Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ISPman/Archive

< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | ISPman



ISPman

ISPman (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date January 27 2010, 14:54 (UTC)
edit
Suspected sockpuppets
edit
Evidence submitted by Ash
edit

These accounts are being used to manipulate evidence and discussions at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paul_Andersen. In particular the style of writing (upper-case with full stop) for the comments made as well as the history and timing of account creation and edits made to relevant pages make this a straight-forward case where WP:QUACK applies. See diff in comparison to diff and diff.

In the AfD I referred to MiniPC (talk · contribs), a previously blocked account by accident. This may be a co-incidence rather than a relevant sock. Ash (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties
edit

Having read "Defending yourself against claims" I am certain that after review of IP address and account information that this accusation will be dismissed. To my knowledge I do not know any of these other users. I do now note however that user Minipc101 has reverted the very valid change's that were made to the ARIN page and that page now contains information that is inaccurate. I can only assume that person is insulted by this investigation as well. Thank-you user User:Ash for contributing to the inaccuracy of Wikipedia. ISPman (talk) 03:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • As a result of this investigation I have decided that I no longer want to partipate in the Wikipedia project. Details are available here

ISPman (talk) 05:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

I had previously voiced concerns that User:ISPman might have COI regarding the Paul Anderson article although I made no attempt at discovering their real identity. User:ISPman assured us that no COI exists and I cheerfully struck my remarks and assumed good faith. It's disappointing to see my faith was misplaced. Looking at the edit histories of the people who have opined to "keep" the Paul Anderson article it's pretty darn obvious that something fishy is afoot. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


1. User:ISPman is the author of Paul Andersen and an active participant on WP:Articles for deletion/Paul Andersen. He has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

2. M3hm3t has made no other edits outside this topic.

3. LouieNet has committed five very minor edits in almost three years. While it does seem somewhat strange that his or her fifth edit happened to be a keep vote on an AfD discussion, it's the phrasing of this vote that looks most suspicious. Compare [1] with M3hm3t's earlier [2].

4. Minipc101 committed six major edits. All of them deal with the three companies listed on Paul Andersen and three of them mention Paul Andersen directly. See [3],[4], [5]. User:Minipc101 only came to our attention when User:ISPman mentioned the user's name on WP:Articles for deletion/Paul Andersen, see [6].

In conclusion, Minipc101 and User:ISPman started contributing to Wikipedia on almost the same day. Both users have a week-long gap between subsequent edits. Aside from the mentioned fact that the comments of M3hm3t and LouieNet are nearly identical, there are some minor stylistic similarities between the comments M3hm3t, LouieNet and ISPman. — Rankiri (talk) 14:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENTS

  • Please look at the history. Minipc101 was truly dragged into this mess by User:Ash, although User:Ash incorrectly accused User:MiniPC which I corrected for him after looking at the history of page ARIN. User:Ash has subsequently admitted that he dragged User:MiniPC into this by error and meant to name User:Minipc101. ISPman (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is self-evidently a typo in the account name. I explained this when this SPI was raised and that particular account is not identified above as a possible sock puppet. Saying I "dragged" and "accused" is overly dramatic. Ash (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is interesting to note that when different users comment on the same topics, it is assumed by others to be SockPuppetry. Did it ever occur to anyone that users that feel the need to edit pages likely do so because they have knowledge of the subject? It does not surprise me to see that another user would edit multiple pages that might have reference to Paul Andersen. Paul Andersen is a notable figure in Internet Governance, and as such any user that edits a page related to Internet Governance is likely to edit a page that is related to and/or mentions Paul Andersen. To me this is plain common sense. To you this is evidence of SockPuppetry which I feel is a perfect example of Troll-like behaviour. ISPman (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The AfD was raised on the basis of the question of notability of Paul Andersen. Even if he were remarkably notable, this would in no way account for the close timing and style of edits from these different accounts. Anyone examining the edit history of the pages involved can see the oddity of recent contributions over the last two weeks compared to the whole of 2009. Ash (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • With regards to your comment that starts with "Anyone examining the edit history ...", anyone with any knowledge of Internet Governance knows that majority of public boards involved in Internet Governance have terms which come into effect January 1st. Therefore it is highly likely that most edits of pages related to Internet Governance, especially where Board Member lineups are concerned, will occur in the months of January. Once again, lack of knowledge on the subject has led to the continued inability for you to, among other things, assume good faith. ISPman (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I understand it, this sockpuppet investigation was triggered by some alarming sings that suggested that at least one of the mentioned accounts may be a sock puppet. It is a normal procedure and you should still be considered innocent unless there is enough compelling evidence to conclude otherwise. Please read signs of sock puppetry to better understand the reasons behind this report, and please, try not to take this so personally. — Rankiri (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • My apologies. I've done my best not to take the AfD personally, but I am finding it hard to not take the accusation of partaking in SockPuppetry personally. I truly wish there wasn't a backlog of investigations so they could clear my name of this false allegation so I can get on with my life. I can assure you that you won't have to worry about me taking things personally in the future for the reasons discussed here. ISPman (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
edit
Checkuser request – code letter: C (Vote stacking affecting outcome )
Current status –   Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.

Self-endorsing for CheckUser attention. It's either canvassing/meatpuppetry or socking. A check should help sort that out. –MuZemike 20:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bearing in mind that a lack of relationship is impossible to prove conclusively, these accounts appear to be   Unrelated from a purely technical standpoint. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Administrator note I'm willing to conclude that this is merely meatpuppetry as a result of off-wiki canvassing. No action taken at this time, especially given that none of the accounts have edited in almost two weeks. –MuZemike 17:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  This case has been marked as closed. It will be archived after its final review by a Clerk or Checkuser.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ISPman/Archive&oldid=1138672188"