Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/93.185.230.67/Archive

26 June 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

The only three unsigned users who are editing Belén Fernández and arguing for its deletion are 141.138.186.38, 93.185.224.196, and 146.185.36.67. All three have IP addresses from Beirut Lebanon and they all use the same tone, language, and arguments, including directing personal invectives to the registered user developing the page. The first 2 addresses have made no other contributions to Wikipedia besides their arguments against the page; the only other involvement of the third is with Path Solutions, which has been flagged as an orphan page and overly promotional.

The users from these three IPs use emotional language, focusing on the relationship of the editor and the subject as a constant mantra and directing personal attacks at the editor. They eschew any real discussion of the whether the facts presented in the page are accurate or not and all seem to dismiss out of hand the media outlets publishing the subject as inconsequential (without acknowledging that they include several heavy weights in alternative media) and the recognition the subject has achieved in that sector. They split hairs on whether a self-published book actually qualities as a book. They emphasize as note-worthy the fact that the user building the page has not previously made edits to any other Wikipedia page.

Below are three examples of similarities in argument, tone, and language, coded in pairs with bold, bold ital, and ital.

Agreed. Fernandez does not meet standards for notability. The majority of references to her work are from small-ish blogs/sites with only a small readership and part of a small circle of freelance journalist types. Moreover, the article was originally created by the subject's mother and earlier versions were thus slanted in the extreme towards self-promotion. More recent versions have been less obvious, but retain a focus on adding entirely unnecessary praise for her work, and adding only a single critique from Pamela Geller in a way clearly designed to discount it's importance. It is clear that Fernande'z mother (User: Tower 1109) cannot hold a neutral position on this article, and she continues to edit in spite of this. Even if her edits were entirely neutral/acceptable, the basis of the article and the reason for its creation is discredited by her connection (not merely close, the closest possible!). Indeed, elsewhere she has noted how she has contacted Fernandez herself vis-a-vis this page (getting a picture). I can't see any real reason for this to remain. Certainly there are other pages for journalists, but they tend to have achieved something particularly notable. This does not apply here. 93.185.230.67 (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC) Anon

Strong Delete As per wikipedia cited above, this article contains principally only blog links, opinion pieces, and/or lower quality platforms for reference material. Tower 1109 should note the wording of the notability criteria: 'reliable' (blogs/opinion pieces/niche leftists sites are not reliable per se) and 'intellectually independent' (the only sources here are from a small group of left-wing leaning sites/bloggers/etc. that are naturally inclined to cite this kind of material occasionally), as well as 'independent of the subject' (many of these sites have connections with the author in one way or another). There is no evidence of real notability- simply one commercially published book. Please note, again, that Tower1109 is the mother of the subject of the article (note her language: "subject's work has been *lauded*" and other similar biases in her edits. It is relevant that the only page she has edited on wikipedia refers to her daughter. — 146.185.34.131

Strong Delete Simply writing a book is not a criterion for notability, if it were then wikipedia would have far more pages! Generally speaking, journalists have wikipedia pages when they have achieved something especially notable- not simply criticising another journalist in a book. This would include, for instance, a particularly influential story. Alternatively, people like Friedman are considered notable because of their notoriety if you will. Neither applies in this case. Moreover: please stop trying to distract from the fact that you are the mother of the subject of this article. It is not a minor issue, it is a massive one. Your continued efforts to maintain this page damage wikipedia's efforts towards neutrality. Moreover, the fact that you won't let this discussion go on without you shows the degree to which you cannot be trusted to be neutral. If are truly sure of your position (subject is notable, etc.) then please stop engaging in the debate- because you are mudding it with biased opinions- and hope that other people agree with your perspective. Also, 'second book' is misleading; first book was self-published. 93.185.230.67 (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Please stop editing this page, you have a direct COI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.185.36.67 (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The user Tower 1109 is the mother of the subject of this article. She alone continues to edit this page and reverse the edits of others. She adds excessive praise for the subject and removes criticism. This is directly against wikipedia policy; this user should conduct no edits whatsoever of this page. Below, she defends her practices by noting herself a former journalist and editor. This is irrelevant. An article written almost entirely by the mother of its subject can never be reliable. ''Directly to user Tower 1109: please engage in dialogue here and stop editing this page yourself. You are behaving reprehensibly.'' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.185.224.196 (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC) Tower1109 (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2015 (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

 * I've semi-protected the article and AfD for a week. The IPs haven't edited for a few days and are quite dynamic, so a block won't help here. Mike V • Talk 17:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)