Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Veuveclicquot1/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Veuveclicquot1

Veuveclicquot1 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

05 February 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Three new users suddenly appeared Feb. 4-5, all of them SPAs with regard to the article School of Economic Science. IMO if they are not sockpuppets they are meatpuppets, coming in a co-ordinated fashion to present the organisation's point of view.

  • On Feb. 4 Veuveclicquot1 made multiple edits: changing “organisation” to “charity”; changing the structure from an organisation with worldwide branches to a federation of independent schools modeled on the London original; removing cited quotes; playing down controversy.[1] Has not been seen since.
  • On Feb. 4 Concentrado343 made a few minor edits.[2] On Feb. 5, after another user reverted much of what Veuvecliquot1 had done, Concentrado343 restored all of it and added additional, similar content.[3] Concentrado343 has engaged politely at the talk page.[4] They ignored a question about whether they are a sock.[5]
  • Boneohimself appeared Feb. 5 and has made harmless one edit so far [6] MelanieN (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2019 (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]

  •  In progress - TonyBallioni (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Veuveclicquot1 and Concentrado343 are  Confirmed and  Blocked and tagged. Boneohimself is  Inconclusive: MelanieN, I'd use your judgement on the behavior on that one as whether or not to block. Not enough data to make a conclusion technically. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Relisted: Please, compare Boneohimself to Millandhouse33. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Possible. They share a range, but all the connected accounts use one device that Bomeohimself has never used. Given that account hasn’t edited in a while and some other differences, I don’t think there’s enough to block on now. Closing. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


07 February 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


This is another brand-new SPA account, restoring the exact same edits [7] previously made by Veuveclicquot1 and Concentrado343 who are CU-confirmed socks of each other. Millandhouse33 is also engaging in good faith at the talk page. (User:Boneohimself, the other SPA I mentioned in the previous report, continues to make occasional neutral edits which are unlike what the other three are doing.) NOTE: I am WP:INVOLVED at this article and will not be taking any action myself. MelanieN (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2019 (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]

  • Block based on behavior. Closing. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @TonyBallioni: How is it possible that this account was ublocked without user being asked to reveal all the accounts they were using? We always ask sockpuppeteers to reveal all the accounts before considering unblock. User should have been asked whether Boneohimself is his account. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn’t really see the need to in this case. They were engaging on the talk page, said they’d forgotten the password to all the other accounts, and I didn’t think Boneohimself was the same person at that point based on the behavior. Since I was the admin who blocked all three and it was within a relatively short time frame, I viewed it somewhat like blocking the socks and giving the master a warning. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14 May 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

This is a first investigation filing, please feed back for improvement. I'm an involved editor. Per User:MelanieN's original filing (see SPI archive) I also do not think these are sock puppets, there may be a case of meat puppetry. Veuveclicquot1, Concentrado343 and Millandhouse33 are known to be the same user per previous filing; per WP:BITE MelaineN gave them a supportive welcome and instructed them not to edit the article directly, restrict themselves to the Talk page [8]. All seven accounts were started 4-25 February 2019 and joined the School of Economic Science article, which rarely has new arrivals. (It was stable in calendar year 2018 with 13 edits; this year to date, mainly since the new arrivals, it has had over 663 edits, tripling size from almost 50,000 bytes to over 150,000.[9] 67.8% of current article now authored by Millandhouse [10]) All have tended towards the POV of the organisation, advanced or defended its reputation. Per User:Vanjagenije's relisting (see SPI archive), Boneohimself and Millandhouse33 were found to be in the same range and using different devices; action was not taken because Boneohimself was dormant, and other differences. Now Boneohimself and the other two active non-IP users have responded as in unison to uninvolved User:Kashmiri’s drive-by maintenance tag: [11] Elgato97 removes it first: [12] Boneohimself removes it three times: [13] [14] [15] then in Talk page discussion Millandhouse chimes in: [16] (Statement supporting removal of tag, statements that a cohort has been required to overcome an individual editor, statement canvassing for this to continue.) Boneohimself replies: [17] (Statement providing support.)

  • Note: For years at the article we've also had a longterm user who self-disclosed as a member of the organization, and stood up for its reputation. They happen to have had a record of sock-puppetry and sanctions elsewhere. But they participated in content disagreements that - no matter how heated - helped us reach consensus and improved the article. For some reason I doubt they're connected, but I cannot be certain. Since February, they have at times seen eye-to-eye with some of the new arrivals about content, and have also edited to remove content that could be problematic for the organization. Two diffs at least show a commonality of purpose between this longterm user and one of the new users. I can file them if you think it's important. Many thanks, Roberthall7 (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@T. Canens Thank you very much for the efforts. Regarding the technical connection, may I check whether you are not saying sock is a possibility, aside from the meat concern that has been raised? Also you mention behavior will be key - is this something you are going to review? If not, would you be kind enough to guide us through next steps? Only ask as this is my first filing, am a newcomer to the process. Many thanks, -Roberthall7 (talk) 10:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@qedk, thank you for the input. FWIW I'd be astonished if those three are one user, given the initial master has been educated [18] and warned: [19] So am still inclined to see this as meat created by failed sock. That's especially because their target article is about a volunteer organization that they are editing to manage the reputation of. It has thousands of members who meet and communicate regularly, so it would be very easy to establish a cohort for a cause. So should this also be raised as a nothere or advocacy issue at ani? Or do we wait for the admin here to review conduct as well as behavior? --Roberthall7 (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@QEDK:@Ivanvector:@Timotheus Canens:@TonyBallioni: If Elgato has just been blocked as a sock of Veuveclicquot, and Millandhouse33 was previously confirmed as a sock of Veuveclicquot [20], does that mean aside from what appeared to be a cycle of coordinated edits shown above, the same user was actually talking to themselves in the exchange between Millandhouse33 and Elgato here [21] ? This would be surprising because afaics it was meat-puppetry alone. If your position is that the same user was doing that, I would be minded to add the additional username mentioned in my "*Note:" above to the list (as a possible meat puppet) for thoroughness, given they have a previous record of sock-puppetry, they similarly edit in favor of the organization's POV, and they self-disclosed as a member of it. Guidance please. --Roberthall7 (talk) 05:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@QEDK:@MelanieN: and all administrators: There's more to this than meets the eye. QEDK's point about behavior is an important prompt. So far I’ve been holding back from logging further evidence at SPI with the understanding it is normally restricted to ANI. So here goes. Bear with me while I compile it. --Roberthall7 (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note user page message that I am working from a WP:VALIDALT that covers roughly 10% of my edits on Wikipedia. I'm coming in for sustained personal allegations of working against the School of Economic Science, e.g. [22][[23], more diffs to follow, some of which I'm not yet sure wouldn't be a breach of WP:NPA from the new user(s) in question. They have formed a cohort that gives the appearance of a democratic mandate to manage the reputation of The School of Economic Science (a.k.a. The School of Practical Philosophy) covered by WP:MEAT ("Consensus in many debates and discussions should ideally not be based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors"). In Talk page discussion I refer to the SES with universality in mind as a 'group' or 'organization', and edited the MOS:FIRST line accordingly prior to 2018's year of consensus/stablity at the article - this is far more generous to the organization that our articles on the Church of Scientology, for example, which it has been studied with [24]; Have also contributed relatively positive opinion on it from Evans:[25] and Hugh Jackman in interview:[26] This said, many sources (including those in the body of the article) refer to it as a New Religious Movement or sect, cult, an alleged cult or a possible cult [27][28][29][30], more diffs available, most recently Emily Watson in the Financial Times of April 10, 2019[1] with a verifiable history of criminal child abuse, denigration of women and other controversial issues talked about in the secondary sources. I have added material which reflects this. In breach of WP:LEDE this is getting removed from the intro by the cohort e.g. here [31] and here [32] despite talk page opposition:[33] leaving readers with the impression that it is an educational, course-providing charity without any reputation of past wrongdoing, nor any sign of the many verifiable allegations of it being a New Religious Movement or cult, etc. Most seriously, verifiable sources which had supported that inclusion are also being similarly treated, e.g. rewrite of content sourced to Shaw which describes SES as a "cult" to content in which Wikipedia says Shaw "challenged the suggestion SES was a cult":[34] Related Talk page discussion in which MelaineN is stating she “assumes good faith” about the change:[35] (indeed to date, she has tirelessly shown her kindness towards Mill as is an exemplar of WP:BITE if not WP:WIKILOVE). Contrast Mill's edit to excerpt from Shaw available online: “In the whole colourfully eccentric splatter of cults, there has never been one as genteel, stiff-upper lipped and absurdly British as the School of Economic Science. In many ways, it's quite the strangest cult I join. Despite the beaming vision presented by Miss Crammond, it has also been accused of being one of the most authoritarian.”[36] The recent surge in content shown in my original filing and noticed by Melaine is as far as I can see an attempt to bury controversial content with flattering, peacock or verbose content, much of which is not referenced to reliable secondary sources, diffs to follow. This comes after Melanie warns Millandhouse as an “involved person” to add content to the talk page first: [37]. The recent surge in Mill's editing was followed by my decision many weeks ago to WP:DISENGAGE rather than edit war against a cohort to preserve the consensus that had lasted throughout 2018, effectively a result of WP:DAPE. The almost a month of Mill's absence could be a result of the cohort having gotten the article into what it sees as desirable shape, which the recent banners from two uninvolved drive-by editors have flagged as problematic. The editing in other areas is almost entirely connected to the SES, e.g. its sources in Advaita Vedanta and Hinduism, its founders Andrew MacLaren and Leon MacLaren, who sources show advocated an interest in Land value tax and alternative medicine (note Mill attempted to start a page on the practitioner David R. Hawkins which resulted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David R. Hawkins (3rd nomination). This brings us to the matter of the additional WP:ADVOCACY editor and Clara Salaman, who has written an allegorical novel about the SES criticizing it among other things for mistreatment of children, which is discussed in academia[2] and Salaman appears to have been threatened with legal action from the SES about it: [38] In discussion with myself, Melaine added the academically-sourced content about the novel [39] but then User:Skrying (who presents as "Pete") removes the RS sourced content verifying this (an academic paper) amid their legitimate removal of other content [40] and Mill edits the Clara Salaman page [41] to show that she has been criticized for failing to report child abuse; note Mill has been in discussion with Skyring at SES Talk complaining about WP:WEIGHT, meaning Mill understands the concept [42] even as their content at the BLP remains. Note Skyring/Pete's self-disclosure that they are a member of the organization [43] and FWIW their block log that shows a distant history of severe sock-puppetry. I'm sure this is already a lot to consider for now so I'll stop there, and there is actually plenty more to follow. --Roberthall7 (talk) 12:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "But what might have been a straightforward middle-class existence was complicated by their membership of the School of Economic Science, which Watson describes as “a quasi-religious organisation/cult”. “The teaching is rather beautiful, actually,” she says. “It’s that everybody is one, and that the object of life is to realise that. But many a slip twixt cup and lip . . . You’re taught to think a certain way about the world, and about yourself, that is very denigrating to the individual and to women." https://www.ft.com/content/52918bd6-56e1-11e9-91f9-b6515a54c5b1
  2. ^ https://www.academia.edu/19896972/Both_Outside_and_Inside_Ex-Members_of_New_Religions_and_Spiritualities_and_the_Maintenance_of_Community_and_Identity_on_the_Internet


@QEDK:@Ivanvector:

  • Noted both Tony and Melainie say they were not following the article, so it seems that admin intervention is required. In the meantime I've noticed that Melaine warned Mill a second time to restrict themselves to the Talk page on the grounds that Mill is "involved" and "these additions are an example of why" [44] although there was no mention of what consequences would ensue for ignoring these warnings, perhaps given the strength of Tony's initial "{{unblock reviewed|accept=per MelanieN’s trust in you. Note if you create more accounts in the future, they’re likely to be blocked and an unblock won’t be as easy.[45] FWIW you'll see I then warned them a third time about their Talk page restriction on that same page.
  • Given QEDK's conclusions in response to the first installment of behavioral evidence here I'm not sure how much more evidence I need to bring forward for consideration, as there is a lot to digest.
  • One additional matter is particularly strange. Back on 17 February I pointed out that Mill was actually accusing me of adding malicious lines of content that weren't even in the article [46], trailing back to an earlier discussion [47]. Bearing in mind QEDK's observations of the evidence, what may have happened at that point is that Mill was more eager to perceive me as an adversary and support the new IP (who had alleged my "aggressive investigative reporting which has been characteristic of all your editing of Wikipedia", and refused to strike through the line upon request per NPA) than to independently think and check what was actually being talked about. I see I wrote at the time: "Neither of these two lines is in this article. I've checked several times and have been patiently waiting for someone to take this forward, but time's up. What's going on? Why the immediate deference to the credibility of the new IP, who has had plenty of time to retract their personal attack on request per Wikipedia policy, only to repeat it? It appears that a habit of breaching our code of conduct is being learned at the outset by one new user from another. Without something being done about it, it's only going to be encouraged." What happened now looks like dysfunctional conformity, the mistake of a tag-team gone wrong. Was there a hierarchy? Did they already know each other, off-Wiki?
  • Back on 14 February 2019, given the increasingly adversarial and personal tone of discussion on the Talk page (concluding with [48]), and contrary to later allegation of bad faith, I chose not to BOLD add a fresh source but invited discussion on it instead: [49] It includes lines such as: "Economic Science now has all the features of a cult. This became clear in 1983, when scandal erupted over the management of the children's schools. ... The scandal was prompted by a series of articles published in the London Evening Standard during 1982, reported in turn by other papers, which quoted parents complaining of savage punishments ... Opponents accuse the SES of combining brainwashing, cruelty and the enforcement of conformity ... Its funds now run into millions, and the school owns substantial properties in England and abroad, bought with a continuing stream of donations, bequests and convenants. The subscriptions of ordinary members play a relatively small role in the organisation’s finances, and fees are kept low to encourage recruitment. ... a complex rigid and demanding set of rules governing every aspect of an SES member's life, from his diet and musical taste to his sexual behaviour. ...in practice they are fiercely repressive and at the same time conservative and eccentric, stressing the traditional roles of the sexes down to the wearing of long skirts for women, insisting on the central role of Sanskrit chanting in education ... The rules are administered by 'personal tutors’ to whom members report and owe absolute obedience. The tutors are in turn organised by group leaders who have the authority to demand more or less anything from their charges."
  • Mill pointed out that the source is from 1993, no disagreement there. They then wrote on 1 March: "I’ve now got this. The pages that refer to SES contain 8 citations. 6 of them refer directly to houghman and hogg, 1 to SES tube advertising, one (covering 6 paragraphs) based on original interviews but again refers to Human and Hogg for more info. This is essentially a rehashing of Houghman and Hogg, which the author himself describes as “over-sensational." So in in opposition to WP:V, Mill is saying that Washington lacks credibility as a source with the argument that (according to Mill) it relies on an earlier source that lacks credibility (but has not been deemed unreliable at RS/N). A countdown to an edit war ensues e.g.: [50][51][52] I then WP:DISENGAGE with the understanding that a cohort is at work and as a consequence Washintgton - a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia - is removed from the article.
  • There's consensus that Hounam & Hogg's 1980s Secret Cult got plenty wrong, particularly with regard to the connection between SES and the UK Liberal Party. But this fact appears to have been taken unreasonably far in the article, seemingly in order to bundle other opposition to the SES together with the mistakes H&H made. Moreover the source has not failed the test of RS/N so it not for editors to editorialize what it says on the grounds that parts of it are contested by later works (indeed many if not most groundbreaking works in any new area of study, from history to psychology, get some things very wrong, but in Wikipedia as elsewhere we tend to preserve the work on the strength of the ground it broke and what in it is not contested) nor to undermine later works that cite it. From "In 1983" to "are also untrue." there are three large paragraphs actually discussing that single source, including lines such as "They made several pejorative allegations"... "They also claimed..." (WP:CLAIM) not in the references cited that come across as heavy PPOV. There's a further three paragraphs of retorts to H&H from SES in the "Comments from members and ex-members" section. The whole thing comes across as a heavily editorialized use of Wikipedia to discredit RS opposition to an organization. This may have prompted Kashmiri's tags that the cohort removed and supported the removal of.
  • At the same time, we also have: "In 2013, SES received the Second Globalisation for the Common Good Initiative (GCGI) Award at the 11th Annual International GCGI Conference, held at Cite Universitaire International, Paris. "The Award is given in recognition of the School’s extraordinary and tireless work, offering a truly meaningful education for the common good and selfless service in helping to build a better world. The School has shown that an education based on ancient wisdom can raise the individual to a higher level of awareness, bringing deeper understanding and kinship with all living things." citing the GCGI's own website. Whether or not the GCGI passes the test of notability, this could well be the peacock content referred to in Kashmiri's tags, also repeatedly removed by the cohort. Google shows that the year before that, in 2012, the GCGI held a conference in a association with the SES at its Oxford mansion: [53] which could raise a question about the credibility of the award not mentioned in our content.
  • Per above, Mill has already been educated and warned about puppetry; they have been warned that an unblock will not be easy, they have been warned to stick to the Talk page due to being "involved" (COI in policy terms), their cohort has removed Kashmiri's COI tag four times per above, I restored it once and they alleged that "The fact that Roberthall is one of the people that placed this tag demonstrates it is not legitimate but a continuation of a long campaign to use this page to attack an organization he does not like." There also may be inadvertent giveaways when they refer to the COI tag as a "badge of shame" (what's shame got to do with a Wikipedia article?) and "It seems to me, the only way to address the COI issue is for several editors to remain involved." I'm not sure if that was intended as a pun. They then invoke self-awareness by alleging my "psychological projection" with a link in blue.
  • Kashmiri has identified OWN [54] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberthall7 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, Mill has also encountered BLP issues spotted by User:Sangdeboeuf [55] at Cathy Newman, a journalist at Channel Four News, the same British television program that investigated the SES in connection with child abuse: [56]
  • Given Ivanvector's decision to block Elgato, I'm hereby emphasizing that your evidence shows Boneo was created around the same time as Elgato, and works with the same goal in the same topic area; the only major difference seems to be that Boneo has made more edits than Elgato and has been previously mentioned by the other admins. But apart from that? If action is taken, I'd assume we'd need to prevent a respawning of new puppets as the the motivation will remain. Would that be some form of lock on the article, blocking new users/IPs and restricting members of the organization to the Talk page?

In the meantime, I hope that now provides everything you needed to proceed. Cheers, --Roberthall7 (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

@Ivanvector:@QEDK: Thank you for bringing this to a conclusion. Though I've been around for years I am new to SPI so Ivanvector could you explain what exactly a 'tag' is in this case? And why the warnings were the rationale for you not tagging? QEDK said they tagged one of the users, so I'd be interested what the distinction is here. Secondly, if I return to the article and experience a return of advocacy editors, shall I take it up here again? Or would either of you be willing to watch the article in a non-editor, oversight-only capacity? Many thanks, -Roberthall7 (talk) 17:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: Here goes, see User:Hiwatl. Suggest Checkuser and page protection. -Roberthall7 (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon:@Ivanvector:@QEDK: Admin review & decision for the record: [57] -Roberthall7 (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • Thanks for tagging. Boneofhimself, Elgato97 and the IP editor (who uses two IP addresses) look more like meatpuppets - edit summaries are in distinctly different styles. (Unless CU evidence counters this.) However, I am not that much concerned about tagging. Trimming the article can be done in 10-15 mins max and getting a more balanced version, in another 15-20 mins. So, instead of discussing the tags, why doesn't someone go BOLD? (I might be able to do it in a week or so). — kashmīrī TALK 18:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

  •  Clerk endorsed - There is a possibility of meatpuppetry (per Kashmiri) but there's a lot of similarity as well, the overlap, use of VE and sometimes really similar edit summaries. The IP addresses are 99% meatpuppets. qedk (t 桜 c) 06:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geographically  Possible for the named users. There's also an additional weak technical connection between Millandhouse33 and Boneohimself. Behavior will be key here. no No comment with respect to IP address(es). T. Canens (talk) 05:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pink clock Awaiting administrative action - If I had to hazard a guess, it would be Veuveclicquot1=Concentrado343=Elgato97. The sockmaster and the one blocked sock have consistent SPA behaviour. And as has been raised previously by other clerks, Millandhouse33 appears same as Boneohimself. My reasoning is based on editing history alone and the "Possible" technical connection mostly muddles that but from my awareness, anything is possible. @Timotheus Canens: Two questions, a) do the user agents appear similar? b) in particular, does Elgato97 appear different from the group? qedk (t 桜 c) 10:43, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Millandhouse33 edits from two UAs, X and Y. Boneohimself edits from Y. Y is not a very common UA, but also not that rare. Elgato97 edits from a different UA than these two. T. Canens (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @QEDK: what admin action are you looking for here, and does the CU comment above change your mind? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ivanvector: The CU comment reinforces my viewpoint tbh, I just wanted to see if Elgato is distinguished from the group and that is the correct notion per the comment. I would say a behaviourial sockpuppet indef for Elgato97, and I'm not quite sure about what to do about the other two as there has been some block/unblock discussion, TonyBallioni might help figure them out. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have blocked Elgato97, tags are up to you. Let's wait to see if Tony has any input for the other two. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Late reply to ping: I don't think I have much to add here. I don't remember much about the case technically or behaviourally. MelanieN is more familiar with the behaviour here than I am. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: Elgato97 tagged. I think it's best to wait for Tony too. qedk (t 桜 c) 18:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, pinging MelanieN who suggested the editors are different, resulting in the unblock. Replying to Roberthall7, the key is knowing that they weren't "confirmed" as you suggest, but rather that they were blocked on behaviour, which may at times supersede/supplement/counter CU evidence. The connection between the first two named editors is still possible (like before) and a behavioural match is so-so at best. Feel free to file any other accounts you think might be related to this. --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @QEDK: Sheesh, I had stopped following this article. Looking at their recent contributions: Boneohimself is a Single Purpose Account, focusing only the School of Economic Science and related articles. Their edits are generally supportive of the school, including removing COI/peacock tags from the School article three times, but mostly constructive. Millandhouse33 has made 448 (!) edits to the School of Economic Science article, but mostly in the past; they are currently engaged at many other articles, and they have hardly edited the School article at all in the past month. Bottom line, I don't see behavioral evidence at this time that either of them are socks, or more to the point, that their editing is disruptive. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note:@Roberthall7: Given the information you just presented, I'm fairly confident this is a tag-teaming effort, which also shifts this into the matter of administrator discretion. I disagree with MelanieN's conclusion that their editing is not disruptive. Let me state that the Wikipedia sockpuppetry policy (WP:SOCK) does not only cover actual sockpuppets but people who game the system (meatpuppetry, etc.) to form sockpuppetry-like behaviour. Per the points stated on WP:SOCK, this clearly falls under "Creating an illusion of support" and "Posing as a neutral or uninvolved commentator" (atleast these two, maybe more) points of our policy and is clearly WP:NOTHERE behaviour. As such, I will endorse any such blocks placed by any administrator on these accounts, noting ofcourse, I'm not an administrator and I have no authority to do so myself. Pinging @MelanieN: who should be aware of my opinion and @Ivanvector: who was on this case before. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have blocked Millandhouse33 and Boneohimself, based partly on the CU result, on our discussion here, and their continued coordinated advocacy for the school. It's edging on meatpuppetry, but I'm mostly unimpressed that the obviously COI editors have ignored administrators' warnings to not edit the article directly. Because of that I have not tagged the accounts. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Roberthall7: the "tag" I'm referring to is the banner we normally place on sockpuppet accounts' user pages with information about their activity, for example User:DJ Autagirl. I'm not in this case because it's not exactly clear to me what the relationships are between all these accounts, whether they're one user with many accounts (which we would tag referring to this case) or several people pushing a common conflict of interest (which we call meatpuppetry, and normally don't tag). I think it best not to suggest a relationship that might not exist, but these accounts have other block-worthy problems besides possibly being used in violation of the multiple accounts policy. This report will be archived soon but if you have more questions feel free to reach out on my talk page. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @Roberthall7: thank you for your update, but please don't post in the closed report. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, @Roberthall7:, but yeah basically what Ivan said. You can always drop a note at any of our talk pages if anything turns up, so no worries. --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16 July 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

User jumping into the COI dispute at School of Economic Science immediately after socks were blocked in the last investigation. This account is already blocked, but I didn't realize until today that the account is actually several years old and was sleeping until last week. There's some confusion about who's who here, so requesting a Checkuser take a look. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:27, 16 July 2019 (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've re-blocked Millandhouse33 with TPA revoked for their ongoing attempts to claim innocence, and based on that, I've also blocked the recently created accounts with no edits as the user seems likely to reoffend. As for the case, although Hiwatl and Veuveclicquot1 are obviously working together, they seem to be technically distinct, so I'm going to put this report into a new case. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Veuveclicquot1/Archive&oldid=1037775724"