Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FortyTwoAndAHalf/Archive

04 October 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Both accounts were created October 4, both accounts appear to be created for the sole purpose of patrolling Ronan Farrow, both accounts have taken the same side in an edit dispute in which they are attempting to revert and obfuscate referenced material, both accounts are online at the same time. (The material in question is of an, admittedly and regrettably, possibly salacious nature, however, has been the subject of wide reportage and is wholly appropriate for this, otherwise, cotton candy biography.) BlueSalix (talk) 08:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Due to the sheer volume of single-purpose Ronan Farrow accounts that CheckUser has shown to have been created for the purpose of removing salacious, but factual and referenced, information on Ronan Farrow, I looked at the history of this page from creation in 2004. There appears to be a long history of one-off accounts being created (or IP editors) that add complimentary - or remove critical - information on this article. For this reason, I further request the exceptional step of IP disclosure for the below indicated sockpuppets. CheckUser allows IP disclosure where the user has been vandalising articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, data may be released to non-checkusers to allow the making of IP blocks or rangeblocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers or network operators. (I ask this as I have cause to suspect these sockpuppets may be directly related to subject of entry, for reasons I cannot iterate here due to WP Privacy Policy, however, I believe the publicly available information supports this request on its own merits.) BlueSalix (talk) 15:44, 4 October 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

 * The following accounts are ✅ as each other:


 * Note that FortyTwoAndAHalf is the oldest account. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The request for IP disclosure is . Whether it is or isn't him is immaterial, and you could never explicitly tell that from the IP anyway. The most you can get from the IP is what region it is from. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked the master for one week and the rest of the accounts indef. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Tagged and closing. Rschen7754 18:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

12 October 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets
 * Special:Contributions/173.70.40.227
 * Special:Contributions/99.192.69.120
 * Special:Contributions/173.70.40.227
 * Special:Contributions/99.192.69.120
 * Special:Contributions/173.70.40.227
 * Special:Contributions/99.192.69.120
 * Special:Contributions/173.70.40.227
 * Special:Contributions/99.192.69.120
 * Special:Contributions/99.192.69.120


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

(1) Article Ronan Farrow is a lightly trafficked article that attracts very little attention. (2) Seven sockpuppets led by User:FortyTwoAndAHalf were recently banned from WP after a CheckUser. (3) AsadR has been inactive from Wikipedia for 5 years. When he was active from 2006-2008 he made 19 edits, 12 of which had to do with Ronan or Mia Farrow. (4) Less than 48 hours after the seven User:FortyTwoAndAHalf socks were banned - on October 7, 2013 - AsadR reactivated his 5-year dormant account, created his first ever userpage declaring he was here to defend "honor and justice on Wikipedia" (plus some miscellaneous biographical info), began rolling back edits made to Ronan Farrow and participating in Talk dialog supporting the same positions the banned socks had supported and using a similar tone of voice. (He has made some other edits since reactivating his account, however, these have primarily been of a non-substantive nature, as though to establish the appearance of a non single purpose account edit history.)

It seems incredible to believe a user who had made 19 edits, 5 years ago, would suddenly decide to become re-involved in Wikipedia less than 48 hours after 7 single-purpose socks editing the same account he was also singularly interested in were banned. I have not requested CheckUser as I believe this case stands on its own. (P.S., there are more than a dozen other, single-purpose accounts that have been almost entirely responsible for writing the Ronan Farrow article over the last 5 years, like User:Chuandai; it may be these are all answering to the same sockmaster as well.) BlueSalix (talk) 08:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC) BlueSalix (talk) 08:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In point of clarification, I am aware a large number of sockpuppets (see above) and anonymous IP editors, supported by one confirmed editor - who has recently engaged in a spate of name calling, declarations of my being "disingenious" and so forth - have accused me of "POV/dirsuptive edits" since undoing sockpuppet edits to the account in question (which they have, since, reinserted). This massive quantity of accounts have been very verbose using all of their bandwidth to declare "multiple editors" have opposed my rollbacks of sockpuppet promo language (in each case, these "multiple editors" are the aforementioned socks and IP editors); this attempt to use sock and IP accounts to create the appearance of wide ranging support should be taken into account.
 * The unrelenting parade of socks and IP editors who have been making severely disruptive edits, rollbacks and insertion of promotional language into this article - then running off anyone who attempts to undo them with false accusations of "POV editing" and, when that fails, simple name calling - has created an almost untenable situation. The article, at my request, has already semi-protected and additional protection may be warranted. (Vis a vis the dramatic claim by Tenebrae that I "defamed" a living person by using a "gossip blog" - the "gossip blog" in question was Politico, a mainstream news website and was already contained in the article with a selective quote. I simply added a balancing quote from the same article to avoid WP:UNDUE as part of the sock vandalism recovery process. Here's the original, fairly routine (non-defamatory) article. Tenebrae objected to the edit and reverted it and I accepted his reversion, moving it to Talk for discussion; fairly pro forma WP collaborative editing. Not sure what this has to do with the sock investigation, other than smokescreening, but please feel free to PM me if you'd like diffs.) BlueSalix (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (1) The column in question ("Lauren Rozen on Foreign Policy") was a long-running column covering appointments at the US DoS, not an opinion column and not even a column I inserted (as noted above). Here are the full archives of the column as proof. (2) I'm not going to address any more issue related to a Ronan Farrow content warring here. This is a clear and evident sock case and that's it. (3) I'm not going to address this continued smokescreening or attempts to "turn the tables" by declaring I'm, in fact, the one trying to "game" Ronan Farrow, when I was the one who uncovered the 7 (since blocked) sockpuppets and 4 IP editors inserting promo language and now attempting to aggressively defend it. (4) I have repeatedly asked another editor to stop referring to "points other editors bring up" when the other editors in question are banned socks and IP editors in a heavily promo'ed biography. This attempt to leverage socks and IP editors to create appearance of wide-ranging opinion or consensus should be noted. BlueSalix (talk) 23:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Just to note that this is a bad faith claim and a transparent attempt to deflect scrutiny from this user's disruptive edits, which, as he has conceded, have caused him to run afoul of several other, more senior editors such as Tenebrae. (See that editor's blistering critiques of BlueSalix at Talk:Ronan_Farrow for example.) It goes without saying that the accusation of sockpuppetry has zero basis in fact. It is inaccurate to describe my contributions, both before and after the hiatus described, as "insubstantial". I am a primary contributor to numerous other articles (see, for instance, my extensive contributions to Vali Nasr. And my edits to Ronan Farrow have been extensively sourced and upheld by other editors. This kind of attack investigation should be discouraged.AsadR (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * User:BlueSalix has been disruptive, disingenuous and operating in bad faith in order to put politically biased, derogatory POV into Ronan Farrow &mdash; including one negative item about this living person that was cited to a political-gossip blog "quoting" unnamed, anonymous "sources." Other editors aside from AsadR have taken exception to BlueSalix's edits and his argumentativeness over not getting his way. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * As he is so wont to do, BlueSalix in his discussion of Politico above fails to address the fact that he was citing an opinion column, not a news story, and was quoting non-accountable, anonymous, unnamed "sources." He does this, and it's maddening: He'll refuse to acknowledge, let alone address, specific points other editors bring up, and then mischaracterize facts. It's getting to a point where I'm beginning to think he's playing a game &mdash; as another, long-banned editor once did claiming he was "doing a paper" on how Wikipedia could be disrupted. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Whatever else Leah Rozen writes for Politico, the cite in question was an opinion column. BlueSalix continues to refuse to address that he was tarring the article subject with an opinion columns's non-accountable, anonymous, unnamed "sources," as if Wikipedia were a supermarket tabloid. Unbelievable. And to say that every other editor but him and me are sockpuppets is simply incredible and, so far, unproven allegations. He is so obsessed with his political bias, he's throwing around accusations like confetti. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - - Reason will be provided over IRC. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In addition to infromation that has been provided over IRC, I note that AsadR returns from a five year long editing hiatus to leap into the same topic area as all of the other socks, at the same time that they are created. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The following accounts are ✅


 * Very, basically ✅ to be related is:


 * Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Since AsadR continues to sock and edit war after being caught socking and edit warring, I have just blocked all accounts indef. He is free to promise to stop in an unblock request. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

15 January 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Alright, this is gonna be a long one because there's a history here ... forgive me ...

This entry is, quite possibly, the most heavily gamed PR entry on Wikipedia right now. The subject is closing major TV and book deals and - as a result - there has been an historic effort to burnish this into a sterling biography of accomplishments. In a more unusual departure from the norm, the sockmaster has historically been very active in attacking established WP editors and even using his multiple IDs to create the appearance of consensus to call for admin intervention against established editors on the grounds their contributions in undoing sock edits are "disruptive." (3 of the sockmasters recently banned personalities came quite close to getting a disruptive editing ban placed on me recently through sheer force of volume).

Fifteen different sockpuppets affiliated with this entry have recently been investigated and banned at my request in different waves(see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/FortyTwoAndAHalf/Archive). The newest batch socks and IPs undo edits without comment if they insert less-than-stellar, though referenced, information about subject. 108.50.220.60, for instance, is offline for months but then becomes active (literally within minutes of non-PR friendly edits being made) conducting blanket rollbacks. (I just ran a test - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/108.50.220.60 Note in his undos, 108.50.220.60 [who has made less than 10 edits in 2 years], makes specific mention of me being "previously warned" about inserting two specific sources in this entry because they were "POV" (People Magazine and Politico) - exactly the same language sockpuppet AsadR, one of the major sock IDs of the PR agency who is running all these socks, used several months ago in ref to the same sources, before he was blocked. Does an IP editor who has only made 10 edits in his life, 8 of which are undos, review months of talk page interactions and edit history?)

Please note the previously banned socks, in many cases, began making a series of minor and incidental edits before delving full-time into Farrow, the purpose being to establish an edit history and negate sock accusations. The frequent MO is a series of unrelated edits from several years ago, account goes dormant, and then periodically becomes active again specifically to eliminate any non-PR friendly info placed in the entry. The newest batch use the same M.O. as already banned socks.

''As an aside, I'd also generally ask, anyone who sees this request and is so inclined, if you have extra time please help out with this page for awhile. I'm basically running a one-man show and am drowning; every time I file one of these I'm subject to a level of vitriol and viciousness by the coordinated sock personalities that you can't even begin to imagine. I'm living under constant threat of a well-intentioned Admin who doesn't know the history of this issue blocking me because 4 different paid socks file a ANI against me when I'm not online. The only thing anyone can do to this entry at present is report socks, it's impossible to actually edit it; the sockmaster knows about the 3-revert rule and uses his IP and confirmed personalities to alternate his undos. I'm not a super-experienced WP editor and have stumbled upon an entry being patrolled by a paid edit agency pursuing a "strategy of exhaustion." It is out of my league and needs someone more experienced involved. I'm doing the best I can but I just need a little bit of help, please. (Also, I have further info I've uncovered offline about the agency in question but I don't know where to go with it.)'' BlueSalix (talk) 10:04, 15 January 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
There's not enough behavioural evidence to make me suspect Jermore is a sock, and checkuser investigations are almost never appropriate on IP addresses. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  12:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've semi-protected the page, which should take the wind out of the IP socks for a while. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Closing case per Yunshui's analysis. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)