Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Qworty/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Qworty

Qworty (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
18 May 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Overview: Qworty has been blocked indefinitely for malicious editing in conflict of interest, because he was outed by Wikipediocracy and he admitted his identity as author Robert Clark Young on his user page. However, Qworty was identified as a sockpuppet at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Geri Litton in July 2007, but not immediately blocked, I don't know why. If Qworty appeals his May 2013 block I think his extensive sockpuppeting should first be examined, which is why I'm filing this investigation. Also, every listed account should now be blocked and tagged rather than left free to edit. Binksternet (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Toland was created and used only for six edits on January 18, 2005. Five were fluffing the biography of Robert Clark Young, the sixth put his book into a list.
  • Goddard was created and used only for three edits on April 11, 2005. Toland fluffed the biography of Robert Clark Young.
  • Yossarian57 was used just once, on July 5, 2005, to fluff the biography of Robert Clark Young.
  • Furs4Sale was used five times on August 9, 2005, all on the Robert Clark Young bio.
  • NathanW was used only twice, on September 6, 2005, to add interwiki links to Robert Clark Young.
  • StuyvesantSam was used only two times, on October 19, 2005, to puff up the Robert Clark Young bio.
  • Berenise, the account created on December 13, 2005, performed many different edits, with a lot of them concentrating on making Robert Clark Young look better and his real life enemies look bad. The eighth edit of Berenise was brought to the talk page of Robert Clark Young, asserting that Berenise was privy to "Mr. Young's views" about a plagiarism case.
  • John Bryson was created on September 26, 2006. His first handful of edits were removals of lengthy discussions at Talk:Robert Clark Young, to take out negative information that Alabamaboy added about how Robert Clark Young had written his own Wikipedia page, and how the user Berenise was really Robert Clark Young.
  • Mangawood, the account created on January 15, 2007, made only one edit: adding a personal anecdote about Robert Clark Young to an article, something that only Robert Clark Young would know.
  • The only edit of Aguinaldo Prescott, the account created March 8, 2007, was to add Robert Clark Young to a list of comic novel writers.
  • Lobby Closer was created March 8, 2007, and made only this one edit about Robert Clark Young.
  • Taking Leave 47, created on March 8, 2007, made just one edit: adding Robert Clark Young to an article.
  • Boating Helvetia, the account created March 8, 2007, removed what he called "Christopher Wunderlee's vanity self-promotion". Both Young and Wunderlee are writers.
  • Army Brat 1972, the account created on March 9, 2007, emphasized plagiarism by Brad Vice, and crowed about denial of his tenure.
  • Broom Hair, created on March 9, 2007, removed several assorted bits about Dan Schneider, and demeaned him in a dab page. Schneider is a writer.
  • New Teeth was created March 9, 2007, and has no visible edits.
  • Good Shoestore was created March 9, 2007, and quickly moved to delete the biography of Dan Schneider (writer).[1]
  • Professor Ron Hill was created March 9, 2007, and made three edits, two of them voting to delete the biography of Dan Schneider (writer), in support of Good Shoestore.[2]
  • Quiet Place was created March 9, 2007, and he concentrated on StorySouth, a literary journal. He emphasized the plagiarism of Brad Vice in a series of edits which were reverted by SouthernNights who identified Quiet Place as a sockpuppet who cyberstalked Alabamaboy.
  • Qworty was created on March 10, 2007. His first-ever edit was to archive the talk page of Robert Clark Young, which serves to remove that content one click further away from reader access. The content included much negative material.
  • Geri Litton was created June 29, 2007. His second edit was a response to Qworty on an article talk page, in support of Qworty's idea which had not attracted any other comment.
  • Tuscan Doges was created June 30, 2007. He targeted Mountainwriter.
IPs
  • In April 2005, IP 4.246.147.147 added Robert Clark Young and one of his books to two articles. These are the only two edits from that address.
  • IP 209.165.40.213 started the Robert Clark Young biography, and wrote much of it. He started other articles which included a mention of Robert Clark Young: [3][4]. He inserted himself into some articles.
  • IP 4.246.120.253 tweaked the Robert Clark Young biography 8 hours after Toland.


Note to Dennis Brown

I started this page so that there would be a record in one place of all known Qworty socks. I consider it important to have such a record. As far as blocking this or that stale account, I think it would be useful to know about the previous scrutiny if any of them revived. At the very least they should get a template that says someone suspects sockpuppetry. Binksternet (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Geri Litton from 2007. User:Geri Litton, User:Tuscan Doges, and User:Qworty were confirmed to be controlled by the same person. None of the accounts were blocked. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another IP apparently controlled by "Qworty" is User:4.246.120.66, whose surviving promotional/COI edits, mostly related to Young's One of the Guys, I did my best to clean up yesterday. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly they may well all be Q-socks - but this is a futile exercise since no CU can possibly make a positive connection, and there is no sign of any remote chance of further disruption by this horde. Frankly, blocking accouts from 8 years ago which made a single edit or three is a bit of a waste of time - let's all agree Q had a bunch of socks, and not try to label each one of them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis: I agree with you that "bagging and tagging" all the vintage-2005 accounts is not a particularly useful exercise, but given what we know, would it be wise to at least check the main account for any current socks? I think the evidence is pretty compelling that such a check would be warranted. 28bytes (talk) 01:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  •  Clerk note: Maybe I just lack imagination, but I'm not sure what usefulness can come of this investigation. This is all massively stale, on the order of being many years old, some as much as 8 years old. Checkuser is of zero help here. Having an SPI clerk say "yes, it looks like socks" or "no it doesn't" has no more authority than if someone says so at some future forum that may or may not ever take place. Blocking them would be pointless. None of these are remotely active. I'm leaving open for another Clerk or Checkuser to review, but I'm inclined to think that closing it without action is the best use of resources here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 18:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: Templates saying someone "suspects" sockpuppetry are not only controversial, but some consider them downright uncivil and they may have a point. I will not tag any sock that isn't indef blocked, and generally remove them otherwise. I find them useful in those very limited circumstances. Some CUs/admin/editors are against tags altogether. This will likely end up in the archives, but that is about it. I just can't justify spending a couple of hours linking editors that haven't edited in 8 years, and not willing to make a claim that I think they are socks unless I did. I will leave open a day in case another clerk wants to, but I think the benefit isn't worth the time it would take to investigate it properly. If he socks tomorrow, we would ask CU to look, and all of this would be meaningless. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 00:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: I've added a CU request for sleepers, per the request of 28bytes. Somehow I've managed to avoid all the drama around this entire case, so I'm not familiar enough with the entire history to endorse, and will leave that for another clerk or perhaps a CU to determine. If you look only at the information in this report, it might be seen as fishing, but maybe a CU who is more familiar with the case and other evidence that exists to justify checking the logs. Your odds may be better if you ping a CU that is familiar but uninvolved. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 02:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • non-clerk note: Dennis is, as so often, correct, and I endorse 28bytes's request to check for sleepers. We're dealing with someone who has dedicated a significant chunk of his life to Wikipedia and as we all know that is, for better or for worse, a tough habit to break. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 05:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No obvious sleepers. T. Canens (talk) 05:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Double-checked and concur with this - Alison ❤ 17:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 13:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Qworty/Archive&oldid=1082481703"