Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Flowersforparis/Archive

01 June 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Removed same things that this IP did on Zeitgeist: The Movie. Island Monkey talk the talk 07:32, 1 June 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
– First off, CU will not explicitly link a user to an IP on-wiki via CU evidence. Moreover, it looks rather clear via behavioral evidence and editing patterns that the IP and the registered account are the same and should be handled accordingly. –MuZemike 07:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The IP is blocked, so this editor is now forced into editing from their account. I'm going to leave it alone for now. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 12:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * moved from Sockpuppet investigations/76.169.62.86 to Sockpuppet investigations/Flowersforparis SpitfireTally-ho! 19:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

25 May 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Flowersforparis is a WP:SPA for articles related to The Zeitgeist Movement. Last time he was reported here, User:76.169.62.86 was blocked on behavioral evidence. That block expired, and he has not been back since using that IP address. The address geolocates to Los Angeles. Starting earlier today, there have been personal attacks on Talk:Peter Joseph starting with this edit by an IP in the same range as the 2011 IP (also geolocating to Los Angeles), clearly the same individual. I reverted the personal attack (more than once). Then along comes a brand new account (DX67b) who restores the personal attack and adds one of his own in this series of edits. I reverted that, too. The last thing that happened was Flowersforparis restoring the personal attacks with this edit, which, I, you guessed it, reverted. I suppose I could block everyone based on WP:DUCK, but I saw an opportunity to link the accounts technically, assuming I'm right. Of course, the accounts could be blocked for reasons other than sock puppetry as well. Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 25 May 2013 (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

 * ✅ plus . -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  10:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked master for 2 weeks, IP for a month, indef'ed the socks. Tagged, closing. Dennis Brown - 2¢  - © - @ - Join WER 20:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

04 April 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

The article The Zeitgeist Movement has been subject to a fair amount of meat puppetry and some confirmed sock puppetry in the past. This accounts listed here could be either socks or meat puppets, which is in part why I requested a CU. I also requested a CU for sleepers.

The edits involve material about Z-Day and its history going back to 2009, advocacy of the movement, and the addition of See also articles. If you look at this edit on March 22 by the master, you should take note of two things. First, the material about Z-Day before 2014 already existed in the article. I checked back a ways, and it's been there for some time. The master added material about the most recent 2014 event. On March 28, (not a sock) removed all the Z-Day history, keeping only the most recent 2014 event in this edit. On April 4, Uvanor, in their first and only edit restored the material. Then Fixuture.member ("FM"), after Earl reverted, restored the material, as well as doing a couple of other things: (1) they removed some criticsm from the article and (2) they added five articles to the See also list.

It's time to discuss FM as they are more complicated than Uvanor. FM created their account in September 2013, and did their first edit in September, which was the addition of Echoeee and creation of their user page (whatever that signifies). They didn't start editing until January 12, 2014. They have only 33 edits thus far, so they haven't done much. Their two main interests appear to be surveillance and Zeitgeist. With respect to the latter, they created Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/Culture in Decline (Web series), which was rejected by AFC. The submission is about a web series created and hosted by Peter Joseph, the "creator of the renowned Zeitgeist Trilogy". They obviously like Joseph and the movement. FM also made these edits to Zeitgeist: Addendum adding four articles to the See also list. The See also articles were reverted by Earl. Then, on April 4, FM started editing at The Zeitgeist Movement. I reverted their entire edit (Z-Day, See also, removal of criticism). FM then restored only four of the See also articles. I reverted again and told them to take it to talk, which they did. When I commented that it was their burden to justify each See also, they never responded.

Then Pellucid00 comes along and makes their one and only edit here, changing material in the article and adding several external links. Interestingly, their account was created on October 19, 2010, and sat dormant until today. Their edit was reverted here.

In summary, the issues here are timing (everything started happening at the same time on April 4) and the pro-movement edits. Bbb23 (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2014 (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
Note: I have blocked as a sock of Flowersforparis per WP:DUCK. He's now assuring me on his page that he has a completely different IP. I've asked him how he knows what IP Flowersforparis has, and if he's aware of WP:MEAT. Bishonen &#124; talk 06:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC).
 * - Per above. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 21:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * is a ✅ match to Flowersforparis.
 * Everyone else is ❌ to Flowersforparis, and unless there is some use of proxies that I have not detected, they appear to be ❌ to one another. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Closing. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

12 July 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

The two new unblocked accounts have edited only Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement, same section. Listit was created first on July 4. Their last edit blanking their talk page occurred on July 10 at 01:18. Wowo was created four minutes later. Other than the obvious topic intersection by all the SPA accounts, the edits of the two new accounts and some of the confirmed socks follow a particular style of literate/aggressive. Compare Listit's edit; Wowo's edit; DX67b's edit; and Reinventor098's edit. Notice in Listit's diff earlier the use of "we" ("you ignore it and pretend we don't exist"). The same with DX67b's eidt ("Then we need to get the anti- pj crowd cited and removed from this page by wikipedia"). Notice that Wowo's edit uses the phrase "simple searches", as does Listit's. This first edit by Listit already talks about sock puppets, as does this edit by Wowo; both talk about paid advocates.

Aeon was blocked on June 28 for WP:NOTHERE. However, their edits evince a similar style. For example this edit talks about "reliable sources" (a favorite theme of these accounts, along with "credible sources"), and slander (another theme - see here). This edit uses "we" ("There's no HQ because TZM isn't a cult, like critics want it to be, we host events, that's it."). This edit uses the word "bullshit", as does this edit. Bbb23 (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2014 (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

 * These accounts are the same person. I don't have enough info to link them to the sockmaster  Guerillero  &#124;  My Talk  00:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that I filed this report and the CU findings are not unequivocal, I'll let another clerk take it from here.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * & are sockmaster . Digging through CU data, none of these accounts are . It is  the rest of the accounts are to the  group. Ping me if you need more info to close this case. --  DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  04:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * , all the accounts listed here are listed at Sockpuppet investigations/Zeitgeist-Movement-Member. Therefore, the best thing to do is just close this and make the necessary blocks, etc., over there. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Merging Sockpuppet investigations/Zeitgeist-Movement-Member here. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 19:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

21 July 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Accounts are active entirely on the Zeitgeist Movement page, frequently engaging in forum-type discussions. Several of them appear immediately after a previous account gets blocked. They use a lot of the same rhetoric regarding the movement and its ideals, as well as making the same arguments against using reliable sources. Checkuser would help verify a linkage and potentially be useful in dealing with further socking, which seems likely at this point. The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Added another account that appears to be behaviorally indistinguishable.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 19:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The rhetoric used by the various socks tends to be ranting about "science", describing trade as corrupt or unscientific, repeatedly talking of an "open source society", and using "slander" to refer to any material about the movement the individual dislikes. The occasional repetition of previous lines or posts from other accounts and striking similarity in word usage, together with the timing of each account's arrival, suggests this is one person operating multiple accounts. Many posts above are similarly structured with examples from ZMM, Aeon, Nanforgon, and Listitgamedelaywales.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Zeitgeist-Movement-Member -
 * Aeon-characteristic - (the use of "bullshit" and talk of "critical thought is similar to this post from Listitgamedelaywales)
 * Nanforgon -
 * Canobanbon - (note both this account and the previous one use the term "unsustainable" to described free market capitalism)
 * Listitgamedelaywales - (this post is identical to one later made by Wowormsbase)  (the "lovingly support" line is later repeated by Nhtgrfjtf).
 * Groshnte -

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


 * Probably the same person. No other edits to other pages except this 'movement' one. They are just making annoying blog stuff on the talk page. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Bbb23 here is one more brand new account that is exactly the same protocol as the others https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grsgrsgse&action=edit&redlink=1 and a recent new account edit on the same page. Earl King Jr. (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
All previously unblocked accounts indeffed and tagged. All previously blocked accounts, including the master, tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * - King of  &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * - King of  &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 02:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Overall, the accounts listed can be considered as they are related based on checkuser information. PhilKnight (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * & are sockmaster  (aka ✅). --  DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  03:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

15 January 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

68.7.95.95 is a precocious new editor devoted to two things: Promotional editing on Zeitgeist pages, and harassing Earl King Jr. In an AN/I thread about Earl King Jr, 68.7.95.95 cited some obscure old comments by Flowersforparis, a known sockmaster devoted to two things - promotional editing on Zeitgeist pages, and harassing Earl King Jr. 68.7.95.95 geolocates to the same area as previous Flowersforparis IPs, and.

Concerns about sockpuppetry were previously raised by Earl King Jr, and by MONGO, for different reasons; I came to the same conclusion after looking at different evidence... bobrayner (talk) 01:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

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


 * Bobrayner nailed this one so checkuser is just a formality really. That's some loud quacking!--MONGO 02:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * .I suspect so yes. The suspect sock uses the same language even of the others, the classic gatekeeper word common with conspiracy people. one of their websites uses those terms and calls people to Wikipedia to try and make a series of articles into connected 'walled gardens' of their information. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh I feel special. Thanks for the random attention, I guess. I would defend myself, but it seems you guys forgot to bring evidence :) Accusations are not evidence. In order for this not to happen again, please familiarize yourselves with WP:SIGNS. I also would like to underscore that it could be considered harassment to repeatedly and publicly accuse people of sock puppetry (as you each have done), or to use your accusations as justification to revert edits (Earl King Jr.) or as justification to strikethrough another editors comments (bobrayner). At the very least it is unproductive and uncivil. Please keep to the topic at hand. Even if you're right about a SP, it's best to gather your evidence then submit the SPI. I'd appreciate it if, after this, you three would treat me with civility like the NPOV editor I have always proven myself to be. Unless you are a team of POV editors and I'm not in the club? If so, then I expect you will continue your SP accusations. Anyway, there sure are a lot of strong emotions around this one topic. Not a productive environment at all for building an encyclopedia.—68.7.95.95 (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC), edited 68.7.95.95 (talk) 11:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
There's not going to be a CU run against an IP. This report needs more diffs/evidence tying the IP to the master or a confirmed puppet, not just bare statements about the IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Closing for lack of evidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)