Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lesbianadvocate/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Lesbianadvocate

07 April 2016

[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Extensive behavioral analysis at WP:COIN#Account possibly connected to digital PR firm FP1 Strategies, with diffs, by User:EllenMcGill and User:Jytdog summarized by Jytdog as "accounts [are] under this same cloud" for COI editing with similar goals related to a particular PR firm's clients. My own analysis is as follows.

  • Back to back favorable editing at Terry Nelson (political consultant) by eds Intermittentgardener [1] & Iliketoeatpotatoesalot [2]. Nelson happens to be "a partner at FP1 Strategies".
  • Note similar language in edit summaries here (LA: org. "is only a reliable source for its own opinions") and here (IG: org. is "Not a reliable source for anything but iown [sic] opinions").
  • Another pair of edit summaries with identical language "The article is about Nelson" here (ILP) and here (IG).

There is clear (and unattributed) collaboration going on between editors via sandboxes if not outright socking.

  • Sandbox correspondence #1. This edit to Alan Sears (IG, 13 July) corresponds to this revision of ILP's sandbox which was blanked over a month before the mainspace edit.
  • Sandbox correspondence #2. LA's sandbox (permlink) (28 October 2014) contains a draft of an article on a thing called Copy data. The redlinked term is used in exactly one article on Wikipedia, Actifio. The term was introduced in this edit (1 December 2014) by Intermittentgardener.

Submitted for consideration. Brianhe (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added Tt121673 who uses edit summaries "Creating article. Please do not delete." when creating articles, near identical to LA and IG as noted by user:Geogene like this, this, this. Also shared interest in Lenovo topics amongst socks, especially Intermittentgardener and Tt121673. I realize Tt121673 is stale but adding it here in case it helps to identify active socks and establish pattern of behavior in still-active accounts. Brianhe (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion about other possible accounts
Added User:InaMaka, whose account reflects the same pattern of aggressive POV-pushing on behalf of known FP1 clients like Susana Martinez and Quico Canseco. The user displays the same pattern of alternating blank edit summaries with extremely hostile ones ("Restored section that was vandalized by Rob." [3]; "No. That's not going to work. Now that was just an example of disrupting Wikipedia is prove a point. That section will remain. Period." [4]; "All of my edits are neutral. You are the person that keeps removing notable, reliably sourced info presented in NPOV, not me" [5]), and refusing to use article talk pages. Inactive since 2010 election cycle. -- EllenMcGill (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Removed per below. -- EllenMcGill (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added User:CFredkin (CF) and User:Champaign Supernova (CS). (Italics in this section show my later corrections, not emphasis.) These two accounts overlap heavily, with a clear concentration on some known FP1 clients. [6] For example, they’ve made 150 edits between them to Joni Ernst, a known FP1 client, and 100 edits to her talk page. They’ve made 70 edits between them to Terri Lynn Land’s page and talk page; she is another known FP1 client.[7] Pat Roberts is another known FP1 client [8] from whose article CF tried aggressively to remove negative information.[9][10][11] Amy Stephens, an FP1 client, challenged Mark Udall for the US Senate in 2014, and during that period CF and CS made more than 100 edits to Udall's article and talk page, consistently trying to remove or downplay good points and play up bad ones[12]. Sometimes CF and CS even show up at the same discussion where only 4-5 people comment [13] or here [14] where they argue with editor GrammarXX together, or here [15] where they cordially agree to remove some material together. Both of their talk pages contain repeated complaints about their behavior on BLP articles related to conservative politicians; CF in particular has faced the same accusations of edit-warring and POV pushing as with LA and IG. At one point they were in an arbitration and were facing some kind of sanctions; CF’s only comment was to request that CS be exempted.[16] Even beyond the evidence in their behavior, an angry campaign recently told Buzzfeed and the Hill just last week that they had been tipped off that these two accounts were operatives attacking their candidate’s Wikipedia article.[17]
CF and CS's writing clearly overlaps with the few articles edited by the less prolific suspected FP1 accounts LA and IG: [18][19][20][21] For example, all four have made multiple edits to the bio for Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick; three of the four have edited Corinthian Colleges,Joe Garcia, Heidi Heitkamp, Brad Schneider, Pete Gallego, Rick Nolan, Nick Rahall, Ann McLane Kuster, in some cases 10-15 times apiece. [22], [23]). EllenMcGill (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My earlier summary was not fair to Champaign Supernova. S/he has faced no accusations of edit warring, but rather accused others. CS also didn't receive sanctions in the arbitration. I've edited my comments and used italics to show where I've corrected mistakes. This was stupid of me and I'm quite sorry. -- EllenMcGill (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve removed CS from the request following their change of heart about if they want an SPI, and new evidence that CS actively battled against other likely FP1 sock puppets. If I have any credibility left, though (doubtful!), I’d still suggest a look at CFredkin: the immediate gamut of counteraccusations (sockpuppeting, POV pushing, etc.) when confronted; the heavy edit-warring and POV-pushing on FP1 client articles and their rivals; the comfort with Wikipedia coding from their first day of editing[24], all seem reminiscent of other accounts in this network. Not conclusive, just worth checking. -- EllenMcGill (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Removed per below. -- EllenMcGill (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

IG is already indeffed in DE for sockpuppetry [25]. It looks like it might have been some kind of automated detection? Geogene (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, LA and IG use a consistent edit summary when they create new pages, variants of: "Creating. Please do not delete. I am expanding this article right now." Diffs: [26], [27], [28]; [29], [30], [31]. Geogene (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here to support a CU and subsequent admin review. Want to first note that Iliketoeatpotatoesalot is stale, so CU will fail and they only can be addressed with a behavioral analysis. See below, and what Brianhe brings above, and we can bring more on the behavioral side if desired. Here is what I recorded at COIN:

  • Another key connection to FP1 is this - an image of a person who had joined F1 as a partner shortly before the image was uploaded by Lesbianadvocate; the documentation for the image says it is owned by FP1 and has an accompanying OTRS tag giving permission from the owner releasing the image. We see this kind of coordinating between conflicted editors and their object of their outside interest quite often. LA (shortening the username) never directly edited the article about the partner. At the time that person joined F1, the article about him was edited a lot by a User:Intermittentgardener (negative information removed) and then further by User:Iliketoeatpotatoesalot, which added the image in that series of edits. Which brings those two accounts under this same cloud. Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion about other possible accounts 2
Jytdog, Brianhe, Geogene, should User:Jbrackett74 be added? FP1 strategies was employed last winter to pass his bill Connect NC.[32] Around the same time, his article received extensive favorable editing from a brand new account, User:Jbrackett74. But the edit summaries are different from the others (maybe because no one was fighting them this time?). EllenMcGill (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thanks, should have noted that. Jytdog (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed, please note that Jytdog moved the responses by 2 of the editors accused here off this page. That's not prejudicial at all.CFredkin (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just my two cents: the behavioral evidence against CF and CS hardly seems strong enough to justify a checkuser; but the evidence against LA and a couple of the others, is. If a Checkuser is run against LA, it will inevitably either clear or implicate CF and CS of being socks of LA (personally, I think this is highly unlikely). Essentially, though, this means that until a CU has evaluated this request, there isn't very much to be gained by arguing here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So User:EllenMcGill's first edit was on 3/25/2016 and in 2 weeks she's here using the analytical tools and requesting Sock investigations? Ellen, do you perhaps have a sock of your own? THAT seems worthy of investigation in and of itself.CFredkin (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's been quite a few weeks. But given the way sockpuppet LesbianAdvocate was behaving, I didn't have many choices but to watch and learn how to fight back. Luckily, after checking in at about eight boards and a lot of Googling and talking to other editors, we were able to put together the proof. It doesn't take a genius to see what Jytdog and Brianhe did above and in the previous thread, including using these tools, and follow their examples. (Do you think that they're sockpuppets too?)
If I'm wrong about you (and I do hope I am!), I apologize in advance. My paranoia is certainly running high after my first sockpuppet experience. But I did talk to an experienced user in this area who agreed it was worth checking. So let's check. Cheers, Ellen -- EllenMcGill (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, given your comments above, you seem to be engaged in a politically-motivated witchhunt.CFredkin (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CFredkin please don't personalize this. Ellen is just following the behavior and FP1's client list. If a CU shows nothing, we'll move on to the behavioral piece of this, and see what the community finds and determines. There is advice above about what to do if you are subject of an SPI, and attacking others is not in there, for good reason. Making this personal isn't helpful to anyone. Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, I have little to no overlapping editing history with any of the editors above, except CS. So really, it looks to me like Ellen (and perhaps you all) have a theory and you're now looking for evidence to back it up. (Basically anyone who has extensively edited a bio of a political candidate who is a known client of the firm in question is deserving of an SPI?) It seems like the process should work the other way around (evidence drives theory).CFredkin (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC) So, using your investigative paradigm, would an editor be justified in filing an SPI against all editors who have edited the bios of political candidates known to interact with David Axelrod or David Plouffe?CFredkin (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not the reasoning here. Jytdog (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, then what's the rationale for including CS and myself in this SPI?CFredkin (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It has already been laid out above. I get it that you are upset/unhappy but please just read that, and relax. Right now we are just at the CU stage and if that shows nothing, then we'll turn to the behavioral analysis. That would be an opportunity for people to provide more diffs showing a likely sock or meat relationship and for you to provide diffs showing why any relationship between you and other editors here via FP1 is unlikely or impossible. Jytdog (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You indicated above that my characterization of the rationale for including me here was incorrect. Please tell me specifically how it's incorrect (because it looks to me like you just confirmed it in the last sentence of your post above).CFredkin (talk) 22:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC) Also, I'm not sure why you keep saying that behavioral evidence is provided after a CU. My understanding of the process is the exact opposite. And given, the statements made about me above, please don't tell me not to personalize the situation.CFredkin (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And now it's clear... Since David Jolly's spokesperson got busted for scrubbing his WP bio and then accused CS and myself of being paid operatives because we resisted her efforts, User:Jytdog and User:EllenMcGill put their heads together and through some crackerjack analysis ("Hey, these 2 guys edit some of the same articles...") decide to put us through the wringer. It doesn't matter that none of the behavioral patterns indicated here have been exhibited between us and the other editors in this SPI. And Ellen adds insult to injury by making personal attacks against us in the process. Nice work.CFredkin (talk) 00:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
all you are doing here is adding drama, which does nothing to help anything. Jytdog (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please go ahead and do a check user to clear me of these bizarre charges ASAP. Let me also correct several major inaccuracies in EllenMcGill's account above. She says I've been "been warned over and over about edit warring and conservative POV-pushing." That is simply not true. Can you provide a single diff? I've never been warned or blocked for anything. I've never even been reported to the edit warring noticeboard. Ever. "At one point they were in an arbitration and received some kind of sanctions..." that is also inaccurate. I've never received any sanctions. "All four have been reported to the edit warring noticeboard for edit-warring in US Congressional articles..." Diff please? Again, I've never even been reported to the edit warring noticeboard. Champaign Supernova (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Champaign Supernova, I sincerely apologize. I saw that you had been to the edit warring board several times but misunderstood the reason—I see now it was about the behavior of other editors. I also should have verified the final outcome of this arbitration more carefully; I only saw CF’s appeal that you be exempted from the sanctions (the diff above). You’re also right that the specific complaints against you were not for edit warring—I saw POV pushing (e.g.), BLP violations, adding unsourced information, and marking changes to political articles as “minor”, but I shouldn’t have conflated those. (I hasten to add I’m in no position to judge if any of these accusations are fair; you work in a contentious area so I’m sure some of it’s inevitable.) All three mistakes were sloppy and dumb.
But thanks for being willing to volunteer for the checkuser anyway. It seems like there’s at minimum a lot of coincidences here (as noted above). It would great to confirm that they are indeed coincidences, and that you’re just unlucky enough to be caught up several times in the same content area as the FP1 sock puppets, working from a similar (but not unusual) ideology, and to be publicly accused by a befuddled political campaign. I really hope that's the case, and if it is, I apologize in advance for my concerns. Since CF is worried this is some kind of political witch-hunt on my part--though for what it's worth, I'm actually a Republican, and the first sockpuppet spent a week accusing me of POV-pushing for conservatives!--I will bow out after this point and let others judge if there’s any merit to my concerns. I’m the first to admit that after having the very first person I talked to on Wikipedia turn out to most likely be a PR firm sockpuppet, I’m prone to see them everywhere. Hope to run into you again on an article under better circumstances. Best, Ellen EllenMcGill (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ellen, I appreciate your corrections above. I also see it's likely you've stumbled upon a pretty major nest of COI/SPI editors, and I can understand why you're feeling suspicious. You're casting a wide net, and it's true that I often edit contentious U.S. Congress articles. Although I'm not involved in the aforementioned web of apparent COI editors, I can see you've opened this investigation in good faith. We can let the investigation run its course and meet again in greener pastures. Champaign Supernova (talk) 00:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think what CFredkin is getting at is that in order to provide evidence for why a check user should be requested, it generally requires behavioral evidence such as accounts editing at the same time of day, accounts having a similar tone/style, accounts using similar edit summaries, etc. Those types of things aren't usually coincidental. The fact that accounts edit the pages of members of Congress or have been warned for edit warring aren't really behavioral similarities, because thousands of accounts do both of those things. It would be more interesting if you could build a case that in addition to editing members of Congress (and the client list of this consulting firm), the accused editors also edit at the same time of day using similar edit summaries and similar language in talk page comments, etc. Edit warring in and of itself is not a sign of sock puppetry. Many users edit war. It may be an indication of sign of sock puppetry if editors seems to edit war on other editors' behalves. Just a thought. Champaign Supernova (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I've spent five or six hours or now looking through the edit histories of known FP1 clients and rivals, I don't think there are thousands of writers who have worked this much on this many FP1-related articles, or even dozens of writers who have. CS and CF were the only names I saw recur often enough for me to get suspicious--especially given the high frequency with which both show up in the same discussions, even small ones, and their tendency to edit in similar ways and in alignment with FP1's apparent position. This is why I was looking into their edits and found my way to that Jolly story in the first place. (Now that I've met him/her, though, CFredkin's aggressive policy drama--"You're a sock!" "You're on an anti-conservative witch hunt!" "You're making personal attacks!"--is definitely behavior reminiscent of LA and IG when they've been confronted.)
I'm not trying to claim it's conclusive, and I'm definitely not trying to give offense. If the evidence doesn't make other editors curious, I totally understand. To put it another way, I thought it was enough to raise the question, but I'd love for the answer to be--as it so often is--"Ellen, you’re a bonehead." Thanks, Ellen EllenMcGill (talk) 17:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what FP1 is, and I don't know what list of articles you're working off of. But I've edited 870 different articles on Wikipedia, including most members of U.S. Congress, so if I've overlapped with this list, it's likely that it's because the clients of this firm happen to be politicians, and I primarily edit the pages of politicians. Moreover, it's not just about article overlap. You should be looking at the type and quality of edits. Take Terri Lynn Land, an example from your list. Did you look at my edit history there? I made repeated attempts to undo a battery of highly promotional edits to that article. For example: [33], [34], [35]. If I was part of this sock ring that you suspect, what possible reason would there be for me to repeatedly remove promotional content? It doesn't add up. Champaign Supernova (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:EllenMcGill: Please provide evidence for the following statement: "CS and CF were the only names I saw recur often enough for me to get suspicious--especially given the high frequency with which both show up in the same discussions, even small ones, and their tendency to edit in similar ways and in alignment with FP1's apparent position." (and by "evidence" I mean comparative diffs)CFredkin (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In view, this is is not productive, and doesn't belong here, especially not at this stage of the process. CUs will judge if there is not enough to forward with each of the editors named here. Jytdog (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I'll ask you to provide support for your repeated claim that CU occurs before the provision of evidence to support the request for CU. Until you do that, my request for Ellen to provide evidence to support her claims above still stands.CFredkin (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The amount of evidence that enables checkuser is variable and subjective so there's no clear boundary between not-enough and enough. However, a credible case has been made here and I feel it's time for the checkuser team to weigh in. I agree with Jytdog (paraphrasing, correct me if I'm wrong) that rather than one of the named editors making demands, we let the SPI/CU team drive things from here on. This should not be a demands-based process driven by involved individuals. There has to be space for GF questions to be raised by editors like EllenMcGill without putting them on trial. - Brianhe (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you're an administrator of this process, I believe whether a credible case has been made here is a matter of your opinion. Also, if an accuser is unwilling or unable to provide evidence to support her claims, they're essentially meaningless.CFredkin (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators exist to implement the will of community consensus expressed in policies and procedures built up by consensus. You might want to read WP:NOBIGDEAL if this comes as a surprise to you. Being part of the body politic of Wikipedians, with some experience here, I'll thank you for not dismissing my input to the process. Furthermore, your statement that evidence has not been provided and contributors here are unwilling to provide evidence is invalid; evidence has been provided, you just don't like it. That's all I have to say here until the SPI/CU team weighs in. - Brianhe (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By "administrator of this process" I was referring to the SPI/CU team. As far as I'm aware, you're not a member of that team. Therefore your opinion regarding whether a credible case has been made here is just that: your opinion (and it carries no more weight on the matter than mine). My objection was to you stating your opinion on this subject as fact, which it is clearly not. In addition, my statement in my previous post regarding evidence not being provided clearly referred to this request at the top of the thread. As far as I'm aware, no evidence has been provided to support those claims. If I'm mistaken, please point me to the specific text here that supports the claims.CFredkin (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CFredkin, I'm not sure why you insist that evidence hasn't been presented when clearly it has. I'm not saying it proves your guilt; only that it exists. If you've done nothing wrong and are not using different accounts to edit, then what are you so worried about? Let them check and prove your innocence. Also, I see that you posted a rant today on an admin's talk page, in which you imply that I am a sockpuppet.[36] Of course, you present zero evidence to support your ludicrous claim. But, hey, if someone wants to check it out and see if I'm using other accounts, they're more than welcome to do so. Anyway, if you've done nothing wrong, stop objecting so aggressively to this investigation. And stop accusing people of wrong-doing without any evidence. Dirroli (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More drama. The CUs and admins who work here are scarce and very busy, and the bickering in this section adds no signal but does add a lot of noise, and it makes anybody less interested in engaging (the CUs and admins are volunteers too), and more work for them, once they do engage. All this should be on the Talk page but hey. Jytdog (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So to stop the drama, you added that bit of drama? Is this the talk page? Dirroli (talk) 23:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CFredkin, As Brianhe and others say, my evidence is provided above. For example, the link I gave above contains 100 or so diffs of you and CS removing positive information from Mark Udall’s bio and adding negative; his rival at the time of the edits was an FP1 client.[ https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/timeline.py?users=Champaign+Supernova&users=CFredkin&page=Mark_Udall] As a fresh example, here’s a list of 100 or so edits of you and CS doing the opposite on FP1 client Jodi Ernst.[ https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/timeline.py?page=Joni_Ernst&users=CFredkin&users=Champaign+Supernova] I’d invite users to scan the edit summaries in each list and then just start clicking randomly to see the trend. No single edit is transparently bad, but this systematic editing related to FP1 clients is typical of the approach of the other likely FP1 sockpuppets listed above. (Compare LA’s edits at John Shimkus and Kyle McCarter or elsewhere). I think I’ve repeated myself enough, so unless there’s a burning need for my input later, this’ll be my last post to this page. Thanks everybody for volunteering your time here, no matter what your opinion. Best, Ellen EllenMcGill (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Aggie fan0 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) on here? Based on that user's edit history, they added negative information to Rodney Davis (Republican) and removed it from Ann Callis (Democrat). Isn't that the opposite of the pattern you're looking for? Also, just a note that most of these accounts are stale. I believe check user data is only stored for three months. That excludes User:Iliketoeatpotatoesalot, User:Tt121673, User:Aggie fan0, User:InaMaka, and User:Debellatio. Only four accounts on the list are active: me, CFredkin, Lesbianadvocate, and Intermittentgardener. I would guess the latter two are either sock or meat puppets of each other. Also, just an observation: based on our responses here, does anyone realistically think that me and CFredkin are the same person? Champaign Supernova (talk) 23:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing the similarity between you and CFredkin, or commonality between either of you and the core Lesbianadvocate/Intermittentgardener/Ilikepotatoesalot complex. I'm convinced that Tt121673 also belongs to that complex because it SPAs for some of the same people and uses an identical edit summary when creating articles (the kind of edit summary used by people that have had a lot of experience with the speedy delete process). Aggie fan0 looks like a PR sock for somebody, but as you noted not F1's client. I'm not ready to comment on the last two yet, because I haven't looked them over. Geogene (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's stale at this point, but I think there's a good chance SamsonBell (talk · contribs) was involved here as well. This user only edited Terri Lynn Land (and in a very promotional way). Also interesting to look at NazariyKaminski (talk · contribs). This user was blocked in October 2014 after edit-warring over material in Greg Orman, Ed Gillespie, Marilinda Garcia, Joni Ernst, Greg Abbott, Mark Udall, and others. Champaign Supernova (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at InaMaka I'm seeing an editor that looks a lot a less experienced version of LA/IG in how they behave towards other users. They sound about the same to me [37]. There are also some unique attributes in IM that unfortunately I couldn't find in LA/IG. One that does transfer is that they all seem to be really paranoid about socks. IM: [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]. LA: [45], [46]; IG: [47], [48]. For what it's worth, they did seem to opposed by a lot of socks. NazariyKaminski is an excellent candidate and that account should be compared with LA/IG/ILP and InaMaka, because my cursory look makes it seem like it could possibly be transitional between these. Block log looks familiar too. Debellatio doesn't sound the same to me, that person seems to be more laid back about grammar, but with such a short contribution history there isn't much to say. SamsonBell looks the part...SPA and a good edit warrior, wish there were examples of their direct Talk page interactions with other users. Geogene (talk) 02:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per the feedback here, I’ve removed my additions of AggieFan and Deballatio. Since opinion is more divided on whether CS and CF are worth looking at (Jytdog and Brianhe think yes, Geogene and Vanamonde think no?), I’ll leave them for now, especially since CS also wants the Checkusers run on their account. Though for me, CS’s help in finding these other likely sock puppets—and some evidence in the sock puppets’ histories of battling with CS-- goes a long way toward allaying any suspicions I had left. I look forward to apologizing to you. CFredkin I’m still curious about.

I also thought I should point out that FP1 Strategies lists a large “digital media” team on their website. Surely they do much more than Wikipedia, but if multiple employees have edited here, idiosyncratic behaviors might not be the same between all the accounts. Hopefully the Checkusers will give us more to go on? How long does that usually take to run? Given the number of high-profile US political biographies involved, it’d be great to have one of the site administrators take a look. Thanks everybody! EllenMcGill (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If multiple employees have edited here, then the check user most likely won't be helpful. Check user will only show if someone has edited from the same computer. If there are multiple individuals involved here, they are most likely editing from different computers and perhaps even different geographic locations, in which case they will have different IP addresses and check user will yield no results. They also then wouldn't be sock puppets, but meat puppets, and/or WP:COI/paid editors. I know you started this at the COI noticeboard, but perhaps it will end up there again. As for how long this will take, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations lists open SPIs (the same status as this case) dating back to February 13 of this year. So it will likely take quite awhile. Like I said above, I'm happy to have a check user run on my account as frankly some vindication would feel great at this point, but given the backlog at SPI, I'm not particularly keen to waste an admin's time on my account. IMO, the relevant actors here are Lesbianadvocate, Intermittentgardener, and Iliketoeatpotatoesalot. It's up to you of course, but unless you still think there's a credible chance I'm involved with these other editors, I would appreciate it if you removed my name from this case. Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Technical discussion about shared IPs
Surely if they've all edited from the same office, they are likely to have the same IP? They don't necessarily need to have edited from the same computer, unless I misunderstand how CheckUser works. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I could be wrong, but based on IP address, I thought that each device in a computer network had its own IP address. Now that I think about it, though, if there are indeed multiple people using different devices in say, the same office, I'm sure the check user would note that they all originated from a similar IP range. So maybe it's not about exactly matching the IP address, but about finding a similar range? Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Different devices connected to the same router (say, in a house) will share an IP address. This can also be the case in an office, which is why we see Template:Shared IP corp on some IP editors' talk pages. In a large office, I suspect that there will be a range of IPs in use, but the connection between them should be obvious. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, CS, I removed you above. I apologize for dragging you into this; you've conducted yourself, in contrast, like a scholar and a gentleman (or lady). Best, Ellen, -- EllenMcGill (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence from Commons

Not sure if this is considered relevant here, but posting anyway: I've nominated File:TerryNelson.jpg for deletion on Commons because I see no indication in the file page or in the related OTRS ticket that permission has been granted by the copyright owner shown in the EXIF data, Michael Temchine. The file was uploaded by Lesbianadvocate and FP1 Strategies is listed as source and as author. I note that a licence was added to the page by Iliketoeatpotatoesalot; I'm very curious to know how that user – who was not the uploader and (I believe) is not an OTRS agent – was able to determine what licence to add. Neither Lesbianadvocate nor Iliketoeatpotatoesalot has edited any other Commons page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Checkuser comments

Not all the accounts are stale. There's evidence of socking as well as paid editing, that's mostly posted at the top of the text wall. Usually socking is easier to prove than paid editing and it's a first step in dealing with the problem. Here it would be remarkable if paid editing is proven later, after SPIs are declined for procedural reasons. Geogene (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not allowed to delete my comments and the long discussion that ensued (I tried!), but I would suggest administrators ignore everything here except Brianhe's initial request and evidence. LA and IG are not stale accounts, and are manifestly the same user. -- EllenMcGill (talk) 01:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: Would it be permitted for me or Ellen to {{collapse top}}/{{collapse bottom}} the portions of the discussion that pertain to CFredkin and InaMaka? That way the conversation would be preserved but we could focus on the accounts of concern. - Brianhe.public (talk) 02:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been following all of the comments here, but I do feel sorry for EllenMcGill, who has been passed from pillar to post in trying to get this paid editing case resolved. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23: Okay, I've concealed all discussion beyond the initial request. The vast bulk of this concerned the user CFredkin, who posted here more than 25 times after I added him to the request. If I understand you right, that long discussion means he effectively can't be checked, so I've removed him from the case. I also removed the old suspected account Inamaka, since that raises confusion about "which account is the master" that doesn't seem relevant. This narrows the case back to Brian's initial four suggestions, which in any case are much more conclusively sock puppets (they coordinate sandboxes and image uploads, edit the same obscure articles, etc.). I hope these adjustments will make the request into one you will be willing to consider, but just let me know if any further changes are required. Thanks, EllenMcGill (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My changes were undone by User:219.77.82.45. Since this user hasn't identified themselves as a party to this case, I've restored my collapse templates for now. Note that this account has edited heavily at PJ Media, also an article of interest for suspected sockpuppets IL and IG. -- EllenMcGill (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yay, great news! But the credit's all yours here, Jytdog; if you hadn't spotted the sockpuppets, shutting down just the LA account would hardly have made a difference. Speaking of which, LA unfortunately continues to edit even as we congratulate each other here, as User:219.77.82.45. This account has edited only this SPI request (!) and FP1 favorite subject PJ Media and its related people; Google tells me this IP address originates in Hong Kong, which is where User_talk:Lesbianadvocate#Lesbianadvocate LA lives (a statement I didn't believe till just now). Bbb23 and Vanjagenije, can anything be done about that one? Thanks to you both for your help, Ellen -- EllenMcGill (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you Bbb23. Thanks for doing the CU; I know you all are very backlogged here. Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I knew that Lesbianadvocate was an editor I needed to keep an eye on, and I felt that the editor was likely a sock; so I watchlisted that editor's talk page. Good to see that my instincts were not off. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

 Checkuser note: First, some of the accounts haven't edited in years. Second, the account listed as the master is not the oldest account. Third, good luck with finding someone to read the wall of text to figure out what the evidence of socking is. Finally, paid editing often does not involve socking.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @EllenMcGill: I know you were trying to help, but as I stated in my edit summary, you're not entitled to remove other users' comments. You can achieve the same thing by saying that in your view I or someone else can look right after Brian said "submitted for your consideration". Also, please don't add comments in this section. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

05 June 2016

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

TL;DR Averyevilcentipede is very similar to the previous socks. Edit summaries show similarity to 219.77.82.45 who was blocked previously for block evasion. Topic of edits show similarity to previous sock "Singaporebobby".

Topic based evidence
  • Editing on same topics as "Singaporebobby" and others. See this. All of these are related to ATS(Alliant techsystems) who are paid clients of FP1. (Sock is trying hard to disguise it though).
Not new user
  • The user Averyevilcentipede started editing on 9 May 2016. This is certainly not a new user. These are some of the first few edits [49],[50],[51]. I have never seen a new editor talk immediately about promotional content and sourcing.
  • Unnaturally silly edit summaries [52],[53],[54],[55]. Similar to [56]
  • Removing chunks of material with an edit summary ending in "removed" or "deleted".
  • Concerned with removing COI/Advert tag. ([57],[58] intent similar to previous IP and sock [59],[60]. The tag removal in one cases was determined as premature. (And it is sneakily doing it for its clients [61],[62].
Stalking COIN

The user is stalking COIN and trying to disguise its intent. I have never seen a new user browsing COIN on the same day it started editing

Overall this seems like the same group. A sleeper check would be useful here. Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I figured this user would be back. I came across very stale socks recently that you can see active in the history here along with Intermittentgardener who was one of the socks in the 1st case.

Their topic matter overlaps very well as does their edit note writing style. Actual sentence structure starting with capital and ending with period, and making sly jokes like this for Goodmedicine and this for intermittentgardener and this for Roman666 and same exact edit note "Smoother language." for each here for Roman666 and here for Goodmedicine and here for intermittentgardener. Jytdog (talk) 10:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

09 August 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

I had been AGF about this user: [64]. However, looking at their recent edits and the archives of this SPI, I find it difficult to believe that they are a new user and suspect that they are a sock of LA. The majority of their edits have been to articles edited by the previous socks e.g. [65] [66] [67]

This string of edits yesterday (edit: and last month) set off alarms as it added yet more promotional content to the article, yet was accompanied by removing the COI and notability templates. More examples of template removal: [68] [69] [70].

Requesting CU to see whether there are other accounts lurking. @Jytdog, Lemongirl942, and Brianhe: just in case you are not watching, to see whether you recognise any other similarities. SmartSE (talk) 14:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

If you look at the substance of my edits linked to above, you will see that I only added factual information based on the sources cited. I have never added promotional content nor engaged in any other type of disruptive behavior. With regard to removing templates, I only do so when the policy in question allows me to after verifying that the text is neutral and conforms to the sources. I am not a problematic editor. We should not be here right now.Happytraveler123 (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, SmartSE is wrong to say that the majority of my edits have been to articles edited by socks listed in the linked archive. I don't edit very much so this was quick and easy for me to count. I am now starting to think that this claim and the claim I added promotional content were either made thoughtlessly or in bad faith. I just used the editor interaction tool and the only one of the socks listed that show a substantial overlap with me is singaporebobby and it is very easy to see from our writing styles and editing histories that we are not the same user. Happytraveler123 (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, SmartSE is making it sound like I am pretending to be a new user. But if you look on my user page you can see where I disclosed that I had been editing as an IP user, listed two of my recent IP addresses, and explained that I was moving to a named account to avoid confusion with other people using the same network. I have in fact been editing for years and make no secret of that fact. Take a look at 45.114.116.108 and 103.6.219.2. Note that some of the edits listed are not mine as I do not have a fixed IP. Happytraveler123 (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Happytraveler123: Over 50 % of your edits are to articles related to Vista Outdoor and it's subsidiaries. I call that a majority. Can you please explain the edits you made to Giro (company) yesterday and last month? SmartSE (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your math is wrong but that is a tangent anyway. As far as my edits to Giro go, there is nothing to explain. I saw problems and I fixed them. After that I used Google to try and find content to make the article more useful. I did not as you allege add any promotional content. I stuck to the bare facts. I have not engaged in any misconduct and there is no reason to treat me this way. Happytraveler123 (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And note that a huge chunk of the edits I made related to Vista Outdoor companies were about their founders and their activities decades ago. I can't see anything promotional or even harmful about doing things like filling out Roy Richter's biography.Happytraveler123 (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartse: you didn't point out, so maybe you didn't see it: this account also edited at Serengeti Eyewear (sunglasses brand) following another LA sock, Singaporebobby. Other interactions between the two include Vista Outdoor, Bell Sports, Giro (company), CCI (ammunition), Savage Arms and CamelBak.  Looks like a duck to me ☆ Bri (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

All previous accounts are  Stale; there is no technical data to compare. Yunshui 雲水 12:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is a pity that so much of the evidence has been posted here to be seen by the editor in question, warning him or her what give-away clues to avoid with future sockpuppets. However, I did manage to find other evidence too, not mentioned here. On the basis of what I have seen, I am close to certain that this is another sockpuppet, even more certain that this is an undisclosed paid editor editing in conflict with the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use. Also, the editor has clearly been editing in promotional ways, albeit hiding the promotion behind apparently non-promotional editing. I shall block the account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

26 August 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

After blocking these sockpuppets, they continued the same activity using proxies and VPN. The two reported IP have a strong overlap with Happytraveler123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and both IP are, apparently, nodes of the same VPN ([71], [72]). MarioGom (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

18 April 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


General note: The sockfarm is probably related to Classyklowngrasper SPI too, but it's not relevant for the reported socks, other than for the username patterns.

Note to CheckUser: Based on logged out editing, I think this sockfarm may be using Astrill VPN. You may want to check IPs for the VPN provider with Spur (example).

-- MarioGom (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's somewhat tangential, but I reported Lostinspacetime1949 at WP:COIN (link) some time ago, then that account was abandoned and JamesChidworth88 was created to continue work in that field. MarioGom (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lovelylinda1980 seems interested in promoting action against Robert Shireman by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which was edited by Intermittentgardener. MarioGom (talk) 11:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
Too  Stale - no available data:
Jaycharbonneau (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Turkeyturkeypieyum (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Trackerboi2291 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Jaycharbonneau88 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Lostinspacetime1949 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
JamesChidworth88 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my view, the CU data here is  Inconclusive because of the use of proxies. (Courtesy ping Oshwah) Mz7 (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some behavioural patterns here that make it very clear that these accounts are related to each other and to Lesbianadvocate. I'm hesitant to say more because it's UPE, but the overlap alone should be a clear clue and I can provide clarification elsewhere if needed. Pink clock Awaiting administrative action – please block the lot, including the inactive ones, both for recordkeeping and because some of these socks can sleep for long periods of time, see e.g. here from May 2018 to April 2019 or the master from November 2012 to May 2014. Thanks and best, Blablubbs|talk 12:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • All accounts  Blocked and tagged per Blablubbs, closing. Mz7 (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

02 July 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Consistent timecard (Mon-Fri, subset of hours, see [75], [76]), similar edit summary usage (or lack), characteristic username pattern, interesting overlap Editor Interaction Analyser (Godzillaforpresident, Classafelonymonkey). As with other socks, it can be seen that during its 2016 activity period (2016-11-21 to 2016-12-14) other accounts did not edit, while Classafelonymonkey preceded it and Happytraveler123 followed it. MarioGom (talk) 12:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • @Blablubbs: you mentioned in 18 April 2021 that you had noticed a "behavioural pattern" that tied everybody together. Could you drop me an email with the details? The editor interaction link from MarioGom could be socking, or could just be somebody interested in space and rockets, and I haven't dug into this much beyond that yet. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mario, do you have time to send over the collected notes? Otherwise I can send an email sometime tonight or tomorrow. -- Blablubbs (talk) 13:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocked and tagged Godzilla based on overlap with Classafelonymonkey on topics related to United Launch Alliance, plus a bunch of technical beans and similarities in writing style. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lesbianadvocate/Archive&oldid=1076209304"