There's an edit subject and pattern overlap between new and unusually sophisticated user for a new user JofakÄt 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)
JofakÄt ( 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) â 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 ParÄtenÄ SapÄs ( 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]. â Snigbrook 17:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
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)
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)
![]() |
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
Never mind. Already done. Abce2| This is not a test 02:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Clerk note: If anything, Skoojal is pretty much banned, so I went ahead and tagged as such.
MuZemike
01:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
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.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 22:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims.
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.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 22:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
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)
See Defending yourself against claims.
CU is required to see if a rangeblock is possible, on this sock/meatpuppet.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 23:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Clerk declined – Brandon already did a check last week and concluded that a rangeblock is not feasible.
MuZemike
20:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
![]() |
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
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. -- Jayron 32 04:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims.
Frederick Crews article needs to be reverted to a pre-sock version. Xxanthippe ( talk) 08:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC).
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.delanoy gabs adds 16:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 08:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
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)
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)
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 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 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 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 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)
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)
This is either Freeknowledgecreator or someone trying to joe-job him. gnu 57 07:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
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. gnu 57 14:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
Dustytumble, do you think CheckUser would exonerate you? Crossroads -talk- 16:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Since CU is declined, we need a more robust examination of behavior. What I'm seeing is the following:
There's an edit subject and pattern overlap between new and unusually sophisticated user for a new user JofakÄt 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)
JofakÄt ( 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) â 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 ParÄtenÄ SapÄs ( 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]. â Snigbrook 17:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
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)
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)
![]() |
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
Never mind. Already done. Abce2| This is not a test 02:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Clerk note: If anything, Skoojal is pretty much banned, so I went ahead and tagged as such.
MuZemike
01:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
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.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 22:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims.
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.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 22:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
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)
See Defending yourself against claims.
CU is required to see if a rangeblock is possible, on this sock/meatpuppet.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 23:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Clerk declined – Brandon already did a check last week and concluded that a rangeblock is not feasible.
MuZemike
20:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
![]() |
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
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. -- Jayron 32 04:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims.
Frederick Crews article needs to be reverted to a pre-sock version. Xxanthippe ( talk) 08:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC).
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.delanoy gabs adds 16:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 08:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
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)
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)
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 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 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 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 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)
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)
This is either Freeknowledgecreator or someone trying to joe-job him. gnu 57 07:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
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. gnu 57 14:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
Dustytumble, do you think CheckUser would exonerate you? Crossroads -talk- 16:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Since CU is declined, we need a more robust examination of behavior. What I'm seeing is the following: