Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Internetwikier/Archive

30 June 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Duck test. Edit warring and complaining about United Synagogue and BICOM, two of the very small number of articles that led to Internetwikier's indef block in mid June. Dweller (talk) 12:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC) updated Dweller (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

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

* Please consider also this likely block evasion IP, used only once on 2 July:
 * Comments by Hrothulf
 * 
 * Like Internetwikier, 86.144.104.160 used edits  (latter is also a copyvio) and edit summaries to push that United Synagogue and British Board of Deputies have aim and content output that is "pro-Zionist"; prominence of link to BICOM is important to them. Seem to have added the JLC to the mix. I have some sympathy with the view, but block evasion and edit warring is disruptive.
 * Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As might have been guessed 91.197.34.69 returned later in the day to edit war his and 86.144.104.160 's edits, and uses edit summary to refer to 'other user' who supports his version   --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

User:91.197.34.69 has been blocked. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Please add to the case: I think sock or meat of Internetwikier.
 * 1) Attempts to rehabilitate Internetwikier   and legitimize edit of a blocked IP (91.197.34.69 : see above)
 * 2) Continued Internetwikier's agenda and turn of phrase on Board of Deputies of British Jews and Talk:United Synagogue from July 4 to July 6.
 * Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I agree on the identity of the IP socks. However, each IP appears to be from one kind of proxy or another, and never the same range. Internetwikier's favorite articles are now protected, and the master account is indef blocked, but I don't think there's anything else we can do. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Closing the case.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  18:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

WP:DUCK sock of an editor blocked a year ago for incessant POV-pushing on various British Jewish and pro-Israeli organizations. Same articles targeted - United Synagogue, Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre, Board of Deputies of British Jews etc. Identical agenda - focused on emphasizing the 'Zionist' nature of the organizations concerned. Identical turn of phrase, with verbose edit summaries and talk page interactions. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

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

I have no knowledge of other user accounts other than accessing the talk pages and edit history of those that have been highlighted by the accusing user.

My edits to the pages mentioned above all contain references that are valid and referenced correctly.

That my edits focus on highlighting the Zionist nature of the organizations in questions is because they are publicly Zionist organizations. It seems incongruous that a wiki article about a Zionist organization is being edited by user AnotherNewAccount to hide the fact that it is a Zionist organisation. If user AnotherNewAccount has references that dispute this please add them to the wiki page to enrich it for all readers. BarelyEphemeral (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The defensive refutation above is totally typical of this editor. Particularly the idea that their material is beyond reproach because it is all "referenced". Examples: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Synagogue&diff=prev&oldid=657848971][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Synagogue&diff=prev&oldid=659675887][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Synagogue&diff=prev&oldid=659314830][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Synagogue&diff=prev&oldid=659370186][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Internetwikier&diff=prev&oldid=667105480][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Internetwikier&diff=prev&oldid=667112113]. There are probably more. I can't be bothered to look. WP:DUCK. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This section is called 'Defending yourself against claims.' It's is understandable that my reply would be 'defensive' in nature. This is a ad hominem form of character slur from AnotherNewAccount and should not distract users from the fact that my comments are not contentious: they are quotes and references from the websites of the very organisations that I am adding content too. If user AnotherNewAccount is unhappy with these quotes and references then perhaps he needs to think about whether the organisation in question should be promoting the values that he dislikes in the first place.BarelyEphemeral (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - common elements among these accounts are not only the focus on emphasizing the pro-Zionist position of the organizations and individuals above other viewpoints, but also pulling direct quotes from the organizations' websites (master, sock) to support their own position while insisting that better sourcing be required (master, sock) for competing points of view, as well as their similar debate style (as evidenced in the ANI thread and on this page).
 * While it may be true that many people hold the opinion that these organizations are pro-Zionist, there is no history of pushing this point of view in exactly this manner (nor indeed at all) on these exact pages, other than this sockmaster and their IP socks. Please block.


 * I'm also curious as to why created 's talk page, despite having only made 8 prior edits 6 months earlier, and these accounts having never interacted before or since. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * the master, BarelyEphemeral as proven (on behavioural evidence), and Stanleyofford as suspected (account's been inactive over a year anyways but there's no harm in documenting). ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  17:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

single-purpose account created yesterday to reintroduce the word "Zionism" into United Synagogue. See his comments on talk page Ravpapa (talk) 14:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

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

This particular account has made edits to Check Point, an Israeli developer of computer security products. This article has been of interest to one of Internetwikier's past IP socks: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Check_Point&diff=prev&oldid=669972986]. Another account worthy of examination by a CheckUser might be. It's one and only edit was made to Check Point hours before the current sock edited it. It could be Internetwikier, it could be entirely innocent, but this is not a heavily edited article.

In addition, Internetwikier has been socking with the following IPs, which are presumably open proxies:

Looking at BarelyEphemeral's recent unblock requests, it is very clear that this was no "new" user. He/she pinged a large number of 2008-2012 era editors known for their anti-Zionist views, some of whom were banned long ago and most of whom haven't edited for literally years. And I wonder if this proxy-utilizing sock is in any way connected to, who's first and only act was to nominate a controversial article for deletion? AnotherNewAccount (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Further IP's
 * (This IP was used a while back to revert the archiving of a talkpage discussion the original sockmaster participated in. I am assuming now that it was this editor at work rather than a good faith error.)
 * (This IP was used a while back to revert the archiving of a talkpage discussion the original sockmaster participated in. I am assuming now that it was this editor at work rather than a good faith error.)
 * (This IP was used a while back to revert the archiving of a talkpage discussion the original sockmaster participated in. I am assuming now that it was this editor at work rather than a good faith error.)

All look to all be web/colocation/VPS/VPN providers of some description. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - BarelyEphemeral's made three unblock requests in the past couple days, after which they posted an appeal in a Reddit thread and then BuildingConsensus immediately showed up to carry on the argument. I find it unlikely that the two users are genuinely unrelated. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Internetwikier is.
 * BuildingConsensus and are ✅ to each other. Blocked BuildingConsensus without a tag.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * without tags on purpose, or leaving to the clerk? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Protected page due to persistent sock puppetry. Feel free to modify or reduce this protection without my permission.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   20:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * please block for 1 week, and please delete this case's talk page which the IP created (speedy criterion G5). The four IPs listed above are all clearly BarelyEphemeral, they're all just carrying on the same arguments with the same "pro-Israel admins" conspiracy theory. The IPs geolocate to Romania, Romania, New Jersey and Sweden, so very likely this is an open proxy situation but I've no experience dealing with those. The 89 series IP opining on this page also geolocates to Romania and is very likely also the same user. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not tagging to leave for you. 89.46.102.15 is now blocked as part of a range by another administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Just noting that is clearly related to 89.46.102.15. The 178.148 IPs are located in Serbia. The others are likely open proxies, but I've not blocked them pending further developments. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * tagged; case closed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The tags of BuildingConsensus and BarelyEphemeral are inconsistent. I believe you need to adjust the tag of BE to be a confirmed sockmaster. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Or connect both accounts to each other with CU evidence and then add whatever level of relationship with the master (suspected, proven). That's probably better than my first thought.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought I did, though. There was no CU between BE and Internetwikier, tagged BE as "proven" to IW. BC is CU-confirmed to BE and thus proven to IW, I thought that's what my tag shows. No? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I added one more tag to BE, which I think makes it clearer.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)