Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Allthekidsinthestreet

Allthekidsinthestreet

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

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Allthekidsinthestreet/Archive.

08 January 2014

– A checkuser has completed a check on relevant users in this case, and it is now awaiting administration and close.

Suspected sockpuppets

• Honkeytonknightmare (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 208.115.153.55 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

New user (Jan 2) Honkeytonknightmare has popped up in Race and intelligence and gone straight to conflict with Maunus in 2 days of editing, clearly single purpose, showing considerable wiki sophistication. While it could be another Race and Intelligence returning regular, Allthekidsinthestreet is the most recent one there, and was recently SPIed and blocked twice in December. I just applied discretionary sanctions warning to them. It seems quite possible they're a sock and we just need to block them. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

Account created for the purpose of continuing to go after Maunus[1][2] as highlighted by previous SOCK investigations[3] and continuing attempts to delete/change lead content in Race and intelligence as before. Also edited as IP in one of the edits.[4] Other editors have also acknowledged this is the same SOCK.[5] BlackHades (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

---

08 January 2014

– A checkuser has completed a check on relevant users in this case, and it is now awaiting administration and close.

Suspected sockpuppets

• 2014yearoftherooster (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Bloomingdedalus (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

Restoring the same content as added by previous sock, also obsession with reverting Doug. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users

I blocked another sock, Posska (talk · contribs). This is clearly the same editor - at [6] we have another sock, Heatelite (talk · contribs) that I reverted, followed by Posska, followed by 2014yearoftherooster who then reverted me at an unconnected article.[7] Need a search for sleepers or other socks - I think there is at least one other. Dougweller (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, that's unclear. I blocked the Posska about 18 days ago, not yesterday. Heatlit was blocked Dec 16th by Mark Arsten. Dougweller (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Adding a CU request to this section as well. Also, a clerk may want to merge the three reports from today... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Behavioural. Editing same articles as sockmaster & puppets. Same POV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

2014yearoftherooster has posted asking for an IP lift, his IP is blocked cos his other sock, Honkeytonknightmare, (reported above) was blocked for editwarring. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

You guys are lazy, This is why I ought to be a clerk, Bloomingdedalus The painfully obvious sock Darkness Shines (talk) 00:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I moved the response to Mark Arsten's question below to this section. I disagree with the lazy bit entirely but I meant to come back here about Boomingdedalus, who I agree is a possible sock, I see hasn't posted since the other blocks (although he is a sporadic poster anyway). But there isn't that much evidence, and if CU doesn't confirm, then I guess we let this one lie. Dougweller (talk) 07:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Not a sock. I guess someone else just agreed that antisemitism and Islamophobia are not remotely the same. Antisemitism is almost unvaryingly racial in ideology. Islamophobia is dispute with a religious ideology that is responsible for hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths over the years and tens of thousands in just the last decade. Furthermore, the worst promulgators of antisemitism in the world are Muslims and it's completely unacceptable to state that Muslims are facing the same kind of threat as Jews. The analysis I removed was a weasel passage exclusively dedicated to attempting to equate Islamophobia with antisemitism. It was under a catagory of "academic analysis" but it was just a comment from a professor that was in the Guardian which isn't an "academic analysis." Furthermore, it's a wholly ignorant statement to equate antisemitism and Islamophobia for countless reasons, and therefore could not actually be considered academic. Find me a history professor who will say "antisemitism" is basically the same as "Islamophobia" and I'll show you someone who isn't qualified to teach history. I stopped edit warring, so calling me a sock is just someone taking revenge for pointing out the irrelevance, and near blood libel, of the statement to the Wikipedia page on the EDL which compared antisemitism to Islamophobia. Bloomingdedalus (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

You won't be blocked unless it is shown you are a sock, but at the same time arguing about a position that wasn't even in the source isn't going to help. As you've been placed on notice of the decided Arbitration Committee case on Palestine-Israeli issues and there seems to be no CU confirmation, I'm happy for this to be closed - problem editing can be dealt with through the normal channels. Dougweller (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

• The checks are  Inconclusive, except to confirm that
  • 2014yearoftherooster (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Honkeytonknightmare (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• are  Technically indistinguishable from one another. So, while I'm calling them socks, I'm doing it based solely on behavioural evidence (the quacking is deafening). I'll let someone else deal with Bloomingdedalus (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• My apologies if I've missed it, but what is the evidence that Bloomingdedalus is a sockpuppet of this user? Mark Arsten (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

---

13 January 2014

– This SPI case is open.

Suspected sockpuppets

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

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

Edit warring on Sodomy law, using the same IP (208.115.153.55 (talk · contribs)) that has previously been established for 2014yearoftherooster (talk · contribs). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Lots of people use lots of different IPs, DAN. WikiDan61 You're trying to put bible verses in the Wikipedia, DILLIGAF what you guys do on your Wikipedia? Anyway, yes it's me. I don't really want to battle with the Christian majority on Wikipedia, so do what you gotta do. Wikipedia is the last domain where you subhuman garbage have any pull in the "academic world" so have at 'er.

Comments by other users

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

---