Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gouyoku/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Each of the above editors is a WP:SPA concentrating on the article FXCM and related pages. They all became active after February 2017, when FXCM was banned from the US for lying to its customers
 * Gouyoku 1st edit 2011, 4th edit April 2017 to FXCM, (Note sleeper preparation)
 * Lenticularphoto 1st edit March 2017
 * Lqdr declared paid editor for FXCM, 1st edit June 19, 2017
 * Aglassofprosecco 1st edit May 2017
 * Lenaldinhodietmar 1st edit June 2017, all edits to FXCM

All have attempted to move the term "fraudulent misrepresentation" or similar out of the first 2 sentences of the FXCM article.
 * Goukoyu , etc.
 * Lenticularphoto
 * Aglassofprosecco
 * Lqdr, he explains his edit here, its for SEO purposes.

Please note that these folks have taken me thru ANI (initiated by Goukoyu), and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard (initiated by Gouyoku) without any result and have now taken me to Requests for mediation/FXCM (initiated by Lenticularphoto).

Caution: As I understand it text submitted to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/FXCM cannot be used in a SPI. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I've added User:199.248.199.110 for this edit, which mirrors the edits from the other editors. The IP's geolocation is the company involved. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 01:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Same user again. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:23, 8 August 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

 * confirmed and blocked:

The listed master, Gouyoku, is not technically connectable with the rest of the accounts, but an analysis of behaviour is welcome to over-ride that technical conclusion. Courcelles (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Lqdr was indefinitely blocked as a paid editor for the company FXCM by User:Courcelles. (3 other editors who didn't declare being paid editors were also blocked) Formilds has declared that he is a paid editor for FXCM at User talk:Formilds and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Companies. It's nice that he would declare, but that also makes him a meatpuppet of a blocked editor. I don't think it is a good precedent for a company with a blocked paid editor to get around the block just by hiring a new editor. BTW, normally I'd go to the blocking admin with this, but Courcelles seems to be taking a long Wiki-break. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 04:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * re:comments below - I don't think anybody other than myself expressed any opinion on Formilds being a sock-puppet at the COIN discussion, folks just missed the point entirely. The question here is straightforward: Can a company with one declared paid editor who is blocked as a sock-puppet evade the block simply by hiring a new declared paid editor? Per common sense and WP:Evade, the answer has to be "NO". Smallbones( smalltalk ) 02:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The text at WP:Evade is "New accounts that engage in the same behavior as a banned editor or blocked account in the same context, and that appear to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, are subject to the remedies applied to the editor whose behavior they are imitating."
 * Formilds is engaging in exactly the same behavior as Lqdr - representing the interests of the company FXCM and trying to remove information from the article. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 02:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * First, I don't know how Berean geolocates the sockpuppets but if he's using the IP 199.248.199.110 that repeated on August 7, 2017 the edits of the 4 blocked socks, that geolocates to the NYC office of FXCM (aka Global Brokerage) that owned (and still legally owns a major part of) the operating company "FXCM Group" which operates from London.


 * The 4 blocked socks, Lenticularphoto, Lqdr, Aglassofprosecco, and Lenaldinhodietmar were all blocked on Aug 3, 2017 by (as far as I can tell, nobody even examined my report on 199.248.199.110 (too late, I guess)) but I believe all of them were from the operating company in London.  I believed it at the time - see Talk:FXCM and Talk:FXCM - based on spelling, vocabulary, and style. Financial language is quite different at times in the US and the UK. Gouyoku was not blocked and he may have been from the US (nothing apparent from his language).


 * So 's guess about the order of the blocks is simply wrong. I don't see any reason to decide this matter based on guesses.  Ed's "Formilds appears to be following the COI rules," just misses the point entirely.  How can a sockpuppet be following the rules?
 * Formilds is a sockpuppet because he takes his direction directly from FXCM "I am from FXCM and part of my duties with the company include proposing edits to the Wikipedia page for FXCM." (bolding mine). Lqdr was also a declared paid edit and emphasized that he was taking direction from them and relaying FXCM's concerns eg from the FXCM talk page "The only contention from our side..." and "If you can understand our perspective ..." So they are taking direction directly from the same company, are SPAs for the article on the company, both trying to minimize the fault of the company, and both trying to remove the same material that the other socks were trying to remove. Formilds is a classic example of a sock or meatpuppet.  If you don't agree, you are just carving out an exception to WP:Sock that would say "A company can avoid a block simply by hiring a new declared paid editor." That's not in WP:Sock now, and I doubt it will ever be.
 * Rather than decide this matter by guesswork, let's just wait until Courcelles returns. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 01:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to be brief (early morning). Yes, I do think that all paid editors taking directions from FXCM management are currently socks or meatpuppets (it doesn't matter which one does it?). That might seem harsh, but it is important to remember that the blocks are indefinite, not permanent. If I remember correctly the block can be removed by the blocking admin or by the community at WP:AN.  I would not be against that happening IF (a big if) they demonstrated a knowledge of our rules and made adequate promises of how they will behave. A few things to remember.
 * The 4 socks acted together (usually 2 or 3 at a time) while pretending to be independent, attacking from all sides (make a concession to one and another would attack me for that), going to multiple dispute resolution venues and pretending to be independent. Absolutely vicious stuff.
 * The company broke every rule in the financial regulation book over 10 years and were finally kicked out of the US for directly lying to their customers about their major selling point. (OR here) They ripped their customers off for something over $100 million and Wikipedia helped them do it.
 * I would just like to be able to edit the article without the threat of multiple socks descending on me, challenging every comma, every quote, every well documented fact.
 * They can follow the rules (for once!) to get the block removed. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 06:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The standard offer is essentially what I outlined immediately above. What FXCM missed about the standard offer is that they have to apply or ask for it. They haven't done that. If they did I would get a chance to ask them some questions, e.g. "will you promise not to try to reorder material that you know is true and documented in order to change the emphasis and for other SEO purposes?" and "Do you realize that you are required to use independent judgement in editing and not just follow the dictates of FXCM?" and "Would you quit trying to remove quotes documented in the WSJ?"

All the socks are clearly taking orders from the management of FXCM. They are not exercising independent judgement - they are socks (or meatpuppets). The current problem is that they are evading the block of one sockpuppet by just starting a new one. Formilds continues many of the same spin/lies about the company that the previous socks started; e.g. the "alleged" fraudulent misrepresentation (it's a settled legal matter and cannot be appealed), the "voluntary" NASDAQ delisting (they were notified by NASDAQ about 6 months in advance that the stock price would have to increase to $xx.xx or they would be delisted. The stock price continued to fall and about a week before the deadline FXCM announced the "voluntary" delisting.). He's even added some new whoppers, e.g. that the bankruptcy was settled in February 2018 (it was settled in August 2018). That's all I'll say about the standard offer - they need to ask for it, but they certainly have some explaining to do.

I'll get back on tonight I hope, but I'm just gobsmacked by his message below. I've added him to the sockpuppets to be investigated (it'll be on behavioral grounds). But just to start Gouyoku has 127 edits, 3 are "sleeper account" type edits 2011-2015 (none about FXCM or anything similar). 121 are from 2017, all but 2 about FXCM or related matters. 2 (including the one below) are since 2017, with one unrelated to FXCM. So 121 edits related to FXCM, 6 unrelated. He's an FXCM SPA. See the archives for his similarities to the other socks. And he just happened to show up today to defend the new sock. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 01:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * More on Gouyoku: Courcelles finished his contribution on the original investigation as "The listed master, Gouyoku, is not technically connectable with the rest of the accounts, but an analysis of behaviour is welcome to over-ride that technical conclusion. Courcelles (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)" I didn't respond with more behavioral analysis to get him blocked (despite what Gouyoku says below). I thought he'd just go away soon after the blocks were made - and for the most part he has. Why beat a dead horse?  For reference my original request listed several behavioral similarities with the blocked socks. See Sockpuppet investigations/Gouyoku/Archive
 * My feeling (and only a feeling) has always been that he is a bit different from the other socks. He had the account prepared with sleeper edits. No reason to think he's from the UK. Very well-versed in Wikipedia's dispute resolution methods, spouting lots of Wiki policies and guidelines. And he still only has 127 edits! Possibly a full-time paid editor from one of the paid editing services brought in to clean up the mess the 1st sock created in the article. His appearance here on this page only underlines the problem with socks related to FXCM - they come in waves.
 * Just for the record, I'll ask - you can see the evidence above, have you been paid to edit the FXCM article? Are you being paid to edit on this page?  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 03:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

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

As I have given up on FXCM article over a year ago, it is very puzzling why is still trying to ban me, especially considering lack of evidence I'm a sockpuppet. I understand that I got too involved attempting to improve the article. It was the only time my edits were fought against, so resulting dispute dwarfed my other contributions. I will try to avoid such situations in the future. Regarding case, this looks like a content dispute. I recommend looking at for peaceful resolution of this dispute, as so far all attempts of this are completely one-sided. Gouyoku (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

If anyone is wondering why I'm here, as it looks at least one person is, I got an email due to mentioning me in his post. Why am I being dragged into this again, after previous COIN and SPI came out negative, and I have not edited the article since? Gouyoku (talk) 02:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Formilds does not geolocate near the others listed in the current report or archive and it is the only non-stale account. In this thread at COIN, and  gave opinions on that account and I will let them decide how this case should be handled. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  20:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I gave an opinion in that discussion on another editor named as a party to the discussion, but not implicated in either COI or sockpuppetry. I have no opinion with respect to Formilds or Lqdr, and have had no interaction with either account (that I am aware of) from which to form an opinion. bd2412  T 23:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * After reading Talk:FXCM and looking at the earlier history of this SPI, I don't see a reason to sanction User:Formilds. From the checkuser comments I am guessing that User:Lqdr was the subject of technical findings that connected them with the other previously blocked accounts. And it appears that Formilds is not implicated. If Berean Hunter knows about Formilds' geolocation he must have already checked them and got a clean result (limited only by the staleness issue). So far as behavior goes, Formilds appears to be following the COI rules. EdJohnston (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The behavior of User:Gouyoku and the previously-blocked socks certainly leaves much to be desired. But I perceive User:Smallbones as arguing that all future paid editors who admit their affiliation with FXCM ought to be blocked as socks. Perhaps he is arguing meatpuppetry though I'm not sure. Based on my skim of the past struggles with FXCM editors I'm guessing that a bold enough admin would be blocking one or more editors indefinitely for WP:NOTHERE by this time. But here at SPI they like to always go by evidence and if we are limiting our analysis to socking issues I don't see the case for SPI action against Formilds. If we do decide to block Formilds and Gouyoku per NOTHERE, would that be endorsing the principle that we won't tolerate *any* future paid editing on behalf of FXCM? That sounds a bit strong. EdJohnston (talk) 05:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * , more than a year has passed since the activity of the previous socks. They do not appear to have turned right around and gotten another editor. Had this been a single sockmaster then they would have been eligible for the standard offer by now. If the newer account is following the policies, guidelines, COI declarations, etc. then I would ask where is the current deception? That is what sock blocks are designed to prevent. They are technically ❌ and not likely the same editor(s).

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  17:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It won't bother me if you post at COIN or perhaps more suitably at WT:COIN for a broader discussion on the continuity of meatpuppets in a situation like this. More input on this could be a good thing.
 * I really, really didn't want to get involved in this discussion, but I have some concerns about the tenor of the discussion above. What the company did with respect to its business practices is rather irrelevant to whether there is sockpuppetry going on. Some assertions here ("the company broke every rule" and "ripped their customers off", and whether a NASDAQ delisting was voluntary) feel like assertions of guilt by association for those who disagree with arguments regarding article content - that is, that the company did bad things, therefore those who appear to be on the side of the company must be bad people. I would suggest keeping to the portions of the argument here that focus on the SPI, and not importing the content dispute into the process, as that will only further muddy the waters. The policy issue at hand would be no different if this were a dispute about content at Mother Teresa. bd2412  T 03:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Smallbones might be getting worn out due to being brought to ANI and other forums to discuss FXCM with people who, in some cases, turned out to be socks. I agree that the bad behavior of the FXCM company shouldn't be allowed to influence the decisions of this board. It belongs under the heading of general disruption and any needed countermeasures should be requested elsewhere. User:Gouyoku managed to get his name put on this SPI case though he appears to technically not be a sock. He just made a curious choice of an article to become interested in. As an SPA he does risk falling under the clause of WP:BLOCK which mentions  In the future, an admin might consider an official warning to Gouyoku if their behavior regarding FXCM threatens to violate our rules about WP:Disruptive editing.
 * Now that I've reviewed the past discussions in other forums, I suspect that admins should have intervened sooner in some of them. COI issues are confusing enough that some editors are humored more than they should be, when a firm line would be a better choice. But for present purposes, I suggest this be closed with no finding against User:Formilds or User:Gouyoku. EdJohnston (talk) 05:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Closing with no action. Any further discussion should take place at WT:COIN.