expect of an IP editor with a grand total of three edits in six weeks (not counting those for the SPI). The only problem the IP has here is that the IP can't imagine that two different people disagree with it. Jeh (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course the accounts are going to look different. Wtshymanski/Bgwhite is far too smart to make the accounts look the same.  Further, I have substantially more than 3 edits to my credit.  I have no control whatsoever over my IP address which is different every time I connect to the 'net. 85.255.235.129 (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Right. I'm such an evil genius, I even keep making critical comments about myself from random points in the 85.255.235.XXX IP block - I probably had to suborn some router in Minsk or Hong Kong to make it *look* I'm using those IP addresses. How do we know you're not ME? Is there no limit to my depravity?  Imagine the energy and effort expended in a years-long "sleeper" operation. Makes Operation Quicksilver look as transparent as a kid hiding his dry toothbrush behind his back when asked if he brushed. Wtshymanski (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * To the IP: Then you should register an account. Your accusation remains absurd in the extreme; "of course they are smart enough to make the accounts look different" is, one, a circular argument, and two, ignores that it's not just their user pages that are wildly different. It's their styles of interaction with others (that's the "any familiarity at all with them" that I mentioned above), and that is very difficult to fake for a sustained period. Given what you believe about Wtshymanski's personality, can you really imagine a sock run by him collecting over 100 "support" votes for an Admin nom? Seriously? To successfully maintain two such different personas on Wikipedia for so long would not be a case of sockpuppetry, but rather of multiple personality disorder. Jeh (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

btw, shouldn't this not be on the talk page, but rather on the project page? Jeh (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the instructions say for IP editors to create it on the talk page. They can't create cases, but since this one already existed, the extra steps were unnecessary. Fixed. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't have to be already insane to edit Wikipedia...we'll train you! ---Wtshymanski (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC) (or one of his multiple personalities)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - There is no credible evidence of sockpuppetry involving Wtshymanski and Bgwhite here. On the other hand, this report was likely filed by a named editor logging out to avoid scrutiny. I will be investigating further. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * investigate away. I do not have a named account, and never have.  85.255.235.129 (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 07:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)