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

24 June 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

• Ikvas (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 5.42.92.163 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • SPI Tools

In March 2023, the article John Anthony Castro was created, a BLP on an unlicensed attorney and perennial candidate in Texas.
The following month, MartinPict initiated a sprawling, 6300-byte thread on the article's Talk page [1] about "possible BLP violations", continuing to actively participate in this discussion so that, within three days, more than 90% of MartinPict's lifetime Talk page edits were to the Castro article. Prior to this point, MartinPict's edit history consisted of a few hundred grammar edits, 91% of which were under 70 bytes. They had only made four article Talk page comments, all four of which were template requests to WhatsApp.[2] MartinPict's efforts to remove what they claimed was disparaging information on Castro continued with the opening of an WP:NPOVN discussion [3] and in other edits and policy arguments atypical for an extremely fresh editor.
On June 6, the account Ikvas was created. They first started by asserting their location was in New Zealand, then in the UK [4]. Over the next couple of weeks they undertook dozens of minor edits and then [5], on June 22, alighted upon the John Anthony Castro page and declared they were the Texas-based Castro's lawyer, retained to object to the contents of Castro's page.
Less than three hours after Ikvas' dramatic appearance as Castro's "lawyer", MartinPict — whose account had been mostly dormant for the preceding six days, making just eight edits in that period — also came to the Talk page to solemnly thank Ikvas for their "very serious accusation" [6] and to offer their support to resolve the matter in Castro's favor.
Behavioral similarities between MartinPict and Ikvas:

• The plurality of MartinPict's edits occur on Tuesdays in the 1200 hour [7] The plurality of Ikvas' edits also occur on Tuesdays in the 1200 hour.[8]
• The most-edited Talk page of MartinPict is John Anthony Castro [9]. The most-edited Talk page of Ikvas is also John Anthony Castro [10].
• MartinPict has alleged Chetsford (me) has a COI with the subject of the article. [11] Ikvas has also alleged Chetsford (me) has a COI with the subject of the article. [12] (They are the only two participants on the article's Talk page to do so. Indeed, TTBOMK they are the only two editors in any article on WP to accuse me of having a COI.)
• Both Ikvas and MartinPict are editorially synchronized in their desire to remove what they perceive to be derogatory content from the John Anthony Castro article, an extremely lightly trafficked article (only three editors have more than 10 edits on it [13]).
• MartinPict, who had been minimally active across WP (and completely inactive on the John Anthony Castro article) in the week prior to Ikvas' appearance, materialized to support Ikvas' legal threats on the John Anthony Castro Talk page less than three hours after it was made [14]. Thereafter, both MartinPict and Ikvas simultaneously "went dark"; they stopped editing for a couple days and both accounts have been dormant since that point (as of the date of this filing).
• Both Ikvas and MartinPict are being obviously deceptive about their identities. (Not private, which obviously is totally fine, but deceptive.)

• MartinPict's first edits displayed an advanced level of knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines atypical for a new editor (there's probably a more seasoned editor in the wings; I have an idea who it is but am not in a position to say at this time). Their behavior changed suddenly upon the appearance of the Castro article, going from occasionally logging on to make 20 byte grammar edits to making advanced policy arguments, initiating Noticeboard discussions, and robustly participating in Talk page debate (all regarding the Castro article).
• Ikvas is an "attorney" who is filing legal pleadings under an internet handle on a WP Talk page, making legally bizarre claims like PACER records are confidential [15], and can't decide if they're from New Zealand or the UK.

Behavioral similarities between MartinPict and 5.42.92.163:

• IP editor 5.42.92.163 was one of six editors to participate in an AfD MartinPict opened, !voting in line with MartinPict's nomination with a detailed, 66-word explanatory statement. [16]. Over the next 11 minutes, they then registered four throwaway AfD !votes that were all essentially "delete per nom". They then went dark. [17] These constitute all edits originating from this IP address.

Note: I believe this is a simultaneous case of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. To the question of meatpuppetry, I will need to provide indicative information by email to avoid outing the involved parties. Chetsford (talk) 06:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note-2: In regard to Courcelles' CU notes below regarding Ikvas and a possible connection to the ExpertWikiGuy sock farm, I can provide (offline) indicative information that would suggest possible meatpuppetry in which the controlling mind is an entity with an interest in the subject of the article. I say "indicative information" as it doesn't really rise to the level of what one would call "evidence". If this would be helpful, please email me. (Note that it's not in a coherent format at present and will take me a few days to pull it together.) Chetsford (talk) 02:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I just found there is an investigation of sockpuppetry of my user profile, also relating me to a new account. I believe it is a retaliation by Chetsford for the fact that I nominated his non-notable page TaxProf Blog for deletion and for editing John Anthony Castro. I also suggest to check his account and TulsaPoliticsFan for sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry because the two were heavily involved in editing John Castro's page and also discussed the deletion of the TaxProf Blog. I have no relation to any Wikipedia accounts and I consider these allegations as retaliation of Chetsford for highlighting his bias against John Anthony Castro which I found accidentally. Please, note that currently, I'm preparing a complaint about Chetsford unethical behavior for the Wikipedia Incidents NoticeBoard and I'd like to deliver it as soon as possible. Chetsford didn't even notify me about sockpuppetry investigation but I could expect something like that. I welcome all the users check and invite to do the same for Chetdford and TulsaPoliticFan by checking their IPs and coordianated behavior. All the allegations above are nonsensical and can be told about 50% of the Wikipedia users here. P/S: There is currently an ongoing discussion about Chetsford on John Anthony Castro's page. MartinPict (talk) 00:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled upon the AFD for TaxProf Blog while scrolling the AFD's and commented because I have a J.D. and thought it was worth commenting on the notability of a legal source I'd heard mention of before. I don't think I've encountered @Chetsford while editing before, but I could be wrong. Feel free to check my contributions and if someone with authorization wants to check my IP they can. This is my only account. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How then do you explain your edits on pages John Anthony Castro and Talk:John Anthony Castro, where the edit summaries of two accounts sometimes literally matches up? :) [18] [19] MartinPict (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks like I posted on Talk:John Anthony Castro twice. Once to add a talkheader and once with "reply" where I agreed with keeping election results tables. I'm a member of the Elections and Referendum Wikiproject so it's not surprising I agreed there. And my edits on the page are: 1) removing an apple music citation for his birthday; 2) moving a cite from the infobox to the body and adding info from the citation I moved; 3) copy edits; 4)adding info from the body to the infobox; 5) copy edits; and 6) cutting an WP:OVERCITE.

I copy edited an article that was linked on 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries. An article to which I frequently contribute. You should read assume good faith. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did until I met Chetsford... MartinPict (talk) 02:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I don't know who owns all those accounts linked to mine. I suspect, though, that one of them is from a guy I barely know, but who kindly let me use his cell phone last week when I put my laptop into the luggage. MartinPict (talk) 09:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

• CheckUser requested - The evidence presented is lengthy, but I don't believe there is enough evidence, partly because of the low number of edits by Ikvas, to block based on behavior. Also, a check of the two named accounts might shed some light on whether this is sock or meat puppetry or neither. Bbb23 (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There is a significant level of nonsense going on here. I’ll write it up when I get home, in case no one else re-runs the checks first. Courcelles (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, Ikvas is technically  Possible to Alezmartinez (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser). Like, same IP, same UA, but a good bit of temporal separation.

  Now, Martin is  Confirmed to

• Mbquest (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Waterdoyle (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

and is technically  Possible to ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser).

• The two groups are not coming out of the same country. I'm reporting what I can see on the CU screen, so it's going to have to be up to a clerk to decide what to do with this. Courcelles (talk) 01:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That “explanation” is so outside of the realm of plausibility based on the technical evidence that blocks will now be forthcoming. Courcelles (talk) 12:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  ParisDakarPeräjärvi is giving me different vibes to the point I haven’t blocked for now. Courcelles (talk) 12:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I get the same feel for ParisDakarPeräjärvi, Mbquest, ParisDakarPeräjärvi, and to some extent Waterdoyle. See their edit summaries:

• Also see [72][73][74] for ParisDakarPeräjärvi / MartinPict / Waterdoyle. Also [75][76] for Mbquest / MartinPict. Given the CU results, I'm tagging the confirmed and blocked accounts as confirmed. Please, block ParisDakarPeräjärvi as suspected at least. Courcelles: If I got your message right, Waterdoyle is confirmed (but the template you used cannot render 2 users). If that's the case, I recommend blocking as confirmed too. Thank you. MarioGom (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Oops. Used socklinks when I meant to use socklist. That was silly of me. @MarioGom, everyone should be blocked now. Courcelles (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I tagged ParisDakarPeräjärvi and Waterdoyle. I left Ikvas and Alezmartinez untagged. Closing. MarioGom (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]