Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Gtadoc

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Gtadoc

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Gtadoc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Allgoodnamesalreadytaken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
203.34.164.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Fmehdi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsharvy (talk • contribs)

Evidence

Allgoodnamesalreadytaken and Gtadoc are supporting each other, e.g [1]. Allgoonames's Talk page consists entirely of complimentary exchanges between Gtadoc and himself. Allgoodnames created his account 10AUG at 20:54, and Gtadoc's first comment on his Talk page was at 21:00 (6 minutes after the account was created)[2].

203.34.164.71 forged a complimentary comment on Gtadoc's Talk page, signing it "Stephen."[3] Gtadoc then edited the signature to make it a wiki-link to the Talk page of editor Stephen [4]. Stephen later asserted the comment was not his, at which point Gtadoc deleted the entire section.

Gtadoc has a history of other fradulent activity, e.g. deleting user comments from a Talk page and then accusing the user of deleting them.Bsharvy 16:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that Allgoodnames and Gtadoc post on the exact same themes: medical research and complaining that nobody respects their expertise [5] (this is Allgoodnames commenting on Gtadoc's Talk page, another case of supporting each other). IP addresses should not generally be considered sockpuppets; I sometimes forget to sign in before posting. However, in this case the IP posting is represented as someone other than Gtadoc (it is supporting him), and it involves forging a signature of another editor, which strikes me as serious.Bsharvy 21:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I added User:Fmehdi as this user and Gtadoc contributed to the disruption, nasty tone, and the ultimate abandonment of all editors from making any attempt to improve the Che Guevara article. I suspect User:Fmehdi because this account was used between July 19 to August 8, mostly to support User:Gtadoc in his point of view on the Che Guevara article talk page and to attack User:Zleitzen. The only user talk page posts from that account are one to me [6] and some to User:Zleitzen, one of the longtime editors of the Che Guevara article,[7][8][9]and supporting posts to User:Gtadoc on that subject. [10] There are also some posts to the Talk:Che Guevara.[11][12][13][14]

Other than these, there are only a few other edits from this account and none since August 8 when this account gave User:Gtadoc a barnstar "For your work on several science pages, like amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and for improving pages dealing with medical and graduate education".[15] Fmehdi did not edit any of the pages mentioned in the barnstar. --Mattisse 01:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - User:Gtadoc did accuse me of defending User:Zleitzen thereby causing the uproar that occurred on the Che Guevara page.[16]. In fact, I did make a post about Zleitzen to Fmehdi's page and to Gtadoc's not to defend Zleitzen but to explain him as the attacks on him were unnecessarily nasty, given the situation. [17][18] I made no posts about Zleitzen on the Che Guevara talk page. My first post to the Che Guevara talk page was July 29. I will add that I thought the interaction between Gtadoc and Fmehdi strange at the time as they were both new to the Che Guevara article but neither posted to other editors than Zleitzen of the article, and both seemed angry at him. Mattisse 12:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding the comparison between Gtadoc and Fmedhi on Kate's Wannabe: Gtadoc [19] and Fmedhi.[20] I believe Fmedhi was used primarily to give a false sense of support to Gtadoc on Che Guevara talk page and to attack User:Zleitzen. Mattisse 13:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

~~I am new to this part of Wikipedia, so I may be wrong. I think the comments made after the initial report are supposed to go here, in the "Comments" section. I will move them if there is no objection.~~ (Moved comments)Bsharvy 21:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for vandalizing my user page. To respond, I looked at Gtadoc's talk page that bharvey mentions, the IP address is actually seems to be from where he lives, along with the one singing it. Kind of funny that he's here accusing someone else of it. I'm pretty sure Gtadoc himself left WP because it was a waste of time for him (as would be, say, me trying to teach molecular genetics to a monkey)...since I work with him/sit 10 feet from him he asked me to comment on a page relating to radiation as its my field of research. I have no idea who fmehdi is, but it seems she made mattisse angry at some point...though I find it amusing that her edits seemed to be about indain fashion...lol. I'm more than happy to prove who I am, or for that matter prove where I work and my share my CV with you, since you are trying to assert you know something about radiation sickness on the one page I commented on I would wonder if you are willing to do the same?? In any event, I'd appreciate it if you both (or whichever of you did) quit vandalizing my page (or in Bsharvey's case) quit making childish comments on talk pages to me. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 02:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - None of User:Fmehdi's edits were about Indian fashion as stated about by Allgoodnamesalreadytaken above. Other that the above edits, User:Fmehdi has made 2 edits to Palestine, 2 to Israel, ⋅2 to Phrenology, and 2 to Mansehra. --Mattisse 01:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you're right; the comment (which you didn't mention) was about bollywood; I assumed it was fashion, but its the indian movie industry...lol...'pats mattise on the back' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allgoodnamesalreadytaken (talk • contribs) 12:27, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Actually, to edit my above, I actually checked and the IP address 203.34.164.71 is signed elsewhere as Andrew73 and Stephen and is located at a university in Syndey Australia (according to RBL) and previously (it must be shared) to an address in Oregon...hmmm...a long way from minnesota. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allgoodnamesalreadytaken (talk • contribs) 02:39, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Oh, to dig deeper; this is funny, IP address 203.34.164.71 has it origonal post about plants...which upon some investigation is also a primary topic on a page linked from bsharvy's user page...lol. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 02:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Allgoodnamesalreadytaken has intensified his support of Gtadoc, and attacks on me, with a thoroughly dishonest complaint on the administrator's notice board [21]. Gtadoc/Allgodnames, you need to be careful about your accusations. I followed the Wikipedia steps for a suspected sockpuppet. One of the required steps was to put a sockpuppet notice on your User page. I wouldn't use complaince with wiki-policy as a basis for slinging around accusations of vandalism.Bsharvy 04:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I reported you because already having been here a whole 3 or 4 days you've been entirely disruptive on the page you've been trying to ruin and unlike others I wanted to see if you would be put to the a proverbial tree and hung by the community (who says scientists have no sense of humour?) or if editers like you are welcome here, in which case it will simply confirm the commonly held perception that wp has no standards for its editers/material. And, posting notices all over the place and trying to hide behind some policies you just read today is still vandalism, though, imho that term applies to most of the posts in your contributions page. Funny though that you feel free to accuse others of everything under the sun yet get offended when others call you on your actions. To bring a touch of logic to the conversation (don't worry, just a touch) if I was gtadoc's sockpuppet there would be no point for me to post anything here as I would just go create another account and continue posting on my merry way. BTW, I'm willing to prove who I am and what my "credentials" and "expertise" are...what about you? No worries, I already looked at the webpage you linked to your userpage and I see that you have none, yet make accusations against others as if you did...I don't think WP:CIVIL allows me to post here what I think about that...lol. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 04:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're busted. You don't know how to spell "editor." You spelled it "editer." In an amazing coincidence, Gtadoc also does not know how to spell "editor." Even more amazingly coincidentally, he spelled it "editer." Here is one of his edit sumaries: "removing diatribe per WP:NPA also leaving warning on editer Wtmitchell|Boracay Bill talk page)"[22]. (Of further note, in that same edit, you deleted my comment from a Talk page, and later accused me of deleting it.)Bsharvy 05:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, you're a two year old; I don't know how to spell anything, and I can't do math in public. Though, speaking of busted...you accused Gtadoc of adding a comment to his own page, the IP address 203.34.164.71 actually maps to somewhere in SE asia...hmmm...where might you be? Seems like a case of meatpuppetry/wikistalking/strawmanpuppetry to me...did I spell all those right? Oh, by the way, I can't knowledgable either, but then, neither can George Bush...gosh, I must be him too! Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 05:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, keep it Civil. Comments like you're a two year old are not helpful. --SXT4^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 13:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this isn't simply to retaliate / antagonize User:Allgoodnamesalreadytaken, then, there should be {{Socksuspect}} tags on the other involved parties, for one. For two, User:Allgoodnamesalreadytaken: This isn't a forum about other's conduct. There is a time and a place for that, and, this isn't it. I understand, that this is likely very frustrating, but, you need to keep your cool. When you don't, it can make it appear to some, that you're enraged at being "caught" or "outed". To me it doesen't appear that User:Fmehdi is a sock, at least, not here. It does smell an aweful lot, like User:Allgoodnamesalreadytaken and User:Gtadoc are, however. Same topics, on the same article, focusing over the same editor, on the same part of the article. Of course, there's also [23] User:Allgoodnamesalreadytaken claiming to attend school at the Mayo Medical School, and, User:Gtadoc seems to be very familiar with that particular article, too. I suppose, it could all just as easily be some sort of massive coincidence, however. But, I digress. Even if these users are socks, are they Violating WP:SOCK? If not, I don't see the problem. If so, evidence should be compiled, and, forwarded to WP:RFCU. Anyhow, that's my opinion on the matter, and, you know what they say about opinions... --SXT4^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 06:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in my very first post I told everyone in the article that I work with gtadoc, he sits right accross the hall from me, we attend the same school, and he asked me to comment on a page because it was in my area of research and not his. I told him I would write something brief as I kind of view wp discussion pages as a waste of time, and I wrote something brief. As for Bsharvy he was actually the user harrassing other people in that page and he immediately started on me after my first post, and, unlike others, I have very little desire to placate childish behavior...its not as much being enraged by anything, rather amusement. As already pointed out, if I was a person who wanted to go around sockpuppeting I wouldn't have any reason to post here, I'd just make a new puppet and be on my way. In any event, there is already an admin action pg for Bsharvy, hopefully he can be dealt with there. In my admittedly limited experience with WP it seems one of its major limitations is the inability of expert users to make contributions that can't be trashed by blowhards.Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 17:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His/her very first post: "I went ahead and checked per the request of one of the editors and am weighting in on Gtadoc's side, I don't know if the issue is still at hand but his edits were accurate, which I can't say for some other editors..." Talk:Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Request_for_comment. The point about "editer" is not that it is a spelling a mistake. It is a very specific spelling mistake. Out of the millions of words they could both misspell, and the thousands of ways each could misspell it, each misspelled the same word, in the exact same way.Bsharvy 21:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, it was my second post; which in relevent part said "Ignoring childish comment; and yes, we work at the same institution...what about you? "...note, the childish comments were from none other than Bsharvy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allgoodnamesalreadytaken (talk • contribs) 12:23, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Question Even if these accounts are linked, how is WP:SOCK being violated? --SXT4^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 13:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Answer - In the case of User:Fmehdi it is not a huge deal and it may be more of I guess what you call meatpuppet(?). User:Gtadoc may have asked someone he knew to join Wikipedia to support his position on the Che Guevara article. The result was that the article, which was a FA, has not been edited since User:Gtadoc left as the talk page became very heated and all involved editors have withdrawn. It probably will not be edited in the foreseeable future because of the turmoil. Also, a person who was a very good editor in the past, (17,000+ edits) and who has now retired, was further alienated by being repeatedly attacked in an already ugly situation. However, perhaps none of this is important enough -- I understand that. I do think that, although User:Fmehdi may not be a sock puppet, that the account was pretty much a single purpose account. But you probably know the definitions of what qualifies more than I do. --Mattisse 13:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comment I quoted above is faked show of support: Allgoodnames "weighted" in on the side of Gtadoc in a disagreement. He later reiterated that he was siding a certain way in the disagreement (against me), and it was the same side Gtadoc had previously supported. In the same Talk page, he defended Gtadoc's comments against another editor's criticism that we were using the page for personal disagreements. All this is on the Talk page for the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the only entry Allgoodnames has ever edited. Both he and Gtadoc have taken sides on various issues discussed there, creating the impression that there are two "votes" for those positions instead of one. Fake support on User Talk pages is probably less serious, but it still creates a false impression of sentiment on Wikipedia re the discussed issues. He/she/they have routinely complained about the uninformed, rude (insert various insults about rectums, dicks, and whatnot, here) editors in their "mutual" experience, and since their only "mutual" experience is the one Talk page, it is pretty clear whom they "mutually" criticize (me). All of these insults are propped up by the sockpuppetry. They are a fake show of support for one editor's view. Finally, the mere creation of this report prompted Allgoodnames to open a complaint about me on the admin incidents page. The gist of that is siding with Gtadoc (his "colleague") in claims that I am distruptive, etc. Again, fake show of support, this time in a complain to admins. "It is a violation .. to edit as IP, rather than logging in to your account, in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest (a legitimate interest excludes wikistalking) in reviewing your contributions." It's hard to prove the forged signature from the IP address was Gtadoc, but Gtadoc did edit the signature to make it a wiki-link to the User's Talk page. When the User (Stephen, an admin, I think) wrote that it wasn't his comment, Gtadoc deleted the whole thing. The fake comment from the IP address was, of course, a show of support (against me). So the basic violation is faking shows of support, deceiving other editors about editor sentiment, and outright attacks in the name of defending the "other" editor (sockpuppet). I can't comment on the Fmehdi claim, since I didn't participate in that discussion.Bsharvy 22:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Gtadoc and Allgoodnamesalreadytaken say they know each other in real life, and Allgoodnamesalreadytaken states in this very case that Gtadoc asked him to comment on an article. These are exactly the sorts of circumstances that point to a violation of Wikipedia policy on meatpuppets (if not sockpuppets), but I don't see any evidence of an actual violation--for instance, there's no evidence of joint participation in AfDs or other types of "voting". Therefore, there's no reason to block either account.
I don't see any compelling evidence that the IP or User:Fmehdi is a sock.
If both Gtadoc and Allgoodnamesalreadytaken continue to edit, they should take care to abide by WP:MEAT. In particular, I strongly advise them to avoid jointly participating in controversial discussions. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]