Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pproctor/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Pproctor

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

Added later:


Several accounts have been editing articles related to scientist Peter Proctor for about 5 years. The accounts generally edit articles related to medicine & chemistry. Many of the edits are acceptable, but a large number of the edits attempt to insert "vanity" or self-promotional material about Proctor into WP articles. The vanity material mostly focuses on the fact that Proctor made some discoveries that were ignored when the Nobel Prize committee gave the 2000 Nobel prize in chemistry to another scientist. Proctor's own web site expresses his frustrations here. The edits to WP also reflect a similar frustration. Some other edits relate to promoting hair-loss remedies that Proctor has developed (see his own website here). In addition to inserting vanity material, the accounts sometimes tag-team edit by supporting each other, for example in the dispute resolution case about Peter Proctor. Proctor is from Texas, and some edits by the various accounts relate to Texas, particularly to universities in Texas. Proctor edited under his own name with account User:Pproctor for several years, but then ceased most editing around 2010; other accounts started editing during the range 2006 to 2012, so there is some overlap in the time frames, which perhaps suggest meatpuppetry, rather than sockpuppetry. On the other hand, all of the above accounts exhibit sporadic editing patterns, where weeks or months will elapse with no editing. Some of Proctor's real-life scientific work was done in collaboration with scientist John McGinness, so it may be that the two of them, or perhaps two of their friends or relatives are managing these accounts.

Two other editors that have remarked on the tag-teaming and vanity material, long before I noticed it, include User:Benjah-bmm27 and User:Smokefoot; however they are not aware of this SPI, nor am I suggesting that they endorse this SPI. For example, here is a talk page discussion where those two users confront user Nucleophilic about the vanity material. Here is another discussion involving those two editors about the tag-teaming/vanity material. If needed, I'm sure those two users could provide additional historical background. --Noleander (talk) 18:57, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

The evidence consists of the following:

  1. Editing the same set of articles (the "user compare report" above has pretty astounding results)
  2. Interests in chemistry & medicine
  3. Edits which promote P. Proctor (especially which relate him to the Nobel Prize)
  4. Tag-teaming

Specific diffs are as follows:

Edits to OLED
Edits to Peter Proctor
  • Bandn: [4]... many others
  • Vaultdoor: [5]
  • Drjem3: [6]
  • Nucleophilic: [7] ... many others
Interest in Universities in Texas, or Texas in general
Edits to conductive polymer
  • PProctor: [11]... many others
  • Drjem3: [12]... many others
  • Clipjoint: [13] .. many others
Edits to Nobel Prize controversies
  • PProctor: [14], ... many others
  • Drjem3: [15] ... many others
  • Nucleophilic: [16] ... many others
Edits to Molecular electronics
  • Drjem3: [17]... many others
  • Clipjoint: [18] .. many others
  • PProctor: [19]
Medicine
  • Pproctor: [20], ... many others
  • Nucleophilic: [21]... many others
  • Drjem3: [22] many others
  • Clipjoint: [23] ... many others
Edits to Lesch–Nyhan syndrome
  • Pproctor: [24], ... many others
  • Nucleophilic: [25] ... many others
Edits to Organic semiconductor
  • Drjem3: [26]... many others
  • Nucleophilic: [27] ... many others
  • Pproctor: [28] ... many others
  • Clipjoint: [29]
"I concur with ..", "I agree with .." other suspected puppets
User Inhouse expert
this single-purpose user was apparently created to specifically participate in a WP:DRN case about Peter Proctor: [35]
Chemistry
Uric acid
Adding the exact same unsourced sentence into Peter Proctor on different occasions
Edits to John McGinness
Only two editors to "disagree" (using same word) with participating in a mediation case
Edits to Melanin
Edits related to baldness
user Drjem 3 using P. Proctor's web site as a source
[56]
Tag-teaming in a WP:DRN case case archive here
Tag-teaming to get material included regarding Nobel Prize
Vote-stacking to get fringe material included in Nobel Prize controversies article in an RfC
Some evidence for User:Maxdlink
This editor has only 150 total contribution to WP, yet they have tremendous overlap with other suspects (Diffs for the following from the UserCompare report):


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]
  • Inhouse expert is Red X Unrelated to all.
  •  Confirmed Nucleophilic to Belton1 (talk · contribs)
  • Very  Likely Belton1 (talk · contribs) is Drjem3, which would then make Nucleophilic also Very likely because of the relation above.
  •  Confirmed Chickenboner (talk · contribs) is Drjem3
  • Vaultdoor and Borders999 are editing on now blocked webhosts.
  • And everything else is  Stale iirc. Result has been modified per below -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 15:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: From the above, it looks like Nucleophilic == Belton1; and also Belton1 == Drjem3. From that, does it mean that Nucleophilic == Drjem3? --Noleander (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Request: I just noticed yet another possible sockpuppet: User:Borders999. I added them to the list at the top. Could they also be analyzed? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Replied above, thanks for pointing that out. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 15:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that work. As for the accounts that are "stale", I maintain that the common editing patterns described above (by the diffs, and by the User Compare Report) show that the stale accounts are also the same individual. --Noleander (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment: Bandn can't be stale, can they? Their last edit was ten days ago. Jafeluv (talk) 08:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been taking a closer look at the edit histories, and here's what I think:
Pproctor, Nucleophilic, Drjem3, Clipjoint, Vaultdoor, Chickenboner, Borders999, Maxdlink, Belton1 and Bandn should all be considered related. All have similar areas of interest, tend to back each other up in discussions, and share a very similar editing style, including regular use of English spacing (two spaces after full stop and comma) and use of very similar edit summaries such as tidy,[66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74] "x" for "y"[75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82] or "x">"y".[83][84][85][86] I'm also adding a suspected account Stanford96, who shares a similar editing style as well as interest in similar articles such as Nobel Prize controversies and organic electronics. Removing messages from another account's talk page also raises suspicions.[87][88] Pproctor and Drjem3 both use of HTML tags in edit summaries, which is a fairly atypical practice.[89][90][91] Nucleophilic, Drjem3, Clipjoint, Vaultdoor and Chickenboner were all created within less than a month in 2006; in fact, Vaultdoor was created by Clipjoint.[92]
Note that Nucleophilic and Drjem3 seem to claim to be different people who know each other in real life.[93][94] However, whether or not that is the case doesn't really matter here as meatpuppets indistinguishable from socks can be treated as one user for SPI purposes.
By contrast, Inhouse expert has a different editing style: no edit summaries, frequent use of minor edit, normal sentence spacing, etc. They also agreed to mediation while Nucleophilic and Bandn disagreed, which would seem unusual for a puppet account. Taking into account the unrelated result above it looks likely that this is a different person. Jafeluv (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing all that research ... it must have been time consuming! --Noleander (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
28 February 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Newly appeared account, just after previous socks were all blocked. Previous sock made a distinctive personal attack: [95]. This new account has made two edits, both of which repeat the same attack, and one of which disputes the contention that a bio page about the blocked sockmaster lacks notability. Tryptofish (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2013 (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]
  •  Check declined by a checkuser - Obvious sock blocked. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
02 March 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


I would like to capture this information for posterity: There are three additional accounts (named above) that, based on their editing history, may be additional sockpuppets of Pproctor. I am not requesting that any action be taken, nor that any research be done. I'm simply trying to put this information in a place where it can be found in the future, should the need arise. In other words, I'm suggesting that this information can be immediately archived. If I'm using the wrong process, please remove this posting, or notify me and I'll clean up the mess. --Noleander (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC) Noleander (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2013 (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]
  • Since no evidence is provided, we can't really action on this right now. I have no prejudice to refiling if you find evidence to back up the claims. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 10:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
06 March 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Akil muhamed

Based on behavior, obviously another sock, same pattern [96] [97] [98] as those before (case archive), in that they have a single-minded focus on promoting the importance of the sockmaster. Tryptofish (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please compare this [99] with the single edit by User:Courtfilings, just below. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MrDave8888

In this case, there is one past edit that does not entirely fit with the behavior [100], but the account's second edit [101] was to contest the PROD of the sockmaster, so I would suggest taking a close look. Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Courtfilings

New account just sprung up, single edit: [102]. Clumsily pretends that the sockmaster no longer remembers how to log in, and pretends to be an attorney representing the sockmaster, to make a WP:NLT violation. (Please feel free to request CHU, but I think it's too obvious to need that.) Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2013 (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 done that. If you make just a quick look at the archive for this case, you will see a focus of the socks on defending the existence of a bio page about the sockmaster. Here, you have new accounts springing up, with SPA focus on the same objective. I think it's WP:DUCK, given how unlikely it would be for new accounts to show up right now by coincidence, but if you disagree, you could ask for a CHU. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see also User talk:Tryptofish#Re: SPI. Very key: evaluate behavior in terms of how the reported accounts are talking about the sockmaster, Peter Proctor. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another suggestion, and please understand that I probably don't really understand the technicalities of how blocks work: As an alternative to investigating the new accounts, it might make sense to examine whether the block of the master and some of the already-blocked accounts should be set in such a manner as to make it more difficult to create new accounts. (?) --Tryptofish (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have merged the two (previously) below SPIs into this one. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Courtfilings is  Likely to Drjem3 in my opinion. The other two are Red X Unrelated, I've blocked Akil as a sock of someone, but have left MrDave for the time being. Please refile if he continues to edit looking like a sockpuppet. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pproctor/Archive&oldid=1138677777"