Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GingerBreadHarlot/Archive

23 May 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

This user and the IPs have made a number of edits over the past several months on the Leo Frank article and talk page.

In this diff, GingerBreadHarlot asks the IP x235 in the second paragraph on the right-hand side to register a username and mentions an external website. Based on the user's wording, it looks like a not-so-subtle advertisement for the website. The following comment by IP x194 then links to several external PDFs, which themselves have the same website watermarked that was linked to by the user in the previous comment. The user and IP take opposite sides, but promote the same website.

IP x220 also added a significant amount of minute detail to the article in March, also adding links to the external PDFs.

I believe the user is using the IP as a way to make it look like there is a discussion between different viewpoints, when in reality it is the same person trying to promote their website and primary materials. The timing of the IP and user posts are often close together and the content and tone of voice suggest it is the same person. Tonystewart14 (talk) 06:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

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

I believe that User:GingerBreadHarlot is actually the sock of several other editors. Based on number of edits, the number 1 User:Machn, number 7 User:Potzeey, and number 8 User:Carmelmount editors of Leo Frank have been blocked as sockpuppets. The first edit by one of these three on Frank was on 1-9-2010 and the last was on 8-21-2012. As this indicates, User:GingerBreadHarlot was previously referred as a sockpuppet of Machn -- the investigation did not result in a block because of a lack of evidence presented. However there was little discussion of the Frank article.

The history of the socks' Frank article contain a common theme -- Frank was guilty, the best evidence is the primary sources generated at the time of the trial, and reliable secondary sources are not to be trusted. Machn got in trouble because he kept harping on a Jewish conspiracy among the reliable sources -- see the discussions at Machn’s talk page by administrators jpgordon and Jayjg.

For Potzeey, this version of the Frank discussion page carries on a similar theme -- secondary sources are rejected while primary sources are vastly over-emphasized. In particular, Potzeey tries to advance Tom Watson, whose virulent antisemitic attacks on Frank contributed to his lynching, as an impartial, reliable source.

Carmelmount was primarily involved with two issues -- Frank’s height and bite marks on Mary Phagan (see ). Carmelmount was promoting information apparently obtained from an antisemitic website leofrank. org -- the same website that Tonystewart14 mentions in his discussion above (see and ).

While GingerBreadHarlot appears to not approve of this site, his other arguments echo the site. Unlike his edits prior to this year, in the last few days his discussions have echoed the arguments of the banned users. This diff is the best (worst?) example. He writes, “Dinnerstein and Oney are pseudoscholars, both repeat the phagan bitemark hoax in their book as if it is fact (To Number Our Days by Pierre van Paassen (see pages 237, 238 about the Leo Frank case)." This reference to the bite has nothing at all to do with anything that has been discussed for the last few weeks on the discussion page, but it is directly related to what Carmelmount was promoting.  Later he says of  Dinnerstein, “This is not scholarship, but a racist crime against truth.”

GingerBreadHarlot cites to support his charges against the "pseudoscholars". The website uses the extreme language against the sources used by the sockpuppets in its conclusion, stating, "Oddly enough, even though the 'Mary Phagan bitemark hoax' has been thoroughly debunked by modern scholars and forensic scientists, 21st century efforts by primarily Jewish activists and lesser extent Gentile liberals, to exonerate Leo Frank in the popular culture, continue citing the disingenuous rumors created by Pierre van Paassen as evidence of Leo Frank's innocence."

This attack on Oney and Dinnerstein goes right back to Machn with this diff where he says:

"At some point I hope every document concerning Leo Frank are made available online because they bring such clarity of truth to a topic which has been obfuscated by Oney, Dinnerstein and all the other contemporary writers who have written their books and articles with a mental outlook of victim-complex and persecution-syndrome, a manner to dupe the public into thinking a well educated Leo Frank was without question innocent, framed and railroaded by an illiterate uneducated black janitor through an Anti-Semitic legal system motivated by religious and racial hatred of Jews. The truth is in the brief of evidence and I hope this document becomes available to the public soon online because it proves without a shadow of a doubt Leo Franks guilt." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Note on checkuser comments. Apparently the IP has changed -- the most recent edits are by 64.134.98.211 . Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting info.svg Note: I wonder how the last word in this username tripped the filter... It is a synonym of prostitute, it could be blocked as an inappropriate username in conjunction as a suspected sock. We should take this to consideration, but it appears to be stale as well. The Snowager -is awake  05:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
This is stuff from months ago; checkuser won't do any good. --jpgordon:==( o ) 06:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Looked at this again because there have been recent edits.  is ❌ to the IP addresses. Risker (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Given Risker's findings, I'm closing this case with no action taken. Mike V • Talk 00:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

10 July 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Filing for the record only. I had been suspecting the IP, which dogged the steps of GingerBreadHarlot to support them, was used by the same person. When accounts are blocked, their IP is automatically also blocked, for 24 hours only, so after I indeffed GingerBreadHarlot I looked for a telltale pattern in the IP edits. And that's exactly what I saw, which convinced me. The IP is purportedly dynamic, but has obviously been used by the same person for the past couple of weeks, so I've blocked it for ten days. Bishonen &#124; talk 08:54, 10 July 2015 (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 have blocked the IP for ten days per WP:DUCK, filing for the record only, closing. Bishonen &#124; talk 08:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC).

15 July 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Hallmonitorwithbraces was created 09:48, 15 July 2015 UTC and went straight to the same Reliable sources/Noticeboard section as the other incarnations, and has edited exclusively Leo Frank & talkpage since then, to "agree" with User:GingerBreadHarlot and push GBH's favourite theme of "anti-gentilism". Bishonen &#124; talk 15:11, 15 July 2015 (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
Blocked per WP:DUCK. Filing for the record only, closing. Bishonen &#124; talk 15:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC).

31 August 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

User:GingerBreadHarlot has been blocked indefinitely due to a history of sock puppetry using other usernames and IP addresses. AviBoteach has been commenting on the talk page of the same article, Leo Frank, as GBH did, including a GAN page of the article and the user talkpage of the GAN reviewer. The user's lexicon is identical to GBH's, including links to primary sources, verbose arguments, and similar word usage. For example, compare this diff of AviBoteach on the reviewer's talk page with this diff of GBH two months earlier. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:23, 31 August 2015 (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

 * - to compare the two.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. Courcelles (talk) 00:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Account blocked and tagged. Mike V • Talk 00:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

20 September 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

GingerBreadHarlot has a recent CU-confirmed history of sock puppetry and created this account shortly after another sock was blocked. This sock has posted on the same article (Leo Frank) and has similar lexicon and verbosity to GBH and the other sock. For an example of diffs, see this diff from SmittyLiver and compare to this diff from GBH and this diff from the other sock. Tonystewart14 (talk) 05:16, 20 September 2015 (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

 * Very Courcelles (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Already blocked. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  20:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

14 October 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

The Leo Frank article and talk/GA pages have had a frequent history of sock puppetry from this user. This user uses the same arguments, wording, and frequent linking to sites like Internet Archive. An example is this diff from this sock and this diff from another sock. Tonystewart14 (talk) 07:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

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

This edit should also be noted. It includes personal attacks on me and Tony, consistent with the types of attacks made frequently by GingerBreadHarlot and inconsistent with a supposed new editor. It also shows knowledge of the other sockpuppet blocks made on this account. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Invinciblegnatfly is ✅ to SmittyLiver. Mike V • Talk 01:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

19 October 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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


 * WP:DUCK. Restoring comments by previously blocked GingerBreadHarlot sock at Talk:Leo Frank., Bishonen &#124; talk 09:28, 19 October 2015 (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

 * Blocked and tagged. Reporting for the record only. Bishonen &#124; talk 09:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC).

02 April 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

After about two months of inactivity, this user has started editing the Leo Frank article again. The original GBH account used the word "dopey" here (a little bit down the page, use Ctrl+F if needed). Besides Leo Frank, other articles the users have edited are similar. GBH has edited the articles for many names on the far right like Kevin B. MacDonald and Ben Klassen. DopeyBoB has edited Francis Parker Yockey and has posted in the talk page for Phil Mason asking if he was of Jewish descent. Tonystewart14 (talk) 08:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In addition, the name DopeyBoB likely refers to User:Bob K31416. This user had previously, in good faith, helped an earlier sock and GBH invited him to the most recent discussions.  GBH was disappointed as Bob actively opposed GBH's agenda. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2016 (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 obsession with Leo Frank and the arguments on the talk page (, compared to, , ) are similar with all the previous socks, and my gut says that yes, it's a sock. However, I'm not WP:DUCK-level certain, so I'll sit and wait for an admin to make a finding. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 20:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There's enough for me to block. I'm at WP:DUCK level after an analysis and call WP:BEANS. Doug Weller  talk 16:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Account blocked and tagged. Closing. TDL (talk) 20:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

The sockmaster has a long history of sockpuppetry and was originally blocked for disruptive editing on the Leo Frank page. This sock recently made an edit to the article which dealt with a minor content dispute that had been discussed by another GBH sock here. This sock has also edited many of the same articles as GBH besides Leo Frank, including Ben Klassen, Creativity (religion), The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, and Holocaust denial (see this link for the editor interaction comparison). The current count has 12 out of 29 edits as being common to the sockmaster. Tonystewart14 (talk) 07:33, 19 July 2016 (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 think there is enough of a behavioral overlap to call it a sock. I've blocked and tagged the account. Mike V • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 18:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

reinstated edits made by recently blocked sock User:MarianStern, editing in same time periods. Doug Weller talk 12:06, 24 July 2016 (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
CU confirmed as MarianStern. Blocked and tagged Doug Weller  talk 12:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

This sockmaster has a long history of sockpuppetry on the Leo Frank article, and the IP recently commented on a section regarding a POV debate on deletion of material by The Proffesor, another accused sock. The other accused sock, Justforthefun17, also commented on this talk page in July. Both Justforthefun17 and the IP commented on that talk page thread arguing similar points, and the two registered socks made edits in June and July that were reverted as having been discussed extensively in the past (see The Proffesor here and here, and Justforthefun17 here).

The IP has edited several Judaism-related articles, such as on Zionist author Ben Hecht in this small edit; Girl with a Pearl Earring (film) in these three edits (lead actress Scarlett Johansson is Jewish; Justforthefun17 edited her page to add American of Jewish descent category; and Sacco and Vanzetti (a controversial murder trial similar to Frank's) in which 5 edits were reverted.

Justforthefun17 also added the Jewish category tag to many other articles besides Scarlett Johansson, and in one case even mentioned D. W. Griffith, who directed the 1915 film Birth of a Nation, which was a film released shortly before Frank's lynching and used to revive the Ku Klux Klan (see paragraph 4 of the lead in the Birth of a Nation article).

TonyMorris68 made comments in April about the "consensus of researchers" line here and continues on in May here. These comments were echoed by other socks mentioned here in the first paragraph.

Comparing the users with the original GBH sockmaster, overlaps appear on Adolf Hitler between GBH and The Proffesor and Alex Linder between GBH and TonyMorris68. Both articles are related to anti-Semitic individuals.

Overall, the four users demonstrate a similar interest in Jewish history and Jews in pop culture, similar to previous GBH socks. Tonystewart14 (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2017 (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

 * Bbb ran CU on Justforthefun a while ago; I don't know what they found, but I found nothing. The above editors seem disruptive enough and perhaps an admin can look closer to see if any of them are actually HERE to improve the project. Drmies (talk) 00:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * closing on the basis of Drmies' comment. None of the accounts are still active. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)