Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Desiphral/Archive

Report date September 13 2009, 22:26 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Based on this link which is from the user's Elance account, (click on the projects link in the box) this user is at it again. See also Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive198 All of this user's sockpuppet accounts stopped at the same time so it is likely that he is using ban evasion through sockpuppets.  Triplestop  x3  22:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * NEW
 * NEW
 * Evidence submitted by  Triplestop  x3

Note to CheckUser, I am asking for an inspection on the sock puppets' IPs and/or neighboring IP ranges (if possible) to find suspicious users. Please refer to the Projects section on the elance page for edits to look out for. Projects listed include a blatant PR vanity page for some CEO and a spam page on some restaurant chain.

I am a noted professional in my industry, and want to create a personal Wikipedia page.

However, my CV is lengthy, so distilling it to highlight important matter requires an intuitive, PR-savvy writer. From Elance job description


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I mention that only two months ago I went through a checkuser on exactly the same accusations. The issue was that I mentioned then sincerely the relation with the other people (some of them now part of Tayzen team), although I could shut up and wait for a checkuser to get me clear. However, I met the guys with strong opinions against paid editing and I got blocked for speaking freely about this issue. This while those users actually accused of paid editing were free to edit. Fortunately, I met on wikien-l people more open to talk about such issues (the relevant thread), one of them run a chekuser, found nothing wrong and unblocked me. I was also covered in an article of one of the teams working in this field.

It seems that my accusations of unprofessionalism and bias that got me blocked then are once again confirmed. There were no apologies two months ago after I was unblocked, on the contrary, now my userpage has again the "sockpuppet" notice. For an issue that got no new developments in the meantime (in fact, as Nathan remarked, none of the accused accounts are editing). I mention that I keep having a cordial relation in real life with some of the people from Tayzen team that are accused of paid editing, I keep saying that the actual edits of a certain user should be judged, not the the views and the motivation for editing of the respective user. And, of course, this issues should be discussed openly, otherwise we get this kind of Wikipedia culture, as I said then and I was blocked, "ending up as a police state or as an African National Park with thrilled hunters". By now, the real problem brought by paid editing seems to be this permitted "mob violence" against suspects. And, of course, the vested interests, as pointed out by the guys from Tayzen team. There is no real interest in actually dealing with the paid editing, there is no focus on specific paid editing, but on specific users. There are other Elance accounts gaining Wikipedia-related projects, but only Tayzen is targeted at Wikipedia, thus only helping the others getting the projects, the actual paid editing is not decreasing. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 18:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Desiphral, you previously admitted to allowing other people to use your account to edit but stated that you now understood that this violates Wikipedia policy. Can you describe (again, if you have before, and as concisely as possible) your relationship to these other people, whether you or others at your place of business/residence continue to edit using your accounts or others, and whether you or others are paid for these edits? Your answers will inform the results of this case. Thanks, Nathan  T 15:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In the years 2006 - 2008, especially in the summer months, some of the edits of my English Wiki user account were the result of real life talk of me and other people in front of the computer with me at keyboard or with others at keyboard. Everything was under my supervision, I was pleased that Wikipedia coverage on the specific field I'm interested in increased considerably with material I'm not ashamed of (and also a bit extended in Wikipediae in languages I don't know) and that also those who participated gained experience of editing at Wikipedia. After the summer of 2008, I did not have time for Wikipedia anymore. Personally, I hope I'll have the time to come back someday and continue the editing in what I'm interested in. Some of these guys kept an interest in Wikipedia and went with their own accounts. Two months ago I learned about what is saying about me here in connection to them, then, when I came to respond, I learned also that my previous practice could be interpreted as a multiple account. Regarding the current status, I still don't edit and I don't know whether I'll have the time to resume it soon. As for the others, after seeing the current atmosphere surrounding the "paid editing" issue, it's obvious they won't be fairly treated. My opinion is that first this issue should be regulated to assure in practice a fair approach, not some users telling them that their work is illicit and spam, no matter what. Plus that my current discussions with them are mostly about what are they are currently experiencing in relation with the so-called "paid editing round-up" and on theoretical level about the concept of paid editing, there is no need to dwell in specific details about their work. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 17:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In other words, you know these people are abusing multiple accounts and you are not cooperating.  Triplestop  x3  19:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users

Requested by  Triplestop  x3  22:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC) However, you should probably list the suspected socks listed in the AN thread here for convenience. MuZemike 16:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Note that none of the above accounts are editing or currently blocked. Desiphral was unblocked per this message by Fred Bauder to EyeSerene, and a conversation on WikiEn-l (in which I participated). Nathan  T 16:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Taking a look. Will note for now that, , and are all . Hers fold  (t/a/c) 20:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is still in progress, I'm asking some other checkusers to take a look at it as well. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 21:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've replied on the mailing list. Brandon (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Still waiting on final word from Fred Bauder, since he was the one who did the initial checkuser. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 20:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * We have located another new account created today engaged in restoring an edit made by one of the stale accounts, and with a style similar to Desiphral. Fred Talk 00:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * And the rest of the list from the range, plus the stale account above which display the same patterns.


 * is ✅ as:


 * In addition the following are very based on editing patterns:
 * . Brandon (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh and all credit goes to Hersfold. I propose he does all the cleanup. Good idea, right? Brandon (talk) 01:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * . Brandon (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh and all credit goes to Hersfold. I propose he does all the cleanup. Good idea, right? Brandon (talk) 01:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

All accounts tagged and bagged. MuZemike 01:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Evidence submitted by MER-C
See, , and WP:COIN. Given the size of the sock drawer last time, requesting checkuser to flush out sleepers. Maybe stale, but IPs should geolocate to Munster, Ireland.MER-C 09:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
In response to MER-C, if you look at the archive the IPs are from Bucharest, Romania I believe.  Triplestop  x3  22:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser requests
Requested by MER-C 09:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

MuZemike 20:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
✅ =  =.

that the above are related to, as they are editing from the same place as his recent batch of socks did. J.delanoy gabs adds 00:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Same pattern as last time, I'd say ✅ based on behavioral evidence. Brandon (talk) 03:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

 * Blocked and tagged. Tiptoety  talk 00:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Themfromspace
This user resurrected a previously deleted page by a blocked sockpuppet of Desiphral, a banned editor who operated paid editing under a huge sockfarm. See this conversation for details on the relationship of this particular article and Desiphral's elance account which he has used to create many paid articles. The account's editing behaviour is the same as the previous few accounts: the account often creates a very short user page, then proceeds to write the article in his userspace and then transfer it to the mainspace. I hear some quacking here so I haven't asked for a CU.  Them From  Space  19:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Seems suspicious indeed. A CU should probably be done to find more spamming socks.  Triplestop  x3  19:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Next time, use the above RFCU template to request a CheckUser so an SPI clerk can take a look at it. MuZemike 20:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

– If the last CU said there is a connection here, then let's find that out. MuZemike 20:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This account, as with the last group, is obvious and ✅. as well. Brandon (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

 * Blocked and tagged. NW ( Talk ) 23:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Themfromspace
I'm opening this case back up as I am pretty certain of the relationship between the above three accounts and I have a reasonable suspicion that the puppet master is Desiphral. This case concerns paid editing requests from elance dot com, specifically the elance user New-Perspective whose three jobs so far correspond to the three above accounts. Previously Desiphral had created sock puppets to engage in paid editing from the "Tayzen" account on elance which hasn't been active there for the past several months.

Of the three projects that New-Perspective has been awarded, the earliest request, this posting, corresponds to the now-deleted article Daryl D. Green that was created by User:Yedogawa.

The second posting, the "private job", is a follow-up to this posting, bid on by Tayzen, which may or may not correspond to the Milliamp (company) article deleted at AfD, which was written by User:Dominick.j.bolden. The timing doesn't fit well here, so I'm not sure if this user is related to the rest or is another freelancer.

The latest job is this posting which corresponds to the article Nadine Spencer (this can be discovered by viewing the files posted on another one of the buyer's pages, here. The website prominently displayed in the attached files is owned by the Nadine Spencer Company). The user who fulfilled the request on Nadine Spencer is User:Himlakropp.

Himlakropp and Yedogawa are most definitely related, as they can be traced back to the same elance account. Besides this similarity, Himlakropp has linked to cozycot.com  on the French and Spanish Wikipedias. This is a domain that has been the subject of paid editing by Desiphral and his socks in the past. Also, the CozyCot article has recently been created here by User:ZhuLan.

I think it's likely that the accounts mentioned above are similar (Yedogawa and Himlakropp for sure) and I think it's also likely that Desiphral is the puppetmaster. The location of "New-Perspective" on elance is in Romania, the country that Desiphral's IP addresses have traced back to.

I would like a checkuser to go through these to see which link together and to root out any other related accounts.  Them From  Space  04:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by  Them From  Space  04:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

– The only possible check to run here is between Himlakropp and Yedogawa, as Desiphral and other socks are for Checkuser purposes (i.e. CU will be unable to establish any technical relation to Desiphral and company). Per the link to Elance as said above. –MuZemike 15:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

. The accounts are editing from the same range, but it is very busy and dynamic range, and the UAs are not the same. I honestly don't know how to call this one. J.delanoy gabs adds 16:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

No action taken at this time. It looks like both those accounts have been abandoned; unless they pop back up, I don't see much motivation in blocking, even if they were Desiphral. –MuZemike 16:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)