Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GabrielF/Archive

24 January 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 " ~ "''


 * -relation to GabrielF
 * -same style editing as GabrielF
 * - same style editing as GabrielF, and evidence of following my edits-
 * The edit types change drastically once I asked another editor for help-
 * I invented "it's not you, it's me" than returns to following me -
 * I revert I invented "it's not you, it's me"'s revert, than Rym torch is created and reverts my revert as seen in the last link. Passionless   -Talk  22:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I explained poorly, I believed the two socks to be related more than the alledged master to the socks-he was just most likely...The part on drastic changes was about the sock(I invented)'s edit habit changed. Passionless   -Talk  16:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' I don't really understand how the above constitutes evidence. I looked through the history of Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict back to 2008 and I don't see any time when I edited that page. Same with Saeb Erekat. I also don't understand how my edit types changed "drastically" after Passionless' post on a friend's talk page. I'm not really sure how Passionless can make this deduction after less than 48 hours.

As far as I can tell, the only page where Passionless and I have come into conflict is at List of Israeli attacks on Palestinian targets, 2011. In that case I posted a lengthy explanation of my reasoning for the edit on the talk page and did not receive a response from Passionless.

Instead of commenting on the content of my edits, Passionless has jumped right into unsubstantiated accusations about my behavior. I hope that in the future we can assume good faith and discuss edits that you feel are problematic on the relevant talk pages first. GabrielF (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
There's not a lot I can tell you here. One editor is editing from one end of the country (GabrielF), one from the other (I invented "it's not you, it's me"), and the third is using a mobile device (Rym torch). I would say for the first two and the third is a tossup. TN X Man 14:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither of the accused socks has edited since this case was opened, so I'm closing for now without any action taken. Feel free to relist if there are new developments. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

13 September 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

here are the difs in question for the above IP addresses, which you can see systematically revoved all negative content from the article. Worth noting that all IP's be;ong to sembler.com, which is owned by the subject of the article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mel_Sembler&diff=prev&oldid=474848949

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mel_Sembler&diff=prev&oldid=474848537

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mel_Sembler&diff=prev&oldid=474848485

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mel_Sembler&diff=prev&oldid=474848438

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mel_Sembler&diff=prev&oldid=474848403

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mel_Sembler&diff=prev&oldid=474848352

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mel_Sembler&diff=prev&oldid=474848294

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mel_Sembler&diff=prev&oldid=325693820

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mel_Sembler&diff=prev&oldid=339225956

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mel_Sembler&diff=prev&oldid=299339680

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mel_Sembler&diff=prev&oldid=299339367

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mel_Sembler&diff=prev&oldid=289946176

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mel_Sembler&diff=prev&oldid=289946075

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mel_Sembler&diff=prev&oldid=152701590

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mel_Sembler&diff=prev&oldid=145242196

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mel_Sembler&diff=prev&oldid=141425509

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mel_Sembler&diff=prev&oldid=131859515

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mel_Sembler&diff=prev&oldid=131859261

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mel_Sembler&diff=prev&oldid=131858965

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mel_Sembler&diff=prev&oldid=131858201

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mel_Sembler&diff=prev&oldid=303551175

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mel_Sembler&diff=prev&oldid=148512832

these occurred in spurts, systematically between 2007 and 2011 if i recall. Once it was pointed out on the talk page for the article that these IP's had been traced to sembler.com, the blankings ceased and shortly thereafter, GabrielF appears doing similar blanking of ALL negative content in the article with this edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mel_Sembler&diff=485842728&oldid=485840722

The similar type of blanking and the timing of it lead me to believe these are the same person. I called him out on his first mass blanking edit at the time on his talk page, and he referred me to Assume good faith. In retrospect i should not have let it drop then, as now he has gotten more conservative in his blanking and is claiming BLP issues for a certain piece he wants blanked rather than doing carte blanche blank of all negative content. What I suspect is he is connected to the previous edits. Can someone check his IP history to see if he has posted anything from the 208.69.24.0/24 block? Given the range it will be a bit of work, but given the timing and similar blanking activity, I am rather certain he is working for sembler to edit the page, and most likely has done so at least once from that block. Snertking (talk) 11:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

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

This SPI is completely unreasonable. My edits fell completely within WP:BRD. I removed two sections from Mel Sembler over BLP issues. Snertking has now acknowledged, after heaping abuse on me, that one of those sections needed removal. Multiple experienced editors have endorsed these deletions at WP:BLPN and at WP:ANI. See Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and ANI. Snertking's "evidence" for this accusation is that I removed material from an article per WP:BLP and that between 2007 and 2011 someone from the article subject's company also edited the article. If an editor can be subject to an SPI under such circumstances, it would undermine WP:BOLD and create a hostile environment. I would also add that Snertking's accusation that I am some sort of partisan for Sembler is contradicted by fact. I rewrote nearly all of Straight, Incorporated, the source of this controversy. I would encourage you to read it and to tell me whether you believe it hides or glosses over the problems with that organization. This request is harassment and it should be declined. GabrielF (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - . This is one of the more baseless SPIs I've seen in a while. Closed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)