Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheFarix/Archive

07 January 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Following an edit in the Hayao Miyazaki article, there was a message -about not modifying redirect links and not replacing them with piped links- left on my Talk page by an IP editor. (On December 4)

Here is the edit history of the Hayao Miyazaki article: Top of the page already had a manga artist entry but IP editor changed a mention of mangaka to manga artist in the body of the text. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hayao_Miyazaki&diff=583937665&oldid=583781748

I changed them both to piped links when I fixed a few other dead links and added a detail for the McCarthy book back in. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hayao_Miyazaki&diff=next&oldid=584070558

I removed my piped mangak artist link with the next edit, after the IP message on my talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hayao_Miyazaki&diff=next&oldid=584207671

Here is the first message from my talk page history (I already deleted the exchange): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Verso.Sciolto&oldid=584508984

and here is the last message in the exchange: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Verso.Sciolto&oldid=584518386

I followed up and left a message on the IP editor's address' Talk Page to ask for clarification and read one of the earlier threads on that IP talk page. In that thread editor Farix briefly logged in to post one of the messages - to show that he is editing using that IP and to explain that he has a lengthy history as a registered Wikipedia editor.

The Farix comment is in the "Fixing" redirects thread, at 00:33, on December 1, 2013. (the message right after the indent stops) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:24.149.119.20&oldid=583980861

Because of all the commentary I checked what the guidelines are for the use of the word Mangaka, read old policy discussions at the guideline pages he linked and I checked what sort of edits had been done with that IP. The contributions list for the IP editor shows it had been used to remove all instances of Mangaka in a long list of articles.

It looks to me that this Farix has been using that IP address to remove all mentions of Mangaka from Wikipedia articles and suspect he has been doing this -in part- to influence redirect statistics - in order to bolster the argument in favor of a name change of the article. It also has the appearance to me of separating contribution history. Perhaps done so that these edits aren’t associated with the Farix account for editors who previously participated in discussions on this mangaka issue with this editor. These other editors may have an interest in his activities in this regard.

I posted a message on the IP talk page, to ask him to discuss the matter on the Mangaka article talk page, and left a message there myself to re-open that discussion but there has been no other reaction and I initially left it at that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mangaka

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.149.119.20 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yusuke_Murata&diff=prev&oldid=587739298 As the list of contributions and the singled out example referenced above indicate - after a brief hiatus the IP editor went back to changing mangaka" entries to manga artist”. I followed up again and left an other message on the IP talk page but although the IP editor has recently responded to my comment he has not addressed the aspect of my remarks where I expressed my concern over the use of an IP to carry out those edits. He has not commented on the Mangaka article talk page after I made my suggestions.

The IP editor also participates in policy discussions that Farix previously frequented and does so without disclosing his identity while engaging with other editors who he interacted with before. The only time I'm aware of the IP editor revealing that he is TheFarix was in the discussion on the IP's Talk Page referenced above.

Today I noticed that the IP address had been used on the Village Pump page to give other editors advise regarding the purpose of sockpuppet investigations. He wrote, in part, quote: “As for them possibility being the same person, give the format of the user pages, that is a strong possibility. But unless the two accounts are disruptively editing the same set of articles, there is no point in opening an SPI case. SPI is for cases where multiple accounts are being used to disrupt Wikipedia.” https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&oldid=589507893#religious_and_political_propaganda_and_users_that_could_perhaps_be_the_same_person This Village Pump comment has finally prompted me to seek clarification on this IP editor’s behaviour and submit this evaluation request to you.

Out of respect for his privacy I have not commented on the Farix talk page but if these accounts are indeed linked to one person this all seems inappropriate use of an IP address to me. The edits are made in the knowledge that there is no consensus for the change of the term mangaka and appear to be done to influence usage statistics to bolster one side in the discussion favoured by the editor in question. They seem to be done to separate edits so that they don’t show up in the contributions list for the registered account. The comment in the Village Pump area also seems inappropriate and somewhat of a hint at self justification in that it assumes certain behaviour of editors using multiple accounts not to be disruptive while it discourages the editor from seeking guidance on the issue of sock puppetry through channels specifically designed for this purpose.

It looks like Farix is a well respected editor who participated in these sock puppet investigations before himself and I am not here to advocate sanctions but I am here to receive clarity on policy and - if it is indeed he who uses the IP - perhaps to persuade Farix to edit in these areas while logged in from his regular account, if the current behaviour is deemed inappropriate use of an IP address or to avoid the impression of inappropriate behaviour.

Sorry for the length but I think this sums up the sequence of events accurately. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 04:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Someone left a message about this Sock Puppet Investigation on The Farix' talk page but the message has been archived here (automatically, by Lowercase sigmabot III)- without comment. Is there an other method for alerting The Farix to this request to give him the opportunity to comment on this page? There are new edits to remove the word mangaka from Wikipedia made by someone using the IP address in question. (Example) A follow up comment I left on the IP address' talk page prior to initiating this Sock Puppet Investigation has not been answered. I'd like to further address the naming convention on the talk pages of the referenced Manual of Style and on the talk page of the Mangaka article but I don't think I should do so until this Sock Puppet Investigation aspect of the situation has been resolved first. Please advise about the proper way forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verso.Sciolto (talk • contribs) 04:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Notification template placed on TheFarix talk page.Verso.Sciolto (talk) 05:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I would like to know if IP 24.149.117.220 fits into this? Hardly any editing history but just made the following edit to article Toshio Suzuki. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 14:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I hereby note that the editor using the IP 24.149.117.220 has now created a subtopic titled "Harassment of Lucia Black and TheFarix by Verso.Sciolto" here. If a Sock Puppet Investigation is not the proper place to examine the usage of named accounts and/or IP address(es) I'd like to know what the proper venue is to get clarity on such matters? I've requested that the editor with the IP 24.149.117.220 comments on this matter on this page. As noted above, my request for comment from the editor using the IP address 24.149.119.20 on his/her talk page on this aspect has so far gone unanswered. As requested above I would like to get advise on the proper way forward. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 05:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC) Edit to add link to the unanswered comment I left on the talk page of IP 24.149.119.20 on January 4, 2014. here.Verso.Sciolto (talk) 10:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Because I've been accused of harassment and abuse of process by an editor using an IP address I would like a clear and specific answer on the following questions:


 * Is it considered disruptive behaviour to consistently make edits for which it has been pointed out there is no consensus while not logged in while similar edits have been made previously by the same editor while logged in?
 * Is it or is it not considered disruptive behaviour to make statements about those edits without revealing that the editor who is now using an IP address had previously participated in the policy discussions on the topic subject to the edits but failed to establish consensus for those edits as a named editor?
 * Is it or is it not considered disruptive behaviour by an IP editor to claim that an other editor (me) is engaging in harassment of the named editor (The Farix) without explicitly revealing whether or not the IP editor is the Farix himself?
 * Is it or is it not considered disruptive behaviour to rename a topic header of a discussion on an unrelated Wikipedia page to suggest that the named editor is being harassed without revealing whether or not the IP address used to make those harassment claims in that title is used by the same named editor?
 * Is trying to establish an answer to each of these questions beyond the realm of a Sock Puppet Investigation?


 * In response to Knowledgekid87. It is not my intention to get anyone banned - as I specifically stated in the closing paragraphs of my initial comment. I would like the editor involved, if it is indeed 1 person, to settle on one account and to use that account consistently from now on. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 05:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Verso.Sciolto (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I am also concerned about this. The IP has been editing Farix's userspace as seen here Though we have self-admission at User_talk:24.149.119.20 which includes: "I've been editing Wikipedia since Early 2006 ... If you like to continue this discussion, I can log into my regular account and we can discuss it here." The link to "here" goes to "TheFarix". The issue which spawned concern was the usage of another IP: specifically 24.143.224.15. There are others I believe and it is becoming a real concern because TheFarix is aware of the issue and the edits are split up. If not only for the difficulty in tracking contentious changes across the area. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't believe this is necessary as the edits are not disruptive. "Unless the two accounts are disruptively editing the same set of articles, there is no point in opening an SPI case." DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 01:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dragon aren't sock accounts only banned if they are made to cause disruption? (See: WP:SOCK) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I for one can't keep track of where they are editing and commenting - it is part of the WP:SCRUTINY matter because the changes are controversial and were avoided for a whole month before Verso filed this on January 7. The editor who admits to being TheFarix has had their IP change and is well-aware of the issues being generated, but will simply not log in. The edits may be almost entirely good, but the fact it continues to be a problem across multiple IPs and connected with a well-established editor shows that TheFarix simply is not wanting to have those edits tracked or be associated with it. That is not acceptable to me. I think the main issue is - Will TheFarix please log in to edit? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * There isn't enough of a recent cross-over between the account and IPs (although they are almost definitely the same person) to warrant blocking. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)