Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pharaway/Archive

Evidence submitted by 842U
The source Einsiders.com has recently been refspammed (see discussion) by user Pharaway, who appears to have a strong COI (see discussion). The user KathyStover was blocked for username violations, having also created an article on Einsiders.com, which was subsequently deleted.

Prior disruption history

842U (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

First of all, I did not start any account with wiki other than the Pharaway account. The name of the other account, Kathystover, is an editor for EInsiders. However, thanks to the person making this complaint, I found this information:

Accounts are not allowed for organizations. You may have an account here, but it will have to be your account, and not Einsiders. You are free to declare that you work for Einsiders if you want, in fact it's a good idea so that you're up front about your conflict of interest. As for credit there are really two types of credit: credit for encyclopedia work and credit for source material. If anyone uses Einsiders for source material, that ought to be properly credited (source credit), a nd a link is normally included as a convenience to readers. So Einsiders certainly should get credit for source material it provides, meaning, when Einsiders publishes material that is used as a reference in an article. Credit for encyclopedia contributions (authorship credit) is different -- when any user makes a contribution, the contribution is logged and credited to the user. If you go to any page on Wikipedia and click on "history" you'll see this revision list. That is Wikipedia's way of maintaining its authorship. However, Wikipedia doesn't view those edits as contributions of the author's employer, they view those edits as contributions of the author themselves. Now, the history links to your userpage and if you identify yourself as an Einsiders employee, that is probably the closest Einsiders can get to authorship credit. From what you're asking I suspect you're talking about crediting Einsiders as a source. The only issue here is that it's inappropriate for you, as a representative of Einsiders, to go adding a lot of credits to Einsiders to articles, because there's the appearance that you might be doing this in order to promote the encyclopedia. So what we would ask is that you refrain from adding lots of citations to Einsiders yourself, but you may certainly suggest any Einsiders source material to independent authors. Mangojuicetalk 15:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC) I note that Cirt, the latest reviewing admin, has protected this page so that you can't make further unblock requests. My offer still stands, though: if you are willing to change your username and agree to abide by WP:BESTCOI I will unblock you; just email me the new username you would use and your statement. Mangojuicetalk 14:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Pharaway (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

So, #1. If I were who you claim, I'm not, but if I were, I have permission here for creating a new account. #2. It also give permission to use EInsiders as a source on Wiki!! Pharaway (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The accuser has already told this info:
 * Hiya,May wish to re-read my post. Though I suspect most or all of your conclusions may be accurate, we cant outright prove it. The two IPs are different (the 66.#.#.# is probably the person's home machine), the location of the company and the anon post is what is the same.
 * Best, Robert RobertMfromLI | User Talk STP2: Producer/Gaffer/Webmaster 17:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Pharaway (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, user Mike Allen needs to stop vandalizing this section. He doesn't belong in this section and is confusing the issue. Pharaway (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * You and the Einsiders account (disclosed to be Kathy Stover) have the same MO. To add hundreds of citations to Einsiders.com. Then you both claim they have been used on the "Wiki" for years. When you accidentally posted as your IP, the WHOIS showed it was located around the same city as the Einsiders (or the advertising company that owns it, BrightNight Media) is located. When you were blocked last, you were told that you could not keep adding Einsiders to articles because of COI. Yet, only two months later, Pharaway appears and does the exact same thing. I think this is quite clear. — Mike   Allen   19:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it was your IP. Why are you going around deleting the RN/I discussion about Einsiders, your talk page, and then my comment here.  Is there something you're trying to hide? —  Mike   Allen   19:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added to the list - the behaviour on that account looks most similar to that of Pharaway IMO. I'm not entirely sure this SPI is really necessary however, we've already established that Pharaway has a COI and was refspamming, if they continue then they will be blocked so this just seems like a waste of time to me. Smartse (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but thanks for including the Einsiders account, that was/is the main sock! The Einsiders account is blocked indefinitely. So if this is the same person running the Pharaway account, they are also evading a block.  There are strong similarities with both of those accounts, such as claiming "Einsiders as a valued source to Wiki over the years".  I've never been involved in a SPI, but I believe if the admins would just read the Einsiders page (mainly where they are asked to be unblocked) and then Pharaway's talk page (may need to see the history, she keeps deleting it), they will be able to make a prompt decision on if it is a sock. This is not to mention the editing histories as they are all seem to have the same agenda—inserting Einsiders.com anywhere possible.  I've did researched on the name Kathy Stover and it came up compelling proof evidence.  However, I've been told that can't be used here apparently per WP:OUTING.  So we have to just go by the similarities with these accounts on the "Wiki". :)  —  Mike   Allen   20:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Pharaway has intentionally only quoted a portion of my responses to him/her and other parties involved here. Questions for answers to behavior, offers of assistance to remove all eInsiders links and anything pointing out the fallacy of Pharaway's "arguments" have been removed from the user's talk page by Pharaway in order to leave a very skewed view of the conversation. They can be found at the link Mike Allen provided above.


 * On to the Sockpuppetry, I personally have come to the following conclusions: (1) the accounts listed above are SPs, (2) the users above are in the employ of (directly, or to market (ie: LINKSPAM) for einsiders, (3) this behavior is likely to continue, (4) the purpose is to help raise their rankings in search engines as well as to promote their site via their link spamming and (5) those from einsider seem determined to continue such behavior (based off their previous track record).


 * That pretty much sums up my beliefs on the matter from perusing the various histories involved, as well as the comments (with full lack of any real answers from the above parties) on the various "infraction" pages (COI, this page, etc).


 * Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk STP2: Producer/Gaffer/Webmaster 22:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Clarification: Most of the removed content can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pharaway&oldid=344918888

That content may not have been removed by Pharaway (unless the logs are incomplete) but by another Wikipedian who accidentally added to an older version and saved it atop the more current one.

Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk STP2: Producer/Gaffer/Webmaster 18:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * To Tim Song: I think that would solve this whole mess.  Because if you blacklist the site, then Pharaway has no other purpose of being here, unless of course she starts editing within guidelines. —  Mike   Allen   18:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Might be a good idea to add the domain to the spam blacklist instead of playing whack-a-mole here. Tim Song (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

In my look at it, I don't think there is straight sock puppetry going on, but likely a couple of people from the same company (which in that case CU wouldn't help us much at all). Note that the Elnsiders account was only softblocked and that another account was free to be created – not in violation of WP:SOCK. I agree with Tim Song in that it may be a better idea to add the domain to the blacklist as opposed to other administrative actions. –MuZemike 17:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Marking as closed as nobody else has commented. –MuZemike 02:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)