Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AlexVegaEsquire/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

is a known sockmaster who was checkuser blocked in October 2017 for running the sockpuppets and. Apparently no SPI report or archive was created at that time. All three are SPAs for the article Kevin Deutsch. AlexVegaEsquire created the Kevin Deutsch page, and all three devoted their efforts to removing derogatory information from the page, particularly to downplaying claims that Deutsch fabricated information in his books. In the two-plus years since those blocks, there have been a few IPs doing similar things, but nothing major and nothing recent. The account Harringhome1977 is a newer Kevin Deutsch SPA. The account was created in August 2018 to add a photo of Deutsch, then did nothing for two years. In July 2020 they resurfaced to add a more recent photo of Deutsch. Later that day another user made some changes which included removing Deutsch's current affiliation and removing a sentence saying that Deutsch had never been formally charged with fabrication. Harringhome immediately reverted portions of that edit, and later restored the "never formally charged" sentence and added further exculpatory language. They also commented on the Kevin Deutsch article at WP:COIN  and posted a complaint at WP:BLPN. I believe this is probably a new sockpuppet of AlexVegaEsquire but would like it verified if possible (I'm not sure if it is still possible, since the AlexVega account was blocked three years ago). -- MelanieN (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC) MelanieN (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * P.S. I forgot to mention: Harringhome insists in several places that they have "no connection" to Deutsch and that they are merely "a concerned, independent editor, unconnected to the article subject".  But they have enough of a connection to have uploaded as their "own work" two portraits of Deutsch,    the second apparently having been taken just weeks or days before being uploaded. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I endorse MelanieN's statement, and probably should have brought the matter here myself. All of these accounts are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia regardless, but rather to be single-purpose accounts to make the allegations against Deutsch appear to be minor / disproven, and to add weakly sourced material.  The current account, Harringhome1977, also seems highly familiar with Deutsch's non-notable career after the allegations as a blogger, and likes to cite things like a tiny personal author's guild webpage suggesting partiality to Deutsch.  SnowFire (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Less a sockpuppet issue, but also note that Harringhome1977 has branched out into some classic WP:POINTy disruption now: because I mentioned another journalist's Wikipedia article in passing as an example of actually-relevant-backed-by-secondary-sources stories on a minor-yet-notable journalist, he proceeded to edit it to say it should be deleted. SnowFire (talk) 03:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi guys. That's actually not true. After your referencing of Jason, I read about him and inquired about whether the article qualified for inclusion, as I am learning from editors about notability, what qualifies for inclusion, and what doesn't. I didn't say the article should be deleted. I am trying to learn and develop some expertise across subjects. I don't understand why there is so much conflict. I am trying to contribute and communicate and learn. Thanks. Harringhome1977 (talk) 04:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, I am not connected to anyone in this article in any way. I'm trying to learn and be fair. Not sure what I am doing wrong as I am complying with all Wikipedia policies. Thanks. Harringhome1977 (talk) 02:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

We have a good compromise being discussed on an admin created page. Let's focus on the facts there as instructed, please. Thanks. Harringhome1977 (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Just dropping by because this user, Harringhome1977, made some edits to an article on my watchlist, and I looked at his edit history. The account made 1 edit two years ago, was dormant for 2 years, and recently reappeared to make 120 edits in the last week. Appears to have a high level of expertise. JimKaatFan (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi JimKaatFan. I am trying to read a lot and contribute however I can. And you're right, I had not contributed for some time previously. I am here now and ready to contribute/volunteer, as I believe in the Wikipedia project wholeheartedly, just as I did when I first signed up. Thanks.

Harringhome1977 (talk) 04:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
The distance between the original socks and the new account is over 1200 miles. However, COI is likely from either location based on timing. Given the behavior, indeffing as a suspected sock with COI. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  11:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Closing per the above. The SandDoctor  Talk 15:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Added tags for AlexVegaEsquire, Harringhome1977, Ballastpointed, Imjustaporrboy. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * (? less important, has only done talk page editing)
 * (? less important, has only done talk page editing)
 * (? less important, has only done talk page editing)
 * (? less important, has only done talk page editing)
 * (? less important, has only done talk page editing)


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

Identical editing pattern on Kevin Deutsch (and, to a lesser extent, 2015 Baltimore protests). After most recent sock was banned, various new accounts sprung out of nowhere to edit the articles (curious, considering how would they know to if Harringhome1977 was truly an independent editor with no COI?), except this time with a little cover by irrelevant edits on related topics, and aggressively edit-warring to keep their edits in. Also keeps pattern by edit warring with other socks over irrelevant stuff to conceal general edits.


 * Addition of irrelevant, primary sourced link to Deutsch's blog Bronx Justice News, as well as playing down the accusations in the lede with weasal words: WillieHoward, , ; original mysterious IP  ; repeatedly restored by sock Harringhome1977 , ,  ,
 * FTIII:, BevKing: , Harringhome1977:  (these may not seem too similar, but note that Deutsch's book was about pills looted during the protests, so this element is getting played up by giving it a section heading and the like.  Also new arrivals who are suddenly interested.)
 * Do-nothing edits just meant to gum up the revision history: FTIII:, (Too many to count for established socks, but Harringhome1977 would never ever simply revert, but would always toss in a few random tiny edits afterward - e.g.  and
 * Bronxolithic is harmless so far and at least declared a COI, but has joined in on the talk page to echo AlexVegaEsquire's stance. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kevin_Deutsch&diff=prev&oldid=970154853 ) WillieHoward and FTIII have also made unhelpful comments that are weirdly blase to the wall of text above them encouraging a "compromise", presumably a compromise of the type that extensively flatters Deutsch.   .  See Talk:Kevin Deutsch for...  everything before.
 * EDIT: Include LaneyJfromHoward in the ranks of the surprise new additions to the talk page.

While a few of the current edits may not seem a big deal (e.g. adding long, irrelevant quotes from minor one-paragraph book reviews to the lede that were written before the scandal came out), per past experience with AlexVegaEsquire, when I walked away for a time in the hopes that "minor" edits would be where he stopped - he never did, he would just work his way up to more dramatic rewrite-the-sense of the article edits over a few weeks in a POV fashion. Would request a long-term semi-protection for the article as well, if possible, this will never end. Se the edit history in 2017 for an example of AlexVegaEsquire / Ballastpointed / etc.'s extremely aggressive edit warring.

Also, pageviews are minimal for the Kevin Deutsch article and there's been no recent press on it, so the odds of 4 genuine random new editors joining to edit this article with weird timing after the most recent ban is basically 0. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SnowFire (talk • contribs)


 * Maybe something more for ANI, but also note that I've been the subject of some personal attacks by the above users. , etc.


 * In response to the three other suspects: I presume they are sleeper accounts, ready to be activated later. Note that the others in this set made various short tiny grammar edits to establish an edit count as well (e.g. identical comma "nits" for  (Bevking) v.  (Highflyingkitty), or "Me too!" type comments on talk pages (BlackGirlForPresident:  vs. FTIII  ).  SnowFire (talk) 13:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Here's the ANI report: Basically reporting that the talk page at Talk:Kevin Deutsch is out of control, with the various accounts named here as probable socks ganging up on one user. I have tried to discourage it with warnings and hatting, but it's still pretty much a snake pit. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Good morning (talk). Sorry for what our editathon participants did yesterday. We don’t mean harm and I personally will follow all policies. We just want that insert made in lede of Kevin Deutsch article like you suggested, because as you said it was established long-standing language. So I am advocating and will stay in line with my advocacy. Thank you Melanie. 🙏 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Highflyingkitty (talk • contribs) 14:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , are all of the accounts listed below part of your editathon? GeneralNotability (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

+++

No but some of them are participants. Bev and Willie are a couple. I don’t have a blackgirlforpresident or Nirvi or Harringhome on my list. We have about 500 articles we decided with input from our communities needed more perspective from POC so we divided them up and got to work. I think this was our activities running into another wave of activities from Kevin Deutsch supporters. But we are advocating for the change in his article too. We just want fairness and inclusivity in stories told about our communities.Highflyingkitty (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You went about this in exactly the wrong way. --Jorm (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes sir, every day is a lesson on this earth, for me anyway.Highflyingkitty (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh and we know Sasha (bronxolithic) but she isn’t involved in our activism. She is a Disclosed journalist.Highflyingkitty (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It wasn't an official editathon, just what they called their meatpuppet network. Discussed at ANI. To be honest, I'd say they were probably separate individuals gathered in one gaff, or pure, marbleized MEAT. ——  Serial  16:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Here's what makes the whole "editathon" story hard to believe: All of these accounts are confirmed by checkuser to be the same as Harringhome1977. Harringhome contributed from July 17 to July 25, when they were blocked. The accounts listed here were all created between July 25 and August 1. Highflyingkitty, who claims to have been running an editathon, was created July 29. IMO, no matter what they say, these are all the same person. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Compared to:
 * The following are ✅:
 * These two are ✅ to each other but only to the above:
 * These are to the above:
 * Confirmed accounts . will need to determine if the last three are related. ST47 (talk) 06:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , see Highflyingkitty's comments above - does that square with what the technical evidence says? GeneralNotability (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Highflyingkitty and Bevking are also confirmed to each other (Hfk hadn't been checked, but look at the earliest edits/IP): Hfk is created from Bevking's IP. Bevking and Willie are there as well, confirmed to each other. Even without that particular check I'd make a case for DUCK already, given their style of editing. And is there any evidence of any edit-a-thon? Drmies (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, then Nirvimeetsneo is confirmed as well, blocked. It isn't really consistent with any editathon, they are sharing IPs and ranges over a period of several days, not just for an afternoon. ST47 (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * These two are ✅ to each other but only to the above:
 * These are to the above:
 * Confirmed accounts . will need to determine if the last three are related. ST47 (talk) 06:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , see Highflyingkitty's comments above - does that square with what the technical evidence says? GeneralNotability (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Highflyingkitty and Bevking are also confirmed to each other (Hfk hadn't been checked, but look at the earliest edits/IP): Hfk is created from Bevking's IP. Bevking and Willie are there as well, confirmed to each other. Even without that particular check I'd make a case for DUCK already, given their style of editing. And is there any evidence of any edit-a-thon? Drmies (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, then Nirvimeetsneo is confirmed as well, blocked. It isn't really consistent with any editathon, they are sharing IPs and ranges over a period of several days, not just for an afternoon. ST47 (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , see Highflyingkitty's comments above - does that square with what the technical evidence says? GeneralNotability (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Highflyingkitty and Bevking are also confirmed to each other (Hfk hadn't been checked, but look at the earliest edits/IP): Hfk is created from Bevking's IP. Bevking and Willie are there as well, confirmed to each other. Even without that particular check I'd make a case for DUCK already, given their style of editing. And is there any evidence of any edit-a-thon? Drmies (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, then Nirvimeetsneo is confirmed as well, blocked. It isn't really consistent with any editathon, they are sharing IPs and ranges over a period of several days, not just for an afternoon. ST47 (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not inclined to call a bunch of people joining together to push the same POV an "edit-a-thon" or to give them the leniency we usually give confused edit-a-thoners. I'm engaging with Highflyingkitty on their talk page now, but given ST47's technical evidence above I'm not expecting to find a good reason to AGF. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The responses given to you on their talk page makes me think this is not an edit-a-thon and someone with an axe to grind. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Whether or not this is AlexVegaEsquire, I'm pretty sure that the person or people behind these accounts are WP:NOTHERE and I'm rapidly running out of AGF. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * My good faith was gone the moment I was called racist. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, that went well. At this point I don't think there's enough behavioral evidence to tie BlackGirlforPresident to the other socks, but I'll keep an eye on them in case they find their way to the Deutsch page. Closing. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And then BlackGirlforPresident helpfully confirms that they're part of the group (see the deleted revisions of their talk page). Blocked, tagged, now we really can close. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

New account created right after the last batch of socks was block, advocating the same changes in the Kevin Deutsch article. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 18:14, 16 August 2020 (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
✅, . — Berean Hunter   (talk)  18:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Case closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  11:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)