Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HenryBlum/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

The scope of this report is the article Steven G. Bradbury. All of these changes happened on this page.

The first user, User:HenryBlum, is a single-purpose account whose edits overwhelmingly pertain to Steven G. Bradbury. This user's edits remove controversial material about Mr. Bradbury and replace it with flattering descriptions of his career and accomplishments. (In-depth breakdown here: Talk:Steven_G._Bradbury)

I reverted many of these changes, added sources, and added more material to the article. About six month later, User:Stimmer16, a new user with (as of today) one total edit, removed 5 kb of text that included a large number of reliable sources describing controversial actions taken by Mr. Bradbury and adding language playing up Mr. Bradbury's importance. I reverted this edit, did more research, and added more reliable sources.

A third user, User:WE349x2016, with one total edit performed another large change to the article, excising the same controversial information about Mr. Bradbury (including reliable sources) in a way directly mirroring many of the changes made by the previous user, Stimmer16. There was no edit summary and the changes overlap word-for-word in many places.


 * Edit by Stimmer16
 * Edit by WE349x2016

The precocious editing and highly similar changes, particularly on a low-traffic article suggests to me that these users are the same person. Ich (talk) 12:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Another observant user created Sockpuppet investigations/Stimmer16; these pages can probably be folded together.

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 master is .--Bbb23 (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The two active accounts are quite to each other:
 * to connect the accounts to the master. Mike V • Talk 21:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * to connect the accounts to the master. Mike V • Talk 21:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * to connect the accounts to the master. Mike V • Talk 21:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * - Can we also check who is making the same type of edits?  Vanjagenije   (talk)  08:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I added him above. The account was created after this SPI page was.- Ich (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ to WE349x2016. NativeForeigner Talk 21:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Here are a few observations based on an initial review of the case. Please bear with me:
 * Technical evidence indicates that the three checked accounts are all connected, which is confirmed by the behavioral evidence: removing similar kinds of content unfavorable towards the subject. The edits of WE349x2016 and Fi2536 are identical. (///) Thus, I recommend that all three be blocked, at the very least.
 * Look at the language used in the edit summary of one account:
 * "These changes were necessary to make the article clearer, more accurate, and more balanced and objective. Previous edits introduced inaccuracies, biased characterizations, and tendentious sources."
 * Compare to edit summaries by HenryBlum, such as "Accuracy", "...the linked article is biased and inaccurate...", "Edits needed for accuracy and balance", "Previous article was unfocused and contained significant distortions and inaccuracies," and "Summary descriptions were incomplete and misleading." It's worth noting that they removed similar content ("notwithstanding,") and there are probably more examples. The recent edit-warring is illustrative, since of HenryBlum's last 14 edits, 11 were reverts. If the three accounts are not socks, they seem likely to be meat (see Ich's analysis on the talk page). I am leaning towards a block on HenryBlum, but I would like to hear other opinions. GABgab 17:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I have blocked Stimmer16, WE349x2016, and Fi2536, since both behavioural evidence and CU results show they are connected. It is also likely that those accounts are sockpuppets or meatpuppets of HenryBlum. Also, whether they are or not, HenryBlum is virtually a single-purpose account existing to promote Steven G. Bradbury, both by whitewashing the article Steven G. Bradbury and by adding mentions of him in other articles, and putting that together with the evidence of likely sockpuppetry, I agree with GAB in "leaning towards a block on HenryBlum". Usually, I would not consider blocking an account that hadn't edited for almost nine months, but HenryBlum has a history of not editing for a long time (on two occasions for a matter of not just months but years) and then suddenly coming back to revert edits to Bradbury again, so that a nine-months absence is not evidence that he has left. I would be grateful for other administrators' opinions on whether to block HenryBlum. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I blocked HenryBlum and tagged the socks with dual tags. Case closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

This matches the pattern of precocious, single-purpose editing to remove reference and well-cited info from Steven G. Bradbury that perhaps reflects poorly on the subject, or reworking some sentences to substantially whitewash the summary of the information in the sources. There is similar wording in edit summaries (cf. Sockpuppet investigations/HenryBlum/Archive), compare to "Edited for grammar; corrected several inaccuracies (dates of service, DOB, known for "legal opinions" as opposed to direct authorization); removed several sources that indicate bias rather than the impartiality that Wikipedia seeks to promote" vs. "These changes were necessary to make the article clearer, more accurate, and more balanced and objective. Previous edits introduced inaccuracies, biased characterizations, and tendentious sources."

To me, it seems to be pretty clear WP:SPA and likely sock of a banned user. Some of the changes are relatively uncontroversial (he added the subject's DOB to the article here but without a citation) and tightened some language, many of which are changes I can endorse. The user scrubbed the word "torture" from most sections of the page. All in all, this seems pretty clear-cut to me. The last socks were banned 8 months ago, so I doubt checkuser will show anything.

I would certainly welcome further comments on the article, as well, as this has seen its fair share of similar promotional edits going on for years now, and it is a BLP. I can't find a source for subject's DOB so I'd suggest removing it in the meantime.- Ich (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC) Ich (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted most of the deletions and integrated the rest of the changes into the article.- Ich (talk) 11:54, 29 May 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
This case is. CU declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * , . Again, edit summaries all similarly complain about "inaccuracies" or "bias"   and every mention of "torture" is removed  . Please block this sock. Sro23 (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * . GABgab 00:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)