Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arifer/Archive

28 September 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

With the exception of 128.42.67.43 (see below), all of the above accounts and IPs have edited at most two articles, Ariel Fernandez and Dehydron (the latter concept being attributed to Fernandez on his page). The contributions from Ariel Fernandez and Arifel began in mid-2006. Together, they account for the great majority of edits to Ariel Fernandez (see Contributors). In addition, 128.42.67.43 accounts for the largest number of edits to Dehydron (see Contributors). . This IP has also added material on dehydrons to Hydrogen bonds (see the diff). Recently three of these accounts have been used to remove COI and BLP sources tags (see the article history). RockMagnetist (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I have added a few single-edit IP's that have contributed to Ariel Fernandez. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I have added Juniper82, who created Ariel Fernandez and has also only edited that article and Dehydron. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The above accounts are used to edit articles in which there is a strong conflict of interest. Ariel Fernandez may well be an autobiography. On User talk:Arifer, they claim that there is no conflict of interest because the edits are done by various employees of AF Innovation. However, this company is presided over by Fernandez and has a link to the Wikipedia article on its home page. The company therefore has a strong incentive to keep tags off the page. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

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

This is Ariel Fernandez replying from wiki account Arifer. I/we have no control over any of the other dozen or so accounts that have contributed and edited the Wiki article Ariel Fernandez. The article is balanced, properly documented and well referenced as it stands today (September 29, 2012). In fact, it is far more objective and balanced than most Wiki articles as far as I can see. Furthermore, a recent contribution to the article made today reflects a very profound understanding of my work and was made by somebody completely unrelated to me. The article was created by a person unknown or unrelated to me, from accounts over which I have no control. Thus, there is no conflict of interest to the best of my understanding. The Arifer contributions have been limited to rectifying the record whenever some inaccuracy was detected or for completion of the record. Our AF Innovation Team and other independent contributors have complied one by one with all the demands of user RockMagnetist, including incorporating the independent reviews of my work by eminent science writer Philip Ball and published in Nature and Chemistry World (Royal Society of Chemistry) or providing links to my most prestigious awards. All information is to the best of my knowledge accurate and properly documented. I have not written or created the articles. My team has tried to rectify the record and from time to time polices the accuracy of the information.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * A couple of notes: Ariel Fernandez would be the proper master here. Ariel, which ever of you is he, you shouldn't be editing your own article to begin with.  Verifying that it is correct or not is something that should be done by someone independent, not associates.  What you CAN do that is actually helpful is use the talk page of the article, and put info there, and then let other editors incorporate the information.  Even the act of coordinating friends to edit an article is against policy here (ie: meatpuppetry).  I need to slog through all this mess and determine what action is needed. An independent review of the content is absolutely needed.  Keep in mind, we are an encyclopedia.  We don't publish "The Truth".  We publish facts that we can verify through 3rd parties, which is why it is detrimental when people edit articles on themselves, as it literally doubles the work here.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 16:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Username block for Ariel Fernandez since that obviously isn't Ariel Fernandez, and we don't allow users to use names of notable persons unless they are that person. I've indef semi-protected the article Ariel Fernandez to prevent IPs from editing it, so only established editors can.  I will ask my favorite PhD. to review the article and determine if any modification or deletion is needed.  The IPs geolocate all over the place, and there is likely some meatpupptry involved but much of it stale.  I strongly suggest that Arifer refrain from editing the article, and instead use the talk page of the article to request changes.  This would be consistent with WP:COI and best practices. Otherwise, it puts me in the uncomfortable position of having to consider stronger action.  The integrity of Wikipedia, including that all articles are verifiable in sources that are completely independent of the subject matter, trumps the individual's right to edit an article on themselves.  While editing your own article isn't always against policy here, in this instance asking Ariel to refrain is the proper solution.  Closing as much of this is stale. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 16:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at the article on both the person and the work (dehydron), the question is whether the should be deleted as G11, They certainly could be: they are obviously written for a promotional purpose, and will require fundamental rewriting. (It is as unashamed a job of promotion as I've ever encountered: it cites a review of his book, saying right there in the article that the review was written by his university's PR office.) But the person is clearly notable, the work probably so.  A year ago I would simply have rewritten both. But there's so much of this stuff now that I don't see why promotional editors should have the benefit of getting their stuff rewritten to a proper standard: it amounts to getting us to do competently the work they do incompetently. Applying IAR, I've decided to reduce the bio article to a stub; the subject article can't be reduced too much without losing clarity, but I'm doing as much as I can there.   I am blocking indefinitely all accounts that Dennis has not yet blocked, as exclusively promotional, and  I'm continuing the semi- protection  to prevent a renewal of promotional editing. DGG ( talk ) 20:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 22:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

22 October 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

same pattern of editing as, all SPA on pages relating to Ariel Fernandez and adding content about him in related articles. Same formalistic writing style. IP address is located in Buenos Aires, where Fernandez lives and works. Jytdog (talk) 04:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Jytdog, I have no personal/professional relationship with the doctor. He is a consultant in pharmaceutical patent litigations. Outside the Court he expressed frustration over a legal matter that lies outside of his expertise. I volunteered an opinion out of my own volition. To help, I learned about his work and found it quite fascinating and have taken an interest in it. What I reported in Wikipedia is fair and balanced and verifiable to the best of my understanding. I quoted the doctor only in a relevant context and with a neutral tone. I have logged in when I happened to remember my password and sometimes I have not. Thus, there are two accounts attached to my name as you well indicate and I have confirmed that fact in the talk section of the articles in my exchanges with you. If I need to do so elsewhere, please advice, as I am not familiar with Wikipedia regulations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haydee Belinky (talk • contribs) 13:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC) Jytdog, from what I can see I have used two accounts, one when I checked in (Haydee Belinky) and one when I did not check in (181.28.240.166). Both correspond to one and the same contributor. If I need to clarify this somehwere, please advice, as I am not familiar with the vast regulatory body of Wikipedia. I am surely willing to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haydee Belinky (talk • contribs) 13:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, or whoever is doing this: I want to summarize this case. There is no conflict of interest, real or perceived, between Dr. Ariel Fernandez and me. I am not personally or professionally related to this person. I advised Dr. Ariel Fernandez informally on a patent-related legal matter in 2011. I have not contributed anything promoting this person in Wikipedia or anywhere. His work is brilliant and I have quoted it with the neutral objective style that befits my profession in relevant Wikipedia articles. All facts related by me are verifiable. I am not aware of any stylistic similarities between his writing and mine, since I don’t know his. As far as I know, the doctor comes sporadically to Buenos Aires and lives or used to live in Basel (Schweiz). I don’t even know that he is aware of this matter. Sometimes I log in to contribute to Wikipedia and sometimes I don't. There are no multiple accounts related to me. If I need to acknowledge that 181.28.240.166 is my account, I will do so as appropriate. Just need advice on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haydee Belinky (talk • contribs) 19:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * and this is basically the same kind of thing that arifer said in the former SPI case. which nonetheless led to closing down the whole nest of socks. 16:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The master account is so there is no technical data to compare against. .-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  20:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, yes. Haydee Belinky may be telling the truth. It may be that, on the basis of a brief contact with Fernandez in 2011, Belinky became so interested in and fascinated by Fernandez that two years later he/she created a Wikipedia account and used it intensively for the sole purpose of posting promotional content about Fernandez. It may be that the fact that he/she delayed doing so until after several accounts run by Fernandez had been blocked was just a chance coincidence. It may be that the remarkable similarities in style between Belinky and Fernandez are likewise chance coincidence. It may be that when Belinky wrote "We collaborate with the doctor", that was a slip, meaning "We once, several years ago, had an informal conversation with the doctor". This may not have been a deliberate attempt to give the impression of independent support from another editor. It may be that the fact that Haydee Belinky's single purpose editing was on a subject previously edited by an editor known to have used sockpuppets was just a chance coincidence. Various other things may have been chance coincidences, too. If so, then Haydee Belinky may not be a sockpuppet. However, it makes little difference, since Haydee Belinky is indubitably here only for promotional purposes, ignores and dismisses consensus and Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and is clearly not here to edit within the purpose of Wikipedia, and so I shall block the account. I will also state, although it makes no practical difference to the outcome, that I do not think the "not a sockpuppet" scenario is at all plausible or likely. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

18 October 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Edits relate to (see WP:BLPN), as with the sock-master (and .  The IP address geo-locates to Bahía Blanca, which is given in the infobox of the article as the birthplace of Fernandez.  Claims to represent the "Argentine Natl. Research Council" but offers no evidence, and it's unlikely that this research council is located in Bahía Blanca. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:45, 18 October 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

 * Admin action needed - Please block this IP for three days. It is probably Arifer. Anyway, Wikipedia does not allow accounts (or IPs) representing organizations.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * IP blocked per request. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 01:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

22 October 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Edits relate to (see WP:BLPN), as with the sock-master (and ). The IP addressed geo-locate to Bahía Blanca, which is given in the infobox of the article as the birthplace of Fernandez. Claims to represent the "Argentine Natl. Research Council" but offers no evidence, and it's unlikely that this research council is located in Bahía Blanca. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm -- I tried adding a second IP address above: 200.49.228.32. Somehow it appears here as a different number, so let's do it this way: . Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed. The number is related to the template syntax ("the first value being passed") not the number of the whole entry in the bullet-list. DMacks (talk) 07:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And now they're back to using the the one blocked last week...  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:34, 27 October 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

 * The IPs haven't edited in a good while. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

30 November 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

User fixated on Ariel Fernandez his research and the presentation of scientific papers which have been withdrawn (or had formal expressions of concern). I have no problem with the editor advocating passionately for a living person on the talk page of their biography but using IPs to edit war on both Genetic drift and Protein–protein interaction is spreading contagion that needs to be stopped. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Please stop with these baseless unfounded accusations. Many people in the world are taking the side of Ariel Fernandez and believe he is being unfairly treated. Spinrade (talk) 14:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' One of the IP address being used by "Argentine Natl Research Council" on Ariel Fernandez's talk page is 201.219.74.176. Contributions from this IP have remarkable overlap with the initial contributions made by user Spinrade. The IP was involved in adding back contributions originally written by Spinrade that were removed by editor Boghog in the categories of Drug Design, Genetic Drift and Protein-Protein Interaction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/201.219.74.176. Molevol1234 (talk) 15:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Molevol1234, Please stop this nonsense. You are the first to hide using a pseudonym to attack the professor. I live and work in Germany.Spinrade (talk) 12:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Potential outing removed from the preceding comment. All participants in this discussion are reminded of the requirements in that policy when posting comments on-wiki. DMacks (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Please stop with these unfounded accusations that will get you nowhere. Many people are taking the side of Ariel Fernandez and believe he is being unfairly treated. Spinrade (talk) 14:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Based on editing patterns and user compare report many of these ips look like they have been used by Spinrade.  Ete ethan  (talk)  22:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what do you mean by the puppetry or why are you accusing me of such thing. I was born and raised in Dortmund and I am not related to Fernandez Ariel, except I know of his work of course, and have not used those IP accounts you are referring to. I don't know what else could I say. I have only recently joined Wikipedia and I am not very familiar with its practices. If I did something incorrect, please accept my apologies.Spinrade (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is User:Spinrade changing a sig to take credit for a comment originally posted by User:181.28.247.203, one of the IPs in this SPI report that Spinrade now says is actually not his IP. DMacks (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note, I've had to hide those edits themselves due to an unrelated policy, but other admins can verify the relevant details about it. DMacks (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I cannot understand what you are proving here. I may have gotten confused and done something incorrect. I am new to Wikipedia and apologize for any mistake I may have made.Spinrade (talk) 23:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the confusion arises simply because I have agreed with the comments made from several IPs cited here? I do.Spinrade (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

please see a related SPI -- here. I didn't know this one here was going, otherwise I would have linked them before. I'm not sure a week-long block addresses the situation. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Given the behavioral evidence on the articles (particularly engaging in an edit war: 1, 2, 3, 4), I have to agree that there is some sockpuppetry going on here. I've blocked the account for 1 week. Mike V • Talk 00:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

25 November 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Account created yesterday, headed straight for Ariel Fernandez, making an argument here that various IP editors have been making. Also went to drug design to add a paragraph on "dehydrons", the core idea that Fernandez has done research on. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Since this one can't be done via checkuser, I'd like to offer some evidence in confidence (perhaps via email?). The reason for not putting it here is that it would give the editor information on how to avoid detection the next time.  If this is not an accepted way of doing things, then fine -- but perhaps...  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:50, 30 November 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 declined the CU request. I don't see any non-stale puppets in the archives.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Upon further investigation through private information (CU and/or OS), I agree that Spinrade is a sock of Arifer. Could a clerk merge this case here? Mike V • Talk 18:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

15 January 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Obsession with Ariel Fernandez and the areas of physics Fernandez publishes in. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * JosiahWilard's first edit on the day after another confirmed sockpuppet of Arifer was banned. Link to block of user Spinrade on Dec 15.  Link to user contributions for JosiahWilard, first contribution is Dec 16. As can be seen from the previous link, the topics that this individual edits on are topics of "expertise" of banned user Ariel Fernandez, including his own talk page. The user has previously been shown to be using sockpuppets and is bypassing blocks/bans.
 * Contributions for new user WandaLan began on 12 Jan, which is shortly after the JosiahWilard account was suspected of being a sockpuppet. As can be seen from the edits, they follow the stereotypical pattern of edits on topics related to banned user Arifer.
 * Contributions by 201.219.74.176 are also restricted to the usual Ariel Fernandez topics (incl. the talk page for the Ariel Fernandez article), and the user has been noted as adding citations to his papers. As expected, the IP address is in Argentina. Bueller 007 (talk) 06:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

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

JosiahWilard vs. banned sockpuppet Spinrade accusing Molevol1234 of having a conflict of interest. Again, this is an individual (Arifer) who has consistently used sockpuppets and pseudonyms again and again and again on the talk page for Ariel Fernandez. As pointed out above, the areas that this individual has editing (apparent from viewing their entire edit history) are the exact same subjects as one another, and the one account was started the day after the other was blocked/banned. Here's WandaLan accusing Molevol1234 of being obsessed with Ariel Fernandez. Again, the topics this individual edits on (as indicated by the contributions link provided in the original complaint) are on the exact same topics that Arifer, Spinrade, and JosiahWilard edit on. This is clearly the same individual. Bueller 007 (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * . Here are a bunch of diffs:

Molevol1234, Spinrade, and JW have really been going at it. The POV of Spinrade and JW seem to match up pretty well. Ping me if you have any questions.  Ete ethan  (talk)  23:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Here, Spinrade suggests that Molevol1234 has a COI with AF.  Here's JW suggesting the same thing.
 * 2) Here, Spinrade is talking about how horrible Molevol1234 is. Here's JW again doing the same.
 * 3) Here's WandaLan attacking Molevol1234 after JW is accused of sockpuppetry.


 * Just a note - I was involved with previous SPIs on this user and emailed with Ariel Fernandez.   The activity of the accounts listed is completely consistent in style and subject matter with his socking in the past. Jytdog (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Please note that related IP 201.219.86.155 posted to Bueller 007's talk page as Ariel Fernandez, thereby adding weight to the IP address above as a sock. I remain committed to working toward a consensus with non-sock editors regarding papers that journal editors have flagged based on serious data validity questions. It will be easier to do so without the quacking ducks, so I thank you for your attention to the matter. Molevol1234 (talk) 02:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please also be advised that WandaLan is now editing Ariel Fernandez's Spanish language bio. This bio needs similar protection to his English language one. As we see below, "Wanda" denies being a sockpuppet using nearly identical language to that used by Spinrade and other Arifer socks. Molevol1234 (talk) 14:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I have not abused any account or IP address and there is no evidence to support this accusation. There are hundreds or thousands of people in the science who like and admire Ariel Fernandez and agree that Molevol1234 and friends are obsessed with destroying the person with material that is not notable presented like it is important. The truth is there is no evidence of any wrongdoing by Fernandez and his students. If not, the papers would be retracted by now for that reason. Molevol1234 made several intents to defame AF and they were rejected because they are two or three years old nonsense based on illegal use of self-published sources. Using pseudonims, Molevol1234 manipulates Retraction Watch because that is just a self-published blog and wants to manipulate Wikipedia also in the same way. WandaLan (talk) 13:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I have not misused any account or IP address, so the acusation is unfounded. On the other hand, Molevol1234 has written 70 contributions to Wikipedia, all trying to destroy Ariel Fernandez. His edit proposals are so aberrant that they have been always rejected. Why isn´t Molevol1234 accused of abusing Wikipedia? I agree 100% with editor WandaLane. We are scientists and will not let Molevol1234 or anybody else pull this nonsense on Ariel Fernandez at Wikipedia. Fernandez has done nothing wrong as far as we can check and there is no reason to try to present two or three-years old challenges as if they were some serious issue. Scientists get papers challenged all the time, especially people with such a fabulous output. That is in and of itself not notable at all.JosiahWilard (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Josiah and Wanda, or should I say Ariel - you have been banned from Wikipedia for persistent socking. You have misused many accounts - this is already proven and you are doing it again.  Please stop SOCKING.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
 * 1) At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
 * 2) At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
 * 3) In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  20:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * - Please, compare those two accounts to previous socks.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You mention "previous socks" (plural). Do you know of another account besides ?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * In the time since the last round of SPI, we also had:
 * Who self-declared as being this person. I blocked for both being sock and for direct behavioral problems via that account's own edits. And I just noticed:
 * who had been flying under the radar in identical edit-behavior pattern as usual. I indef'ed that one, also as usual. DMacks (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Both of them popped up in my check.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * who had been flying under the radar in identical edit-behavior pattern as usual. I indef'ed that one, also as usual. DMacks (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Both of them popped up in my check.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The following accounts vary between and very  to Spinrade:
 * I've blocked the unblocked accounts and tagged all. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the unblocked accounts and tagged all. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the unblocked accounts and tagged all. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the unblocked accounts and tagged all. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the unblocked accounts and tagged all. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

19 January 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Bueller 007 (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Continuation of sockpuppet usage on the Ariel Fernandez talk page, consistent with the regular MO of Arifer's sockpuppets. Evidence that 181.28.62.43 and 190.195.2.239 are the same person include these diffs which show some identical reuse of exactly the same text (for instance, the bits in caps): Diff 1 vs. Diff 2. Examination of the user histories of these individuals will reveal that they are new IP addresses with no record of edits before the banning of his sockpuppet accounts (i.e., first edits = Jan. 18, 2016), and who have edited exclusively on the topic of Ariel Fernandez.
 * The talk page edits are consistent with (for example), edits made by confirmed sockpuppets JosiahWilard and WandaLan: Diff 3 As usual, the WHOIS info reveals that the accounts are based in Argentina.
 * Edited to add that he is now apparently socking using (new) Argentina-based IP 201.254.123.189. Evidence that 201.254.123.189 = 181.28.62.43 include these two diffs which are signed with the same signature ("Science & Tech Natl Res Council"): vs.
 * (New) Argentina-based IP 186.138.183.140 has now also been brought into it with attack-style edits against user Molevol1234 that are consistent with the style of confirmed Arifer sockpuppet Spinrade and others: 186.138.183.140 vs. Spinrade
 * Edited again to add new user account Palimaerts, which was started today (i.e., after the closing of Arifer's previous sock accounts). The only edit thus far has been to "dehydron", which is a concept invented by Ariel Fernandez, and which his previous sockpuppet accounts have monitored and contributed to. See: . Palimaert's user page bears resemblance to the other ones set up by confirmed Arifer socks: Palimaerts vs. WandaLan
 * 181.10.76.232 has self-declared as being Ariel Fernandez.

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

 * IP last edit was 4 days ago and accounts are already blocked, leaving for reference only. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 00:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Quacking here  J bh  Talk  21:10, 9 June 2016 (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
- same blatant promotion of Ariel Fernandez as previous socks. Whether or not this master is actually Dr. Fernandez or not seems to be a moot point: the socks are all following the same pattern, and in this case (as with several others) with a likely username violation to boot. Administrator: please block this account. Ivanvector 🍁  (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Serially-socking self-promoter appears to be back. Per their contribs, each sock edits 100% in topics of interest to the master - protein-protein interactions, the relationship between proteins and water, Oktay Sinanoğlu (who has precisely and oddly one doctoral student listed) and of course Ariel Fernandez. Each writes sentence-case edit notes, generally "correcting" this or that (e.g. diff for Horus, diff for Mehmetzeit.) Quacking is clear. Jytdog (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I was unaware that a "specific reason" was required for a CU. I understood the purpose of a CU was to confirm that the two users are the same and that providing behavioral evidence that they are the same person, is what is needed for a CU.  Things are too often inscrutable here. Whatever. I hope the behavioral evidence alone is sufficient. Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks that was helpful. Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2016 (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
If it's that obvious, I see no need for a CU. Nor has any reason been given for requesting one. Finally, all the accounts in the archives appear to be. CU declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * From the "How to open an investigation" at WP:SPI: "If you also wish a CheckUser to investigate, change |checkuser=no to |checkuser=yes in the edit box on the next page and explain why you are requesting it." In response to your other statement, a CU could connect the two puppets to each other, but it could not connect them to the master. Still, the main reason I turned you down was because you asserted it was obvious. Unless we're looking for other accounts (sometimes called "sleepers"), we don't normally check obvious accounts. Hope that helps.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Blocked both socks indefinitely. The evidence is very clear here, with the socks making precisely the edit suggested by a previously-blocked sock on a talk page. See also the topic area overlaps above. ~ Rob 13 Talk 01:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Ariel Fernandez (i.e., user Arifer) has a history of creating numerous sockpuppet accounts in order to update his own Wikipedia page (and having used dozens of IP addresses). In this case, user UpperPeninsula added a new book to Ariel Fernandez's page. Here is another example of an Arifer sock being created to add book information:   (He also removed Fernandez's having previously worked at University of Miami, which is a verifiable fact about Fernandez, but from which he has tried to distance himself.)  In UpperPeninsula's edit summaries, he makes constant reference to Retraction Watch as a "self-published blog", which is the exact wording that Fernandez has used through many of his sockpuppets in the past. (For example, do a CTRL-F on this page to find his socks using that wording multiple times: ) Also note that UpperPeninsula's other entries are all in defense of other individuals who have been accused of research misconduct. Bueller 007 (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2017 (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

 * UpperPeninsula is stale. If the account resumes editing, another report may be filed reopening the case. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 14:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Identical writing style and topical foci as Arifer and their many previous sockpuppets: promotion of Ariel Fernandez (example), criticism of Retraction Watch (example), and attempts to whitewash the pages of established scientific fraudsters (example). The most recent edits (yesterday), here and here, were restoration of promotional external links and material for Ariel Fernandez. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:41, 10 May 2019 (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
. Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Identical topical focus - the promotion of Ariel Fernandez - as Arifer and their many previous sockpuppets, as evidenced here, here, and earlier here. Their most recent edit, at the Ariel Fernandez Talk page, displays the same desire to promote Fernandez, phrased as a call for "neutrality," as the previous socks. Immediately prior to the Talk page edit, the user posted an almost identical call for "neutrality" at the BLP Noticeboard. Lastly, the Talk page and BLPN posts both make false claims against two independent editors, mimicking a behavioral/editing approach displayed previously by Arifer and their socks. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:28, 20 September 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

 * I don't see the "calls for neutrality" referenced by the filers in the archive, but between the strong focus on Fernandez and the unique edit summary style, I think BillSullivan is related to this group. . GeneralNotability (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Same topical foci and tone as User:Arifer (self identified as Ariel Fernandez here) and their many previous sockpuppets, including the promotion of Ariel Fernandez here, whitewashing the wrong-doings of a scientist here, and criticism of Retraction Watch and/or its directors (specifically, Ivan Oransky) here and here. Note that the latter edit includes as a (unreliable) source the blog "Science Retractions," which is heavily, if not exclusively, focused upon the promotion and opinions of Ariel Fernandez. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:34, 28 March 2021 (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

 * Yep. The focus on Fernandez (who is the main interest in this farm), the overlap on Robert Weinberg, plus the Ivan Oransky/Retraction Watch link (compare ) and some very distinct edit summaries (WP:BEANS, but I can provide details off-wiki if it's unclear) make it very clear that this is the same person. – please block the sock indefinitely.  Blablubbs&#124;talk 22:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Cabayi (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Long-term serial sockpuppeter Arifer (self-identified as Ariel Fernandez here) has returned as KentQuaker to promote Ariel Fernandez with two reverted (not by me) edits (here and here) and a post to WP:BLPN here wherein they claim Ariel Fernandez is "out of balance" because it includes reliably-sourced facts about the subject's papers: It mentions 4 papers challenged over a decade ago. [...] Papers often get challenged in science. That is not notable.. Comparison of that post with the diffs listed below reveals behavioral evidence for socking:

From blocked Arifer sockpuppet BillSullivan here and repeated at WP:BLPN here;

From blocked Arifer sockpuppet 181.28.62.43 here;

From blocked Arifer sockpuppet JosiahWilard here;
 * Also from JosiahWilard here;

From blocked Arifer sockpuppet 190.195.2.239 here;

From blocked Arifer sockpuppet 181.28.247.203 here. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

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

This sockpuppet business JoJo keeps pushing is highly dubious, seems just a way to avoid dissent. JoJo and the other folks surely have an ax to grind against Fernandez, but WP is not the right place to do it. Due to this COI, JoJo needs to be banned indefinitely. KentQuaker (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Between the linguistic hints (BEANS) and the Fernandez fixation, I'm convinced. – please block the sock indefinitely. Thanks. --Blablubbs&#124;talk 17:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I see the WP:BEANS evidence + Fernandez related edits, so I agree this is DUCK. I would say its to Lelandykes. Tagging as proven (please feel free to change the Blablubbs). Close. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 21:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Focus on Lynch (con, like Lelandydykes), Weinberg (con, like Lelandydykes and UpperPeninsula) and Fernandez (pro, like other socks). Same signature typography. Too few edits for specific diffs to be necessary... Not requesting CU as stale, behavioral evidence likely enough. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 23:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)


 * @PaleoNeonate Actually, specific diffs would be useful. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2021 (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

 * -- RoySmith (talk) 00:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * if I may take a stab: The two diffs to the Fernandez article  sync up with the COI POV of past sox, see e.g. . The ESes also have a very distinct style (as GN notes in the archive), and compare  to  for a near-match in wording.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 22:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why it's worth investigating an account that hasn't edited in 9 months, but since we're here, yeah, I agree DeWeerth is probably Arifer. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Arifer, an indefinitely blocked, long-term serial sockpuppeter who self-identified as Ariel Fernandez here, has returned as RutiWinkler to continue their self-promotion; see this, this and their comments here, plus this and this. The tone and topics are precisely aligned with the many previous socks. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The behavioral evidence matching RutiWinkler to Arifer and their many, many previous socks is continuing, both below and here. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

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

I am new to this process. It seems this BLP berates the subject. It dwells excessively on bad content and ignores key biographical points. That was noted by others as well. It is obvious. That makes us puppets of Ariel Fernandez? I don't think so, at least not in my case. RutiWinkler (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I read the accusation. I am not promoting anybody. At first, I simply tried to include recent scientific literature. Why was that construed as promotion by JoJoAnthrax? When this person undid my contribution, I obviously took interest in the Ariel Fernandez BLP and realized he was being serially berated. RutiWinkler (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 00:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Dreamy Jazz Does this mean SuLauMen confirmed to RutiWinkler or both of them confirmed to Arifer through previous socks or checks? --Trialpears (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Trialpears unfortunately the socks in the archive were all for comparison when I got to this CU request. Checkuser wiki was not helpful here and the last publicly documented check by a checkuser was in May 2019. The last CU check was in April 2021. This leaves CU log data the only source of information to provide technical links to the accounts in the archive.
 * This CU log data suggests that is related to these accounts due to similar ranges, which I would call  with the context of limited technical evidence to compare when using the CU log. Lelandykes is tagged as only suspected and the CU who checked did not publicly comment on any link to previous socks. However, for other socks in the archive (those with documented CU results) this link is even weaker. As such any connection to previous socks based purely on technical evidence is at best weak, so I would prefer that when tagging / blocking comparison of edits to socks in the archive is considered with these results.
 * To answer your question, my results above are to confirm these two accounts are technically related but did not link to any socks in the archive/the master account. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 23:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Dreamy Jazz! I see many things pointing towards RutiWinkler being Ariel Fernandez. They add sources by Fernandez (including the book they've been actively promoting elsewhere) and they edit similar articles like socks otherwise as well, including classical music. The new account is associated with a sleeper which doesn't make much sense if this is a brand new editor either. --Trialpears (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * per my analysis above. --Trialpears (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Dreamy Jazz! I see many things pointing towards RutiWinkler being Ariel Fernandez. They add sources by Fernandez (including the book they've been actively promoting elsewhere) and they edit similar articles like socks otherwise as well, including classical music. The new account is associated with a sleeper which doesn't make much sense if this is a brand new editor either. --Trialpears (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * per my analysis above. --Trialpears (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

See below. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2022 (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

 * ✅ to . . Closing. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Noting that I blocked as another sock earlier today. --Trialpears (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

See below. --Trialpears (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2022 (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

 * Account claims to be Ariel Fernandez who is confirmed to be the sock master and makes the same request. Account blocked and tagged as well as talk page protected for a couple days. --Trialpears (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * For the record, this is to ✅. Dreamy Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 16:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

New user who supports Ariel Fernandez (who is the sock master) with the same arguments as previous socks (only a small percentage of publications being problematic and retraction watch being a bad source). The user name appears to be a reference to who have been reporting previous socks and Leonid Schneider a science journalist who have criticized Fernandez in the past. Check user would probably be beneficial to confirm this as this is now part of some heated discussions at BLPN and ANI. --Trialpears (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC) --Trialpears (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2022 (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

 * From the BLPN thread this seems pretty blatant. If LJJS isn't Fernandez, they're someone who strongly agrees with everything he's said on-wiki (or claims to), deeply admires him (or claims to), became aware of this thread somehow, and chose to create a username that evinces bad-faith participation. In other words, if they're not a sock, they're a meatpuppet or a troll, and given that there's a recent CU trail I don't see a need to ask CUs to determine which of the three it is. : Please block indefinitely LeonidJoJoSchneider as a suspected sock of Arifer. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 18:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, just became aware of, which presents a slightly subtler case. I am very very doubtful that they are who they say they are, but that plus LJJS opens the possibility of a third-party troll here, which would be good to know for the record, lest we get our sox mixed up. So, for LJJS, SmutClyde, and non-stale Arifer sox.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 18:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * - -- RoySmith (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * LJJS is ✅ to SmutClyde. After that it gets complicated.  The first two geolocate to city alpha.  The three accounts I looked at from the archives (Ariel Fernandez Account, SuLauMen, RutiWinkler) all geolocate to city beta.  On the surface, the two groups look unrelated, but alpha and beta are in the same country, and it's not a country I typically associate with large amounts of socking.  So, I guess, between the groups?   -- RoySmith (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Roy. I don't think we need to make a clear determination of whether these are Arifer at this time, then, because the obvious bad faith exhibited here (jumping into noticeboard drama with their first edits and joe-jobbing with one or arguably both accounts) would rise to the level of a first-offense indef even if these were unrelated. :
 * as a suspected sockpuppet of Arifer
 * as a confirmed sockpuppet of LeonidJoJoSchneider and a suspected sockpuppet of Arifer
 * <li style="list-style:none;">Thanks. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 19:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)</li>

Suspected sockpuppets
The sockmaster and a vast number of confirmed socks have repeatedly engaged in single-purpose editing to make the Ariel Fernandez BLP into a self-serving puff piece. After the removal (by me) yesterday of some content under WP:BANREVERT, the IP showed up today to complain about it:. Then, almost immediately, the brand new named account showed up to continue the complaining, at the talk page:, , and at BLPN: , ; also canvassing:. -- Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * has blocked both accounts, and reverted them (thanks!). That may make this SPI moot, except for tagging and adding to the list. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2022 (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

 * Tagged the account. Don't see any need for CU, closing. Spicy (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Same MO as the usual. Created a day after talk page protection. Already blocked, just needs tagged, and I'm not sure if I can do that myself. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2022 (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 tagged the account. Feel free to do it yourself in the future. Closing. Spicy (talk) 01:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Reinstated‎ ==Ariel Fernandez== after the other IP was blocked (see here). Magnatyrannus (talk &#124; contribs) 03:56, 9 October 2022 (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
The "other IP" mentions is: and User:Hemiauchenia agrees with this assessment of both this IP and the IPv6 noted above (per BLPN edit-summaries). DMacks (talk) 05:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Blocked the IPv6 /64 for 31h. Closing. firefly  ( t · c ) 10:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)