Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FiG8/Archive

11 August 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This all relates to the Fiona Graham article. For a fuller explanation, please see DRN discussion. I left out IPs who have not edited the article this year. Bbb23 (talk) 11:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My oversight on the stale master, sorry. I was focused on picking the earliest registered user as the master, and I didn't pay attention to the latest edits, only the earliest ones.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2011 (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'm endorsing only to see if K1nchTKB == Mrceep. CU won't connect IPs to accounts, and the master listed here is stale. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 12:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Mrceep and K1nchTKB are, but they're both on different devices, which leaves room for doubt. –MuZemike 02:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. K1nchTKB hasn't edited in a few weeks, anyway, so I think we can close this for now. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

The article on Fiona Graham has been plagued with COI sockpuppets since roughly 2010 - I'm pretty sure the article itself was created by Fiona Graham, as evidenced by the numerous copyright messages and edit warnings on the Talk page for, whom I suspect to be have been the original "master" puppet, so to speak, though this account has not been active for over a decade.

Periodically, accounts are created to either remove details of a court case, re-work the text so that Graham is once again "the first Western geisha", or remove details of other Western geisha from the Geisha page and section.

Recent edits by follow a pattern of removing information that would not otherwise by "helpful" in polishing Graham's outward appearance, and the addition of Graham as the "first caucasian on record" to become a geisha. Further, previous edits show user removing well-sourced (if not exactly perfectly written) information due to users having "bad intent", "trying to cause damage to reputation", and user  posting on the BLP Noticeboard about damage to Graham's career over the inclusion of a small section on a court case Graham happened to be involved in. User has pointed out that the revolving-door removal of this section does not stand up due to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and the pattern of edits and edit summaries conducted by these users support, I feel, at least some sockpuppets conducting edits with the sole intention of making Graham look good.

The most recent edit, removing marketing copy added by, also follows this pattern, as do a series of struckthrough edits conducted by between 7th November 2017 and 29th November 2017, with some also being conducted in 2019.

This edit shows the second IP address listed pruning information deemed in the edit summary to be "years old" and "irrelevant to Graham's career", with a section on a court case entirely blanked, and the accuracy of several references disputed in-article in a way that seems close to a non-NPOV. I could go on in terms of diff examples, but I'd be here all week.

The pattern of editing throughout these accounts - dedicated only to the Fiona Graham article, only editing the Geisha page to remove details that don't support Graham's official line on being the First Westerner Ever, the consistent addition of either unsourced or copyrighted material from Graham's website - is clear enough. It's obvious that periodic bans of certain accounts do not work, and that the sockpuppets will keep on coming if left alone.

The edits contribute little more than vandalism. The users above span roughly a decade in edits, though there are likely some sockpuppets and diffs I have missed, for which I apologise - however, enough's enough, and I'd just like someone to look into this. Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 15:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Accusations by Ineffablebookkeeper are not substantiated with any evidence with examples. No changes have been made by myself which can be interpreted as "vandalism". Personally, I have not removed any material relating to "other" non-Japanese Geisha. Neither is there any evidence, as suggested that edits made by myself could be characterised as "removing information that would not otherwise be "helpful" in polishing Graham's outward appearance. Neither is there any available evidence that edits I have made could reasonably be accused of "trying to cause damage to reputation" of individual(s).

Let us look at the article in detail. The edit suggesting that graham was the first caucasian geisha on record is based on the fact that previous training geisha did not =complete training as gesiha, nor practice as geisha, for any amount of time following their individual projects, either in Japan or anywhere else for which there is a record. The fact that Graham was the first caucasian seems to be a noteworthy point in an article about non-Japanese geisha. There are suggestions that other non-Japanese geisha may have trained and worked prior, but this is speculation, and no names are available for any of those persons, hence, the suggestion that graham is the first caucasian geisha on record is not inaccurate, but rather, consistent with the public record.

It it quite obvious that Ineffablebookkeeper is trying to lump any and all contributors to the page into one group, and labelling them as sock puppets, in order rot demonise them, and criticising anybody's work as vadalism. In reality, it is much more likely that, and certainly in my own case, that changes made are simply ones that are not in line with the agenda of this previously-mentioned editor. I agree that enough is enough. I have read extensively through the edit history on many of the pages relating to this article, and the campaign of edits made by the previously mentioned individual are aimed primarily at damaging the material interests of Fiona Graham. An investigation whether or not the editor in question is related to the subject in some way, a direct competitor in the same field as graham, and whether or not said editor stands to gain materially from graham's disadvantage. Individuals wishing to do harm to graham and her work prospects exist, as can be seen on social media accounts by several prominent practicing geisha, even ins neighbourhoods that Graham is known to have worked. Any investigation should take account of these facts, and establish whether or not editorial accounts attempting to dominate the article on Fiona Graham are inked to those individuals.--Rhubarb86 (talk) 05:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, the claim that added information relating to Graham's work as a geisha (of which nearly all of the added material relates to) is "very old" or "irrelevant" on a page about a known and currently practicing geisha, is obviously ridiculous, and of course, consistent with all other complaints, which have not been explained or substantiated in any sense. Any and all information added with regards to Geisha Activities has been sourced appropriately and citied according to requirements.--Rhubarb86 (talk) 05:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I've removed the stale registered users and all of the IPs, which are also stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Rhubarb86 and Genebean1234 are ✅ to each other along with . .--Bbb23 (talk) 13:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing more to do. Closing. Cabayi (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)