Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Skoojal/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:Skoojal[edit]

Skoojal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Skoojal

Skoojal (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date January 31 2009, 03:49 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Georgewilliamherbert (talk)

There's an edit subject and pattern overlap between new and unusually sophisticated user for a new user Jofakēt and banned sockpuppeteer Skoojal. Perhaps my duck sense is tingling by mistake, but it seems that someone ought to take a look... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users

Jofakēt (talk · contribs) looks like a sockpuppet of Roy Ward (talk · contribs) (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roy Ward, although Roy Ward (talk · contribs) doesn't seem to be blocked) – they edit the same articles, and have made similar edits to Ole Nydahl:[1][2], the user mentions "Retafon" on their user page:[3] and has made edits appearing to refer to it in various articles e.g. [4], [5]. The only other mentions of Retafon anywhere on Wikipedia are by Parētenē Sapās (talk · contribs)[6], Dusepo (talk · contribs)[7] and Palado Toko (talk · contribs)[8], all blocked as sockpuppets.

Showtime At The Gallow (talk · contribs) also looks like a sock of Roy Ward (talk · contribs), also editing the same articles and supporting one sock (Peter Robinson Scott (talk · contribs)) on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannah Nydahl[9] and supporting another (Kareesa Tofa (talk · contribs)) on a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals[10]. —Snigbrook 17:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.




Report date October 12 2009, 16:26 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Hyper3

A brief look at the history of Conversion therapy shows another editor with the name Skoojal, (who appears again briefly as Devil Goddess) with a very similar tone to Born Gay; some identical language and even disputes with the same people. Both these accounts are blocked for disruptive editing. Born Gay appears suddenly without any apparent learning curve into editing this article, after Devil Goddess was caught because the pattern of editing was very like Skoojal. Born Gay appears in January 2009, with a name that is designed to fit with the conversion therapy article. Devil Goddess gets discovered as a sock of Skoojal in late November 2008. There is some overlap after Devil Goddess gets discovered. Sigh. I need to say that I have been in a mediation dispute with him. I have also tried to get arbitration, but it was declined. Sorry if this is making a needless accusation, as it will probably look bad to be raising this at this point. Here are some diffs that are very similar to his current approach. See this and this and this. Hyper3 (talk) 08:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing WP:SIGNS I think the following sections apply: uncivil editing, precocious edit histories, editing identical articles, similar writing and editing styles. Also single purpose editing may be reflected in the name Born Gay, which may be directed at the article "conversion therapy" upon which there is much editing. Hyper3 (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Confirmed that I am indeed Skoojal. How clever of Hyper3 to notice that. I won't deny it, because I've got a limited tolerance for bullshit (that's why I'm so uncivil). I figured that if I came back to Wikipedia under a new, more politically correct guise (calling myself "Born Gay", and so forth), no one would be smart enough to realize who I was. For the record, I do not now, and nor have I ever, believed that I was "born gay" - my actual views on that topic are about the exact opposite of what my user name would suggest. BG talk 20:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

The accounts share a strong interest in Conversion therapy. I noticed that they also edit according to the same approximate schedule.[11][12][13]   Will Beback  talk  19:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Skoojal

Skoojal (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date October 14 2009, 02:17 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Abce2|This isnot a test

Never mind. Already done.Abce2|This isnot a test 02:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions

 Clerk note: If anything, Skoojal is pretty much banned, so I went ahead and tagged as such. MuZemike 01:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date November 6 2009, 22:37 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Daedalus969 [edit]

This brand-new account's second contribution is posting a message to a user's talk page that references a previously blocked sockpuppet of a banned user. The page in question is Günter Dörner, which was edited by the sockpuppet User:Born Gay. This user also posted a note to my talk page, referencing online communication, when I had previously been in online communication with the Born Gay sock through email. None of this adds up, suffice to say.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]
CheckUser requests [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E  + B (Community ban/sanction evasion and ongoing serious pattern vandalism)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by — Dædαlus Contribs 22:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]


Skoojal is known for creating sock farms, plus, I want to be absolutely sure that this is, or isn't him. I also wish to see that, if it is him, if a rangeblock would be possible.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
  •  Confirmed. A range block would be possible but ill advised at this time. Brandon (talk) 10:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions [edit]
  • User blocked and tagged. ceranthor 14:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.




Report date November 12 2009, 23:23 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Daedalus969 [edit]

The user's fifth contribution is supporting a confirmed sock of the banned user Skoojal], claiming he isn't a sock, despite the fact that he was  Confirmed in an earlier case. Right.23:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]
CheckUser requests [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by — Dædαlus Contribs 23:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]


CU is required to see if a rangeblock is possible, on this sock/meatpuppet.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk declined – Brandon already did a check last week and concluded that a rangeblock is not feasible. MuZemike 20:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Conclusions [edit]

 Clerk note: My guess is that the IP has been reassigned by now, so blocking the IP would be useless. Otherwise, yeah, the IP is clearly Skoojal. MuZemike 00:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.




Report date November 30 2009, 04:55 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Jayron32 [edit]

Skoojal is a recidivist sockmaster, and 22Googoo was an obvious sock of his, compare edits od The Truthinator and Reparative Therapy Survivor. Requesting a checkuser to root out any more socks. --Jayron32 04:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]

Frederick Crews article needs to be reverted to a pre-sock version. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

CheckUser requests [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Jayron32 04:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

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

I hardrangeblocked an internet café he was abusing. J.delanoygabsadds 16:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions [edit]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


04 December 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Tijfo098 is an obviously expericed user who edits the same topics as Skoojal and the more recent accounts. User:Jokestress apparently thought he looked like a sock and asked him about it in October.[14]   Will Beback  talk  07:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Back on September 1 I blocked another sock: Truetalk (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki).   Will Beback  talk  07:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wthdrawn I have communicated with the user offline and, together with the information in the user comparison report, etc., I am now convinced that this is not a sock puppet. I withdraw the allegation and apologize to Tijfo098 for the inconvenience.   Will Beback  talk  21:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

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

Pure WP:HARASSMENT is the concise characterization of this request. It's simple retaliation for disagreeing with Will at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Littleolive oil. By the way, Andrea James (User:Jokestress) knows my real life identity, but I don't see a good reason to let "Will Beback" know it. I actually encourage a check-user on me though. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you think I have the same position as Skoojal, compare Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive458#Please ban Jokestress from editing the article about Simon LeVay and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 45#Dr. James Cantor's edit on hebephilia. I think it's User:JzG who blocked Skoojal [15], and he took part in both discussions. Ask him if he thinks I'm Skoojal. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: I have edited over 700 different pages [16] and Skoojal edited some 400 pages [17]. Ten articles in common with Skoojal is not any more or less likely than any of [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] because Skoojal seem to have been the account of an user that edited in a particular area (homosexuality). Tijfo098 (talk) 08:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


To be honest, I'm not seeing much similarity between these two users besides their similar interests. I've just printed out the UserCompare report(meaning it can now be accessed by the link in evidence without having to wait for 6 hours), and I do not see similar editing patterns of edit summary usage, or of editing times(when the users log on, there is at least 2+ hours between normal editing time). On top of that, I've also seen two patterns; when Skoo leaves a summary, they blank the entire thing before they type it in; when Tij does, they don't do that, and instead leave the section notation inside the summary.

To be clear, I have helped in this case in the past, but I've been very busy lately with off-wiki related matters, so my memory may be fuzzy. To the point, please take my above opinion on this new case with a grain of salt.— Dædαlus Contribs 08:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible or worthwhile to check some of his more recent accounts, like Born Gay or Truetalk, through UserCompare? I'm not sure how to run it myself.   Will Beback  talk  09:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll generate a new report.— Dædαlus Contribs 09:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have fun, but I'll point out that about half of the intersection from the me/Skoojal report is due to me replacing a contributory copyvio in multiple artciles, with this type of edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homosexuality_and_psychology&diff=390055647&oldid=prev Tijfo098 (talk) 09:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The new report has been generated. Also, Tij, if you're innocent, you really have nothing to worry about.— Dædαlus Contribs 09:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Tij, there is no 'pure harassment' here. It's a reasonable assumption given the data and patterns, but it is not WP:HARASSMENT, which has a very specific definition on wikipedia.— Dædαlus Contribs 09:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree. From the policy, WP:H means "pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating the primary target." Will Beback launched this investigation right after I disagree with him on an AE thread, having had almost no other interaction with him otherwise (I remember agreeing with him on the talk of WP:V, but that's it) and the "evidence" is that I've made some minor edits to a few homosexuality-related articles who many other editors also touched, and among many other articles that I edited? Tijfo098 (talk) 10:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have a misunderstanding of that policy. The line about a "reasonable oberserver" refers to an outside party.. not the one who feels they are being harassed.— Dædαlus Contribs 10:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
..And in fact, your own evidence for your opinion on the matter supports the opposite conclusion; the very fact that they have had little interaction with you does not at all support any existence of your referred to 'pattern'. Plainly, there is no pattern, because this report is the only other interaction they have had with you. If this was a recurring problem, which it isn't, then this would be a different story.. But it's not. There is no harassment here.— Dædαlus Contribs 10:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I can think of much more useful uses of my time than to debate this any further. If you block me as a result of this investigation, I'd appreciate if you emailed User:Jokestress, User:Risker and User:DGG with your conclusions, for their entertainment. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this is a joke, then your time is better spent elsewhere.— Dædαlus+ Contribs 11:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • The Wikistalk report is somewhat informative in this matter. Two accounts, seperated by 2 years, which for some reason both find ten articles in common to edit, often with very similar content. --Jayron32 07:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk declined - Sorry, I have to decline the CU here. All of the data on Skoojal and their socks is stale, so we'd have to go based on behavior. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing per withdrawal. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
04 January 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


The account has made and defended edits to Gilles Deleuze previously made by User:Skoojal in language similar to Skoojal's. Compare [30] (and multiple subsequent edits) with [31]. The Barnabas2000 account has also edited two other articles previously edited by Skoojal (Norman O. Brown and Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson). Skoojal was indefinitely banned in 2008 for sockpuppetry and other policy violations. 271828182 (talk) 07:13, 4 January 2013 (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]
11 December 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The accounts and IPs work in unison. For example, the page Who Stole Feminism? was created by Polisher of Cobwebs, reworked by FreeKnowledgeCreator and IP 203.118.187.13, IP 122.60.173.222 tried to defend the article against complaints of bias, and ImprovingWiki defended Polisher of Cobwebs and FreeKnowledgeCreator's additions (e.g., [32] --> [33]).

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

@Binksternet: The way that the accounts and IPs have been used suggests attempts to avoid scrutiny or to cover up their tracks. Polisher of Cobwebs has contributed some very controversial content, three to four months after he stops editing (and CU data becomes stale), FreeKnowledgeCreator is reactivated. FreeKnowledgeCreator makes some more controversial edits, getting blocked for disruptive editing in the process, and three months after he stops editing in May 2014 (and, again, CU data becomes useless), ImprovingWiki is reactivated in August 2014. As I pointed out some problematic content that Polisher of Cobwebs added, ImprovingWiki defends it but claims that he isn't responsible for it, stating that he "in fact contributed very little" [34]. He abandons and reactivates accounts and IPs to edit the same articles and discuss the same issues with some of the same editors who don't know that the editor who argued with them five months ago is the editor who argues with them today. I don't see a legitimate use of multiple accounts. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 02:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: I'll provide diffs tomorrow. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 02:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sock puppetry where a person uses at least three accounts and many IPs to edit the same articles and discussions to advocate the same POV and content is deceptive and abusive in and of itself. The accounts (and IPs) work together to make it appear as if more editors support the position of the person behind the accounts. For example, FreeKnowledgeCreator suggests restoring an unreliable source by Jared Taylor in May [35]. Other editors disagree [36] but FreeKnowledgeCreator performs the edit anyway [37]. His change is reverted. So in order to make it appear as if he's not edit warring and ignoring other editors' comments he uses one of his socks to perform his edit again: Along comes ImprovingWiki in October and restores the Taylor source [38]. This is just one example where the edit itself (addition if unreliable source) isn't as disruptive as the use of socks to circumvent what appears to be a consensus on the talk page concerning the source. This use of additional accounts for deceptive purpose is not covered by WP:Multiple.
I believe that I have provided evidence that the accounts and IPs are operated by the same person and that they have been used to circumvent consensus and enforcement of policy. As for the request that I provide examples of abusive editing irrespective of the sock puppetry, it would take me several days, perhaps weeks, to create a conclusive list of policy violations by each account. But that would be something for ANI, not for SPI. A cursory look into the content edits of each account rather than their collective editing pattern, shows that they add WP:Undue POV criticism or WP:OR-ish fluff, depending on whether they like or oppose the individual, theory or book in question. For example, they restore polemical Fringe critiques of Foucault [39][40] but then they also call Paglia "a writer in a category of her own" [41]. Their approach to BLP also depends on their view of the person. For example, they rewrite some POV content added by one of their socks and even manage to repeat dubious allegations of unspecified "unethical behavior" about two named critics of Sommers [42]. Their behavior toward other editors is combative, they frequently accuse editors of being children or childish [43] or describe their edits as inept, illiterate, or a variation on the theme [44]. It came as no surprise that FreeKnowledgeCreator was blocked for edit warring over this kind of double dig at Firestone and Freud, with at least the statement that Firestone "welcomes incest" being completely WP:Fringe and unsupported by the source given.
Considering that only a few days ago the person denied that he was responsible for content added by one of his socks, his quick admission here and promised acceptance a various sanctions, including topic bans, leads me to believe that he wants to avoid a checkuser inquiry that might flush out additional socks. —Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In response to ImprovingWiki's explanation: No, it isn't just me who regards your edits on the Foucault page as undue and polemic. You also missed the point that you used Wikipedia's voice for that hyperbolic statement about Paglia. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. More baseless stuff. SonicYouth86 has been forum shopping to get editors that disagree with his unsound additions to articles that he has recently come into through GamerGate. He added Christine Hoff Sommers as a "gamerGate discretionary sanctions" article and promptly issues warnings to me and "ImprovingWiki". He filed a failed Sanction attempt against me. When his edit to Christina Hoff Sommers was rejected, he took it to her 20 year old book where he tried to redefine a critics view of her. When that failed because Rule of Thumb didn't mean what he though it meant, he took his same stuff to that article. An interesting interaction was Sonicyouth86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) as Binksternet mysteriously came to "Reliable Sources Noticeboard", then to Who Stole Feminism? and then to Rule of thumb only to revert to SonicYouth86's edit. If there is a sockpuppet investigation, it should investigate SY86's actions as well. Otherwise it should be dropped and he can take his GamerGate related concerns to the current ArbCom case. Here's an easy link [45] to get a list of articles. I don't think they are sock puppets but it's more evidence then he provides for accounts long dormant. --DHeyward (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • DHeyward, it's a pretty extreme accusation that you're levying against Binksternet right there. And no, I don't think you've got any evidence for that claim whatsoever. It's not that uncommon for someone to investigate some situations presented at a noticeboard, and go and make edits based on those things. I suggest you take a step back and calm down, rather than making fairly outrageous claims against editors in good standing. Equally, your commentary here is irrelevant to this SPI, which appears to me at least to have no relevance to GamerGate whatsoever. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not levying any accusation at all. I also didn't ping binksternet (unless user5 is a pinging function, but I don't think so) user5 did ping him to bring him here as he says below. If Binksternet had edited the Reliable Sources noticeboard, it would have been no big deal. But alas that wasn't the case, his response at the noticeboard to Who Stole Feminism? was the first to that board in years (and last, I believe). How he got to just show up and revert me seems odd. Odder still was the non-noticeboard random revert at Rule of thumb here [46] to Sonicyouth86's version without any indication of how he would be there (it wasn't the noticeboard). In short, it seems Binksternet and Sonicyouth86 have a connection through Men's rights movement. It's clear there is at least some connection not readily visible. Doubt they are sockpuppets but the reverts are clearly meatpuppetry as the summaries are not particularly coherent given the topic ans talk page discussion. Since they don't seem to communicate on talk, I am wondering about the rather strange coincidence of support and the dual interest in Men's rights. Maybe it's an audio link. The praise below is rather extreme IMO for a rather weak SPI connection. Here's the interaction again [47] --DHeyward (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sonicyouth86 made it GamerGate related [48] followed by his warning to ImprovingWiki [49]. Reading some previous stuff it appears this too goes back possibly to Memills and Doxelary and other "Men's rights movement" stuff which I am not familiar with. --DHeyward (talk) 03:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sommers invoked Gamergate on August 29 with this tweet; the tweet was widely discussed during September. Which explains all the recent activity at the Sommers biography and her book article. Sommers is the sweetheart of Gamergate supporters. Binksternet (talk) 04:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. CHS is where Sonicyouth86 and ImprovingWiki crossed paths. That answers User:Lukeno94 question about how GamerGate is involved. --DHeyward (talk) 07:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • On ANI, NE Ent has expressed that this appears to be furthering a dispute I have with Sonicyouth86. That was not my intent. Along with Lukeno94's comment above, though, I think it is then appropriate to strike and disengage. It wasn't my intent to further my dispute, rather to illuminate problematic behavior. I apologize if this has disrupted the SPI process. --DHeyward (talk) 14:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for doing that. I don't doubt that Sonicyouth86 may not be a saint (I haven't looked into anything myself), but this SPI seems to be perfectly valid to me, at least on the surface. I can certainly see these accounts being linked based on the "lazily named sock" rule (ie, they all seem vaguely related), as well as the evidence here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been pinged by DHeyward, so now I know of this investigation. After looking through the evidence, I see excellent sleuthing has been performed by Sonicyouth86, who correctly connects three named accounts and a handful of New Zealand IPs, though there are a lot more such NZ IPs not listed. The typographical similarities clinch the connection, which would have been conclusive anyway simply because of the unusual intersections of articles about Marxist philosophy, about anti-feminism, and about the issue of whether homosexuality is naturally occurring or a free choice. I would add Special:Contributions/116.199.211.49 which was this person's heavily used IP address during 2009 and 2011, especially on the Paglia bio, but which has continued to be used occasionally since then, including earlier this year. It was this IP that announced to Nuujinn an account change, followed by this announcement of the username Seed of Azathoth, which was FreeKnowledgeCreator's first registered username. (On 13 April 2012, the name Seed of Azathoth was changed to FreeKnowledgeCreator.)
    It's quite clear that the IPs are this person who is editing logged out, for instance this report shows ImprovingWiki is changing some film articles on 1 December, going in alphabetical order starting with 'A', but IP 122.60.173.222 kicks into the series, right where three "Above..." films are being edited. That's obviously a logged out edit.
    I would also like to point out the biography of American author Chandler Burr and his book A Separate Creation, the latter article started by Polisher of Cobwebs as an attack on Burr, filled with WP:NOR violations, or at least WP:SYNTH. These two little-seen articles have witnessed action from 116.199.211.49, 122.60.204.74, FreeKnowledgeCreator, ImprovingWiki, and a further dozen New Zealand IPs starting with 203.118. It's quite a little knot of interconnectedness here, on a subject few care about.
    However, the big problem with all of this sleuthing by Sonicyouth86 is that it does not show the New Zealander using multiple accounts in a manner that violates the guideline at WP:MULTIPLE, with more than one account commenting in the same discussion, or edit-warring over content. There's plenty of problematic editing, violations of BLP, NPOV, SYNTH and NOR, but no outright socking. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, of course, if evidence is brought forward. The closest I found myself was this edit by NZ IP 203.118 in August 2013, adding Homosexuality: A Philosophical Inquiry to the "See also" section, then in February 2014 when another editor removes the entry, FreeKnowledgeCreator restores it. (Personally, I would remove it as unrelated.)
    So I would like to see proof that there is a more serious violation of MULTIPLE before I would recommend any of these accounts be blocked. Certainly all the accounts should plainly state their interconnection in one of the manners suggested at WP:MULTIPLE. To me, the connection is crystal clear. Binksternet (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to congratulate Sonicyouth86 for showing the irrefutable interconnectedness of these accounts and IPs. After this SPI concludes, I think the next step is to work toward a topic ban on sexuality and feminism, since it has become clear to me that our friend from New Zealand has been inserting bias and POV into Wikipedia for five years. The bias is against feminism and against the idea that homosexuality is inborn. Topics at which this person has had strong influence are topics where opposing opinions have been ignored, sidelined or minimized, while opinions shared by the New Zealander are emphasized beyond due weight. So a case with diffs proving long-term bias will have to be prepared for discussion at WP:ANI. Sonicyouth86 has laid the groundwork. Binksternet (talk) 02:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sonicyouth86's response above is apt; the New Zealand editor is using multiple accounts over a longer period of time to avoid scrutiny. I support that observation. Binksternet (talk) 05:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Sonicyouth86's response is basically what I expected. I grant that the use of multiple accounts is problematic. Other than that, his assertions are without merit. The user asserts that I, add "WP:Undue POV criticism or WP:OR-ish fluff, depending on whether they like or oppose the individual, theory or book in question." If I wanted to stoop to that kind of thing, I could repeat that, word for word, for edits by Sonicyouth86 or Binksternet. This edit at the Foucault article is simply an edit Sonicyouth86 does not agree with. "Fringe" is a matter of opinion, since the criticism comes from a prominent philosopher. This edit at Camille Paglia accurately reflected the source used and is, whether right or wrong, just another edit Sonicyouth86 does not like. Sonicyouth86 says that this edit makes "dubious" claims. The dubious claims are there in the reliable source used, which Sonicyouth86 evidently disagrees with. Again, this is a case of him just not liking the edit. This edit at The Dialectic of Sex is one more variation on the "I do not like your editing" theme. Sonicyouth86's complaint that the material I restored is not supported by the source is itself unsupported, and for what it is worth, the material in question has long since been removed. I changed my mind on the issue and removed it myself, as anyone who can be bothered looking through the revision history of the article will find. I grant that I have, at times, gotten angry with other users and made combative comments. This, while unfortunate, is not uncommon behavior on Wikipedia. ImprovingWiki (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in having some ongoing argument with Sonicyouth86 at this page. Sonicyouth86 is obviously being unfair if his accusations of "bias" are meant to apply to all of my editing; I have simply done too much editing for all or even most of it to be considered "biased." Beyond that, "abusive editing" does not mean, "any edit Sonicyouth86 disagrees with for whatever reason", nor even "any edit Sonicyouth86, Maunus, and a handful of other people disagree with for whatever reason." The edit at Camille Paglia may be a mistake on my part, but again frankly so what? If I were to edit the article again, I'd probably remove the wording Sonicyouth86 objected to myself. ImprovingWiki (talk) 01:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is interesting. When FreeKnowledgeCreator first popped up on my radar, a little before or after editing the Bisexuality article, I felt that the person operating that account had far too much knowledge of Wikipedia for a sporadic Wikipedian. The fact that the account was years old, however, made me less suspicious of it, and I thought I had no account to compare the editor to. That FreeKnowledgeCreator has been using multiple accounts is problematic; an example is the fact that I had an okay-ish working relationship with FreeKnowledgeCreator, but I got off to a bad start with ImprovingWiki; it took Johnuniq trying to mediate that initial interaction. Then, months later, ImprovingWiki and I interacted better with each other. What I am stating is that despite, as I've noted before, being very good at spotting and catching WP:Sockpuppets, I thought that FreeKnowledgeCreator and ImprovingWiki were two different people, and that is problematic because I was interacting with a person without the context of our entire history while that person did have the context of that entire history. I'm also familiar with the Polisher of Cobwebs account. As for FreeKnowledgeCreator's bias, I thought that the bias leaned toward being supportive of homosexuality and feminism; I did not think of the matter being the other way around. That stated, a person not thinking of homosexuality as being inborn does not necessarily mean that the person is against homosexuality. Like the Sexual orientation and Homosexuality articles note, scientists are generally in agreement that sexual orientation is not caused by one factor; it is likely a complex combination of genetic, hormonal (as in womb environment) and social factors. Flyer22 (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. In my opinion, it should be of no interest what editors personally believe about any subject if they are able to edit neutrally. For the record, I have never had any interest in promoting one side or the other of the nature/nurture controversy about the origins of homosexuality; I've always tried to present both sides fairly. ImprovingWiki (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ImprovingWiki, it's probably not best that you thank me. I truly support Sonicyouth86 having started this WP:Sockpuppet investigation, and Sonicyouth86 has made solid points above. If Sonicyouth86 believes that you should be indefinitely blocked or blocked for a significantly long time because of your editing with multiple accounts, and the way you edited with them, I'm inclined to support Sonicyouth86 on that. Something else that made me suspicious of you when you were editing as FreeKnowledgeCreator is this and this matter regarding the indefinitely blocked but well-known WP:Sockpuppeteers Otto4711 and Benjiboi; I find it odd that you, as the relatively inexperienced Wikipedian FreeKnowledgeCreator, would know who those editors are and request that their pages be indefinitely WP:Protected. Looking at their earliest contributions here and here, I see that their accounts were created only days apart -- Otto4711 on April 17, 2006, and Benjiboi on April 21, 2006; I wonder if Beyond My Ken, who is good at spotting Otto4711 WP:Sockpuppets, ever considered that. Flyer22 (talk) 05:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

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

  • Thanks, ImprovingWiki, I will wait for Sonicyouth86's response before taking action.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This hasn't been an easy decision. I've indeffed and tagged the two puppets and blocked the master for a month. I'm not convinced by the person's privacy excuse. Nor am I convinced that they can ameliorate their behavior sufficiently to be able to edit appropriately and collaboratively. However, we do believe in the possibility of redemption, and I decided to give the person one chance to demonstrate that they can edit appropriately with one account. If there's any block evasion during the one month, either by a new account or by an IP, this case should be reopened and my comments highlighted for the clerk who evaluates the report. If there's any indication of socking after the block expires, ditto. Finally, if there's any repetition of abusive editing by this person, no matter how eloquently they defend themselves, the same. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

08 October 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

This is either Freeknowledgecreator or someone trying to joe-job him. gnu57 07:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to add: If I am mistaken, then I apologise to @Dustytumble:. I should mention that none of Dustytumble's contributions have been pushing an anti-gay POV.

Freeknowledgecreator was blocked at the end of May 2020 and Dustytumble registered an account in June. A significant portion of Dustytumble's edits involve alphabetising categories, which Freeknowledgecreator has done often. I thought that Dustytumble's comment on Sxologist's talk page was Skoojal/Freeknowledgecreator having a laugh; you can see other examples of his style of humour here and here.

Dustytumble wrote Just wanted to drop by and say I appreciate your work undoing the contributions made by Skoojal/Freeknowledgecreator. His articles were clearly violating WP:Fringe and trying to make conversion therapy look like a scientifically valid practice, with the only reviews in the "Reception" sections being positive or neutral ones. While Sxologist's efforts to improve FKC articles were well intentioned, I found his approach at times questionable. Consider for example Simon LeVay. In 2008, Skoojal added cherry-picked quotations from LeVay's writing that (in my view) unduly emphasised the brief autobiographical introduction to The Sexual Brain and particular caveats and acknowledgements of criticism in Queer Science.[50] (To be fair, Skoojal also removed a significant amount of POV material smearing LeVay as a proponent of eugenics.) By 2013, Freeknowledgecreator had apparently become a more conscientious editor: he returned to the LeVay article and removed first some of the more egregious bits[51][52], then the entire book-summary section.[53]

In June 2020, Sxologist restored the whole shebang, including the parts I consider inappropriate, with the edit summary Restored Books section, which was removed from a now banned Sockpuppet for "undue weight" despite it being perfectly well cited and appropriate for a notable neuroscientist[54]. Sxologist emphasised this edit as a prime example of his editing to counter POV pushing in his unblock request in August [55] (and again this past week[56]). Anyone who checked the diff should have noticed that Sxologist had made a mistake. I certainly think that if Freeknowledgecreator were still watching the topic area, he would have noticed.

Regarding book reviews: Freeknowledgecreator was a regular at WP:RX. He went to a lot of trouble to find and summarise as many published reviews as possible, both for controversial or fringe books and for more mainstream ones. See for example Virtual Equality, The Foundations of Psychoanalysis, and A Natural History of Rape. Sxologist said here As we know, FKC also tries to create a guise of balance by presenting a 'reception' section featuring 50/50 split of positive and negative reviews. I have found no evidence for this. Dustytumble took the criticism a step further by claiming that Freeknowledgecreator purposefully excluded all negative reviews of conversion therapy books. This is clearly incorrect: see e.g. Homosexuality: Disease or Way of Life?#Reception, Shaping Your Child's Sexual Identity, and Is Homosexuality a Menace?#Reception.

In this context, Dustytumble's comment struck me as pointedly insincere. I wondered if it was intended to demonstrate that Wikipedians will accept obvious falsehoods, provided that they align with the correct POV. I considered the possibility of joe-jobbing because I thought the comment was almost too blatant. It occurs to me now, of course, that Dustytumble might simply have been mistaken--as a new editor, Dustytumble can't be expected to immediately understand all the context of a complicated, years-long issue.

@Crossroads: I think I forgot to check a box on the SPI form. I'll defer to the SPI clerks to determine whether a CU is warranted. gnu57 14:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I am not Freeknowledgecreator. From what I know of this user, Freeknowledgecreator/Skoojal wrote many articles with the intent of making conversion therapy look more scientifically accepted than it is. I thanked Sxologist because he was obviously trying to undo the damage done to Wikipedia by FKC. Some of my own edits have been trying to undo this damage, since I have noticed that the articles on conversion therapists like Charles W. Socarides and Jeffrey Satinover are overly positive and try to make them seem like uncontroversial figures. I didn't mean to joe job or impersonate anyone. Dustytumble (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on the validity of this report, but shouldn't this be listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Skoojal since FKC was a sock of Skoojal? Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI! 02:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dustytumble seems to be opposed to Freeknowledgecreator's POV, which in itself suggests they are not the same. On the other hand, many years ago, Skoojal would sometimes mess around with accounts that had the opposite of his usual POV. Bottom line, I don't see why CheckUser was not requested in this case. It has always worked with Skoojal and it could easily determine if it is him. Crossroads -talk- 15:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Comment by Dustytumble: On closer inspection, you are correct that Freeknowledgecreator/Skoojal included negative reviews in his articles, so my comment on Sxologist's page was wrong. I still believe that FKC's articles lent undue weight to WP:Fringe ideas. I also wasn't aware of the controversial nature of some of Sxologist's edits, and it seemed from a cursory look that he was trying to fix the articles on sexual orientation that lent an undue weight to conversion therapy. Dustytumble (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dustytumble, do you think CheckUser would exonerate you? Crossroads -talk- 16:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Dustytumble (talk) 16:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GeneralNotability, could you change this report to request CU? Genericusername57 said above that they originally meant to do so, and there seems to be agreement that it is a good idea. Crossroads -talk- 16:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Genericusername57  Additional information needed. In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
  1. At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
  2. At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
  3. In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have discussed this with GeneralNotability and we have agreed that there is currently insufficient evidence to run a check. @Genericusername57: Thanks for filing and please feel free to come back here if more evidence arises. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21 October 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Very similar names, long rambling polite style of discourse that goes nowhere, similar idiosyncratic attitude towards rules, similar spurious references to homosexuality and similar strange conclusions flowing from very odd attitude toward sexuality/Freud/society's attitude towards various taboos ancient and modern. Compare Freeknowledgecreator's contributions here with the long-winded comments made here, a discussion started by Knowledge Contributor0 in their sixth edit and filled with Wikipedia jargon, particularly this summary that no-one wanted: [57]. I'm not sure exactly whether CheckUser can help, if it's not applicable in this case I un-request it. GPinkerton (talk) 05:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by other users[edit]

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

First I would like to mention that I was being falsely accused of being a sockpuppet when discussing a different opinion with some Wikipedia editors, please check Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Clarification_about_applying_WP:IAR_for_interviews_done_by_Daily_Mail_on_Great_Barrington_Declaration_due_to_lack_of_media_coverage for an example. I have been mistakenly blocked before, and the block was removed, after it became clear it was a mistake. Please refer to my talk page for details User_talk:Knowledge_Contributor0#October_2020_2. I made it clear in this discussion with Guy that the reason for me joining Wikipedia back after many years is my shock when I read the Great Barrington Declaration article. Not that this is the not only article that I see as violating many of the Wikipedia policies, but it is a good start in my own opinion. Because of that, the kind of articles I am expecting to edit or talk about will be highly controversial in nature and will often get me in dispute with many editors, and I mentioned this to Guy in the previously mentioned discussion on my talk page. As an example, I am already engaged in a discussion with GPinkerton about what I see as potential violation of WP:LBL and WP:BLP in Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Great_Barrington_Declaration.
As I mentioned to Guy, I am not a new user. May be now I have an account, but many years ago I used to anonymously make edits to Wikipedia and I am very aware of the policies even though my knowledge about them may be a little outdated. To the best of my knowledge, there is no policy in Wikipedia that prevent users with new accounts from engaging in discussions or talks about policies, guidelines, or controversial articles. Also there is no clear way for me or any user to prove that they are not a sockpuppet to any other user, other than a negative report from CheckUser. I don't know anything about what GPinkerton claimed about me engaging in discussion about "homosexuality" or "sexuality/Freud/society's attitude towards various taboos", and I never engaged in talking about these subjects before. I also don't believe that it is fair to me or to any user to get reported as a sockpuppet or having to justify themselves over and over every time they get in discussion or dispute with some of the editors of a certain article.
I hope that in any discussion WP:GF is assumed, more focus is put on the content of my edits and the focus of making Wikipedia articles better rather than focusing on my person. Please let me know if you have any questions. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 06:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As for the summary that GPinkerton mentioned it was made in spirit of WP:CLUE to summarize the discussion about the WP:IAR exception so that the discussion is not repeated again by other people. Even though I didn't think the discussion warranted WP:RFC, I felt that summarizing the discussion may help people in the future. I didn't receive any complaint about the summary from any user including GPinkerton, and don't really know what harm did I do by taking the time to summarize the discussion. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 07:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Behavioral analysis by Binksternet

Since CU is declined, we need a more robust examination of behavior. What I'm seeing is the following:

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

  •  Check declined by a checkuser - Only one account is not stale, so nothing to compare with. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: First: I am only considering Knowledge Contributor0 here, the others are years stale and I do not see a pressing need to deal with them. With that said, I don't believe there is enough evidence to link KC0 to Skoojal & co. In particular, their edit summary style is fairly different from the others. KC0 showing up at Template talk:Infobox person is fairly easy to explain: they signed up for FRS and FRS posted a request for input to their talk page. Knowing about the existence of FTN and RSN also aren't especially conclusive proof. I am closing this without action. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Skoojal/Archive&oldid=1146461759"