Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Skoojal: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
ImprovingWiki (talk | contribs)
4,202 edits
ImprovingWiki (talk | contribs)
4,202 edits
Line 69: Line 69:
:I request that I be allowed to respond to any diffs said to indicate abusive editing. [[User:ImprovingWiki|ImprovingWiki]] ([[User talk:ImprovingWiki|talk]]) 18:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
:I request that I be allowed to respond to any diffs said to indicate abusive editing. [[User:ImprovingWiki|ImprovingWiki]] ([[User talk:ImprovingWiki|talk]]) 18:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
::Accusations of non-neutral editing are handled at other venues such as [[WP:RFCU]]. I am considering the task of assembling a case but it is a big job, made more complex by the need to show in each instance what would be the correct balance found in the literature, and to prove that you have purposely skewed the portrayal. I have not yet started assembling the case. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 19:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
::Accusations of non-neutral editing are handled at other venues such as [[WP:RFCU]]. I am considering the task of assembling a case but it is a big job, made more complex by the need to show in each instance what would be the correct balance found in the literature, and to prove that you have purposely skewed the portrayal. I have not yet started assembling the case. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 19:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
:::Yes, you are quite right, accusations of non-neutral editing would be better handled at other venues. I could make a case against you at [[WP:RFCU]], Binksternet, except that it is just not my style to do that kind of thing. I suspect that what SonicYouth is going to come up with are a bunch of edits that will be, at worst, honest mistakes on my part. The rest will simply be edits that he disagrees with for whatever reason. [[User:ImprovingWiki|ImprovingWiki]] ([[User talk:ImprovingWiki|talk]]) 21:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
:::Yes, you are quite right, accusations of non-neutral editing would be better handled at other venues. I could make a case against you at [[WP:RFCU]], Binksternet, except that it is just not my style to do that kind of thing. I suspect that what Sonicyouth86 is going to come up with are a bunch of edits that will be, at worst, honest mistakes on my part. The rest will simply be edits that he disagrees with for whatever reason. [[User:ImprovingWiki|ImprovingWiki]] ([[User talk:ImprovingWiki|talk]]) 21:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


======<span style="font-size:150%">Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</span>======
======<span style="font-size:150%">Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</span>======

Revision as of 21:32, 21 December 2014

FreeKnowledgeCreator

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FreeKnowledgeCreator/Archive.

Please note that a case was originally opened under Skoojal (talk · contribs) but has been moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FreeKnowledgeCreator. Future cases should be placed under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FreeKnowledgeCreator.


11 December 2014

– This SPI case is open.

Suspected sockpuppets

FreeKnowledgeCreator registers on February 13, 2009. One of the first things he does is drop someone a note that he’s abandoned the New Zealand IP he’s been using and shifting to an account. His focus is on the Camille Paglia and Ayn Rand article and pages related to Sigmund Freud. During FreeKnowledgeCreator’s wikibreak, ImprovingWiki registers on December 24, 2009. He discloses on his user page (userboxes) that he opposes Ayn Rand's philosophy and that he's from New Zealand. His first long discussion is about Freud. Polisher of Cobwebs registers on July 29, 2010 during ImprovingWiki’s and FreeKnowledgeCreator’s wikibreak. His first long discussion also concerns Freud. According to their userboxes, ImprovingWiki and Polisher of Cobwebs are interested in philosophy and film, FreeKnowledgeCreator has a long quote about philosopher Hegel on his user page.

Polisher of Cobwebs, FreeKnowledgeCreator and ImprovingWiki edit the the same four to five articles or topics, which are: (1) (Critique of) Freud and criticism of psychiatry/psychoanalysis, (2) homosexuality and related theorists and activists, (3) (critique of) Marxist and existentialist works or authors, and (4) "dissident feminist" works and authors. Among FreeKnowledgeCreator's most edited pages are several pages relating to Freud (link, link, link, link, link), homosexuality (link, link, link, link), existentialist or Marxist works (link), and "dissident feminist" authors and works (link, link). One of ImprovingWiki's top edited pages is Sigmund Freud, other top edited pages include a "dissident feminist" (link, link), several existentialist or Marxist authors and works (link, link, link, link), and pages like Sexual orientation. One of Polisher of Cobwebs' top edited pages is also Sigmund Freud and related pages (link, link), Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study of Male Homosexuals, and pages related to Marxism or existentialism (link, link, link, link).

The other interest the three accounts share is film. Their editing histories are interspersed with minor edits in film articles, the most typical edit is the de-linking of dates (ImprovingWiki, Polisher of Cobwebs, FreeKnowledgeCreator).

They use the same distinct style of footnotes: "#" followed by first three letters of author name and last two numbers of year (ImprovingWiki, FreeKnowledgeCreator, Polisher of Cobwebs).

They upload very similar file content in the same topic areas (Polisher of Cobwebs, FreeKnowledgeCreator, ImprovingWiki).

The four New Zealand IPs edit pages previously edited by at least one of the three accounts. I went through the first 100 edits by IP 122.60.173.222 and found the IP only edits pages (with one exception) that were created or edited by ImprovingWiki, FreeKnowledgeCreator or Polisher of Cobwebs. For example, the last page that the IP edited, Main Currents of Marxism, was created by Polisher of Cobwebs and expanded by the IP and ImprovingWiki who also uploaded the image of the front cover. The intersections between the editing histories of the accounts and the IP go far beyond what coincidence can explain, especially considering that the IP has a relatively short editing history consisting of less than 260 edits. Moreover, the IP uses the same rare and distinct citation style as the three accounts.

IP 122.60.204.74, IP 203.118.187.45, IP 203.118.187.207 and IP 203.118.187.13 display the same behavioural pattern as IP 122.60.173.222, they edit the files, articles and talk that were created or expanded by the three editors ImprovingWiki, FreeKnowledgeCreator and Polisher of Cobwebs. The article New Zealand General Election, 2014 among ImprovingWiki's 15 top edited pages gave me pause but it makes sense with the New Zealand IPs.

The accounts and IPs work in unison. For example, the page Who Stole Feminism? was created by Polisher of Cobwebs, reworked by FreeKnowledgeCreator and IP 203.118.187.13, IP 122.60.173.222 tried to defend the article against complaints of bias, and ImprovingWiki defended Polisher of Cobwebs and FreeKnowledgeCreator's additions (e.g., [1] --> [2]).

The CU data for Polisher of Cobwebs and FreeKnowledgeCreator is probably stale by now but I believe that there's enough behavioral evidence to make a decision per WP:DUCK. -- Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Binksternet: The way that the accounts and IPs have been used suggests attempts to avoid scrutiny or to cover up their tracks. Polisher of Cobwebs has contributed some very controversial content, three to four months after he stops editing (and CU data becomes stale), FreeKnowledgeCreator is reactivated. FreeKnowledgeCreator makes some more controversial edits, getting blocked for disruptive editing in the process, and three months after he stops editing in May 2014 (and, again, CU data becomes useless), ImprovingWiki is reactivated in August 2014. As I pointed out some problematic content that Polisher of Cobwebs added, ImprovingWiki defends it but claims that he isn't responsible for it, stating that he "in fact contributed very little" [3]. He abandons and reactivates accounts and IPs to edit the same articles and discuss the same issues with some of the same editors who don't know that the editor who argued with them five months ago is the editor who argues with them today. I don't see a legitimate use of multiple accounts. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 02:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: I'll provide diffs tomorrow. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 02:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. More baseless stuff. SonicYouth86 has been forum shopping to get editors that disagree with his unsound additions to articles that he has recently come into through GamerGate. He added Christine Hoff Sommers as a "gamerGate discretionary sanctions" article and promptly issues warnings to me and "ImprovingWiki". He filed a failed Sanction attempt against me. When his edit to Christina Hoff Sommers was rejected, he took it to her 20 year old book where he tried to redefine a critics view of her. When that failed because Rule of Thumb didn't mean what he though it meant, he took his same stuff to that article. An interesting interaction was Sonicyouth86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) as Binksternet mysteriously came to "Reliable Sources Noticeboard", then to Who Stole Feminism? and then to Rule of thumb only to revert to SonicYouth86's edit. If there is a sockpuppet investigation, it should investigate SY86's actions as well. Otherwise it should be dropped and he can take his GamerGate related concerns to the current ArbCom case. Here's an easy link [4] to get a list of articles. I don't think they are sock puppets but it's more evidence then he provides for accounts long dormant. --DHeyward (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • DHeyward, it's a pretty extreme accusation that you're levying against Binksternet right there. And no, I don't think you've got any evidence for that claim whatsoever. It's not that uncommon for someone to investigate some situations presented at a noticeboard, and go and make edits based on those things. I suggest you take a step back and calm down, rather than making fairly outrageous claims against editors in good standing. Equally, your commentary here is irrelevant to this SPI, which appears to me at least to have no relevance to GamerGate whatsoever. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not levying any accusation at all. I also didn't ping binksternet (unless user5 is a pinging function, but I don't think so) user5 did ping him to bring him here as he says below. If Binksternet had edited the Reliable Sources noticeboard, it would have been no big deal. But alas that wasn't the case, his response at the noticeboard to Who Stole Feminism? was the first to that board in years (and last, I believe). How he got to just show up and revert me seems odd. Odder still was the non-noticeboard random revert at Rule of thumb here [5] to Sonicyouth86's version without any indication of how he would be there (it wasn't the noticeboard). In short, it seems Binksternet and Sonicyouth86 have a connection through Men's rights movement. It's clear there is at least some connection not readily visible. Doubt they are sockpuppets but the reverts are clearly meatpuppetry as the summaries are not particularly coherent given the topic ans talk page discussion. Since they don't seem to communicate on talk, I am wondering about the rather strange coincidence of support and the dual interest in Men's rights. Maybe it's an audio link. The praise below is rather extreme IMO for a rather weak SPI connection. Here's the interaction again [6] --DHeyward (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sonicyouth86 made it GamerGate related [7] followed by his warning to ImprovingWiki [8]. Reading some previous stuff it appears this too goes back possibly to Memills and Doxelary and other "Men's rights movement" stuff which I am not familiar with. --DHeyward (talk) 03:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sommers invoked Gamergate on August 29 with this tweet; the tweet was widely discussed during September. Which explains all the recent activity at the Sommers biography and her book article. Sommers is the sweetheart of Gamergate supporters. Binksternet (talk) 04:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. CHS is where Sonicyouth86 and ImprovingWiki crossed paths. That answers User:Lukeno94 question about how GamerGate is involved. --DHeyward (talk) 07:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • On ANI, NE Ent has expressed that this appears to be furthering a dispute I have with Sonicyouth86. That was not my intent. Along with Lukeno94's comment above, though, I think it is then appropriate to strike and disengage. It wasn't my intent to further my dispute, rather to illuminate problematic behavior. I apologize if this has disrupted the SPI process. --DHeyward (talk) 14:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for doing that. I don't doubt that Sonicyouth86 may not be a saint (I haven't looked into anything myself), but this SPI seems to be perfectly valid to me, at least on the surface. I can certainly see these accounts being linked based on the "lazily named sock" rule (ie, they all seem vaguely related), as well as the evidence here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been pinged by DHeyward, so now I know of this investigation. After looking through the evidence, I see excellent sleuthing has been performed by Sonicyouth86, who correctly connects three named accounts and a handful of New Zealand IPs, though there are a lot more such NZ IPs not listed. The typographical similarities clinch the connection, which would have been conclusive anyway simply because of the unusual intersections of articles about Marxist philosophy, about anti-feminism, and about the issue of whether homosexuality is naturally occurring or a free choice. I would add Special:Contributions/116.199.211.49 which was this person's heavily used IP address during 2009 and 2011, especially on the Paglia bio, but which has continued to be used occasionally since then, including earlier this year. It was this IP that announced to Nuujinn an account change, followed by this announcement of the username Seed of Azathoth, which was FreeKnowledgeCreator's first registered username. (On 13 April 2012, the name Seed of Azathoth was changed to FreeKnowledgeCreator.)
    It's quite clear that the IPs are this person who is editing logged out, for instance this report shows ImprovingWiki is changing some film articles on 1 December, going in alphabetical order starting with 'A', but IP 122.60.173.222 kicks into the series, right where three "Above..." films are being edited. That's obviously a logged out edit.
    I would also like to point out the biography of American author Chandler Burr and his book A Separate Creation, the latter article started by Polisher of Cobwebs as an attack on Burr, filled with WP:NOR violations, or at least WP:SYNTH. These two little-seen articles have witnessed action from 116.199.211.49, 122.60.204.74, FreeKnowledgeCreator, ImprovingWiki, and a further dozen New Zealand IPs starting with 203.118. It's quite a little knot of interconnectedness here, on a subject few care about.
    However, the big problem with all of this sleuthing by Sonicyouth86 is that it does not show the New Zealander using multiple accounts in a manner that violates the guideline at WP:MULTIPLE, with more than one account commenting in the same discussion, or edit-warring over content. There's plenty of problematic editing, violations of BLP, NPOV, SYNTH and NOR, but no outright socking. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, of course, if evidence is brought forward. The closest I found myself was this edit by NZ IP 203.118 in August 2013, adding Homosexuality: A Philosophical Inquiry to the "See also" section, then in February 2014 when another editor removes the entry, FreeKnowledgeCreator restores it. (Personally, I would remove it as unrelated.)
    So I would like to see proof that there is a more serious violation of MULTIPLE before I would recommend any of these accounts be blocked. Certainly all the accounts should plainly state their interconnection in one of the manners suggested at WP:MULTIPLE. To me, the connection is crystal clear. Binksternet (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to congratulate Sonicyouth86 for showing the irrefutable interconnectedness of these accounts and IPs. After this SPI concludes, I think the next step is to work toward a topic ban on sexuality and feminism, since it has become clear to me that our friend from New Zealand has been inserting bias and POV into Wikipedia for five years. The bias is against feminism and against the idea that homosexuality is inborn. Topics at which this person has had strong influence are topics where opposing opinions have been ignored, sidelined or minimized, while opinions shared by the New Zealander are emphasized beyond due weight. So a case with diffs proving long-term bias will have to be prepared for discussion at WP:ANI. Sonicyouth86 has laid the groundwork. Binksternet (talk) 02:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have used different accounts for privacy reasons. I have always been concerned that if I continue to use the same account for too long, someone will be able to piece together enough evidence to work out my real life identity. That has been a major concern since, as Sonicyouth86 notes, I have edited in some very controversial areas (Freud, homosexuality, Marxism, etc). I consider my editing neutral, but it is in the nature of controversial subjects like these that there is not going to be much agreement about where neutrality lies. As I am sure you can imagine, I am not interested in taking part in a debate about my character and motivations. I have never intentionally violated BLP, and I regret any accidental violations. I appreciate Binksternet's comment above, noting that I have not used multiple accounts to try to sway consensus in discussions ("the big problem with all of this sleuthing by Sonicyouth86 is that it does not show the New Zealander using multiple accounts in a manner that violates the guideline at WP:MULTIPLE, with more than one account commenting in the same discussion, or edit-warring over content.") Whether some or all of my accounts are blocked, and whether the blocks are temporary or permanent, are perhaps academic issues now, as I am not sure I want to continue to participate in Wikipedia. I am prepared to discuss all relevant issues, however. ImprovingWiki (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your account name is completely generic, so privacy issues shouldn't be an issue in theory, and I don't see any excuse for having three accounts that all run essentially concurrently. Two accounts, yes, but three? Also, are we to take it that this is an admission that all accounts are yours, and the IP is as well? You probably shouldn't edit from an IP if you have privacy concerns. I would imagine that you would probably be required to disclose any further accounts you have here to remain unblocked, but that is the SPI clerking admins' call. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The privacy issues relate to the articles edited, and the content of those edits, not my user name. Although I am obviously not going to go into details, I have been involved in controversies related to these subjects under my real life name. Those aware of what I have done off Wikipedia might be able to work it out based on my editing here. The accounts and IP addresses are indeed all mine. I am not trying to suggest that I am a model Wiki-citizen. I offer no "excuses" for anything I have done, although I do think that the content I have contributed to Wikipedia has been useful. As far as blocks are concerned, I suggest that a logical course of action might be to indefinitely block this account and Polisher of Cobwebs. FreeKnowledgeCreator, as the original account, could be either left unblocked or given a temporary block. If I feel inclined to edit at all in future, I will edit from that account. I would be prepared to agree to whatever topic bans are felt appropriate. Whether this is acceptable or not, others may judge. ImprovingWiki (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it makes any difference, I can log in as FreeKnowledgeCreator and Polisher of Cobwebs and confirm that way that they are my accounts. ImprovingWiki (talk) 08:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will log in as FreeKnowledgeCreator and as Polisher of Cobwebs shortly. Regarding "abusive editing", let it be noted that Sonicyouth86 is not a neutral party. He has disagreed with me on various controversial content issues, and his view of what constitutes "abusive editing" may not be the same as that of a neutral observer. ImprovingWiki (talk) 00:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed that I am the same user as Polisher of Cobwebs and ImprovingWiki. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed that I am the same user as FreeKnowledgeCreator and ImprovingWiki. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bbb23, I did as you requested. ImprovingWiki (talk) 00:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I request that I be allowed to respond to any diffs said to indicate abusive editing. ImprovingWiki (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Accusations of non-neutral editing are handled at other venues such as WP:RFCU. I am considering the task of assembling a case but it is a big job, made more complex by the need to show in each instance what would be the correct balance found in the literature, and to prove that you have purposely skewed the portrayal. I have not yet started assembling the case. Binksternet (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are quite right, accusations of non-neutral editing would be better handled at other venues. I could make a case against you at WP:RFCU, Binksternet, except that it is just not my style to do that kind of thing. I suspect that what Sonicyouth86 is going to come up with are a bunch of edits that will be, at worst, honest mistakes on my part. The rest will simply be edits that he disagrees with for whatever reason. ImprovingWiki (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Clerk note: Two requests. ImprovingWiki, please do as you suggested. Log into FreeKnowledgeCreator and Polisher of Cobwebs and then make one edit for each. Let me know when you've done that by pinging me here, preferably, or leaving a note on my Talk page. Sonicyouth86, please give me just a few examples (diffs) of abusive editing by any of the named accounts. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Skoojal&oldid=639092001"