Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eleemosynary/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Eleemosynary

Eleemosynary (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date July 24 2009, 19:28 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Nathan


Evidence moved from BLP/N
Moved from ANI.

We are having an issue here, and it concerns StephenLaurie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a suspected sock of User:Eleemosynary,an indefinitely blocked editor who has resumed activity at the article where the suspected sockmaster had been article banned. This article has been placed on probation by ArbCom and problematic editors can be article-banned at Admin discretion. On 21 July 2009, after several episodes of what might be described as "suspicious and tenditious" editing by User:StephenLaurie, an Arbitration Enforcement Request was filed by Durova280, as seen here. In part, she said:

StephenLaurie is an editor with highly focused interests, arguably a single purpose account. Nearly all of his article and article talk edits have been to the Matt Sanchez article and the related Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy article.[1] The Matt Sanchez biography, a BLP, is under arbitration general sanctions. Additionally, this account behaves like a returning user with long knowledge of the personalities involved in this dispute. Possibly this could be Eleemosynary, who was article banned from Matt Sanchez in April 2008 and indefinitely blocked shortly afterward. Note the edit summary of the first ever edit by this account,[2] the account's second ever edit summary asserts a familiarity with the Sanchez history.[3] With less than 20 total account edits StephenLaurie was tagging suspected Bluemarine socks (Bluemarine is Sanchez's username)[4][5][6][7] then removing posts from the Eleemosynary user talk.[8] Eleemosynary's and StephenLaurie's edit interests have substantial overlap (note Thomas Scott Beauchamp controversy and Matt Sanchez in the Soxred report),[9] and StephenLaurie's POV on the Matt Sanchez article is indistinguishable from Eleemosynary's. He even claims to know my history with Sanchez, although he distorts it badly.[10] A new account would probably not recognize me, although Eleemosynary would have bitter recollections because I had something to do with his article ban and indefinite block. Whether this is enough to establish StephenLaurie as the sock of a banned user is something for the reviewing administrator to determine, yet if the socking determination is inconclusive discretionary sanctions may still be warranted per the diffs above and this dialog.[11] Durova280 05:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

These diffs show evidence of possible sockpuppetry by StephenLaurie, dubious editing habits, and the appearance of an SPA account. After deliberating,  Sandstein  felt there was insufficient evidence (partly due to technical shortcomings in the diffs) for an offical ArbCom sanction; however, the door was very specifically left open for individual Admins to review and apply their discretion.

All BLPs are sensitive and one that is on article probation is obviously much more so. In addition to issues raised by Durova, I had concerns about StephenLaurie's interaction wiith almost all other editors on that page, and his attitudes toward both the article and its subject. Specifically:

negative aspersions and speculation about good faith editors]

veiled accusations of meatpuppetry when others oppose his view

this entire line of dialogue was offensive in tone and nature as he (again, veiled) attacked the character of an honorable editor.

Finally, certain apects of his edit summaries like this, taken in conjunction with his other comments, give a certain air of excitability and paranoia to his editing. These are not greatly desireable elements in someone editing a delicate and controversial BLP.

Finally, as seen throughout most of his talkpage remarks, he seems opposed to any change which might cast a favorable light on Matt Sanchez, the article subject. That, combined with concerned comments from other editors, have led me to conclude that his participation in this article has become counterproductive. It appears that some sort of intervention is needed, and I invite the scrutiny of interested parties. Doc Tropics 01:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realize this was a lengthy report about a complicated situation, but it's a wee bit demoralizing that over 18 hours after this was posted, not a single response has acknowledged being aware of it. Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?Doc Tropics 19:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered posting this at WP:BLP/N? –xenotalk 19:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit I hadn't. This is only the third time in three years I've actually initiated a report like this. I was hoping for some Admin oversight, so brought it here. Is BLP/N the more appropriate venue? And if it is, should I delete this report from AN/I, or just leave it? Would moving it be considered forum shopping, or just correcting an oversight? And thanks for responding, I really appreciate it! Doc Tropics 20:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it here for you. These folks are better versed about the BLP policies and the like. Administrators watch here too. It's not forum shopping since your report hasn't been actioned yet, so you're not seeking a better answer =) –xenotalk 20:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doc Tropics, if you and Durova believe this is a sockpuppetry case, it needs to go to WP:SPI, where a checkuser can be run if needed. The sort of circumstantial evidence provided here is probably not enough, by itself, for a block.  Sandstein  17:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. I have repeatedly failed to file this report "properly", or in the proper venue; I hope that my clumsiness won't be seen as prejudicial in itself. Given that this situation is currently under discussion at 2 different boards, I'm profoundly reluctant to move it or refile it myself. Doc Tropics 19:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: A (Arbcom ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Nathan T 19:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  • Case filed based on discussion on BLP/N. Nathan T 19:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk endorsed. Based upon the discussion and evidence above, SL looks like a plausible sock of Eleemosynary. CheckUser needed to confirm this. JamieS93 21:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
Yeah, I guess I could have anticipated that. Thanks, Versageek. This case should stay open for a few days for a behavioral review. Nathan T 22:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the behavioral evidence shows that they are the same. At WP:AE, I said:
    The following diffs suggest that StephenLaurie backs the position of Eleemosynary's sock puppets in edit wars. [12][13][14] StephenLaurie is clearly a "recycled" user. Their early contributions are a dead giveaway. I recommend indef blocking StephenLaurie as a sock puppet account. They are a single purpose account that on balance is more disruptive than helpful. The combined weight of evidence suggests that Wikipedia is better off without them.
  • Does anybody disagree that this is a sock puppet account used to evade an indef block? Jehochman Talk 19:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I came to the same conclusion. Nathan T 19:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I should have looked at this more closely earlier. Not only is this a SPA, but if an account's first edit is "rv latest Keetoowah sock. Welcome back, Keetoowah! How's dial-up service workin' for ya?", then this is certainly not that person's first account. No objections to indef block, so imposed. (Feel free to lift or modify this block if needed.)  Sandstein  19:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
23 June 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Longlivereagan was created in March 2011 but his first edits appeared like those made by a veteran editor. There is strong behavioral evidence from Marshall Sylver's page linking Longlivereagan to Eleemosynary. Neutralviews (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2011 (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: - Switched master to oldest account. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 21:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 23:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

28 June 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


See checkuser comments below. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:34, 28 June 2011 (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]

Standard checkuser scan on LongLiveReagan for an unblock request showed a  Confirmed relation to User:BozellHammer. That account is now blocked, continuing check to look for other accounts. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

06 July 2015[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


This report is focused on Donegallian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which I referenced on the Marshall Sylver Talk page. DavidsonNeff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is included here because this account was never checkusered or blocked.


  1. Previous confirmed sockpuppets:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Eleemosynary
  2. Single purpose accounts created to attack Marshall Sylver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) biography:
  1. Donegallian created 29 June 2015:[15]
  2. Immediately reverts to version of 25 April 2015 created by IP blocked as proxy:[16][17][18]
  3. Edit wars against consensus:[19][20][21][22][23]
  4. Accuses everyone else on the page of being sockpuppets of one another:[24][25][26][27]
  5. Strong similarities in language in identical contexts:
    • "Movie" was never released:
      • StephenLaurie:"remove advertising. it's not clear this "movie" was ever released."[28]
      • Donegallian:"The "radio show' is an online get-rich-quick advertisement. The "movie" was never released"[29]
    • Sylver and his associates:
      • Eleemosynary:"…which is also where Sylver and his associates work from."[30]
      • Donegallian:"Though it seems Sylver and/or his associates are trying to whitewash the page"[31]
    • Sylver's criminal history (note that there is no evidence that Sylver has ever been convicted as an adult of any crime):
      • Eleemosynary:"Everything I have added to the page about Sylver's extensive criminal history has been appropriately sourced."[32]
      • LongLiveReagan:"We have sources, including the New York Times, for Sylver's criminal history and convictions"[33]
      • Donegallian:"As Sylver's criminal history was sourced to reputable third-party sources, there was no need or justification to delete them."[34]
    • Whitewash the page:
      • Eleemosynary:"And I wasn't surprised to see a Vegas IP try to whitewash this page."[35]
      • LongLiveReagan:"This appears to be yet another attempt by a representative of Sylver to whitewash the page."[36]
      • Donegallian:"Though it seems Sylver and/or his associates are trying to whitewash the page."[37]


Bearing in mind that Donegallian has made only 32 edits — all of them to Marshall Sylver and Talk:Marshall Sylver — this is beyond any reasonable possibility of coincidence. There are also strong similarities between these statements and those previous sockpuppets have made regarding a large number of other public figures, but these would take too long to list and are out of scope of the immediate discussion.
The main difference between more recent sockpuppets and the older batch is that these are entirely focused upon Marshall Sylver. It seems probable that the sockmaster has other accounts dedicated to attacking his/her other targets, and is segmenting them to limit the damage if one is blocked. Thus, even though the previous data may be stale, a checkuser would be appropriate to catch those other accounts if possible. It might also be a good idea to semiprotect the Sylver article since we can be pretty sure that more usernames and proxies are on the way. Miked918 (talk) 01:36, 6 July 2015 (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]
  • I'm declining the CU request because, as far as I can tell, there are no non-stale puppets to compare against.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: I think that the evidence above is enough to block Donegallian. I see no evidence against DavidsonNeff. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Donegallian blocked and tagged. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Eleemosynary/Archive&oldid=1138670274"