Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mhannigan

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EvanBlass (talk | contribs) at 07:13, 14 December 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

mhannigan

mhannigan (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Please note that a case was originally opened under Mhannigan (talk · contribs) but has been moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/mhannigan. Future cases should be placed under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/mhannigan.
11 December 2014

– A user has requested CheckUser. An SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse or decline the request.

Suspected sockpuppets


Greetings. My name is Evan Blass, and I strongly suspect that user mhannigan is making derogatory edits to my Wikipedia biography under the sock puppet account Wikigeek2. The user page for this supposedly new user admits that he joined Wikipedia as a Single Purpose Account ("No other reason than to contribute to the Evan Blass article"), and the history of this person's edits substantiates that claim: the account was created for the sole purpose of getting a page about a former business of mine deleted, as detailed here. Wikigeek2 remained dormant until a biographical article was posted -- since 11/17/14, he has made around 50 edits to the content, all of which are designed to either slight me or tarnish my reputation. However, in his latest edit, Wikigeek2 apparently made the mistake of being signed in under the "wrong" account -- he made a false claim under his other handle, mhannigan. The edit is as suspicious as it is unwarranted, considering the description of it is cited as "More specifics on drug abuse allegation," when no such allegations have ever been made, in Wikipedia, The Verge, or elsewhere.

My evidence that the two accounts are connected, although admittedly circumstantial, is as follows:

1. There have been exactly three (non-admin, non-IP) users who have contributed substantively to the Evan Blass article: one of them, EvanBlass, created the article and made mostly positive contributions. The other two, mhannigan and Wikigeek2, have made decidedly "negative" edits, with Wikigeek2 clearly being a SPA who holds a grudge against me (i.e. getting my first page deleted, and editing the biography in whatever ways he can think of to make me sound worse or lessen the impact of my contributions).

2. Wikigeek2 goes out of his way on his user page to point out that he is, in fact, a brand new Wikipedia editor, and not a sock puppet of a more experienced editor. However, the nature of his edits seem to be at odds with this assertion. It is clear (at least to me) that Wikigeek2 is well schooled in the policies, protocol, and procedures of Wikipedia, from his ability to adeptly debate in favor of the deletion of the "@evleaks" article, to the nuanced explanations accompanying each of his edits. This is a person who has clearly edited Wikipedia before, and is not learning the ropes as he goes along, as the user page is attempting to establish.

3. Off-wiki, I have an ongoing email dialog with user mhannigan, in which I have accused him of sock-puppetry. His response to this accusation was an email containing merely the words "Prove it", repeated dozens of times in a progressively larger font. Exactly one minute later, he sent another email, reprinted here in its entirety (the second two sentences of the message are in a much larger, boldface font): "Any proof yet? LOL!!!! I didn't think so!!!!!! ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!" EvanBlass (talk) 08:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMPORTANT UPDATE (13 December 2014) Please note that my two most compelling pieces of evidence occurred during the discussion phase of this investigation. They are detailed in this comment (noting a behavioural similarity between the two accounts in the discussion), and most especially, this comment (wherein Wikigeek2 appears to have addressed a major flaw in the argument against this complaint -- a flaw I had just exposed in an email to Mhannigan). EvanBlass (talk) 10:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE (14 December 2014) Another distinct behavioural similarity is noted here (both accounts have inserted replies in the middle of other comments, breaking off the original comments' signatures in the process).

Comments by other users

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

When I first heard of Blass' suspicion of sockpuppetry, I'd have called it a fishing expedition with little evidence. Wikigeek2 clearly is a (self-admitted) SPA interested in putting a negative spin in the article, but there's little connecting him to Mhannigan. However, I was notified of Evan Blass' suspicion against Mhannigan before Mhannigan's latest edits on Evan Blass, where the content is partly unsourced and the edit summary even less so. This method of putting negative spin in the article while skirting the bounds of WP:BLP indeed reminds me of Wikigeek2's style (who for example wrote about the "fanfare surrounding his retirement" and added a "purported" for good measure). And the fact that Blass could predict Mhannigan's interest in the article gives me pause. Thus I'd endorse a CheckUser taking a look. Huon (talk) 23:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please investigate with CheckUser. This accusation is made in bad faith. I have only one account - mhannigan. You'll notice the first edit (one of 3) was a request for protection after Evan directed me to the page. The request for protection was a gesture of good faith after Evan repeatedly accused me of vandalizing a previous Wikipedia page that he claims to have had. The recent edit (which is sourced - check the source) was a result of relentless provocation by Evan, to demonstrate to him that I am NOT Wikigeek. That is how he was able to predict the edit. Evan, thinking Wikipedia is very important to me for some reason, has been personally threatening to disrupt what little standing I have with Wikipedia. I have all the emails (over 100) from Evan that I will gladly provide on request. It will show, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Evan has an unhealthy obsession with me and what he believes my relationship to Wikipedia to be. This is a result of his hatred for me, and nothing else. CheckUser will prove that, so please do it and be done with this. And for those of you who want to talk about me on this page, I would appreciate you keeping your statements to facts/evidence. This is not the appropriate venue for opinions and speculation (see above comment). The only issue that belongs here is evidence about whether I am the owner of both accounts. I am not. Mhannigan (talk) 00:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to note that User:Lixxx235 considers himself a friend of Evan's, and he has admitted reverting factual edits in the past based on his friendship with Evan.Hey, I'm sorry for reverting you earlier on Evan Blass; unfortunately, I'm a friend of his (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikigeek2#Comment_on_6.2F19.2F2014_by_Evan_Blass.2C_aka_.40evleaks).Mhannigan (talk) 01:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, here is the wording of the "gesture of good faith." EvanBlass (talk) 01:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've notified the subjects of this SPI. --L235-Talk Ping when replying 00:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response from the accused party (Wikigeek2): Please investigate me with CheckUser. Please be as thorough as possible. I am not a sockpuppet and I have no idea who Mhannigan is. My aim is to add balance to the Evan Blass article, which appears to EvanBlass's friends as being negative because the article was originally written in a self-promotional manner. Thus any changes back to neutrality seem "negative" by comparison. I have also added valuable information, such as Evan's post-retirement leaks; corrected spelling, grammar, and punctuation; cleaned up the flow and format of the article; and kept an open dialog on the Talk page on any major edits that could conceivably be perceived as negative. Please review all my edits before assuming they are all negative. I look forward to the CheckUser investigation! Thank you! :) Wikigeek2 (talk) 02:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hope it is as obvious to the investigator(s) as it is to me how similar-sounding these two pleas are. Please consider this a submission of a fourth piece of evidence, continued from above.
4.In their defenses against allegations of sockpuppetry, the "two users" begin their rebuttals thusly:
Mhannigan: "Please investigate with CheckUser."
Wikigeek2: "Please investigate me with CheckUser."
UPDATE: When taking into account the continued protestations of both screennames, two other underlying themes seem to suggest a commonality between them. Both accounts accuse this complaint of being in "bad faith" (once by Mhannigan and four times by Wikigeek2), and both also refer to the desire to see a penalty imposed upon the closure of the investigation ("I hope that you will be held accountable for this" - Mhannigan & "Once this is completed, I intend to file a complaint against EvanBlass for filing this investigation in bad faith" -Wikigeek2). [STYLISTIC UPDATE: I refuse to get involved in an "editing war" over this, but the record should show that this comment originally ended with the paragraph beginning "It's my understanding..." Wikigeek2 inserted the below response -- beginning with "The similarity," and cutting off my signature in the process -- and after I merged the comment back together, Wikigeek2 undid the edit and again broke the comment up and left this section without a signature. I am adding that signature now.] EvanBlass (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Sorry, I didn't mean to cut off your signature. Honestly I'm still getting used to using Wikipedia, and the text editor isn't the easiest thing in the world.) Wikigeek2 (talk) 08:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's all well and good, but it doesn't explain why you undid my edit which re-merged the comment -- the edit summary re-merging the comment clearly stated its purpose, and since your own edit summaries are quite nuanced and detailed in their citations of Wikipedia policy, I know that you are most familiar with their usage. EvanBlass (talk) 09:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I undo your edit? Is that listed somewhere in the revision history page, because I don't recall ever doing that...? Sorry if I did something unintentional. Wikigeek2 (talk) 09:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right here.EvanBlass (talk) 09:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's the result of us editing at the same time. I probably saved over something you were working on (note the previous edit was a merge), so I apologize for that. It wasn't intentional. Wikigeek2 (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me as if you made a 0 character, 0 byte edit -- meaning that it was a distinct edit whose sole purpose was to reinsert your reply in the midst of my comment. Maybe I'm wrong -- I'm sure the investigator(s) will be able to tell what really happened by carefully examining the timing and nature of that series of edits. It looks like user Mhannigan did the exact same thing to a comment by Wikigeek2, right here (the second of two edits made during that editing session). EvanBlass (talk) 06:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The similarity EvanBlass is seeing is due to the fact it's obvious he has submitted this investigation in bad faith. Just because two people believe the same thing doesn't make them the same person. This is grasping at straws. Wikigeek2 (talk) 11:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll suggest that it's actually a sockmaster and his sockpuppet who hold that belief. At least two admins, one of whom was at first skeptical about this claim, endorse a CheckUser. Only one of them counts me as a friend (due to his help in getting my article up to the proper standards). To me, those endorsements outweigh your cries of bad faith, no matter how many accounts you make them under. EvanBlass (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you suggest it doesn't make it true. Note that as of 2014-11-27, Lixxx235 did not believe I was a sockpuppet[1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikigeek2 (talk • contribs) 09:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, Evan, to be clear, you are saying the initially skeptical admin has endorsed the use of CheckUser, therefore he or she is also one of my sockpuppets? That is what your logic seems to dictate. That's even more absurd than your first accusation. And no, Evan, an endorsement by an admin does not outweigh claims of you reporting something in bad faith, nor does it entitle you to such behavior.Mhannigan (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure where you got that from -- what I said was that the opinions of admins at Wikipedia are more germaine than those of the average user, because they have likely been involved in many more disputes of this nature. Speaking of other SPIs -- and this will be my final edit here -- I had a look at every single other investigation currently on this list. Unsurprisingly, not a single one is home to a discussion nearly this long (specifically, such drawn out pleas by the accused sockmaster/sockpuppet(s)); it immediately brought to mind a well-known Shakespearean aphorism: The lady doth protest too much, methinks. EvanBlass (talk) 07:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@EvanBlass: There's probably a lot more discussion here than in other investigations because there are no other recent cases of this process being so clearly abused against two individual Wikipedia editors. As far as "protesting too much," both Mhannigan and I have agreed that we should conduct the CheckUser. I think we're all in agreement here we want to put this behind us. Wikigeek2 (talk) 08:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's my understanding that easily-spoofable or otherwise differentiated IP addresses are only one factor taken into account in sockpuppet investigations. Both of these screennames, which have only been active on Wikipedia recently for a strikingly similar purpose, are hoping that the technical evidence alone will quickly dismiss this investigation. Please take the time to thoroughly review -- and give considerable weight to --as WP:Sockpuppet_investigations stipulates, a "behavioural evidence investigation" as well. EvanBlass (talk) 05:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a perfect example of EvanBlass filing this complaint in bad faith on a hunch. That Mhannigan and I simply used the same 4 words in saying "Please investigate [me] with CheckUser" is the most ridiculous evidence imaginable. This is an abuse of the system, and I'm not just saying that because Mhannigan says it in his comment below. Bring on the IP checks! :) Wikigeek2 (talk) 08:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Evan, stop this with the mean spirited allegations. This is absolutely silly - you are making a fool of yourself. I'm as sure as I can be, that the two different accounts can be seen as such by the appropriate people. Your opinions don't belong here. You are ABUSING this process and wasting the time of others. If you have evidence, post it. If you don't, shut it. You are making it more and more obvious that this is an ill conceived smear campaign of some sort, without its roots in anything related to fact. I hope that you will be held accountable for this Mhannigan (talk) 06:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional response from the accused party (Wikigeek2): While a CheckUser investigation will easily clear my name based on an IP search, I decided to go ahead and respond to each of the allegations. I am doing this not because I feel I need the defense--my IP address is all the defense I need--but because I believe EvanBlass is using this sockpuppet investigation in bad faith as a method to deter anything but positive, promotional edits to his article (which he originally wrote himself). In detail:
EvanBlass wrote: "The user page for this supposedly new user admits that he joined Wikipedia as a Single Purpose Account ("No other reason than to contribute to the Evan Blass article"), and the history of this person's edits substantiates that claim..."
This is true. See my page here. However, according to Wikipedia:SPA, SPAs are not disallowed, they are simply encouraged to post neutrally on the topic and avoid any conflicts of interest and advocacy. On the contrary, I would argue EvanBlass himself is a SPA, as he has never contributed anything to Wikipedia other than his own article. EvanBlass falls squarely under conflict of interest and self-advocacy. Meanwhile, I have done my utmost to contribute neutrally on the article in question. More on that below.
EvanBlass wrote: "...the account was created for the sole purpose of getting a page about a former business of mine deleted, as detailed here."
This is true, as I describe on my page here. I was surprised to see the @evleaks entry was written by @evleaks' own personal assistant in a very biased manner, which was a clear conflict of interest, so I took the step of joining Wikipedia for the first time so I could correct the issue. In response, EvanBlass threatened me as detailed on my Talk page.
EvanBlass wrote: "Wikigeek2 remained dormant until a biographical article was posted -- since 11/17/14, he has made around 50 edits to the content, all of which are designed to either slight me or tarnish my reputation."
The is unequivocally false. In fact, neither of the examples EvanBlass links to even come close to "slighting" him or "tarnishing his reputation." The first example he links to (an example of allegedly slighting him) was merely an edit which pointed out the BBC show and feature on him accompanied each other and were not two separate, independent features. They were published at the same time on the same day and incorporate each other. Blass, however, would like to position them as separate features in order to promote his significance. (Note he personally added the original text.)
The second example he links to (an example of allegedly tarnishing his reputation) is stranger still, as the edit I made actually adds to the list of notable leaks for which Blass was widely covered (the Moto X [2014]). Perhaps Blass linked the wrong example here, because this doesn't make any sense as anything that would tarnish his reputation. It adds to his reputation as a famous leaker. In fact, this is an example of a positive addition I made to the article.
EvanBlass wrote: "However, in his latest edit, Wikigeek2 apparently made the mistake of being signed in under the "wrong" account -- he made a false claim under his other handle, mhannigan. The edit is as suspicious as it is unwarranted, considering the description of it is cited as "More specifics on drug abuse allegation," when no such allegations have ever been made, in Wikipedia, The Verge, or elsewhere."
This edit was not made by me; this is an assumption on EvanBlass's part. No edit should be contributed to the article which can't be substantiated by third-party sourcing, so I agree with deleting the offensive edit made by another editor.
EvanBlass wrote: "1. There have been exactly three (non-admin, non-IP) users who have contributed substantively to the Evan Blass article: one of them, EvanBlass, created the article and made mostly positive contributions. The other two, mhannigan and Wikigeek2, have made decidedly "negative" edits, with Wikigeek2 clearly being a SPA who holds a grudge against me (i.e. getting my first page deleted, and editing the biography in whatever ways he can think of to make me sound worse or lessen the impact of my contributions)."
It is EvanBlass's opinion that I've only made negative edits because he wrote the article in a self-promoting way to begin with. Below is a list of inarguably positive edits I have made since I have taken on the article on 2014-11-17:
  1. Cleaned up grammar and comma splices. No notable content changes were made. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evan_Blass&oldid=634336057
  2. Added Blass's leaks post-retirement. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evan_Blass&oldid=634341241
  3. Corrected some citation formatting errors. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evan_Blass&oldid=634341832
  4. Added citation for the date of @evleaks's retirement. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evan_Blass&oldid=634407571
  5. Cleaned up grammar and punctuation. No notable content changes were made. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evan_Blass&oldid=634409437
  6. Added Moto X (2014) to list of phones leaked since @evleaks's retirement. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evan_Blass&oldid=634410043
  7. Capitalization correction. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evan_Blass&oldid=634430068
  8. Added more detail (e.g. dates) to Early life, education, and early career. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evan_Blass&oldid=634496884
  9. Added info about evleaks.at. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evan_Blass&oldid=634584441
  10. Added Internet Archive capture of evleaks.at. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evan_Blass&oldid=634584918
  11. Significant clean-up. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evan_Blass&oldid=634586519
(I have made many other edits, but am limiting this list to the inarguably positive edits. I am sure other edits which shifted article tone from self-promotion to neutrality are viewed as "negative" by Blass and his friends.)
If I am a sockpuppet who does nothing but "editing the biography in whatever ways he can think of to make me sound worse or lessen the impact of my contributions" (to quote Blass), why am I spending so much time contributing to the article and even adding valuable content such as his post-retirement leaks, evleaks.at, and researching citations to substantiate the article?
EvanBlass wrote: "2. Wikigeek2 goes out of his way on his user page to point out that he is, in fact, a brand new Wikipedia editor, and not a sock puppet of a more experienced editor. However, the nature of his edits seem to be at odds with this assertion. It is clear (at least to me) that Wikigeek2 is well schooled in the policies, protocol, and procedures of Wikipedia, from his ability to adeptly debate in favor of the deletion of the "@evleaks" article, to the nuanced explanations accompanying each of his edits. This is a person who has clearly edited Wikipedia before, and is not learning the ropes as he goes along, as the user page is attempting to establish."
This claim is laughable at best. EvanBlass using a hunch that I'm more experienced at Wikipedia than I am is a plain and simple example of him filing this complaint in bad faith.
EvanBlass wrote: "3. Off-wiki, I have an ongoing email dialog with user mhannigan..."
I have no idea who mhannigan is, but it would seem an email dialog outside Wikipedia (for which there is no proof) is hardly good evidence to file a sockpuppet investigation. However, I can vouch for Mhannigan's claim that Lixxx235 stated he is a personal friend of EvanBlass, as Lixxx235 admitted that on my Talk page after he reverted one of my edits.
Huon wrote: "This method of putting negative spin in the article while skirting the bounds of WP:BLP indeed reminds me of Wikigeek2's style (who for example wrote about the "fanfare surrounding his retirement" and added a "purported" for good measure)."
Huon's general comment is circumstantial evidence, at best, but his specific comment quoted here is confusing. My edit that had "fanfare surrounding his retirement" is positive for Blass. The word "purported," which I chose carefully, means "professed, but not necessarily in actuality." I believe this is an appropriate word to use in Blass's case because he retired from leaking products--news coverage about which (read: fanfare) he included in his own entry--but he has continued leaking products. "Purported" retirement is correct. It's not negative, it's a fact.
Bottom line: I respectfully encourage the Wikipedia editors to complete a thorough sockpuppet investigation on me so that I have an opportunity to exonerate myself. Once this is completed, I intend to file a complaint against EvanBlass for filing this investigation in bad faith. I believe his intent is a chilling effect to deter edits to his own article that strive for neutrality instead of bias in his favor.
I'd like to give that one non-sockpuppet ditto. The more thorough, the better. I'll be happy to provide my phone number or Skype ID to have a personal conversation with one or more admins to prove they my puppet-free identity is not shared with any other Wikipedia account.Mhannigan (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! :) Wikigeek2 (talk) 06:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikigeek2: Last I remember, I formally requested you to stop posting to my talk page or pinging me, except required administrative notices. You can use the {{noping}} template for that. Also, would you mind me formatting your response so that it's more clear who's saying what? It's bad practice to respond to each section of a talk page comment individually, because it cuts off the signature from both your own reply and the person you're replying to. Also, replying to your repeated pings, you always seem to have a talent for putting a spin on things, especially the negative ping skirting the bounds of BLP that Huon noted. (Not as criticism, merely as an observation.) As I was saying, stop putting the spin on all your posts that I "admitted" I'm a friend of Blass- a) I'm proud of being such a friend, and b) I told you that specifically so we could enter a discussion, per WP:BRD. Now stop using it as a personal attack, and stop using it as a reason to make personal attacks against me. Wikigeek2: this will be my last post on this page, unless mentioned by a party here in an accusing or inaccurate way. Any evidence I gather will be sent to another editor for them to post here. If you have any further issues with me, just take them to ANI for heaven's sake. --L235-Talk Ping when replying 12:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC) actually, having read your entire response now(please shorten it so people bother to read it) never mind on my not editing this page. If you're going to make a complaint, just make the complaint; whether you do make a complaint is not relevant here, unless you're trying chilling effects against Blass. I'll be posting a full response here later. --L235-Talk Ping when replying 13:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to ping you--I wasn't aware that's what it does every time I put your name, and I didn't know about {{noping}}. Contrary to what EvanBlass believes, I'm very new here and frankly don't know what I'm doing half the time. Learning as I go along. Getting caught up in this sure has been a great way to learn. ;) Side note, what is "spin" is merely your opinion because you're friends with Blass. My goal is neutrality, not Blass's self-promotion. Wikigeek2 (talk) 08:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I will be filing the complaint against EvanBlass after this SPI is completed and I am exonerated. Obviously, any complaint that he is acting in bad faith makes no sense until the sockpuppet allegations are proven false. Just as obvious, I can't create a chilling effect on Blass for something he has already done (i.e., file this SPI request). Wikigeek2 (talk) 09:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You Wikipedians have a name for everything, don't you?Mhannigan (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Key Behavioral Differences

I'd like to draw the admins' attention to some key behavior differences between myself and Mhannigan. In my first edit to the Evan Blass article, I attempted to add a note about Blass's suspension from Twitter, which at the time I felt was quite notable for someone whose fame and indeed his entire business was run through Twitter. Lixxx235 and Huon, being far more experienced Wikipedia editors than me, saw this was premature and reverted the edit. After some back and forth, I left the edit out and realized how polarizing a topic this can be when an edit is made that can be interpreted as negative. (Lixxx235 and Huon were right, it was premature.)
Subsequently, I have been very careful to open discussions on Talk:Evan_Blass about other edits that could be interpreted as negative. For example, I created a discussion about adding a list of leaks Blass got wrong. Huon helpfully advised that I was synthesizing different sources and not citing a single source of information. Based on that feedback, I never made the edit to the article.
In two other cases, I have opened discussions about Blass's claim he trained Joshua Topolsky and Nilay Patel, which was unsourced, and the veracity of the website Sorced.com. In the former example, I waited 8 days for comments from other editors before making the edit. In the latter example, I still have not made the edit because I believe a better source can be found that conveys the same information, I just haven't had a chance to find that source yet, and I won't make the edit until I find it.
In contrast, Mhannigan appeared seemingly out of nowhere to add a negative sentence about Blass and drug use, which was not discussed in the cited source. There was no discussion on the Talk page. There was no care taken to ensure balance or opportunities for other editors to weigh in before the edit was made. This is a clear behavioral difference between Mhannigan's edit that began this investigation and myself. That behavior difference is obviously explained because we are two different people. Wikigeek2 (talk) 08:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Investigator(s), please note that this comment was added almost immediately after I emailed the following to Mhannigan: "Serious question for you: don't you think the fact that both sockmaster/puppet have been so vocal in their calls for an IP-based investigation, means that the investigators will virtually ignore the technical aspect of the inquiry? I mean, if YOU were investigating, and read the thread, wouldn't you think that an experienced Wikipedia editor -- as the allegation claims that you are -- would know better than to create a sockpuppet using his real IP address? Especially when the accused are practically begging you to gloss over the behavioural aspect??" EvanBlass (talk) 10:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How is an off-Wikipedia email, which is impossible to prove, any kind of evidence? Even if it's true, which I doubt, you're talking about entirely circumstantial timing. It proves nothing. Wikigeek2 (talk) 15:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phone Discussion

Above, Mhannigan noted he would be happy to get on the phone with an independent Wikipedia admin. I would be happy to do the same, although I will not post my phone number here in public. If we can privately share phone numbers with an independent admin, we can easily put this entire discussion to rest. Let's all three of us get on the phone together! :) Wikigeek2 (talk) 08:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikigeek2, where does Mhannigan offer to do that? And what would keep him from employing a friend to pose as Wikigeek2? EvanBlass (talk) 09:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He says it underneath where I've written "Bottom line:"--he offers a phone or Skype conversation. I will do the same. Could a person conceivably use a meatpuppet for this purpose? I suppose so, but seriously, Evan, what will satisfy you that we're different people? If you're genuinely submitting this complaint in good faith, give us an opportunity to prove our innocence. Any good faith complaint must have SOME point at which they're willing to look reasonably at the other viewpoint, for example having both alleged sockpuppets on the phone with an admin at the same time. Wikigeek2 (talk) 15:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated above, all the protesting by both accounts here continues to further drive home the point that they are one and the same -- that in and of itself is a behavioural similarity. It is also characteristic of mhannigan's debating style off-wiki: he absolutely must get in the final word, even when that word is to complain about how busy he is and that he doesn't have time to be engaging in the very back and forth his continued emails encourage. EvanBlass (talk) 03:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exposing EvanBlass's Lies and Manipulation

EvanBlass recently added an addendum, "IMPORTANT UPDATE (13 December 2014)" in which he notes two supposed pieces of "most compelling" evidence against Mhannigan and me. The first claims that because Mhannigan and I used the same 4 words in stating "Please investigate [me] with CheckUser," we must be the same person. 4 innocuous words (with one additional word in my response for good measure, evidently). This is beyond absurd. Were I aware Blass would nitpick details like that, I would have used different words, maybe "Look into myself with the IP tool, thank you." You can see the ridiculousness of this. Perhaps Mhannigan and I are the same person because we both use the words "and" or "the?" We've both used the word "Wikipedia," so we MUST be the same! Absurd.
The second "most compelling evidence" is based on circumstantial timing of my post to this thread relative to an off-Wikipedia email Blass allegedly sent to Mhannigan. There is no proof of that email, no way for admins to confirm if it's real or a lie, and no basis for it to be used as "evidence" of any kind whatsoever. If it does exist, it is merely circumstantial timing, but I doubt it even exists.
The fact is EvanBlass is a self-promoting Single Purpose Account who will stop at nothing to block two Wikipedia editors that he wants removed for editing his own article. He has a clear conflict of interest in this investigation because it is his own article about himself. He is unwilling to accept any evidence to the contrary stating above that:
  1. IP evidence is not good enough defense because it can be spoofed; we MUST be sockpuppets.
  2. Behavioral differences I have pointed out are not good enough defense because the accused have used 4 similar words; we MUST be sockpuppets.
  3. A direct phone call with the accused parties are not good enough defense because it could involve a meatpuppet; we MUST be sockpuppets.
What will it take for EvanBlass to be satisfied? Nothing, we have no justifiable defense in his mind--we are guilty until proven innocent, and in his mind innocence is impossible to prove--and we must be blocked. All of this so he can remove anyone he dislikes from editing his own Wikipedia entry. This is an abhorrent misuse of Wikipedia's policies.
My question to admins: what proof will satisfy YOU that we are not sockpuppets? Let us deliver that proof. Because I am my own person and I have a right to be on Wikipedia, just like anyone else who contributes here. I haven't been perfect, I've only been here a short while and am learning the ropes, but I am certainly my own self and no one else's sockpuppet. Please run the CheckUser, let's set up a phone call, let's DO WHATEVER IS NECESSARY to prove I am a real, living person who's not the same as Mhannigan, and this is a witch hunt being conducted by EvanBlass. Wikigeek2 (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I could not have said it better myself! (If you think Wikigeek2 and I are the same person, I apologize for the confusion that statement may cause). The point Wikigeek2 makes regarding our different styles is very true. He strikes me as someone with tremendous attention to detail - providing more opportunity for discussion than I ever would prior to making an edit. The fact is, I couldn't care less about Evan's page. I had never seen it prior to him repeatedly accusing me of somehow having the original one taken down. As I said before, my initial edit to semi-protect the page was meant as a good faith gesture in response to his private accusations. I don't believe I had even been back to the page since then, until Evan emailed me about "Sock Puppeteering". I actually had to come to Wikipedia to find out what that even meant in a Wikipedia context. The most recent edits (sourced) are there primarily as a response to Evan to satisfy him that I am a different person. They were not made in good faith, but they are accurate, and they are sourced. For all the references to my edit being "unsourced", I find it odd that no one has bothered to do anything about it. If it is truly unsourced, then revert it and stop complaining about it. Obviously, nobody (including Evan) has the conviction to correct it. On a side note, why are the admins taking so long to investigate this, when they were so quick to bring it about? Mhannigan (talk) 02:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I will be forwarding all relevant emails to whomever requests them. There's nothing alleged about any of them. (FTR, I have mentioned three emails during the course of this discussion -- two following my accusation of sock puppetry, along with one regarding the technical versus behavioural aspects of the investigation -- and will forward them to whatever clerks, admins, etc, want them -- my email is [first][last]@gmail[dot]com) EvanBlass (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Providing the emails is one thing--that would at least show they're true--but proving they are anything other than circumstantial is something else entirely. Wikigeek2 (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What you call circumstantial -- a sockpuppet, with no apparent provocation and replying to no specific allegations, addressing a specific criticism emailed to only the sockmaster -- others would call a smoking gun. EvanBlass (talk) 03:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, emails can be faked. Much like your claim that IP addresses can be spoofed. I wouldn't know about IPs because I'm not that much of a techie. I'm sitting here on my actual Time Warner Cable IP address right now. Wikigeek2 (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid this isn't looking to good for the Blassmaster. I'm a credentialed network engineer. I'm not sure Wikigeek2 and I could be any more different!Mhannigan (talk) 02:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mhannigan&oldid=638012553"