Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mantanmoreland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] User:Mantanmoreland

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.
Suspected sockpuppeteer

Mantanmoreland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu)

Suspected sockpuppets

Bassettcat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Stetsonharry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Huldra (talk) 09:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

Stetsonharry started 2 March 2008, mostly edits popular culture
Bassettcat started 29 March 2008, mostly edits finance
Both: started during or just after the recent Matanmoreland arb.case., and both edits Patrick M. Byrne‎ ..in perfect agreement, to remove positive information on Byrne,[1], [2] and to add more negative inf. instead.

And William Ortiz noted on AN/I that "Bassettcat has edits like the accounts named in the Mantantmoreland arbitration such as [3] [4] those two make the article more negative to Byrne."[5]

Also: John Nevard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is probably not the same as any of the above, but s/he is editing the same articles on probation, with the same POV. This might be a problem, since s/he stated on his/her userpage 21 October 2007: "I have another account..[]" [6] and the articles on probation should be edited "from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account",

Comments

I am most concerned with the articles on probation that these editors edit; Patrick M. Byrne‎, Naked short selling, Overstock.com, and that all editors comply with the General sanctions Imposed by the Committee for these articles (which includes not editing through any form of proxy configuration.)

Note also that some anon has noted this on AN/I: Articles on "probation" problems and on WP:AE: "Probation" violations?


  • I haven't had a chance to review all of the evidence, but I know from experience that John Nevard participates appropriately in a variety of difficult topics. His engagement in the Naked short selling matter may be better evidence of his courage/foolhardiness than of sockpuppetry. If there's no evidence of inappropriate behavior by this user then perhaps we should leave that account off of the list. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I had thought of leaving John Nevard out, I just included him since he was mentioned in the AN/I report. Fell free to remove him if you like. Will Beback is right: it does seem as if Nevard "dives" into different hotspots. My concern was mainly that he stated that this was not his only account. (Psst: Nevard could do with some improvement regarding civility, though)
Also: I did not intend to file both a CU and a SSP...: I filed this SSP first, then decided I really needed a CU and filed that, and tried then to "defile" (see talk-page) this SSP, but that obviously didn´t work. Ah, well. Regards, Huldra (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Bassettcat is certainly a single purpose account, but I don't know who it might be. Stetsonharry looks to me like somebody's sockpuppet, but it could be from either side of the dispute, so far as I can tell. GRBerry 20:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply: I don't expect to get a medal for doing this, but I have made only constructive contributions to these articles. I have mainly been working on Securities fraud, almost alone and with no assistance despite my requests for help. I have no axe to grind or conflict of interest. I added to Securities Fraud a section on short-selling abuses not previousl in the article. My recent contributions to naked short selling corrected a significant error in the introductory Lead, namely that NSS is always illegal. User:PatrickByrne recently rewrote the entire naked short selling article unilaterally and without discussion, was warned for vandalism by Nakon and yet reinstated his changes without discussion. In so doing, he and an IP editor, neither of whom has contributed to any other article, have reinstated that error. These are technical issues and I have some knowledge of them that I would like to share, but this process is discouraging.--Bassettcat (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions
  • I see no reason to conclude that Nevard is related to any of these three. I think we've reached conclusion with regard to that account. (The other two remaining open at this timestamp.) GRBerry 20:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Based on subsequent editing, checkuser data now reveals that Bassettcat is a sockpuppet of Mantanmoreland. (Stetsonharry remaining open at this time stamp.) GRBerry 15:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm going to go on the record as saying Stetsonharry is probably not Mantanmoreland, but he might be. I think the threshold of proving that he is Mantanmoreland has not been met. Also, I observe that Bassettcat edited his userpage at 14:03 on May 17, 2008 between two edits by Stetsonharry at 14:01 and 14:07. [7] It's possible that Mantanmoreland would have done that just to throw me off, but it's more likely that these are two different people. If it really is Mantanmoreland, eventually he'll do something stupid, and then we'll know it's him. Until then, I think the operative assumption is that this is someone else who happens to agree with Mantanmoreland on the Patrick Byrne article dispute. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Closing, while Bassettcat is for sure Mantanmoreland, I am not convinced Stetsonharry is. We'll wait as Shalom suggests. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)