Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/StPhilomena/Archive

07 February 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Since October 2011, a number of strange behaving and/or POV-pushing accounts are active at the articles House of Prayer, Achill and the related article Gerard McGinnity. As far as I can see al registered accounts are in different time period, but there are a lot of behaviour similarities that give other editors the idea that they are identical. The IP is the only one working in the same periods as two (!) of the registered accounts. But an IP can change, I am aware of that. Still there were a few remarkable edits of this IP. Knowing that there is a lot of time gone between StPhilomena and now and the lack of overlap in time, I have decided to go straight to the Duck test!


 * StPhilomena

Active in the period 28-30 October 2011
 * Active


 * Articles
 * 1) Gerard McGinnity
 * 2) House of Prayer, Achill

Gerard McGinnity
 * Remarkable edits

House of Prayer, Achill
 * 1), confusing verifiable sourcing with neutral texts
 * 2), confusing a primary source with a secondary source


 * Observation
 * 1) Makes many edits is a short time, many of them marked minor even when they are not minor edits


 * FluffyRug

Active in the period 8 December 2011-16 February 2012
 * Active


 * Articles
 * 1) Gerard McGinnity
 * 2) House of Prayer, Achill
 * 3) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland, now at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Archive 15
 * 4) Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, now at []
 * 5) Our Lady Queen of Peace House of Prayer, Achill (removed)
 * 6) User talk:Salvio giuliano/General archive

Gerard McGinnity
 * Remarkable edits
 * 1), reverting a deletion of material deleted by User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid as POV, claiming that Sources are from reputable verifiable published material.. In fact, confusing verifiability with neutrality.
 * 2), claiming Verifiable Reputable Published Material although no new sources are added.In fact, confusing verifiability with neutrality.

House of Prayer, Achill
 * 1), reverting a deletion done by Autarch because of POV-pushing, claiming Fully referenced content renewed but without changing a word
 * 2), claiming a broken reference, but removing a paragraph
 * 3), claiming a broken reference, but removing a paragraph
 * 4), removing maintenance and POV-tags withput solving the issues.
 * 5), claiming Adding Secondary Sources etc, but in fact reverting to an older version
 * 6), claiming a Neutrality Revision, but not solving the POV
 * 7), claiming ''additional sources & neutrality txt amendment], in fact only adding POV
 * 8), claiming Additional sources but in fact only moving a section to a more suggestive paragraph
 * 9), claiming Reliable Sources & Secondary Sources supplied but in fact reverting a deletion by Rannpháirtí anaithnid due to POV-pushing. In fact, confusing verifiability with neutrality.
 * 10), claiming Possible Vandalism, but in fact reverting a deletion by RashersTierney due to WP:COI-issue
 * 11), claiming Probable Vandalism with an agenda! Links are valid published and independently verified in accord with wikipedia policy., in fact reverting a deletion from Rannpháirtí anaithnid due to POV-pushing and COI-issues.
 * 12), claiming Misleading & Libellous phraseology - check your source, in fact just a word game
 * 13), claiming Libellous Reports by Sunday World are not reliable source. This Allegation denied by several other sources yet not included here. Biased & unbalanced.
 * 14), claiming No citation for Stigmata - heavily biased & unreliable article but has to withdraw a mention of the stigmata due not being mentioned in the source given.

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland
 * 1) ], claiming to add factual information based on reliable sources

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring
 * 1), claiming to be a new user and follow the policies

User talk:Salvio giuliano/General archive
 * 1)  Contested deletion of Our Lady Queen of Peace House of Prayer, Achill by claiming not to be connected to the House of Prayer & follow policies


 * Observations
 * 1), Moderator EdJohnson voicing is suspicion that FluffyRug is related to the earlier active StPhilomena
 * 2) Makes many edits is a short time, many of them marked minor even when they are not minor edits


 * WiseOldChinaMan

One edit on 25 October 2011.
 * Active


 * Articles
 * 1) House of Prayer, Achill


 * Remarkable edits
 * 1), adding the full name of the House of Prayer


 * Observations
 * 1) Account registered 7 minutes before the edit, and has never edited afterwards.


 * FactVeracityTruth

Active on 3 July 2012 (1 edit) and 25 September 2012 (3 edits)
 * Active


 * Articles
 * 1) Gerard McGinnity
 * 2) House of Prayer, Achill

Gerard McGinnity
 * Remarkable edits
 * 1), adding a complete section earlier removed for neutrality concerns. A spotless addition, including a source, at his first edit.

House of Prayer, Achill
 * 1), claiming Adding balance to this heavily biased article but in fact adding more POV-comments
 * 2), claiming Removed libellous and unsubstantiated comment about a living person while removing a section sourced with an article in a national newspaper
 * 3), claiming "reportedly" is not a citation - Reported by who?  while removing a section sourced with an article in a national newspaper


 * Observations
 * 1) In my experience I have noticed that the more "truth" is in the name, the more POV is signalled in the edits.


 * 188.220.158.134

Active in the period 27 July 2012 - 20 December 2012
 * Active


 * Articles
 * 1) Michael Voris
 * 2) Apostle (Christian)
 * 3) John Bosco
 * 4) Catholic Church and abortion
 * 5) Wilgefortis
 * 6) Theology
 * 7) House of Prayer, Achill

Michael Voris
 * Remarkable edits
 * 1), claiming Not appropriate in Wikipedia. The page is to be used for charater information not an oppertunity to attack..

Catholic Church and abortion
 * 1), claiming Just plain incorrect. By Catechetical definition a person who willingly opposes the Magisterium puts himself in schism and ceases to be Catholic. Therefore the statement "most, Catholics disagree with the official position...." is illogical and biased.

House of Prayer, Achill
 * 1), claiming Media "shock factor" accusations have no place on a wiki page given the lack of evidence for these claims. but in fact deleting the same properly sourced sections as "FactVeracityTruth" did.


 * Observations
 * 1) Michael Voris, president and founder of St. Michael's Media and (...) has been criticized by some other Catholic leaders for his "blunt manner" conform the actions of Media Michael mentioned below


 * Media Michael

Active in the period 2 January 2013-present
 * Active


 * Articles
 * 1) Garabandal apparitions
 * 2) House of Prayer, Achill
 * 3) Normae Congregationis
 * 4) Gerard McGinnity
 * 5) Precious Life (organisation)

House of Prayer, Achill
 * Remarkable edits
 * 1), claiming Libellous allegations made is a tabloid media 'hate campaign' is not a reliable source and has no place in an encyclopaedia but in fact deleting the same properly sourced sections as "FactVeracityTruth" and "188.220.158.134" did.
 * 2), claiming that "Voice of Our Lady's Pilgrims" is an independent source while a quick look at their website already confirms that they are closely related to the House of Prayer.
 * 3), claiming To re-write without consensus is not WP policy, please discuss in TP. Thanks
 * 4), claiming As per WP Policy you cannot completely re-write without consensus. Please discuss each change on TP Thanks.

Talk:House of Prayer, Achill
 * 1), mixing up "ordinary people" (=primary sources) with "reliable sources"
 * 2), waiving with policies and accusing others of It seems obviously you are all part of the 'hate campaign' and you have just linked yourself in to the investigations.
 * 3), clearly misunderstanding reliable sourcing
 * 4), refusing to give a clear answer about WP:COI and bluntly returning the question.
 * 5) ], claiming the mentioned statement to be incorrect, misleading and one-sided, defending it with a cherry picked part of the full quote
 * 6) ], interpreting a quote in the opposite way of the written text of the quote
 * 7), waiving with policies that do not apply and bluntly demanding an answer about the ties from somebody else with the subject
 * 8), bluntly demanding discussion and consensus about every change, in contrast with his own behaviour earlier.
 * 9), interpreting a quote in the opposite way of the written text of the quote
 * 10) ], bluntly demanding an answer about the ties from somebody else with the subject
 * 11), interpreting a quote in the opposite way of the written text of the quote and accusing others of being disruptive
 * 12), claiming that withholding approval does not mean disapproval
 * 13), claiming that  strong views which is disrupting the presentation of neutral commentary on this subject, plain evidence of him POV-pushing and harassing others to get the article the way he wants
 * 14) ], claiming that withholding approval does not mean disapproval
 * 15), demanding  proper justification for continuing to remove valid neutral commentary to defend his POV-pushing
 * 16) ], demanding changes against consensus and of a highly POV stance
 * 17), accusing others of having some strong and heavily biased opinions
 * 18), accusing somebody else of having a one-sided point of view while suggesting introducing plain POV in the text
 * 19), claiming that The bias is not perceived, it is well and truly there. I refer to it in an attempt to redress the balance in this 100% one-sided article.

Gerard McGinnity
 * 1), claiming People speak out about false allegations while adding a completely biased and anonymous source


 * Observations
 * 1) When asking a question about sockpuppets/meatpuppets, no denial is coming from "Media Michael"
 * 2) Makes many edits is a short time, many of them marked minor even when they are not minor edits

The Banner talk 00:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * 1) "Media Michael", "FactVeracityTruth" and "188.220.158.134" all reverted the same properly sourced section
 * 2) "FluffyRug", "FactVeracityTruth" and "Media Michael" all call unpleasant sources Libellous
 * 3) "StPhilomena", "FluffyRug" and "Media Michael" all mix up sourced content with neutral content
 * 4) "FluffyRug" and "Media Michael" both like to waive with policies to defend non-consensus edits
 * 5) "StPhilomena" and "Media Michael" both confuse primary sources with secondary sources/independent sources

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

I reverted Media Michael's first edit to the 'House of Prayer, Achill' article on the assumption that they were IP 188.220.158.134 - see edit summary. All fine and dandy - IP editor decides to register an account. I then began to think of the similarities with Fluffy Rug. No big deal, maybe they forgot their password and registered a new account. In the course of discussion at Talk:House of Prayer, Achill, other editors began to express concerns about older accounts. So I asked Media Michael directly if they had previously edited under different accounts with an apparent denial. In my book discarding old accounts isn't necessarily an indication of deception; there was a significant time lapse between accounts and I expect some intermittent editors find it simpler to start a new one rather than concern themselves with old passwords. But producing new accounts to give the impression of broad support for a position is deceptive and is the very definition of Socking. The 'voice' of the editor(s) is just too familiar and repeated use of the term 'libellous' struck me as particularly telling (see edit summaries 1,2 3, 4) long before any SPI was mooted. I hope Check User can be of help here. In any case The Banner is to be commended for the comprehensive filing, and I can only agree with their misgivings. RashersTierney (talk) 02:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I am equally convinced by the thorough analysis above. This is one editor making similar points in the same voice from a variety of accounts. His latest edits to House of Prayer, Achill follow that pattern, inserting POV material, deleting sourced material without giving any reason, and challenging any and every attempt to revert to neutral text. It is time that Mr Voris was shown the door. Brocach (talk) 23:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

A condensed version of the investigation cab be found in the conclusions supplied, but I will repeat them: Conclusions The Banner talk 10:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) "Media Michael", "FactVeracityTruth" and "188.220.158.134" all reverted the same properly sourced section
 * 2) "FluffyRug", "FactVeracityTruth" and "Media Michael" all call unpleasant sources Libellous
 * 3) "StPhilomena", "FluffyRug" and "Media Michael" all mix up sourced content with neutral content
 * 4) "FluffyRug" and "Media Michael" both like to waive with policies to defend non-consensus edits
 * 5) "StPhilomena" and "Media Michael" both confuse primary sources with secondary sources/independent sources

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - All named accounts except Media Michael are stale for checkuser, and the CU's won't connect an IP to an account, so there is nothing for them to do here. This does not preclude an administrator from taking action based on behavioral similarities. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In order to expedite processing, can you please provide a condensed version of evidence? Thank you. Rschen7754 09:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Finally taking a look at this now since no other clerks have taken a look. In order to prevent this from happening again, please next time be clear and concise. With this many cases, clerks naturally go for the ones where it is obvious and let the confusing ones sit. --Rschen7754 07:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * IP is stale and I won't be blocking at this time; same with WiseOldChinaMan. StPhilomena and FluffyRug seem pretty clearly the same due to the Obnoxious Capitals. FluffyRug, FactVeracityTruth, and MediaMichael all do seem to like using the libel word, and have similar English patterns. So I will be blocking the remaining editors. If the archiving clerk could take a look to see if they agree, it would be appreciated. --Rschen7754 07:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Media Michael blocked 2 weeks, rest of blocks were indef. Closing. Rschen7754 07:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)