Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Suess56/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Suess56

Suess56 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

04 June 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

All the named accounts are SPAs concerned only with the article about the author John Michael Cummings, and the articles about his books.

The accounts 1608Washington, JohnMichaelCummings and MisterSpringtime are very stale, but since 1608 created JMC and JMC created MS, it is safe to assume (given their SPA editing pattern) that they were the same user, and identical to the subject of the article (based on the single-minded promotion, and on the user name of one of the accounts).

The other accounts are more recent, and were created in April 2019 or more recently than that. RELLEKYKANK, KellerLanky, and LankyKeller were created on subsequent days and only LankyKeller has continued editing; AGF suggests that the user may have forgotten his password (twice) and created new similarly-named accounts without realising that he should have disclosed that. I would not have created this SPI if it had only been for those accounts where two out of three are probably abandoned.

Now for the actual socking, though: LankyKeller has repeatedly self-identified as the subject of the article he has edited and promoted. He has been very anxious indeed to add promotional text and links to the article, and to get somebody to remove the autobiography template from it. His talk page is exhausting reading with some of the most persistent WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT I have encountered here. Tama1957, an account created a couple of weeks ago, claimed not to know J M Cummings personally; for sombody without a personal connection they appear unusually involved in Cummings' affairs, to the point where they contacted a college where Cummings used to work in order to get a certificate, and sent the pdf to wikimedia (!). However, then LankyKeller said that he had done that, in the email posted here. There are also some rather idiosyncratic features of posting that LankyKeller and Tama1957 share, which I can submit to a CU or other admin privately per WP:BEANS, if requested.

Regarding Cecemaso, the connection is less obvious; that account has only one edit but again there are a couple of tell-tale signs that it is the same person behind the keyboard (well, apart from the tell-tale klaxon when a brand-new account finds its way to a talk page of an article to post about a subject being discussed elsewhere in the encyclopedia, and knows how to ping specific editors...) I think the behavioural evidence is strong, but a CU would be helpful. bonadea contributions talk 15:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Add MadlyMadly (talk · contribs) who also poses as an uninvolved reader who just happened to find Talk:John Michael Cummings. --bonadea contributions talk 17:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Ping @Oshwah: - you drew the same conclusions I did about Cecemaso and MadlyMadly, I see! (Always good to know that I'm not chasing wild geese. :-) ) I still think that the behavioural connections to LankyKeller are quite strong, and that LankyKeller has to be the same user who originally edited as 1608Washington, so maybe that SPI could be merged with this one? --bonadea contributions talk 13:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bonadea - I don't see why it couldn't be merged... ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sole contribution (so far) of Verhinesk (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is remarkable, has familiar-looking idiosyncrasies, and perhaps is of interest here. -- Hoary (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another one to check ColinWSargent PepperBeast (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Try ColinWSargent (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). (Anyone wishing to add another ID only needs to type in {{checkuser|1=username}}.) -- Hoary (talk)

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

Checkuser comments: 1608Washington, JohnMichaelCummings and Misterspringtime are  Stale.

The following are  Confirmed to be socks of each other:

Checkuser results for the following are  Inconclusive, and determination will need to be made by other means.

Thanks, Risker (talk) 01:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the SPI report to the sock master account, Suess56, and blocked the master account. Information was added about this account on their user page, and they made the same edits to the same subject as other accounts listed in this report. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All inconclusive socks listed here have attempted to create or edit the article about John Michael Cummings, or post comments on the talk page in support of the person or of keeping the article. All have been blocked and tagged, and this SPI can be closed. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


16 July 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Obvious sockpuppet: started with gnome edits over a few days (using the same kind of pedantic language used by LankyKeller) and as soon as they were able to, they recreated John Michael Cummings. The article is the same promotional mess as before even though the wording is different, so there is doubt that it's created by the same person. bonadea contributions talk 10:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At User talk:Horseshoe Up, he has helpfully posted a number of rants identical in tone, style, and attitude to those he posted at User talk:LankyKeller. --bonadea contributions talk 13:14, 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.

  • bonadea, User:Horseshoe Up has made this statement at her talk page. I'm rather inclined to believe it, although I have been fooled by such things before. She says she knows him tangentially and photographed him on a book tour. She may have heard of the deletion and decided to weigh in with another attempt at an article. Cummings had a habit of asking for reviews of his books on multiple literary blogs, so it's quite possible that "word" about the deletion has also circulated. Having said that, take a look at User:Midnight Candle Town/sandbox. The Midnight Candle Town account was created 2 days before the Horseshoe Up account [1], [2]. The sandbox draft does not look like the state of John Michael Cummings when it was deleted the first time following the AfD. Does it look like an earlier version of it? Or, is it exactly or almost the same as the deleted version of the article that Horseshoe Up later re-created? I can't tell because I'm not an admin and can't see deleted articles or their history. In any case, the proximity of the dates of account registration for Midnight Candle Town and Horseshoe Up accounts does not appear to be a coincidence. The former perhaps setting up the "raw material" for the latter to work on? Voceditenore (talk) 13:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am very certain it's the same person behind the keyboard - the style is identical after all. There were at least three previous proven socks who claimed to be teachers and librarians who had seen JMC on tour, so I'm afraid their assertions carry as much weight with me as the electrons they are written with. Plus the fact that JMC's photo, which he uses in various published interviews and elsewhere (such as his Amazon author profile) was uploaded to Commons by Horseshoe Up, who asserts the copyright thereto. The article content was identical, only rewritten - a few phrases and sentences were recycled from the deleted version but most of the phrasing was new. That doesn't make it a different article, since the exact same issues existed (and it was if possible even more promotional). I hadn't seen Midnight Candle Town, but that sandbox is very similar (not identical) to the newly created and deleted article, so that's another sock right there. --13:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
bonadea, you have a lot more experience with this, so I'm sure you're right about the style etc. After I wrote my first comment I did an image search and sure enough, the one Horseshoe Up uploaded to Commons is all over the place, including LinkedIn and his blog. I wonder if it's worth asking for a checkuser to look for sleepers. Voceditenore (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Voceditenore: It's always possible to be wrong when evaluating people's style - I do have a knack for it, and some experience as well, but sometimes I get it wrong. However, now Horseshoe Up has in fact confirmed that he is JMC: as you noted above, the user self-identifies as a person by a different name (let's call them NN to avoid outing) and here, Horseshoe Up writes I point out that [NN] is not a friend, but only a colleague. Perhaps the H U account was created by this other person, who submitted the text JMC sent, but now it's definitely him writing. (And he refers to "my Wikipedia page" so, yeah.) I agree that a sleeper check might be worthwhile. --bonadea contributions talk 15:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
bonadea, I've added Midnight Candle Town to the list of suspected socks above. Otherwise might get lost in the shuffle. And as for Horseshoe Up's comment declaring that he's JMC... Wow, just Wow. Voceditenore (talk) 16:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Suess56/Archive&oldid=1037776231"