Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brandonfarris/Archive

12 December 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I'm not sure what's going on here, but something isn't right. New account Brandonfarris is removing content in a small set of pages, and a lot of his edits are undos of 121.210.234.34. Out of nowhere, brand new account Sam 3982 comes in and with his first two edits, warns me and another editor about Brandonfarris. Looks to me like one person using multiple accounts to war with himself, I suppose hoping to slip something through in the confusion.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  15:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

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

I am not Brandonfarris. I've scarcely used Wikipedia at all before until today. Very surprised to see that apparently 'Sven Manguard' is trying to accuse me of this.

I created this account because I wanted to be able to reply to 'Sven' and to 'Yunshui' about these issues, whereas I figured I wouldn't have been able to do so if I'd continued to just use Wikipedia straight from my IP address. I hope that Sven will get back to me about this. Disappointing that he decided to delete my initial message to him on his talk page about this issue, I've also sent him an email in the hope that maybe he will respond to that. Sam 3982 (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The reason I took the action I took today was because I was angered when I heard about the political activities 'Brandonfarris' has been attempting to conduct on Wikipedia in recent days.

I found out about these activities through a blog on the 'Crikey' news outlet here in Australia called 'Pure Poison'. The link to the article about this issue is here - http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2011/12/11/whos-been-digging-into-melbourne-journalists-pasts-and-creating-odd-articles-about-them-on-wikipedia/

I don't like the fact that this guy is running around trying to insert his own political agenda into Wikipedia articles, and using Wikipedia as a way to attack the reputations of any people and organisations he doesn't like.

That's why I've done what I've done today. I don't like astroturfing when I see it. Sam 3982 (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Just tried again to talk about this with "Sven", only to have him "collapse" my message, and repeat this claim that somehow I am a "sock puppet". Would be nice if he were to read the substance of what I've said, and view the article linked, as it is linked here. Sam 3982 (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

And instead of actually reading the substance of what was said, it seems that "Sven" is just going to keep on ignoring my comments and "collapsing" them. My next reply to him on his talk page was also "collapsed".

It's a shame that he is apparently now just disregarding anything that I have to say about these things. Even disregarding the fact that the issue of this "Brandonfarris" astroturfing has been reported publicly on a blog within a major Australian news outlet. Anyone who wants to, can easily check this through the article link I've already posted. Also a shame that instead of properly dealing with what this guy has been doing, the dubious nature of sources, the party-political and otherwise transparent agenda being pursued - reported as such on the "Pure Poison" blog - "Sven" is just targeting me instead and trying to make out that I'm a "sock puppet" of this guy. Sam 3982 (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I note that someone else is also being unfairly targeted by "Sven" now - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:140.247.238.78

Seems like this guy is only trying to fix up some vandalism by someone else on another Wikipedia page, just like I was. But "Sven" has then accused him of "vandalism" instead. And apparently deleted the response back from this guy on his talk page which pleaded that he was trying to remedy vandalism, not cause it. Not good... Sam 3982 (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Some confusion here, the account that the sockpuppet is operating is Garth M, which seems to exist primarily to revert any edit I make. I suggest investigating and taking appropriate action. That user has already been blocked from editing articles etc. I'm happy to defend the edits I've made but I think the issue here is that Garth M has logged out to edit by IP to escape scrutiny and avoid the blocks imposed on his account. --Brandonfarris (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not "Garth M" either, whoever that is. I'm just one of the people who read the article about Brandonfarris' behaviour on the 'Pure Poison' blog, and was angry enough about it to come onto Wikipedia and try to fix it myself.

As I said, before, I certainly don't like astroturfing, that's for sure.

The issue isn't any kind of assertion that either "Sven", or "Brandonfarris" wants to invent about me, the issue is that "Brandonfarris" has clearly and obviously been trying to use Wikipedia as an astroturfing vehicle. And it's disappointing that up to this point, Wikipedia admins and mods have not taken conclusive action about this.

I would hope that "Sven" would care about the integrity of Wikipedia in this regard, and be wanting to ensure that Wikipedia is not disfigured in this way.

But all indications are to the contrary thus far.

As I've said already elsewhere, and as others have been talking about outside of Wikipedia, it seems apparent that this user has been engaging in a deliberate and weird exercise to boost this James Campbell person (as the 'Pure Poison' blog today shows, even Campbell himself was very surprised to hear what was going on) - attacking anyone who was a subject of any significant Campbell article, and attacking people and entities otherwise opposed to the Liberal Party (Australia), by way of edits, new articles etc.

The fact that some of these edits and articles are sourced, does not mean that they are neutral, reliable or unbiased in nature. Particularly his use of material often sourced from Andrew Bolt, the Sunday Herald-Sun, and other Murdoch newspapers. These papers, and especially Bolt in particular, are well known, and recognised by most Australians, as pursuing a party-political agenda.

The intent of the claim demonising Getup as being a "Labor front", and the derogatory assumption about Getup members, is pretty clear too. Obviously the aim of 'brandonfarris' is not at all to provide honest and neutral information about Getup, his aim is to try to damage Getup's public reputation. The intent within his Wood article, for example, is equally clear - it's very clear that 'brandonfarris' is seeking to damage Graeme Wood's reputation because he has donated to a political party that 'brandonfarris' doesn't like - i.e. the Greens.

And there are many examples of this type of behaviour by him - for instance, the hopelessly biased edits in one direction or other about Crikey, The Age, Nicola Gobbo, James Campbell, Andrew Bolt, and other organisations/people.

Rather than indulging unfounded and false claims of "sock puppetry" about me, I would hope that Wikipedia admins would be investigating the nature of the 'sources' this person is using a little further, and ensuring that their articles are based on reliable and unbiased information. Also seems apparent I'm not the first person who's sought to try to do something about this guy's behaviour.

And I'm more than happy to defend the edits I made under the IP address prior to my having created an account here. Sam 3982 (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure if I should respond here but those reviewing the Getup article will see I merely added a 'cititation-needed' tag and then one of the sockpuppets (IPs, Sam 3982 or Garth M - they are clearly all the same person) deleted that and then proceeded to delete most of the article. I hadn't written it but I thought the deletion excessive so I reverted it, once. Then others noticed and reverted the sockpuppet's later edits. As a review of his other edits shows, this was repeated across many other articles. Clearly there's something untoward going on. The investigation certainly seems warranted. --Brandonfarris (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

There is certainly something untoward going on, and Brandonfarris just continued the "untoward" behaviour. "Untoward" here having the meaning of intentionally deceitful and defamatory conduct, that is.

Yeah, I certainly did delete substantial proportions of that article. Last time I checked, I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be written from a neutral point of view: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars

And it's very clear that a number of other people who were involved in editing there, as the history shows, agree that those parts of the article are highly contentious and blatantly dodgy.

How many people are "Brandonfarris" and "Sven" going to falsely accuse of being sock puppets, I wonder?

From astroturfing, now it seems he's moving into blatant defamation against me. I really don't appreciate having lies such as this spread about me.

I challenge any Wikipedia admin to run an IP analysis. It will clearly show that "Garth M" and I are different people, And when an IP analysis is run, and it shows this to be the case, I would certainly hope that Wikipedia admins take some form of additional action against Brandonfarris for this offensive assertion.

It's bad enough that "Sven" started this bizarre exercise here. Sam 3982 (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The type of language used by Garth M, Sam 3982 and the IPs involved is even the same too. He might change IPs but the sockpuppetry is all too obvious. --Brandonfarris (talk) 21:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Can I call for any sort of additional investigation into Brandonfarris based on his attempts to defame me here?

Garth M and I are not the same person.

But to reiterate, this is about the integrity of Wikipedia. What kind of editors do you want here. Do you want honest people who want the articles to be balanced, impartial and without opinionated slant, or do you want people like "Brandonfarris" who seeks to slant everything at any opportunity, and when called on his behaviour, starts spreading lies about the person who calls him on it, to try to muddy the waters?

Up to "Sven" and the other admins to work that out, I think. Sam 3982 (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Still waiting for that IP analysis so I can start asking for that apology from all of you.

Then we can move on to the real issue here, which is the part of the "Five Pillars" which deals with articles being written from a neutral point of view, in a balanced and impartial manner, and avoiding advocacy - and enforcement of these standards, where it concerns the behaviour by "Brandonfarris". Sam 3982 (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and do an IP analysis then. I am not Garth M or Brandonfarris. I've barely involved myself in Wikipedia at all until I heard about what was going on with this "Brandonfarris" issue. Not exactly hard to work out my IP address either, given that my initial attempts to edit here show exactly what my IP address is. Not hard to work out the location of my IP address either, and that it's not linked to any sort of proxy server.

And while you're at it, read the Pure Poison blog article as linked. I'm certainly not the only one who's read it. And from looking around earlier today, I'm not the only one who came on here after seeing the article to try to do something about this. Although it seems I'm the only one who hasn't given up on trying to see some sort of proper resolution yet.

Sorry if it's a problem me putting this comment here. But given that a straight-out lie has just been run about me again by another user this time, I felt it fair that I have right of reply at the very least.

Certainly I'll be calling for an apology when this is over. Sam 3982 (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

In reply to Hersfold:

I would suggest the accusations by "Brandonfarris" were entirely in bad faith, as such false accusations by him were clearly intended to deflect away from his misconduct in trying to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to falsely damage the perception of various people and organisations he doesn't like. Sam 3982 (talk) 23:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Please keep comments about innocence out of this area, thank you. Alexandria (chew out) 21:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been watching this editor (Brandonfarris) for the last few days, and I am more likened to think that the sockpuppet is in fact who was topic banned from a particular article they were edit warring on, due to a conflict of interest. I am going mark this one as, and a checkuser can decide who to run checks on, but my gut says it's more likely to be Garth M rather than Brandonfarris.  Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 21:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, this section is only for comments by clerks, checkusers, and patrolling administrators. Please keep your comments in the appropriate section. Thank you. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 23:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * , leaning ❌. Geographically, none of them are terribly far away from each other, but Sam is in a different location from both of the accused masters, and none of them use the same computer. I would, however, ask the accused to calm down a bit. Assertions of sockpuppetry made in good faith are not intended to be personal attacks; now that a checkuser has been run, let's all get back to peacefully editing articles. Getting worked up about this is only going to inflame the situation further, which often causes other problems down the road. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 23:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Nothing else needs to be done here. Closing. Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 23:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)