Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Unscintillating

Unscintillating

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

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

02 April 2018

– This SPI case is open.

Suspected sockpuppets

• 192.160.216.52 (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

This is based entirely on behavior evidence - checkuser is not requested. On January 20th of this year, Rusf10 began a discussion at ANI about Unscintillating's obstructive editing at AfD. Reyk proposed a topic ban on all deletion discussions which was later enacted. While that discussion was underway, NeilN specifically warned Unscintillating about their AfD behavior. Unscintillating made one more AfD edit after that warning and has since made no further edits anywhere, apparently disappearing.

This IP address is located to Whittier College. Prior to 2018, the activity was fairly random with the exception of multiple edits to the college's article, which would be expected of a publicly-available college address. This pattern changed as February 23rd of this year and all subsequent activity has been in relation the deletion activity that was Unscintillating's only interest. The person using this address demonstrated immediate familiarity with AfD, Wikiprojects, and notability guidelines. They have always !voted "keep" just as Unscintillating did (of the 68 AfD's they've !voted in, all but 1 was "keep"). The pattern of argumentation in these AfD discussions is also familiar and reflects the concerns raised in the ANI discussion. Nightfury, for example, noted this user's bad-faith accusation of canvassing in relation to an AfD. That discussion petered out but NeilN warned the IP user to not place further spurious canvassed tags there. Other repeated Unscintillating behaviors have also been demonstrated by this IP user, with minor variations. For example, selectively quoting and misapplying standards or twisting policy to always favor their position such as "That the article contained copyvio is no argument for deletion." or "specific notability guidelines... allow articles to be kept which don't meet the GNG." This account and Unscintillating also show similar rates of accuracy in their "Keep" !votes (about 41% and 53%, respectively). These similarities give rise to the reasonable suspicion that Unscintillating is using this IP address to circumvent their topic ban. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

• Unscintillating had an editing gap spanning 19 November 2014 (after I threatened to block him) until 20 December 2015. I don't see any unusual editing from User:192.160.216.52 during that span, but it would be interesting if there was some other IP that fit in there. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
• A ridiculous accusation by User:Eggishorn. Of course he's not requesting checkuser, because he knows it would destroy his groundless accusations which, as far as I can see, are motivated by a desire to gain advantage in AfD discussions when their substantial arguments won't convince. Also bad faith summaries of the facts. For instance, NeilN never said that my tags were spurious. They weren't spurious. The rest of User:Eggishorn's specific accusations are also laughable. Not that I ever do what User:Eggishorn accuses me of, but really, is "twisting policy to always favor their position" at AfD is a sanctionable offense who will be left to participate? I have never violated any WP policies, including policies on socking. Since User:Eggishorn is too cautious to ask for checkuser, I'm asking for checkuser. Do it. Also WP:BOOMERANG! 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The highly inapposite edit summary for the above I think says everything that needs be said about the seriousness (or lack thereof) of this response. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

192.160.216.52, Checkuser cannot be used owing to yourself, as an unregistered user being accused. I would also note that Unscintillating was topic banned from XfD approximately 3 months ago. A way to get around it possibly? I will say, checking cross-wiki contribs suggests both users have edited the same wikis, each with similar interests. I am with Eggishorn here and I say this is the same person.Nightfury 07:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Isn't that convenient, that "Checkuser cannot be used owing to [myself], as an unregistered user being accused." What does it mean in English? Would you care to share your proof that "both users have edited the same wikis"? I don't even know what that means either. I've edited ENWP only. And what are the "similar interests"? The edit notice right at the top of the page you used to add that unsupported nonsense says clearly: "Do not make accusations without providing evidence. Doing so is a personal attack and will likely be summarily removed." Where's your evidence, User:Nightfury? 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

IP, administrators have a duty of care here as to not publicly disclose IPs against users. I suggest you also do a cross wiki check, using the link above, both on your IP and on the user you are accused of being. Nightfury 14:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

For convienience's sake: Cross-wiki check for IP and for named user. Nightfury 14:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Note this has now been raised at ANI. Nightfury 15:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

You're using so-called evidence from 2012 against me? This IP address belongs to a 4 year college. Get for real. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:30, ::::::::::*4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Everyone graduates in 4 years? And what if you were a janitor or some other employee? You'd have access to the school network over longer time frames, wouldn't you? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Maybe I'm a janitor? And I just randomly decided to take a six year break between editing on WikiwhateverTF and commenting on AfDs in a way that offends your holy named-account-holderness? Astonishing! Why don't you go back to building an encyclopedia instead of indulging your taste for silliness on various noticeboards? 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:52, ::::::::::*4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Miss the "or other employee part"? Obviously you weren't too busy reading WP:NPA. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Obviously you weren't too busy reading the edit notice at the top of this page when you left your ridiculous comment. Making accusations of sockpuppetry without evidence is a violation of NPA. The only reason you and User:Eggishorn are not getting hauled up to ANI and sanctioned for doing it is because you're editing behind anonymous accounts. Try using an IP to start an SPI against someone whose only mistake was opposing your holinesses at AfD for legitimate reasons and see how far you get. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• Nice try....except I haven't actually rendered an opinion about whether or not you are a sock. I've made no "accusation". I addressed a comment that you made about how the college is a 4 year school, so it was evidence that you couldn't be a sock. Sorry you missed that important fact. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

That makes no sense whatsoever but yo're welcome to try. Even taking everything you've said here at face value leaves a pertinent question open. The history of this IP address makes it highly likely that the user behind it since 2/23 is not the same user or users who previously edited from this address. The arguments made both here and in AfD also make it equally likely that the user behind this address was not a new user as of 2/23. You've made an offer to have a checkuser done, an offer you probably knew was not going to be accepted for the reasons Nightfury mentioned above. You do, however, have another option that would clarify this question and quickly and decisively close this report. If you voluntarily disclosed your prior user identity or identities privately to the functionaries, they could confirm your identity without violating WP:OUTING. The choice is up to you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Why would I do that given that no one but you and Mr. Nightfury believe your accusations. Obviously I've been editing for a long time. And you're wrong about my not editing from this IP before February. But there's clearly no reason to defend myself at this point since everyone's seen through your transparent attempt at gaining an advantage at AfD. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

not seeing any convincing behavourial or technical evidence. The global edits of the two accounts don't seem to correlate with the ip editing on wikiversity and commons but Unscintillating has not edited those projects, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 11:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• User:192.160.216.52 has contributed to a AfD discussion at 1. -- Waddie96 (talk) 09:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• Note: Waddie96 has contributed to multiple AfDs, e.g. [1], [2], [3], and so on. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Ugh, the sockpuppet has now felt the need to put an ANI notice up on my talk page and involve me in unnecessary forum shopping here is the revision before it was deleted from ANI. -- Waddie96 (talk) 16:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Ugh, the editor has started calling me a sockpuppet even though NO ONE has concluded that I am one in clear violation of WP:NPA. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• Votes like this, this, and this are classic instances of Unscintillating'a behavior. He would usually open with "nom has not offered a reason to delete" or something similar. Give me a few moments to gather diffs of the Unscintillating account and compare for yourself.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• Why don't you find the evidence before you post an accusation? If you're not the Queen of Hearts that's the order that most people think is reasonable? 192.160.216.52 (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• Here are Unscintillating diffs for comparison:

"nomination has made undue assumptions"

"Nominator hasn't prepared the nomination"

"This isn't a valid deletion nomination"

...and so on. Quite obvious if you know what to look for. This IP also seems just as combative as Unscintillating.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• Here's some more evidence:

No actual reason for deletion

No actual reason for deletion

No actual reason for deletion

No actual reason for deletion

No actual reason for deletion

It's a serious point. Many noms don't give reasons for deletion. What is anyone commenting on the AfD supposed to but say so? WP:AfD Patrol even recommends that such a failure be noted: "If you see a nomination where the nominator has not stated a Wikipedia:Deletion policy-compliant justification, add a note to the nomination justification pointing out deletion policy and asking for a restated justification." So essentially I'm being criticized with putatively behavioral evidence selected on the basis of search criteria for doing what WP policy requires to be done. Nice. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments, TonyBallioni. Can I just point out that I'm not actually an inclusionist? I comment on relatively few AfDs but I prefer to argue for keeping articles, so I choose only those about which I know something and which a reasonable case can be made for keeping them. I in no way think that all articles should be kept, but if one needs to be deleted I just don't comment on it. 75.83.140.119 (talk) 01:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

• Eggishorn, can you provide diffs showing similar arguments? From my recollection, the IP in the diffs you showed is making very different arguments than Unscintillating would (i.e. the IP is making coherent policy-based arguments even if they are on an extreme.) The recent AN post also seems a very different style than Unscintillating. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni:, I posted some evidence in the original post above but I will attempt to provide more here shortly. Thank you in advance for your patience. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Eggishorn and TheGracefulSlick: thanks to both of you for your comments. TGS, thanks in particular for providing comparison diffs. I'd like clerks and other administrators to comment, so I'm not going to close this yet (and I also want both of you to feel free to provide more diffs). I am not currently convinced that these are the same person from the behavioral evidence: there are some significant stylistic differences in their !votes, and while this might sound trivial, while Unscintillating was pretty firmly an inclusionist, he didn't *only* !vote keep. This IP only has !keep votes. While I agree that they are similar, I personally don't see enough here for a block of a long term contributor for evading a ban. It is also worth noting that the IP did start contributing before the ban, and there is no overlap there: it doesn't really make sense to contribute as an IP with different linguistic and stylistic choices when you aren't under a ban. I'd like to see what other administrators think here. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

---

07 April 2018

– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.

Suspected sockpuppets

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

• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I am not totally convinced about the IP address and Unscintillating being the same person, but there is another account that I been aware of for a while, that most likely is. FloridaArmy has existed since 2016, but their editing really picked up at the end of last year. Between December 2017 and February of this year when Unscintillating became topic-banned and stopped editing, the two accounts showed up in the same AfDs 13 times see editor interaction here. Of those 13 times they both voted keep every single time with three exceptions, here unscintillating votes keep, but FloridaArmy votes Merge, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump racial views Both accounts make comments, but do not vote (very unusual) [4] [5], & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yantacaw Brook Park, New Jersey where FloridaArmy votes Keep, but Unscintillating just makes a comment. Just like Unscintillating, FloridaArmy frequently makes accusations that WP:BEFORE searches have not been done. For example, [6], [7] [8]. Another common theme is the accusation of "bad noms" (same thing as Unscintillating constant "procedural keep" argument)- [9] [10] [11] I've been aware of the possibility that these two accounts were the same for a while, but have been holding off on an SPI, but now after looking more closely, I feel very confident that these are the same person. Rusf10 (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

• • Think it is very unlikely as Florida Army seems much less knowledgeable than Unscintillating about the workings of Wikipedia such as in a recent AFD of Humane Sugar where he asked what UPE meant at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Humane Sagar. Also, on his talk page he has been criticised for not referencing his articles properly, posting his articles to mainspace when they are not finished, and not reflecting conflicts between sources and has also been criticised for repeatedly not leaving edit summaries- none of these issues have been levelled at Unscintillating. Also his comments at AFD are not similar enough, for example he doesn't ask for a speedy keep like Unscintillating often did and does not refer to notability as often as Unscintillating. Regarding commenting in the same AFDs Florida Army comments in a very large number of them so this match up could well be coincidental. Overall, Florida Army seems much less experienced than Unscintillating, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 10:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't be fooled. It was not uncommon for Unscintillating to insert stupid questions into discussions. See [[12]] [[13]] [[14]] I don't think its a coincidence that they vote for keep almost by the same percentage according to the AfD tool.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• This isn't entirely spurious, but I'm not convinced by the arguments. I see neither the single-minded focus on AfD nor the tendentious (and often bizarre) arguments that were the trademark of Unscintillating. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• Also, very strange that since this case was opened, FloridaArmy has suddenly started voting delete on everything. [15]] If your not doing anything wrong, why the change in behavior?--Rusf10 (talk) 02:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Insufficient evidence. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

---