Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pigsonthewing/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Pigsonthewing

Pigsonthewing (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
11 January 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Per WP:DUCK.

In September 2013 User:Pigsonthewing (also known as Andy Mabbett) received a sanction from ArbCom banning him from adding infoboxes to any article: "Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes."[1].

Since late September 2013 a number of anonymous IPs have been adding infoboxes to articles very close to the same time Pigsonthewing has been editing them. The IPs locate to a shared computer at an educational address in Birmingham, UK (Birmingham Grid for Learning). By his own admission on his Wikipedia user page, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing) is a resident of Birmingham, UK with links to education [2]. It looks like the IPs create infoboxes so that Pigsonthewing can subsequently edit them, because he can claim they were added by "someone else" and so he is not in violation of his ban. Usually, the addition of an infobox is the IPs' only contribution to the page.

Examples of suspicious behaviour (this list is far from exhaustive):

Reply to RexxS No, RexxS. "There are 1 million people in Birmingham city and 2 million people in the surrounding urban area." This makes the kind of coincidences listed above even less likely, especially given the timing. For instance, the biography of Michael Rosenblum (not a particularly well-known figure) remained without an infobox for years. On 30 September 2013, Pigsonthewing made an edit and within a few days the Birmingham IP added a box. In the above examples, the trigger for the Birmingham IPs adding infoboxes to pages in autumn 2013 is Pigsonthewing editing the same articles. Given the amount of evidence, the timing of the ArbCom sanction and Pigsonthewing's location, it is vanishingly unlikely it is down to random IP editing. --Folantin (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further reply "Why wouldn't Andy have simply added two of his favourite templates when the infobox was added, if he were that IP?" He's specifically banned from adding boxes, not (AFAIK) from editing currently existing ones. The IPs add the infoboxes. In many cases, that's their one contribution to an article. Once the box has been brought into existence by the IP, Andy can edit it at leisure because he can claim it was created by "someone else". --Folantin (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further reply "Those IPs just don't edit like Andy." Really? Compare [25] and contrast [26]. I'd be amazed if those two edits weren't by exactly the same person. The rest of your reply is just "straw man" obfuscation. Andy Mabbett can log into his Pigsonthewing account from any computer he likes. I imagine that in Birmingham, as in any other city, you can do other things alongside visiting public libraries, e.g. working or shopping. Then you can just pop into the library in your break from these activities (or maybe you even work there already). You can also log into your own named account on the library computer when you are making edits that are not subject to ArbCom sanction. --Folantin (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Mark Arsten OK, I'll see what I can do, but an arbitrator actually told me to open an SPI request. --Folantin (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

There are 1 million people in Birmingham city and 2 million people in the surrounding urban area, including both Andy and myself. I live as close to the city centre as Andy does, worked in Birmingham, and have far more links with education than he does now, or ever had. On that evidence, I would seem a far likelier suspect for those IPs. A look at the geolocation for the IPs that Folantin lists shows that they are mainly school addresses, part of Birmingham Grid for Learning. Here's the BGfL homepage: http://www.bgfl.org/ . You can see for yourself that it's part of the National Grid for Learning (which connects schools to the internet) and you can also quickly click through from the homepage to the directory of schools at http://services.bgfl.org/cfpages/schools/default.cfm where you'll find that Birmingham has hundreds of schools connected to BGfL. The use of those IPs would seem to require Andy getting into schools and using their computers to edit Wikipedia pages. It's far more likely that there are many Wikipedia editors in Birmingham schools who may be adding infoboxes, considering that it's not an unusual edit: the majority of articles on the English Wikipedia have an infobox (at least 2.4 million out of 4.4 million). --RexxS (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Folantin: So you want us believe, for example, that on 11 October 2013, Andy went into a Birmingham Library and made this edit adding an infobox at 11:22? He subsequently returned home and made this edit at 22:25 - converting a bare date to the {{Birth year and age}} template and adding the {{plainlist}}. Why wouldn't Andy have simply added two of his favourite templates when the infobox was added, if he were that IP? You think he'd miss the chance to include a template ({{Birth year and age}}) that added a microformat? No, no, no. Those IPs are proxies used by BGfL and there are probably 100 times more school computers connecting through those than library ones: it's far more likely that those edits come from a school; and Andy is not the only person in Birmingham interested in infoboxes. --RexxS (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further reply to Folantin: So now you will have us believe that on multiple occasions Andy battles through the traffic (even on 23 December!) all the way into Birmingham to visit a public library; just adds an infobox, without any more edits; and then travels back home to edit further. That simply doesn't make sense - nor does it tie in with examples of those IPs correcting some of their basic mistakes that someone with Andy's experience would not have made in the first place. Those IPs just don't edit like Andy. You have of course suggested that any difference in editing practices is because Andy is disguising his style. But at that point you might as well get out the ducking stool, because when you claim "behavioural evidence" both when it fits and when it doesn't, you're not engaged in an investigation; you're engaged in a witch hunt. --RexxS (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further further reply to Folantin: That's too funny: "Compare [27] and contrast [28]." - both the IP and Andy copied the example given at Template:Infobox NHS trust, the same as anybody else who adds such a template! You really think that because two editors both copy the example given in a template documentation, they are the same? You must be seeing socks everywhere.
Furthermore Andy doesn't work in Birmingham, and the libraries are not open at 22:00 at night. You want us to believe that he goes there; does the "disguised" edit and returns home; then many hours (sometimes days) later, he adds his favourite templates that he could have included when the box was added if he were the IP. I'm afraid your reply is the one associated with straws - you're clutching at them. --RexxS (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • I'm not sure this is really something SPI should handle. Note that checkusers won't tie a named account to IP addresses like this. I think this WP:AE would be the correct venue since we're dealing with Arbcom sanctions. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, well, if an Arb told you to come here, I guess this is the right venue. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't exactly tell him to come here. I told him to either file a proper SPI or stop making sock accusations without supporting evidence. As you say, CU will not publicly tie an account to IPs, so this SPI will have to rely on the behavioral evidence submitted above. I will keep an eye on this, if the conclusion reached here is that the behavioral evidence is compelling enough to conclude that Andy is engaging in socking it will factor into our decision, but this should be treated no differently than any other SPI. If instead you decide that this is without merit we will take note of that as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: I'm not convinced. Among other things, the IPs regularly start and stop editing several hours before Pigsonthewing. Editing and comment style is noticeably different. About the only major connection is that the IP likes to correct poor-quality wikicode tables into infoboxes, and basic technical edits like those are very common by new editors, both those using accounts and those using IPs. Since Pigsonthewing was a campus ambassador to Birmingham (correct me if I'm wrong), it's entirely reasonable to suppose that he showed students how to correct these flaws, which would result in reasonably similar edits if a student became active in that area. Saying that the IP is close to Pigsonthewing doesn't say much at all, since the Birmingham educational network very likely has many users with access. There's no real evidence to support sock puppetry, so this case is closed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

21 August 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

http://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=BethNaught+&users=Pigsonthewing&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&allusers=on for one the template won't permit me to leave this as a link Second BethNaught showed up in this discussion , posted right after Andy, and is defending him. Further, both have the same style of speaking / spelling. Andy's from the UK, where the word "Naught" is used be mean "none" or "0", BethNaught doesn't say where she's from, and in fact, indicates that she doesn't declare her gender despite the feminine sounding name, and has a declared secondary account of BethZero which shows an understanding of the meaning of the word "naught". Also note the overlaping edits run the gamut from normal ANI stuff that you'd expect to see, but it also includes obscure stuff like templates (like office Talk), even Arb pages and other templates. In particular one makes a nom, one closes the nom. Feel free to check for yourself! KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 10:37 am, Today (UTC−4) KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 14:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I will respond to each of KoshVorlon's statements in turn.

  • In this discussion at AN: well, I watch AN and, as you have pointed out, was involved in some TfDs where I observed Andy's behaviour. I did not defend Andy in the thread above from which Andy had been banned; I disapprove of him closing requests where he was involved but I felt I had no comment worth making. The timing of my post was coincidental. I happened to be at leisure today and so frequently checked my watchlist.
  • I use British English because I am from the UK. This would naturally lead to similar spelling. If we have similar patterns of speech: well, I can be grumpy, but so can many others.
  • I do not declare my gender (and I resent your presumption, even though I have explicitly declared why my username makes no such implication and have stated my gender non-revealment on my userpage). If you actually read my userpage you would see "beth naught" is a number. Moreover you would have noticed that my alternate account is User:BethOne, not BethZero. Incidentally this has not been used since December 2014.
  • As you say, there are some pages on which we overlap on routine discussions. The reason we have got a bit closer recently, I shall say frankly: I noticed that Template:WikibreakSwitch had been sent to TfD. I commented. I then saw Andy's style and got somewhat ruffled by it. I therefore closed a few discussions where there was a consensus to keep a template Andy nominated for TfD. I believe these were correct assesments of consensus and were not out of process. This entanglement made me take an interest in the AN discussion.

If there is any proper evidence against me please say and I will explain. I am emphatically not a sock of Andy Mabbett. Though I disapprove of some of his actions I am astonished that a few potentially ill-advised closures are leading to unfounded accusations of him socking. BethNaught (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Without using any special tools (since I don't have any) I can say that BethNaught is very unlikely to be a sock of PigsOnTheWing. Simply looking at user contributions from the past 24 hours, I see both of them posting and editing separate items/pages the exact same minute several times during the past 24 hours. While not absolute proof, Andy's history shows he is way too busy to be messing around with a sock, especially one as active as BethNaught. Some overlap is natural on Wikipedia. I've seen both of these editors (and others) on more than one page I watch and/or edit. Both of these editors are from the same country, and it is obvious that both are educated, so it's also natural that they may prefer to use some of the same terms, spelling, etc. (And really, they can defend themselves better than I can, but seeing this even pop up was pretty annoying.) Etamni | ✉ | ✓  19:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In passing, this request is fatuous. For all Andy's faults, dishonesty has never been a concern. He wears his heart on his sleeve and he is a tireless supporter of the project. Whoever opened this should be ashamed of themselves. Guy (Help!) 23:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • @KoshVorlon: While the editor interaction tool is helpful for spotting similar areas of focus, it is not by itself evidence. You'll need to use the tool to look at the diffs it provides and determine if there are similarities. (After all, look at the number of overlaps that you and I have together.) I'll need a number of diffs that strongly support a connection between these two users before I can consider performing a check. Otherwise, I won't feel comfortable taking any action against these accounts. Mike V • Talk 16:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please limit commentary to constructive discussion of the SPI. Mike V • Talk 22:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pigsonthewing/Archive&oldid=1075711307"