Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Unomi/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Unomi

Unomi (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date March 12 2009, 04:10 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions


  1. All three users seem to edit only Aspartame controversy as single purpose accounts
  2. User:Karloff stopped editing the article when Verbal made this accusation on 28 February 2009.
  3. User:Unomi edited the article starting on 8 March 2008.
  4. All three editors have pushed the same POV on the article, that is that Aspartame is dangerous. They use the same sources for their POV. They also use Talk:Aspartame controversy in violation of WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:SOAP.
  5. Just so this doesn't sound like fishing, please note the similarities of indentation patterns and spelling for Unomi and for Karloff.
Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I support checking me for sock puppetry, I am confident that it will clear me, I have addressed it previously here. As for WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:SOAP this is clearly not the place to bring it up, but it is addressed by me here and in this. Please also see this AN/I. Unomi (talk) 05:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are now bringing in a host of other issues to this. I categorically deny WP:MEAT, I have had no contact with *ANY* WP editor *OR* interest group prior to randomly coming to wikipedia to find something to read. This is not the place for it but since WP:MEAT has been brought up I would like to know where issues of WP:TEAM can be raised. It is true that i tend not to capitalize 'I', it has been a conscious decision (the philosophy behind this is not really germane to this investigation) but i generally try to capitalize 'I' when it is necessary for deliverables (rarely) or I want to 'seem smart'(irony). As for broken English, I can only apologize and affirm that English is not my native language.
I believe that immortale was not referring to me, certainly he did not 'bring me in'.
I also want to vehemently deny that I am pushing for a POV, merely for accuracy.
The article in question was brought for an AfD and the consensus was KEEP with points being made regarding the historical nature of the controversy. Please bear in mind the article is not about *Is aspartame dangerous* it is about the controversy that has surrounded aspartame.
I have tried to answer the allegations of POV pushing repeatedly and anyone who cares to look will find my desire for NPOV evident. Unomi (talk) 05:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make it absolutely clear: At no point have I had any contact in any way, shape or form with any of the involved editors or any interested parties inside or outside WP, regarding this (or anything else). Unomi (talk) 07:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to engage in overly long point by point explanations here, the parties investigating this may contact me via my talk page or direct me to come here to explain myself, should it be necessary.

UNINDENT- Btw, It *is* fishing. Like most apes I learn by imitation, I must have noticed that a user used that method and applied it, honestly, I took it as the 'right way'. I don't like deeply indented sections and at the same time it should be made clear it is not an unintentional failure to indent. Unomi (talk) 09:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a time some people have, to play ridiculous games here. Just because someone else has joined the discussion that aspartame is not safe, doesn't mean that he or she is a friend of mine. There are millions of people in the world who believe aspartame is dangerous. When I wrote that I brought in the help of Neutral editors, it was according to Wikipedia policy, which anyone would know if they actually READ: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aspartame_controversy/Archive_2#Third_opinion I've edited other articles before and during aspartame. I have limited time and I prefer taking one article at the time. Aspartame Controversy isn't a balanced, neutral article, so why would I devote my energy to another article? When it comes to POV, OrangeMarlin, Verbal, Keepcalmandcarryon and a few others have pushed their own agenda that aspartame dangers are fringe. Not surprisingly because this mob is often present in numerous pseudo-scientific articles. Immortale (talk) 09:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


As this case seems to still be under review I direct all admins to look at my recent comments regarding possible impropriety by jc37 and tom_harrison on the AN/I. Unomi (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by other users

Support this request for checkuser. (If there is still such a thing as others also endorsing a request.) The tone of the comments of the users do seem similar, at the very least. And if not socks, meat puppetry could be possible as well. - jc37 04:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is not a vote, and the requesting user has not supplied a reason why a checkuser should look (simply putting "F" for Other is not really enough). —— nixeagleemail me 04:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wasn't suggesting that this was a "vote". My apologies if this page is somehow limited to not include consensual or supportive (or oppositive, for that matter) comments.
    As for the criteria, "F" would seem to be a justified "letter", based upon Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Checkuser criteria and letters. Or are you saying that you feel that his "brief summary" wasn't clear enough? If so, he also posted a short summary to WP:AN/I, which may help.
    That aside, considering the user's tendentious editing, and violations of WP:3RR, if these are also socks, then "D" may apply. There's also the question of "C" applying due to the talk page discussion of inclusion and how to present certain information. - jc37 04:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No what I am saying is that the reporter needs to make clear why they think a checkuser is required and not simply an admin looking through the diffs and blocking based on evidence. This statement has been done below. BTW you are free to comment, I just wanted to make clear that this was not a vote. —— nixeagleemail me 16:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also the broken English, lack of capitalization of some words, including the personal pronoun "I", and other oddities that Unomi and Karloff share in common. Immortale even talked about "Fact is that only when I brought in NEUTRAL editors,...", and they must have been these two (no others appeared), so they are most likely socks of each other and acting as meatpuppets for Immortale. They didn't just appear, since Immortale "brought" them in. They are the only ones who fight for inclusion of exactly the same edits and unneeded inclusion of large amounts of information from the GAO document, which is already summarized and only of historical interest. If it looks like a DUCK .... They should be blocked as socks and Immortale indeffed for deliberately doing this. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to Fyslee's evidence, there is the same idiosyncratic use of parenthesis in the signature of (Karloff and (Immortale, which was my original tip after the same poor English and pushing of exactly the same fringe POV. I fully agree with Fyslee and OM etc. Verbal chat 09:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Besides my comments above, I want to emphasize that Fyslee hasn't presented any evidence and that Verbal seems to act like a meatpuppet when he wants to "add to Fyslee's evidence". The ( I used to have before my name is because when I signed up, it was mentioned as the way to do it, which you can see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Immortale I have mentioned this before to Verbal but he refuses to understand things. And my English isn't poor at all, but if that would be used as evidence, than 95 percent of all wikipedia editors are in trouble. You guys are grabbing at straws when your arguments in the article aren't valid anymore. Immortale (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I chose F, because the other code letters did not apply. Clearly these are three editors that have pushed the same issue in Aspartame controversy over 2-3 months. There wasn't a code letter for "Pushing POV, getting accused of sockpuppetry, shutting down one account, setting up another one, to push the same POV." Unomi, Karloff, and Immortale should be indefinitely banned for abusing the good faith of the community. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 08:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(wandering admin)
I just did a walkthrough on their contributions... I am not convinced Karloff has anything to do with the other two. A distinct different non-aspartame interest in his oldest edits, the account is very old (pre account creation logs) though it's been inactive nearly all that time.
Edit and source focus on Immortale and Unomi line up well for duck test comparisons. They have some shared focus on Alex Constantine related info sources. Unomi is brand new - March 8th - and leapt directly in to support Immortale with advanced edit knowledge. I think it's hard to avoid concluding that Unomi is an experienced returning user and/or sock of existing user, and highly likely on a behavioral basis that the user is Immortale.
I am continuing to examine Immortale and Unomi for a duck test decision. If they're checkusered, I recommend that Karloff be compared as well to rule out a deeper link, but I doubt there's on there based on an hour's looking at it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on behavioral review, I am concluding that Immortale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) created Unomi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and used it to abusively sockpuppet, backing each other up in discussions on Talk:Aspartame controversy and related article edits. I have blocked Immortale for a week for sockpuppeting and Unomi indefinitely. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Why not indef both? Immortale is the perpetrator, IOW the most guilty, or rather, the only guilty party, since we're talking about the same person. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does the CU evidence mean we are back to "just" dealing with disruptive and tendentious editors? -- Fyslee (talk) 05:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CU evidence is not a conclusive definition one way or another, it's just evidence. For example, my next door neighbor could be a world class evolutionary biologist, and because of how cable internet works, we might share an IP (or close enough), but not even know each other. On the other hand, there are dozens of ways to hiding your IP address. For example, if I use AT&T through my iPhone, my IP address will not even be close to my actual physical location. Some wireless systems do not show accurate IP locations. Finally, I occasionally have a VPN connection to my office, which will show a geolocation several hundred miles from my actual login location. In other words, we have conclusive evidence of behavioral sockpuppetry without technical evidence. Most socks aren't that smart, I suppose. Some are. And of course, those of us who travel extensively, may have multiple IP addresses and locations.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, this is a really really really strong negative checkuser result. Does the sort of editing involved seem like that of someone going out of their way to be dishonest? Just a thought. (Only reason I'm here is I saw Unomi's unblock request.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of suspicion due to timing of account creation, immediate focus on topic, singular focus on topic... and edit patterns that looked very similar.
However - If they really aren't close to one another then thats' sort of unambiguous. One could make a case that they might be meatpuppeting and somehow connected in real life from the behavioral evidence, but one could also argue that they're two independent people with similar interest and knowledge.
I suspect a strongly felt CU negative trumps the behavioral suspicion, unless we find some thread connecting them in real life for meatpuppetry. I am going to review a bit more, but I'm inclined to unblock and chalk this up as a coincidence or error in judgement on my part. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. For what it is worth I believe that further admin interaction is warranted, I believe that this case will continue to needlessly drain the resources of AN/I etc. until there is an atmosphere of good faith discussion. I ask that further oversight and guidance regarding policy is directed at the current mediation effort. Unomi (talk) 08:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]


  •  Clerk endorsed While two of the three listed accounts have been blocked, I feel CheckUser evidence would be helpful here and there is enough evidence to justify one being ran. Tiptoety talk 04:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Additional information needed: Please provide a code letter. SPCUClerkbot (talk) 04:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Red X Unrelated Checkuser evidence shows no IP-relationship nor any geographic relationship nor any other checkusery sort of evidence between the three candidates. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Conclusions

{{Delisted}} CU says no. Mayalld (talk) 09:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC) {{SPIclose}}Mayalld (talk) 09:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Commented out the archive templates as discussions are still taking place. Tiptoety talk 14:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. 
- looks like discussion is over. —— nixeagleemail me 07:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16 January 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


The evidence below will endeavor to establish that BothHandsBlack (talk · contribs) is an undeclared successor account of Unomi (talk · contribs).

Background

  1. User:Unomi last contributed to Wikipedia on 26 December 2011. User:BothHandsBlack made his first contribution about two days later on 28 December 2011. User:Unomi has made no indication that he's retired his account, despite the counsel offered at WP:CLEANSTART. Meanwhile, User:BothHandsBlack is refusing to acknowledge that he's an alternate account of User:Unomi.
  2. Prior to abruptly discontinuing the use of his account, User:Unomi was extensively and passionately invested (e.g. here, here, here, here, and here) in the defense of User:YehudaTelAviv64's right to edit from an undeclared alternate account. User:YehudaTelAviv64 is a blocked sockpuppet of Dimension31 (talk · contribs).

Behavioral evidence linking BHB to Unomi

  1. Single quotation marks. Unomi: e.g. [1], [2]; BHB: [3], [4].
  2. Smileys. Unomi: e.g. [5], [6], [7]; BHB: [8], [9].
  3. Penchant for DR. Will elaborate in a separate comment.
  4. Exclamation marks. Unomi: e.g. [10], [11]; BHB: [12], [13].

Further cause for suspicion

  1. User:BothHandsBlack's second edit (31 December) was at the article USCGC Polar Star (WAGB-10), in a lead paragraph with WP:Markup#Text_formatting that included bold text. His second edit (same day) was at Solar maximum, also to a lead paragraph with bold text. Dozens of edits later, as late as 14 January, User:BothHandsBlack was still claiming he didn't know how to make text bold. BHB has described himself as "a research academic working in an area that requires precise research and referencing." It's inconceivable that these two narratives could be consistent and is further evidence that BHB is engaging in deceit.
  2. BHB's second and third edits were to articles relating to astronomy. Since then, he's been making dozens of edits per day in the I/P topic area with apparently no interest in any other areas of the project. This, together with his curious introductory comment, also suggests an attempt to deceive onlookers into believing BHB's sudden preoccupation with the I/P topic area so soon after the creation of his account is merely arbitrary.
  3. The peculiar patterns of BHB's editing behavior leave little room for doubt that he's a reincarnation of someone who's edited extensively in the Israel-Palestine topic area before. The question is therefore not so much one of if as of who: of all the familiar editors in the I/P topic area, who does BHB's behavior resemble the most? The answer is no one, except Unomi. There's no one else that edits I/P whose behavior overlaps BHB's as much as Unomi. I'm not requesting a checkuser be performed in this case. It's too fallible a method, and BHB has established off-wiki that he's a frequent flyer. Rather, given the nature of BHB's edits, the evidence should be solid enough for invoking WP:DUCK. —Biosketch (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

  • I started drafting this report yesterday. It looked more or less like it does now in my User space, with the exception of the diffs mostly. Interesting to note is that between starting this draft and the report's actual filing, User:Unomi has suddenly returned to make one edit.—Biosketch (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's likely that the BHB account's purpose is to bait several editors with whom the Unomi account had negative interactions, most notably User:Brewcrewer. See: Unomi, BHB.—Biosketch (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another aspect to consider is the shared interest in philosophy between the two accounts. In the case of the Unomi account, this is readily established by skimming through his edit history. For the BHB account we can rely on his own comments on his User page and at AN/I prior to my starting the SPI draft in my User space linking the BHB account with Unomi. Presumably, the professed interest in philosophy on the part of the BHB account was to be able to transition naturally into one of the Unomi account's favorite topic areas and continue editing where the Unomi account had left off.—Biosketch (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Comment edited by—Biosketch (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • And lastly, there is the business of inviting people to participate in dispute resolution. The Unomi account had invited a handful of editors to DRN over an atheism-related issue shortly before discontinuing the use of his account: [14], [15], [16], [17], etc. The BHB account launched into a remarkably similar pattern shortly after its creation, inviting a host of editors to WP:IPCOLL to resolve an issue involving Jerusalem: [18], [19], [20], [21], etc.—Biosketch (talk) 14:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

17 January 2012

  • The exchange below is astonishing in its own right – including the puzzling loss of temper by User:Sean.hoyland – but there's one detail in particular that invites closer scrutiny. In a previous SPI involving Unomi, he apologized for his broken English and stated that English was not his native language. At the same time, he offered up a novel explanation for why he capitalizes "I" on some occasions but not on others, indicating that it's a component of a more intricate linguistic philosophy. BHB's use of "consists in!" below, which User:Beyond My Ken sensitively picked up on as nonstandard, also suggests a non-native speaker of English. That, together with BHB's subsequent linguistically detailed explanation for the expression, is still more evidence for associating these two accounts with each other.—Biosketch (talk) 09:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And of course there is now this AE case against Unomi, where BHB evidently considers it his account's calling to involve himself repeatedly in defending comments the Unomi account made in reference to me.—Biosketch (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. In defending myself against these claims I would like to submit documentary evidence that I was a) on a flight with no internet connection on at least some of the occassions (I have only sought to identify one flight so far but will find others if needed) when Unomi has been editing, making it impossible that we could be the same person; b) that I was in a job interview at other such times; and c) that I can document at least one other meeting that I was in when supposedly editing as Unomi. I will also provide incontrovertible evidence that my claim to be a research academic is not deceitful (work email address plus link to university webpage on which that address is displayed) and should, rather, be accepted as an explanation for why I seem to 'know too much' to be a credible newcomer. I will also provide links to anonymous IP edits I made before I had an account, one of which (a talk page submission) I wrote in the form of a letter, signed with my real name. These show that I was very occasionally editing without an account during the time Unomi's account has been active and will also allow the administrator to confirm that I was editing from the same place as my recent edits and that this location corresponds with that stated publicly on my university webpage. Please let me know who I should mail this evidence to (I wish the precise details to remain private).

In response to the behavioural 'evidence' there is obviously nothing I can say regarding the use of smileys, single quotation marks or exclamation marks other than that this behaviour probably applies to at least 25% of all people posting on the internet in the English language. As to my 'penchant' for Dispute Resolution, I have made use of that notice board once, so it can hardly be claimed that a pattern has been established there. I thought that this was the appropriate place to take a minor dispute that had been going on for three days and which had entered a deadlock (both myself and the other editor involved had not added anything new in our last posts on the subject and were at the stage of repeating our positions rather than moving forward). I should note that use of the noticeboard immediately led to the dispute being amicably resolved.

Regarding the Further Causes for Suspicion: 1) The claim that I cannot both be a research academic and also have failed to learn to format text is an odd one. Neither of the edits indicated by Biosketch made use of formatting. One simply involved correcting the plural of maximum, replacing the last two letters with an 'a'. In order to make this edit there was obviously no need to come to an understanding of all the formatting in the lead. The 'Polar Star' edit is not even in the lead (contrary to Biosketch's statement) and involved nothing more than highlighting two sentences and pressing backspace. Again, just because formatting was used elsewhere in the article provides no reasonable grounds for concluding that I must be telling a lie when I claimed some weeks later that I did not yet know how to format. Learning this skill was by no means a priority, although a number of admins have, in the last two days, provided me with the basic information needed.

2) The point made here rather calls into question whether Biosketch has actually read the edits I have made or is simply grasping at anything he can. Whilst he describes my first two edits as on astronomy, the first is actually in an article on a ship belong to the US Coastguard, called the 'Polar Star'. I arrived at this page having spent the morning looking into the fascinating subject of nuclear powered icebreakers (a class of ship that I had no idea existed). I ended up reading about astronomy a few hours later having been looking into supermassive blackholes and various types of solar objects. I suspect the link between the two subjects was nuclear reactions but can't remember the precise route I took to the page on solar maxima. With regard to the claim that since then I have been making dozens of edits a day in the IP area, I would note that the period referred to is only 7 days long and the number of days on which my edits exceeded two dozen is only 4. In addition, almost every single one of those edits has been made on, or is directly related to, a single article (NGO Monitor) that I have been working to improve in collaboration with two other editors. Once I started on this minor article I decided to work through it top to tail in order to cut my teeth on wikipedia editing. I have not been diving in to contentious articles with heavy handed edits but have, rather, been working slowly to sort out a single article first before moving onto another one. In addition, I should note that no one has actually complaimed about my editing: no one has labelled it as disruptive, NPOV, uncivil or identified any similar problem with it.

Supplementary Data on my Editing Profile It is also worth considering that the vast majority of my edits are on talk pages discussing what edits should be made to the actual articles. For instance, on the NGO Monitor article I have made roughly 32 edits, of which less than 20 are non-minor edits concerned with the actual content (and even this figure includes a couple of self reverts). By comparison, I have edited the talk page 53 times, with all my edits to the article grounded in the discussions there. Outside this article I have less than 10 non-minor edits to my name. The statement, then, that I have made dozens of edits each day in the IP area needs to be glossed to make clear that the vast majority of these edits are discursive and not meaningful alterations to the content of articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BothHandsBlack (talk • contribs) 18:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that my, apparently curious, introductory comment indicates an attempt to deceive seems to be clearly based on a confirmation bias. I stated openly that my initial interest was in the IP area (a topic I had been reading about over Christmas). There is absolutely no suggestion there that I stumbled across the topic by accident and picked it arbitrarily. I picked it for the reason I state: it is a fascinating topic about which I would like to know more.

In addition, I would add that the narrative suggested by Biosketch simply doesn't correspond to the recorded data. It cannot be the case that I intended to use my first two edits as a 'beard' to allow me to claim I had stumbled across the IP area for the simple reason that my statement about my interest in editing in this area was made three days before either of those two edits. I didn't initially dive into editing on IP because I was trying to learn a bit more about the editing issues before starting, although I now find that it is precisely because I took what I considered to be a responsible step that I am under suspicion.

3) As noted above, I will provide documentary evidence to show that the link between myself and Unomi is an impossible one. Having looked over some of Unomi's posts I do understand why someone might think our writing styles are similar but I think that once this idea got lodged in a number of editors' heads they have sought to cast everything I do in such a way as to confirm this fact. Very fortunately for me, it is possible to refute it conclusively but I pity the editor who is put in such a position and doesn't happen to have the documentation to back up his claims.

Finally, regarding the claim that my intent is to bait other editors, the link Biosketch provides clearly shows that my comments there are a response to accusations that had already been made against me on that page and not the original source for such accusations. Two of the editors involved in the discussion there had already turned up at my talk page to make implied accusations and ask odd questions, all of which I addressed politely. It was only upon finding out that I had been convicted in my absence by a kangaroo court led by Brewcrewer that I posted on his page. By no means can it be claimed that I initiated any interaction.

Lastly, I note that I was not informed that this investigation about me had been opened here. BothHandsBlack (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - BHB, to save time and space, here is your editing profile. See the Frequently edited pages link for detailed counts for each page you have edited. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I won't have to count manually next time :-) BothHandsBlack (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok guys, take a chill from firing your guns at each other and give a clerk the time to look into this. And this is not the place to continue the dispute. -- DQ (t) (e) 17:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The un☯mi account comments

Shenanigans! aganigans! :) un☯mi 19:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now I understand what being concise consists in!BothHandsBlack (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Consists in"? Academic? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I'm tempted to say that your insistence on continuing to grasp at my writing style in order to imply that I'm a liar, when you have ignored my offer to provide you with documentary proof to the contrary, is uncivil, cowardly and shows a distinct lack of reasoning skills, I will instead simply note that if your problem is that I ended a sentence with a preposition then you need to get with the times, realise that English is a prescriptive rather than descriptive language, and move beyond categorising people on the basis of a high-school grasp of the principles of writing. If, on the other hand, you think 'consists in' is not, itself, a legitimate phrase then I will note that you really shouldn't be judging people on their written English and will direct you to the 11.3 million results that Google Books turns up. [22] — Preceding unsigned comment added by BothHandsBlack (talk • contribs) 07:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Troll. Shame! Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And you're an admin? Congratulations on defending wikipedias principles so staunchly! BothHandsBlack (talk) 07:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't take the admin bit to tell when one is being trolled, it simply takes an awareness of general behaviorial patterns, and a nose for bullshit -- and you have failed every test, sir. Let's please have the CU on this user, no one whose record as a supposed "newbie" is this is here to improve the encyclopedia. He's either a sock, or someone who will be a millstone around our necks for years to come. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, this goes beyond your claims that I'm a sock-puppet now? I'll reiterate that I offered to prove my identity to you and you did not take me up on that offer (someone else did[23] but unfortunately they were not an admin). To continue to make accusations when you have refused to look at the relevant evidence, preferring your wonderful intuition over real facts, clearly indicates the value of what you flatter yourself to call your 'tests'. But of course, when actual evidence would demonstrate that your intuitions can't be relied on, why risk the knock to the ego by testing your analysis against reality when you can just continue to make your ungrounded claims. I would be happy to have a CU (indeed, I asked for one myself some days ago) but, unfortunately, Biosketch has not asked for one. Perhaps you can put in the request? BothHandsBlack (talk) 08:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, BHB, your "tell" wasn't ending a sentence with a preposition, it was ending it with the wrong preposition. You did a pretty good job of reaching past your actual abilities in your masquerade, but in the end, you just couldn't carry it off. Sorry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Consider shutting the fuck up and leaving things to the admins. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, Sean, since you have nothing of an evidentiary nature to contribute. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, he is an admin, just one who thinks that his intuitions about my identity are better evidence than my university webpage and email address. There is not really much that can be done when reason fails to this extent.BothHandsBlack (talk) 08:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, BHB, I am not an admin, and I never held myself out to be one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. I made an assumption based on the fact that you first passed comment on me at the Administrators noticeboard.BothHandsBlack (talk) 08:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh... Evidence has been provided by Biosketch. Perhaps he will provide more. There has been a response from BHB. Perhaps he will be asked to forward his evidence to an admin. The next step is for admins to look at the report. That's it. Ken/BHB if you want to argue, do it on a talk page somewhere. This page is for the SPI report. If there is one area in Wikipedia that has to work properly when it comes to the I-P conflict topic area, it's this SPI noticeboard. Please don't disrupt the process. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biosketch, I have no temper and there is nothing puzzling about telling people to shut the fuck up. It's me being as clear as I can be in my native language. I am astonished by the pointless bickering. It must stop. Just carry on submitting evidence for the admin to deal with this. If you have concerns about potential sockpuppetry your concerns must of course be addressed. The topic area is plagued by sockpuppets and this is the place to deal with it. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC

Actually, Sean, it is you who is "disrupting the process" here. The colloquy between BHB and I is part of the behavioral evidence which forms an important part of the SPI process - at this point, I consider it determinative. Your intrusions do nothing whatsoever to contribute to that, one way or the other, so I advise you to, in your own words "shut the fuck up" and allow admins to evaluate the evidence (yes, evidence) that is before them, without your irrelvant commentary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ken, please, I've seen countless sockpuppets in the topic area over many years. I've been involved in identifying socks and preparing evidence and reporting many cases. I know what kind of evidence is necessary to identify sockpuppets and how this process works. I know some of the repeat offenders in great detail and can recognize them with relative ease. There are sockpuppets operating virtually everyday in the topic area. If I had evidence of sockpuppetry in this case I would have already submitted it. If you knew me you would know that. So, please trust me when I say you are not helping. Bickering is not evidence nor is it determinative to anyone but you. This process must work properly. It is critical to the topic area that sockpuppetry is handled properly and according to due process. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Biosketch's comments about my use of 'consists in', I can only note that neither he nor Ken know nearly as much about current English language usage as they think they do. A quick search of Google and Google Books for "consists in" will show that it is a perfectly acceptable phrase to use in this context. Unfortunately, this is pretty typical of the standard of 'evidence' being presented against me. As to the new claim that I am not a native English speaker, this will also be definitively refuted by the documentary evidence I will submit. BothHandsBlack (talk) 09:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you have to search Google to find out whether you were right or wrong? (Academic, uh-huh.)

A note to admins: Since this involves an editor who has made it clear he intends to edit in the I-P area, the checkuser should be as broad as possible. It wil not help the project should it be the case that the filer of this SPI picked the wrong editor to identify mas the puppetmaster of BHB; rather, given the behavioral evidence which indicates striongly that BHB is not the newbie he purports to be, it is incumbent on checkusers to determine exactly whose sock he is, and then to run a sleeper check on that account. Failure to do this will simply guarantee that more and more admin time will be sucked up at AE dealing with the eternal, ongoing IP problems. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Google search is clearly intended for your benefit, not mine. I didn't have to 'check' but was, rather, directing you and Biosketch to a resource that will allow you to correct your misapprehensions. But of course, in the fantasy land of these allegations, with this resource at your feet you choose to concoct a new piece of 'evidence' against me rather than actually checking the validity of your previous claims and retracting your mistaken assertions.BothHandsBlack (talk) 09:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, you may choose to consult pages 287-288 of Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage, available here [24]. BothHandsBlack (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is no surprise that people who have the gift of self-deception to the degree that we often come across with the Pro-Zionist Brigade would be able to dream up this SP accusation, as well as believe that anyone cares to hear their bleating. Let them drone on here, for all I care - certainly better than them spending their time on obfuscating our articles ;) un☯mi 09:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: AE case against Unomi: I believe that I am as entitled as anyone else to comment on the AE report and don't see how my doing so can possibly constitute evidence for this investigation. If Biosketch were to pay attention to what I actually wrote for once he would see that I am not seeking to defend Unomi but that I am, rather, pointing out a problem with Biosketch's construal of Unomi's comments as being equivalent to homophobia, comments he made in an attempt to get an admin to reverse his view that Unomi's comments were unpleasant but not sanctionable. I note that Biosketch is now going a stage further and representing Unomi's comments as anti-semitic but since it has become evident that trying to reason with Biosketch leads absolutely nowhere I shall hold back from further comment and leave it to the admins. It should be evident though that Biosketch will present as evidence against me pretty much anything he disagrees with me about. BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by The Devil's Advocate

BHB seems to exhibit all the signs of being a sock, but the behavioral evidence for Unomi here is so weak it is pathetic. Using smilies and exclamation marks? Notifying people of a DRN section? Give me a break. The single quotations is somewhat meaningful, but by itself pointless. A two-day gap can seem compelling, but in this case Unomi has many large gaps in his edit history. One piece of contrary evidence is that Unomi seems to almost always, if not always, leave an edit summary even when commenting on a discussion. This significant behavioral trait does not pop up with BHB. You seem to be overlooking the most obvious candidate and that is User:YehudaTelAviv64/User:Dimension31. Neither Yehuda or Dimension used edit summaries when commenting on talk pages, but they do tend to capitalize the beginning of edit summaries. That behavioral trait is shared with BHB. I would suggest a CU check against Yehuda or Dimension.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please go ahead with this check. If anyone else can think of other plausible (or implausible) candidates for me to be checked against, please bring them up as soon as possible. I'm happy to agree to any number of checks in order to get this behind me. As to 'all the signs of being a sock', well, I can see that having a vague clue about what I was doing has raised suspicions but I'm not sure what the other signs are. In particular, no one has raised any problems with my editing. BothHandsBlack (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • Just to inform people this has been checked, i'll try and get the functionary to post the result here, but I will say it doesn't help anything. -- DQ (t) (e) 07:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any chance of someone looking at the evidence I volunteered in my statement above. If the checkuser doesn't help anything I'm confident that the documents I can provide will allow a definitive determination to be made. BothHandsBlack (talk) 08:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was asked by DeltaQuad to examine this request and render my opinion. From a purely technical perspective, BothHandsBlack appears Red X Unrelated to Unomi. Behavioural evidence (which appears unconvincing to me, with little overlap in editing interests or other unique indicators) will have to be relied on in determining whether a link between these accounts is likely. AGK [•] 20:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's been two days with no comments. I'm going to mark this for close with no action, per AGK's findings. TNXMan 17:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Unomi/Archive&oldid=1143402981"