Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vargaso!!/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

All SPAs or SPIPs adding roughly the same defamatory content to Russell Gewirtz. Either pushing a poorly-described event they call the "Burning Man Controversy" or changing his bio to call him "Allegedly human". Some just add childish insults. I've already requested a Page Protection increase, looking to get these IPs temp-blocked as proxies until the vandals get bored. Jergling (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

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

I have only one account with wiki, sorry, not a sock puppet. The information I added to Russell Gewirtz's page came directly from his own public blog (https://russellgsite.wordpress.com/). The reason you are seeing so much action on this page is because the burning man community is vast, and word travels fast. These people are cacophonous in nature, and it is much more likely that the multiple edits are the result of Mr. Gewirtz's blog and it's effect on burning man culture. No one told me to come here and make an edit, I did this on my own and of free will, but am not surprised that I was not alone in having this idea. I never, in any capacity, called him any names, I merely posted information which he had already made public in another forum, his very own blog. Stating the truth as he wrote it himself is not vandalism. I think that if Mr. Gewertz did not want this information to be shared, he should not have provided the source material, and probably has regrets for doing so, and is using the accusation of sock puppetry to silence the truth which he himself wrote in his own words. A defamatory statement must be false -- otherwise it's not considered damaging, I can't speak for the other edits, I did not see them, but in my case I did NOT create a false statement. The proof is in Mr. Gewirtz's blog which he wrote himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virtualjupiter (talk • contribs) 05:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You did not add factual content. You added paraphrased editorial content based on a blog from an involved party, and formatted it as if it were factual content. To draw an extreme comparison, this would be like using Richard Nixon's own excuses for Watergate as a complete description of Watergate. Further, there is no evidence to suggest that Mr. Gewirtz's presence or actions at Burning Man are notable at all. If you aren't socking, then why do these random IPs keep coming out of the woodwork to tweak your work? I could believe you if this event were newsworthy and people were responding to a media blitz, but the only source that even mentions it seems to be this single wordpress blog. Jergling (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, it will help me to change my edit to fit the needs specified, should I be allowed to do that. I would happily submit my changes to you or whomever to see if it passes the muster. I shall endeavor to produce a more worthy edit in order to further explain Mr. Gewirtz's involvement in a controversy which has been documented among many online news sources and in our community (which hosts a few million people) is a very hot topic right now. Question for you, would it be beneficial to create a page that documents this controversy outside of Mr. G's page? "If you aren't socking, then why do these random IPs keep coming out of the woodwork to tweak your work?" As for others tweaking my work, I am unaware of that. I understand there is a program which allows you to determine if those other tweaks and edits came from my ip address, you are more than welcome to use it, as you will find that no others besides the edit that I made emanated from me. These random IPs are from others who are similarly minded to me, we all had the same idea, we all share the same feelings about the issue in question. You may not know this, but the burning man community, while quite vast, is very connected and Mr. G's blog piece has been making the rounds, causing a great deal of controversy and stimulating a lot of discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virtualjupiter (talk • contribs) 17:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC) The controversy which Mr. G inserted himself into is regarding an incident that took place at burning man this year, where a plug and play theme camp was vandalized. Here are links to the media who have documented this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/04/revolution-against-rich-parasites-at-utopian-burning-man-festiva/, http://www.businessinsider.com/burning-man-camp-vandalized-2016-9, http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/burning-man-2016-white-ocean, http://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/news/a7735/burning-man-camp-attack/, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/09/07/burning-man-exploses-the-class-war-inside-silicon-valley--and-wh/, https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2016/sep/05/luxury-camp-at-burning-man-festival-targeted-by-hooligans, http://www.thisisinsider.com/burning-man-camp-vandalized-2016-9, https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/feel-not-deserving-burning-man-203007233.html, http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/vandals-target-parasite-class-at-burning-man-festival-trashing-luxury-camp-popular-with-celebrities, http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/burning-man-vip-camp-vandalized-white-party-article-1.2777654 and there are many more. I think these articles will help you understand that there is a world wide media blitz ongoing about this subject, Mr. G is directly involved as he participated as a camper at White Ocean. The controversy surrounds the issue of burning man's principles, which are adhered to at an almost religious level by the many millions of people who have attended the event over the years. Our community is wrestling with changing times, in this situation the uber rich are attending burning man without regard to those principles, Mr. G's blog is a direct example of someone who violates those tenets for his own gratification. His entry into this issue is quite relevant, and while I personally do not agree with the violation that took place of his theme camp, the greater issue has to do with people like him who are changing the nature of our event and how it effects the experience of the community as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virtualjupiter (talk • contribs) 18:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly zero of those sources mention Gewirtz. Once again, the article about Gewirtz should be sourced from news and pages about Gewirtz. Just because the event was notable, and Gewirtz wrote an article about that event, does not make Gewirtz's article about that event notable. Please use the article's talk page for any further discussion. Jergling (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there's much sockpuppetry involved in the Gerwitz vandalism. A reddit thread called attention to the vandalized page which I suspect has inspired other people to continue the vandalism. See here (and here's the thread commenting on Gerwitz's blog post that got all the burners angry in the first place). Plantdrew (talk) 23:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I was beginning to suspect brigading based on Jupiter's response and the slight variations in edits. Oh well, it's mercifully PP'd now so it can stay off my watchlist. Sorry for wasting any admins' time. Jergling (talk) 14:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Reddit thread or not, multiple accounts created for the sole purpose of battling to alter an article's point of view is basically our definition of meatpuppetry and even if you are not one person with multiple accounts, you can be blocked for it. I trust that page protection will encourage you to use the article's talk page to discuss your proposed changes from now on. Case closed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)