Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/David r from meth productions

– A user has requested CheckUser. An SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse or decline the request.

David r from meth productions

David r from meth productions (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Populated account categories: suspected

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/David r from meth productions/Archive.

18 September 2011

Suspected sockpuppets

• Zafio (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Robblackhurst (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Thelionforreal (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Quinefan (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 2.24.249.104 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 86.179.200.168 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 77.97.249.234 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This is Zafio's first contribution to Wikipedia, in 2007, which follows all the patterns of a DavidR sockpuppet account - the claim to have "stumbled upon" the page, the painstaking inclusion of some slight difference of opinion with David R to "prove" they're not the same, and the general very detailed information about the subject. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Talk:Johann_Hari&diff=prev&oldid=173112500

Zafio returned to edit the page in 2011, in July and now in September, with the familiar pattern of DavidR/his sockpuppets - editing the Talk page far more than the subject page (his edit count pie looks extraordinary, it's overwhelmingly Talk page edits and overwhelmingly Johann Hari Talk (or Talk pages of editors who work on the Johann Hari page). https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Talk:Johann_Hari&diff=prev&oldid=439119887 http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pcount/index.php?name=Zafio&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia

Zafio and I had a discussion in July at the end of which he called on an admin to tell me and FelixFelix (an old hand at the David Rose sockpuppet war) to stop speculating if he was or was not David Rose. He mass-deleted most of our discussion from his Talk page and attempted to make similar edits from mine, https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/User_talk:Yonmei#David_R

Zafio claimed to have mass-deleted my comments from his Talk page because he was afraid of WP:OUTING. But if he is NOT "David Rose", and therefore not Johann Hari (Hari has since publicly acknowledged that David R from Meth Productions was his sockpuppet) then speculations that he is wouldn't have outed him. Here's the discussion he deleted: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zafio&oldid=440030806

One thing in particular worried me then in July and still does now. Richard Seymour of Lenin's Tomb confirms that in 2005 he met a man with Johann Hari who identified himself as David Rose. DavidR/Johann Hari on Wikipedia started to send people to Seymour to get him to say he'd met "David Rose" and he wasn't Johann Hari. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/16/johann-hari-debacle

My User page identifies me as living in Scotland. It does not say I live in Edinburgh. If you google on Yonmei, however, that would bring up the information that I live in Edinburgh quite quickly. Zafio told me he was staying in Edinburgh and offered to meet me in order to satisfy me that he was a real person, not a sockpuppet. I am pretty convinced personally that Zafio is Johann Hari - he was then suspended by the Independent and could well have been visiting Edinburgh, or could well have arranged for me to meet someone. If that sounds obsessive, well, so does what Hari did with David Rose, arranging to have Richard Seymour meet someone. (Seymour confirms that there is a David Rose who went to university with Hari, but that the man he met in 2005 is not the same man.) That frankly spooks me.

IP1 is an IP address that Zafio has used.

IP2 is an IP address used six times in 2009 - to edit Johann Hari (added an award he'd won), and to edit Johann Hari Talk page, where the IP address owner posted a lengthy comment in defense of the supposed-notability of "disputes" Johann Hari had had with other public figures. Two of the other edits were negative ones on Richard Littlejohn's page - again a familiar pattern for DavidR sockpuppets. The fifth edit added, to Deborah Orr's page, the information that she was also an Independent columnist.

I mention it here simply because I've seen the idea that Wikipedia should investigate evidence against further sockpuppets dismissed because David R has now been banned for life and Johann Hari surely wouldn't risk sockpuppeting at Wikipedia with all the public attention on him. Well, yes, in my estimation, he would: he would believe he could get away with it. I've listed the other sockpuppet names I'm aware of not because I've interacted with them, but because I looked at the archives, I agree with the editors who have identified them as DavidR sockpuppets, and I notice they are not banned.

It may be impossible to stop Johann Hari from sockpuppeting at Wikipedia. He has been shown to be able to use a wide array of IP addresses and to have absolutely no shame about adopting as many identities as he needs. The only thing that will stop him, I think, is if he really comes to an awareness that if he does, he will be found out. Again. Yonmei (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Just as a follow-up - this is the first and I hope the only time I have to report someone for Sockpuppetry. So I don't know what the process is. My guess is that solid evidence of IP addresses and so on is more likely to be found on Zafio's logins between November 2007 to May 2008, when David R of Meth Productions was often editing with multiple sockpuppets. To note Collect below - no, it has nothing to do with a recent argument, my impression that Zafio was likely to be a sockpuppet goes back some months, and had to do with the picture his edit-counts portrayed of someone as unlike the usual Wikipedia editor as could be - someone who had never got very interested in editing pages except for the Johann Hari page, and rarely got involved in any discussion except on the Johann Hari Talk page or with editors of the Hari page. Initially I tried to resolve it by a friendly warning about appearances to their Talk page. I have to say Zafio's reaction here and elsewhere also reminds me of David R's whenever someone suggested to him that he had WP:COIN or sockpuppetry issues - anger, counter-accusations, and presentation of circumstantial evidence "proving" disagreement between David R and Johann Hari.

While I hesitate to say "the lurkers support me in email" - I've seen at least two other instances on blogs of people citing Zafio as one of David R's unbanned sockpuppets. So I think it's fair to say that Zafio's own behaviour on Wikipedia makes him look like a Sockpuppet - whether he is or not. I could think of ways in which Zafio could change his behaviour in order to change the appearance of sockpuppetry (but of course without altering his views on Johann Hari or any other topic) but when I suggested this on his Talk page when the impression first occurred to me, Zafio refused, got angry, accused me of WP:OUTING, and eventually called an administrator to get the conversation to stop - a sequence of events which I gather was not uncommon with DavidR and his sockpuppets. I can only say that the conversation is still archived and I was endeavouring to present my suggestions civilly and to presume good faith.

I do now think Zafio is a sockpuppet - I wouldn't have lodged this otherwise. Collect and Zafio have both implied below that this is because of a disagreement with Zafio. Granted I haven't edited much on Wikipedia in a while, but I've had disagreements with editors before, much more strongly that with Zafio, and I do not go around accusing people of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. I'm quite happy just to go on disagreeing! Yonmei (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

20th September Notes

In response in particular to Zafio's "5) Edits before July 2011" (below).

Between 22 November 2007 - 9 July 2008, the Zafio account makes 18 edits, 11 of them to Johann Hari/Talk.

8 of them are to the Johann Hari Talk page: 3 to Johann Hari page 2 to Norman Mailer 3 to Talk:Morrissey 1 to Adam Ant

In 2009/2010, the Zafio account makes 14 edits to the Norman Mailer/Talk page. 7th July: Zafio account makes 6 edits to Norman Mailer/talk page and on 11th August, 2 edits to Norman Mailer/talk (On 27 October there's also an edit, flagged as "minor" to Clive James page.) 23 February 2010: 3 edits to Norman Mailer 13 & 18 May 2010: 3 edits to Norman Mailer and another user's Talk page

On the face of this it looks relatively balanced, until you consider this: the Zafio account has added

2948 words to Johann Hari's Talk page

682 words to all Talk pages other than Johann Hari's

Most of the edits to non-Talk non-Johann Hari page have been made on the Norman Mailer page, and aside from a few reworked sentences (which tend towards being more negative about Mailer - Zafio even removes a comment sourced to a New York Times book review that "The Prisoner of Sex" is said to be Mailer's best book) fall into two categories removing material which Zafio considers to be unsourced, duplications, or in one instance an entire list of quotes - and insistence on including references to Adele Mailer "The Last Party". All references and reiterations on "The Last Party" are posted after Johann Hari published (November 2007) an article on Norman Mailer Why Do We Ignore The Abuse of Women, which relies on "The Last Party" for its most telling anecdote - which anecdote Zafio wants in the Norman Mailer article. (Interestingly, the Wikipedia page on Adele Mailer has not been edited by Zafio, and carried a link to the Independent article by Johann Hari which was added in March 2011 by a Wikieditor who is definitely not a sockpuppet.)

There's a rather sad little note on the page that I noticed when checking back and forth for edits, asserted to be by Mailer's daughter, Sharyn Elander. "I have also noted that the salacious material referencing Norman stabbing his wife - has been added again - I will leave it there - but as his daughter - I realize it is factual - yet, not really necessary in a relative section...and that is the area that I find over written, I would prefer that old wounds could be healed, especially because he is deceased now."

Zafio's discussion with Sharyn about whether the detailed material that Zafio added about Norman Mailer stabbing Adele Morales at a party, ought to be left on the bio page, is positively inhuman in its failure to consider that Norman Mailer's daughter likely has feelings about a violent incident in her father's past being comprehensively detailed on the Wikipage. Consider and compare with Zafio's insistence that (for example) the Johann Hari page must not even include the verifiable information that Hari is the only journalist to have appeared on Private Eye's Hackwatch list twice.

The vast majority of the material added by Zafio to Wikipedia before July 2011 was either directly about Johann Hari, or related directly to an article Johann Hari had written. Yonmei (talk) 07:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Response to Zafio's 7-point defense

For readability, I've summarised each of Zafio's 7 points. The full version is below, inserted by Zafio at 02:29, 20 September 2011

1) No negative or malicious edits in the articles of Hari's enemies made by Zafio's account

WP:AUTOBIO would still be a problem for David R/other sockpuppets even without the libellous entries in other people's biography pages.

2) Zafio is sure that no IP address identifiable as Zafio will also be identifiable as one which was used by DaveR or any of the other identified Hari sockpuppets.

It would probably be useful to do a complete check of all IP addresses used by all Hari sockpuppets to see if any patterns emerge. Others have already noted, however, that Hari/DaveR was very good at making sure IP addresses changed with sockpuppets. David Allen Green notes his final confirmation that David Rose and Johann Hari were the same person was established by:

The metadata of something uploaded by "David Rose" showed that it had been created only seconds before in a social media account which was under the control of Hari. There would simply not have been time for Hari to have supposedly "emailed" the item to his alter ego: it must have been part of the same quick exercise by the same person.

I've never used Checkuser before, and I'd be extremely happy if someone with experience and who was not otherwise involved in this investigation wanted to look at the IP addresses.

3) Zafio identifies himself as a cultural Catholic on Talk Morrisey in 2008, and points this out as "evidence" he is not Johann Hari, as he is surprisingly sure that Hari would never do this.

This is a classic DaveR/sockpuppet tactic. Zafio seems to think it's unbelievable that Johann Hari would make up such a complex set of lies, but sadly, it's really not unbelievable at all because we already know he did. Johann Hari actually convened a Mediation Cabal on Wikipedia in 2007 to discuss, among other things, the removal of a photograph from Wikipedia's biography because he felt it was insufficiently flattering. This does not of course prove that Zafio is Johann Hari. But Zafio's claim that it would be too complicated a set of lies for Hari to have invested in more sockpuppets, is proven false by the facts.

4) Zafio makes the very good point that it would be very foolish of Hari to return to edit his own biography at this time.

Agreed.

5) Edits before July 2011 - as already noted at length above, the vast majority of Zafio's contributions have been Hari-related.

6)Before July 2011, Zafio says his "main editing interest here was in Norman Mailer".

False, both in terms of quantity and of direction of edits. As noted at length above, even when editing Norman Mailer's page, Zafio's main editing interest is ensuring that an anecdote Hari liked from a book Hari cited remains in the Mailer main article. Zafio has edited no Norman Mailer related pages, not even the page about Adele Morales.

7) Zafio describes the reaction to his edits in July and in September as "harassment".

Supposing for the sake of argument that Zafio is not Johann Hari, but just (as many people supposed David R to be) a fan of Johann Hari's writing who's determined that the Wikipedia page about him should set him off in the best light possible, especially under the circumstances in July and after.

That multiple people have unhesitatingly and independently identified Zafio as a Hari/DaveR sockpuppet, and discovered coincidences and links between Zafio and other Hari/DaveR sockpuppets, is exceedingly awkward for Zafio.

If so, the best way out of this for Zafio is quite simple, and I recommended it to him back in July - start editing other Wikipedia pages. With, and about, material utterly unconnected to Johann Hari. (For example, if Zafio indeed has an independent interest in Norman Mailer, there are several stubs and pages that need improvement attached to the main Mailer page.) Quit getting involved in long arguments on Johann Hari's Talk page - or even take a break of a couple of years from editing it entirely, as (in this not-a-sockpuppet scenario) he did before in 2009-2010.

But I don't think Zafio will take this advice, because I think Zafio is indeed a Hari sockpuppet, and I don't think Johann Hari is really interested in editing anything on Wikipedia that doesn't bear directly on himself, his career, or the people he's interested in.

Future actions

Suggestions for how the investigation should proceed welcomed.

• Checkuser

Can this be used to look at all of the Hari sockpuppets, as well as Zafio? If so, can anyone help with this?

• Contacting other editors

To avoid WP:CANVASS, all the signed-in editors (except for those already identified as sockpuppets) of the Johann Hari page since 2006, need to be contacted to ask if they have any contributions to make to this investigation. This is a huge job, so I plan to put it off to the weekend, unless it's acceptable to do it in stages (if so, I'd do it year by year from 2006 onwards).

• Suggested form of words

"There is an open WP:SPI case looking at sockpuppet editing primarily on the Johann Hari page. As you edited the Johann Hari page between 2006 and 2011, your input is welcomed."

Comments? Thoughts? Suggestions?

• Other constructive ways to move the investigation forward?

Thanks for your time. Yonmei (talk) 13:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Follow-up - offer from David Allen Green to Zafio

Snowdon published an analysis of DavidR's behaviour on 15 September 2011. There was a discussion in the comments-thread, in which Zafio took part. On 20 September 2011 at 14:20, a comment was posted by David Allen Green which could terminate this investigation conclusively (or add one more piece of evidence for Zafio being a sockpuppet):

Hi Zafio, I am a lawyer who understands the nature of strict confidentiality, and I am also a journalist who protects sources.

If you were to, in the strictest confidence, provide me with any information which allows me to vouch for who you really are, then I am happy to assist.

Up to you. Email attached to comment.

Best wishes, DAG

So there we are. If Zafio is not Johann Hari he can now get in touch with David Allen Green, and prove that to DAG's satisfaction. Obviously Zafio's declining to get in touch with DAG would not be conclusive proof of anything. Yonmei (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment signed by Johann using Ip address 77.97.249.234

This incident sheds some light on Johann Hari's use of IP addresses.

Hi there. Some users who obviously yhate Johann hari are trying to insert libellous claims about him, that he has threatened to take legal action against, into his wiki entry. Could you help me keep them out? I'd be really grateful! Revision as of 13:05, 19 August 2007 to User talk:Emiellaiendiay

Although the note itself is signed "Johann", the same IP address edits elsewhere - mostly on the Johann Hari page and once on the Johann Hari Talk page: consistently, on the Talk pages and in comments notes, 77.97.249.234 refers to Hari in the third person.

Examples:

• It is outrageous to delete Hari's response to Cohen! Don't do this again, it blatantly contravenes wiki guidelines and will be immediately reversed.
• I have also moved the information about Archer to a more logical place, obviously a student job for a few months when he was 20 is not as important as Hari's reporting from, say, Congo

On the archive version of the edit of the Johann Hari Talk page where 77.97.249.234 edited and left their IP address, you can also see Johann Hari/David R from Meth Productions editing with IP address 86.142.181.223 - and getting very tetchy with FelixFelix when (rightly) Felix calls DaveR and Thelionforreal out as sockpuppets.

22 September 2011 - David Allen Green says "Inconclusive"

On 20 and 21 September there were three updates from DAG/Jack of Kent, all posted as comments at Snowdon's blogpost on this situation where DAG/Jack of Kent had offered (and Zafio had accepted) to clarify independently if Zafio existed as a real person and was not Johann Hari. I've quoted all three in full here (below) for the record because the information is sufficiently complex that I don't believe a summary does them justice.

But the summary is: Zafio is, according to David Allen Green, either genuinely who he has told DAG he is (RL name "[AB]" for anonymity) or a very elaborate sockpuppet, with social media accounts definitely under Zafio/AB's control. But it is currently not definitely established which.

Given the lengthy elaborateness of the David Rose deception, I do not see that we can assume Zafio is not Johann Hari simply on the grounds that no one would go to such trouble simply to be able to continue to edit his own biography on Wikipedia.

So I will continue with the next step in the investigation, which as I see it is to alert all editors of the Johann Hari page that this sockpuppet investigation is taking place. Yonmei (talk) 07:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Re AGK note

Feedback appreciated. Will attempt to redraft before the weekend.

Problems anticipated include: Any summary of the problem has, in the past, tended to minimise the problem such that Johann Hari was allowed to continue editing his own biography page and editors who protested were blocked. In essence, the Johann Hari/David Rose problem is a TL;dnr problem, which rather explains how he managed to continue and even win the support of Wikipedia administration in his project of making himself sound like a major writer / cultural icon, on his own wikipage.

But I had registered that the formatting of the page as it stands makes this look awfully long and dull, so yes, some drastic redrafting is in order. Yonmei (talk) 12:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

What Yonmei fails to mention here is that they have already been warned for WP:OUTING, as well as for personal attacks. In July, real people's identities were being investigated and discussed in non-Wikipedia sources on the sock puppet issue, and I had no desire to have my real life identity dragged into this tale. And WP:OUTING is not permissible on Wikipedia. Period.

As for any potential sockpuppet investigation, its no fun for me, but I have nothing to fear from this whatsoever, because I am not Johann Hari. Yonmei's submission here is a paranoid rant. But if admins agree that an investigation is appropriate on any of the presented grounds, I have nothing to worry about whatsoever, about outing or anything else. Zafio (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

No actual evidence - and most of those named were named at a noticeboard which required they be notified (WP:ANI) - which they were not. Use of SPI just because consensus is not going your way != anything much more than fishing for trout. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

As Collect rightly says, the evidence that I am a sock puppet is paper thin. Nevertheless, I have crossposted this from [[1]].

I'm not very keen on personal information being discussed here, but this might merit it because it strongly indicates I am not Johann Hari.

In this diff on the Morrissey talk page I respond to a contributor who removed a reference to Morrissey's Catholic upbringing: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Morrissey&diff=prev&oldid=188606791

In this diff (written in February 2008), I write that "Few of my catholic friends, nor myself, practice or even believe particularly; but indeed catholic is what we are."

Can anyone find a single source where Johann Hari has made any personal identification with Catholicism, a religion he has consistently attacked? Can anyone possibly imagine *Johann Hari* writing that catholicism is "in the blood", as I write in this diff? (My own identification with Catholicism is a Dara O'Briain style cultural catholicism. I'm a non-believer).

Its possible, I suppose, that Hari was brought up in the Catholic church (if so he hasn't talked about it as far as i know). But he has never made, to my knowledge, even the mildest identification with Catholicism. He is not simply a non-believer, he is a radical anti-theist who shows no sympathy or identification with any religion whatsoever. I have no idea if he likes Morrissey.

I hope this settles the matter, although given the paranoia displayed on these pages, I have my doubts. Only a deranged mind could imagine I'd planted this diff three years ago awaiting just this eventuality. I hope reasonable editors doubts are put to rest.Zafio (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Since this has been moved from WP:ANI to here I copy across my original observation:

On the "Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of David r from meth productions" is User:Robblackhurst whose one edit, on Talk:Johann Hari started "I've just stumbled across the Johann Hari entry " (23 October 2006). User:Zafio's first edit - also on Talk:Johann Hari - started "I wonder if a fresh perspective might be useful? I stumbled upon, some months ago and quite by accident, the dispute over this page." (22 November 2007) I note that another similarity between David R and Zafio is a tendency to fail to use colons to indent their contributions to talk page discussions. In common there are also (i) an occasional failures to use tildes to sign comments (ii) using IPs to make comments and then logging in to sign the comment (iii) making several edtis to a comment after its been posted (instead of using the preview button). Had I only the tools to analyse their styles of writing almost-instinct 11:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is Yonmei's response to Zafio's Catholicism defence, also copied across from WP:ANI:

"In the end, 'David Rose' invented at least fifteen biographical facts (from a lawyer girlfriend in Walthamstow and subbing jobs at the Independent and Spectator, to a principled and noisy opposition to the invasion of Iraq) which were simply not true; it was a fluent stream of lies contrived just so that the systemic smear campaign and dishonest self-promotional exercise could carry on and never be exposed." David Allen Green, Further thoughts on "David Rose", 17 September 2011

Or in other words, no, your producing evidence that Zafio has publicly identified as a Catholic no more settles the matter than David R's producing evidence that he had a lawyer girlfriend in Walthamstow. David R was also rather fond of accusing his accusers of being deranged. Yonmei (talk) 00:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Since it was me who first posted there, I'll write on WP:ANI that all conversation on this should from now on be here almost-instinct 11:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been involved in editing this page in the past, but got bored of fighting with David R/Hari. From what I can see, the argumentative tropes used by David R are strikingly similar to those of 'zafio', who I think was used as a more conciliatory sockpuppet designed to appear more moderate than David R while retaining the vast bulk of the hagiography that Hari had written about himself. Yomnei's analysis above is spot on and i'd be stunned if Zafio were not yet another sockpuppet, which really is quite remarkable. SamuelSpade79 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.42.215 (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I am going to make a few points here and then cool off for a while. I'm also going to cease interactions with user Yonmei elsewhere on Wikipedia or online, which I think will be good for both of us. If we do at a later date communicate directly on this page, I think we should both try to keep the tone more civil than we have been doing. I suspect a restoration of terms of good faith is unachievable, if any ever existed.

The following points are for the record. I am not entering into any discussion of them for now. Taken together, they form a cumulative case that it is vanishingly unlikely that I am Johann Hari. Its rather a long edit, so for those pushed for time the doozy is number 6).

1) A particular pattern of David R edits was the insertion of negative or malicious edits in the articles of Hari's enemies (Yonmei calls this "a familiar pattern for DavidR sockpuppets". This is probably the most morally serious aspect of the sockpuppet scandal. My user account does not fit this pattern. No negative edits of this kind were made from this user account.

2) I'm not as yet sure how Checkuser works, but some comparative investigation into the IP addresses of my account and that of David R would be helpful if there was doubt. On this site [[2]] (of questionable reliability, I use it only for illustration) there are a list of ips that David R has edited Wikipedia from. The locations are all from Greater London, and I suspect that most if not all of David R's edits come from this broad location. I am confident that no edit in my user account comes from the same IP as any edit in David R's user account. Furthermore, no edit made from my user account was made in Greater London. In fact, all the edits were made a few hundred miles away from London. IP address locations can be unreliable, but I would argue that if a strong trend of this sort could be established, I think this would suggest that it is unlikely that I am a sockpuppet for Johann Hari. And, see point 6).

Does anyone know how this process works in sockpuppet investigations?

3) The Catholic identification I make on a Morrissey talk page is a little odd detail that is difficult to explain. And hasn't been adequately explained using any other arguments than the idea that Hari told lies, so why wouldn't he tell this one? This argument is difficult to entirely refute. However, those who hold the position that this is a statement from Johann Hari still have a lot of work to do to make the claim that it is *likely* that it is Johann Hari. (Here, I will adapt a little from my post here [[3]]).

"David r from meth productions" is, in many ways, an impressive fiction. It is clear that Johann Hari made regular lying claims from that account specifically designed to deter the implication that "David r" was Johann Hari. "David R" the invention, and Johann Hari, the inventor.

However, all of those inventions had some relation or other to disputes on or surrounding the Johann Hari page: they were explicitly motivated to deter implications that "David R" was Hari. None of them had any connection to the Morrissey talk page. David Allen Green has not accused Hari of using sockpuppets to insert hostile reviews of Vauxhall and I into Wikipedia. On that talk page, I explicitly identify as a non-practising Catholic; I talk of Catholicism being "in the blood". There is no evidence anywhere that Johann Hari has ever identified as a Catholic in any respect; in fact, he is relentlessly critical of the faith. Now, if Zafio is a sockpuppet account for Hari, what possible motivation could there have been for this edit?

To believe that my account is a sockpuppet account, you have to believe the following: that Hari not only invented biographical facts about "David Rose" in his editorial disputes on his own Wiki page (which is an established fact), but also that he invented another sockpuppet to plant invented beliefs on articles that have no connection to Johann Hari. So that at a later date he could reuse that identity if his cover was blown elsewhere. Behaviour that, if discovered at this point, would be suicidal in career terms. All of this has to be believed, and believed to be likely, to make the claim that Zafio is Hari.

4) Related to this objection is the simpler one. Why would Hari so recklessly return to editing his own Wikipedia page in the days following his apology? It would be especially foolish since the account Zafio was linked with the sockpuppet scandal here http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2011/07/who-is-david-rose.html. Why return to editing the article with an account that he must have known was under suspicion? I don't find any of the explanations provided here for this conclusive or even plausible, and at least one editor here agrees that it is unlikely http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Johann_Hari_sockpuppetry. This objection I think puts the balance of "plausibility" in favour of the idea that this is not a sockpuppet.

5) Edits before July 2011. Before July of this year, my edits on Wikipedia were split roughly between the Johann Hari page and the Norman Mailer page. During this time, I made 12 edits to the Norman Mailer page, and only 3 to the Hari page. Overall, including talk pages, I made 16 Norman Mailer related edits, and 11 Johann Hari related edits. Of the 3 Hari edits made, two were minor and non-contentious. A third was actually an edit based on an earlier edit by SamuelSpade, and this was an edit which David R had argued against. The view has been put forward by an anonymous user (who clearly has edited the page but for some reason refuses to come forward) that this kind of behaviour was typical of Hari's socks, a pattern of manufactured disagreement between different sockpuppets. Its possible that something of this sort did go on elsewhere (although no other sock has been confirmed), but its just simply not true in this case because this account is not a sock. And another interpretation of my (civil) disagreements with David R is that I was civilly disagreeing with David R. I also disagree that I have made any hagiographic edits to the Johann Hari page, especially as this one removed a few of David R's problematic edits. None of this is an outlandish interpretation of events, despite what some editors might say. As an addendum, I should point out that SamuelSpade has come forward to say he thinks I am a Hari sock. I'm sorry he feels that way.

6)But until this July, my main editing interest here was in Norman Mailer. Hari has written a (very hostile) article on Mailer, only a week after his death. Some of my edits there were dedicated to issues surrounding Mailer's violence against his second wife, something that Hari writes about in his article. These do indeed look like the kind of edits Hari might have been involved with. Other edits, however, seem less like the kind of thing Hari is associated with on Wikipedia. You are free to look through them and judge each on its own merits, but its worth asking why Johann Hari would be bothering with unverified information about an illegitimate child of Mailer's almost two years after his article appeared, as happens here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norman_Mailer&diff=prev&oldid=307339591.

Hari has obviously read Mailer's work, but isn't a big fan. In this diff[[4]] I write that "I'm an advocate of Mailer's work, just not an uncritical one". Hari is certainly critical of Mailer's work, but he in no way can be described as an advocate.

Not impressed? Lets stay with this diff, because it has a little more to tell us. A user Jerzy posts on the Mailer talk page about a quote without a verifiable source where Mailer describes some speculation in his 1973 book Marilyn as "not good journalism" (many ironies there). I pop up to discuss this edit which I inserted into the article more than a year before I first logged in as Zafio. The crucial information is that Jerzy mentions the edit was posted from "a 500-ish-edit presumed-shared academic IP". I respond to this by mentioning that "Very shortly after that July 2006 edit, I left said institution." In July 2006, I was editing an article on Norman Mailer from an academic IP, and left shortly after. Since Johann Hari was neither a student nor a lecturer in July 2006, this leaves the idea that Zafio=David Rose=Johann Hari looking shaky indeed. And its a tonic indeed to also find that that "500-ish-edit presumed-shared academic IP" is traceable to a location significantly distant from the Greater London Area. Yet oddly pertinent, should you care to take a look.

7)A final statement. I have no complaints about the sockpuppet investigation process as such. If editors had legitimate concerns, this was the proper channel for them. All along. I take a very dim view of the harassment however, which has dogged me in July and now again in September. This hasn't been nice at all, I'm afraid. I'd be grateful if any comments on this edit are kept below, and not in the edit. Please also bear in mind my repeated wishes for privacy. Zafio (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a note to say that I have brought this matter to the arbitration committee. I hope other editors think it reasonable that speculation in the blogosphere should cease until this is resolved. I must say that I was unaware of David Allen Green's offer. His journalism has been throughout considered and responsible on this issue, so I will certainly consider such a representation.Zafio (talk) 14:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Left on my Talk page by 86.152.240.151 (talk)

Johann Hari's socks

Hari's sockpuppets tend to behave in certain ways.

• Pretty much single-purpose accounts, editing in a very limited area of interests. See User:Eyepeepeeeye/IPs
• Pro-Hari editing, to the point of being hagiographic.
• Long-winded and verbose
• Remove anti-Hari Private Eye material, claiming PE is a non-reliable source
• Like to mention that libel suits might follow, especially the likelihood of Wikipedia being open to such legal claims [5], as a way of silencing criticism of Hari. This one is especially typical of his socks: "Jess"/User:Thelionforreal was even a legal journalist!
• "Accidentally" forget to log in a few times, thereby making the IP apparent. Can then say "But my IP proves I am in X and Hari is in Y therefore we can't be the same person"
• As David Rose, editing as an IP, Hari switched IPs frequently, and ISPs less frequently. This makes tracking him difficult.
• Often challenge questioners to meet in the flesh, to prove they aren't Hari
• Will argue/agree amongst themselves, to create the semblance of "real" people
• When editing as IP socks, give a name in free text (rather than autosigning), and seem keen for people to know their identity/personal information about them and their location. Given that most IPs edit as IPs precisely because they want to remain "un-named", this is very unusual. In fact, I've only ever seen it in Hari's socks.

Given Hari's obsessive six year history of editing under various guises on Wikipedia, and his control freakery over his own article, it is not surprising he has not been be able to disengage, despite being found out. 86.152.240.151 (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Yonmei (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I've got much to add to this discussion, but, for what it's worth, and as I've said before, I regarded user:zafio as one of dave r/Hari's sock/meat puppets when he started editing the Hari page back in 2007. There are numerous reasons to think this, as stated ably by user:yonmei and others, above; but the most obvious is the contribution history-overwhelmingly of edits on the Hari page and talk page. The nature of the edits have also been characteristically long and pro-Hari. As a major contributor to the Hari page and most of the associated archived discussion pages, I'm pretty familiar with the (gut-wrenchingly tedious) record of my armwrestling with dave r/Hari, but I don't think that I've got any other particularly special insights.FelixFelix ^talk 11:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not certain comments from an unsigned editor are helpful in the current circumstances.Zafio (talk) 14:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You have to admit, they're good points.FelixFelix ^talk 06:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It has already been established that Hari’s sockpuppeteering activities at Wikipedia went on over a number of years and were extraordinarily warped and bizarre. To quote Tom Chivers's recent piece in The Telegraph:

As David Allen Green, the legal writer, and the blog Velvet Glove, Iron Fist have both said, some of the behaviour that "David Rose" has engaged in is genuinely bizarre. At one stage Johann Hari quotes David Rose in his blog, giving him biographical details like "a starred first from a degree specialising in environmental science at Cambridge, and extensive work in Antarctica observing the effects of global warming", to support a point Hari himself is making. Green counts "at least fifteen biographical facts (from a lawyer girlfriend in Walthamstow and subbing jobs at the Independent and Spectator, to a principled and noisy opposition to the invasion of Iraq)" about David Rose, none of which were true, because there is no David Rose. "[It] was a fluent stream of lies contrived just so that the systemic smear campaign and dishonest self-promotional exercise could carry on and never be exposed", he says. Snowdon mentions an example in which two apparent Hari sockpuppets, David Rose and "Jessica", talk amongst themselves and pretend to get in touch with Hari himself over the choice of picture on his Wikipedia entry, and another in which he spent some time "emphasising his own importance as a major cultural figure". This is magnificently strange behaviour, not to mention utterly dishonest. This is not someone who made a few errors here and there, it is systematic misrepresentation and deceit.

So if it turns out that Zafio is indeed Hari's latest sock incarnation, then it would simply be in keeping with the utterly wierd behaviour outlined above. In short, you can't put it past him. On the other hand, Zafio may be entirely innocent, and our suspicions, though understandable, are in fact unwarranted. What the community needs to do is to present some clear evidence. Jprw (talk) 11:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the evidence I gave above in this diff showing the similarities between Zafio's first edit and that of the David R sock User:Thelionforreal, is clear: the same wording for the same excuse for joining the same discussion on the same talk page - just 13 months apart. The editing of the Norman Mailer page, which Zafio did shortly after Hari published an article on Norman Mailer, is also clear evidence IMO. Yours, almost-instinct 12:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

No it is not clear evidence, it is circumstantial. Perhaps something checkuser-related? Jprw (talk) 12:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, now I understand you, sorry. Do you think this circumstantial evidence is sufficient to warrant a checkuser-related search for clear evidence? almost-instinct 12:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes that was what I was trying to suggest. Jprw (talk) 13:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

In a lot of cases check user evidence is circumstantial anyway, so it comes down to behavioural evidence. I think this case is borderline, and have seen accounts blocked on less evidence, but this SPI is a bit higher profile than most.... Polequant (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Circumstantial evidence seems to count for rather too much here. I realized this morning that I have more than 5 pairs of oven gloves, I cannot explain why. This may lead some to have "reasonable suspicion" that a giant lobster, with an obvious need to protect their 10 feet, cooks in my kitchen and it would be hard for me to produce counter-evidence when challenged by the much quoted QUACK essay; in fact my repeated protestations that I personally find such a claim ridiculous would probably be counted against me. Fæ (talk) 09:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Quite. I don't see that there's much can be done here. All of the off-wiki stuff is frankly irrelevant. The evidence is not enough to show a clear link. Unless a CU does a little bit of investigation on the quiet (which of course never happens, oh no) this will all come to nothing. Polequant (talk) 11:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I can address some of this circumstantial evidence here. David Allen Green, as reposted from an off-wiki site belowe, writes that "Zafio has also provided a plausible and detailed explanation of his interest in Hari, which fits with the available evidence". I have supplied David Allen Green with evidence that shows my prior interest in subjects of at least two Hari articles, and that my interest pre-dates those articles. One of these prior interests is in issues relating to Hari's article on Mailer. Zafio (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

22 September 2011 - David Allen Green says "Inconclusive"

Three updates from DAG/Jack of Kent, all posted as comments at Snowdon's blogpost on this situation. I've quoted them all in full here to record them because the information is sufficiently complex that I don't believe a summary is appropriate. The blogpost and comments-thread. The "I" in each of the three dated updates below is David Allen Green.Yonmei (talk) 07:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

20 September 2011 2325

"Zafio" has provided me with a IRL name and a great deal of biographical information.

I have no doubt that the person named does actually exist IRL (by a coincidence which "Zafio" could not have anticipated, I happen to know someone the named person co-authored a paper with).

However, I am not yet able to say whether that named person is "Zafio" or whether this is an elaborate sockpuppet exercise.

There are a few more checks to make before I can form a view on the extent that I can (if at all) verify "Zafio" is actually that named person IRL.

21 September 2011 1656

1. Zafio provided me with a distinctive IRL name [AB].

2. There is at least one person IRL with the name [AB]. I can find three good examples (which appear independent) of a person named [AB] sharing the same interests as Zafio on Wikipedia.

3. Zafio also has three social media accounts under the name [AB]. I am satisfied that Zafio currently has control of at least two of those accounts, and probaly all three.

4. One of the social media accounts is well-established and provides information about [AB], consistent with Zafio's interests on Wikipedia.

5. Another of those social media accounts dates back to Jaunary 2009 and has been under the name [AB] since at least September 2009 (if not from the beginning). This account also provides information about [AB] which is consistent with Zafio's interests on Wikipedia.

6. Accordingly, Zafio has since at least September 2009 had one social media account under the name [AB] which appears consistent with Zafio's concurrent interests on Wikipedia.

7. Whatever the truth may be, these established social media accounts mean that Zafio is not a *crude* sock puppet of "David Rose".

8. My current view is that Zafio is either (a) [AB] in real life or (c) a very sophisticated sock-puppet of "David Rose" which has been a long time in the making and has taken a lot of effort to establish.>

9. Therefore, I am not yet able to say that the Zafio on Wikipedia is or is not a sockpuppet.

10. I am now awaiting the results of a couple of further checks. These checks may be conclusive.

I must add Zafio has been very cooperative in this process.

21 September 2011 2330

This is a tough one.

I have not had the the responses to the further checks. I will make a comment here when I do (if I do). So this is perhaps an interim update.

Zafio has provided evidence of active social media accounts under the name [AB], and one of these in particular looks convincing as being that of a real person called [AB]. Zafio has shown he has control of these social media accounts.

Zafio has also provided a plausible and detailed explanation of his interest in Hari, which fits with the available evidence. He has also provided a lot of other biographical information, which I am not able to verify.

As it stands, I think the real identiy oz Zafio has to remain an open question (for now). If it is a hoax then it would be one significantly more elaborate than "David Rose" and in respect of an identity [AB] which is not even being revealed (as yet).

On the other hand, [AB] has a strikingly similar style of writing to David Rose, and a very similar tendency to deploy biographical details.

If I only had seen the information and materials provided to me by Zafio, I would say he was not "David Rose".

But if I only had Zafio's emails and other writings, I would personally say it was.

Subject to the results of my other checks (if I ever receive them), my current view is that the real identity of Zafio must remain an open question: the evidence neither for nor against is enough to rebut the other.

But Zafio certainly has an established alternative internet identity as [AB].

Sorry I could not provide a more conclusive response at this stage.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

• WP:TL;DR. Our volunteers' time is limited and valuable, so do not expect that verbose submissions will be considered. Yonmei, you may wish to re-draft. AGK [•] 10:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

---