Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:14, 7 April 2015

BriceStratford

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

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/BriceStratford/Archive.

31 March 2015

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

Suspected sockpuppets

• WalkingOnTheB (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Feast is Feast (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Theatre Royal, Windsor (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• RoodEnd (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• H00ping Toff (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

It's not entirely clear to me why my previous filing on this was closed without investigation of the behavioural similarities between those various editors. In my opinion the explanation provided was not sufficient to explain or justify all that has gone on.

Since then, four new socks have surfaced. I also happened across one from the end of last year, H00ping Toff, most edits to either Owle Schreame Awards or Brice Stratford.

Evidence of improper or disruptive collaboration

• WalkingOnTheB, Feast is Feast, "Theatre Royal, Windsor", and RoodEnd have all voted "keep" at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Windsor rep acting dynasty; the principal editors to Windsor rep acting dynasty are CalfLiver and Theehnwor
• WalkingOnTheB initiated Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Solent Thrashers (2nd nomination), where TheFrontDeskMust, MarlovianPlough and Personofi successively voted "delete".

I've again requested checkuser in the hope of clarifying this one way or the other. If that request is accepted this time, I would ask that all non-stale accounts previously named also be checked. If checkuser is declined I request a detailed investigation based on the behavioural evidence (which in my opinion is overwhelming). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

• Comment: Strongly recommend CheckUser and a detailed investigation of the overwhelming behavioral evidence in this case and in the other accounts previously noted in the quickly archived case. I have other accounts to add but it will take some time to amass because there are so many of them and because this disruptive activity has been going on so long, in spurts. I reported the situation to Bbb23 in August 2014 (see other not-yet-named accounts in that Talk-page report: Xanadu Reacher, 95.149.117.206, 31.50.191.161, Refereee and 86.165.83.4, and now that I look, 95.149.116.217 as well), but the farm was so malicious and vindictive on articles I had written or was monitoring that I did not want to file an SPI for fear of further disruption and reprisals. Much of the farm started their activity and account-opening in June through August of 2014; some of them now appear to have been sleeper accounts doing a handful of diversionary edits back then, only to awaken now to vote on the AfDs and such. I have much more to say, but it will take time to compile the evidence. I do not personally think one should take at face value the breezy excuses of the articles' main subject, BriceStratford. There is too much crossover in terms of identical edit patterns and even diversionary tactics for this to all be simply people living together or of the same mind. Sincerely, Softlavender (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• One Example of diversionary tactic(s): TheFrontDeskMust, on their first day of editing , makes minuscule edits to 15 different random articles, then makes 3-word !votes on 16 AfDs (mostly "_______ per nom"), before getting to what they were really here for: voting at the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Owle Schreame Awards, like another sock. Then voted on a couple other AfDs for good measure, before doing some Owle Schreame legwork and then going after the Ian Charleson Awards like the other socks at that time (in sometimes faux-supportive diversionary edits as a distraction/distinction from the other socks or simply game-playing), and so on. Then disappeared for three months, woke back up to make some diversionary edits, and then onto the real focus: the article(s) in question of that "acting dynasty". Softlavender (talk) 11:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment 3: A couple more observations: Not yet mentioned: Except for a bot and a wiki-cleaner, since July 1, 2014 Sam Wanamaker Award has been edited only by the sock farm (which includes Xanadu Reacher), and only to directly or indirectly promote the Owle Schreame Awards, with the exception of some diversionary "helpful" edits by MarlovianPlough, who also made a diversionary "helpful" single edit to Ian Charleson (which had to be reverted because it was in fact not helpful and seems one way or another to have been game-playing or sheer diversion). Softlavender (talk) 12:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Conclusion: If these 24 users (possibly more; I haven't checked all the new articles for signs) listed above and in the archive are not a sock farm or a couple of sock farms, then this is a highly concerted effort at disruptive (and in my opinion dissembling) COI editing, and should be censured and stopped one way or another, even if (some of) the articles in question have merit. Softlavender (talk) 12:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• Hello, Brice Stratford here: As I said in the previous SPI, I'm a little overwhelmed by all of this. I access wikipedia (fairly rarely) from a shared connection in the extremely large warehouse conversion that acts as a performance space, public cafe, offices for our theatre company and various others, as well as living space for a few members of it. We all share internet (as do the public and a few who have no connection with the company), and have a tendency to use each others computers fairly freely. Obviously we do have a team of people here who are dedicated to and passionate about promoting and making a record of our work, many of whom are young interns - I think perhaps that a combination of eager, competitive arts professionals, over-enthusiasm and general inexperience/ignorance of wikipedia's rules has all lead to something of a situation. I can only apologise for any problems caused, and assure you that there's been no malicious intent or intentional disingenuousness, only misplaced good faith and naivety. Do please do whatever you see fit with whichever pages are in question, and once again: apologies for any complications.

I would also say, however, that this is beginning to feel a little like a personal and borderline obsessive attack. I rarely use wikipedia as an editor and have no real understanding of what it is I'm being accused of. It's perfectly likely that a number of the more fanatical fans, enthused audience members, volunteers and employees who have come across our work are being very active on the site, perhaps even inappropriately, but I can't comment on that. I wish you all the best with whatever you feel it is appropriate to do, but would respectfully ask if good faith could be assumed and personal attacks could be stopped. With, as I say, the greatest of respect. BriceStratford (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Um. Am I correct in thinking that a CheckUser has been requested against me for no reason other than my voting Keep on an article that JustLettersAndNumbers wants deleted? No other justification or behavioural evidence has been given. I do not see how this request is appropriate in my case. RoodEnd (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Hey, just seen that this is a thing. Full Disclosure: I work in an office which is in the same building as the owl scream company's office. Occasionally I say hello. That's it. No COI. WalkingOnTheB (talk) 10:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

• Open SPI cases
• SPI cases for pre-CheckUser review
• SPI cases requesting a checkuser