Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pigsonthewing

Pigsonthewing

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

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pigsonthewing/Archive.

11 January 2014

– This SPI case is open.

Suspected sockpuppets

• 80.249.48.109 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 80.249.48.108 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 80.249.52.108 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 80.249.52.109 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

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

Per WP:DUCK.

In September 2013 User:Pigsonthewing (also known as Andy Mabbett) received a sanction from ArbCom banning him from adding infoboxes to any article: "Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes."[1].

Since late September 2013 a number of anonymous IPs have been adding infoboxes to articles very close to the same time Pigsonthewing has been editing them. The IPs locate to a shared computer at an educational address in Birmingham, UK (Birmingham Grid for Learning). By his own admission on his Wikipedia user page, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing) is a resident of Birmingham, UK with links to education [2]. It looks like the IPs create infoboxes so that Pigsonthewing can subsequently edit them, because he can claim they were added by "someone else" and so he is not in violation of his ban. Usually, the addition of an infobox is the IPs' only contribution to the page.

Examples of suspicious behaviour (this list is far from exhaustive):

• Denville Hall in December 2013. Pigsonthewing makes a series of edits, mostly clustered between 5 December and 16 December [3]. On 10 December, IP 80.249.48.108 makes its only edit to the article, the addition of an infobox [4].
• Late September on David Bradley (UK journalist): IP 80.249.48.109 adds an infobox to [5]. This (and an immediate minor correction) is the IP’s only contribution to the page, in the middle of a number of edits by Pigsonthewing.
• The only edits to Birmingham Union workhouse are [6] in late October 2013 by Pigsonthewing and a single edit by IP 80.249.48.108 [7]. The IP’s edit is the addition of an infobox.
• A similar situation on Sir Richard Ranulph FitzHerbert, 9th Baronet in early October. Barring a minor fix, all the edits to the article are by Pigsonthewing (Andy Mabbett) with the exception of one edit by IP 80.249.48.109 [8]. Again, it is the addition of an infobox.
• Same situation on Nicholas Hammond (ornithologist) in November [9].
• Same situation on Lawrence Shove in November [10]
• Same situation on William Stork in late October [11]
• John Blanke: look at history from 25 to 27 September [12]. IP's only edit: adding infobox [13].
• Michael Rosenblum: look at history from 30 September to 11 October [14]. IP's only edit: adding infobox [15]
• Snettisham RSPB reserve: look at history between 17 and 19 November [16]. IP's only edit: adding infobox [17].
• Strumpshaw Fen RSPB reserve: look at history between 17 and 19 November [18]. IP's only edits: adding infobox [19]. Folantin (talk) 14:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Grange Court, November 2013. IP's only edit: to add infobox [20]--Folantin (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Reg Gammon, 23 December 2013. IP's only contribution is to add an infobox, which Pigsonthewing edits later the same day [21]. --Folantin (talk) 19:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Template:Infobox NHS trust/doc Created by Pigsonthewing 2 December 2013. Edited by IP 80.249.48.108 on 10 December [22]. Only one other editor has made a single edit to this page.--Folantin (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply to RexxS No, RexxS. "There are 1 million people in Birmingham city and 2 million people in the surrounding urban area." This makes the kind of coincidences listed above even less likely, especially given the timing. For instance, the biography of Michael Rosenblum (not a particularly well-known figure) remained without an infobox for years. On 30 September 2013, Pigsonthewing made an edit and within a few days the Birmingham IP added a box. In the above examples, the trigger for the Birmingham IPs adding infoboxes to pages in autumn 2013 is Pigsonthewing editing the same articles. Given the amount of evidence, the timing of the ArbCom sanction and Pigsonthewing's location, it is vanishingly unlikely it is down to random IP editing. --Folantin (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Further reply "Why wouldn't Andy have simply added two of his favourite templates when the infobox was added, if he were that IP?" He's specifically banned from adding boxes, not (AFAIK) from editing currently existing ones. The IPs add the infoboxes. In many cases, that's their one contribution to an article. Once the box has been brought into existence by the IP, Andy can edit it at leisure because he can claim it was created by "someone else". --Folantin (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Mark Arsten OK, I'll see what I can do, but an arbitrator actually told me to open an SPI request. --Folantin (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

There are 1 million people in Birmingham city and 2 million people in the surrounding urban area, including both Andy and myself. I live as close to the city centre as Andy does, worked in Birmingham, and have far more links with education than he does now, or ever had. On that evidence, I would seem a far likelier suspect for those IPs. A look at the geolocation for the IPs that Folantin lists shows that they are mainly school addresses, part of Birmingham Grid for Learning. Here's the BGfL homepage: http://www.bgfl.org/ . You can see for yourself that it's part of the National Grid for Learning (which connects schools to the internet) and you can also quickly click through from the homepage to the directory of schools at http://services.bgfl.org/cfpages/schools/default.cfm where you'll find that Birmingham has hundreds of schools connected to BGfL. The use of those IPs would seem to require Andy getting into schools and using their computers to edit Wikipedia pages. It's far more likely that there are many Wikipedia editors in Birmingham schools who may be adding infoboxes, considering that it's not an unusual edit: the majority of articles on the English Wikipedia have an infobox (at least 2.4 million out of 4.4 million). --RexxS (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Folantin: So you want us believe, for example, that on 11 October 2013, Andy went into a Birmingham Library and made this edit adding an infobox at 11:22? He subsequently returned home and made this edit at 22:25 - converting a bare date to the {{Birth year and age}} template and adding the {{plainlist}}. Why wouldn't Andy have simply added two of his favourite templates when the infobox was added, if he were that IP? You think he'd miss the chance to include a template ({{Birth year and age}}) that added a microformat? No, no, no. Those IPs are proxies used by BGfL and there are probably 100 times more school computers connecting through those than library ones: it's far more likely that those edits come from a school; and Andy is not the only person in Birmingham interested in infoboxes. --RexxS (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Further reply to Folantin: So now you will have us believe that on multiple occasions Andy battles through the traffic (even on 23 December!) all the way into Birmingham to visit a public library; just adds an infobox, without any more edits; and then travels back home to edit further. That simply doesn't make sense - nor does it tie in with examples of those IPs correcting some of their basic mistakes that someone with Andy's experience would not have made in the first place. Those IPs just don't edit like Andy. You have of course suggested that any difference in editing practices is because Andy is disguising his style. But at that point you might as well get out the ducking stool, because when you claim "behavioural evidence" both when it fits and when it doesn't, you're not engaged in an investigation; you're engaged in a witch hunt. --RexxS (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• According to this comment on User talk:80.249.48.109 (one of the IPs listed above and registered to host: peoples-prx2.net.bgfl.org), the IP is also used by the computers in Birmingham's libraries. Obviously this IP is not simply used for schools and doesn't require entry to one. I would imagine the same might apply to other IP addresses in the range. Voceditenore (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "This solution enables remote computers to connect using the Internet and appear to be on the BGfL network". 188.29.165.63 (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

• I'm not sure this is really something SPI should handle. Note that checkusers won't tie a named account to IP addresses like this. I think this WP:AE would be the correct venue since we're dealing with Arbcom sanctions. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Hmm, well, if an Arb told you to come here, I guess this is the right venue. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't exactly tell him to come here. I told him to either file a proper SPI or stop making sock accusations without supporting evidence. As you say, CU will not publicly tie an account to IPs, so this SPI will have to rely on the behavioral evidence submitted above. I will keep an eye on this, if the conclusion reached here is that the behavioral evidence is compelling enough to conclude that Andy is engaging in socking it will factor into our decision, but this should be treated no differently than any other SPI. If instead you decide that this is without merit we will take note of that as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

---