Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zeke1999/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Zeke1999

Zeke1999 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

26 September 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets


Zeke1999 has less than 30 edits in 8 years on Wikipedia [1]. A numerical majority of these edits coincide with those of the IP user, all done in less than 24 hours of each other and all in editorial agreement with each other [2]. IP editor is not Zeke1999 inadvertently logged-out and editing as he, here [3], states that he "agrees with" the IP editor, as thought presenting he and the IP editor are different persons. LavaBaron (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note - since filing this report, Zeke1999 has continued his disruptive behavior on the series of articles he and his alt account 99.170.117.163 are editing. Specifically, he is continuing to (a) aggressively re-insert the un-encylcopedic term "Global Jihad Movement" originally added by his IP account (b) aggressively reinsert WP:PROMOTIONAL language to the Center for Security Policy article lifted from that organization's own materials (to educate the American public and the U.S. Congress about the EMP threat...) originally added by his IP account, (c) aggressively protect his IP account's insertion of in-body, off-Wiki links in violation of WP:EXT, etc. etc. (all preceding diffed here: [4]). High damage is currently being inflicted on the encyclopedia by this editor's tendentious editing which seems SPA-directed at sanitizing a network of articles about a conspiracy theory group. LavaBaron (talk) 23:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional evidence filed for SPI consideration
  1. The interesting thing is these postings by Zeke1999 and 99.170.117.163 -- sometimes coming within mere minutes of each other -- seem to actually provide an even stronger case of WP:DUCK. see for example history link at the SPI case page, itself.
  2. Take a look at the editing times in defense of each other. Very very very close together, basically on the heels of each other. Example within 41 minutes of each other posting.
  3. Even closer, 13 minutes apart, same issue, same topic, same goals: 20:36, 28 September 2015, and 20:49, 28 September 2015.
  4. Even the edit summary is weird and WP:DUCK: "comment for Zeke1999".

Thank you for your attention to above new evidence, — Cirt (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further point-of-inquiry filed for SPI consideration
  • In this - ahem - "interesting" monologue posted to Berean Hunter's talk page, the IP editor says they have had a registered account for about 7 years which they are choosing not to use at this time. It may be helpful to the inquiry if the IP editor disclosed the identity of this account, as the Zeke1999 account has also been registered for about the same time period. LavaBaron (talk) 02:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Possible cause of WALLS-OF-TEXT postings

The sheer walls-of-text (DIFF, DIFF, DIFF) amounting to TL;DR makes me feel like this is one of a few situations:

  1. Attempting to confuse everyone by muddying the waters with TL;DR.
  2. Taking us all for an amusing and entertaining ride, perhaps just for the fun of it.
  3. Most likely = The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

— Cirt (talk) 02:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing admin, please also note here [5], Zeke1999 pens a 2,012-word essay in a Talk page, essentially the same almost unprecedented wall-of-text MO as the IP editor Cirt mentions above. LavaBaron (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. This is a false accusation and appears to be an attempt by user Lavabaron to censor another user who edited his work. I have nothing to do with the IP user. I have raised questions about the sourcing of Lavabaron's edits. This charge seems to be retaliation.

More false attacks by Lavabaron. If I wanted to "sanitize" this piece, I would have removed the harsh criticism of Gaffney as a conspiracy theorist. Unlike Lavabaron, I didn't remove material I disagree with. If this piece uses promotional material from the CSP website, where's the proof? This is another false charge. Lavabaron may disagree with the language on EMP but CSP does focus on this issue. This could be removed but it would be better if Lavabaron added his response to it instead of wholesale deletions of material he or she disagrees with. My edits did not do "damage;" they added balance, new material and corrected erroneous and poorly sourced material.

This sockpuppet charge is groundless and suggests Lavabaron is too biased to edit the Gaffney and CSP pieces any further.

There are no "attacks." Your accounts are engaging in tendentious promotionalism by inserting WP:EXT links to your group's website, inserting ad copy into the article, etc., and using multiple accounts to edit-war these into existence. These aren't content disputes, this is a simple matter of highly abusive behavior by a probable COI editor running socks. Your 8-year, 32-edit history on WP has been one of working to sanitize three CSP-linked articles. Looking further into your Zeke1999 account, for instance, I now notice this highly unusual and tendentious edit [6] on the bio of your group's Frederick H. Fleitz staff member. LavaBaron (talk) 02:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The IP user referenced above is not – nor an "alt account" of – Zeke1999. Other than undoing what I felt was an unfounded, excessive roll back by LavaBaron with weak if not false claims of SPA and "IP", I had made very few edits to the two articles. After spending much time comparing revisions, realizing those seemed to be GF edits (definitely my own were: [7], [8], [9] on the CSP article, and [10], [11], [12] on Gaffney), I decided to undo the RBK.

A few edits coinciding within a 24-hour period do not indicate much of anything, particularly when noting the specific edits or looking at this IP (my) edit history (or above on the link LavaBaron provided, which seems as if perhaps he did not view?), along with realizing a few things such as the IP (me!) "signing" posts on various talk pages while Zeke1999 seems to always forget (look at comments, diffs, on this page as an example). Agreeing with another editor does not mean the two are the same. Editing something another editor has previously edited does not mean they are the same, e.g. when noticing Zeke1999 had added new sections on talk page for Gaffney at the top, I moved those down to the bottom to be in chronological order. I was planning to return later and discuss what Zeke1999 had posted there (Talk:Frank Gaffney), e.g. having found better references for two mentioned as questionable. Oh, and this too – funny, I made an edit to add correct editor's name, while the accused does not sign his own posts (same editor? yeah, sure! in which conspiracy theory?!). Instead, when returning, I saw a rollback LavaBaron had done, later noticed the same was done on another related article. LavaBaron's accusations – along with the tone and choice of words, i.e. rather than "appears to be", "may be", so forth, and instead making statements as if a known fact – is are not only patently false, but also offensive in various ways. 99.170.117.163 (talk) 07:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, by "a few edits" you mean 72% (by my count) of Zeke1999's lifetime edits are to the same low-trafficked articles you've been editing, adopting the same editorial position, and occurring within a 24 hour period. LavaBaron (talk) 08:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What Zeke1999 chooses to edit does not concern me. Yet, the false accusations you are making do. By "a few edits", I meant exactly what was stated. That I had made "very few edits" (three per each of the two articles, total of six between both articles, excluding the singular undo on each of the initial RBKs you did on the two articles), and "a few edits" occurring "in less than 24 hours of each other" (your words) proves nothing. Those few edits made by me on the pages in question were merely coincidental. Look at it this way, by your own count Jake1999 (oops) Zeke1999 has very few lifetime edits. So, another viewpoint is, of course when taking interest in particular subject matter, then it is not surprising to see an editor having such a percentage. What else should not be a suprise – as this is Wikipedia using wiklinks afterall – is when reading an article, seeing something I think should be edited (to improve the article), doing so, deciding to view a linked article, noticing something else to edit on the related article.
Something else you might try to realize is when there are two different editors taking a similar viewpoint, notably when it comes to someone doing a mass RBK, it might well be simply disagreeing with what you did. Does having two unrelated editors taking similar viewpoints seem to be any more unusual than the same editor (you) deciding to RBK two articles to the point where same editor (you again) had last edited? Others (besides Zeke1999 and I) had made edits too. To be blunt, a better course of action would have been to comment on talk pages for the articles, mentioning your reasoning and such, preferably before you did the RBKs, and even better asking for input from others, or trying to address concerns through discussion FIRST, as I see it. To his credit, Zeke1999 has (based on my review of diffs), added to talk pages for articles when making or planning to make any major change; if not doing so beforehand, then at least afterward in explanation. Also, the vast majority of edit summaries (of the accused) seem fairly clear and/or reasonable insofar as what was done (unlike some editors).
Personally, while the choice is for you to decide, I think you should concentrate on improving other articles, or creating new articles, than possibly risk building resentment between (or from) editors with incorrect (i.e. false) accusations against them. As the line at the top of this page states, "Do not make accusations without providing evidence", and yet there are claims such as these (with my comments on each): "states that he 'agrees with' the IP editor, as thought <sic> presenting he and the IP editor are different persons" (or they really are different editors and persons? - I kind of like Missing Persons: "Do you hear me? Do you care? Do you hear me? Do you care?", "Words", err sorry, back to the task at hand), "continued his disruptive behavior on the series of articles he and his alt account 99.170.117.163 are editing", (Uhh, I am not his alt, nor is he mine - just in case any other "conspiracies" should happen to come to mind), two claims of "originally added by his IP account" (wrong, because no IP and certainly not this one, made the changes you referenced - under "exihibit" (a) and (b)), "aggressively protect his IP account's insertion of in-body, off-Wiki links in violation of WP:EXT, etc. etc. " (or the actual facts are two different editors did not agree with the mass RBK, done twice by you, and each of those two seperate and unique editors chose to undo what you had done?) and "all preceding diffed here: [4]" "gobbledygook" appears to be or is merely where Zeke1999 decided to undo your second RBK.
To the point, this IP is most definitely not an "alt acount" nor same person as Zeke1999 (or any other editor either). 99.170.117.163 (talk) 11:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Just. Wow. LavaBaron (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lavabaron, I think it is clear the IP user and I are different people. I don't know who this person is although I am grateful for his or her supportive comments above.

How about a truce? If you were to start making edits to paragraphs and sentences that you disagree with on the Gaffney and CSP pieces, I would be prepared to work with you to produce balanced articles. We have strong disagreements but I believe it is possible to come up with text that reflects both sides.

The IP editor is a better Wikipedia editor than I am. His or her help with this would also be welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeke1999 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: From the initial evidence presented in the filing of this SPI by LavaBaron before this SPI was sidetracked by the parties involved in the SPI, itself -- it looks like the behavioral evidence presented by LavaBaron is quite compelling and strong. Good luck to those involved in assessing this case based on the behavioral evidence. — Cirt (talk) 07:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Coincidence. Look at the IP (my) full edit history. I cannot recall why had I gone to the Gaffney article, likely saw him mentioned in an article on another site and wanted to see what was on here about him (or he could have been mentioned in a different article on here that I had read or was editing, and in that case went to his article to learn more). After seeing errors and doing minor edits on Gaffney (e.g. MOS:U.S., the first edit I made there), I looked at the organization (CSP) article to see about it, making similar minor edits (e.g. WP:JR). Something else of note is every so often I glance at my edit history, if seeing an article was changed, I sometimes am curious and go look to see what was changed. That was the case when returning to the Gaffney article, seeing LavaBaron had done an RBK. I was miffed, well as not too happy about "SPA" and "IP" being thrown out like what could be seen as a badge of shame. I began comparing versions, spending nearly an hour doing so on that article, deciding to undo the RBK, because I felt it was unwarranted. Part of my decision included the fact LavaBaron did not have the courtesy to post on the talk page to at least let editors know, providing a reason and/or explanation, or even better asking for discussion. The false claims also did not sit well with me, there was no "sanitization" most certainly not on my part. Insofar as behavioral evidence, I have commented on this above. The tool seems to be useful mainly or only showing where two different editors happen to cross paths, leaving out other important details (perhaps such as how many other pages I had edited, over what period of time, so forth). I happened to coincidentally first edit an article (Gaffney) a little over a day after Zeke1999 had edited it, then later noticed it was changed (from seeing not "current" on my edit history), wondered what was done, looked and saw the RBK. LavaBaron undid my undo, and apparently Zeke1999 did not like it when returning and undid that. So, the assumption is Zeke1999 and I must be the same? Incorrect. And, to say when someone is defending himself against false accusations he has "sidetracked" the SPI is misfortunate. I have always tried to follow the guidelines, spending a lot of time learning, looking up, researching, sometimes maybe more than I should e.g. wanting to put clear edit summaries about why did I change something (going through the "docs" to locate the proper shortcut and such) - look at the edit history. A main point here is that I am not pleased with false accusations and why I have been trying to explain that Zeke1999 and I are not the same. While I would not suggest it, unfair to ask such a thing, but maybe if Zeke1999 agrees to UC that could resolve this matter? Am I not supposed to comment here when seeing the SPI had been opened and involves my IP address? How did I know? (it surely was not due to LavaBaron putting a notification on this IP talk page, I guess "why bother" if already "convinced" the two are the same? or no need to notify an IP? I found out due to also being curious enough to look at editor histories, user pages, etc., seeing the notification either on Zeke1999's talk page or where he posted a comment. What's rather "silly" now is that the various edits Zeke1999 and I made to this page and other pages relating to the "claims" and such have made it look "worse" than when the SPI was filed, or maybe that can be excluded? Anyway, sorry for rambling, but I do not like being falsely accused (would you?). 99.170.117.163 (talk) 09:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Before doing anything else on Wikipedia today (or this "session" technically), I wanted to add a reply for Zeke1999 (to what was written above Cirt's comment). Zeke1999, unsure if you'll see this, but you're welcome! When reviewing a few notes before navigating here today and glancing back through the comments on this page, I'm reminded of having wanted to return to the Gaffney talk page to add references where you had posted mentioning a need for better references (I had found a couple possibilities) – I'd read your posts there when deciding to move the new sections you added at the top down to bottom of page, my reasoning was to keep discussion in chronological order (top to bottom), and hopefully that was okay with you (if not, I apologize). So, contrary or in addition to what I wrote in reply to Cirt's comment, a reason for returning to the page (talk Gaffney) was to add those references in response to your post. (This is when I saw RBK by LavaBaron). Similarly, I'm reminded of having wanted to post a response (for your comment above), but ended up becoming distracted elsewhere. I may also do similar on your talk page, and/or the talk page(s) for the article(s). Yet, I hesitate to do so, because of concerns the "tool" might then include additional "interaction" where intentions are misconstrued. However, I believe (hope) that the SPI admins would be understanding of this. Another thought was to totally avoid those pages, but in feeling I have something positive to add that "self censoring" myself would sort of defeat the purpose of Wikipedia in some ways. Anyway, enough on this reply, I hope all this works out okay and does not discourage anyone (I surely am not overjoyed about the matter by any means). 99.170.117.163 (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing admin: this whole discussion is sort of amusing given the accusing editor's concerns about conspiracy theories. Please read my talk article which identified issues for a 3rd opinion request. Yes, its long but this concerns someone's reputation. I wanted to be thorough and precise. Zeke1999 (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re
Additional evidence filed for SPI consideration

Perhaps I should just point to the post on Berean Hunter's page that I made earlier (just a little while ago), but will copy here as Cirt had done. It is verbose, sorry, but it does include what may be useful information.

*Comment:←(thanks for that, Cirt, I learned how to do it from one of your edits! Also a note: I was right, ended up with "edit conflict" due to time spent between first starting and clicking save page - luckily, I had copied the post to notepad before clicking) Hello, sorry if this comment could be taken as "intrusive" on the discussion and that such a "fuss" is being made about this, especially the time involved by other editors and/or admins, which I seriously and sincerely mean (and, yes, admittedly, my own time too). Note (or unrelated side-comment): while it's on my mind - interestingly, at least to me, this is not the first instance of having visited Berean Hunter's pages. I had done so previously, probably after seeing an edit made and curiously going to check out the user page, and among other (positive) impressions was delighted by the fencing graphics, wondering "how was that done?", "would be interesting to learn" etc. (back to my more pertinent thoughts) This entire matter is troubling, bugs the heck out of me in some ways. What started with an innocent minor edit (two more subsequently) on a page (Frank Gaffney) (uggh, I always seem to get the edit IDs backwards and have to switch them like I just did after a preview now, there has to be a better way or maybe with practice it will sink in..?), those done independently and coincidentally a little over a day after an edit by Zeke1999, has snowballed into multiple directions. While I can and do understand the concerns raised, I can truly state those are incorrect, as I really am not the same editor as Zeke1999, nor do we have any knowledge of each other (on WP nor anywhere) except starting with that first edit. Maybe part of the "problem" is how I can tend to be too verbose(?), if so, sorry. In part, this is due to feeling that I must defend myself against false accusations, therein is a "troubling" part of the affair. From my vantage point, there has been and continues to be what seems like a lack of GF (notably on the part of LavaBaron, to the point of appearing uncivil, not just towards the accused editors - myself and Zeke1999 - but also against other, more experienced editors). It's sad. A positive aspect, again from my viewpoint/experience, is there are things that I am learning about on WP that I may otherwise have not, e.g. reading the WP:DUCK and related ("witch hunt" *chuckle* sorry, no offense intended, just one of my many thoughts!) pages. I just do not know what to say (uhh, yeah right!?)... What I mean by this is what can I do to prove the claims are not true?? (that includes the "Meat is a possibility" theory, btw)  Please excuse if this seems disjointed, I am trying to be as concise as possible, but also want to express what is on my mind about the matter as it comes to mind. (taking awhile to write, with my "luck" will be an "edit conflict" when clicking to save, wouldn't be the first time - LOL) Something I noticed (one example), when looking at the links provided by Cirt (thank you!), is on the edit histories for Zeke1999 and I (aka, perhaps notoriously, "the IP"), I see where the aforementioned editor (Zeke1999) made an edit on page of the diff at the same time(!) when I made an edit on another page. (yay, positioned the IDs correctly this time!) Surely those cannot be the same person? I mean, seriously? Maybe I should register, would that help? Err, actually, I have an account, which has never been used, registered in 2008. And, (maybe I should not say, least not without first noting a "disclaimer"... there was no "nefarious" intentions, nothing wrong done to my knowledge, certainly not intentionally, never ever ever), the "history" of this IP is not my full history. I have used other IP addresses going back years before registering. I tend to edit "sporadically"... And, for inquiring minds (or "what's the next tangent in the 'conspiracy'?"), an explanation for previously using other IP addresses (never concurrently) is quite simple (why am I starting to feel now that anything I write has to be defended? bluntly, this sucks!) includes having had different ISPs or changes in service (e.g. dial-up, DSL) or editing from other locations than primary thru the years. Enough, thanks for your time, it is appreciated! And, I am very sorry you, either of you, have been drawn into this mess. Sincerely, (another note: oh, great, looks like Cirt has added something somewhere else, noticed when doing preview after having to paste in what I was trying to post earlier, so now I have to go over there and provide my side or defend myself there too? lovely, not!) 99.170.117.163 (talk) 00:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit summary is weird? Whatever happened to AGF on Wikipedia? The comment was for Zeke1999, primarily. I mean no disrespect, but this is really getting quite silly! I would much rather do something useful and positive on here than feeling as if I have to defend myself against multiple editors, making assertions which are not true! It looks like I may have "goofed" on formatting somehow, the preview shows smaller text on this portion, not going to look for it, sorry, but I have spent more than enough time on this already, as have others! Ahh, I see it. Silly me (there was a closing html tag missing). My apologies for anything I may have done to exacerbate this matter, none with any ill will, mainly (like I've written) to defend against what are incorrect assumptions. 99.170.117.163 (talk) 00:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict, apparently I put the "response" in the wrong location, sorry about that!) Adding this, after re-reading above post, to clarify or quantify, (bothers me that I feel like anything I say has to be "defended" and maybe GF no longer exists, including feeling as if what I write might be misinterprted as lack of GF on my part - towards these proceedings - that is not the case though, but with other editors providing "additional evidence..." which is just more coincidence, or misunderstanding my motivations... what can I do? Be silent and not respond? I do not mean this to be disruptive either)... where I wrote: "While I can and do understand the concerns raised, I can truly state those are incorrect, as I really am not the same editor as Zeke1999, nor do we have any knowledge of each other (on WP nor anywhere) except starting with that first edit" - the except starting with the first edit clause meant as first ever contact between Zeke1999 and I, not to imply we've been in "collusion" afterward. Thanks, I appreciate the time of all involved! 99.170.117.163 (talk) 00:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re
Further point-of-inquiry filed for SPI consideration

While it may have been unintentional, the way a comment I made is portrayed could seem disingenous, or more easily misinterpreted than what I actually wrote. LavaBaron, I must insist that if referencing a comment posted by me, please avoid paraphrasing in such a manner where my words could be misconstrued. Where you wrote (emphasis mine) "the IP editor says they have had a registered account for about 7 years which they are choosing not to use at this time" is not quite the same as "I have an account, which has never been used" (which are my specific words). Insofar as the suggestion to disclose the name of my singular registered acount (never used), I am disinclined to do so, reason being it includes as part of the name information which could be (mis)used as it specifies an area code and abbreviation for a geographical location. However, I agree that if the SPI administator/s reviewing this case state it would be helpful, then I may be willing to provide the account privately. How long the Zeke1999 account has been registered may be or is fairly irrelevant, because for one thing my only registered account has never been used, i.e. there is no relation. I have always edited using an IP address. Also, btw, the post wikilinked to on Berean Hunter's page (the "ahem - 'interesting' monologue'" – Thanks! I guess? *chuckle*) was already posted above by me in full, a few hours (or close enough) prior to the link being added (by LavaBaron). 99.170.117.163 (talk) 08:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re
Possible cause of WALLS-OF-TEXT postings

Well, Cirt, it's definitely not "1" - there may be enough "confusion" already (not necessarily due to anything I had initially done) from the very get go. There is no intention to "muddle" matters. I could perhaps lean towards "2" ("an amusing and entertaining ride"), albeit excluding the "just for the fun of it" clause, as that has not been involved. As for "3" - hmm, I suppose that could perhaps apply, in having never been accused of any questionable behavior on here through many years of editing (until now), feeling the need to passionately defend against false accusations, I guess that could be misinterpreted, an unintentional apophasis of sorts. Or, it could be "4" - a little of "3" and a dash of "2" along with a valuable learning experience. :-)

Oh, and what the heck are Cirt and LavaBaron doing posting within three minutes of each other on the same page? Sockpuppets? Meatpuppets? Part of a "cabal" or something? j/k LOL — I've seen an example of where Zeke1999 had posted and where I had posted on different pages at the same time. –99.170.117.163 (talk) 09:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re
Possible cause of WALLS-OF-TEXT postings (Re: LavaBaron's post @ 13:52, 30 September 2015)

Thank you, LavaBaron for pointing out the lengthy* post by Zeke1999 *(impressive! but, probably not highly unusual in the history of Wikipedia). I have a few comments about this new "evidence" and will briefly detail those here. There is a slight discrepancy in word count (I get 1,957 rather than 2,012), which could easily be explained by using a different method for counting and is not statistically significant anyway. Based on one analysis, the "essay" by Zeke1999 includes 1,957 words (2,012 by LavaBaron's count), 10,427 characters (w/o spaces), 12,472 characters (total), consists of 35 paragraphs and 197 lines. Wikipedia edit history count shows +12,511 characters. In comparison, the lengthiest post I have written, which should be noted included doing a block quote of another post (the one to which LavaBaron later provided the link) on Berean Hunter's talk page (my post would not have been nearly as lengthy if simply linking, plus the copy and past does not count as "writing" it again the second time around) was 1,014 words, 5,248 characters (w/o spaces), 6,261 characters (total), consisting of 4 paragraphs and 75 lines. Wikipedia edit history shows +6,266 characters including quoting (in full) another post at +5,061 characters.
Based on Wikipedia character count, the post by Zeke1999 was basically twice as long as mine. At twice the number, Zeke1999's post had 8.75 times more paragraphs than mine and 2.64 times more lines. Same writer? When comparing the two posts, there are some obvious differences (not to imply one is "better" or "worse" just different), including (but not limited to): Zeke1999 included extra line breaks (explaining, at least in part, a higher line usage per number of words); Zeke1999's has far more paragraphs (or seperate sections of text); Zeke1999 uses a different method for linking; Zeke1999 begins various paragraphs with first person personal pronoun which is probably quite common, while I rarely if ever do ("almost unprecedented" LavaBaron proclaimed, just apparently on the wrong observation); I sometimes use various coding in my posts (e.g. html, wiki markup and templates) while it does not seem Zeke1999 does; there is more, like the style of writing (not getting into that comparison unless necessary or if at all); Zeke1999 seems to write Lavabaron or recently LAVABARON, while I write LavaBaron (excluding past typo/s, inadvertently writing one part by using another word, and no, it wasn't vulgar!). 99.170.117.163 (talk) 10:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • I've declined the CU request. We almost never publicly identify the IP addresss of a user.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocked - I have seen enough evidence of likely abuse of multiple accounts, plus evidence of tendentious editing and battleground conduct, so I have blocked Zeke1999 indefinitely. Guy (Help!) 11:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both blocked, this can now be closed. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 11:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

08 December 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

Zeke1999 was previously blocked for sockpuppetry [13], based on behavioral evidence, by Guy. The behavioral evidence involved interventions on an article that is a known sock magnet, Frank Gaffney.
Partly due to my (now regretted) intervention [14], his block was lifted by JamesBWatson. Shortly before Zeke1999's block was handed down, at a time when it was apparent it was coming, the Baramop account was created. This account has less than fifty lifetime edits but displays an advanced understanding of WP policy [15]. The nature of the tendentious editing this account has engaged in on the Frank Gaffney article is essentially identical to that of the Zeke1999 account. For instance, but not limited to, Zeke1999 insisted on reworking any statement that could be perceived as critical of Gaffney into an unsourced declaration of Gaffney's persecution by "the left" (an editorial declaration that was ultimately overruled by a unanimous RfC that just recently closed).

  • Here [16], the Baramop account overrules a just achieved consensus by editing "he has been widely accused of promoting conspiracy theories by groups" to "he has been widely accused of promoting conspiracy theories by groups on the political left."
  • Here [17], the Zeke1999 account launches an attempt to have the following editorial intervention added to this bio: "Gaffney's controversial views -- especially on radical Islam -- have caused him to be reviled by the Left."

He has also accused other editors who have tried to de-sanitize the Gaffney article of vandalism, an identical tact taken by the Zeke1999 account.

  • Here, the Zeke1999 account files an ANI against me, which BMK declines, essentially alleging vandalism by me against the Gaffney article. (This is one of a flurry of complaints Zeke1999 directed against me, actually, such as this one to NottNott, in which I am accused of various depredations and evil-doings.)
  • In this tirade [18] on Cwobeel's talk page the newly minted Baramop account also alleges vandalism by me (as well as accusing me of being an Anti-Semite, which is definitely a new one).

Also pinging User:Berean_Hunter as he has previously conducted an inquiry into the Gaffney/Zeke1999 sock circus here at Cirt's request. Edit - also courtesy pinging JzG as he was the original blocking admin. LavaBaron (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC) LavaBaron (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Unbelievable. After a block was lifted after LAVABARON's previous false sockpuppet charge, he has lodged another even though I have not been on the Gaffney or Center for Security Policy pages since Oct 3. I have written a response to this bullying by this editor on the ANI noticeboard . See discussion #39.1

I call for a strong sanction against LAVABARON for his repeated abusive behavior. Zeke1999 (talk) 14:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm commenting based only on what I've read at the TP of Zeke1999, and the edit history at the Gaffney BLP which appears to be what spawned this investigation. I don't know enough about sockpuppetry to speak on it, but I'm certainly willing to learn. Right now I'm a bit concerned there may be some political overtures involved here. I haven't seen any evidence that warrants such an investigation. With all due respect to our hard-working admins who were called in here or happened across this case, may I please suggest that you investigate these allegations carefully because this entire ordeal is beginning to smell a little like WP:POV_railroad. I will gladly stand corrected and apologize if I'm mistaken, but I'd like to see some solid evidence that backs up these claims. Thank you kindly. Atsme📞📧 20:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Getting off topic
In reference to your note that you "haven't seen any evidence that warrants" a SPI. Here is the previous SPI that resulted in a positive sockpuppetry determination against Zeke1999. That determination was never overturned, his indeff was simply lifted (partly due to my intervention in Zeke's favor, in fact - see [19]). Above is the current itemization of behavioral similarities. I would ask you review the volumes of diffs on this page, and the original investigation, and then perhaps reconsider your comment on Zeke's Talk page in which you tell him he is being victimized by Wikipedians for being a conservative. LavaBaron (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, LavaBaron, but I never said Zeke was being victimized by Wikipedians for being a conservative. You need to strike that comment ASAP. I certainly hope that spreading misinformation about other editors isn't representative of a patterned behavior. Atsme📞📧 06:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by the accuracy of my summary of the comment [20] you added to the WikiLove you left on the Zeke1999 account's Talk page which was, verbatim: "All kinds of indiscriminate labels have been attached to BLP NPOV pushers, especially if the BLP in question hints of conservatism." In the same comment you said the inquiry into the Zeke1999 account's behavior had become "a numbers game" that had "turned against you".
Given the fact this account has already been blocked once for socking, and in light of the very serious behavior transgressions cataloged against it, your dismissive characterization of this issue as a "numbers game" by anti-conservative POV pushers (this presumably being me and the numerous other editors whom the Zeke1999 account has denounced as my "goal-tenders" [sic]) is troubling. Keep in mind, this issue is cruxed on the insertion of two words ("conspiracy theorist") in an article, that insertion being supported by an almost record-setting overwhelming RfC consensus (13 editors in support, versus one - Zeke1999 - opposed). In light of that, do you really want to stick to your position that 13 editors are all "NPOV pushers" targeting "conservative" BLPs against the singularly courageous efforts of the Zeke1999 account(s)? Sorry for being snippy, but I've been dragged through the shit on this, including being called an Anti-Semite and being block-shopped no less than 9 times now, by what is very clearly an institutionally-supported sock initiative with no end in sight. And it's quite likely one of the next few sock identities that come along after this one gets deep-sixed will probably succeed in having me blocked for Anti-Semitism, or Pedophilia, or Beastiality, or whatever they throw at me next; I don't have the personal capacity to respond to accusations on a full-time basis against a puppetmaster who has the capacity to deliver them full-time. So, to see you legitimizing this circus through comments like the one you left is a little off-putting. LavaBaron (talk) 06:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry...save your wall of text because what you're doing to me now needs the attention of an administrator. I'm not going to sit back and let your egregious errors cause problems for me. What I actually said - and this time I'll use red text so there won't be any misunderstanding of the syntax - was unambiguous: "if the BLP in question hints of conservatism." Zeke is not the BLP in question, and furthermore, a BLP hinting of conservatism is not even close to calling Zeke a conservative. What are you thinking? You just cast aspersions against me based on your misapprehension of what I said, and then you refused to strike it, and had the audacity to say you stand by the accuracy of your summary. Jiminy Cricket, I can understand why you're having issues with other editors if you're treating them the same way you just treated me; see WP:CIR. I certainly hope the two admins who are investigating this case are not taking you at your word considering what you just did to me. Floquenbeam, Berean Hunter are you following this? Will you please explain to him that casting aspersions is the same as a PA and is actionable misconduct? Atsme📞📧 07:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't know what to tell you. I stand by my fully diff'ed summary of the supportive comment you left on this confirmed sock's Talk page 100-percent. If you still feel transgressed then take it to ANI. This isn't the venue, a fact you should already know given your colorful block history. LavaBaron (talk) 08:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Colorful block history? You mean the 1 short block for edit warring back 2 years ago, and week block after I was POV_railroaded by editors casting aspersions like' what you're doing now? It's hardly a colorful block record but you just showed your colors by mentioning it. Again, another PA to add to the aspersions you cast against me. You think it poisons the well to your benefit? You apparently don't know when to quit. Atsme📞📧 08:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"block after I was POV_railroaded by editors" - My experience on WP has not been one of constant encounters with cabals conspiring against me; it sounds, from your comments, as though it's been your experience (and Zeke99's, too: "... blocked due to these charges by LAVABARON and his associates."[21]) I sincerely wish you and Zeke best of luck in your future endeavors and hope you are both able to avoid future blocks from cabals "railroading" you or whatever. Best - LavaBaron (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme and LavaBaron: If there is something that you want to get worked out between you then I suggest that you use your talk pages as an SPI report is not a place to hold a disagreement concerning comments on user talk pages. LavaBaron, you should stick to mentioning evidence only as you are trying to convince a larger audience of the socking. I would suggest that the above collapsed discussion is dropped as it not likely to be fruitful for anyone. Thank you,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Berean Hunter, I actually would prefer the above discussion remain visible since it shows what this complaint is really about. LAVABARON seems to have an obsession with me that I don't understand. His claims of sock puppetry were untrue last time. This time I wasn't involved in the Gaffney or Center for Security Policy pages in any way when he lodged a new false sock charge. I'm not going to bother responding to his latest "evidence." This complaint should be dismissed ASAP and a strong sanction imposed on LAVABARON for behavior that Wikipedia should not tolerate. Zeke1999 (talk) 13:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Berean Hunter, I have never had any prior contact with either of the two editors before this particular incident. My presence here was simply to express my thoughts on this matter in an attempt to learn more and possibly help in some way. It appears that because of the latter, LavaBaron felt he had a free license to launch PAs against me based on his misapprehension of something I said on the other editor's TP. Please don't make that hatted discussion about me or make it appear that I have an off-topic issue with LavaBaron. I ask that you please focus on LavaBaron's unwarranted behavior toward me, an uninvolved editor who simply expressed an opinion and asked questions on this noticeboard. His misconduct should not go unnoticed especially considering there are two admins watching this case. The degree of LavaBaron's misapprehension, his refusal to strike the lies, and his further attempts to discredit me should not go unnoticed. Please don't write this off as something he and I need to work out because it is not. It is about his behavior toward me on this noticeboard which has created a chilling effect, especially when uninvolved editors such as myself have been attacked simply for making a polite suggestion on this noticeboard. Atsme📞📧 15:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We certainly do appreciate when people are trying to help but SPI is not a forum that anyone may write what they wish and we do not tolerate going off topic. This is not a noticeboard. There are a few places in the Wikipedia world where protocols and procedures are very different than most areas and this is one of them. ARBCOM is another. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guide to filing cases especially #4, "All users are expected to focus only on evidence of sock policy breach and its analysis; disruptive conduct may lead to removal from the case pages." As an SPI clerk, it is my job to help keep things pared down to the essentials of an SPI case which is primarily evidence and analysis of that evidence. Anything else that isn't fitting, I may remove which includes everything from the hatted discussion down. So far, I've tolerated it and left it as hatted but if the editors here continue to argue with one another then I'll remove it all and instruct editors to not post here. If you wish to present evidence about the accused master or sock, or if you wish to give an analysis of evidence then that would be helpful. I left your initial post but hatted the remainder so that post is seen as helpful. While the adding or analysis of evidence may still occur, we are waiting on a checkuser for this case to progress. We like to keep cases as short, concise and to the point as possible. The focus of this case does not include the disagreement which has cropped up between you and that will not be dealt with here. If necessary, ANI would be the proper forum for that discussion.
We do have a couple of places where you may ask questions to learn more about SPI in general. You can post to WT:SPI for general questions and comments or you can post to WP:SPI/CN for clerk-specific questions. Unless someone is presenting evidence or analyzing what has been presented then the posts need to stop.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, will do, and thanks - LavaBaron (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am dropping off Wikipedia indefinitely. I don't need this frustration. Block me if you want. I don't care anymore. Zeke1999 (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

I've blocked Baramop for making accusations of anti-Semitism and sockpuppetry with no evidence. I am strongly convinced by behavioral evidence that Baramop and Zeke1999 are the same person, but will wait to see what a clerk/checkuser says about running a checkuser first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Clerk endorsed - to help sort this out. I have a secondary theory if the above doesn't pan out clearly but I don't want to opine fully until after CU results. I would be interested to know if this edit by Baramop has a consistent IP behind it relative to that editor's other edits. I'm trying to determine whether there was block evasion from a related block (but not Zeke's). Sorry for being cryptic but I am doing so for the sake of CU policies concerning privacy and not wanting to muddy the waters for the reporting checkuser. If the CU or blocking admin would like clarification, they may email me.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based solely on geolocation, it's  Possible that Zeke1999 and Baramop (talk · contribs) are related, though the technical connection is extremely tenuous. Baramop on the other hand has created the  Confirmed sock Tunop (talk · contribs) which I've blocked. @Berean Hunter: If you have WP:BEANS-y evidence linking Baramop to another account that you would like to send me, please email me.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since you say that geolocation makes it possible, I'm going to go ahead and block Zeke as the master (unless someone has a very good reason not to). Behaviorally, it's a very, very close match. About the only thing that would have stopped me would be a "Checkuser guarantees they are not the same person". --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Adding my thoughts here that I believe meatpuppetry may have been going on and that the two named socks Baromop and Tunop may likely be the static IP in the case archive. That IP had been editing regularly and then dropped out at the beginning of November but likely editing under accounts. The edit on the 17th that I linked to above would be clear block evasion (block log). I expected that edit may have been done at another location with a different IP but then that they returned to the static IP after the block expired. Now, it may not be the IP that the socks used above but clamping down that IP with a hardblock may help prevent socking unless Ponyo sees a reason not to. None of what I've stated above matters relative to Zeke except that I do think some meatpuppetry has been going on so Floquenbeam's block for socking would be justified.
         — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks BH, I've just blocked Zeke1999 based on behavior. I suppose it could be meatpuppetry, but my bet would be on actual sockpuppetry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I don't have any additional input to provide regarding the IPs; do what you think is best Berean Hunter.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've hardblocked the IP in the archive for one year. Tagging and closing.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

24 February 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets


Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • I blocked the above noted accounts as  Confirmed socks of Baramop from the archive. I tagged them all, but just noticed that the Zc Abc and Abc Zc accounts are resuscitated sleepers. I'm not sure if it's worth fiddling with the tags though, I'll leave it for a Clerk to decide.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Already tagged. Closing. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

17 May 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

A revolving door of newly minted accounts (those listed above) have conducted essentially identical whitewashing of this article, specifically, to remove the sourced descriptor "conspiracy theorist" which was decided on through overwhelming consensus by two consecutive RfCs. These account are also essentially SPAs on Frank Gaffney and CSP as their edit histories show.
(These efforts most likely triangulate to Gaffney himself, or to the CSP, as Gaffney is regularly being taunted on Twitter over his WP article and he recently mentioned WP on CSPAN as Wikipietime has noted.) Doug Weller has been doing a lauditory job policing this vandalism, however, the previous socks were savvy and knowledgable about WP policies, including making a concerted effort at ANI to have yours truly indeffed for "anti-Semitism" (for which Floquenbeam blocked Baramop [22]) and threatening DMacks that his "IP address is being logged" [23], a type of threat that has become the sockmaster's M.O.
They need to be blocked before they are all simultaneously activated by the sockmaster to make another full push at "clearing a beachhead" at the Gaffney article by securing Argumentum ad populum blocks on the one or two regular editors watching it. The sockmaster has previously demonstrated he is exceptionally adept at WP policy and willing to be particularly vicious. (The penultimate sockmaster is most likely not among these accounts listed and is closeted inside a currently unknown legitimate account.) Please also consider an IP range block.

LavaBaron (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC) LavaBaron (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

I do not understand why this was filed under Jonmax74.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, error by me; fixed. LavaBaron (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First, if you want to change the master of a case, you must ask a clerk to do it. You should never do it yourself. Second, Baramop is not the correct master, either. Please don't do anything about it. Let a clerk deal with it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk - Please, check Indepenent and Morazan against each other and against previous socks (if possible. Curro2 is not stale, I think). Vanjagenije (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Entirely inconclusive, but nothing to indicate they aren't the same individual. Without my CU hat on, the edit summaries show an extremely similar writing style, the reverts do the same thing, etc. Evaluate on behavior. NativeForeigner Talk 02:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin action needed - Eh....  Looks like a duck to me. I'm a little less confident about Jonmax74 than the two others, but on the whole, I will still recommend blocks for all three listed socks. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
     Blocked but awaiting tags All three accounts blocked for socking. Nakon 02:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged, closing. Mike V • Talk 02:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

27 June 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

As shown in the history of this sockmaster, I am the long-term target of a concerted effort to obtain a block/ban due to my work de-sanitizing Frank Gaffney, probably fr a sockmaster affiliated with CSP. New IP editor 130X has materialized opining in a TBAN discussion about me here [28], pointing to a Reddit thread in which several regular editors are the object of ridicule and mistruths. Injecting this is 130's only substantive contributions, indicating 130 has been watching me for an opp to attack. 130... also indicates similar verbiage, characterizing RfC result to characterize Gaffney as a "conspiracy theorist" a BLP violation [29] & blame-shifting 2 me personally from RfC consensus - Sorry for brief ev & spl errors, I'm OOT & typing from phone - rather not deal with this now fr phone but no choice. I can keep getting this master's socks blocked & he can keep reincarnating but, as a legit editor, he only has to Deep-Six me once and it's lights out. Many editors R paying this price for desanitizing COI articles. LavaBaron (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike_V - the sock accounts have made voluminous project space edits [30], [31], [32], etc. In fact, their initial attacks against me were all in project space, that's how they got blocked so quickly. Also, in its 3 lifetime contribs the IP refers (A) specifically 2 the RfC consensus being a BLP violation, and, (B) to the Reddit thread. These are both unique traits of the socks ... and the IP also became active solely to intervene in a ban disc abt me. Sorry I didn't point these out in initial filing; inefficient brevity on my part. LavaBaron (talk) 02:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • I've reviewed the previous contributions of the sock accounts and compared them to the recent AN posts from the IP. I noted that they have different styles of writing. (e.g. Morazan, 130.157.201.59) The behavior is different too. The accounts have stuck strictly to editing articles and haven't step foot into the project space. I'm closing this with no action taken. Mike V • Talk 01:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the geolocation of the past socks from the CU logs. They don't match up. Mike V • Talk 02:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

22 July 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


This account, like previously blocked socks Zeke1999 and Baramop (and the other dozen or so), is a long-dormant account that has suddenly become active to edit Frank Gaffney. Note the following behavioral indicators:

  • (a) repeated, almost frantic, declarations that sources used in the article originate from "leftists" [sic] (Ocdgrammarian: [33] & [34] / socks: [35] & [36]) (update - he now appears to be indicating a belief that other WP editors are members of the Communist Party [37] ... update 2 - more on "leftists" and "Stalinists" infiltrating CNN [38] [39]),
  • (b) use of WP:WALLOFTEXT posts to declare personal persecution by WP (Ocdgrammarian: [40] / socks:[41] & [42]),
  • (c) blanking of the lede sans discussion and in violation of a RfC consensus, with edit summary saying it's being done to remove "vandalism" or restore NPOV (Ocdgrammarian: [43] / socks: [44] and [45]) (in this case User:Roxy the dog and User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång came in to undo the blanking),
  • (d) almost immediate personal attacks against me despite no history of past interaction (Ocdgrammarian: says I'm "extremely hostile" [46] / socks: says I'm an "anti-Semite" [47]).

Note that the editor is probably editing via a VPN as the previously blocked umpteen socks have not been blocked with checkuser evidence; geolocation will probably be less effective than behavioral indicators. LavaBaron (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I'm from the former Soviet Union, LavaBaron, so I'm pretty familiar with these kinds of threats you made on my talk page: "just advising you to self-police your style of contribution so a well-meaning editor doesn't accidentally accuse you." It's never "just advice," it's never a "well-meaning" accuser, and he never does it "accidentally." Ocdgrammarian (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC) Ocdgrammarian[reply]
[Repost of personal abuse by this guy from my talk page]: Wait - weren't you a Cuban dissident or something last time?
I have not been introduced to the other personalities inhabiting your conspiracy theory, but I imagine Cuban dissidents would also be familiar with your tactics, товарищ комиссар Ocdgrammarian (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian[reply]

Just for context, here's the conversation between me and LavaBaron that got him purge-happy:

What I can't argue against are the extremely bilious hostility and personal aspersions from you. Do you really think that the 21 people who have disagreed with you and pointed out what they consider to be your bias are all really one guy being paid off by Gaffney? That's what's called, dare I say it, a conspiracy theory. Look, my edit history is wide open for you to see, so let me tell you something about myself. I love Wikipedia. I've surfed it every night in bed before going to sleep for the past few years - mostly very ancient history and geology articles. I have definitely learned a lot. I'm a stickler for grammar so a few years ago, I started making little grammar edits on the articles I read - first without an account, and then through Ocdgrammarian. Recently, I've gotten interested in providing some more substantial contributions. I made a page for a professor friend at MIT - Eduardo Kausel - who, coincidentally, is a prominent scientific debunker of the 9/11 Truther "jet fuel can't bring down a building" conspiracy theory. I made balancing edits to a page for an organization that I follow locally in Boston. Through that organization, I heard Gaffney speak in the Boston area. Yes, I'm a conservative and, yes, I think Gaffney has a lot of important things to say. I also think he's said some controversial things, and that getting this history across in the Gaffney article could have been done in a much less obviously biased way. But, given how highly I'd thought of Wikipedia, I never expected to be accused by a Wikipedia editor of a conspiracy where I'm being paid off by Gaffney to make your life tedious. It's very disappointing - I really did not realize the nastiness that happens behind the scenes here. I'm going back to my history and geology articles and will stay away from the "mean girls club," but, thanks to you, those articles will be just a little less fun to read. Is that really what being involved in the Wikipedia community is all about? Ocdgrammarian (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian[reply]
Sorry, didn't mean to make it sound like you were being "paid off" by Gaffney, as I doubt you are. It was a poorly-worded observation that, every six weeks, when a dormant account (like yours) suddenly becomes active to make Gaffney-article edits, they all seem to (1) engage in the same style of WP:WALLOFTEXT expressions of outrage that you just demonstrated above, and, (2) declaim that the Gaffney article is all sourced to dirty leftists (see: for example here). So far 13 of them (that we've bothered investigating) have turned out to be socks and been blocked accordingly, but I'm not accusing you of being #14, just advising you to self-police your style of contribution so a well-meaning editor doesn't accidentally accuse you.
As for whether the article uses valid RS or if it relies too heavily on vile leftists, the only way this can be changed is through a new RfC that trumps the previous one. I'd suggest you open one and make your case there. Don't hesitate to let me know if you need help opening a RFC as I'm happy to assist.
  • (a) repeated, almost frantic, declarations that sources used in the article originate from "leftists" [sic] (Ocdgrammarian: [48] & [49] / socks: [50] & [51]),
They do, I gave detailed explanation why, and folks seem to agree with me on the talk page. I don't know how you can tell "frantic" from typed text, but ok. ~Ocdgrammarian.
Not personal persecution by WP, but by you because, after I disagreed with you, you accused me of being a sock playing a part in a complex conspiracy theory, and filed a spurious investigation against me. Ocdgrammarian (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian[reply]
Don't know your ways too well, oh wise one. I usually do grammar edits on scientific and history articles, and have never had the occasion to rub an ideologue the wrong way. Ocdgrammarian (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian[reply]
  • (d) almost immediate personal attacks against me despite no history of past interaction (Ocdgrammarian: says I'm "extremely hostile" [58] / socks: says I'm an "anti-Semite" [59]).
So pointing out your personal attacks on me (calling me a "frantic" sock and a Frank Gaffney plant) somehow is also a personal attack?Ocdgrammarian (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian[reply]

Note that the editor is probably editing via a VPN as the previously blocked umpteen socks have not been blocked with checkuser evidence; geolocation will probably be less effective than behavioral indicators.

It's all a vast and sophisticated conspiracy against you run from Frank Gaffney's office. Ocdgrammarian (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian[reply]
@Bishonen: Got it, I'm new to arguing on Wikipedia. In my defense, I got confrontational in response to LavaBaron's hostility. In filing a SPI on me, he seems to believe that "people with similar opinions and mannerisms" are all one person who works for Gaffney in some conspiracy theory. Ocdgrammarian (talk) 09:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • There are certainly similarities, especially in the confrontational manner, but I don't find them specific enough to say the accounts are the same individual. I'm not American, but from what I read, I do believe there are many people with similar opinions and mannerisms.
    Practical advice to User:Ocdgrammarian: please don't copypaste text from elsewhere in Wikipedia, use links, to avoid bloating up the noticeboard. Copypasting dialogue with signatures is confusing, as is posting partial responses inside another person's posts. Bishonen | talk 09:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Closing largely based on Bishonen's comments. Bbb23 (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

17 July 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Recreated Bizenjo at Bizenjo tribe, and reverted my redirect when I pointed out in the edit summary that Bizenjo already exists as a redirect that can be expanded.

Logs will obviously be stale after this long, but there's heavy overlap with the last sockpuppet to attempt to unredirect the article, User:Curro2: [60]. 2A00:23EE:1CB8:5F8B:19D5:4E5C:B608:8411 (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Diffs for recreation of Bizenjo:

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Someone creating Bizenjo years after this case went stale does not seem sufficient evidence to me. no Closing without action. MarioGom (talk) 09:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Zeke1999/Archive&oldid=1174669280"