Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GrahamWPhillips/Archive

14 March 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

NorthLondoner, Cliffope, and 86.167.113.173 are each single-purpose accounts editing (and edit warring to a certain extent) at several articles related to Barry Pring and the corresponding AFD. NorthLondoner has edited GrahamWPhillips' user page, and currently NorthLondoner's user pages redirect to GrahamWPhillips' user pages. Both Northlondoner and Cliffope  have contributed to the AFD raising the possiblity of vote stacking. Deli nk (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added Bensimo. This newly registered editor found his way to the Barry Pring AFD on his first day to support NorthLondoner/GrahamWPhillips.  Edit summaries this editor has used are very similar to those used by NorthLondoner (  vs, for example).  Deli nk (talk) 01:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

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

I didn't realize this when I filed the report, but NorthLondoner used Changing username/Simple to change his name to GrahamWPhillips. Since he is now using both accounts to edit the same and/or related pages, I would suggest that the username NorthLondoner should be promptly blocked. Deli nk (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. I have indefinitely blocked NorthLondoner and left an explanation on GrahamWPhillips' talk page.  At some point (perhaps after the current SPI has been closed and archived), we might want to consider renaming this case to reflect the status of GrahamWPhillips as the primary account / suspected sockmaster.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I have always only had one wikipedia account and always used just the name given as my username. In this instance, my talk page showed as one name but my username as another, and I just didn't figure it was that big a deal - I started using GrahamWPhillips as soon as my name was changed to that.

I'm also not a single-purpose account. It may be I'm focusing on this right now - and I declare an interest as the journalist who has written a book about it - but I started editing wikipedia over 5 years ago. I do feel the Barry Pring article is important, and merits inclusion. User GrahamWPhillips GrahamWPhillips (talk) 00:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, I wouldn't like to be thought of as a 'sock puppet', I'm not that, that isn't a good thing to be! GrahamWPhillips GrahamWPhillips (talk) 00:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems pretty hard that every time someone agrees with me I am accused of being a sock puppet! I am not this latest user, as I am not any of the others. I was NorthLondoner, then I requested that changed to my current username, my real name, that's all. GrahamWPhillips (talk) 12:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

This is just to confirm that Graham Phillips and I are two separate people. True, I opened my account very recently, and true, that was specifically to make a couple of edits and to place a comment. This is because I have a personal interest in, and knowledge of, the matter about which Graham wrote. Persons seeking to remove the page are, perhaps unwittingly, having a negative effect. What happened to Barry Pring is commonplace - you just don't get to hear about it very often. It is in the public interest to make this information available to others. Want to help save lives? Stop seeking the removal of the page. Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliffope (talk • contribs) 14:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * What's going on?? I've been added to this investigation without even telling me?? I made several edits before even coming to this article. And why did I come to the article on Barry Pring? Because it was in all the news - it's a big deal!

I may be new here, but adding me to a sock puppet investigation without even telling me does not seem right. Bensimo (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I as well find what is happening in this AFD to be suspicious, and I endorse this investigation. Ducknish (talk) 02:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * If socking is happening here, it is far more likely that GrahamWPhillips is the sockmaster, and NorthLondoner one of the puppets. A CU on the IP address would not be allowed, per WP:OUTING. —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * - GrahamWPhillips and NorthLondoner are pretty obviously the same user, by his own admission. Cliffope is quacking loudly enough to make a CU unnecessary.  And the IP address, as I already said, cannot be CU'ed per policy. —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * People may want to take a look at this conversation between GrahamWPhillips and myself on my talk page. This might, or might not, be relevant to the question of whether Cliffope is this person's sock.  Although I've tried to remain aloof here, some may still conclude I've ended up too closely "involved" with this person for me to continue working any further on this particular SPI case.  If anyone else decides to overrule my  on this one and review it from scratch, I won't object.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm striking my earlier  and reopening this case for others to examine afresh. —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * - - Based mostly on Cliffope's edits. He was created for the sole purpose of editing in an AFD, and I find it surprising that he even found this SPI case to comment on, despite never having been linked to it. It's clear this is either sockpuppetry or there is offsite communication that lead him here. I'm requesting Checkuser on NorthLondoner and Cliffope. Perhaps if they are positive, it would be worth casting a wider net. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * From a technical standpoint, NorthLondoner and Cliffope appear to be ❌, so my checks stopped there. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Closing this case as there is insufficient technical or behavioral evidence to confirm sockpuppetry. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

17 June 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets
 * added 16:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * added 16:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * added 16:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * added 16:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * added 16:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * added 16:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


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

UK Crime Guy created Murder of Barry Pring, which User:GrahamWPhillips advocated in the previous AFD, and seems keen to get a mention of Phillips' book on the case into the article.

Bensimo seems to have a substantial proportion of their edits related to Phillips and Pring, this account participated in the Pring AFD on its first day editing, created Graham W Phillips, Stephen Wright (journalist), a stub which gives rather undue prominence to two articles Wright wrote about the Barry Pring case, What's On Kyiv, a publication which Phillips has worked for, Peter Dickinson (journalist) who has worked for two of the same publications as Philips, and A Foreign Affair (company) which mentions Phillips' book prominently, and added a mention of Phillips to Ludwig Fainberg and Kyiv Post.

Wightie242 has also edited Graham W Phillips and added a mention of his book. Entyre's edits match Phillips' interest in Russian/Ukranian daing agencies (see edits to Anastasia International, which Bensimo also edited) and this account reverted a good-faith removal of a mention of Phillips' book from A Foreign Affair (company). Both these accounts were active for a short time in May and then stopped.

Moscow Media Man has also been editing Graham W Phillips and articles on publications that Phillips has worked for, including Jewish News One, What's on Kyiv and creation of Panorama (in-flight magazine) and also added a mention of Phillips' book here.

Given these accounts have about 50 edits each, other than Bensimo who has 136, I'm finding it difficult to dismiss the proportion of edits of these accounts related to Phillips/Pring as coincidence. January ( talk ) 17:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to add that I filed this under NorthLondoner as that's where the previous SPI was, although there was a suggestion last time that it should be moved to GrahamWPhillips . January  ( talk ) 20:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe this is already being checked but I've added Russkiwiki who commented below, another account with a low edit count and several edits related to Phillips. January  ( talk ) 16:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

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


 * I'm concerned at perhaps user January having some sort of vendetta against the subject Graham W Phillips. Having looked through his previous contributions, everything he has done seems to have been entirely negative in relation to this subject. Russkiwiki (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to note that now, having looked through everything, it seems odd that January got involved with the Graham W Phillips page today, given that it was earlier today blanked / vandalised. I had a look at the subject's blog, and he put up one today criticising several individuals -[]. It thus seems likely that January may have some connection with this. Russkiwiki (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * To start with, I'm shocked - I came here only through looking at the contributions of January after some questionable edits. And see that I'm being investigated as part of an SPI. I had not been notified of this, nor had the chance to defend myself - I have nothing to do with any of these other accounts. My work connected to Graham W Phillips accounts for perhaps 10% of my overall edits - I am much more interested in Moskovski Korrespondent, which I created, The Moscow Times which I have completely copy edited, and many others. Any edits I have made connected to Graham W Phillips relate only to his involvement in publications in the CIS. This seems like a bit of a witch-hunt... Moscow Media Man (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've just seen this. These allegations against me are absolutely untrue, and unfair. I use my real name here specifically to be transparent and above board. There is one address in that list I have used - the GWPhillipsRus one, which I created to work on Russian wikipedia. Since a wikipedia page on me was created, of course I've asked friends to keep an eye on it, but that's as far as it's gone. I can only put this attack on me in terms of the response of someone I have had a go at in something I have written. However, I'm not going to get into lengthy arguments against wikipedia, an excellent site. But these accusations against me are totally untrue. GrahamWPhillips (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I've also looked at my page and seen that what's happened here is simply everyone who made an edit to my page has been added, along with some more. I don't know what system has been used to come to the completely wrong conclusion that I'm some sort of multi-sock farmer, but I note from the above wikipedia page that: "It is actually not completely possible to positively identify sock puppet accounts or those committing sock puppetry without an actual admission." So you can say the below, but it's not correct, actually it's simply ridiculous. GrahamWPhillips (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've now read the relevant wikipedia page on this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consequences_of_sock_puppetry

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Compliments for the clear report. The following are ✅ sockpuppets of GrahamWPhillips: There are several more accounts to be checked. Remaining as. WilliamH (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am marking this as checked for now, but will resume it later. WilliamH (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Entyre should be considered technically, but it looks like a WP:DUCK to me. WilliamH (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * More socks:

WilliamH (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Bensimo made this edit, then GrahamWPhillips made this edit via the same IP address eight minutes later, then Bensimo logs back in on the same IP to make this edit ten minutes later. There is no scope whatsoever for misinterpretation. WilliamH (talk) 09:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Blocked all, tagged, closing. Rschen7754 09:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see any continuity of intention between those three edits. They look to me like evidence of unconnected editors using the same IP address. – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Although it might not have been apparent in that particular sample of edits, there is a behavioural connection between Bensimo and Phillips as detailed in my initial report. January  ( talk ) 14:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct, which is what merited the checks in the first place. I mention those three diffs as merely one example of the unambiguity of the data. As much as I hate to speak for other CheckUsers, the likelihood that they are going to draw results different to mine is pretty much nil. WilliamH (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I can see unusual and similar editing patterns between some of the accounts listed later. If these accounts are just one person, he has gone to some lengths to disguise it by talking to himself, e.g. asking for a photo, uploading one Special:Undelete/File:Graham_W_Phillips.jpg and then arguing about it at User talk:Just a Ukraine Guy. For those who can't see the Undelete page, Bensimo created the image at 16:31 4 April 2013; the file info included Source = Was sent to me personally |Date = 2012 |Author = Graham Phillips |Permission = Evidence: The license agreement will be forwarded to OTRS shortly. OTRS pending. On 4 May he removed the permission claim with the edit summary "I haven't sent any emails of confirmation" and expanded |Source = Was sent to me personally but for personal use, then changed changed this to Source = Internet, with the edit summary "I took this one from the internet". See also Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Graham_W_Phillips.JPG.
 * MoscowMediaMan also created Panorama (in-flight magazine), sister publication of What's On Kyiv and Graham W Phillips has worked as its assistant editor, apart from which I would say it is by definition non-notable!
 * My conclusion: the defence above sounded heartfelt, but I haven't found anything to disprove sockpuppetry. The more I look at it the more I think it's not just a community of interest, and I believe the accusers are right. In any case most of the above accounts do not have a long editing history, so there's no great loss in blocking them. – Fayenatic  L ondon 19:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Right - because they are socks. All of them were retrieved via their available technical info, following the initial suspicion that a number of accounts were related, e.g. and  - e.g. both of whom it turns out edit from the same private residential internet connection. There could not be a clearer indication of sockpuppetry. Case closed. WilliamH (talk) 10:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Good, thanks. It would have been worth giving those additional details earlier. If I edit at work, it shows the same IP address as many other institutions which use the same service provider; likewise, editing in a library may share the address with other users; but editing from a private residential connection is clear. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)