Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JD Caselaw/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


JD Caselaw

03 September 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by GregJackP
[edit]

The userpage of JD Caselaw shows that he is a law student at Columbia University and a member of WikiProject Law. The userpage of Agradman shows that he is a law student at Columbia University and a member of WikiProjects Law, U.S. Congress and SCOTUS. Both the talk page of JD Caselaw and Agradman show that they are both on a Wikibreak. JD Caselaw has done "cleanup" editing of Agradman's talkpage [1] and [2]. Agradman has extensively edited JD Caselaw's user page (too many diffs, see page history instead. Both accounts have voted in AfDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chysky v. Drake Bros. Co., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonardo Ciampa, both in support of each other. Wikistalk shows interesting results here. Writing style and edit summaries of both accounts is very similar. See also comment here by Agradman about watchlisting an article created by JD Caselaw. GregJackP Boomer! 03:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Admin. I don't have a problem with closing it, but with a warning that it will not be tolerated in the future, and that all accounts are declared, including accounts that are not identified above, if any. What brought it to my attention was the way the prod was handled - not abusive, just suspicious. It appears that the abusive use was in the past, and everyone makes mistakes. This one should not be one that ends his Wiki-career. GregJackP Boomer! 03:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Editors who use more than one account are advised to provide links between them on the user pages (see below). They can also redirect the user and user talk pages of that account to their main account. Do not use undisclosed alternative accounts without very good reason. If you must, do so only with care. ...

Alternative accounts have legitimate uses. For example, long-term contributors using their real names may wish to use a pseudonymous account for contributions they do not want their real name to be associated with ...

  • My "very good reason" is that I make contributions that I "do not want [my] real name to be associated with". As to whether I have done so "with care," User talk:GregJackP identifies two suspicious AfDs, from August 2009 and May 2009.
  • Regarding the AfD for Leonardo Ciampa, I used Agradman to vote, and JD Caselaw to make a comment under someone else's vote. Ordinarily, that would still be sockpuppetry, but in that instance I had a special justification: During the AfD, another editor indicated that he had been stalked by Mr. Ciampa himself for voicing a criticism of the Leonardo Ciampa article:

Note. I am recusing myself from all further discussion of this article and removing it from my watch list. In the past 24 hours, I have been accused of sockpuppetry, had my real name and physical location listed, and Leonardo Ciampa has tried to contact me personally. This is not worth my time (especially considering that the article receives so little traffic) and it's definitely not worth the aggravation and lost sleep. Life is too short.THD3 (talk) 14:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

  • So, once I had voted for delete as Andrew Gradman, I felt frightened to continue to use that account on that page. Clearly this concern was on my mind at the time: I wrote, "The partisanship of the Keepers is creeping me out. try not to take this personally."
  • Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chysky v. Drake Bros. Co.: I admit that on this one occasion I violated the sockpuppeting policy. And I know that that is really, really bad. But I think it's important to note that this behavior occurred in May 17 2009 -- fifteen months ago, one month after I joined Wikipedia, and before I knew wikipedia's sockpuppeting policy. The JD Caselaw account was four days old and the Agradman account had made its first substantial contributions only one month prior, in April 2009. (Prior to April 2009, Agradman had made only 32 edits; prior to 2009, only 16.) Since then I have never sockpuppeted, and I have proven to be an exemplary editor (nearly 9,000 edits, nearly 1,000 new articles, two DYK's, gave a lightning talk at the NYC WikiConference, and I've befriended many Wikipedians, online and offline, who will attest to my civility and fairness).
  • And that's all there is to respond to! Now my hope is that this investigation will be addressed and closed promptly. Frankly, it's making me lose sleep. JD Caselaw(talk) 06:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

At WP:Articles_for_deletion/Chysky_v._Drake_Bros._Co., you explicitly state with your JD Caselaw account that you are not Agradman. You may not have known about the Wiki sockpuppet policy, but you didn't know not to lie? It seems to me that given your history you should not operate multiple accounts, regardless of your intentions. VQuakr (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did lie. It was immature and disrespectful to Wikipedia and to Wikipedians like you, and it was unethical. Tampering with the trust of this community was horribly shortsighted. I could be so shortsighted only because, at that time, I did not yet know how much I would come to cherish that trust.
  • Since then, I have been an impeccable and upstanding editor. I have made Wikipedia a part of my life -- heck, it's a part of my resume. Some of the people I admire most in the world are editors who I met in this community.
  • As Jimbo puts it, "The harmony of our work depends on human understanding and forgiveness of errors." This quote comes from Jimbo's essay during the Essjay controversy. Two paragraphs up, Jimbo also asked Essjay to resign his Admin position, stating, "these positions are not appropriate for him now." I think the "now" in that statement is important. It acknowledges that certain mistakes can render people unworthy of trust, but it also acknowledges that these same people can earn that trust back.
  • The trust of this community is of awesome importance to me, and in the last fifteen months I have striven to earn it. I don't underestimate the gravity of this discussion. I am available to speak on the phone with anyone who asks to do so in an email to my user:Agradman account.
  • -Andrew Gradman, blocked by Wikibreak enforcer, editing as 128.59.179.250 (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the point of checkuser either. They're declared alternate accounts. Even the single misuse was harmless--the opinion the accounts supported was overwhelmingly endorsed by the community. At this time, though, I do not see the usefulness of maintaining two accounts. Nor do I see the usefulness of bringing this spi in the first place when there is no ongoing problem. FWIW, Agradman suggested I come here--I do not normally check this page.) DGG ( talk ) 22:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agradman asked me on my talk page to comment on his sockpuppet case. I have collaborated with Agradman on various projects for WP:LAW and I think he is one of the most knowledgeable and productive editors of legal topics on Wikipedia right now. He admits above that the JD Caselaw account is his, that he shouldn't have used it in a dishonest manner, and that he regrets doing so. Given his otherwise positive track record both before and since this incident, his use of a sockpuppet account early on in his time on Wikipedia should be considered a forgivable error of judgment. Productive editors with expertise in a professional field are not easy to find, and banning or suspending Agradman for a mistake he made more than a year ago (which is eons by Internet standards) deprives Wikipedia of the type of contributor we need, and provides virtually no countervailing benefit. --Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 01:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give him a break. He's losing sleep over something that happened a long time ago and for which he's now taken full responsibility without qualification. No need for checkuser. This case should be blanked at its conclusion since he is editing with his real name and he has a professional reputation associated with his name. I think this could have been handled with a little more sensitivity toward an editor using his real name. Communication is often all that is needed to solve problems; the punitive route is not always well advised. Minor4th 03:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]

information Administrator note No need for a checkuser at the moment, given the admission. There appears to be several instances of multiple account misuse:

All of these, however, are more than a year ago, and I don't find more deceptive uses since then. All things considered, I'm inclined to close this with no action, conditioned on JD Caselaw (talk · contribs) being positively identified as an alternate account of Agradman (talk · contribs) on its userpage. Comments are welcome. Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@This question: The history of misuse here makes it preferable to link the two accounts so that the misuse will be easier to see; besides, this SPI case sorta blew the whole cover, don't you think? Even without this case, it takes only 2 minutes of study to figure out the link - if you want to use an account to make edits that you don't want linked to your main account, it really isn't a good idea, at all, to use that account to edit your main account's user and talk pages. Really. Now, if you really, really want to use an alternate account for this purpose, I don't have objections to you making a new one, provided that you disclose the account privately (by email) to arbcom. Timotheus Canens (talk) 12:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the proposed remedy. Blocks are not punitive, and given the admission, ineffectiveness of the past actions, and recent track record, I concur that the case should be closed, the accounts identified formally, and the editor be admonished that future multiple account misuse will (and must) be dealt with without any assumption of innocent mistake. Jclemens (talk) 04:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I agree with JClemens. A close on these terms is more likely to help the encyclopedia than to endanger it. JohnCD (talk) 10:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As long as the accounts are identified formally and it is made clear to the editor that multiple account misuse will lead to action, this should work. Dougweller (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as the discussion has slowed down, I'm going to mark this for close. It appears there is general consensus for the remedies proposed by Timotheus Canens, namely that JD Caselaw be clearly identified as an alternate account of Agradman, with no further action taken. TNXMan 20:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JD_Caselaw/Archive&oldid=1043689765"