Allegations of sock puppetry on the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) page
User:Jean-Philippe writes on Talk:Center for Science in the Public Interest: “A quick look at the article history reveals that ever since this article was created last year, the article has been under pressure from one source attempting to drown what little information on the subject exists in favor of a massive amount of negative information. It's an open secret that 90%+ of those edits come from one source using a multitude of sockpuppets. A simple look at the contribution histories confirms this. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]”
And upon the appearance of a new account User:Bryant Wright [9], Jean-Philippe writes
“Does that mean that the next time we speak, you'll be using a different sockpuppet? That's a shame :P”
The alleged sock puppeteer is David Justin (real-life David J. Hanson)
The alleged sock puppets are: Bryant Wright, Ralph Creighton, Stu Wise, Enrique Perez, Sandy Beech, Emma Jacobson, Al Ellison, Neverglade, Cheese Lover
History of edits on the CSPI page
The edits of these accounts all show a strong similarity, different accounts copy in the same or very similar text. Nunquam Dormio 19:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added ((cleanup-date|August 2006)) on August 13, 2006. Other than that, I know nothing about the page or the other edits or editors. Mattisse(talk) 19:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Surprised to get a message on my talk page about sockpuppetry. My edit to Center for Science in the Public Interest page was:
On 2nd September I set AWB chugging through a shedload of pages using RETF, as I sometimes do. I usually load up pages that link to a page I choose at random, or that kind of thing - just correcting spelling mistakes while I'm doing something else - it interrupts me periodically when it finds a typo. My involvement with Center for Science in the Public Interest is thus totally accidental, and only arose because someone/somesock had typed Commerical. I have responded here simply so that you can eliminate me from your enquiries. I am not a sock.
Good luck with your endeavours. Cheers. Euchiasmus 20:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see what I did some months ago was add some Category links. My additions are still present and seem appropriate. I don't know anything about the article's contents. Good luck. Thanks Hmains 22:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My single edit to the page was 5 months ago, early in my Wikipedia editing experience. I attempted to remove some POV, added some ((citation needed)) tags, re-ordered some of the text and did a little copy editing. I haven't visited the page since and have no real knowledge of the material. The content and format have drastically changed since then. Let me know if you need any more info... -- Scientizzle 23:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't watched this closely, but looking at the contributions linked above, there is a strong push by these user accounts for a strongly critical POV against the Center for Science in the Public Interest. I don't know whether it's sock puppetry, meat puppetry or something else, though the fact that most of the edits by these accounts are on the one article is potentially suspicious. Cheese Lover's contributions are more diverse, but they seem to have a lot of topics in common with David Justin's contributions. Definitely worth checking for further evidence (IP addresses or whatever). --Singkong2005 talk 04:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the whole the contributions don't overlap, so its not the worse sockpuppet situation I've seen. I'd be inclined to take no action other than reverting, a pain I know, but theres plenty of other pages on contriversal groups, which get a similar level of negative attention. This might be a case for WP:RCU, if they do seem to be editing from the same IP account we would have more evidence of a concerted campaign. --Salix alba (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure doing the allegation of sockpuppetry was entirely adequate, but it did serve my purpose to identify the user and prevent any more reverting without discussion. I will add that the speed at which new users were created to apply reverts is a blatant example that someone has this article on his watchlist. Examine the entrance of new users in the history if you wish, but by example Bryant Wright was created 6 hour after my first edits to the article to make a blanket revert, whereas Stu Wise was created less than 24 hours after Neutrality's took out the huge criticism section. His first edit here [10] and the complete diff here[11]. I'm not familiar enough with the custom of a checkuser to know if it's justified in this case against their concern of privacy, but at least 6 months of constant revert, using a multitude of sockpuppets, with no discussion does qualify as a distruption. JSYK, here's the edits I took in consideration for the 6 month number[12]. Jean-Philippe 20:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Take this to WP:RFCU. Iolakana•T 19:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I support the motion. Granted, sockpuppet investigation may not be the most appropriate action. But something needs to be done. These accounts clearly collaborated with a clear POV goal, often falsifying information or inserting unreferenced defamatory claims. This clearly violates Wikipedia's mission, and there should be a way to fight it, regardless of the question if these accounts are sockpuppets or not. That question may be interesting in the context of the 3RR rule, though. Common Man 07:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
| editor | date of change | regarding "encouraging other to collect misleading information" |
regarding cspinet.com | other |
| Sandy Beech | 19:55, 22 May 2006 | deleted/replaced "[Tufts] lists the CSPI as a recommended link in the Consumer Information category" | ||
| Sandy Beech | 18:32, 6 June 2006 | deleted "CCF, who had registered the domain name cspinet.com, was ordered in January 2002 to transfer it to the CSPI. ...", only keeping "The CCF maintains a number of sites which are a frequently used source of anti-CSPI material ...." | ||
| Emma Jacobson | 18:29, 7 June 2006 | deleted "One CCF tactic has been to register domain names similar to those used by CSPI." | ||
| Emma Jacobson | 17:34, 11 June 2006 | deleted "CCF, who had registered the domain name cspinet.com, was ordered in January 2002 to transfer it to the CSPI. ...", only keeping (and adding POV to) "CSPI has attracted the attention of groups opposed to ...." | ||
| Emma Jacobson | 01:49, 12 June 2006 | deleted "CCF, who had registered the domain name cspinet.com, was ordered in January 2002 to transfer it to the CSPI. ...", only keeping "The CCF maintains a number of sites which are a frequently used source of anti-CSPI material ...." | ||
| Emma Jacobson | 19:21, 15 June 2006 | deleted "CCF, who had registered the domain name cspinet.com, was ordered in January 2002 to transfer it to the CSPI. ...", only keeping "The CCF maintains a number of sites which are a frequently used source of anti-CSPI material ...." | ||
| Emma Jacobson | 14:56, 16 June 2006 | deleted "CCF, who had registered the domain name cspinet.com, was ordered in January 2002 to transfer it to the CSPI. ...", only keeping "The CCF maintains a number of sites which are a frequently used source of anti-CSPI material ...." | ||
| Sandy Beech | 18:46, 17 June 2006 | deleted "CCF, who had registered the domain name cspinet.com, was ordered in January 2002 to transfer it to the CSPI. ...", only keeping "The CCF maintains a number of sites which are a frequently used source of anti-CSPI material ...." (Interesting, how Sandy Beech made up for the fact that Emma Jacobson forgot their usual change by doing the same change just after Emma's edit.) After this, the edit war ended, as the other side gave up. |
||
| Sandy Beech | 02:20, 13 July 2006 | changed "CSPI suggests alternatives to foods high in saturated fat" to "CSPI says not eat foods high in saturated fat". | ||
| Sandy Beech | 01:09, 14 July 2006 | changed "CSPI is a nonprofit institution" to "CSPI is a nonprofit corporation" changed "CSPI has ... commented on ... baby food" to "CSPI opposes baby food" and more related changes |
||
| Sandy Beech | 16:39, 14 July 2006 |
changed "CSPI has ... commented on ... baby food" to "CSPI opposes baby food" |
||
| Sandy Beech | 20:52, 15 July 2006 | changed "CSPI is a nonprofit institution" to "CSPI is a nonprofit corporation" changed "CSPI suggests alternatives to foods high in saturated fat" to "CSPI criticises foods it considers to be too high in saturated fat"changed "CSPI has ... commented on ... baby food" to "CSPI opposes baby food" and more related changes |
||
| Sandy Beech | 21:39, 16 July 2006 | inserted "encouraging other to collect misleading information (CSPI, n.d.), " (wrong reference, see my talk with Enrique Perez about this same change. | ||
| Sandy Beech | 19:14, 18 July 2006 | inserted unreferenced "[CSPI] receive[s] grants and payments from trade groups. " | ||
| Sandy Beech | 02:52, 19 July 2006 | deleted/replaced "[Tufts] lists the CSPI as a recommended link in the Consumer Information category" | ||
| Sandy Beech | 00:32, 20 July 2006 | deleted/replaced "[Tufts] lists the CSPI as a recommended link in the Consumer Information category" changed "CSPI suggests alternatives to foods high in saturated fat" to "CSPI criticises fooods (sic!) that do not meet its nutritional standards"many other changes that were summarized by user:Neutrality as " hit piece". |
||
| ... | ... | ... and ... | ... so ... | ... on ... |
Common Man 07:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Check user request has been made Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser — Nunquam Dormio 20:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]