Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TM editors: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Fladrif (talk | contribs)
6,136 edits
checked
Line 240: Line 240:


======<span style="font-size:150%"> Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments </span>======
======<span style="font-size:150%"> Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments </span>======
{{RFCU| F | D | endorse }} (Other reason: Apparent sock drawer using IPs belonging to an organization.) &nbsp;&nbsp; <small>Requested by &nbsp; <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]]&nbsp; [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]]&nbsp; </b> 21:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC) </small>
{{RFCU| F | D | checked }} (Other reason: Apparent sock drawer using IPs belonging to an organization.) &nbsp;&nbsp; <small>Requested by &nbsp; <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]]&nbsp; [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]]&nbsp; </b> 21:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC) </small>
<!--## Replace CODE LETTER by the appropriate code letter and Replace No2ndLetter if you need a 2nd code letter (or leave it alone if not) ##-->
<!--## Replace CODE LETTER by the appropriate code letter and Replace No2ndLetter if you need a 2nd code letter (or leave it alone if not) ##-->
<!--## Codeletters are:
<!--## Codeletters are:
Line 257: Line 257:
:I would recommend that this be elevated directly to a request for arbitration. The case is exactly analogous to the Scientology cases, and the remedies should be directly applicable. Further checkuser searches will validate J.delanoy's findings (I've been previously in communication with Will Beback about this, and have done some investigation that supports his concerns.) --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|::==( o )]]</small></sup> 23:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
:I would recommend that this be elevated directly to a request for arbitration. The case is exactly analogous to the Scientology cases, and the remedies should be directly applicable. Further checkuser searches will validate J.delanoy's findings (I've been previously in communication with Will Beback about this, and have done some investigation that supports his concerns.) --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|::==( o )]]</small></sup> 23:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
::I agree, without prejudice against anyone being accused in this report. I only agree because this situation has been brought to various venues in different attempts to resolve the problem, including at least two extensive discussions at the COI noticeboard, but it's probably too complicated for anyone but ArbCom to straighten out. -- '''[[User:Atama|<span style="color:#06F">At</span><span style="color:#03B">am</span><span style="color:#006">a</span>]]'''[[User talk:Atama|<span style="color:#000">頭</span>]] 23:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
::I agree, without prejudice against anyone being accused in this report. I only agree because this situation has been brought to various venues in different attempts to resolve the problem, including at least two extensive discussions at the COI noticeboard, but it's probably too complicated for anyone but ArbCom to straighten out. -- '''[[User:Atama|<span style="color:#06F">At</span><span style="color:#03B">am</span><span style="color:#006">a</span>]]'''[[User talk:Atama|<span style="color:#000">頭</span>]] 23:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I have spent a lot of time looking at all of this. ''All'' of the accounts mentioned below have edited from the same few IP ranges. I think it may be most likely that there is a significant amount of off-wiki coordination going on, with at least some sockpuppetry by the parties involved. However, it is to such a degree that it is difficult to tell anyone apart. First, I am going to list three accounts as {{likely}} sockpuppets/meatpuppets, based on the fact that they are on the same IP range (meaning same geographical area) as all of the others, but do not have a confirming direct IP match with any other account:
* {{checkuser|ChemistryProf}}
* {{checkuser|Littleolive oil}}
* {{checkuser|Roseapple}}

Next, I am listing the IPs that ''do'' have direct IP match. This entire group is linked by edits on the same cluster of IPs, meaning that while not every account shared an IP with every other another, every account in the group shares an IP with at least some of the others, which may in turn share an IP with remaining members of the group. This means there is a stronger possibility of actual sockpuppetry than just the geographical proximity, and there is a near certainty of sharing of computers or internet connections at the least . {{confirmed}} direct IP match:
* {{checkuser|Haworth777}}
* {{checkuser|Hickorybark}}
* {{checkuser|Luke Warmwater101}}
* {{checkuser|Rbonthala}}
* {{checkuser|Bigweeboy}}
* {{checkuser|Keithbob}}
* {{checkuser|Soren0}}
* {{checkuser|Infomillionaire}}
* {{checkuser|Viyyer}}
* {{checkuser|Dumpala.dn}}
* {{checkuser|Hassna.dibaba1}}
* {{checkuser|Vuara}}
* {{checkuser|TimidGuy}}

Again, a {{confirmed}} direct IP match between these two, in the same IP range as the rest:
* {{checkuser|Ruinia}}
* {{checkuser|EddieC Vito}}

I'm not sure how enlightening that is. Let me know if it is confusing. [[User:Dominic|Dominic]]·[[User talk:Dominic|t]] 06:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:10, 15 February 2010

TM editors

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


Report date January 26 2010, 21:01 (UTC)


Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Will Beback

I sent this information to a checkuser, J.delanoy, who reported that all of the listed accounts have used IPs registered to the TM movement, in two locations, and that there were other significant similarities and overlaps between them. This is a request to confirm those findings and to determine whether WP:SOCK has been violated.

The Maharishi University of Management (MUM) is located in the small town of Fairfield, Iowa, the U.S. headquarters of the Transcendental Meditation movement. MUM is responsible for producing hundreds of studies showing the efficacy of TM technologies and products, some considered fringe theories or pseudoscience, which these editors have repeatedly added to articles.

(Note: Detractors of TM from Fairfield, IA, have also used IPs in these ranges to vandalize or add negative remarks about it. It's just a few edits, but they may be confusing.)

IPs

Several of these users have made edits while logged out, disclosing their IPs. The IPs belong to MUM or its ISP. I can send that information by email.

Sock or meat puppet behaviors

These accounts all promote the same POV. For some accounts this topic is their single purpose, while for the rest it is their primary focus. Collectively, they have made nearly half of all edits to the main articles, and a larger percentage in the minor articles. They also make a large majority of the talk page postings. Noticeboard filings about the topic have received strong responses from these accounts. (For example, four of the accounts participated in a WP:BLPN thread about a TM leader: [1] [2] [3] [4].)

3RR violations/edit warring

These users have participated in few RFAs, including these two:

RFA/Kww 3
RFA/Dreadstar
Behavioral evidence

There is some evidence indicating these users may be one or two individuals. I can send that by email.

Evidence by Dreadstar
  • I have private information for whoever runs the CU for this case, please contact me via email. Thanks! Dreadstar ☥ 16:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are we to understand from this post that you know one or more of the involved editors IRL? Transparency in this process and in your defense of these editors would seem to require that you acknowledge whether or not that is the case. Fladrif (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims. I have only one Wiki user account and I always log in before making edits. I am not a sockpuppet.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC) I am happy to discuss my edit history with an appropriate administrator to clear this up. I have one account and I am the sole user of that account.-- — Kbob • Talk • 03:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's something I don't understand about IP investigations. If several different editors have the same Internet provider, and if that Internet provider dynamically assigns IPs, isn't it possible at some point that two different editors could have been assigned the same IP over time, especially in a small town like Fairfield? I've noticed that my ISP in particular frequently assigns me a new IP even if I don't shut down my computer. Also, I would point out that of the approximately 2,500 people living in Fairfield who practice TM, perhaps 150 at most are employed by Maharishi U. And perhaps 50 at most by a few other organizations. The rest are otherwise employed and moved here to be part of the community. So note that you can't assume that someone editing from Fairfield is employed by an organization here. And yes, I have used two different sock puppets in the past when I didn't understand the issues regarding them. Big mistake. One was inspired by Philosophus, who openly used a sock puppet to get involved in messy areas while leaving his other account pristine and whose use of a sock seemed to be accepted by everyone. I used it for three edits but not on any article otherwise edited by me. It got blocked after that third edit. And I created a second sock at one point for editing some technology articles, but it's long since been abandoned. TimidGuy (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have one Wikipedia account, am one user, and have never created or used a sock puppet. MUM is not the TM organization, but is a university in Fairfield, Iowa whose library and computers are available to the public. (olive (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
As a single account editor who edits at home unless traveling, that I could be seen as a sock is quite beyond understanding. I am happy to address any questions either here, or if outing any personal information is a concern ( and for me it is given off Wikipedia harassment), via email. (olive (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I am a little surprised by this, as I am very certain that I am only one person using a single account, no split personalities, no cheating. I do enjoy editing and try to do it fairly and follow the rules, so I am not clear as to why anyone would bother making this accusation. However, I appreciated the warning on my talk page and am sure Wikipedia will resolve this. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 01:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am a neutral editor and am not a Sockpuppet. I make my edits when logged in as BigweeBoy. On one occasion earlier in my Wiki career, June 2009, my wife was considering editing on Wiki and we set up an account for her. By mistake I made edits while logged in as her, but signed it as BwB. This was discussed on my personal talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bigweeboy#Sockpuppets and the 2nd account removed from Wiki. --BwB (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I only have one account, and I voted for Dreadstar for Admin because I noticed during the TM discussions that he was fair minded and always tried to accommodate editors' different points of view. User:Roseapple —Preceding undated comment added 19:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
I am curious as to why anyone would suspect I edit from multiple accounts. I have never had more than the one WP account. Perhaps it is because my edits tend to be sporadic, with long gaps in between. The truth is that I have a busy schedule and cannot afford to take time every day to edit articles, even when I know my edits would be useful. If that is not the reason for this accusation, I don't know what is. ChemistryProf (talk) 08:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am completely new to all this, MuZemike. What do you mean by "handled privately"? Thanks, --BwB (talk) 10:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This means that the filer of this case has information that he believes is best presented via a private communication such as email rather than here, a more public situation. So this isn't something that concerns any of the accused editors, just the filer and checkuser.(olive (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
I've moved this BWB. Hope that's OK with you.(olive (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
This may have to be handled privately due to concerns brought below. Normally we do that when there might be evidence which, if disclosed here, would effectively out a person's private information – something in which we try and not do. –MuZemike 18:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mind the move, Olive. And thanks for your explanation MuZemike. --BwB (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, a number of months ago I asked my Internet provider about their somewhat frenetic IP server. As I recall, they were somewhat surprised it was the case, confirmed it was happening, said that it was indeed unusual, and didn't know why it was happening. My observation at that time for a period of a week or 10 days was that I seemed to have a different IP each morning, but that it seemed to randomly rotate among about four different IPs. And on a different point, I believe the university has a dedicated, shared IP, with all traffic from that IP appearing to be from a single IP. TimidGuy (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let me ask the "accused editors" a question which could avoid the need to publicly go over individual edits or use the Checkuser tool: Does anyone here deny using IPs belonging to MUM or LISCO? If not, then it appears that the named editors are, at a minimum, members of a small community formed to promote TM. Is that incorrect?   Will Beback  talk  00:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not even remotely correct. Lisco is a provider that serves much SE Iowa and is used by thousands of people. As I understand it, Lisco and one other provider provide bandwidth for MUM. IPs may be similar from both MUM and off campus because the provider is the same...But why the IP's come up as similar is unknown. I'll say again, I do not and have not ever edited with another editor nor do I tell other editors what to do or how to edit. I am neither a sock nor meat puppet.(olive (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Which part is incorrect? These IPs are used in a small community, Fairfield, Iowa/Maharishi Vedic City, Iowa, that promotes TM, and many of them are specifically registered to MUM. So the question stands - does any editor deny using those IPs?   Will Beback  talk  00:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IPs are assigned. Fairfield Iowa does not promote TM. You can't say this is sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry because of a town. That's not logical. (olive (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
The editors from Fairfield all promote TM. If we have editors using the same IPs, perhaps even the same computers, and working together to promote the same POV, then that's meat puppetry, and it's still a violation of WP:SOCK. I don't see anyone here denying that they are editing from Fairfield or even MUM.   Will Beback  talk  07:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where someone edits from is not a violation. No one has to admit to editing from any where and is personal information. If editors for some reason were assigned the same or similar IPs that is not a violation and out of their control. Editors have stated they do edit independently and are neutral. Nothing more to be said here. The rest is assumption. The state of the articles and the edits will tell the rest of the story.(olive (talk) 12:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Re:Meat puppet accusation: If these were meat puppets one would see patterns of numerous attempts to force edits when in fact I can't remember any occasions were major changes or even minor ones were forced into the article using agreement or consensus based on a piled up vote by these editors. One would also expect see many attempts to tag team a change, but that also is not the case, and one sees only a few instances where some of these editors may have agreed on a point enough to revert, and no more of those than in any article where many editors are working and some agree while others don't. There are no patterns of what could even be remotely construed as meat puppetry.(olive (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
There is evidence of tag team editing to promote a POV. The "Sexy Sadie" material is just one example of thatof that activity. However this is not the best page for those discussions. Here we're mostly interested in the evidence that multiple accounts are using IPs belonging to the TM organization, and other indications of possible sock/meat puppetry. .
I encourage folks to reread WP:SOCK.   Will Beback  talk  23:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about other editors so I am not interested in getting involved with emotional talk and speculation about conspiracy theories but I am also not a sock and I feel confident that this will be come clear when a neutral Administrator, instead of my biased accuser, looks at my edit and IP history. I just went to an IP address look up web site and my IP address doesn't even come close to any of the IP addresses listed on this page. For some reason I am also being characterized by my accuser as a 3RR, edit warring editor. However, the diff he provides does not show even one reverted edit. What it does show is that I deleted a sentence and asked for discussion on the talk page. My accuser then immediately reverted my edit.[5] Now let's see, who is doing the edit warring? The editor who makes a deletion and asks for discussion? or the editor who ignores a request for discussion and reverts anyway? It seems to me the pot is a lot blacker than the kettle.-- — Kbob • Talk • 03:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the McTaggart reverts, the diffs are clear. Immediately after restoring the properly sourced material I initiated a discussion on the talk page.[6] Kbob deleted the material without such a discussion, so the point seems invalid. However there are more important issues to discuss here. Kbob, are you denying using IPs belonging to MUM or LISCO? Do you deny having a connection to MUM? Do you deny knowing any of the other editors in real life? Those are the relevant issues here.   Will Beback  talk  03:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All the editors who stand accused sound so reasonable. Unfortunately their edit history does not substantiate their claims of innocence.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TimidGuy (TG) and Littleolive oil (Olive) have been found to be using IPs in the same range. Back in February, Olive wrote that TG had broken his arm and couldn't respond.[7] In August, 76.76, who we now know was TG, wrote that Olive was travelling and couldn't respond.[8] Are TG and Olive saying that they don't know each other in RL?   Will Beback  talk  07:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TG has admitted that, in late July and August, he was using IPs in the 76.76 range which kept changing. In early July Bigweeboy was using 76.76.228.104.[9] They have edited with the same POV and using the same IP range. How do we distinguish one editor from the other?   Will Beback  talk  08:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My accuser, in a formal, public forum, says that I am a 3RR Violating and Edit Warring editor and when openly challenged with diffs, he tries to brush it aside saying it is "invalid" and there are "more important issues to discuss here". The diffs show that my accuser violated good practices such as the WP:1RR essay which says: If someone reverts your change, don't re-revert it, but discuss it with them." and he has the nerve to accuse me of 3RR edit warring when there is no such evidence. Instead he has chosen to renew his tradition of carefully worded posts to try and trick or trap editors into giving personal information about their Internet provider, friends, residence and career. Then when an editor says he does not want to give personal information, he cries: "gotcha, your guilty". It's really disheartening to see such poor behavior from an administrator.-- — Kbob • Talk • 14:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the problem is with the diffs provided. The principle is that if editors are editing with the same POV from the same IPs then they are indistinguishable from a single editor and may be treated as if they were a single editor for things like 3RR. If editors are friends, colleagues, or neighbors then that is relevant too.   Will Beback  talk  01:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

I echo Will's concerns regarding these editors. They are all mostly WP:SPA which aggressively push unfounded scientific claims regarding TM and generally attempt to promote the subject. This activity has also occurred on the simple English Wikipedia [10]. The WP:COI is obvious IMO. Well it may not be proven that they are the same person they definitely are acquainted. Many of their edits have inappropriately interpreted research studies to slate the conclusion to appear to benefit TM. This edit [11] for example tries to make it sound like this exhaustive review of the literature was limited rather than the fact that the available TM evidence is limited. There appears to be an long standing issue of WP:POV Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Completely untrue and inaccurate Doc, and I'm not sure this is the place to make such claims once again. (olive (talk) 14:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

User:Roseapple and the Anon IP Editor 69.18.2.75 would appear to be the same person. [12] However, this does not look like sockpuppet activity, but rather a matter of simply not signing in once in awhile, something nearly every editor (including me) neglects to do every now and then.Fladrif (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In and of itself, editing while logged out isn't sock puppet activity. But if a bunch of accounts are using the same IPs and expressing the same views in the same articles, then that is evidence of sock or meat puppet activity.   Will Beback  talk  20:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple issues being tossed around as if they are certainties. Its easy to try and pigeon hole people, group them together as having the same views, but its a gross generalization that applies, if it apples at all, equally to other editors working on these articles. What is obvious is that the TM articles are highly contentious and the fair approach is not to piggy back comments onto the back of a sock review especially when all the editors state they are independent editors, but to take the issues to another forum where all editors have the opportunity to refer to their own edits in defense of the multiple, convoluted accusations. I have never edited with any of the people mentioned, nor seen them edit, nor do I have the arrogance to tell some other editor what to edit . That the IPs are showing up as similar is unexplainable to me but I am no expert in this area.
Its also hard for me to understand how anyone could look at the number of edits, the times, the styles of writing, the expertise involved, and attribute all of that to one or two people. Just not logical. I can only assume that this will be sorted out. In the meantime accusations on several other pages while this is going on is not right, or fair, or in anyway shows respect for other people, editors or not.(olive (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Whether a topic is contentious or not is irrelevant to this investigation. If, as there appears to be, there is a group of accounts using the IPs belonging to an organization who are all promoting that organization's POV and making the same kind of edits then that would probably come under WP:SOCK and principles delineated by the ArbCom. Whether the accounts are sock puppets or simply meat puppets is impossible to determine, so they are treated alike. In any case, this discussion isn't going to affect the outcome so let's let the volunteers do their jobs and see what the investigation shows.   Will Beback  talk  23:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And hopefully false accusations won't matter either.(olive (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
What is that you were saying about false accusations? How about true accusations?Fladrif (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the distinction that Will is making between an editor not signing in now and again, and the TM-Org and MUM IP's serving as sockdrawers. As User:Bigweeboy noted above, he edited a few times without signing in. He was sufficiently concerned about being accused of sockpuppetry, that he went to the trouble of having those posts re-signed. [13][14] But, beyond that, there is clear meatpuppetry at minimum and likely sockpuppetry on a massive scale in these articles.

  • By their own admission, User:TimidGuy is a meatpuppet for a "colleague", apparently Anon IP User 208.145.207.60 , and Anon IP User 63.162.81.220 is a meatpuppet for TimidGuy.[15][16].
  • The 76.76 Editors from August 2009 are obviously meatpuppets at minimum, and more likely sockpuppets, given an evident detailed knowledge of the edit and talkpage history of the TM-related articles as well as relatively obscure points of Wikipedia editing rules and policies that no novice editor would know.[17]
  • The March 21, 2007 edits to the David Lynch, John Hagelin and Donovan articles[18] by Anon IP User 209.152.117.83, an account assigned to Maharishi University of Management, were clearly those of a TM Org PR representative using Wikipedia to promoting an event at MUM.
  • Timidguy has also repeatedly said that he consults with TM-Org officials regarding these articles, including with the General Counsel of MUM and Maharishi Foundation Ltd.[19][20][21][22][23][24]

I probably could go on, but the work can obviously be more efficiently done by CheckUser.Fladrif (talk)

When Wikipedia was new in 2002, a librarian on campus noticed it and asked me to write something. I wasn't familiar with Wikipedia, and didn't even take time to look at it, but went ahead and threw something together and e-mailed it to him. He posted it. Looks like he later made some additional edits. Years later, in September of 2006, I got involved in Wikipedia. Fine if you want to call that being a meatpuppet. The anon IP 63 edits to the religion section of the article that Fladrif calls attention to are by one of our current editors who had forgotten to log in. I recognize the language and style. Look at those edits in the context of the editing going on at the time and this will be obvious. The IP edits from August 2009 were mine. I had left Wikipedia and had no intention of returning. But I looked at the TM article in early August and noticed that errors and falsehoods had been introduced, and I would correct them as I noticed them. I didn't bother to log in because I wasn't planning to get involved again. I posted here [25] explaining that even though it appeared that there were a number of different IPs coming in, they were all me. (And it you look at that link, you'll se that Fladrif realized it was TimidGuy). This is related to the frenetic IP server I mentioned above. Once I decided to continue editing Wikipedia, I went back to being TimidGuy. The IP 209 edits are unrelated. Remember that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I did indeed ask the MUM legal counsel about trademark issues, and he was very helpful in helping me understand it. Wikipedia respects trademarks. Happy to address any other issues. TimidGuy (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, it was painfully obvious that the 76.76 edits were a sockpuppet. The link above to the COIN discussion makes it further obvious that TimidGuy intended and in fact used the 76.76 edits as a sockpuppet, and that his statements above denying his sockpuppet activity[26] were knowingly false when he made them.Fladrif (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am astonished that TimidGuy was the user behind 76.76, whose editing was so non-neutral that a separare thread was started at COIN. At no time during that discussion did the user reveal that he already had an account and a long history of editing the topic. It's worth recalling that TimidGuy stopped editing because, IIRC, he acknowledged having a COI regarding this topic. That use of 76.76 was not an example of collegial, transparent editing and it's an indication of the general problem.   Will Beback  talk  23:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your recollection is exactly correct. TimidGuy acknowledged that he had a conflict of interest in the TM articles. I assumed, like you, that when the subject of his conflict came up yet again after being told by two different admins that he should not edit the TM articles, he voluntarily retired from Wikipedia in light of the conflict. To have him come back as an anon IP editor, vehemently deny at COIN that he had no conflict of interest, and defiantly refuse to disclose that he had previously edited the same articles, is the very definition of sockpuppetry. But, to compound the matter by affirmatively asserting that he had never done such a thing on this board, when he knew for a fact that it was a falsehood, is beyond the pale. And, his statment above that he knows for a fact that one of the 63. etc accounts is a current editor - all of whom have vehemently denied to have ever edited as an anon IP editor - confirms not only that that editor is a meatpuppet, but that the editor has made a knowingly false statement in its defense on this page. Does anything more need to be said?Fladrif (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other than that Olive is the 63.162 etc user to which TimidGuy is referring. (See (63.162.81.220 22:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)) (olive 22:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)) [27] Again, an admitted meatpuppet of TG, and made false protestations of innocence here, knowing that not to be true.Fladrif (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This a real stretch: [28]. Just because they’re editing from the city of Fairfield, Iowa or even the MUM campus some or all of the time; and sometimes - or even most of the time, express similar points of view or opinions, does not mean they’re meatpuppets or even sockpuppets. Some editors here are conflating a sock report with other accusations that should really be brought to ArbCom; there’s no solid evidence that the edits of the target group of this report have sufficiently violated policy so that the editors who made them need to be blocked or topic banned just because they happen to sometimes edit from similar or the same IP address range. Accusations that an editor or a group of editors are "promoting" the subject of an article, instead of abiding by Wikipedia policy, have to be proven with evidence. We must be especially careful when accusing editors of "promoting" the subjects of articles that are contentious in nature and attract a lot of detractors that attempt to add a great deal of negative material. And I have to add, TG's checking with TM legal counsel with questions about copyright status is not meat or sockpuppetry, it's merely investigating. Not too long ago, I wrote a school asking for verification of a contested item in its WP article, does that make me a meatpuppet of the school? No, not even if I attended or worked at the school. And we certainly cannot indict every IP in Fairfield, Iowa as being socks or meats, that’s ridiculous. Dreadstar ☥ 21:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given your enthusiastic support of and repeated interventions using admin tools on behalf of these editors, to say nothing of the numeous mash notes you've left from time to time on their talk pages, I confess to having an insurmountably hard time taking your arguments seriously. Yes, that's an ad-hominem argument. No, it's not a personal attack. Yes, they should be topic banned, for a variety of clear, repeated and flagrant violations of a number of Wikipedia policies. But, as the only question at issue on this page is the obvious and now admitted sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry that is going on, I'll not get into that here. Fladrif (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Fladrif says Dreadstar does not appear to be independent of the ongoing issues with this group of editors and thus should not independently use admin tools per policy.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To Dreadstar's points: Fairfield, Iowa is a tiny community (circa 10,000). The TM presence is only a portion of that. The movement places a strong emphasis on group participation in the morning and evening TM-Sidhi sessions, and 1,500-2,000 people routinely congregate in two buildings there to practice their technology together. I fully respect that process, and thank them for doing so on behalf of all of us. But the members of that very close-knit group in a remote location are among the most devoted members of the movement in the U.S. There's nothing wrong with that. But deep connection with a truth-system is fundamentally incompatible with the dis-attachment needed for writing an NPOV encyclopedia. That goes for disaffected former members as well.
On the matter of the legal threats, I think that TG backed away from those quickly and we don't need to dwell on them.
Regarding the promotion of a POV: for the purposes of this discussion, it's most relevant to focus in the fact that there are many accounts promoting the same POV while using the same IPs. The precise details of what the POV is, and why they'd promote it, are unnecessary here.   Will Beback  talk  10:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will wrote, "I am astonished that TimidGuy was the user behind 76.76, whose editing was so non-neutral that a separare thread was started at COIN. At no time during that discussion did the user reveal that he already had an account and a long history of editing the topic. It's worth recalling that TimidGuy stopped editing because, IIRC, he acknowledged having a COI regarding this topic. That use of 76.76 was not an example of collegial, transparent editing and it's an indication of the general problem." Will, in that COIN you were unable to provide any evidence of a pattern of disruptive editing or any edits that weren't compliant with policy and guidelines. I invite anyone to examine those edits. Most of them entailed correcting errors and falsehoods. I explained above why I was editing as an IP. I didn't stop editing in February because of the COIN. As I said at the time I left, something came up in real life several days earlier that disallowed my further regular participation. I had planned on continuing to edit, but in a very diminished way. Then I fractured my arm, and the two things together led me to quit Wikipedia. I would point out that you've created a falsehood here, suggesting that I stopped editing because of having a COI, and I would ask that you retract it.
Fladrif, you claim that I vehemently denied having a conflict of interest. I believe that's a falsehood. Can you please give a diff. If you're unable to, please retract that statement. TimidGuy (talk) 12:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TG, I asked 76.76 to please identify or log in to edit, which were good faith requests. The response was stonewalling. That lack of transparency is too common with this topic. If users are constantly changing personnas, yet using the same IPs, how can we distinguish them?   Will Beback  talk  12:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TG, your self-serving posturing completely misrepresents your highly disruptive editing as the 76.76 sockpuppet, the POV and MEDRS violations proven in the diffs that were provided and documented, and your dissembling and stonewalling over being a sockpuppet. I'm not going even going to touch on the passionate defense of your sockpuppet activity by olive and KBob, who now, in retrospect, were obviously aware IRL of your deception. As for allegations of falsehood, and demands for retractions and apologies, until I see you acknowledge directly that your statements on this board prior to your eventual admissions were intentional lies, I'm not inclined to dignify your demands with a response.Fladrif (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • In response to Will's rebuttal above, I’m sorry, but we still cannot indict an entire City in the United States of America because it 'only' has a population of 10,000 people, with a minority of the total population's percentage being TM practitioners, an indictment that has been made many times, including a statement made on this very page: "The editors from Fairfield all promote TM" . Additionally, how many Lisco customers are there? How many of those Lisco customers practice TM, much less work at MUM? Can it be proven that a vast majority of Lisco customers are MUM employees or TM practitioners?
  • Indicting an entire city or even an ISP on such flimsy evidence as has been presented thus far isn’t right or fair.
  • Regarding the purported “promotion” of a POV by the “TM editors”, I partially addressed that in my above post when I said “We must be especially careful when accusing editors of 'promoting' the subjects of articles that are contentious in nature and attract a lot of detractors that attempt to add a great deal of negative material." When editors come to Wikipedia and add as much negative material as they can, then editors who are trying to make the same article neutral may superficially appear to be “promoting a pov” because a lot of their edits are to make sure the other significant views aren’t lost. There’s nothing wrong with adding positive material or removing negative as long as it doesn’t violate WP policy and serves our readers. This SOCK report isn’t the place to make that case, a venue like ArbCom is.
  • Yes, by all means make sure these ‘TM editors” aren’t the same person or persons using different ID’s to circumvent policy, but do not conflate the more complex subject of COI, NPOV or even WP:SOAP editing in this SOCK report, take that issue to a more appropriate forum like ArbCom so evidence by all sides of this situation can be presented. They may be adding more positive content than negative, but that does not automatically make their edits “promotion” of TM. Prove that in ArbCom.
  • As far as TG talking to the Legal Counsel, he wasn’t making legal threats as far as I can tell, my comment was in response to Fladrif’s accusation that by asking the counsel for information on TM’s trademark status, that this was meatpuppetry, when it clearly is not.
  • The issue of TimidGuy's editing from an IP as described above is a slightly separate issue and should not affect the rest of the accused editors; while his use of the IP must be thoroughly investigated, with evidence provided to back up both the accusations and defense, I think that should be done separately than this particular report - so there's a lesser chance that it might unfairly spill over into affecting any of the other accused editors. If other editors knew of his use of the IP, then then that needs to be properly investigated as well. This report has already grown too large, and some of it is completely unrelated to the issue at hand.
  • Personally, I do believe that a majority of the various “TM editors” accused here are indeed different people, but they may all be periodically editing from the same IP address ranges in Fairfield and/or at MUM. Because they have unknowingly or knowingly used the same or similar IP ranges to log into their WP ID’s, all they really need to do is follow WP:SOCK Sharing an IP address, which I don’t think they’ve made fully aware of. COI, NPOV and SOAP violations should be proven at ArbCom. Dreadstar ☥ 19:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one is indicting the City of Fairfield. The issue is the six editors who are using the same IPs to advance the same POV.
    • TG's comments about threatening to contact the lawyer to get information removed from an article hasn't been repeated so I don't think we need to get into that. This isn't the place for that anyway.
    • The issue with TG editing from an IP has several aspects. First, it's the same IP range as used by Bigweeboy. Second, it was deceptive. Third, it was non-neutral.
    • If Dreadstar actually believes that only a majority of the "TM editors" are different people, then that still leaves a couple of socks to be dealt with. If editors followed WP:SOCK Sharing an IP address then that would help things considerably.
    • None of the "TM editors" have denied using the same IPs. Let's see what else the CU turns up and go from there.   Will Beback  talk  01:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but it does not take a genius to realize that these users definitely know each other / work / study together both in real life and online The claims of unfair treatment are a little over the top. The attempted to use Wiki policy to continue on as is is disheartening. This does not appear to be the only online source that these people actively edit. [29] [30] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of minor points: (1) Agree 101% with Doc's comment above; (2) TG consulting the TM Org General Counsel is but one striking example of the fact that these editors are here to push the POV and to act as advocates for their employer. That they are consulting with the organizations legal counsel - indeed TG says in one of the cited posts "I do need to check with legal counsel" [31] says to me that they are acting as representatives of the TM Org, not as independent editors; there are many other examples of this sort of activity by most of these editors in these articles;(3) Why TG's admitted sockpuppetry should be treated as a "separate issue" from the sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry of the entire group is lost on me. The suggestion frankly looks like yet another crack at forum shopping; (4) Legal threats from these editors, both explicit and veiled, are not something confined to TG's edits noted above. I have lost count of how many times the word "libel" has been invoked on the talkpages of these articles by these editors, and how many times "copyright", "trademark" or "trade secret" has been asserted in an attempt to exclude reliably-sourced information on the subject matter. Let's allow CheckUser do its job, and deal with the results.Fladrif (talk) 14:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would caution anyone against using assumptions to prove anything. And lets not start calling anyone "these people" a generalization which smacks of bias, the kindest word I can think of. As well, care should be taken to not conflate a sock/ meat puppet case with issues that may be pertinent to another forum. Are these several individuals (socks) and one or two individuals as the initial accusation stated, and/ or are they meat puppets "Meatpuppetry is the recruitment of editors as proxies to sway consensus.". Assuming friends, neighbours, collegues, (Romans and countrymen), are somehow connected in terms of their editing and views is another assumption and not what the policy says. My neighbour and friend is 84 and worked at the local brush works all of his life. I'm sure his views on many things are quite different than mine. Lets be careful not throw random amounts of mud around seeing what will stick and what won't.(olive (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
However if you teach TM with this neighbor and friend in this example above, aswell as discuss strategies on how to promote your teaching on the internet and Wikipedia both between classes and via email all well using computers from the same small headquaters for said organization than this is something different.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you said "if", otherwise, that's a boat load of assumptions.(olive (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
And maybe a cobblers metaphor would be better, yes? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is compleltely unsurprising that the concerted pro TM pov pushing is coming out of MUM, Fairfield, Iowa. This is to be treated exactly like edits to Obama administration coming out of the White House, or edits ot Microsoft coming out of Seattle, or edits to Scientology coming out of Hemet, California. These editors clearly fall under WP:COI and if they cannot disclose this and ac cept to take a back seat in the editing process, they need to be shown the door. Anything else is a simple waste of everybody's time. --dab (𒁳) 09:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the invitation implied by the title of this subsection, here are my comments:

  • I am not one of the listed editors, but I sympathize with them because they are the target of a consistent and unrelenting attack by the "other" (Con-TM) group of editors, some of which are recent arrivals, and most of which have reached a quick conclusion that TM is fraud and pseudoscience. I do not agree with this conclusion.
  • The more the attacks rage, the less attention is paid to improving the article. This is of great concern to me, because I believe TM is of value to society, in spite of its flaws (and it does have some). I do not agree with most of the editors who seem to believe that the article is currently in great shape or has been in great shape in the near past.
  • I personally see the real and positive value of TM. I also see some deep flaws that the TM leadership (including the US national office in NYC, MUM, and the Rajas and Directors) consistently ignore. IMO, the TM article should reflect primarily a description of the TM technique. Secondarily, it should review the history and scientific research of TM, and give an account of all significant criticisms of TM, whether they are deemed "valid" by editors or not. It should have links to related articles and useful external sources. There is no reason why the article has to be as long and difficult to read as it is currently; it can be short, clear, and informative.
  • While it is clear that some editors have an association with MUM or the TM part of the Fairfield community (there is also an anti-TM part, as well evidenced on the Fairfield Life Yahoo! Group), it is possible that (outside of Chemistry Prof) they are students at MUM. If they are, their activities may perhaps be partially understood as the result of youthful exuberance. Of course, this point is void if they are not students.
  • There is no excuse for meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry. I would like to see the investigation go forward, but not controlled by emotional people like Fladrif or Doc James. If WP admins can determine the truth, then we should act on that truth. If MP or SP has been occurring, all editors who have done this (except by honest mistakes such as forgetting to login or accidentally using an incorrect account) should be banned. If it has not been occurring, all the Con-TM editors should apologize to the Pro-TM editors for weeks of unfair hassling.

David spector (talk) 02:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David, thanks for contributing your view. However it's relevant to note that your business is teaching TM [a meditation technique "somewhat different" from TM], albeit independently of the TM movement.
The TM topic covers much more than just the Transcendental Meditation technique. I don't think anyone has said that TM is a fraud. Rather the concerns are that the hundreds of studies conducted by Maharishi University of Management and the movement may exaggerate its efficacy relative to other relaxation techniques. And there seem to be even greater concerns about the research covering the more unusual techniques and products taught or sold by the movement.
Likewise, I don't recall seeing anyone refer to TM as a pseudoscience. But the movement isn't limited to teaching a relaxation technique. "Technologies" like Yogic Flying (levitation) and the Maharishi Effect (which purportedly creates a field of invincibility) have been called pseudoscience by respected scientists like Carl Sagan. The movement's late leader proposed the destruction of 90% of the buildings in the world, starting with the White House, Westminster Palace, the city of Paris, etc., to be rebuilt according to his principles at an estimated cost of $300 trillion, 20% of which should go to the movement as a commission. Many of the topics covered in the category:Transcendental Meditation movement are indisputably fringe theories. The listed "pro" editors haven't restricted themselves to explaining the mainstream benefits of TM - they have energetically promoted these exotic beliefs as well, using Wikipedia as a soapbox for fringe views.
However none of that has any bearing on this investigation. It doesn't matter whether the listed editors are "pro" or "anti". What matters is that they all appear to be using the same range of IPs and perhaps other details which indicate they may be the same people, or at least are likely to be friends and colleagues both of each other and of the researchers and public figures we're writing about or using as sources.
This investigation is a group effort, but the key findings will be made by one or more editors using the Checkuser tools. Until they take up the case further discussion just lengthens the file. Let's be patient.   Will Beback  talk  05:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For legal reasons, I must immediately reply to Will's statement and assumption that I teach TM outside of the Movement. This is not true. I distribute the Natural Stress Relief Meditation (NSR/USA) self-instructional materials, which do not derive directly from TM instruction. NSR is completely different from TM. The only similarity is that it also helps clients learn how to transcend thinking and experience pure inner consciousness, which is very different from relaxation. I haven't personally taught TM since around 1974, and when I did it was always through a TM center. David Spector 00:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to imply that what you teach is the same as the trademarked technique which I gather is protected by lawyers. The NSR website carries this text: "Some scientific research on NSR (that is very small if compared to that on TM) has shown that the remarkable effects of NSR seem to be the same as TM. " and "The Natural Stress Relief technique is somewhat different from TM: it is a single-mantra-for-all meditation but it seems to achieve remarkable results as TM does." So the "remarkable results" claimed by TM would appear to also be generated by NSR meditation, a technique which is describes as only "somewhat different" rather than "completely different". Without being very familiar with either technique, it appears from the website that the main difference is that TM gives users an individual mantra while NSR gives all users the same mantra.[32] The bottom line is that any research which supports or impeaches the "remarkable results" claimed for TM would also impact the claims of effectiveness of NSR. However the similarities between TM and NSR is not really relevant to this sock-puppet investigation.   Will Beback  talk  00:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Wiki keeps IP information for a 3 month period. It may be valuable to look at the 3 month IP history of editors when reviewing the sockpuppet case. --BwB (talk) 13:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: comments by Jpgordon and Atma below: I agree that this case will go to Arbitration eventually, but that case will be simplified if the sockpuppet/meatpuppet/IP sharing issues are investigated first.   Will Beback  talk  21:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. CheckUser should be allowed to do its job and issue a report here. It will clarify and perhaps narrow the issues for the likely inevitable ArbCom. Cutting this process off prematurely will only serve to muddy the waters further.Fladrif (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

{{RFCU}} is deprecated. Please change the case status parameter in {{SPI case status}} to "CURequest" instead.

Checkuser request – code letter: F  + D (Other reason and 3RR using socks)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below. (Other reason: Apparent sock drawer using IPs belonging to an organization.)    Requested by   Will Beback  talk  21:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk note: If the filer is willing to send this information by email, then perhaps this should be handled privately. Will Beback, let us know what you want to do. –MuZemike 08:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to MuZemike by email.   Will Beback  talk  21:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed after my communication with Will via email. –MuZemike 01:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend that this be elevated directly to a request for arbitration. The case is exactly analogous to the Scientology cases, and the remedies should be directly applicable. Further checkuser searches will validate J.delanoy's findings (I've been previously in communication with Will Beback about this, and have done some investigation that supports his concerns.) --jpgordon::==( o ) 23:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, without prejudice against anyone being accused in this report. I only agree because this situation has been brought to various venues in different attempts to resolve the problem, including at least two extensive discussions at the COI noticeboard, but it's probably too complicated for anyone but ArbCom to straighten out. -- Atama頭 23:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent a lot of time looking at all of this. All of the accounts mentioned below have edited from the same few IP ranges. I think it may be most likely that there is a significant amount of off-wiki coordination going on, with at least some sockpuppetry by the parties involved. However, it is to such a degree that it is difficult to tell anyone apart. First, I am going to list three accounts as  Likely sockpuppets/meatpuppets, based on the fact that they are on the same IP range (meaning same geographical area) as all of the others, but do not have a confirming direct IP match with any other account:

Next, I am listing the IPs that do have direct IP match. This entire group is linked by edits on the same cluster of IPs, meaning that while not every account shared an IP with every other another, every account in the group shares an IP with at least some of the others, which may in turn share an IP with remaining members of the group. This means there is a stronger possibility of actual sockpuppetry than just the geographical proximity, and there is a near certainty of sharing of computers or internet connections at the least .  Confirmed direct IP match:

Again, a  Confirmed direct IP match between these two, in the same IP range as the rest:

I'm not sure how enlightening that is. Let me know if it is confusing. Dominic·t 06:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TM_editors&oldid=344160726"