[Comment] 68.239.193.109 IS my IP address. This only comes up when I have forgotten to login and edited something. It's not a sockpuppet, it's ME.Sorry if that happens from time to time, but I have NEVER used this inappropriately

From what I can tell that is the same case with 67.167.247.115, it appears to be Wayne's IP address. So what, unless he somewhere used it separately to stack voting, which I also doubt.

As to Mod, I have absolutely NO idea who that could be. I thank him if he supported me anywhere, but I have no clue.68.239.180.104 (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Oops, as I just did now. drsjpdc[reply]

He did stack votes using his logged in username of "Wayne...", which happens to use that IP. It really makes no difference if he stacks votes as an IP or as a logged in user. It's still meatpuppetry and forbidden here. You don't seem to have read the sockpuppetry policy which also discusses meatpuppetry. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After reading some of ModTheRod's writing, I doubt that it's Stephen Press, but more likely "Wayne" since the grammar and spelling are too good for Press. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your denial of being ModTheRod demands that a CU be performed. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: Off topic questions collapsed. Take to the user's talk page or ANI. Tim Song (talk) 06:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Press, I have two questions for you: 1. You wrote above about bringing "objectivity to articles in the altermed field". What do you mean by "objectivity" in that sentence? -- Brangifer (talk) 06:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] Answer here.... and remember to log-in. Just remove this. 2. You also wrote: "I have been in communication with Chiropractic leaders all over the World regarding the bullying that anyone who tries to bring objectivity to articles in the altermed field gets here. If some of them log on, create accounts and support my positions, this cannot be considered any kind of puppetry. I simply informed them, I don't control them." This is considered meatpuppetry and canvassing, ergo enlisting support. Informing other editors of matters isn't forbidden, and if they already share one's POV, then free speech rules, but attempting to sway their vote in crucial situations, and especially to violate our rules (which you are doing), is not allowed. Canvassing is something I have once been (falsely) accused of doing. What I did was to encourage other skeptics to start editing, AND I specifically made it clear that they must not violate NPOV and must actually allow opposing POV if those edits were done properly. I explained our policies and how they must abide by them, but I still got in trouble for that!!! Your support of proposed lawsuits against Wikipedia editors isn't going to get you any sympathy here. Anything that chills (threats of any kind) the editing environment is specifically forbidden, and such support is good grounds for an indef ban without any chance of parole. I was tempted to link to the blacklisted website with the legal threats which you have vaguely referred to and which you clearly support, but I won't do that. Anyone who wants the link can email me. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] Answer here.... and remember to log-in. Just remove this.

Evidence submitted by Ktr101[edit]

Wayne appears to be a single purpose account whose only purpose it to mirror what Drsjpdc says. He edits the same articles as Dr and he also appears in the same deletion discussions. This interaction between the two is highly suspicious.

Mod was suspected after he was found to be editing the same articles as the Dr.

The IPs both edit the articles that Dr has created, but they haven't edited since around the creation of the confirmed sockpuppet Platinumphotographer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just poked around on the [chirowiki] site and I noticed that Drsjpdc is known under the user "ChiroWikiSysop". Chiro works on the same articles as he does here, so this might be where the articles are coming from. The userboxes are also exactly the same. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can find more information about his misuse of Wikipedia articles there at this report about his mirror site. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The more I look, the more I am beginning to agree with the meatpuppetry thing. The range of the edits are all days of the week, so unless he is flying out there and teaching on differing days of the week, I don't think that there is that much of a link. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen has just asked me to call him. I have sent an e-mail to him explaining my position on the supposed cabal, what he should do in regards to editing here, his future on the site, and an offer of adoption. If any editor is interested, I am willing to provide a copy of the e-mail. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence submitted by Bongomatic[edit]

In his incident report at ANI, Drsjpdc states that "if Wanyethegoblin is [a close personal associate of mine], it's by the way, a surprise to me too." However, at chirowiki.org, a wiki set up by Drsjpdc, a user with the username "Waynethegoblin" is a sysop and bureaucrat (at least as of the time of this posting). Given the evidence (some available only on request from appropriate individuals—I don't want to be accused of WP:OUTING again) that Waynethegoblin:

• is a well-known real-life close personal associate of Drsjpdc
• is a computer science masters degree holder
• was available for projects at the time of chirowiki's creation
• was involved in the creation of chirowiki (see his comments on his own talk page as at this revision)
• created a user account the day after chirowiki's creation
• was made a sysop and bureaucrat three days after chirowiki's creation

it is inconceivable that Drsjpdc was previously unaware of the real-life identity of Waynethegoblin. His claim (again, from the ANI incident report) that he has "never controlled [Waynethegoblin's] account in any way are both disingenuous and irrelevant to the charge of meatpuppetry. Especially given his repeated denials of previous proven charges of sockpuppetry, any claims Drspjpdc makes that he and Waynethegoblin didn't coordinate their opinions and contributions off-wiki are not to be believed. ^Bongo_matic 02:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Waynethegoblin has reiterated that he is a separate individual (something not in dispute) it seems apropos to quote the meatpuppet criteria directly, as it appears they have not been considered by the accused. "A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining." ^Bongo_matic 03:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

As I have said before, I am a very busy full-time chiropractic student at National University of Health Sciences in Illinois. I have been accused of being an associate of drsjpdc, only after a previous accusation violated wiki policy on outing. Whether or not I am in any way associated with drsjpdc is wholly immaterial, as I am my own person capable of making my own decisions and holding my own opinions. If anyone will care to check the IP address with which I access my wiki account, it will be very quickly realized that I am in Illinois as I claim, and that my account has not been in anyway accessed by anyone other than myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waynethegoblin (talk • contribs) 02:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am perfectly fine with a CU being "performed" on Mod the whomever. PLEASE !! Then, when you all see that it is NOT my IP address stop the harassment.

I will tell all that I have been in communication with Chiropractic leaders all over the World regarding the bullying that anyone who tries to bring objectivity to articles in the altermed field gets here. If some of them log on, create accounts and support my positions, this cannot be considered any kind of puppetry. I simply informed them, I don't control them.

I know full well that anytime someone uses the word "Conspiracy" that everyone thinks of Mel Gibson. However, a real conspiracy was PROVEN in [[Wilk v American medical Association], and in court records it came out under testimony, that a certain individual who makes his living smearing Chiropractic and creating anti-Chiropractic "propaganda", is, at least in some way supported by them, despite a permanent FEDERAL injunction PROHIBITING this behavior. I have information from outside sources (already banned from Wiki, and in the process of trying to avoid filing their own lawsuits against wiki for being the (hopefully) unwitting "puppet" of these people) that certain individuals involved in this continuous harassment of my work are likely employees, or at least sycophants of this person's. I would truly like to ask advice from any senior admin or higher, who is uninvolved with the edit warring against me, to advise (and then watch) the correct way to use Court records which, unfortunately are on a pay/page basis despite being public documents. Its only the Appellate documents which are free to the public, but THEY do not usually repeat the findings of the lower Court Judges, which in this matter, are crucial. Q: Can I just use them? I tried and was shot down. Q: Can I quote an otherwise RPOV journal which buys them and re-publishes them with an affidavit of accuracy? I tried that, and was told that the fact that they printed those documents constituted a danger against their rating of RPOV??? This Catch 22 is protecting these people who are pretty clearly the meat or sock puppets of the individual to whom I refer, so that they can continue to slander a profession, and bully anyone who seeks objectivity in this field, and to discredit this "dark force" in the industry. This guy has already BEEN discredited in the Courts, but is still accepted as a RPOV in this forum. These guys don't like it when one of their victims fights back. Please HELP.^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 20:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users [edit]

• It should be noted that an ANI thread that relates to this case is also underway. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I too am becoming convinced that we are dealing with a case of meatpuppetry, with obvious and continuous deception about it being practiced by User:Drsjpdc, with "Wayne" being the lesser guilty party, simply because of his much lesser degree of experience here. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The obvious disdain for our NPOV policy was already evident during the three AfDs (plural!) for Stephen Press's biography of his father, Howard Press (now deleted). There he and "Wayne" both initially argued for keeping the article while it was in a condition that grossly violated our NPOV policy. It was a hagiography. Once other editors had brought it into line with policy and introduced the criminal history of his father, they both changed their tune and voted to delete it, thus violating part of our COI policy. According to the clear wording there, they should have been blocked or banned for such actions. They are obviously not fans of NPOV, and therefore don't belong here, since it is our most sacred policy. Such editors will always cause problems. Again I wish to reiterate that "Wayne" is the lesser guilty of the two. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• After looking through the evidence submitted above, it seems to me that sockpuppets are being used here. Also the Wikichiro site leaves a rather bad taste in my mouth and I'm disinclined to defend Drsjpdc in any way now. Aditya Ex Machina 05:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There seems to be no policy too big or too small for User:Drsjpdc to try to break in his attempt to get his badly written, awful, yes, hagiographies, of his chiropractic friends onto Wikipedia in an attempt to glorify and publicize Dr. Press and FICS and, now, the dreadful Wikichiro site, which he is moving to Wikipedia one bad article at a time. Each article he moves over here will require fighting with him and his meat and sock puppets and dealing with his disingenuous denials (he's clueless who one of his sysops is, when he claims to be the decider of all notability in his field?). His constant accusations of slander or stupidity ("Literacy counts!") every time an article of his is edited, his deeply rooted COIs, his manipulation of Wikipedia policy, and his inability to work with any other editor who does not worship and hang on his every word, are representative of his intentions: he's just one more editor who is trying to use wikipedia to promote himself. Sock, meat, whatever, he and his faithful army of one needs stopped and blocked so that the job of writing an encyclopedia can be continued. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 17:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems that WP:MEAT needs to be pointed out to these users, again and again until they both fully understand the policy. Even after being accused of meat-puppetry, the response I have seen is "I have never used his login" [paraphrase from WP:ANI], and a strange denial that hinges on the fact that he does not know the identity of Waynethegoblin, even though User:Waynethegoblin has no editing interests outside those of User:Drsjpdc's. Unfortunately, some of the factors cannot be considered to be related. I was also invited to be a part of wikichiro before it was started - I am not related to user:drsjpdc and my only dealings with him have been in regards to wikipedia (including a couple of emails). Had I editted there as well, it seems that I would be being accused of meatpuppetry as well (oh wait, I already was). DigitalC (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• With your strong and obvious biases for all things positive in chiropractic, it's not hard to see a similarity between you and User:Drsjpdc. He also has a tendency to just delete complaints, at least the copyright violation problems. Coupled with your strong, single-minded intention to update the article exactly the way he wants it, I think my concluding you were a meat puppet, if not correct, had some basis in the evidence. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 01:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In spite of some run-ins with DigitalC, I must insert some defense of him in relation to his editing of Drsjpdc's articles. He has actually removed much of the fluff, promotion, and bad sourcing. He has done a lot to bring the articles into line with our policies, and he has definitely often given Press a scolding, just as he has done above. Unfortunately Press seems unable and unwilling to learn from him, even though DigitalC is generally a pro-chiropractic editor. DigitalC has shown in his dealings with Press that he is more interested in building an encyclopedia, than in promoting chiropractic, which has been the sole aim of Stephen Press's work here. The only thing that Press has prioritized higher is self-promotion. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This was clerk endorsed a while back. Could a CU finish this please? Aditya Ex Machina 13:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point? The meatpuppetry has been fully established. ^Bongo_matic 14:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The editor needs to be blocked for a while, and I have suggested that he take a break in my e-mail to him. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bongomatic: The sockpuppetry issue has not been sorted out yet. The Goblin account and the Drsjpdc account may be operated by the same person. Aditya Ex Machina 14:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. His strong denial of being ModTheRod demands that a CU be performed. ModTheRod was blocked for abusing multiple accounts and IPs, and was the creator of the original Stephen J. Press article, which was deleted over the protests of Drsjpdc. Its deletion meant that ModTheRod's role isn't immediately evident from looking at the history of the current article. The strong denial from Press, as we have seen before, usually indicates that the truth isn't being served to us by him. This is typical of many sockmasters who will deny, deny, deny, even after CU evidence has proven their guilt. He did this at the last SPI and ever since. No true confession or contrition has been evidenced. Until such is forthcoming, he should be and remain indef blocked.

A CU is imperative for the ModTheRod and Waynethegoblin accounts. It may well be that Press (Sr.) only operated the ModTheRod account, or that "Wayne" operated both, but we need to know this. This information is needed for determining how long a block "Wayne" should get. There is no question that Press (and all his IPs) needs to be blocked for a very long time, since he should have been blocked for his previous sockpuppetry, but wasn't. If that had happened we might have been saved all this mess. Sockmasters MUST be dealt with by blocks, not a slap on the hand. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the current community ban proposal at ANI, it is important that CU evidence be obtained and possibly used in that discussion. Please make this case a top priority. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OMG! Thanks for the good sleuthing, DigitalC. The contributions of Wikibacdoctor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have Stephen J. Press written all over them for these reasons:

• Yet another sock (or meatpuppet, see my comments below) right while this SPI is in process. This guy has no scruples at all. He'll do anything, including violation of Wikipedia's policies, to further his agenda.

• Deviousness:

• This guy claims to be "scrupulously honest", yet he obviously willfully refrains from signing a comment properly, and manually writes "Wikibacmd", thus claiming to be an MD, something which many chiropractors have been accused of being, "wannabe doctors". [2]

• He does this in an attempt to stack the votes during an AfD of an article he had authored. [3]

• He creates a userpage with claims of being "a doctor practicing in Rotterdam....." [4]

• Press claims to be related to Jacques Offenbach (he may well be, but so what! I'm related to Noah ;-), and this sock edits that article.

• The atrocious grammar and spelling are typical for Press, who in real life writes like this.

Press's work here may have has done great damage to his own profession by reinforcing what is documented at Chiropractic controversy and criticism#Ethics and claims, where chiropractic authors document that "fraud, abuse and quackery, ... are more rampant in our profession than in other healthcare professions", and that such chiropractors "might be responsible for the negative opinion people have about the ethics of the chiropractic profession." Press has just succeeded in reinforcing that opinion, which is a shame, considering that (I hope) most chiropractors really are honest people.

It looks like the CUs are going to be busy. I suspect that they'll uncover a whole drawer just full of socks in various colors. Each sock and IP will need to be checked and published here. Publishing the IPs won't be outing as we already know the locations of the main socks. We will need to know these IPs so we can keep our eyes open for them in the future. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Another interesting event. Take a look at the two edits by Press at 22:00 and "Wayne" at 22:01 here. Too close to be a coincidence or two different people? Hmmm.... -- Brangifer (talk) 03:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, if there is exculpatory evidence it should be something revealed to the community, not held in private e-mail exchanges, imo. The community is bearing the brunt of Drsjpdc's actions in public, not in private. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 18:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will the CU show other sock accounts if they are not listed above? How much evidence is needed to list an account as a suspected sock? DigitalC (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From what I have read, you plug in the username and the IPs that were used to edit under that name come up. I'm sure I have something wrong there though, but that's essentially what happens. If they are editing similar articles, you can list them. On an earlier, unrelated, SPI, the user used his sock to work on deletion articles and upload a picture of his genitalia. We thought the sock was the bad guy, but the Checkuser found the real sockmaster, which explained a lot. The guy is still haunting us today, although he keeps getting caught. There is the possibility that Stephen will continue to return after he is blocked, so you never know where this will eventually lead. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, since a CU was just recently performed on User:Drsjpdc, shouldn't that have pulled up if his account was linked to ModtheRod, or Waynethegoblin, or any IP edits performed? DigitalC (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He could have edited one of them at a different location, thus concealing the identity of his socks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the Checkuser Please e-mail me before a block is issued. I have received an e-mail from BullRangifer concerning what Stephen is doing on this site. He has given me permission to share it to the person who is going to block him. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of transparency, and unless the information in the email compromises the privacy of an editor, the information should be posted here for public review. It will also give Stephen a chance to defend himself. Aditya Ex Machina 12:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He told me I could, but posting it here will make the page huge. I also got an e-mail from Stephen which concerned his actions and seemingly negated all of BullRangifer's accusations. This is odd, because I don't remember posting anything concerning me receiving Bull's e-mail. I have e-mailed it to Fences and he has agreed to look at it. This is starting to become a pain, so if you want the e-mails, tell me and I'll send them to you. I'm just not going to make this page longer than it already is. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No thank you, I don't have time to go through stuff like that. You can post it here though: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Drsjpdc/email if you get permission from the sender. Aditya Ex Machina 17:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Community ban has been established. Could a CU do it NOW? 122.162.244.176 (talk) 04:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get your panties in a bunch. Everyone is a volunteer here, not to mention this is only an online encyclopedia. Tiptoety ^talk 04:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The CUs will get to it now that User:Drsjpdc's case has just gotten to the top of the pile. Even though a community ban has been established for the user (not just the one account), it will have to be effectuated for all the other accounts involved in this mess, and that can take time. We'll still need to know the socks and IPs so we know what to watch for in the future should this user and his socks and meatpuppets attempt to come back, as I'm sure they will, so this SPI isn't closed just because of the community ban. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]