Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/(127.0.0.1)/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

This report concerns an IP-hopping vandal who, when his three target pages were semiprotected, registered an account, made enough edits to be confirmed, and resumed vandalizing.

His edits consist of attempts to whitewash our coverage of FreeFileSync:

The Sockmaster is, most likely, the Bavarian developer of FreeFileSync who goes by the pseudonym ZenJu. Evidence of this may be found at Talk:FreeFileSync. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC) Guy Macon (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * ADDED NOTE: He has started discussing the issue at Talk:FreeFileSync, so please hold off for a day or two until we see whether he is willing to continues discussing. It appears that he doesn't know what a reliable source is, so this may be a case of a frustrated newbie confused by our policies. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * No one's edited in a while. Closing without prejudice. Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Bavarian developer ZenJu, who is the author of FreeFileSync keeps trying to the page using various socks to hide the fact that FreeFileSync ships with bundled malware, but despite repeated requests refuses to cite any sources other than his own webpage at freefilesync.org.

Now he has somehow figured out how to post as unroutable IP address 127.0.0.1. I am requesting a checkuser to see if this sheds light on how he managed to do that. fooling Wikipedia into thinking that 127.0.0.1 is the IP address he posted from is unusual enough that I will be bringing this up at AN as well.

Please note that as I have documented at Talk:FreeFileSync the FreeFileSync website sends a smaller, malware-free file to online virus scanners and a larger, malware-infected file to anyone who downloads the installer. This makes it difficultly to determine exactly which malware he is currently including, but my OR indicates that he has switched from OpenCandy to FusionCore -- malware that installs other malware that it gets from a website (and the website keeps changing as the old ones get shut down). Alas, I cannot find a source other than my OR, so I cannot update the page to say that OpenCandy has been replaced with FusionCore. --Guy Macon (talk) Guy Macon (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

I have fixed the link to the suspected sock. It is not an IP but an user User:(127.0.0.1) doing the edits. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


 * My apology for the error. It is a rather misleading username, but still, I should have noticed the difference. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi there, what is going on here? I just edited FreeFileSync to add information that it presented on the program's homepage and suddenly I find myself in the middle of a witch-hunt. Worse, groundless accusations are asserted without any evidence by a "grand inquisitor" incapable of distinguishing between my user name (127.0.0.1) and my IP address. In the dark ages, you may have been called a witch just because you had reddish hair. These days it's apparently a strange username that brings the inquisitor to the scene. For all fairness, I'd like to start a investigation against Guy Macon for wrongful "witch-hunting" (which should be illegal in US, too) and for starting an investigation without any justifieable cause. Thanks. PS: if Guy had invested a minute of his time he would have found out that I created my account about 12 years ago. This is so crazy. What happened to Wikipedia? I sorrowfully regret that I donated my money to the Wikipedia foundation when they are unable to prevent users to pursue their personal war blinded by hatred or whatever motivation they might have. This is unbelievable. (127.0.0.1) (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I do apologize for mistaking "127.0.0.1" the IP address with "(127.0.0.1)" the registered username. The result of the previous sockpuppet investigation was that it is likely that "(127.0.0.1)" and "Max4142" are the same person, and Max4142 has self-identified as being "Zenju (FreeFileSync project lead)" Do you, User:(127.0.0.1) deny being the same person who posted as User:Max4142? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Which "investigation" led to the result that "it is likely that (127.0.0.1) and Max4142" are the same? I don't see an explanation from you, why both accounts would belong to me, nor do I see any evidence provided by you which substantiates your accusations. Instead, you are asking me to "deny" your baseless accusations. That's the wrong way round. Further, I don't see any reason to defend myself as you don't have a case! Do you think you are a prosecutor or even the judge sitting a trial? By the way, I will look into filing counterclaims against you for harassing innocent users and abuse of Wikipedia jurisdiction and administration. (127.0.0.1) (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Which investigation? Why this one of course. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * . Please move case to (127.0.0.1).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have never moved a SPI. Is it just a matter of using the page move at the top, or does something special need to be done? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Notice the status change. I requested a clerk to move the case. Non-clerks, i.e., you, should never move cases.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Done. Closing. Sro23 (talk) 01:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

More sockpuppetry from Bavarian developer ZenJu (the author of FreeFileSync) As usual, ignores all requests for citations to reliable sources. This time he is citing the comments section of an article at techsupportalert.com (comments he most likely wrote himself). Guy Macon (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * And more from IP 193.3.234.5 --Guy Macon (talk) 03:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * ...And now he is making legal threats. ("Using Wikipedia's mechanics to force this editor into an official "investigation" [This SPI] is a type of libel." and "By the way, I will look into filing counterclaims against you for harassing innocent users and abuse of Wikipedia jurisdiction and administration. ".) --Guy Macon (talk) 02:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Behavioral evidence: edits by (127.0.0.1), Max4142, 193.3.234.5, and FullOfBugs each claiming that FreeFileSync is now malware free and each citing freefilesync.org as the only source for this claim: (including claimed dates when OpenCandy malware was removed that are not in the source; how would a sock know that date unless he is the author of FreeFileSync?)

(127.0.0.1):

Max4142:

193.3.234.5:

FullOfBugs:

Also, he removed a pp-protected template. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

It is interesting that I edited an entry based on my knowledge and is accused of sockpuppetting based on outdated knowledge. I just have a few things to say about the accusation to me:

1) I hate ads and OpenCandy. That's why I added the ad section to the entry of KMPlayer. And that's why I updated this entry - because I appreciate software developers who abandon those annoyances.

2) I wonder if anyone looked at my profile or IP address to see if I should be flagged. Changing an entry with different opinions shouldn't be the reason to be accused.

As to the accusation to FreeFileSync:

1) My changes clearly stated that its installers came with OpenCandy and later ads. And whether the new installer comes with or without ad or OpenCandy can be easily verified by downloading it and test. I know this isn't the job of the moderator, but I think a simple google search should yield enough evidence. Also it is clearly stated on the software's download page (of course, it is up to you to trust or not).

2) I agreed that comments in a page are not reliable source of evidence. However, the old entry before my changes (also the current one) cites that page as an evidence of using OpenCandy by FreeFileSync. The fact is that the author of that page realized that FreeFileSync no longer installs OpenCandy and removed FreeFileSync from the page. This makes using it as an evidence inappropriate. It also shows that the evidence is enough to convince the author that FreeFileSync abandoned OpenCandy.

3) I really think the sentence "Donors do not see any ads, but it is not clear whether OpenCandy is removed or installed with ads disabled. " is not appropriate and should be removed. You can say "it is not clear whether the installer installs OpenCandy" to all software installers. Putting this unverified information here, to me, is biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FullOfBugs (talk • contribs) 16:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

FullOfBugs (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * My apologies for thinking that you were one of the socks. As seen below, your account is unrelated. Sorry about my error. I have no problems with the edits you suggest above, BTW. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Wow. Another editor shows up to claim that OpenCandy was removed in 2016 (something that only the author of FreeFileSync would know) and using freefilesync.org as his only source for this claim. This is the exact same behavior that the previous sockpuppets exhibited. What are the odds of that? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It happened like this: 1) I finally decided to update my copy of FreeFileSync. 2) I remembered that it came with OpenCandy so I googled FreeFileSync and OpenCandy. 3) FreeFileSync's forum and Wikipedia are among the top three results. 4) Wikipedia said it installs OpenCandy. On the forum many people asked about OpenCandy and the developer explained multiple times that he abandoned OpenCandy but the Wiki moderator was too stubborn to believe him. 5) I downloaded the installer. I scanned the file. I monitored my network traffic and did the installation. I verified what he said was true. 6) I came to Wikipedia to make correction. Some of the information were from his posts. As I said, I verified what he claimed and I believed him. 7) I became a sockpuppet.
 * When wrong information has been there for so long. The odd that someone tries to correct it is high.
 * FullOfBugs (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As for your question "how would a sock know that date unless he is the author of FreeFileSync?". The answer is simple. It is on the download page. The first item of "Latest Changes": "FreeFileSync 10.0 Apr 27, 2018 The installer is now ad-free!"
 * I will not change my edits back. If you really "have no problems with the edits you suggest above", please undo your changes. Or, you can leave all those biased information there. I am trying to contribute. I am upset how these kind of things are handled here. But I am not going to waste my time redo what I have done.
 * FullOfBugs (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Riiiiight. A "Latest changes" post that only mentions 2018 is a source for the 2016 date. Are you aware of the Law of holes? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry! That's was about the ad removal. The drop of OpenCady was from a search on their forum. That's not a credible source of course. But the point is, with a proper search "something that only the author of FreeFileSync would know" is easily available.FullOfBugs (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I still have the installers from version 8.1 (4/21/2016). Symantec reported that it contained OpenCandy. Although when I ran the installer on a machine without Symantec it didn't offer to install OpenCandy. I can't tell whether it is because the installer didn't try, or because the malware server was down. I don't have a network traffic monitor installed on that machine. FullOfBugs (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Just come across this page: I will add it to the entry.FullOfBugs (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
FullOfBugs is ❌. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)