Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dora63/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Dora63

Dora63 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
11 May 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


The first two accounts have a limited interest: they only make edits to the article on Victor Lewis Smith, a writer from the UK. Their edits are aimed at "improving" the image of this controversial writer. The third account has a more general focus but appears to share this interest. VLSCheck (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for slight error: 'only" is a slight overstatement. Second account only edits the writer's article, the first edits on a couple of other pages as well but they are linked to the writer (he has made TV shows with the subjects etc) In any case I see a bunch of recent edits, all aimed at removing negative comment which has been published in authoritative sourcesVLSCheck (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2012 (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]
  •  Additional information needed for all accounts named,  Clerk endorsed for 1 edit, SPI filer. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 04:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • VLSCheck is  Inconclusive, but I'd reckon that the person operating it was also the operator of VLSmithBook (talk · contribs) - take note, role accounts are not permitted. Please select a username which reflects you as an individual. Please also provide evidence that the listed accounts i) belong to the same individual and ii) are being used abusively. Thanks. WilliamH (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per that note, i'm closing waiting on further evidence. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
18 June 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Responding to request for further information I didn't know to come back to this page, apologies for the delay. I see it's been archived but I would like to reply to the request for "further evidence".

Ok, I am sorry I chose the name VLSCheck - I didn't know there was another VLS account in the past (have now read up on User:VLSmithBook and its very interesting). But it seems like a sensible name: I see from Talk:Victor_Lewis-Smith that even User:Clemmywemmy uses VLS as an abbreviation. I am not User:VLSmithBook (nor "someone who has been on the receiving end of a VLS review, or...the subject of one of his documentaries", which is a claim made about editors on the Talk page).

I see there is further evidence of sockpuppeting contained in the discussion at Talk:Victor_Lewis-Smith. Is this enough to reopen the case?

There seem to be two issues: what relationship if any do User:Dora63, User:Clemmywemmy and User:Eric Blatant have to one another? And are any of them Victor Lewis Smith himself?

On the second question I see that User:Clemmywemmy has just posted a denial of being VLS on the Talk page. Despite the edit history perhaps good faith requires that we accept this. However removal of material from the Talk page is revealing (eg Victor Smith's real name, which doesn't violate WP:BLP but does suggest Victor Lewis-Smith is the wrong title for the article) VLSCheck (talk) 09:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs as requested - OK, here goes, although I've never done this sort of thing before so apologies in advance if anything is not right. Using your numbering:

i) "how the accounts can be attributed to one individual" - to quote/adapt from Talk:Victor Lewis-Smith, the edit history of User:Clemmywemmy shows only edits to Victor Lewis-Smith while the edit history of User:Dora63 shows only edits of Victor Lewis-Smith, In Confidence (a TV series produced by Victor Lewis-Smith), Keith Allen (a frequent collaborator of Smith’s), and Unlawful Killing (a film written by Smith). My first argument is that these two editors have been improving Smith’s image in a consistent way in articles all associated with one person (don't really know how to show what you are asking in another way but both accounts make edits which are consistent with them being controlled by the same person, in other words the subject of the article appears to have set up at least two accounts).

ii) Some diffs which show revealing edits (the pattern seems to be that User:Clemmywemmy removes negative material while User:Dora63 adds positive material):-

  • [1] (REMOVAL OF NEGATIVE QUOTE)
  • [2] (REMOVAL OF NEGATIVE QUOTE / FIRING FROM BBC ETC)
  • [3] (REMOVAL OF NEGATIVE QUOTE)
  • [4] (REMOVAL OF NEGATIVE QUOTE)
  • [5] (REMOVAL OF NEGATIVE QUOTE)
  • [6] (REMOVAL OF SOURCED PERSONAL DATA)
  • [7] (ADDED MENTION OF THE VLS COMPANY)
  • [8] (ADD POSITIVE QUOTE)
  • [9] (GLOSS ON ANOTHER PERFORMER)
  • [10] (ADD POSITIVE QUOTE)
  • [11] (ADD JUSTIFICATION) VLSCheck (talk) 09:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the diffs. The two accounts do indeed appear to be working in tandem. However, it looks like meatpuppetry is a more realistic explanation than sockpuppetry. WilliamH (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks OK I think I understand. You mean like VLS and his wife or VLS and one of the people he works with or something like that. If I can ask a follow up, where on Wikipedia can I find out how to complain about this, and about him seemingly editing the article about him, removing stuff and so on? VLSCheck (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea, obviously we aren't able to distinguish fingers on the keyboard. If you think there's a problem, be bold and fix it. WilliamH (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2012 (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 note: Some of these are from the prior case closed for lack of info, and Dora is not the oldest account. Waiting to rename based on findings. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that MEAT is the more likely conclusion, working together but not necessarily traditional "abuse" here. Closing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dora63/Archive&oldid=1079422725"