Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dwyerj

User:Dwyerj

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets

David Eppstein (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Report submission by

is a professor of computer science who has created a few self-promoting articles that have recently been nominated for deletion, in particular John Dwyer (professor) (AfD) and Dwyer function (AfD). He has also contributed to the John Dwyer AfD discussion using the IP address (but leaving a proper signature). More recently, the three accounts, and  have all appeared at the John Dwyer afd, all leaving similarly formatted unsigned comments in which they request a strong keep and claim to be a colleague of Dwyer who has some personal reason to believe him notable. None have edited anything else previously. I suppose it's possible that they're all meatpuppets instead of sockpuppets, but the similarities make me think otherwise. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Evidence

is a separate nomination, but also very likely to be Dwyer. This user created D function as a fork of Dwyer function, most likely in order to evade the ongoing AfD of Dwyer function, has been a significant contributer to Dwyer function, and has made few other edits. The link on User:Ac3bf1 goes to the blog of someone named "John" whose most recent blog post is about the release of a preprint authored by Dwyer. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In response

you can check my account has been created far before Dr Dwyer's Account. And I have created the D function not evade whatever regulations, but to remove the name of the Dwyer function and simply call it a D function If this is all a problem I don't need to be accused of this. I sign my posts with the quadruple tilda, and I have no idea who the other accounts are. I have my onwn website (ac3bf1.org, and if you run a whois on it it won;t take a genious to find my real name! Please look into matters before accusing people! Ac3bf1 (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments

Agree with David Eppstein. There is a veritable meatpuppet/sockpuppet attack on Articles for deletion/John Dwyer (professor) (more of them have popped up since David Eppstein's post here, including User:Auggla and User:212.85.7.14. Now there is a content fork D function for Dwyer function as well. This is getting out of hand. Nsk92 (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This is ludicrous. Admittedly, my first post (and only one before this) was in protest to the Dwyer deletion that I encountered, but that that amounts to sock puppetry...? I made a legitimate argument against the deletion based on Wikipedia's own set of rules, and against the notion that an individual should be discounted as not notable because he lectures/headed a department in a school that is not as reputable as Harvard. I cannot speak for the other users accused here but the fact that I disagreed with David Eppenstein and kept my comments to a minimum is not sufficient evidence that I spoke with Dwyers voice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kokoshaggy (talk • contribs) 07:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments

Concur that the user page clearly indicates that Ac3bf1 is one of the other members of Dwyer's group. If they are the same person, the he was a coauthor of one of the papers twice. They still (all) may be colleagues. &mdash; Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * It may be that they are not the same person but they do operate as meatpuppets. Nsk92 (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have emailed Mo Adda (whose name is signed to the 212.85.7.14 comment on the John Dwyer AfD) asking to confirm that it really is him. I haven't yet received a response, but if/when I do that should at least clear up some of this question. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Given the closure of the AfD, which was decided as "no consensus" based on the contributions of the listed users, is it time for a code D request for checkuser? Or should we wait until the deletion review closes? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * Exactly, just what I was thinking. It seemes that a code D checkuser request is justified, since the AfD outcome has been effected. It seems to me that the results of a checkuser would be relevant for the deletion review discussion, so I think it is appropriate to place a checkuser request now. Nsk92 (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not (nor ever purported to be) these individuals; One can only assume therefore that they had their own supporting views. Professor John Dwyer Dwyerj (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ACCUSATION IS FALSE. The accusation that I [usangel16] and the others represent an "influx" of sockpuppets or meatpuppets is false. I am a degree student ready to express opinions on issues that I feel strongly about and this is one of those issues. I am not pretending to be, nor controlled as a puppet of, Dr Dwyer. Further, since I know the identities of others accused of being sockpuppets, I can categorically confirm that none of them are pretending to be Dr Dwyer or Dr Dwyer's puppets. When the wiki editor who has thus far made so many errors of fact, receives the results of his requested IP trace, he will then know that he has made six further mistakes about the identities those of us who genuinely expressed clear views. Now we all know wiki is a great resource but please try to discourage rogue editors, especially when they make so many mistakes of fact and judgement. [user:usangel16] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.54.243.250 (talk • contribs) 09:15, April 29, 2008

Closing as inconclusive. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 22:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Checkuser results are now available at Requests for checkuser/Case/Dwyerj. Nsk92 (talk) 12:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I'm afraid even the confirmed checkuser results are inconclusive if the IPs are proxys at the University of Western Ontario.  Although I'd like these users to conform to Wikipedia policies, posting from university computers does not prove they're the same people or form a clique.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Conclusions