Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Leedryburgh

User:Leedryburgh

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets

Dgtsyb (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Report submission by


 * Evidence

Direct evidence of sock puppetry:



Additional external link spamming and confict of interest activities of IP sock puppet:



Additional puppet master activity:




 * Comments

The IP sock puppet is used repeatedly to add external link spam pointing to the puppet master's commercial websites, removing and vandalising competing and existing links. The puppet master avoids adding link spam but, instead, adjusts, positions more favorably, corrects, and defends in talk pages, the links added by the IP sock puppet. Note that although the puppet master has claimed to be Lee Dryburgh, the author of a recent book on SS7 (to which all of these articles are related), neither the puppet master nor the IP sock puppet have contributed any content to the articles.


 * Comment by Dgtsyb

The puppet master has used the IP sock puppet to avoid scrutiny and hide conflict of interest for the purpose of repeated external link spamming, deletion and other vandalism for commercial gain or advantage. The puppet master and IP sock puppet accounts should be blocked for the appropriate period. --- Dgtsyb (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Counter

The above claim is completely false. It is with much regret that user Dgtsyb persists in harmful actions and time wasting of others. My full response to the claim above can be found here Talk:Signaling System 7. Unless there is a reason not to, I suggest that the conversation be continued there since that is the place where the above claim originated. LeeDryburgh (talk) 22:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Additionally please note that another user posted "first, I think accusations of sock-puppetry are unnecessary, here. I don't see any indication that the anon edits were in bad faith, particularly since Leedryburgh mentioned them outright." (see start of Talk:Signaling System 7) before Dgtsyb made the accusation here. This suggests that Dgtsyb may not have good intent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leedryburgh (talk • contribs) 22:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by Shalom

In my capacity here, I review the question over whether two user accounts are the same person or two different people. That question is not in dispute. Leedryburgh has admitted that he edits from the IP address listed above. The edits by Leedryburgh and the IP address complement one another: there is no evidence, as far as I can see, of a deliberate attempt to conceal this connection or to pretend that these were two users in such a way as to win a content dispute. In other words, there is no violation of the sockpuppet policy. It is permitted for users not to login if they prefer to edit anonymously: I have done this myself many times.

The dispute here needs to be resolved by other means. I am no expert at dispute resolution, but I will try to mediate if I can help. I can see at the talk page discussion that two mediators, Ludwig2 and Athaenara, are already making progress to reach a compromise or understanding. Yechiel (Shalom) 04:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

In answer to Athaenara's question over there: I see no evidence to link Leedryburgh to any previous user account. Yechiel (Shalom) 04:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please comment on this to avoid scrutiny by concealing conflict of interest through use of an IP address.  Why does Leedryburgh refer to himself as "someone else"?  In this case, if other editors knew that the IP address and Leedryburgh were one in the same, the conflict of interest would have been apparent instead of concealed.  This seems to fit the very definition of the policy of avoiding scrutiny: the edits would have been inappropriate from the single user, and Leedryburgh conceals his connection to the IP address that would have made editors aware of the conflict.


 * If this is not sock puppetry, please tell me how it is acceptable so that I can begin using this technique to my own advantage with anonynmous edits and external link spam placement. I too wish to be told that it is okay to use a dialup IP address to place an otherwise conflict of interest external link to my personal and corporate websites, and then bless those additions with Dgtsyb edits, sufficient enough to make the original IP address addition impossible to revert simply.  Because if this practice is okay, I can surely use it to my own advantage too. — Dgtsyb (talk) 05:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, you make a good point. I did not notice that particular trick, and it is not allowed for the reasons you say.  Now I won't punish Leedryburgh because there's not much I can do.  (Even I were an admin, which I'm not, blocks are preventative, not punitive.)  It would be appropriate for him to acknowledge that lying is wrong.


 * This should have no effect on the substance of the dispute, but like I said, lying is wrong. And it looks like Leedryburgh lied. Yechiel (Shalom) 00:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you giving the evidence additional consideration and for clarifying this instance for me. I cannot speak to the application or duration of blocks as I have no experience in that regard.  It is enough for me that the placement of links in this fashion is acknowledged as deceitful.  In the matter of the dispute, I have agreed to abide by Ludwigs2's proposed resolution on Talk:Signaling System 7, so I will now withdraw from this matter as well.  Thank you. — Dgtsyb (talk) 01:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by Athaenara

With regard to "Athaenara's question over there" (on Talk:Signaling System 7) mentioned above by Shalom:


 * After I asked this question:
 * "To : Are you also M i t r a (who is 38.99.84.14 - e.g. here) and Ad99sl?  — Athaenara  ✉  00:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)"


 * the reply was:
 * "No, why do you ask? Leedryburgh (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)"

I asked because, like user Leedryburgh, they exhibited some or all of the following:
 * adding new posts to top of page
 * dating with false timestamp or none
 * signing at top of post
 * signing with nonexistent userpage link
 * promoting external links, with similar arguments

For example: 


 * 20:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC) signed "Mitra [ Mitra ] 9 Nov 2006 (UTC)"
 * 20:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC) signed "Mitra [ Mitra ] 10 Nov 2006"
 * 20:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC) signed "Mitra [ Mitra ] 10 Nov 2006"


 * 16:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC) added at top of page, signed "ad99sl 22 Nov 2006 (UTC)" at top of post
 * 16:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC) added at top of page, signed "ad99sl 22 Nov 2006 (UTC)" at top of post


 * 09:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC) signed "User:m_i_t_r_a 25 November 2006 (UTC)"
 * 10:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC) signed "User:m_i_t_r_a 26 November 2006 (UTC)"
 * 20:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC) signed "User:m_i_t_r_a 27 November 2006"
 * 20:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC) signed "User:m_i_t_r_a 27 November 2006"


 * 02:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC) signed "User:m_i_t_r_a 26 November 2006"
 * 02:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC) signed "User:m_i_t_r_a 26 November 2006"

(Userlinks and diffs posted for clarification.) — Athaenara  ✉  18:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That's very interesting. It's certainly possible that these are the same user, but there is no way to prove it.  You can suspect it, but you can't prove it.  Checkuser doesn't go back to 2006, and even if it did the user would probably have changed his IP address since then, so we don't have that option either. Yechiel (Shalom) 00:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't find it interesting, but it takes all kinds to make the world up! As I said in the first instance it has zero connection with me. And the talk about "false stamps" was simply because I did not know you could use 4x~ to do it automatically. Leedryburgh (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The emphasis in the comparisons is not so much on the "falsity" of timestamps (though the falsity of some sigs is significant) as on the similarities. — Athaenara  ✉  16:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * For what its worth, I do not think that these are sock puppets of Leedryburgh and that is why I did not list them.  Linkbit and bittech's interests appear orthogonal.  Similarities are likely due to the later emulating the former unpunished behaviour.  Expect more of the same, as Leedryburgh has now shown others that variations and protestations will avoid punishment.


 * Leedryburgh performed a variation of the above in several ways:


 * The 63.204.19.188 address resolves to Linkbit Inc: 80.108.90.135 resolves to some broadband access in Austria. My suspicion would be that Leedryburgh seeing 63.204.19.188 getting caught in his anonymous COI external link spamming decided on additional indirection to avoid the same detection. (And it worked for longer than a year.)
 * Leedryburgh immediately admitted to the address upon detection, feigning the injured party. This is now an easy way to avoid repercussions that others can use with cookie cutter accuracy.


 * Expect more to come in the way of emulations and copycatting of this behaviour: the barn door is swinging wide. Dgtsyb (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Shalom that this report doesn't show a violation of WP:SOCK, and I suggest that it be closed without action, as soon as the discussion is finished. The account named as the puppet,, has made only four edits in 2008. It appears that Leedryburgh and the IP are likely the same editor. Now that he has a named account, Leedryburgh has stopped editing with the IP. There was a brief overlap period where the misleading edit summary about 'someone else' was made. The replacement of sigtran.org with sigtran.net with a deceptive edit summary was abusive in my opinion, and is getting close to a block. If Leedryburgh persists in adding links against consensus, I suggest that a report be made to the spam authorities, who are more suited to this kind of complaint. If User:Dgtsyb is satisfied with the compromise arranged by User:Ludwigs2 at Talk:Signaling System 7 then it might be best to leave things as they are and not request any further admin actions, either here or at the spam noticeboard. I am adding some pages to my own watchlist to be sure that things go straight from now on. EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by EdJohnston

Closed with no action, per the discussion above. I checked with the submitter, User:Dgtsyb, and he does not object. EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Conclusions