Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PopularData

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:PopularData

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Suspected sockpuppets

72.11.123.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
65.182.233.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Wehwalt (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence: On the ZIP code page, a COI editor has been trying to add the external link populardata.com[1], despite the clear fact that his name is PopularData, and in his talk page comments, he makes it clear that he is the owner/maintainer of the external link.[2]. A second editor, User:72.11.123.50, whose only seven article edits over the eight months of editing have been to add this external link or one other package, undid [3] my latest removal of this as an EL (by consensus, on the ZIP code page, we have established a procedure that anyone wishing to add an EL puts it on the talk page first]] and chimed in on talk page, asking for a vote. It seems pretty clear that this is a sockpuppet situation.

One is a sockpuppet of the other, or they are both sockpuppets of a third user.

Comments

My IP address is (and always has been 65.182.233.93). Not being fully familiar with Wikipedia I finally created an account called "PopularData". Rather than actually discuss whether or not the link to my site was relevant... Wehwalt seems to continue to focus on things such as a "conflict of interest", "a consensus", and "sockpuppets".

I am not sure exactly who the user at 72.11.123.50 is but I suspect its one of the users of my site. I have received several emails from users over the past couple of weeks (although none with an obvious name of "Andrew") so I would suspect its one of them.

I find it interesting that ONE individual can refuse to discuss an issue, accuse others sites (and possibly mine, I can't remember) of having malware, software packages, etc. My site has nothing but raw data that many, many people download every month. I am more than open to a vote to see if the community feels the link is relevant... but I fail to see the value in ONE user constantly removing a link. Would it still be a "conflict of interest" if I posted a note on my website asking other users to support my site on the Wikipedia article? :-) This isn't a bio... its an article about zip codes. I believe the link is more than relevant because there isn't another one like it except for the census data (which is 8+ yrs old and incomplete). I provided proof of that (direct from census.gov) but Wehwalt prefers not to address that... or even remove that link... he seems to have some sort of a "hobby" thing just for me.

I would be happy to answer any further questions. --PopularData (talk) 02:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you're advocating meatpuppetry. The things I'm focusing on are WP procedures, that we all adhere to. Regardless of sockpuppetry (and given that 72.11.123.50 does nothing, over eight months, but advocate for your products (excluding one edit), I'm a little skeptical, with all due respect), you have an obvious COI as to whether your products appear on this site. You should not be adding it in. If you read the talk page, the procedure for adding an EL was agreed by consensus. If you are not, in fact, a sockpuppet or sockpuppeter, and remain on WP for purposes other than promoting your product, you should read up on things like consensus, or COI. Just put it in the search box, that is right, the one on your left, maybe with WP: in front of it. And it is not just me, you've undone edits by Polpo, twice in the past month, removing your product for failure to follow the established procedure and you even removed the comment from the article page asking people to follow the procedure.[4][5]. So we have two different IP addresses which do nothing but add this site in. Your old talk page [6] makes it clear what your reason for being here is. And for the convenience of editors, I've added your old IP address to the case.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, clearly I'm not as experienced with Wikipedia as you are. Navigating through all of this "sockpuppetry", "meatpuppetry", is a chore. :) I've already stated that 65.182.233.93 is me... so you flag that IP (as if you've discovered something) and then call it my "old IP address". It is (and always has been) my current address. You continue to refer to "concensus" but there are clearly two different meanings for the work. I have read the concensus article on Wikipedia. Perhaps a more (in a nutshell) definition can be found at dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consensus). Clearly you feel that a consensus is EVERYONE agreeing on something. I feel that it is a MAJORITY opinion. Either way... using your version of the meaning... you really can't claim consensus either... because clearly people are disagreeing with you removing the link. The talk page references OTHER links as well that were placed up there one day... removed another... some were submitted, never talked about, etc.

All that being said. My website is NOT a product... simply a resource. It is NOT a program... simply raw data. So, while you and I seem to be in a "battle over procedure" and we're clearly both being stubborn. I propose that we set our differences aside for a moment. I would like to extend the olive branch and ask that you please review the populardata.com link. Here are the reasons why I personally feel it should be submitted:

1. If you go to Google and search for "free zip code database" or even "zip code database" you will find that my site shows up on the first page. I think it comes in around 4th place (just above the wikipedia article). If you LOOK at the populardata home page you will see that NOWHERE on that page do I use the words "zip code database" or even "zip code". The REASON my site ranks so high on Google is because a large portion of the web community out there has linked to my site in their blogs. I would be happy to provide you (or others) with a list if you like as my web server tracks statistics on referring links.

2. My website is free. While many, MANY, other sites out there are requesting payment for zip code databases, etc... my site is (and always has been) free. For this reason alone, I feel it is a valuable addition to the Zip Code article on Wikipedia.

3. The article currently contains a link to (http://www.aresllc.com/zip-codes-finder/)... if you go to this link and try searching for a zip code, you'll find the site is malfunctioning. Regardless of what you decide on my link, you should probably remove this one. It is also worth mentioning that I could easily provide that same service on a page on my site (less than a day to implement) if you feel it actually adds value and would make my site more worth of submission. (kill 2 birds with one stone?)

4. The article currently contains a link to (Zip code data sets) from the census bureau. This is the only link that is even close to the data my site provides. So, it seems to me that we have already determined such a link IS valuable to the WP article. That being said, the Census data is incomplete and out of date. I believe this was also mentioned on the talk page and a link was provided from the census bureau website itself stating this. I respectfully propose that the populardata.com website replace the census bureau website as the data is complete, more accurate, and more up to date.

5. The article currently contains a link to (USZip.com) which appears to have the same function as the site I mentioned in point 3 above.

I could go on listing reasons but I would like you to consider the points I've listed above first. Yes, this discussion probably belongs on the TALK page of the WP article itself (feel free to copy it over there if you like).

I see you have removed the link again... that's fine. I will not add it back now that I understand it is apparently a COI. I respectfully disagree with that, but I accept your position on it.

Please take a careful look at the points I have posted and consider adding populardata.com to the WP article.

Thank you for your response, and far be it from me to be hard on a beginner. This is a specialized page of WP; I suggest you put your arguments for inclusion of the link on the talk page of the ZIP code article. That is what, basically, is the proper procedure, and the other points you mention can be discussed. You are somewhat mistaken if you equate consensus with a majority vote, by the way. However, I'm still concerned about the likelihood of sockpuppet activity. It is unusual to have two users who do almost nothing but promote a, er, resource. One is not too unusual. Two is unusual.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you and I still disagree on some things but that's fine. Yes, I am very new to WP. I have taken some time today and done some additional reading on dispute resolution, etc so I feel I have a slightly better understanding of the situation that I did before. Not to be offensive but I think you should perhaps brush up on it a bit as well. I will move my points above over to the zip code talk page. As for the "sock puppet" concern, I could sit here all day long and tell you I'm not 72.11.123.50 and I'm sure you wouldn't believe me. Looking at the "evidence" as its presented at the top of the page I would not believe me either. I would agree that it is HIGHLY unlikely that two individuals would push the same EL. That being said, I believe I know who the person is and have sent him an email. If he is who I believe then he is one (of several) authors who have put my website in their book. Unfortunately, unlike the other authors, he put the WP link (http://ww.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zip_code) in his book. So, that might help explain why he has a vested interest in seeing the link back on the article. Perhaps even more than I. Please don't go calling it "meat puppet" or another "COI". It is what it is. I'd agree on (your definition) of COI but would disagree about the "sock/meat puppet" label as he did (and has been doing) it of his own free will.

In conclusion, I would respectfully suggest that you be a little more open minded in the "zip code" (and perhaps other) articles. Many people (myself being one of them) don't know WP all that well, don't know the discussion page, etc. Some "friendly and helpful" advice would have been most welcome. Looking back over the discussion (and history) page I can see plenty of places I could have done things differently. But I can see more than one instance where you could have done the same.

I will move my article comments back over to the zip code discussion page. Since you and I apparently disagree on what "consensus" means I am curious as to exactly what the "triggering mechanism" is for inclusion into the article? Is it: 1) Nobody objecting after a set time? 2) More than one person agreeing? 3) Majority vote? 4) Other? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PopularData (talk • contribs) 22:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by EdJohnston

I suggest that User:Wehwalt open up a complaint at the spam noticeboard. They are better organized at handling this type of thing than WP:SSP, and they have experience addressing the wonderful benevolence of people who just want to spread their commercial link all over Wikipedia. An editor working on his own is likely to run out of patience in that situation. The anti-spam people can also advise if a username block is justified given this editor's commercial username. Wikipedia policy has very strong provisions for dealing with spam, so there is no reason to be cautious in this situation. EdJohnston (talk) 01:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've referred this over there and opened a case. I should add that I'm not out to get anyone, I just think this should be checked into by someone with a better wikihead than me.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Closed due to filing at spam board. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]