Cordless Larry (talk | contribs) →Comments by other users: Collapsing technical discussion |
EllenMcGill (talk | contribs) removing two to simplify case per feedback; collapsing discussion of possible other accounts for readability |
||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
* {{checkuser|1=Iliketoeatpotatoesalot}} |
* {{checkuser|1=Iliketoeatpotatoesalot}} |
||
* {{checkuser|1=Tt121673}} |
* {{checkuser|1=Tt121673}} |
||
* {{checkuser|1=InaMaka}} |
|||
* {{checkuser|1=CFredkin}} |
|||
<!-- You may duplicate the templates above ({{checkuser}} and {{checkIP}}) to list more accounts--> |
<!-- You may duplicate the templates above ({{checkuser}} and {{checkIP}}) to list more accounts--> |
||
Line 30: | Line 28: | ||
: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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lenovo_smartphones&oldid=461273291 this], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LePad&oldid=461272934 this], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenovo_IdeaPad_U300s 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. [[User:Brianhe|Brianhe]] ([[User talk:Brianhe|talk]]) 11:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC) |
: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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lenovo_smartphones&oldid=461273291 this], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LePad&oldid=461272934 this], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenovo_IdeaPad_U300s 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. [[User:Brianhe|Brianhe]] ([[User talk:Brianhe|talk]]) 11:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC) |
||
{{collapse top|title=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." [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Flores&diff=prev&oldid=394176704]; "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." [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Flores&diff=prev&oldid=394175565]; "All of my edits are neutral. You are the person that keeps removing notable, reliably sourced info presented in NPOV, not me" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arbor8&diff=prev&oldid=393640656]), and refusing to use article talk pages. Inactive since 2010 election cycle. -- [[User:EllenMcGill|EllenMcGill]] ([[User talk:EllenMcGill|talk]]) 16:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC) |
: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." [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Flores&diff=prev&oldid=394176704]; "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." [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Flores&diff=prev&oldid=394175565]; "All of my edits are neutral. You are the person that keeps removing notable, reliably sourced info presented in NPOV, not me" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arbor8&diff=prev&oldid=393640656]), and refusing to use article talk pages. Inactive since 2010 election cycle. -- [[User:EllenMcGill|EllenMcGill]] ([[User talk:EllenMcGill|talk]]) 16:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC) |
||
::Removed per below. -- [[User:EllenMcGill|EllenMcGill]] ([[User talk:EllenMcGill|talk]]) 14:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::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. [https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=CFredkin&users=Champaign+Supernova&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=] 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.[https://www.opensecrets.org/expends/vendor.php?year=2014&vendor=Fp1+Strategies] [[Pat Roberts]] is another known FP1 client [https://www.opensecrets.org/expends/vendor.php?year=2014&vendor=Fp1+Strategies] from whose article CF tried aggressively to remove negative information.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pat_Roberts&type=revision&diff=581819784&oldid=579851838][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pat_Roberts&type=revision&diff=629729492&oldid=629717662][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pat_Roberts&type=revision&diff=623961185&oldid=623920256] [[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[https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/timeline.py?users=Champaign+Supernova&users=CFredkin&page=Mark_Udall]. Sometimes CF and CS even show up at the same discussion where only 4-5 people comment [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gwen_Graham_(2nd_nomination)] or here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mark_Udall] where they argue with editor GrammarXX together, or here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Perdue] 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''.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=622532302] 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.[http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/florida-senate-campaign-admits-to-scrubbing-candidates-wikip#.txk3eBOLee] |
::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. [https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=CFredkin&users=Champaign+Supernova&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=] 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.[https://www.opensecrets.org/expends/vendor.php?year=2014&vendor=Fp1+Strategies] [[Pat Roberts]] is another known FP1 client [https://www.opensecrets.org/expends/vendor.php?year=2014&vendor=Fp1+Strategies] from whose article CF tried aggressively to remove negative information.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pat_Roberts&type=revision&diff=581819784&oldid=579851838][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pat_Roberts&type=revision&diff=629729492&oldid=629717662][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pat_Roberts&type=revision&diff=623961185&oldid=623920256] [[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[https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/timeline.py?users=Champaign+Supernova&users=CFredkin&page=Mark_Udall]. Sometimes CF and CS even show up at the same discussion where only 4-5 people comment [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gwen_Graham_(2nd_nomination)] or here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mark_Udall] where they argue with editor GrammarXX together, or here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Perdue] 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''.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=622532302] 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.[http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/florida-senate-campaign-admits-to-scrubbing-candidates-wikip#.txk3eBOLee] |
||
Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
:::''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.'' -- [[User:EllenMcGill|EllenMcGill]] ([[User talk:EllenMcGill|talk]]) 23:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC) |
:::''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.'' -- [[User:EllenMcGill|EllenMcGill]] ([[User talk:EllenMcGill|talk]]) 23:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC) |
||
:::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[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mary_Landrieu&diff=prev&oldid=566540102], all seem reminiscent of other accounts in this network. Not conclusive, just worth checking. -- [[User:EllenMcGill|EllenMcGill]] ([[User talk:EllenMcGill|talk]]) 14:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC) |
:::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[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mary_Landrieu&diff=prev&oldid=566540102], all seem reminiscent of other accounts in this network. Not conclusive, just worth checking. -- [[User:EllenMcGill|EllenMcGill]] ([[User talk:EllenMcGill|talk]]) 14:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC) |
||
::::Removed per below. -- [[User:EllenMcGill|EllenMcGill]] ([[User talk:EllenMcGill|talk]]) 14:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
{{collapse bottom|title=Discussion about other possible accounts}} |
|||
====<big>Comments by other users</big>==== |
====<big>Comments by other users</big>==== |
||
Line 48: | Line 49: | ||
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: |
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 [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TerryNelson.jpg 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) [https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py?name=Lesbianadvocate&page=Terry_Nelson_%28political_consultant%29&server=enwiki&max= never directly edited] the article about the partner. At the time that person joined F1, the article about him was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terry_Nelson_%28political_consultant%29&type=revision&diff=656409720&oldid=620982459 edited a lot] by a [[User:Intermittentgardener]] (negative information removed) and then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terry_Nelson_%28political_consultant%29&type=revision&diff=656435598&oldid=656409720 further] by [[User:Iliketoeatpotatoesalot]], which added the image in that series of edits. Which brings those two accounts under this same cloud. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 21:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC) |
*Another key connection to FP1 is [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TerryNelson.jpg 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) [https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py?name=Lesbianadvocate&page=Terry_Nelson_%28political_consultant%29&server=enwiki&max= never directly edited] the article about the partner. At the time that person joined F1, the article about him was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terry_Nelson_%28political_consultant%29&type=revision&diff=656409720&oldid=620982459 edited a lot] by a [[User:Intermittentgardener]] (negative information removed) and then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terry_Nelson_%28political_consultant%29&type=revision&diff=656435598&oldid=656409720 further] by [[User:Iliketoeatpotatoesalot]], which added the image in that series of edits. Which brings those two accounts under this same cloud. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 21:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC) |
||
{{collapse top|title=Discussion about other possible accounts 2}} |
|||
::{{u|Jytdog}}, {{u|Brianhe}}, {{u|Geogene}}, should [[User:Jbrackett74]] be added? FP1 strategies was employed last winter to pass his bill Connect NC.[https://www.facebook.com/FP1Strategies/] 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?). [[User:EllenMcGill|EllenMcGill]] ([[User talk:EllenMcGill|talk]]) 15:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC) |
::{{u|Jytdog}}, {{u|Brianhe}}, {{u|Geogene}}, should [[User:Jbrackett74]] be added? FP1 strategies was employed last winter to pass his bill Connect NC.[https://www.facebook.com/FP1Strategies/] 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?). [[User:EllenMcGill|EllenMcGill]] ([[User talk:EllenMcGill|talk]]) 15:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC) |
||
*Note: {{u|Jytdog}} has moved discussion regarding the conduct of this SPI to [[Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Lesbianadvocate]]. [[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry]] ([[User talk:Cordless Larry|talk]]) 18:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC) |
*Note: {{u|Jytdog}} has moved discussion regarding the conduct of this SPI to [[Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Lesbianadvocate]]. [[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry]] ([[User talk:Cordless Larry|talk]]) 18:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC) |
||
Line 123: | Line 125: | ||
<small>Not sure if this is considered relevant here, but posting anyway:</small> |
<small>Not sure if this is considered relevant here, but posting anyway:</small> |
||
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 {{u|Lesbianadvocate}} and FP1 Strategies is listed as source and as author. I note that a licence was added to the page by {{u|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. [[User:Justlettersandnumbers|Justlettersandnumbers]] ([[User talk:Justlettersandnumbers|talk]]) 14:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC) |
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 {{u|Lesbianadvocate}} and FP1 Strategies is listed as source and as author. I note that a licence was added to the page by {{u|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. [[User:Justlettersandnumbers|Justlettersandnumbers]] ([[User talk:Justlettersandnumbers|talk]]) 14:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC) |
||
{{collapse bottom|title=Discussion about other possible accounts 2}} |
|||
;Reply to Checkuser comments |
;Reply to Checkuser comments |
||
Line 129: | Line 133: | ||
::{{Ping|Bbb23}} Would it be permitted for me or Ellen to {{tl|collapse top}}/{{tl|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. - [[User:Brianhe.public|Brianhe.public]] ([[User talk:Brianhe.public|talk]]) 02:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC) |
::{{Ping|Bbb23}} Would it be permitted for me or Ellen to {{tl|collapse top}}/{{tl|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. - [[User:Brianhe.public|Brianhe.public]] ([[User talk:Brianhe.public|talk]]) 02:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC) |
||
:::I haven't been following all of the comments here, but I do feel sorry for {{u|EllenMcGill}}, who has been passed from pillar to post in trying to get this paid editing case resolved. [[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry]] ([[User talk:Cordless Larry|talk]]) 12:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC) |
:::I haven't been following all of the comments here, but I do feel sorry for {{u|EllenMcGill}}, who has been passed from pillar to post in trying to get this paid editing case resolved. [[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry]] ([[User talk:Cordless Larry|talk]]) 12:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC) |
||
{{u|Bbb23}}: Okay, I've concealed all discussion beyond the initial request. The vast bulk of this concerned the user CFredkin, who posted here [https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-articleinfo/?article=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lesbianadvocate&project=en.wikipedia.org 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, [[User:EllenMcGill|EllenMcGill]] ([[User talk:EllenMcGill|talk]]) 14:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
====<big>Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</big>==== |
====<big>Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</big>==== |
Revision as of 14:52, 19 April 2016
Lesbianadvocate
- Lesbianadvocate (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
07 April 2016
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Intermittentgardener (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Iliketoeatpotatoesalot (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Tt121673 (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
- Editor interaction utility
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)
- 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)
Discussion about other possible accounts
|
---|
|
Comments by other users
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)
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)
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)
Discussion about other possible accounts 2
| ||
---|---|---|
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)
all you are doing here is adding drama, which does nothing to help anything. Jytdog (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- @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)
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)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
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)
- @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)
- @Brianhe.public: Collapsing what you believe to be irrelevant information is a good idea. However, if any of the participants in the collapsed discussion undo the collapsing, then you'll have to let it go.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)