Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Drsjpdc/Archive

< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | Drsjpdc


Drsjpdc

Report date December 29 2009, 19:46 (UTC)
edit
Suspected sockpuppets
edit


Evidence submitted by Ktr101
edit

An ANI was opened here concerning article ownership of Stephen J. Press. Drsjpdc is almost certainly Stephen, but article ownership is not the issue, as he might call this that when he reads this. Srsjpdc denies that he is related to Platnium here. This is alright, but when one looks at the fact that both editors are editing the same article rather heavily and they don't communicate with one another, suspicions are naturally raised. Furthermore, they are supposed friends in real life, so why haven't they talked to each other on the userpage, since that's what friends usually do here. Their style of denial is also the same in that they both strongly deny being related. Finally, Drsjpdc created the userpage of Platnium, and so far, he has been the only editor.

When it comes to Platnium, I think that Gary Auerbach is going to be most identified with the username. Drsjpdc created his page, so suspicion is still there on the sockpuppetry. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   
edit

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
edit

If the users are indeed friends in real life, is it not possible that they are communicating off-wiki? This is certainly tolerated behaviour, and I haven't seen any evidence of improper behaviour by these editors. Put another way, they may indeed be meat-puppets, but where is the problem behaviour? COI is a problem if they ARE bullying/owning pages, or if they are not adhering to NPOV, but I haven't seen any evidence of this - while editing ones own page is frowned upon, it is allowed. Diffs please. DigitalC (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Drsjpdc is almost certainly Stephen" Based on my initial interactions with Drsjpdc, I can assert that he is definitely Stephen J Press. If you're in for a long read: then read this. Aditya Ex Machina 20:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If they're not sock puppets there is some serious meat-puppetry going on with this article, User:DigitalC being the latest meat-puppet gathered by Drsjpdc to act on his behalf at his article.

The patterns of editing, where both Platinumphotographer and Drsjpdc never seem to be editing at the same time, even though both were involved in an incident yesterday, the serial editing of another article Gary Auerbach, or one is involved then shuts up and the other is involved, makes it appears, from their records, that they are sock-puppets. In creating Platinumphotographer's user page, Drsjpdc included information, then changed it, that Platniumphotographer is a coffee drinker, uses Mozilla firefox and google search. They claim to talk on the phone, but not in person. It seems too much information from Drsjpdc on Platinumphotographer's User page for it not to be him. This, plus the edit histories and the convenience of Platinumphotographer showing up just in time to take over ownership of Drsjpdc's biography on wikipedia make it appear they are sock puppets. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP69 is continuing on with their lack of AGF. I was not "gathered by Drsjpdc" to act on his behalf. I have communicated with Drsjpdc by email before, but would not say that I know him, and would not agree that I am a meatpuppet of his (it has been suggested on IP69`s talk page that I may infact be a sockpuppet of Drsjpdc too). I have not communicated with Drsjpdc either on-wiki or off-wiki for a few weeks. I first interacted with Drsjpdc as a result of a helpme request, a couple months ago [1]. I have been editing WP for close to 3 years and as far as I know, this is the first time it has been suggested that I am a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. For the record, I also use google as a search engine, use firefox as a webclient, and drink coffee. DigitalC (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DigitalC is not a meat-puppet of Dr. Press, he is a long standing editor who has helped Dr. Press with his editing, and likely has most of the articles Dr. Press creates on his watchlist (as do I). --kelapstick (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kelapstick, I was going to have to search the history to find the other meat-puppet. Meat and socks are all here, I think. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you joking, or am I misinterpreting your comment? Are you seriously suggesting that Kelapstick is also a meatpuppet of Drsjpdc? DigitalC (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On further analysis, and on reading IP69's comments above (he's really fishing now) I recommend this SPI request be denied. I see no evidence of harmful sockpuppetry, which is what this page is supposed to take care of. Aditya Ex Machina 20:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you're initially supporting this, and then denying that we take any action after there is a pretty definite link between the two? I'm not accusing you of anything, but action should be taken if two socks are out there roaming unblocked. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not fishing for anything. If I were fishing I would have asked for things I don't see and can't provide evidence for. I think that Drsjpdc and Platinumphotographer are sock puppets. I've said that many places, and I continue to say ti. So where's my fishing? There's quite a bit of meat puppetry going on, also. That's another board. However, when a BLP is written by a sock puppet of the subject, that's an important matter. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not supporting anything. I just said Drsjpdc is definitely Stephen Press. That's it. There have been no attempts to sway consensus, there is no meatpuppetry. I strongly believe Platinum is a new editor that Drsjpdc knows in real life, though that is not a sockpuppet. Aditya Ex Machina 20:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Alison below: I'm not speculating on his real life identity. He's disclosed it on-wiki, read the diff I linked to above. Aditya Ex Machina 20:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Dr.SJP.DC has definitely disclosed his identity on-wiki, and it is not against policy to mention such information. DigitalC (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was completed and this is all over. Sorry for the confusion Aditya.
You are correct that it is marked as completed, but it is not yet closed. Was the C/U actually done, or was it just marked as completed based on behaviour/duck? DigitalC (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I guess we should ask Allison that question. It isn't under the checkuser category on the SPI page though, so I think she did it with behavioral evidence. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have since done so, and she has confirmed that it was based on IP evidence. DigitalC (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP69.226.103.13 has twice reverted evidence which I posted here (diff) relating to the consequences which ought to be applied in this investigation. I do not know for certain, but in light of the nature of this forum, I would think that any reversion of user comments here would be inappropriate. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not re-instate it. Firstly, it's non-public personal information and complaints were made to Oversight. Secondly, it's irrelevant to the investigation, which has now concluded - Alison ❤ 21:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CheckUser requests
edit
Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status –   Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
edit
Conclusions
edit
  This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date January 14 2010, 01:18 (UTC)
edit
Suspected sockpuppets
edit


Collapsed to clean up the page

[Comment] 68.239.193.109 IS my IP address. This only comes up when I have forgotten to login and edited something. It's not a sockpuppet, it's ME.Sorry if that happens from time to time, but I have NEVER used this inappropriately

From what I can tell that is the same case with 67.167.247.115, it appears to be Wayne's IP address. So what, unless he somewhere used it separately to stack voting, which I also doubt.

As to Mod, I have absolutely NO idea who that could be. I thank him if he supported me anywhere, but I have no clue.68.239.180.104 (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Oops, as I just did now. drsjpdc[reply]

He did stack votes using his logged in username of "Wayne...", which happens to use that IP. It really makes no difference if he stacks votes as an IP or as a logged in user. It's still meatpuppetry and forbidden here. You don't seem to have read the sockpuppetry policy which also discusses meatpuppetry. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After reading some of ModTheRod's writing, I doubt that it's Stephen Press, but more likely "Wayne" since the grammar and spelling are too good for Press. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your denial of being ModTheRod demands that a CU be performed. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

  Clerk note: Off topic questions collapsed. Take to the user's talk page or ANI. Tim Song (talk) 06:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Press, I have two questions for you:
1. You wrote above about bringing "objectivity to articles in the altermed field".
What do you mean by "objectivity" in that sentence? -- Brangifer (talk) 06:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Answer here.... and remember to log-in. Just remove this.
2. You also wrote: "I have been in communication with Chiropractic leaders all over the World regarding the bullying that anyone who tries to bring objectivity to articles in the altermed field gets here. If some of them log on, create accounts and support my positions, this cannot be considered any kind of puppetry. I simply informed them, I don't control them."
This is considered meatpuppetry and canvassing, ergo enlisting support. Informing other editors of matters isn't forbidden, and if they already share one's POV, then free speech rules, but attempting to sway their vote in crucial situations, and especially to violate our rules (which you are doing), is not allowed. Canvassing is something I have once been (falsely) accused of doing. What I did was to encourage other skeptics to start editing, AND I specifically made it clear that they must not violate NPOV and must actually allow opposing POV if those edits were done properly. I explained our policies and how they must abide by them, but I still got in trouble for that!!! Your support of proposed lawsuits against Wikipedia editors isn't going to get you any sympathy here. Anything that chills (threats of any kind) the editing environment is specifically forbidden, and such support is good grounds for an indef ban without any chance of parole. I was tempted to link to the blacklisted website with the legal threats which you have vaguely referred to and which you clearly support, but I won't do that. Anyone who wants the link can email me. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Answer here.... and remember to log-in. Just remove this.
Evidence submitted by Ktr101
edit

Wayne appears to be a single purpose account whose only purpose it to mirror what Drsjpdc says. He edits the same articles as Dr and he also appears in the same deletion discussions. This interaction between the two is highly suspicious.

Mod was suspected after he was found to be editing the same articles as the Dr.

The IPs both edit the articles that Dr has created, but they haven't edited since around the creation of the confirmed sockpuppet Platinumphotographer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just poked around on the [chirowiki] site and I noticed that Drsjpdc is known under the user "ChiroWikiSysop". Chiro works on the same articles as he does here, so this might be where the articles are coming from. The userboxes are also exactly the same. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can find more information about his misuse of Wikipedia articles there at this report about his mirror site. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The more I look, the more I am beginning to agree with the meatpuppetry thing. The range of the edits are all days of the week, so unless he is flying out there and teaching on differing days of the week, I don't think that there is that much of a link. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen has just asked me to call him. I have sent an e-mail to him explaining my position on the supposed cabal, what he should do in regards to editing here, his future on the site, and an offer of adoption. If any editor is interested, I am willing to provide a copy of the e-mail. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence submitted by Bongomatic
edit

In his incident report at ANI, Drsjpdc states that "if Wanyethegoblin is [a close personal associate of mine], it's by the way, a surprise to me too." However, at chirowiki.org, a wiki set up by Drsjpdc, a user with the username "Waynethegoblin" is a sysop and bureaucrat (at least as of the time of this posting). Given the evidence (some available only on request from appropriate individuals—I don't want to be accused of WP:OUTING again) that Waynethegoblin:

  • is a well-known real-life close personal associate of Drsjpdc
  • is a computer science masters degree holder
  • was available for projects at the time of chirowiki's creation
  • was involved in the creation of chirowiki (see his comments on his own talk page as at this revision)
  • created a user account the day after chirowiki's creation
  • was made a sysop and bureaucrat three days after chirowiki's creation

it is inconceivable that Drsjpdc was previously unaware of the real-life identity of Waynethegoblin. His claim (again, from the ANI incident report) that he has "never controlled [Waynethegoblin's] account in any way are both disingenuous and irrelevant to the charge of meatpuppetry. Especially given his repeated denials of previous proven charges of sockpuppetry, any claims Drspjpdc makes that he and Waynethegoblin didn't coordinate their opinions and contributions off-wiki are not to be believed. Bongomatic 02:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Waynethegoblin has reiterated that he is a separate individual (something not in dispute) it seems apropos to quote the meatpuppet criteria directly, as it appears they have not been considered by the accused. "A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining." Bongomatic 03:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties   
edit

See Defending yourself against claims.

As I have said before, I am a very busy full-time chiropractic student at National University of Health Sciences in Illinois. I have been accused of being an associate of drsjpdc, only after a previous accusation violated wiki policy on outing. Whether or not I am in any way associated with drsjpdc is wholly immaterial, as I am my own person capable of making my own decisions and holding my own opinions. If anyone will care to check the IP address with which I access my wiki account, it will be very quickly realized that I am in Illinois as I claim, and that my account has not been in anyway accessed by anyone other than myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waynethegoblin (talk • contribs) 02:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am perfectly fine with a CU being "performed" on Mod the whomever. PLEASE !! Then, when you all see that it is NOT my IP address stop the harassment.

I will tell all that I have been in communication with Chiropractic leaders all over the World regarding the bullying that anyone who tries to bring objectivity to articles in the altermed field gets here. If some of them log on, create accounts and support my positions, this cannot be considered any kind of puppetry. I simply informed them, I don't control them.

I know full well that anytime someone uses the word "Conspiracy" that everyone thinks of Mel Gibson. However, a real conspiracy was PROVEN in [[Wilk v American medical Association], and in court records it came out under testimony, that a certain individual who makes his living smearing Chiropractic and creating anti-Chiropractic "propaganda", is, at least in some way supported by them, despite a permanent FEDERAL injunction PROHIBITING this behavior. I have information from outside sources (already banned from Wiki, and in the process of trying to avoid filing their own lawsuits against wiki for being the (hopefully) unwitting "puppet" of these people) that certain individuals involved in this continuous harassment of my work are likely employees, or at least sycophants of this person's. I would truly like to ask advice from any senior admin or higher, who is uninvolved with the edit warring against me, to advise (and then watch) the correct way to use Court records which, unfortunately are on a pay/page basis despite being public documents. Its only the Appellate documents which are free to the public, but THEY do not usually repeat the findings of the lower Court Judges, which in this matter, are crucial. Q: Can I just use them? I tried and was shot down. Q: Can I quote an otherwise RPOV journal which buys them and re-publishes them with an affidavit of accuracy? I tried that, and was told that the fact that they printed those documents constituted a danger against their rating of RPOV??? This Catch 22 is protecting these people who are pretty clearly the meat or sock puppets of the individual to whom I refer, so that they can continue to slander a profession, and bully anyone who seeks objectivity in this field, and to discredit this "dark force" in the industry. This guy has already BEEN discredited in the Courts, but is still accepted as a RPOV in this forum. These guys don't like it when one of their victims fights back. Please HELP.Д-рСДжП,ДС 20:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit
  • I too am becoming convinced that we are dealing with a case of meatpuppetry, with obvious and continuous deception about it being practiced by User:Drsjpdc, with "Wayne" being the lesser guilty party, simply because of his much lesser degree of experience here. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The obvious disdain for our NPOV policy was already evident during the three AfDs (plural!) for Stephen Press's biography of his father, Howard Press (now deleted). There he and "Wayne" both initially argued for keeping the article while it was in a condition that grossly violated our NPOV policy. It was a hagiography. Once other editors had brought it into line with policy and introduced the criminal history of his father, they both changed their tune and voted to delete it, thus violating part of our COI policy. According to the clear wording there, they should have been blocked or banned for such actions. They are obviously not fans of NPOV, and therefore don't belong here, since it is our most sacred policy. Such editors will always cause problems. Again I wish to reiterate that "Wayne" is the lesser guilty of the two. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • After looking through the evidence submitted above, it seems to me that sockpuppets are being used here. Also the Wikichiro site leaves a rather bad taste in my mouth and I'm disinclined to defend Drsjpdc in any way now. Aditya Ex Machina 05:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be no policy too big or too small for User:Drsjpdc to try to break in his attempt to get his badly written, awful, yes, hagiographies, of his chiropractic friends onto Wikipedia in an attempt to glorify and publicize Dr. Press and FICS and, now, the dreadful Wikichiro site, which he is moving to Wikipedia one bad article at a time. Each article he moves over here will require fighting with him and his meat and sock puppets and dealing with his disingenuous denials (he's clueless who one of his sysops is, when he claims to be the decider of all notability in his field?). His constant accusations of slander or stupidity ("Literacy counts!") every time an article of his is edited, his deeply rooted COIs, his manipulation of Wikipedia policy, and his inability to work with any other editor who does not worship and hang on his every word, are representative of his intentions: he's just one more editor who is trying to use wikipedia to promote himself. Sock, meat, whatever, he and his faithful army of one needs stopped and blocked so that the job of writing an encyclopedia can be continued. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 17:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that WP:MEAT needs to be pointed out to these users, again and again until they both fully understand the policy. Even after being accused of meat-puppetry, the response I have seen is "I have never used his login" [paraphrase from WP:ANI], and a strange denial that hinges on the fact that he does not know the identity of Waynethegoblin, even though User:Waynethegoblin has no editing interests outside those of User:Drsjpdc's. Unfortunately, some of the factors cannot be considered to be related. I was also invited to be a part of wikichiro before it was started - I am not related to user:drsjpdc and my only dealings with him have been in regards to wikipedia (including a couple of emails). Had I editted there as well, it seems that I would be being accused of meatpuppetry as well (oh wait, I already was). DigitalC (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • With your strong and obvious biases for all things positive in chiropractic, it's not hard to see a similarity between you and User:Drsjpdc. He also has a tendency to just delete complaints, at least the copyright violation problems. Coupled with your strong, single-minded intention to update the article exactly the way he wants it, I think my concluding you were a meat puppet, if not correct, had some basis in the evidence. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 01:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In spite of some run-ins with DigitalC, I must insert some defense of him in relation to his editing of Drsjpdc's articles. He has actually removed much of the fluff, promotion, and bad sourcing. He has done a lot to bring the articles into line with our policies, and he has definitely often given Press a scolding, just as he has done above. Unfortunately Press seems unable and unwilling to learn from him, even though DigitalC is generally a pro-chiropractic editor. DigitalC has shown in his dealings with Press that he is more interested in building an encyclopedia, than in promoting chiropractic, which has been the sole aim of Stephen Press's work here. The only thing that Press has prioritized higher is self-promotion. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point? The meatpuppetry has been fully established. Bongomatic 14:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The editor needs to be blocked for a while, and I have suggested that he take a break in my e-mail to him. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bongomatic: The sockpuppetry issue has not been sorted out yet. The Goblin account and the Drsjpdc account may be operated by the same person. Aditya Ex Machina 14:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. His strong denial of being ModTheRod demands that a CU be performed. ModTheRod was blocked for abusing multiple accounts and IPs, and was the creator of the original Stephen J. Press article, which was deleted over the protests of Drsjpdc. Its deletion meant that ModTheRod's role isn't immediately evident from looking at the history of the current article. The strong denial from Press, as we have seen before, usually indicates that the truth isn't being served to us by him. This is typical of many sockmasters who will deny, deny, deny, even after CU evidence has proven their guilt. He did this at the last SPI and ever since. No true confession or contrition has been evidenced. Until such is forthcoming, he should be and remain indef blocked.
A CU is imperative for the ModTheRod and Waynethegoblin accounts. It may well be that Press (Sr.) only operated the ModTheRod account, or that "Wayne" operated both, but we need to know this. This information is needed for determining how long a block "Wayne" should get. There is no question that Press (and all his IPs) needs to be blocked for a very long time, since he should have been blocked for his previous sockpuppetry, but wasn't. If that had happened we might have been saved all this mess. Sockmasters MUST be dealt with by blocks, not a slap on the hand. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the current community ban proposal at ANI, it is important that CU evidence be obtained and possibly used in that discussion. Please make this case a top priority. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OMG! Thanks for the good sleuthing, DigitalC. The contributions of Wikibacdoctor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have Stephen J. Press written all over them for these reasons:

  • Yet another sock (or meatpuppet, see my comments below) right while this SPI is in process. This guy has no scruples at all. He'll do anything, including violation of Wikipedia's policies, to further his agenda.
  • Deviousness:
  • This guy claims to be "scrupulously honest", yet he obviously willfully refrains from signing a comment properly, and manually writes "Wikibacmd", thus claiming to be an MD, something which many chiropractors have been accused of being, "wannabe doctors". [2]
  • He does this in an attempt to stack the votes during an AfD of an article he had authored. [3]
  • He creates a userpage with claims of being "a doctor practicing in Rotterdam....." [4]
  • Press claims to be related to Jacques Offenbach (he may well be, but so what! I'm related to Noah ;-), and this sock edits that article.
  • The atrocious grammar and spelling are typical for Press, who in real life writes like this.

Press's work here may have has done great damage to his own profession by reinforcing what is documented at Chiropractic controversy and criticism#Ethics and claims, where chiropractic authors document that "fraud, abuse and quackery, ... are more rampant in our profession than in other healthcare professions", and that such chiropractors "might be responsible for the negative opinion people have about the ethics of the chiropractic profession." Press has just succeeded in reinforcing that opinion, which is a shame, considering that (I hope) most chiropractors really are honest people.

It looks like the CUs are going to be busy. I suspect that they'll uncover a whole drawer just full of socks in various colors. Each sock and IP will need to be checked and published here. Publishing the IPs won't be outing as we already know the locations of the main socks. We will need to know these IPs so we can keep our eyes open for them in the future. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Clerk note: Okay, let's stop this. I'm fairly sure these lengthy comments and the equally lengthy evidence sections contain all the material the checkusers are going to need plus much more. Further comments will likely only have the effect of lowering the signal-to-noise ratio. Unless you have additional evidence not previously submitted, please take the discussion to somewhere else. Timotheus Canens (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However, if there is exculpatory evidence it should be something revealed to the community, not held in private e-mail exchanges, imo. The community is bearing the brunt of Drsjpdc's actions in public, not in private. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 18:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will the CU show other sock accounts if they are not listed above? How much evidence is needed to list an account as a suspected sock? DigitalC (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From what I have read, you plug in the username and the IPs that were used to edit under that name come up. I'm sure I have something wrong there though, but that's essentially what happens. If they are editing similar articles, you can list them. On an earlier, unrelated, SPI, the user used his sock to work on deletion articles and upload a picture of his genitalia. We thought the sock was the bad guy, but the Checkuser found the real sockmaster, which explained a lot. The guy is still haunting us today, although he keeps getting caught. There is the possibility that Stephen will continue to return after he is blocked, so you never know where this will eventually lead. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, since a CU was just recently performed on User:Drsjpdc, shouldn't that have pulled up if his account was linked to ModtheRod, or Waynethegoblin, or any IP edits performed? DigitalC (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He could have edited one of them at a different location, thus concealing the identity of his socks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
edit
Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status –   Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

  Clerk endorsed –MuZemike 03:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed to clean up the page

Note to the Checkuser Please e-mail me before a block is issued. I have received an e-mail from BullRangifer concerning what Stephen is doing on this site. He has given me permission to share it to the person who is going to block him. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of transparency, and unless the information in the email compromises the privacy of an editor, the information should be posted here for public review. It will also give Stephen a chance to defend himself. Aditya Ex Machina 12:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He told me I could, but posting it here will make the page huge. I also got an e-mail from Stephen which concerned his actions and seemingly negated all of BullRangifer's accusations. This is odd, because I don't remember posting anything concerning me receiving Bull's e-mail. I have e-mailed it to Fences and he has agreed to look at it. This is starting to become a pain, so if you want the e-mails, tell me and I'll send them to you. I'm just not going to make this page longer than it already is. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No thank you, I don't have time to go through stuff like that. You can post it here though: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Drsjpdc/email if you get permission from the sender. Aditya Ex Machina 17:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Community ban has been established. Could a CU do it NOW? 122.162.244.176 (talk) 04:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get your panties in a bunch. Everyone is a volunteer here, not to mention this is only an online encyclopedia. Tiptoety talk 04:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The CUs will get to it now that User:Drsjpdc's case has just gotten to the top of the pile. Even though a community ban has been established for the user (not just the one account), it will have to be effectuated for all the other accounts involved in this mess, and that can take time. We'll still need to know the socks and IPs so we know what to watch for in the future should this user and his socks and meatpuppets attempt to come back, as I'm sure they will, so this SPI isn't closed just because of the community ban. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Note: Good grief, peeps. Can someone summarize exactly what's going on here? I'm having problems untangling this mess. And yes, we're all volunteers on here and things are usually hugely busy behind the scenes for functionaries - Alison ❤ 06:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary for Alison The banned editor is suspected of having a number of sockpuppets and meatpuppets. The IP socks are admitted (see the ANI referral for the admitted IPs). Platinimumphotog was previously established. Waynethegoblin and his IPs (one of them outed by the banned editor) are thought to be meatpuppets of the banned editor. ModTheRod is another editor blocked for abuse of multiple accounts, who as far as I know hasn't been checkuser'd and may be an actual sock or just a meatpuppet. Wikibacdoctor is another editor who has edited articles in sympathy with the banned editor, who the banned editor essentially admitted to have been having at minimum improperly canvassed (again, see above comments at the ANI referral) and there is no specific reason to think that it's an actual sockpuppet, though there is nothing precluding it. Bongomatic 07:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not Press, then it's got to be an enlisted meatpuppet. Their very short edit history has Press written all over it. Either they were instructed to edit articles in a combination which only Press would do, IOW we've been set up by Press using a meatpuppet, or he's traveling in Holland and that really is him. That could explain his uncharacteristic silence during these proceedings, just like the first SPI, where he admitted to travelling. I haven't checked the timing to see if it's possible that the edits from NJ and Holland were at the same time. If that's the case, then he has instructed some colleague in Holland to help set us up, in which case it's a meatpuppet. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, Holland? Did I miss something here? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Wikibacdoctor claimed to be from Rotterdam, which is southwest of Utrecht. Take a look at the area on Google Earth and you'll see som fascinatingly regular field patterns. BTW, chiropractors often consider themselves to be "back doctors", hence the username. No MD would do that. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basically we have a user, User:Drsjpdc = (Stephen J. Press) who has just now been indef banned by the community. He has previously (see the archived SPI above) been proven to have used a sock. Now he's accused of using socks and meatpuppets. We need to get the CU performed so we can know whom to block, ban, or whatever, to prevent further damage, since he will no doubt return under some guise. He has also made very poorly disguised legal threats and supports the active efforts of another indef banned user who is actually proceeding (copy and paste link) with attempts to sue Wikimedia. Mike Godwin from the legal dept. knows of these legal threats and is in contact with that user, but this last stuff isn't your concern. I'm just relating this to show the gravity of the situation. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC) ----[reply]

Can someone please perform a checkuser on this please since it is hanging in limbo here? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drsjpdc has not edited from the Netherlands, so there is no technical evidence of traveling there. With that in mind, Waynethegoblin and Wikibacdoctor are both unrelated to him and each other. Dominic·t 09:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
20 March 2014
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Drsjpdc (talk · contribs) was the subject of a discussion at WP:AN. In light of the discussion, Drsjpdc left a resignation note on his user page, and was eventually indef blocked, on 22 Feb 2014. Backdoc47 (talk · contribs) began editing that very same day. Backdoc's first edits were rather sophisticated for a new user, suggesting significant prior experience at Wikipedia. His subsequent editing history (concentrating on issues involving jazz music, notable New York City Jews, and sports medicine) mirror the editing history of the suspected sock master. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 23:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rschen7754 has pointed out below that this SPI is "a bit light on the diffs". I had thought the overall editing histories of the two users would be sufficient evidence, but for specifics... For starters, I would invite reviewers to review the history of Fédération Internationale de Medicine Sportive, noting the extensive contributions of both master and sock. I would also invite reviewers to review the master's autobiography in which he claims to be a chiropractor born in 1947 (and the duckish resemblance of the sock's username to that biodata). I note the sock's concentration on biographies of notable people in Sports Medicine (Wildor Hollmann, Eduardo De Rosa, André Latarjet, etc), similar to the master's interest in such topics ([5], [6]). I believe the similarities, along with the sock's prior bad faith editing, are sufficient to at least warrant a checkuser investigation. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:05, 25 March 2014 (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
26 March 2014
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

New editor, two edits, seems to know a lot about the issues. LGA talkedits 22:53, 26 March 2014 (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
  •   Clerk endorsed - The user showed up to contest the speedy deletion of an article created by confirmed sock Backdoc47. Requesting CU to make sure they are a sock. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Completed - They are using an open proxy, making checkuser rather unhelpful. That said, both accounts share the same useragent. I'd say block on behavioral evidence. Also, next time I would appreciate some diffs. While this is a rather open/shut case, a link to the deleted article's history and the edit made by the suspected sock would save me a few minutes. Thanks.
  •   Proxy blocked. Tiptoety talk 04:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocked, closing. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Drsjpdc/Archive&oldid=1140438623"
  NODES
Association 1
Canvas 3
chat 2
Community 7
deepl 1
HOME 2
Idea 1
idea 1
Interesting 1
Intern 1
languages 2
mac 9
Note 9
OOP 1
os 54
text 1
Users 12
web 2