Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/North8000/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


North8000

North8000 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
14 October 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Me and Thargor Orlando have had a long dispute over public opinion polls of single-payer (diff). Recently after being inactive for a long time, Thargor started up the dispute again and made two major reverts (second revert). After warning Thargor about the revert (diff), North8000 made the same one (diff) thus "tipping" the dispute.

This should be seen as rather suspicious, one user (North) is very active whereas Thargor is usually inactive except for when it comes to that particular issue; North8000 is a member of Wikiproject Conservatism (link) and Thargor edits conservative articles.

Finally KiloVoltaire only has two edits, one of them is on the article we were disputing (diff) and the only person to respond was Thargor (diff). My assumption is if Thargor isn't an alt for North, then at least Kilo is an alt of Thargor. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC) CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Comments by other users[edit]

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

This is beyond ridiculous, it is a baseless and insulting personal attack. Per the above, the complaint is beyond baseless, it is stupid......making the claim with the only basis being that I did one edit which agreed with the other editor. I was tempted to invite the investigation as step one of taking them to wp:ani for this personal attack, but I decided not to. Further, I was never even notified of this until Thargor Orlando did so. North8000 (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't believe there is evidence to support North8000 and Thargor being the same user. North8000 is a prolific editor with the same political biases as Thargor, but without the SPA-like editing record. There's plenty of tag-team edit warring and meat puppetry evidence, but not socking activity. I am not familiar with the other username. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm not conservative, I'm libertarian, which is exactly the opposite on social issues. But someone from the conservatism project asked me to join, and I said yes, telling them the same thing. North8000 (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My bad in that case, it's still odd that Kilo only has two edits and one of which was on that particular issue. CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  •  Clerk note: I've reviewed Thargor's and North's contributions, and there isn't anything like enough evidence to tie the two together. Their styles are relatively different. KiloVoltaire has absolutely nothing to indicate that he is related to North8000. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
01 February 2015[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Re North8000

During the 2014 gun control arbcom, North8000 was found, among other things, to edit while logged out, place undue weight on inappropriate material, and to fail to get the point. During a 2012 ANI discussion about North8000's behavior it was shown that he had a near obsession with describing "political correctness" as a pejorative.

From gun control ArbCom:

From ANI/North8000 discussion:

18 September 2009 (in article subsection headed "In right-wing rhetoric") The most common meaning here is a perjorative [sic] term to refer to excessive deference to particular political sensibilities at the expense of other considerations.
00:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC) ... With the closest (albeit imperfect) thing to that in the WP article being: "a pejorative term to refer to excessive deference to particular sensibilities at the expense of other considerations" ...
16:31, 23 January 2011 I think that it is clearly a pejorative term referring to particular forms of behavior. Probably one of the few places in the article that actually says it is "The most common usage here is as a pejorative term to refer to excessive deference to particular sensibilities at the expense of other considerations." ...
20:40, 12 April 2011 Created a new section headed "POV?" with this comment: Addressing the edit summary with the recently placed POV tag, "Political Correctness" is a pejorative term, and the characterization of certain behaviors as such....
02:01, 23 August 2011 No strong opinion on the topic at hand, but to repeat one structural note, PC is is essentially an pejorative, promulgated term which posits that, in the discussed cases, the discussed otherwise-acceptable behaviors are, in this case, bad because they taken to an excessive degree....

Edit summary search results for North8000 and pejorative.

Re the Faceless Enemy account
  • The Faceless Enemy account was created on 23 January 2010.[1]
  • The acount was fairly active through July 2010, and then its activity tapered off.
    • 67 edits in 2011;
    • 69 edits in 2012 (none in Nov/Dec);
    • 8 edits in 2013 (editing in only 5 of 7 months);
    • 2 edits in 2014.
  • However, as of February 1, Faceless Enemy had already made 165 edits since January 1.[2] (scroll down to "Month counts")

Faceless Enemy edits to the Gun show loophole article, include:

  • 28 January 2015 Added the article to the categories American political neologisms and Dysphemisms.
  • 28 January 2015 Added the word political to the lead sentence.

Even though there were already discussions: "Gun show loophole": NPOV article title (started by Mudwater - 13:57, 27 January 2015); Gun show loophole (started at WP:NPOVN by Lightbreather - 23:34, 27 January 2015); RFC to rename article (also started by Mudwater - 01:21, 28 January 2015) -

Faceless Enemy made 44 edits to the Gun show loophole talk page between January 25 and February 1, including:

  • 29 January 2015 Proposed merging GSL and Universal background check to create a new article (which then became a formal merge proposal)
  • 29 January 2015 Opened a move request (only 2 1/2 hours after proposing merge)
  • 31 January 2015 Started new section Category:Dysphemisms
  • 31 January 2015 Made statement: "Loophole" is certainly pejorative. For example, a more neutral and strictly factual term would be "private sale exemption." I'm not sure I've ever seen "loophole" used in a non-pejorative way.
  • 1 February 2015 Replied with links to sources (not about gun shows) that he says shows "loophole" is a pejorative.

--Lightbreather (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Faceless Enemy: Re your edit summary, The basic courtesy of a ping would have been nice: I didn't ping you because of this reply[3] to a question that I recently read. Lightbreather (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Faceless Enemy: This isn't "grasping at straws." I believe that you are very likely North8000, or his puppet. North8000 was obsessed about labeling things as "pejoratives" (more evidence[4][5][6]), and you have been, too, and not dropping it even though several editors have agreed that "loophole" is not a pejorative. Lightbreather (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EChastain: This SPI is about North8000, not Sue Rangell. Since you just mentioned him three times, I'm also pinging TParis. And why the heck are you dragging Hell in a Bucket into this? Lightbreather (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • Nope. Never heard of the guy until now. I had a bunch of stuff written up defending each of the edits in turn, but most of @Lightbreather:'s evidence revolves around the fact that I've used the word "pejorative" and that I've defended edits I've made. The word pejorative was appropriate, and I wouldn't have made the edits if I didn't think they were worth defending. As to the inactivity period, life happens. I had other things to focus on. The high edit count in January is mostly due to good faith discussions in an attempt to find consensus on a controversial topic. I don't think any of the material I've cited was inappropriate. As to "failing to get the point," I feel that LB has misunderstood the points I've tried to make. (Also, not sure why "failing to get the point" is a punishable offense, but as LB's obsessive research into my edit history reveals, I've been inactive for a while and I'm "new" to this.) Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further Comment: The more I think about it, the harder time I have believing that @Lightbreather:'s accusation was made in good faith. This feels like a grasping-at-straws attempt to ban someone she disagrees with. Nothing I've done is punishable, so opening up a baseless SPI is the only option left. Faceless Enemy (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further Comment 2: @Lightbreather: You are not "several" editors. At the time you opened this SPI, this is the last edit I had made to that section. As I understood it, you and I were the only two people who had made their opinions known on the subject (DN's input was ambivalent on the question). By your logic any time two editors disagree and discuss it they're guilty of "not dropping it." Faceless Enemy (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No evidence supporting this SPI Most of the evidence is predicated on the assumption that Faceless Enemy is User:North8000, blocked since April 2014, and who appears to have edited a variety of articles on different subjects, including Assault weapon.[9] More revealing in my opinion are these interactions.[10] which shows that on most articles where both Lightbreather and Faceless Enemy edited, Lightbreather's edits overwhelm those of Faceless Enemy. And if another active editor who Lightbreather supports is added, then the edits of Faceless Enemy are very minor in comparison.[11] EChastain (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Request to patrolling admins[edit]
  • I hope the patrolling admins consider Gun show loophole in view of Ownership of articles.[12] The editor initiating this request has a history of going after editors she thinks are editing gun control articles, but supporting specific editors that she's cultivated such as Darknipples. Note that a third of Darknipples edits are to Gun show loophole, while Faceless Enemy's are minor in comparison. EChastain (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • I don't find the evidence presented here very convincing. Also, the editor analysis tools suggests that these two users live in different time zones. While it looks like the IP is certainly an established user who was editing while logged out, I don't see anything I can really go on to conclusively link it to a user. I'm closing this case with no action taken. Mike V • Talk 00:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/North8000/Archive&oldid=1073120797"