A lot of crossover between articles edited on rather obscure topics is reflected in the Wikistalk report [1]. General behavioral pattern and timing of account creation are consistent, and there is a standing, unanswered direct question to the user regarding whether they might be CoM. Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
0. It is unfortunate that checkuser isn't corroborative, but that isn't the end of the story; IPs may change due to a user physically moving, or using technical measures ( VPN). CoM, being the subject of a one-year ban (rather than indefinite) would have a higher motivation than most sockmasters to use technical measures designed to defeat checkuser. As Wikipedia:CheckUser says, "CheckUser is not magic wiki pixie dust. ... An editing pattern match is the important thing; the IP match is really just extra evidence (or not)." So, onward to the behavioural evidence.
1. Basic overlap in US political views, including climate change and creationism. There is a basic overlap in interests between Freakshownerd ( talk · contribs), ChildofMidnight ( talk · contribs) and CoM's sock Electroshoxcure ( talk · contribs) in terms of shared US conservative political views, reflected in interests in Barack Obama (eg FSN's recent creation of BLPs appointed in Obama recess appointments, like Winslow Sargeant), intelligent design (eg FSN editing William Dembski and CoM's subpage) and climate-change-related pages (eg FSN's Michael E. Mann edits and Electroshoxcure's contribution to Climatic Research Unit email controversy [2]). These views go together, and lots of users fit this profile - so it's edits outside of these topics which are of interest.
2. Interest in junk food excess. Junk food, particularly bacon, was a CoM favourite topic, which those familiar should remember and it can be verified if necessary). Freakshownerd demonstrates the same interest:
which is not a blip, but a continuing interest:
3. Pasco County, Florida link with CoM sock
Freakshownerd has created
How unusual is an interest in Pasco County nature reserves, you ask? Well here's another way of looking at it.
4. Obscure wikistalk overlap. There is a very notable wikistalk overlap between Freakshownerd and CoM at a very hard to reach page, outside the main political-interest arena they share:
Todos_Santos_Chocolates was created by CoM, has no inbound links to speak of, and not even a talk page.
Sequence:
Notable is that (a) the page has virtually no inbound links (b) the 13 June edit would have made the page appear on CoM's watchlist as a recently edited page (which I have no doubt CoM was continuing to log in to check). (c) there are no FSN edits related to milagros at that time; and I cannot see any other edits related to this topic at all.
5. Posting at ANI in support of other users without apparent connection, after just 8 and 10 days. FSN posted unprompted at WP:ANI in support of another user [18] just one week after registering the account. The post is worth quoting in full:
Clear harassment and abuse of a contributor to the encyclopedia building effort. And now we see those standing up to the vile abuse being attacked as well. Shame on Gwen Gale, Newyorkbrad, Treasurytag, AGK, Ncmvocalist and others for their involvement in this sordid affair. If you can't be bothered to investigate and put things right then you should resign your positions of authority. There is no justification for the outrageous and abusive blocks now in Richard Norton's log, despite his being stalked with socks and other efforts to drive him off. Those who have stood by and allowed this to happen or encouraged it by attacking anyone who points out how grotesque it is should be ashamed of themselves. Civility policy my ass, these behaviors are sick and those defending them have no constructive role to here in building a supportive community or an encyclopedia.
The post was preceded earlier that day by a post on the user's user talk page (FSN's first post there) [19] saying "Sorry to see the usual suspects involved in the harassment and abuse of a good contributor. Your sullied block log will remain even after these villains move on to other prey. This place is very sick indeed. Best of luck to you." This was just 8 days after registering the account! (And I can't even see any reason, from their respective contributions, why FSN would even be aware of the user's existence, never mind come unprompted to his support. He'd never previously posted to ANI, so can't even plausibly claim to have come across the issue that way.)
Much the same occurs 2 days later - posting at ANI in support of another user (a different) one, with no obvious motivation to jump in. [20] This too is worth quoting:
"The usual hypocrisy from the worst of Wikipedia's Admins. They can call people names and behave in the most abusive and uncivil manner but will never be called to account (as we see in the case of the unjust actions taken against Richard which resulted in no redress). But if anyone dares to call those abusing our policies and their positions of authority to account, they will be aggressively sanctioned into silence for daring to speak up. Gross. Has the abuse and harassment against Richard at least been slowed for the time being? Let's hope so. Kudos and thanks to Giano for standing up for an editor being harangued unfairly. Far too many good editors have been lost in this way..."
CoM was of course well known for jumping in to WP:AN and WP:ANI conversations to claim "abuse" of one kind or another by various admins. FSN continues the pattern two days later (5 June), jumping to the defense of Malleus Fatuorum [21] [22] without any visible prior engagement with the editor.
6. Freakshownerd's sole deletion review to date, 17 days after registering the account, [23] just happens to be an article CoM substantially rewrote [24] ( Matthew Hoh)
7. Some interest in American football: wikistalk overlap at Robert McClain.
Nonspecific evidence of F being a sock:
8. within first dozen edits created an article as well structured as this: [25]
All of this evidence is purely edit history; but of course a number of people have commented on how much FSN sounds like CoM. See for example (besides the quotes in point 5 above) FSN's user talk page (and history) and block history, and compare with CoM's RFCU. Rd232 talk 14:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims.
A checkuser has already agreed to investigate this some time today, and another to do so tomorrow if they're unable to due to RL time constraints. I've so far not posted the evidence that Freakshownerd is ChildofMidnight as I don't want to tell CoM in great detail where he went wrong, and hence how to do better next time. (cf user:Electroshoxcure - he's already socked once to avoid his 1-year ban). The evidence has been emailed to about ten admins and there's no need to duplicate the work done. (Of course, if any one of those admins feels the need to publish the evidence, they can do so.) Rd232 talk 17:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Freakshownerd has edited edited unique pages:704, and only 30 or about 5 percent are combined with COM, but it is the obscurity of the connections that appears undeniable. Full breakfast - Obama - Rick Scott - The Heartland Institute - Todos Santos Chocolates - this one is shouting connection to me, such an obscure article with only six edits total, four to COM and one to Freakshownerd and one to another. A propensity to edit Fringe theories, also combined Matthew Hoh - Robert McClain - ? and the fact that this account was created two weeks after COMs last socking was blocked, I have had a good look with User:Delta's user compare tool and the undeniable implausible connections to such obscure articles warrants a checkuser clarification imo. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
F mentioned a previous allegation that he was User:William M. Connolley, which I wasn't aware of. For the record, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/William_M._Connolley/Archive#28_June_2010 shows some evidence that F is a sock, but the idea that it's WMC is pretty ludicrous and a checkuser request was unsurprisingly declined. Rd232 talk 10:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
moved from section below, where exchanges were misplaced
Clerk endorsed, AGFing on Rd232's part that a CheckUser has already agreed to look into this case. –
MuZemike 05:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
This (already blocked) account is likely either ChildofMidnight or someone in his camp, such as User:Grundle2600. Both of them are known to use socks. They are already blocked for a blatantly obvious sock of someone; just need a checkuser to check for sleepers and/or to confirm which drawer this fits in. The users contribs are rather telling. Jayron 32 06:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims.
Has any evidence been submitted that this user might be a sock of any other particular user? Bongo matic 13:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Question: is there any IP relationship with the proxies used for the Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of ChildofMidnight?
Comment: The account claims to be neither Grundle2600 nor CoM [27], and Grundle2600 usually admits it. Using the same technique with the contributions (to spell out messages with the names of successive articles edited) as User:Green Dragons Love Bacon is perplexing (unless this is more common than I think - never seen it before). Green Dragons certainly resembles a User:Grundle2600 sock, including at one time using one of his userboxes, but I find it odd that that account contribution list seems to be spelling out both Grundle2600 (some kind of atari game connection) and Child of Midnight. Presuming that the possibility of these two being the same person was ruled out long ago, this looks like deliberate obfuscation. I'd plump for CoM on that basis for both Green Dragons and Whoopdeeda, unless some plausible impostor can be suggested. Rd232 talk 16:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Don't Troll Good Faith Editors. That is creative, I'll give him that. Tarc ( talk) 13:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
See also Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Freakshownerd, which was a suspected sockpuppet of CoM also. There is a chance that Freakshownerd and CoM are not related, so feel free to split this case if needed, the connection to CoM directly is twofold: first, both have edited, with the same basic perspective, the article Eastside Sun. Second, PicodeGato's interaction style, especially when in conflict, matches substantially the tone and demeanor of CoM. This account also matches all known CoM and Freakshownerd socks in that it has a precocious understanding of Wikipedia, and dives very quickly into article creation, especially biographical articles, and furthermore was created on November 7, 2010, just a few hours after the autoblock would have expired on the most recent Freakshownerd socks to be blocked, those being User:Tigersarecomingforyou and User:WrenandStimpy. Could someone please checkuser to see if there is a connection to either CoM or Freakshownerd, and if it is Freakshownerd, we can move this case to the more appropriate connection. -- Jayron 32 07:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Jayron 32 07:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Auto-generated every six hours.
See Defending yourself against claims.
QUACK! if you know what to look for: this is FSN, who is of course CoM. Last time I put lots of effort into marshalling the evidence; this time I'll just leave it to checkuser. But I'll note that there's plenty Jayron32 hasn't mentioned. Rd232 talk 12:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
The similarity can be measured in the single digits of miliducks. What gives with this request? Bongo matic 10:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
User account was created after ChildofMidnight was banned: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight. ChildofMidnight was blocked several more times for creating sockpuppets Freakshownerd, Electroshoxcure, PicodeGato, Whoopdeeda, Mr. Karm Atwin, WrenandStimpy, Tigersarecomingforyou, and Jeeper72. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChildofMidnight/Archive. ChildofMidnight prominently loved bacon. Fortheloveofbacon's very first edit used the abbreviation "BLP", demonstrating previous familiarity with Wikipedia processes. Fortheloveofbacon edited the Doritos page, and CoM was known to be interested in junk food. CoM was banned for disputes on Wikipedia process pages and is currently banned from editing any WP process pages. Fortheloveofbacon initiated a fractious process, nominating Arthur Rubin for deletion, an article that had been established as notable in four previous AfDs. Binksternet ( talk) 16:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
As far as I can see, every previous account associated with CoM is Stale.
TN
X
Man 16:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I knew ChildofMidnight and worked quite closely with him before his block(s), so I recognice his writing. I typically find it pretty choppy proseline. See the writing style of Matthias Pliessnig or Caryn Wagner from ChildofMidnight and User:Candleabracadabra/Acoustic harassment or American Educational Resources Association from Candleabracadabra (note it is hard to find articles nearly entirely edited by ChildofMidnight as he hasn't edited in years, this is only one example). Paragraphs are typically made up of sentences that are not directly related to one another, usually in a statement-reference-statement-reference format. They both have the they same sort of "cry foul" attitude, claiming conspiracy against them, bullying, and whatnot. This includes going directly to Jimbo in this regard as was done by ChildofMidnight here and by Candleabracadabra here. Their editing overlaps on some rather obscure articles as seen here. In addition both users latest 500 pages created show a mass number of redirects, and articles created largely around the subject of architects/architecture and food.
Note I haven't done much at SPI, and I wasn't sure if I should notify or not. Please feel free to do so on my behalf if it is you think it is necessary (Twinkle just said use your own judgement). kelapstick( bainuu) 19:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
For this specific case, the technical/CU evidence points toward this being a Possible sock of
Freakshownature Freakshownerd, but is not confirmatory. Based on the technical evidence retained on ChildofMidnight from 2010, this account is
Unrelated. Bottom line, though - ChildofMidnight is not currently banned or blocked, and has a few Arbcom-based restrictions on his account. Checkuser evidence is not going to be of use here in demonstrating that this account is CoM.
Risker (
talk) 03:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC) Corrected username
Risker (
talk) 23:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
This is extensive, much more so than the previous SPI, which appeared to have been closed for lack of (behavioral) evidence; CU evidence was stale, inconclusive, or unavailable, suggesting perhaps a move on the editor's part. This report is perhaps the first in a series; allow me to sketch what I think is a possible process. a. establish that ChildofMidnight ("CoM") is Candleabracadabra (dubbed "Candle" by me, Drmies, and "CaC" by Kelapstick. b. ensure that if Candle is not blocked (which isn't necessarily what I, Drmies, am seeking), that at least the Wikipedia:Editing restrictions for CoM are ferried over to Candle; via WP:AN, or maybe by ArbCom, if they're interested. c. censure appropriately, whatever is deemed appropriate: the goal here is to prevent the disruption caused by Candle, and especially the personal insults and character assassination, and it's precisely that part of CoM's restrictions that I want to see applied to Candle.
As far as ArbCom is concerned, I'll ping Beeblebrox, as a previously interested party; likewise, Risker may be interested and Jimbo Wales as well (see section below on CoM/Candle's contributions to his talk page). I've asked for CU since CoM was quite the socker (kind of funny, given the charges he made about admins with multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny), and were Candle to be blocked, for instance, I don't doubt that they'd return. The chunk of evidence I pasted below was with one (noted) exception compiled by Kelapstick and me, and additional evidence may come to light as we peruse the many, many edits made on both accounts. You'll find a section or two pertaining mostly to Candle; it is included here not necessarily for sock identification but rather for future purposes, perhaps, to indicate that Candle is disruptive already in his own right.
One more thing: you may know that CoM, K-stick, myself, and LadyofShalott were longtime friends, and this gives us no pleasure. Going through all these diffs was a trip down memory lane, but the end is painful. I (Drmies) have on occasion turned a blind eye to CoM's socking (see the note on Fidel Castrato and Tigersarecomingforyou, below), since I have always thought that his article creation was in the best interest of the project. I am no longer so sure that it is, and by now I am convinced, after the recent spat with Viriditas and even Cullen328, that the completely abrasive personality of CoM/Candle, who makes friends when it suits him and abuses everyone else, has no place in this collaborative project. So maybe I am convinced that a block is the right decision. I don't know. I will gladly leave that up to you.
Doncram: perhaps I should have been more clear. The problem is precisely that this violates WP:CLEANSTART, in that "the new account must avoid editing patterns or behaviors that would allow other users to recognize and identify the account. It is expected that the new account will be a true "fresh start", will edit in new areas and avoid old disputes, and will follow community norms of behavior." It is our contention, and this is laid out mostly in the last section, that Candle does not avoid old disputes and does not follow community norms of behavior. I'll cite CoM's restrictions in full, from WP:Editing restrictions:
User:ChildofMidnight is restricted to editing main (article) space, the talk pages of articles he has edited, Template talk:Did you know, and his own talk and user talk pages only. In all cases he is forbidden from discussing the behavior of other editors, real or perceived, outside of his own user talk page. ChildofMidnight may apply to the Committee for exemptions to this restriction for the purposes of good faith dispute resolution on a case-by-case basis. This remedy is concurrent (and cumulative) with any extant topic bans, and consecutive to any editing ban.
"Forbidden from discussing the behavior of others, real or perceived, outside of his own user talk page"; it seems clear to me that this was violated. They saved the worst for their own talk page, as a sort of free-speech zone (did you read their comments?), but there's plenty outside their own user space. Drmies ( talk) 17:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
[Drmies]
[Kelapstick]
They're both fond of the word "numerous", esp. when it comes to editors hounding them, or editors who agree with them that editor/admin X is guilty of multiple infractions (bullying, harassing, stalking, etc.)--see below, "On Talk:Jimbo Wales".
[Drmies]
Some catchwords and phrases in edit summaries, many of which to do with attempts to claim notability or merging of content. Numbers in brackets occur to frequency; these are "clean", that is, they aren't part of an included section title. In order, these numbers are occurrences for ChildofMidnight and Candleabracadabra, respectively, with one exception, explained below.
The most damning instance is "nevermind" (typical of how CoM and Candle correct themselves; in user talk space, this is done in subsequent edits to the text). "nevermind", capitalized only once, and always at the beginning of a summary, often followed by a period: 18 for CoM, 3 for Candle, and 1 for Freakshownerd, a verified CoM sock. CoM uses "Nevermind" as a single word in-text also, here, for instance. CoM uses it in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive547, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black president ("Nevermind Drmies, he's European"), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commerce revision.
[Kelapstick]
[Kelapstick]
[Drmies and Kelapstick]
Both are prolific article creators, even if, as Kelapstick and numerous (!) others have suggested, a lot of them are on barely notable topics with bloggy or otherwise unreliable references. The topics food and architects have already been mentioned, but Los Angeles and Florida landmarks, restaurants, parks, trails, and other features are legion as well. Journalists were a minor but important interest.
Note that in "Overlap", below, I am making reference on occasion to a "typical" citation style; some details are given in this section.
[Kelapstick]
[Drmies]
The list below (courtesy of Pietrodn's Intersect tool, which gives 136 articles and talk pages) could be extended; selected are the somewhat esoteric articles, those without high traffic. In bold are particularly salient examples. Anecdotal evidence suggests that Candle, who occasionally reverts vandalism to those articles, still has a kind of CoM-watchlist.
And speaking of esoteric: Talk:Better than sex cake was tweaked by CoM and got a comment from Candle (talk page has seven editors; Candle voted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Is It Really Better Than Sex? Cake
This section written by Viriditas, and posted on User talk:Callanecc. I made one change, to the diff in the first sentence, which didn't work (as is the case with some others) because Climate variability is now a redirect. [Drmies]
These are many. Perhaps the most striking, given the recent Native Hawaiian cuisine spat, is the moving of pages during an AfD or other discussion.
[Kelapstick]
[Drmies]
To Nyttend: "Are you just being disruptive?" Part of Candle being on a tear against Nyttend. Note how in the AN thread Candle started about Nyttend, he uses the typical CoM language--scroll for "It's unfortunate that Nyttend seems to have gotten away with his bullying tactics. I don't think that's appropriate behavior for an admin." "I think bullying is wrong. Period. Nyttend should shape up." "He has banned me from his talk page but is now stalking my edits." "...to find out whether an admin can bully and intimidate an editor away from working on an article." After GregJackP told him to drop the stick, "GregJ, if you don't think issuing multiple bogus warnings, threats and accusations, stalking my edits to other pages and expanding the dispute while prohibiting me from contacting him on his talk page, and making personal attacks against me isn't bullying I think you are mistaken." "Nyttend's bullying has stopped." " I don't think this kind of diruptive antagonism is appropriate from an admin." Earlier on Nyttend's talk page: "You are an admin and are expected to conduct yourself in a manner consistent with high standards."
"incivility and nastiness" on User talk:Wizardman (CoM), also on User talk:ChildofMidnight/Archive 11. "Nastiness and incivility" on User talk:ChildofMidnight/Archive 13
"hounding, stalking and harassment", "hounded, harassed, and stalked" on same
[Drmies]
Typical interaction with an administrator ( Stephen over a deleted article: this by PicodeGato, a blocked CoM sock (article since then moved to Paul E. Tierney); this by Candle, regarding Merrimack Canoe Company, in full passive-aggressive mode, with the usual complaint about how "Wikipedia is fast losing contributors".
One could have a field day going through their usually specious contributions to Jimbo's talk page, but it should be noted that Candle does not yet have the vitriol that CoM had for Jimbo, though you'll find plenty of bile for admins.
[Drmies]
Fidel Castrato insulting another editor, after participating in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kresimir Chris Kunej (2nd nomination), where he made a friendly jab at me. Fidel's retaliation is here, revenge on Marcusmax. Child edited the article here, admins only. (This to indicate that Fidel is also a CoM sock, as my veiled edit summary recognizes)
I could go on, but this is long enough already. AGK, does this change your mind about CU? (and see the archived version for more on what CU information is there.) Drmies ( talk) 21:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
One more thing. 5 May 2010 Amorymeltzer (talk | contribs) changed block settings for ChildofMidnight (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 363 days . First edit from Candleabracadabra 22:34, 12 April 2011.
Hafspajen (
talk) 10:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Note: I have tremendous respect for Drmies, but the "evidence" is far too long and has weak areas which sould simply be deleted. Much of the "commonality" of phrasing is not that rare on Wikipedia ... "attacking, bullying, harassing, intimidating" and combinations thereof are found many thousands of times on Wikipedia. That evidence would clearly include Jimbo <g>. "Important subject" in edit summaries is not rare at all. The only strong section is the "article overlap" section, but if the edits were gnomish, it is also possible that we have two separate vandalism-patrollers. Is there any solid content overlap? "Nevermind" as a single word is very common on Wikipedia talk pages. It is not a great M-W word, but it is sure common here. Better would be use of uncommon misspellings which does not appear to be shown, or use of very uncommon phrasing which has not been shown. So we have been given article overlap -- what we would need are examples of edit similarity on those articles, IMO. Can we be given just the diffs on a handful of articles showing excessive similarity in edits or style? Collect ( talk) 12:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
WRT iterating state names -- the likely problem is that the Wikipedia articles linked include the state names in pretty much all location titles. Editors who do not use "pipes" to remove that default from showing in articles are not rare. In fat, folks who start stubs often do so in a semi-automated manner. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 12:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
A lot of crossover between articles edited on rather obscure topics is reflected in the Wikistalk report [1]. General behavioral pattern and timing of account creation are consistent, and there is a standing, unanswered direct question to the user regarding whether they might be CoM. Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
0. It is unfortunate that checkuser isn't corroborative, but that isn't the end of the story; IPs may change due to a user physically moving, or using technical measures ( VPN). CoM, being the subject of a one-year ban (rather than indefinite) would have a higher motivation than most sockmasters to use technical measures designed to defeat checkuser. As Wikipedia:CheckUser says, "CheckUser is not magic wiki pixie dust. ... An editing pattern match is the important thing; the IP match is really just extra evidence (or not)." So, onward to the behavioural evidence.
1. Basic overlap in US political views, including climate change and creationism. There is a basic overlap in interests between Freakshownerd ( talk · contribs), ChildofMidnight ( talk · contribs) and CoM's sock Electroshoxcure ( talk · contribs) in terms of shared US conservative political views, reflected in interests in Barack Obama (eg FSN's recent creation of BLPs appointed in Obama recess appointments, like Winslow Sargeant), intelligent design (eg FSN editing William Dembski and CoM's subpage) and climate-change-related pages (eg FSN's Michael E. Mann edits and Electroshoxcure's contribution to Climatic Research Unit email controversy [2]). These views go together, and lots of users fit this profile - so it's edits outside of these topics which are of interest.
2. Interest in junk food excess. Junk food, particularly bacon, was a CoM favourite topic, which those familiar should remember and it can be verified if necessary). Freakshownerd demonstrates the same interest:
which is not a blip, but a continuing interest:
3. Pasco County, Florida link with CoM sock
Freakshownerd has created
How unusual is an interest in Pasco County nature reserves, you ask? Well here's another way of looking at it.
4. Obscure wikistalk overlap. There is a very notable wikistalk overlap between Freakshownerd and CoM at a very hard to reach page, outside the main political-interest arena they share:
Todos_Santos_Chocolates was created by CoM, has no inbound links to speak of, and not even a talk page.
Sequence:
Notable is that (a) the page has virtually no inbound links (b) the 13 June edit would have made the page appear on CoM's watchlist as a recently edited page (which I have no doubt CoM was continuing to log in to check). (c) there are no FSN edits related to milagros at that time; and I cannot see any other edits related to this topic at all.
5. Posting at ANI in support of other users without apparent connection, after just 8 and 10 days. FSN posted unprompted at WP:ANI in support of another user [18] just one week after registering the account. The post is worth quoting in full:
Clear harassment and abuse of a contributor to the encyclopedia building effort. And now we see those standing up to the vile abuse being attacked as well. Shame on Gwen Gale, Newyorkbrad, Treasurytag, AGK, Ncmvocalist and others for their involvement in this sordid affair. If you can't be bothered to investigate and put things right then you should resign your positions of authority. There is no justification for the outrageous and abusive blocks now in Richard Norton's log, despite his being stalked with socks and other efforts to drive him off. Those who have stood by and allowed this to happen or encouraged it by attacking anyone who points out how grotesque it is should be ashamed of themselves. Civility policy my ass, these behaviors are sick and those defending them have no constructive role to here in building a supportive community or an encyclopedia.
The post was preceded earlier that day by a post on the user's user talk page (FSN's first post there) [19] saying "Sorry to see the usual suspects involved in the harassment and abuse of a good contributor. Your sullied block log will remain even after these villains move on to other prey. This place is very sick indeed. Best of luck to you." This was just 8 days after registering the account! (And I can't even see any reason, from their respective contributions, why FSN would even be aware of the user's existence, never mind come unprompted to his support. He'd never previously posted to ANI, so can't even plausibly claim to have come across the issue that way.)
Much the same occurs 2 days later - posting at ANI in support of another user (a different) one, with no obvious motivation to jump in. [20] This too is worth quoting:
"The usual hypocrisy from the worst of Wikipedia's Admins. They can call people names and behave in the most abusive and uncivil manner but will never be called to account (as we see in the case of the unjust actions taken against Richard which resulted in no redress). But if anyone dares to call those abusing our policies and their positions of authority to account, they will be aggressively sanctioned into silence for daring to speak up. Gross. Has the abuse and harassment against Richard at least been slowed for the time being? Let's hope so. Kudos and thanks to Giano for standing up for an editor being harangued unfairly. Far too many good editors have been lost in this way..."
CoM was of course well known for jumping in to WP:AN and WP:ANI conversations to claim "abuse" of one kind or another by various admins. FSN continues the pattern two days later (5 June), jumping to the defense of Malleus Fatuorum [21] [22] without any visible prior engagement with the editor.
6. Freakshownerd's sole deletion review to date, 17 days after registering the account, [23] just happens to be an article CoM substantially rewrote [24] ( Matthew Hoh)
7. Some interest in American football: wikistalk overlap at Robert McClain.
Nonspecific evidence of F being a sock:
8. within first dozen edits created an article as well structured as this: [25]
All of this evidence is purely edit history; but of course a number of people have commented on how much FSN sounds like CoM. See for example (besides the quotes in point 5 above) FSN's user talk page (and history) and block history, and compare with CoM's RFCU. Rd232 talk 14:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims.
A checkuser has already agreed to investigate this some time today, and another to do so tomorrow if they're unable to due to RL time constraints. I've so far not posted the evidence that Freakshownerd is ChildofMidnight as I don't want to tell CoM in great detail where he went wrong, and hence how to do better next time. (cf user:Electroshoxcure - he's already socked once to avoid his 1-year ban). The evidence has been emailed to about ten admins and there's no need to duplicate the work done. (Of course, if any one of those admins feels the need to publish the evidence, they can do so.) Rd232 talk 17:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Freakshownerd has edited edited unique pages:704, and only 30 or about 5 percent are combined with COM, but it is the obscurity of the connections that appears undeniable. Full breakfast - Obama - Rick Scott - The Heartland Institute - Todos Santos Chocolates - this one is shouting connection to me, such an obscure article with only six edits total, four to COM and one to Freakshownerd and one to another. A propensity to edit Fringe theories, also combined Matthew Hoh - Robert McClain - ? and the fact that this account was created two weeks after COMs last socking was blocked, I have had a good look with User:Delta's user compare tool and the undeniable implausible connections to such obscure articles warrants a checkuser clarification imo. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
F mentioned a previous allegation that he was User:William M. Connolley, which I wasn't aware of. For the record, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/William_M._Connolley/Archive#28_June_2010 shows some evidence that F is a sock, but the idea that it's WMC is pretty ludicrous and a checkuser request was unsurprisingly declined. Rd232 talk 10:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
moved from section below, where exchanges were misplaced
Clerk endorsed, AGFing on Rd232's part that a CheckUser has already agreed to look into this case. –
MuZemike 05:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
This (already blocked) account is likely either ChildofMidnight or someone in his camp, such as User:Grundle2600. Both of them are known to use socks. They are already blocked for a blatantly obvious sock of someone; just need a checkuser to check for sleepers and/or to confirm which drawer this fits in. The users contribs are rather telling. Jayron 32 06:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims.
Has any evidence been submitted that this user might be a sock of any other particular user? Bongo matic 13:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Question: is there any IP relationship with the proxies used for the Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of ChildofMidnight?
Comment: The account claims to be neither Grundle2600 nor CoM [27], and Grundle2600 usually admits it. Using the same technique with the contributions (to spell out messages with the names of successive articles edited) as User:Green Dragons Love Bacon is perplexing (unless this is more common than I think - never seen it before). Green Dragons certainly resembles a User:Grundle2600 sock, including at one time using one of his userboxes, but I find it odd that that account contribution list seems to be spelling out both Grundle2600 (some kind of atari game connection) and Child of Midnight. Presuming that the possibility of these two being the same person was ruled out long ago, this looks like deliberate obfuscation. I'd plump for CoM on that basis for both Green Dragons and Whoopdeeda, unless some plausible impostor can be suggested. Rd232 talk 16:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Don't Troll Good Faith Editors. That is creative, I'll give him that. Tarc ( talk) 13:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
See also Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Freakshownerd, which was a suspected sockpuppet of CoM also. There is a chance that Freakshownerd and CoM are not related, so feel free to split this case if needed, the connection to CoM directly is twofold: first, both have edited, with the same basic perspective, the article Eastside Sun. Second, PicodeGato's interaction style, especially when in conflict, matches substantially the tone and demeanor of CoM. This account also matches all known CoM and Freakshownerd socks in that it has a precocious understanding of Wikipedia, and dives very quickly into article creation, especially biographical articles, and furthermore was created on November 7, 2010, just a few hours after the autoblock would have expired on the most recent Freakshownerd socks to be blocked, those being User:Tigersarecomingforyou and User:WrenandStimpy. Could someone please checkuser to see if there is a connection to either CoM or Freakshownerd, and if it is Freakshownerd, we can move this case to the more appropriate connection. -- Jayron 32 07:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Jayron 32 07:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Auto-generated every six hours.
See Defending yourself against claims.
QUACK! if you know what to look for: this is FSN, who is of course CoM. Last time I put lots of effort into marshalling the evidence; this time I'll just leave it to checkuser. But I'll note that there's plenty Jayron32 hasn't mentioned. Rd232 talk 12:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
The similarity can be measured in the single digits of miliducks. What gives with this request? Bongo matic 10:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
User account was created after ChildofMidnight was banned: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight. ChildofMidnight was blocked several more times for creating sockpuppets Freakshownerd, Electroshoxcure, PicodeGato, Whoopdeeda, Mr. Karm Atwin, WrenandStimpy, Tigersarecomingforyou, and Jeeper72. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChildofMidnight/Archive. ChildofMidnight prominently loved bacon. Fortheloveofbacon's very first edit used the abbreviation "BLP", demonstrating previous familiarity with Wikipedia processes. Fortheloveofbacon edited the Doritos page, and CoM was known to be interested in junk food. CoM was banned for disputes on Wikipedia process pages and is currently banned from editing any WP process pages. Fortheloveofbacon initiated a fractious process, nominating Arthur Rubin for deletion, an article that had been established as notable in four previous AfDs. Binksternet ( talk) 16:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
As far as I can see, every previous account associated with CoM is Stale.
TN
X
Man 16:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I knew ChildofMidnight and worked quite closely with him before his block(s), so I recognice his writing. I typically find it pretty choppy proseline. See the writing style of Matthias Pliessnig or Caryn Wagner from ChildofMidnight and User:Candleabracadabra/Acoustic harassment or American Educational Resources Association from Candleabracadabra (note it is hard to find articles nearly entirely edited by ChildofMidnight as he hasn't edited in years, this is only one example). Paragraphs are typically made up of sentences that are not directly related to one another, usually in a statement-reference-statement-reference format. They both have the they same sort of "cry foul" attitude, claiming conspiracy against them, bullying, and whatnot. This includes going directly to Jimbo in this regard as was done by ChildofMidnight here and by Candleabracadabra here. Their editing overlaps on some rather obscure articles as seen here. In addition both users latest 500 pages created show a mass number of redirects, and articles created largely around the subject of architects/architecture and food.
Note I haven't done much at SPI, and I wasn't sure if I should notify or not. Please feel free to do so on my behalf if it is you think it is necessary (Twinkle just said use your own judgement). kelapstick( bainuu) 19:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
For this specific case, the technical/CU evidence points toward this being a Possible sock of
Freakshownature Freakshownerd, but is not confirmatory. Based on the technical evidence retained on ChildofMidnight from 2010, this account is
Unrelated. Bottom line, though - ChildofMidnight is not currently banned or blocked, and has a few Arbcom-based restrictions on his account. Checkuser evidence is not going to be of use here in demonstrating that this account is CoM.
Risker (
talk) 03:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC) Corrected username
Risker (
talk) 23:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
This is extensive, much more so than the previous SPI, which appeared to have been closed for lack of (behavioral) evidence; CU evidence was stale, inconclusive, or unavailable, suggesting perhaps a move on the editor's part. This report is perhaps the first in a series; allow me to sketch what I think is a possible process. a. establish that ChildofMidnight ("CoM") is Candleabracadabra (dubbed "Candle" by me, Drmies, and "CaC" by Kelapstick. b. ensure that if Candle is not blocked (which isn't necessarily what I, Drmies, am seeking), that at least the Wikipedia:Editing restrictions for CoM are ferried over to Candle; via WP:AN, or maybe by ArbCom, if they're interested. c. censure appropriately, whatever is deemed appropriate: the goal here is to prevent the disruption caused by Candle, and especially the personal insults and character assassination, and it's precisely that part of CoM's restrictions that I want to see applied to Candle.
As far as ArbCom is concerned, I'll ping Beeblebrox, as a previously interested party; likewise, Risker may be interested and Jimbo Wales as well (see section below on CoM/Candle's contributions to his talk page). I've asked for CU since CoM was quite the socker (kind of funny, given the charges he made about admins with multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny), and were Candle to be blocked, for instance, I don't doubt that they'd return. The chunk of evidence I pasted below was with one (noted) exception compiled by Kelapstick and me, and additional evidence may come to light as we peruse the many, many edits made on both accounts. You'll find a section or two pertaining mostly to Candle; it is included here not necessarily for sock identification but rather for future purposes, perhaps, to indicate that Candle is disruptive already in his own right.
One more thing: you may know that CoM, K-stick, myself, and LadyofShalott were longtime friends, and this gives us no pleasure. Going through all these diffs was a trip down memory lane, but the end is painful. I (Drmies) have on occasion turned a blind eye to CoM's socking (see the note on Fidel Castrato and Tigersarecomingforyou, below), since I have always thought that his article creation was in the best interest of the project. I am no longer so sure that it is, and by now I am convinced, after the recent spat with Viriditas and even Cullen328, that the completely abrasive personality of CoM/Candle, who makes friends when it suits him and abuses everyone else, has no place in this collaborative project. So maybe I am convinced that a block is the right decision. I don't know. I will gladly leave that up to you.
Doncram: perhaps I should have been more clear. The problem is precisely that this violates WP:CLEANSTART, in that "the new account must avoid editing patterns or behaviors that would allow other users to recognize and identify the account. It is expected that the new account will be a true "fresh start", will edit in new areas and avoid old disputes, and will follow community norms of behavior." It is our contention, and this is laid out mostly in the last section, that Candle does not avoid old disputes and does not follow community norms of behavior. I'll cite CoM's restrictions in full, from WP:Editing restrictions:
User:ChildofMidnight is restricted to editing main (article) space, the talk pages of articles he has edited, Template talk:Did you know, and his own talk and user talk pages only. In all cases he is forbidden from discussing the behavior of other editors, real or perceived, outside of his own user talk page. ChildofMidnight may apply to the Committee for exemptions to this restriction for the purposes of good faith dispute resolution on a case-by-case basis. This remedy is concurrent (and cumulative) with any extant topic bans, and consecutive to any editing ban.
"Forbidden from discussing the behavior of others, real or perceived, outside of his own user talk page"; it seems clear to me that this was violated. They saved the worst for their own talk page, as a sort of free-speech zone (did you read their comments?), but there's plenty outside their own user space. Drmies ( talk) 17:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
[Drmies]
[Kelapstick]
They're both fond of the word "numerous", esp. when it comes to editors hounding them, or editors who agree with them that editor/admin X is guilty of multiple infractions (bullying, harassing, stalking, etc.)--see below, "On Talk:Jimbo Wales".
[Drmies]
Some catchwords and phrases in edit summaries, many of which to do with attempts to claim notability or merging of content. Numbers in brackets occur to frequency; these are "clean", that is, they aren't part of an included section title. In order, these numbers are occurrences for ChildofMidnight and Candleabracadabra, respectively, with one exception, explained below.
The most damning instance is "nevermind" (typical of how CoM and Candle correct themselves; in user talk space, this is done in subsequent edits to the text). "nevermind", capitalized only once, and always at the beginning of a summary, often followed by a period: 18 for CoM, 3 for Candle, and 1 for Freakshownerd, a verified CoM sock. CoM uses "Nevermind" as a single word in-text also, here, for instance. CoM uses it in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive547, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black president ("Nevermind Drmies, he's European"), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commerce revision.
[Kelapstick]
[Kelapstick]
[Drmies and Kelapstick]
Both are prolific article creators, even if, as Kelapstick and numerous (!) others have suggested, a lot of them are on barely notable topics with bloggy or otherwise unreliable references. The topics food and architects have already been mentioned, but Los Angeles and Florida landmarks, restaurants, parks, trails, and other features are legion as well. Journalists were a minor but important interest.
Note that in "Overlap", below, I am making reference on occasion to a "typical" citation style; some details are given in this section.
[Kelapstick]
[Drmies]
The list below (courtesy of Pietrodn's Intersect tool, which gives 136 articles and talk pages) could be extended; selected are the somewhat esoteric articles, those without high traffic. In bold are particularly salient examples. Anecdotal evidence suggests that Candle, who occasionally reverts vandalism to those articles, still has a kind of CoM-watchlist.
And speaking of esoteric: Talk:Better than sex cake was tweaked by CoM and got a comment from Candle (talk page has seven editors; Candle voted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Is It Really Better Than Sex? Cake
This section written by Viriditas, and posted on User talk:Callanecc. I made one change, to the diff in the first sentence, which didn't work (as is the case with some others) because Climate variability is now a redirect. [Drmies]
These are many. Perhaps the most striking, given the recent Native Hawaiian cuisine spat, is the moving of pages during an AfD or other discussion.
[Kelapstick]
[Drmies]
To Nyttend: "Are you just being disruptive?" Part of Candle being on a tear against Nyttend. Note how in the AN thread Candle started about Nyttend, he uses the typical CoM language--scroll for "It's unfortunate that Nyttend seems to have gotten away with his bullying tactics. I don't think that's appropriate behavior for an admin." "I think bullying is wrong. Period. Nyttend should shape up." "He has banned me from his talk page but is now stalking my edits." "...to find out whether an admin can bully and intimidate an editor away from working on an article." After GregJackP told him to drop the stick, "GregJ, if you don't think issuing multiple bogus warnings, threats and accusations, stalking my edits to other pages and expanding the dispute while prohibiting me from contacting him on his talk page, and making personal attacks against me isn't bullying I think you are mistaken." "Nyttend's bullying has stopped." " I don't think this kind of diruptive antagonism is appropriate from an admin." Earlier on Nyttend's talk page: "You are an admin and are expected to conduct yourself in a manner consistent with high standards."
"incivility and nastiness" on User talk:Wizardman (CoM), also on User talk:ChildofMidnight/Archive 11. "Nastiness and incivility" on User talk:ChildofMidnight/Archive 13
"hounding, stalking and harassment", "hounded, harassed, and stalked" on same
[Drmies]
Typical interaction with an administrator ( Stephen over a deleted article: this by PicodeGato, a blocked CoM sock (article since then moved to Paul E. Tierney); this by Candle, regarding Merrimack Canoe Company, in full passive-aggressive mode, with the usual complaint about how "Wikipedia is fast losing contributors".
One could have a field day going through their usually specious contributions to Jimbo's talk page, but it should be noted that Candle does not yet have the vitriol that CoM had for Jimbo, though you'll find plenty of bile for admins.
[Drmies]
Fidel Castrato insulting another editor, after participating in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kresimir Chris Kunej (2nd nomination), where he made a friendly jab at me. Fidel's retaliation is here, revenge on Marcusmax. Child edited the article here, admins only. (This to indicate that Fidel is also a CoM sock, as my veiled edit summary recognizes)
I could go on, but this is long enough already. AGK, does this change your mind about CU? (and see the archived version for more on what CU information is there.) Drmies ( talk) 21:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
One more thing. 5 May 2010 Amorymeltzer (talk | contribs) changed block settings for ChildofMidnight (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 363 days . First edit from Candleabracadabra 22:34, 12 April 2011.
Hafspajen (
talk) 10:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Note: I have tremendous respect for Drmies, but the "evidence" is far too long and has weak areas which sould simply be deleted. Much of the "commonality" of phrasing is not that rare on Wikipedia ... "attacking, bullying, harassing, intimidating" and combinations thereof are found many thousands of times on Wikipedia. That evidence would clearly include Jimbo <g>. "Important subject" in edit summaries is not rare at all. The only strong section is the "article overlap" section, but if the edits were gnomish, it is also possible that we have two separate vandalism-patrollers. Is there any solid content overlap? "Nevermind" as a single word is very common on Wikipedia talk pages. It is not a great M-W word, but it is sure common here. Better would be use of uncommon misspellings which does not appear to be shown, or use of very uncommon phrasing which has not been shown. So we have been given article overlap -- what we would need are examples of edit similarity on those articles, IMO. Can we be given just the diffs on a handful of articles showing excessive similarity in edits or style? Collect ( talk) 12:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
WRT iterating state names -- the likely problem is that the Wikipedia articles linked include the state names in pretty much all location titles. Editors who do not use "pipes" to remove that default from showing in articles are not rare. In fat, folks who start stubs often do so in a semi-automated manner. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 12:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)