Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Websense, Inc./Archive

16 February 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Posting this in support of the WP:PAIDWATCH project:

Longterm Websense illegal astroturfing campaign :

I just took 2 hours looking through the edit history and contributions of the editors on the WebSense article cos well, it's fun catching creeps like this. I noticited some oddities at first and then it gives way to full on PR whitewash campaign. Some of them are so very obvious socks you can see by just looking at the contributions, some need CheckUser detective work to prove it, I am submitting this for someone better equipped to look at

Nearly all are single-use IPs or accounts (it looks like they create a new account each time) if you look at their contributions, each has few other than pushing PR-sounding stuff about Websense. They even openly admitted they were doing it a few times, as with the banned sockmaster account, and these diffs:
 * Clevea adding "marketing manager since 1997"
 * marketing manager bio of "Cleve Adams" which was moved to userspace
 * "Independent Blog by Websense's Federal Civilian Account Manager"
 * misleading edit summary of "corrected some bias" — "web filtering software" to "web security gateway software", unsourced puffery like "market-leading according to analyst firms" and "best known for", added a claimed number of employees without any reference to how they know that information.
 * (affiliate advertising - this seems to be an associate from the site given, rather than direct sockpuppet)
 * to an editor: "thanks remind me to never hire you" (this seems to be an associate from the site given, rather than direct sockpuppet)
 * - whitewashing article, removing all mentions of the word "civil liberties" from controversy and removing most of it, what little left moved down and comments to try discredit Amnesty International etc - and sneakily replacing the picture of it being in use at Guantanamo Bay with "example.jpg"
 * 

These are only just some examples there is just so much abuse on this article going on longterm for years after reading through the contribs of the full list of suspicious accounts and IPs I listed at the top - Most of them don't actually openly admit themselves (but seem to be created accounts to try hide their IPs) but if you look at the contributions of the other accounts and IPs given you'll hopefully see what I mean...

Good luck  Mistress Selina Kyle   ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  09:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * . Of these accounts, only the following are not stale:
 * I think it's certainly worth a look to see if they're all the same, or if they're colleagues or what. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The technical data indicates that it is these accounts are the same person.  TN X Man  16:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:PAIDWATCH should have been set up 6 years ago Tyranny is always better organised than freedom... Even if WP:PAIDWATCH had more people I don't know how they are supposed to monitor every company, grr, seems a shame to let people off on technicalities simply because they stayed hidden so long? isn't that a major flaw in your system to reward those who misbehave the most by hiding COI for a long time?  With the obvious comments indicating meatpuppetry if not sockpuppetry on behalf of the company isn't that just as bad in Wikipedia's rules too? But I'm not sure where else I would report stuff like this on Wikipedia I couldn't find any kind of infrastructure to deal with this type of longterm abuse other than here? {{smiley|sad}
 * I think it's certainly worth a look to see if they're all the same, or if they're colleagues or what. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The technical data indicates that it is these accounts are the same person.  TN X Man  16:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:PAIDWATCH should have been set up 6 years ago Tyranny is always better organised than freedom... Even if WP:PAIDWATCH had more people I don't know how they are supposed to monitor every company, grr, seems a shame to let people off on technicalities simply because they stayed hidden so long? isn't that a major flaw in your system to reward those who misbehave the most by hiding COI for a long time?  With the obvious comments indicating meatpuppetry if not sockpuppetry on behalf of the company isn't that just as bad in Wikipedia's rules too? But I'm not sure where else I would report stuff like this on Wikipedia I couldn't find any kind of infrastructure to deal with this type of longterm abuse other than here? {{smiley|sad}


 * I am editstalked by a few editors supporting paid editing and employees, so this may well be a sort of test case ending up on someone's blog (Jimbo has been engaging with a few PR firms lately, you should really talk to him) or the media (I referred it to The Register yesterday)... I've been away from Wikipedia far too long to say much more than I hope you can work it out somehow, bleh. -- Mistress Selina Kyle  ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  18:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The disruption on Websense isn't really enough to justify blocks here. Long-term abuse, sure, but it seems to have abated for now. Relist as necessary. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 22:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Mistress Selina Kyle, the filing party, has been indefinately blocked for an unrelated matter.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  02:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

01 March 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Link:  Huge longterm abusive organisation returning, see previous Sockpuppet_investigations/Websense,_Inc./Archive - many accounts and previous IPs that are very likely them listed there, the ranges/ISPs etc on the previous list should be properly checked and listed to prevent against long term abuse over several years...

But it could well be totally as well that it is a PR firm they have employed too, which would of course show up as negative in a SPI... is there no actual enforcement of WP:COI to stop corporations and PR organisations directly editing articles to push an agenda in blatant violation of WP:COI? — WP:PAIDWATCH has very little actual members and no powers to actually DO anything about abuse - there does not seem to be much actual detection of non-obvious sockpuppeteering, as I notice you also dropped the ball on Long-term_abuse/Herschelkrustofsky who is a paid editor working for the Larouche Party   back as a really obvious  ).  Mistress Selina Kyle   ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  15:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Urgh. I've protected that article for a month. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 05:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)