Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FixerFixerFixer/Archive

< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | FixerFixerFixer


FixerFixerFixer

04 April 2019

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

As seen in the following diffs, the IP in question engaged in edit warring over the content of Zak Smith. The IP's only contributions are to this page, and yet the user showed an understanding of Wikipedia and its' policy, referring to vandalism, the page's talk page, and the concept of consensus. [1]] [[2]] [[3]] [[4]] After the page was semi-protected in response to the edit warring, the user FixerFixerFixer made the same revert with the same allegation that consensus had not been reached in talk, as seen [here]. FixerFixerFixer's only contributions have been to Zak Smith and Talk:Zak Smith, repeatedly accusing other users of vandalism in breach of WP:AGF, and seemingly taking WP:OWNership of the article as seen at Talk:Zak Smith#Proposed update to "Personal_life" section, where they appear to disavow any version of the page that they disapprove of. Multiple users (Simonm223 and Acidbleu, who states that "His detractors have pointed out that he is fond of using sock puppet accounts, so keep that in mind as well.") have also suggested that they may have a WP:COI with Zak Smith.

As a final, somewhat related note - this is my first SPI, please do let me know if I have included any irrelevant content / any content which my report is lacking. Thanks!  vwilding  talk 20:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

  Administrator note Some other potentially related IPs, even though whois puts them pretty distant from the v4 address that was originally reported:
Note similarities in the edit summaries. "Vandalism", "blp issue", _underscores_... ST47 (talk) 07:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit


14 April 2019

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

All are single purpose accounts (or IPs) created to argue that the coverage of Zak Smith's abuse should be altered or removed. FixerFixerFixer is a single purpose account created years ago to edit Smith's wikipedia page. There was a strong consensus on the talk page to include information on Zak Smith's abuse allegations. I believe that these accounts are sockpuppets created to argue against this consensus and otherwise ensure that this information is not included or depicts Smith in a positive light and the allegations in a negative light.

ArmieHarker has made other minor contributions but are still a pretty much fresh account. One of these accounts (LawwGall) has been banned for legal threats.

It's possible that the person running these accounts is Zak Smith themself, as they are semi-infamous for spending a lot of time on the internet namesearching themself. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some diffs showing the accounts arguing for removing the information, reverting the addition of the information, or changing it to depict Smith in a more positive light:

PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

30 January 2020

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

Edits and reliance on BLPCRIME [18][19][20] seems coordinated and consistent with past attempts of removal of allegations. Underscore edits right after AlexaSmooth was blocked and the page was protected [21] which impacts Rrraaaeee because of their limited user contributions. [22] Generally this seems like the work of FixerFixerFixer who was blocked for engaging in the same type of edits.[23] 84.46.53.221 or 84.46.53.* has not made edits but is unable to due to the page protection. However, their argument on the talk page is suspiciously similar given the timing.[24] Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And this diff falling within the ip range with the name dropping raises suspicion.[25] Morbidthoughts (talk) 10:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

01 February 2020

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

A new account created. Goes directly to the talk page to continue to argue that the rape allegations be excluded due to BLP concerns, that the allegations must be proven before it can be included. Shows a previous knowledge of policy to quote. [26] Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

21 April 2020

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit


Gryllida makes an edit removing items citing BLP[27] to Zak Smith. In the user's first edit to the article, they mention that they don't have any COI which raised my suspicion. On the discussion after revert, Gryllida makes arguments that makes me suspect she is an alias of User:AlexaSmooth, who was banned as a sockpuppet of Fixerfixerfixer. Specifically, they attempt to distinguish between secondary and third party sources [28][29] vs. [30] and arguing that allegations should be confirmed by courts [31] vs. [32]. This court argument is also similar to Precious Island and 84.46.52.129 , previously accused of being a sockpuppet:[33][34] vs. [35] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

29 June 2020

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

Edit warring on Zak Smith[36][37][38] The user is using the arguements as previous socks of FixerFixerFixer. SuperGoose007 (Honk!) 22:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

12 January 2023

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

New SPA. WP:DUCK Fixated on Zak Smith.[39][40] Most likely Zak Smith. Argues in the same tendentious semi-legalese style as previous socks. Strangely familiar with wiki policy like WP:COI within first edits. Even performs extensive opposition research that could be considered as hounding under WP:DOX. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See related January 30 & February 1, 2020 investigations. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added inactive GorillaYesh[41] and Heckicus moomicus[42] as stale sleeper accounts. Same argumentative style. Goes to policy right off the spot. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit
  •     CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk - I know we can't confirm to the archive as they are all stale, but there are two accounts in this report that are fresh. Are these two technically related? Anything in the logs that would be a useful comparison? TheSandDoctor Talk 06:32, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • From a purely technical standpoint, Jehmbo and GorillaYesh are   Unrelated to each other. The geolocation of Jehmbo is roughly consistent with past socks of FixerFixerFixer (same major metropolitan area), so I think I can say Jehmbo is   Possible—that's the best I can do from a technical standpoint. This will need to be decided primarily by behavior. Mz7 (talk) 09:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Blocked and tagged suspected WP:DUCK (or perhaps WP:MEAT) based on behavioural evidence. These accounts are most definitely not new and their single-purpose nature pushing the same POV with the exact same article is suspect. Closing. TheSandDoctor Talk 20:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20 August 2025

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

Not sure if this a sock or meatpuppet issue occuring at Zak Smith/Talk:Zak Smith. A few years ago, socks tried to get the sexual abuse allegations section removed. Current section was the result of a 2020 RfC.:

  • Slacker13 removed the section twice
  • Slacker13 also started a discussion on the talk page that based on new court documents & some vague statement on WP:BLPCRIME, the section should be removed
  • In quick succession, editors #2-9 (Cairnesteak - Ansible52) chimed in on the talk with near identical !vote statements agreeing with what Slacker13 said
  • When there was pushback, some of the above editors have continued to argue that it should be removed. Examples:
    • Ansible52 seems focused on the reputational harm
    • Cairnesteak has mentioned the allegations weren't proven; they also removed the section twice
    • Many of the listed editors are making similar arguments as those two (example)
    • There also seems to be a focus that Smith isn't a public figure (another aspect of the minority view from the old RfC) - see [43], [44] as examples

@ToBeFree just locked the talk page down due to "meatpuppetry or canvassing" concerns. The subject of the article (Zak Smith) has a history of sock puppets trying to get these allegations off of the article. The sudden influx of new-ish editors with low edits seems like they were waiting to be activated to game the system by assuming an !vote matters. Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2025 (UTC) Added some more diffs. Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:04, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit
  • Hi, thanks for filing this. The page protection and {{uw-agf-sock}} warnings came after a check though. I'd be happy about someone else having a look, but this really seems to be meatpuppetry or very advanced proxy use. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for locking the page; didn't realize a check was part of that! I was in the middle of filling out the form when I saw the lock notice. I thought it should be flagged whether it was a standard sock or a meat/canvassing issue. Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Closing without action, per ToBeFree. This is certainly the result of some kind of canvassing, but now that the page is protected, you're clear to have a conversation without all this extra bother. Sariel Xilo, you might want to just hat the previous discussion and start again. If any of these accounts start making trouble elsewhere or claiming that they just randomly happened to come upon this page for no reason, feel free to take the whole lot of them to ANI. asilvering (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Will do! Thanks for taking a look. Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/FixerFixerFixer/Archive&oldid=1307338411"