Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PPdd/Archive

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


PPdd

PPdd (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
13 March 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

(please note, IP and Daniela account are likely to be the same person regardless - issue is in relation to PPdd). I'm trying to revise the Traditional Chinese Medicine article to remove a whole bunch of

wp:UNDUE
material. The material was added by PPdd, over a month-long period, and he objects to its removal. after I and several others made it clear that some revisions were going to happen, and that he should wait until we had finished so that we could all discuss the changes, the IP and the Daniela account showed up out of the blue and began reverting all the revisions back to PPdd's version. neither the IP nor Daniela have had any other edits on wikipedia than the TCM article -
wp:MOS in an edit summary [1], which was something PPdd had commented on previously [2]). In truth, I suspect PPdd may be a sockpuppet of someone else, but I have insufficient evidence to make that claim effectively. Ludwigs2 22:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Reply - I know Danieli imitimately well. I told her to change the name to an anon. We use the same internet cafe. We have entirely different POVs regarding this article. She actually believes the nonsense. I have been using her as an information source for the article, then checking what she says with RS. Ludwigs2 declared that he would ignore months of talk page discussions, and suddenly delete massive RS content from the article without discussing at talk, then he did so. Although my edit counts are high, I am a fairly new editor. Ludwigs2 threatented to start an edit war yesterday, and then he replaced RS content with unsourced false opinionis he has, without any discussion at talk, then he started to edit war and followed that up with a threat to make headaches for me. I walked away. Note that he was just blocked a few days ago for threatening other editors at another alt med article. I guess this report is the problem he threatened. His dispute be on the article talk page, not here, and he should not be abusing process to create headaches. In additoin to threats, Luwigs2 has been very uncivil to me, such as writing that I "have a fascination with the penis". I have made no edits without logging on that I am aware of, and I did not see Daneili at the cafe today, but I did discuss with her in the car what Ludwigs2 had just done after I walked away. PPdd (talk) 05:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • PPdd did not ask me to edit. Just the opposite, I came in to this to join Ludwigs2 in poking fun at PPdd because Ludwigs2 tried to insult PPdd by saying that PPdd had a “fascination with the penis”. When I saw what was happening, which seemed like blatant whitewash, censorship, and cultural narrow-mindedness, instead of poking fun at PPdd, I chimed in seriously, from an anon, then I created an account. I logged off because I was using someone else’s computer. I may have forgotten to log on. I asked for opinions of others, but not for others to express them at WP, but I may have been lax in my words and they may have expressed opinions at WP, as an unintended result, or they might have all been mine. I am not checking since I take responsibility for them in any case, but there was certainly no intention to meat by anyone. I am editing from PPdd’s laptop right now, since I forgot mine, and am so disclosing so as not to create still another problem, but I thought it was best to quickly dispel this now and not wait until I got home. I will be careful to log on in the future, which might not be for a while, and be more careful that if I ambiguously ask for opinion about whether or not there is censorship or bias, that I make it clear that I am not asking for edits, but only for opinions to be given privately to me. DanieliM (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. I have been in dispute with PPdd this last week over the TCM article, and my accusation that he was not operating in good faith. I was frustrated with his manic editing pace, and immediate undo of any entry I did. Also by his blatent lack of NPOV and frequent attempts at making a POINT to show TCM as antiquated (based on beliefs about god and correspondence to rivers and calendar days), without scientific merit (see entry on Artesimia Annua: when he grudgingly admitted that it was the same herb from which a modern malarial drug was made- he only inserted that info with the point that "However, it has been questioned as to whether the TCM tea made from Sweet wormwood is effective, since artemesinin is not soluble in water and the concentrations in TCM medicines are considered insufficient to treatment malaria.") backwards (practicing of cannibalism and use of human penis as medicine), and dangerous (mostly toxic herbs, statements that all herbs are toxic). I felt that he then became abusive towards me and bullied me with threats and false accusations (vandalism/meat-puppetry). Background can be found at Wikiquette_alerts Things got heated but ultimately cooled down when neutral parties stepped in and agreed to work on the page this weekend. All except for PPdd agreed this would be a good thing.

Once the edits from a neutral perspective began, the above mentioned IP and user showed up on the scene to mimic PPdd's disruptive edit style, and in the case of the IP, near exact same arguments and written mannerisms on talk pages. Perhaps the IP is PPdd and he rightly chose not to use his username, no doubt if it is him he will have some excuse as to why he didn't log in. I've found him to be exceptionally well at Wiki-lawering and gaming the system.

So, while I am certainly frustrated with PPdd, I noticed this investigation while visiting Daniels user page, where I had advised her of the recent drama on the TCM page and thought I would add my 2 cents here. Calus (talk) 04:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed more comments from similar IP's starting around the same time, but I am not an computer expert, so I have no idea what it means: 64.134.237.45 & 64.134.230.18 Calus (talk) 05:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can my edits be disruptive when I wrote almost the entire article here[3] and here[4], over months, without anyone objecting until you just showed up, and Ludwigs2 deleted the entire lead without dicussing at talk in a matter of minutes, then threatened to make beurocratic problems for me (like this bogus sock case - anyone could have looked her up online and seen who she is, and her POV is opposite mine on TCM, but not on censorship) and "win an edit war"? PPdd (talk) 06:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lets see, after you admit to "walking away" from the article all of the sudden your friend shows up along with 4 IP's originating from the town you live in to repeat your pattern of maintaining the current state of the article with immediate undos, not allowing anyone to change your edits. Two Editors intent on improving the article then gave up in frustration. Calus (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Irony - Although Ludwigs2 and I have reconciled as editors as per civility, I would like to point out a certain irony here, and
    WP:Baited
    into editing by Ludwigs2, not me. In a sense, that makes her MEAT for Ludwigs2, not me. Thereby the irony, since this means that Ludwigs2 in essence turned in himself in this MEAT accusation.
  • Comment - Catch 22 - Furthermore, if she does not reply, and I then ask her to reply, then she becomes MEAT for me, a Catch 22. Although Ludwigs2 could not anticipate this, an editor who insults another and does not take it back should expect the unexpected. PPdd (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

No comment on the IP, but the two named accounts are  Likely matches. TNXMan 02:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just as a procedural note, DanielaMarinache was renamed to DanieliM per this edit. Personally I think that they're friends or something and are editing on behalf of PPdd, and am inclined to block based on that. Neither of these accounts had been notified of this case so I let them know of them; I'm curious what their responses are going to be. As to PPdd being a sockpuppet of someone else, that's unlikely, as the account has more than 8000 edits. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • HA - just as a point of interest, more than 80% of PPdd's 8000 edits happened in the last 3 months or so, and there was a shift from slow work on biography-type articles to almost manic work on TCM, Homeopathy and pseudoscience issues. It might be a compromised account, it might be an account 'gifted' to a banned or blocked user, it might be something else, but it is surely an odd pattern of editing. --Ludwigs2 05:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about, Ludwigs2? I wrote an article a couple of years ago when I was laid up inside for health reasons, then got I layed up indoors again for the same thing about three months ago, and am editing here as a means of relieiving boredom. Since you are so paranoid and suspicious, you should know that they really are all watching you, since they all care so much. Why are you writing in this section instead of the above one? PPdd (talk) 06:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*DanieliM blocked as a sock, PPdd blocked for one week. Marking for close. TNXMan 13:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

05 September 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Eric Diesel has had accounts blocked from Wikipedia many times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eric_Diesel#The_two_accounts_that_originally_added_information_to_the_Eric_Diesel_page_have_both_since_been_banned_from_Wikipedia He is currently posting under the user name FloraWilde. The evidence that this is him is that any time I add sourced information to the Eric Diesel page, FloraWilde swiftly deletes it, sometimes adding unsourced, intimate details to the page that nobody other than Diesel could possibly know, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Diesel&diff=624160256&oldid=624152692 Lampuser (talk) 18:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_PPdd&action=edit&redlink=1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ParkSehJik I don't think it's controvertible that PPdd and the related banned puppets are Eric Diesel. It seems impossible to believe that Flora is not the same person based on his intimate, unsourced edits to the Eric Diesel article.Lampuser (talk) 07:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I deny this.
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

WP:SPA editor whose only interest is in the Eric Diesel article. The account he is reporting as a puppet and he have been in a long-running edit war in the article. The alleged puppet is a relatively new account and mostly creates/edits articles having to do with botanical subjects. Her interest in the Diesel article is uncharacteristic, and it does seem like she "forgets" to log in and edits from IP addresses at times (she admits as much on her talk page). The central problem is that the filer has not provided any evidence that Flora is a puppet of the master or the one sock that's been blocked as a sock of the master. The only tie-in I can see is that the master created the Diesel page a very long time ago, but they barely did anything with the article. Unless there's more evidence provided, I intend to close this report with no action.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

edit-war in the future; it can get you blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I just noticed your BLP note about reverting. It's true that reverting a BLP violation does not count as a revert in an edit war, but it's also true that the BLP violation has to be serious. It's sometimes better to report the other editor rather than assume that your interpretation of policy will be acceptable to an administrator. I'm not going to review the edits at this point as I'm closing this report, but feel free to contact me on my Talk page if you have questions.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No evidence of sock puppetry presented by filer. Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/PPdd/Archive&oldid=1043557698"