Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SunRa51/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Over at ANI, user discovered  a 7+ year socking effort to promote writer Franz Lidz. It appears that these accounts were made solely for the purpose of promoting Lidz. and note that this is likely paid editing or a COI issue. said that an SPI must be filed for a CU to be performed. Below are the currently suspected accounts, with the earliest being reported as the master account. Many of these accounts come from edits on Franz Lidz. If other acounts are discovered prior to a CU being conducted, I will add them to the list.

Note that most accounts edited solely about Franz Lidz, often adding refs to his works in the leads of articles. Further, they like to put "footnotes" in the edit summaries.

More accounts added shortly Added  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

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


 * I've added to the list User:TruthBTold212. In November 2010, this editor wrote on Talk:Franz Lidz, in this edit: {{blockquote|text=I am a staffer at a publishing house in the United States. Part of my job is to oversee and monitor the Wikipedia entries of our authors. One of the entries that I am in charge of is the author Franz Lidz. For the past couple of months his entry has been under attack by {NAME REDACTED), who has used at least three Wikipedia account names to make alterations. I and other members of my department have continually tried to undo his revisions -- yet he will not stop the harrassment. I have contacted other Wikipedia administrators, but they have been unable to make (NAME REDACTED) cease his relentless edit wars. Is there anyone I can appeal to who might be so empowered. Thanks so much for your help.TruthBTold212 (talk) 14:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC) TruthBTold (Bloomsbury USA)}} This admission is the basis for understanding that Franz Lidz' biography has been edited by paid editors connected with his publisher. They have also added excerpts from Lidz' writing to multiple articles, frequently using the form "In an exhaustive feature article in XX" or similar forms -- with the use of the word "exhaustive" being a hallmark of these edits (before I removed the word from all of them; the articles in which they appeared can be provided if deemed necessary). This is a long-term promotional effort using multiple socks. It should be noted, for instance, that Lidz is a vice-president of the Detroit Pistons, and one of the socks is "DetroitPistonsPR3". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that many of the accounts above appear to be one-time-use throw-away accounts, probably used by one of the "staffers" at Bloomsbury. Also note that edits to Unstrung Heroes are to the article about a film of that name based on a memoir by Franz Lidz. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I was certain that would be the case, but the accounts that CU data is available for could establish that there's a socking (or meating) operation involved with promoting Franz Lidz, and then the other accounts can be dealt with an a behavioral basis. It's quite unreasonable to think that all these one-time throw-away accounts which edited on behalf of that subject are legitimate editors who just had to come on Wikipedia to make one or two or a handful of edits on behalf of Lidz and then immediately lost all interest in editing. The prima facie evidence is that this is a concerted promotional effort run through the author's publishing house, a situation that one of the editors intrinsically admitted to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, there's also the comment from an IP editor at the end of the same paragraph (75.84.185.57). After the above quoted post, it seems TruthBTold212 posted a widescreen-monitor-sized (and WP:PA-laden) wall of text text lambasting all other editors working on the article and Wikipedia in general, mocking in a tone of what seems to pass for wit in the head of this individual. 75.84.185.57 then chimes in with support in a similarly vitriolic tone; from their comments (sharing their woes at being "professionals"--I use the term generously here--in the publishing business who have to work with "teens and monkeys", who won't let Lidz team work exclusively with their primary sources, from what I gather) it seems that 75.84.185.57 is likely to have been one of the staffers from the publishing house that TruthBTold212 referenced in his first comment in that thread.


 * So it's clear that we have a mix of meat puppetry with the so-probable-that-I'm happy-to-call-it-demonstrated socking. I certainly take TruthBTold212 at their word on this; if there's one thing to be said for them, they are honest. Less keen on self-control, civility, learning our community's rules and priorities, and basic professionalism, but bluntly honest, that they embrace.  Personally though, if I had hired someone like this to represent my image and I found them behaving like that on a public forum while working in that capacity, they wouldn't be working for me for long.  That interjection said, DetroitPistonsPR3 name does confuse the issues as to who is who here, if TruthBTold212's Bloomsbury claim is to be believed.  I suppose it could be that we have COIs from both organizations.  Most conventional publishing houses are not in the business of editing Wikipedia pages, but a large enough media conglomerate that happens to own publishing houses (Bloomsbury) mean that TruthBTold's claims seem to add up.  Meanwhile, PR departments/firms do certainly do handle online image and might be attached to a publishing apparatus through a parent organization, so DetroitPistonsPR3 could also be an honest user name by a staffer who didn't realize they were supposed to be flying under the radar. As to which (if any) of these older accounts are associated with the newest ones, I wouldn't venture to guess.


 * Anyway, will be interesting to see what the checkuser reveals. I will leave it to the discretion of EvergreenFir as to whether to add the IP to his list. (The evidence is circumstantial; it's at least technically possible that he was an enthusiastic passing troll egging TruthBTold on).  S n o w  let's rap 06:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Ah, well there you go, CU in. Confirms enough to put an end to the current disruption, and what more could we ask for?  S n o w  let's rap 06:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, the result is the very best we could hope for, and I thanked KrakatoaKatie for wading into the swamp. If we all keep an eye on the other accounts -- just in case -- I think we can keep this promo operation under control. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting for the future, and maybe worth mentioning at the ANI, that TruthBTold ended his meandering little fit with "So, take it from here, chimps. I'm acceding to the publisher's wishes. If it helps, we monitor the entries of 154 authors in all. Happy hunting." Future SPI's for disruptive behaviour on articles whose subjects are associated with Bloomsbury may have WP:DUCK-based rationale to CU these names against obvious socks there. We could begin to build a profile of this meat-sock network.  Good thing we have some good sleuths on hand! Let's put'em to work. ;)  S n o w  let's rap 06:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually,, there's something I just realized I don't know about CU's; when one is conducted, are the IPs logged so as to be available against CU results in future SPIs? Or at least those which show likely connections? Or are all records for all account equally susceptible to the roll-over in the general IP data logs? I'm sure if I reflected on past SPIs I've observed for long enough, the answer should be pbvious from deducation, but put me out of my misery, would ya?  S n o w  let's rap 06:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * (In response to below comment in CU field) Thanks Katie--that's more or less what I figured the mechanics were.  S n o w  let's rap 16:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Is definitely another. This one spans from January 2013 to June 2017 too. The earlier edits of the account are mostly to do with Arn Tellem. An associate of Lidz and apparently another vice chairman of the group which owns the Detroit Pistons as mentioned by Beyond My Ken just above me.  The later edits are Lidz promotion inserts.  Pastoes777 (talk) 05:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)Pastoes777

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * A CU will only find data for two of the accounts listed. The others have not edited (and most likely haven't logged in) for over a year.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   05:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * - Katietalk 05:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * All but OPamuk1967b and DrakeAvers are.
 * These accounts are ✅ to each other:


 * Wernick882K is to this group based on UA and geolocation.
 * All blocked awaiting tags. Katietalk 05:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a log of all searches that only we can see (and ArbCom audits the log). You have to have a reason to run a search, and usually the reason given is the name of the SPI, so we can look at the history of checks for a particular IP or range and see why it's been checked. The data itself obviously rolls over, which is one reason why so much of SPI is behavioral. If you have other questions, probably better to use my talk page. :-) Katietalk 13:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Tagged and closing. GABgab 20:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)