Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fwdixon


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Fwdixon

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets

Doxmyth 19:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Report submission by:

Fwdixon is the monicker frequently used, on and off Wikipedia, by "Bob Finnan," who has particular interests in sites related to the Stratemeyer Syndicate, such as The Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew. This provides background to the particulars of this case, which involves his editing of both the talk and article pages of Tom Swift and Tom Swift, Jr., as well as a page he created called User Talk:Doxmyth, and (ref DocSimpson) to WP:PAIN (see edit history for both talk and main page re: postings "MookiesDad" and "Doxmyth", Sept-Oct this year). The cited users have made, or verbally supported, the same specific edits unceasingly, which amount to blocking any and all attempts by me to add a small amount of text to the two "Tom Swift" pages. They all repeat one another's tendentious arguments, ignore offered compromises, misuse such Wiki-defined terms as vandalism, and engage in personal abuse with the same language, using the same "themes" (eg, "crybaby", "I dislike you", "get off your high horse"--see both Talk:Tom Swift and the edit summaries in the recent edit history for the latter phrase. In the WP:PAIN postings, one cited user refers to a Tom Swift discussion group moderated by "MookiesDad" (said group is moderated by "Bob Finnan", posting there as "Fwdixon"), and claims that a specific derogatory remark was posted publically which was, in fact, made via private email to "Bob Finnan." Fwdixon appears to have a long history of "astroturfing" and "agent-provocateur-ing", creating alternate identities (or unsigned editors) to advance extreme positions to cause his desired outcome to appear moderate (originally with respect to the various "Finnan.com" groups, supposed plagiarism, and link "spam"--much of this is now in the talk page histories of the Stratemeyer, Hardy Boys, and Tom Swift articles). A recent (and undiscussed) "revert war" ostensibly between MookiesDad and Pak434 appears designed to give evidence that they are separate identities; in this spirit, "Pak434" has himself stated in Talk:Tom Swift that "MookiesDad" and several of the others appear to be sockpuppets.
 * Evidence

I should note that he is something of a computer expert, and his IP history shows use of many disparate servers (many in Virginia).

And all this matters for two significant reasons: (1) with respect to Tom Swift and Tom Swift, Jr., the sockpuppets are being used to game the system and create a false appearance of consensus in violation of Wiki guidelines, and (2) setting aside any actual content dispute, "Finnan", with his multiple sockpuppets, has a fairly extreme pattern of personal abuse and incivility which has persisted despite numerous warnings, appearing not only on the article talk pages, but on WP:PAIN, User Talk:Doxmyth (an especially virulent example), his responses to User:Antaeus Feldspar, and his "motto" on his own User page.

This strikes me as an easy case. Given the individual's lengthy and metastasizing history of disruption and rule violation, I see no reason to refrain from an indefinite ban/block (however ineffective it may prove to be in a practical sense).

I apparently am accused of being a sockpuppet. I removed the tag from my user page as per the guidelines since when it was added, there was no evidence listed here. Apparently the reason I was accused was because I agreed that doxmyth shouldn't keep continually re-adding a link to fan-fiction and his personal tom swift fan-fic site. I only even noticed the Tom Swift page because I was looking at "recent changes" and doing vandalism reverts. I happened onto the edit-war there, and read over the discussion, and gave an opinion. I think I did one revert of doxmyth, but I'd have to check the history to be sure. I monitored the page for a few days, then took it off my watchlist, until suddenly a sockpuppet warning came up. I believe this accusation of everyone who disagrees with him by doxmyth is not in good faith, and an abuse of the reporting process. jesup 23:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * I checked - I never made any mods that I can see to Tom Swift, I just commented on the Talk page. jesup 23:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I can’t even follow the convoluted logic that is being used to accuse me of being a sockpuppet of MookiesDad seeing I am the editor who pointed out that SuperDuperMan, 71.125.234.14, MookiesDad and FWDixon all appeared to be the same person and that this person appeared to be using sockpuppets to broaden a legitimate concensus that had emerged against the insertion of a link and text that Doxmyth has wanted to place in the Tom Swift and Tom Swift Jr. articles. See 16:37, 19 October 2006 Pak434 (Talk | contribs) (→Discussion of further edit work by Scott Dickerson). Instead of Doxmyth thanking me for pointing this out, despite the fact that I strongly oppose his repeated insertion of a specific link and text in two Tom Swift articles, he has now accused  me  of being a sockpuppet! In fact, as jesup has said above, he has indiscriminately done this on the user page of  everyone  who has opposed his desire to add a link to his personal fan fiction web site from these articles. I can only attribute these sweeping accusations and conspiracy theories to a form of hysteria arising from the fact that a consensus has formed that he should not be permitted to use these articles to promote his web site. I agree with jesup that this is an abuse of the reporting process and urge that Doxmyth be sharply rebuked for this behavior. Doxmyth has also alleged that I have engaged in a "revert war" with MookiesDad. This is also untrue. MookiesDad removed some story synopses from various Wiki Hardy Boys pages which were apparently copied from a web site that he created and I contributed new ones. This was not a "revert" and definitely not an edit "war". Pak434 00:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sysops interested in this case may wish to review a series of edits to Talk:Tom Swift 10/20 to 10/23 available in History. These were done by User:Pak434, User:Jesup, User:Noumenes, and User:SuperDuperMan and involve undiscussed deletions and replacements of signed comments by me and by User:Antaeus Feldspar. Some of this activity may have bearing on your assessment of this case (for example, parallel language, targets, concerns, etc.). Also: I neglected to note that the appearance of User:MookiesDad coincided with a lengthy period of inactivity by User:Fwdixon. Doxmyth 22:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So I'm a sockpuppet because of the one comment I made on the Talk page? "Another otherwise uninvolved editor (me) who came on this page by semi-accident (and read lots of Tom Swift as a kid) says: leave out the fan fiction. Not relevant. jesup 03:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)" Doubly amusing since I've since weighed in that User:Antaeus Feldspar is correct, at least about Edisonade. I stand by my comments here: you not only falsely accused me of being a sockpuppet, but you also did so in bad faith - i.e. just because I disagreed with you.  jesup 23:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As both jesup and I have stated, Doxmyth is incensed by the fact that a consensus emerged on Talk:Tom Swift against the insertion of a link that he has wanted to place in both the Tom Swift and Tom Swift Jr. articles to his personal fan fiction web site. He has involved everyone who has opposed the insertion of this link in his allegation of sockpuppetry in an attempt to "dissolve" the consensus so he can reinsert the link. This is an obvious and flagrant abuse of the reporting system that should not be condoned. I again urge that he be sharply rebuked for this behavior. Pak434 17:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Not blocked. This is best taken to WP:RFCU. Thanks, Kil  o • T  19:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Conclusions