Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anglo Pyramidologist/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Anglo Pyramidologist

11 April 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

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

86.10 is an IP that has been editing in Racial classification area who up till now has been eccentric but not violating community norms for most part. This morning (my time) he had been questioned over use of an account. This seemed in contradiction to my previous experience with the user. 86.10 says that it Anglo is his brother who is home for Easter. According to 86.10 Anglo usually posts from his University Ip. There are several other problems here Both account operate in the topic area of Christian Identity movement. 86.10 has shown a strong interest in Polygeism evolution claiming the races are different species which is part of Christian identity movement topic area. Anglo shares this interest both share this interest. Comparing the editing style in the edit summary done by 86.10 and Anglo

Further 86.10 reports other members of their family all have account editing from the IP Anglo was blocked at ANI thread today. 86.10 has so far been very eloquent individual in past interactions with me see this edit on my talk the statement in baby talk today are unusual acts from this IP user.

It seem to me that check user is the only way to figure out what is going on here is to do a check user to verify two things

  1. Establish whether Anglo has always been 86.10 or if he has been editing mostly from university IPs like 86.10 says.
  2. Establish how many other accounts are operating off this IP and whether there is a wider sock drawer

I know this is complicated but we need to determine what is going on here. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

The Anglo account & the IP, both fail to indent when posting on talkpages. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I Noticed that too, I remain utterly perplexed of what is actually going on here. I am hoping this SPI clears some stuff up The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

86.10 statement

On the sock puppetry case page it says i can Defend myself against claims. i dont know how to do this, so il just post here.

Anyway heres the issue, my brother is a uni student, hes come back home from uni for a few weeks as i already explained, and hes got his own account anglo and he has been making edits on his own computer in this house just for this week and other recent weekends becuase hes just come back for easter, i am not anglo, if ip checks were done you would see that 90% of his edits have been done at a university in london, i am nothing to do with his university or his account, nothing do to with my ip address. the problem seems to be that we edited an article, yes this is partly true. The polygenism page we both edited, but not from the same ip address, not on the same account and not at the same times, my brother wrote alot of that article as he is a creationist and he knows alot about polygenism as at the time he was taking an exam on one of his theology units for uni on polygenism and pre-adamitism and he had to learn about it, he told me about it and said theres hardly anything about wiki on it so said he wants to put the history of both on it after going out and buying a tonne of source books on it, now i know pre-adamitism has been connected to "christian idenity" but if you check the pre-adamite article you will see the section i created at the bottom called "non racist pre-adamitism", im not a creationist and to be honest i am no friend of christianity but my brother is a strong christian so i created the section at the bottom of the polygenism page called polygenist evolution if you want my true position i believe we have been seeded here by aliens, im not claiming my views are mainstream and probably 98% of wikipedians will call me a crank, but i do not push my fringe views on people, and i dont claim to be a scientist, i find polygenism interesting and i did look into scientific racialism and i found a chap called georges curvier if u check his page i spent hours doing that, as you can see im not vandal, iv added rare info to wikipedia over the last 3 years which im sure some are grateful for. all the information has been proper sourced i even had a chap visit my page and say what i did was almost on a scholary basis becuase i managed to add so much material to some of the articles. if u also look at the idealism page i did 98% of that page i spent about 4 months working on it. im not a vandal or a sockpuppet. my brother is much newer to wikipedia he hasnt been on here that long, and as for his edits, hes a genius on history and theology and classics taking a BA in it and thats what he spends his time editing he spent 6 hours writing about the arabic, indian and other religious dating creation dates etc, hes not a vandal either he just had a temper and doesnt like people deleting his material which he spent along time working on. now i understand this week he had a problem on the bnp page with another user called "multiculterist" but this is nothing to do with me, if u check my history i am not part of that except 1 edit where i tried to actually delete the sections of the page becuase i didn't want my brother getting into arguements with people. iv done the best i can, i understand now probably people will say im the same person, becuase of edits on one of the articles, but if the ips were checked and the dates u would see these were done from different ips as mentioned my brother was at his uni doing that and as also mentioned i do not have the same interests as my brother, that is the only article we were both on, but honestly i am not anglo, im actually pretty poor with my grammar im not a uni student, anyone can see this im a poor debater, there is a user called gooday who does not like my brother becuase he thinks hes a racist and a bnp supporter and im sure hes all over the place and gonna go to the end of the world to try and say i am anglo, but honestly goodday i am not my brother, i also do not support bnp or any kind of racism, i just have non-mainstream beliefs about our origins, i dont mind if im called a crank at the end of the day iv done nothing wrong. if u do not want to believe me then that is up to you, i dont think i can say anymore. im not gonna say anything else. thanks. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 00:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
The issue here is the IP is open that it is indeed editing from the IP! does that not change anything? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it's just me, but I don't understand your comment. Can you clarify? Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 01:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well that came out the 86.10 is open that Anglo is operating from thos IP. I think that changes the situation in my book. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still not clear - but RA suspects that AP is editing from this IP address, and would like confirmation - am I right? GiantSnowman 01:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Facepalm 86.10 admits AP is editing from the same computer... So that seems indisputable to me that he is editing from the Ip.I didnt ask originally for that to be checked. The 86.10's story is that his brother (Anglo) is entirely separate person from 86.10. Who both are editing and living in the same residence right now. 86.10 claims that his brother normally edits from a different IP and he is merely visiting. 86.10 has always been a pretty straight shooter until today. So I am requesting check user to verify the story. If his brother is merely home for easter break then the Anglo should show that patter of editing from a totally separate IP. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15 June 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Anglo Pyramidologist was indefinitely blocked for personal attacks and harassment against anyone who disagreed with him, basically accusing them of being "anti-white racists". This block occurred on May 30 of this year, following this discussion at ANI, where AP was complaining about bias and misinformation at British National Party. Now, another editor, Thulist88, has appeared at the same board, in this discussion accusing Snowded of being a "a far-leftist who posts rants on his personal blog etc about how much he hates BNP". Snowded is a person that AP had a conflict with in the past, and this new editor is making the exact type of accusations. Thulist88 was created in 2008, but only edited for one day before going dormant until a couple of days ago. The new editor is editing the same subjects as AP, with many edits being at Christian Identity and British Israelism, which happen to be the two articles that AP last edited before being blocked. Thulist88 was asked about a connection to AP, and replied "No. However i've followed his debates on the BNP page (along with others)". There's a clear enough connection that I'm requesting checkuser, but not clear enough for me to block outright per WP:DUCK. -- Atama頭 21:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

AP's underlying IP was unblocked to allow AP's "brother", User:Liveintheforests, to be able to edit. LITF was basically advised to not allow his "brother" to exploit the situation. IF it turns out that this is a sock of of AP and is using the same IP as before, then LITF also probably will pay the price for it (he's close to getting himself blocked anyway, for different reasons). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'd rather not put an autoblock, in this case, because of the collateral damage. Liveintheforests confirmed to me that Thulist88 is Anglo Pyramidologist but was worried about the autoblock. -- Atama頭 21:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to add that my comment above was not quite on the money. LITF was not specifically told to try and prevent AP from doing anything, but just not to act as his proxy in any way.[1] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LITF was blocked on 23 May 2011 for attacking and harassing another editor, specifically regarding his religious beliefs. I know of no racial bigotry, but religious bigotry is related behavior. I'll look for the link and post more specifically here if requested. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note above that the claim anglo was banned for accusing people of being 'anti-white' is incorrect. If you view the incident where he called one user this, you will notice he linked to where leukophobic comments were posted by this user in question (e.g. this poster made the claim that indigenous white British don't exist and other anti-white comments denying the history of the white british). Anglo was banned because he was discriminated against for his political views. People wanted him off this site just because he had different beliefs. You should rename wikipedia wikifascist. Thulist88 (talk) 21:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikistalk results are pretty convincing, given that AP has only 1028 edits and Thulist88 has 130. To overlap in this many off-the-beaten track articles would be unusual if there was no connection. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's perfectly obvious that Thulist88 is a sock of AP, and I notice he's no longer denying it. Indeffing him is not the problem. The problem is how to keep him out of wikipedia while still allowing his "brother" to edit. I have asked LITF to come here and comment. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well... "brother"? [2]
[To BMK, immediately above] I'm unclear what that chart indicates. But LITF's argument was that he edits different stuff from his alleged "brother", AP. Are you saying that they do in fact edit the same stuff? If so, that should make things easier. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@BB: Yeah. LITF and AP both edited Polygenism and Location hypotheses of Atlantis (hardly mainstream articles) and LITF and T88 both edited Polygenism and Tertius Chandler - so all three of them edited Polygenism. Given the small number of edits involved, that's well beyond random occurence. These "three" people have exactly the same interests. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
S/he is not the first to have the 88 suffex by the way. This is another example and it seems a bit of a coincidence that Thulist88 has the claim on their user page that 88 does not have any symbolic significance. --Snowded TALK 21:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I recall, the "8" has something to do with Hitler. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See 88 (number)#As a Neo-Nazi symbol. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as with the banned Axmann8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), except he was American and openly neo-Nazi. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, how do we know that forests is AP's brother? I know there's the whole AFG thing but forest has been a problem user as well. I support an autoblock if an admin is willing. Noformation Talk 21:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the history of LITF's talk page and you'll see the argument that was accepted and led to him being unblocked. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Liveintheforests has pretty much no contribution overlap with Anglo Pyramidologist, see this Wikistalk report. Their communication skills are different (to be honest, LITF makes a lot of mistakes with punctuation, grammar, and spelling, unlike AP). LITF had one admitted alternate account, which is indefinitely blocked and abandoned. The person who warned LITF not to edit on his brother's behalf was myself. I admit that LITF isn't a perfect editor but I don't think blocking them at this point is fair. -- Atama頭 21:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Actually the small overlap with AP (see above) is significant, given the small number of edits, and the fact that the articles are not about related subjects: Polygenism and Atlantis don't have any obvious connection -- so I disagree with your assessment of their editing history. I've also read LITF's talk page, and it doesn't seem as if this person is here to contribute to the encyclopedia. I mean asking another user if they believe in abusing animals after they made a humorous comment about sacrificing frogs at night? Come on, this is trolling, pure and simple. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AP and LITF both have over 1,000 edits (there is also LITF's alt account IntelligentUniverse who has no edits in common with AP despite having over 100 edits). As I said, LITF has problems as well, something I pointed out when I told them that they weren't allowed to use a brand new account under WP:CLEANSTART. I'm well aware of WP:BROTHER, I've been dealing with socks for years and have heard a lot of excuses, but this is one of the rare times that argument seems plausible. -- Atama頭 21:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
then obviously LiveForest is the IP 86.10.something.something. I always knew AP and the Ip were separate individuals. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would be 86.10.119.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that you're thinking of. It's a shared IP between the users AP and LITF, i.e. presumably it's either the same computer or at least the same router, right? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes anglo is my brother aka thulist88 he was banned he then posted on my ip address the other day and nows he back on thulist, 88 being his birth day nothing to do with nazism, my brother is an english nationalist a christian and creationist he doesn't like nazis, hes a history student and bnp supporter. I am neither. I am green and animal rights, and have nothing to do with my brothers interests i joined wiki to talk about aliens and extraterrestials and other fringe ideas i am a lamarckist and alien believer not a creationist. yes i do support an autoblock, i have had enough of being accused of being my brother, but if u do, do an autoblock please dont make it perment if u made it 2 months then my brother would be out the house and in university. my reputation has gown downwards after i was accused of being my brother, and admins have low respect for me as they think i am a nationalist aswell when im not, its clear the admin chibba wants me banned and baseball has hated me ever since he seems to think i am anglo, also admins hate me becuase they think i am a crank, so i would like a break from this place for a while thanks.. Liveintheforests (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I spent a little time comparing the writing styles of Liveintheforests and AngloPyramidologist, and they're very different. I've worked in online communities for some time, and it really is hard to disguise your natural style or to fake a different style. The small overlap in articles shouldn't be seen as too meaningful with such a small statistical sample - all it needs is for them to share some interest in "fringe" ideas -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I object to LITF saying that I "hate" him. I don't hate anyone on wikipedia. As the saying goes, "hate the sin, not the sinner" (and goddess knows I've committed plenty of "wiki-sins" myself over time). Here's what I don't get, though: How is AP able to get away with this? Why is LITF unable to stop him from screwing him over this way? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If they're just two people in the same house who are just using the same internet connection, how can he stop him? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    One way is by the process immediately below. More generally, by talking to him. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Admins i have just spoken to my brother and i have agreed, can you please perm block the whole house, just perm do it the whole IP. This whole thing is causing arguements between me and my brother, and i do not need this anymore. Im a college student and il admit i have wasted far too much time on wikipedia,. I would like this to come to an end, i had fun on wiki i spent alot of time doing the ancient astronaut article which i am happy about, i dont need to be on wiki anymore i have decinded, so an admin please do the IP thing which was actually done a few weeks ago, where the whole IP is blocked and nobody can on wiki, i will not post here anymore. Liveintheforests (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the checkuser request is redundant at this point and have changed this page's status to reflect that. I'm going to block both editos (LITF and Thulist88). This has generated a lot more drama than I intended. I'm leaving the case open for now if anyone else still feels the need for further comments. -- Atama頭 22:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holy smokers, not the "it's my brother" claim 'again'. Ya'll gotta wake up, LITF is also Anglo. The whole "brother" claim, is BS. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The prevalence of the "my brother" claim doesn't mean that *nobody* ever has a brother -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a baloney claim, made by a sock-master. Ya'll gotta wake up. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Often,but not always. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 23:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

On second thought, I'm just going to request a close. Editors are indef-blocked, if anyone wants to continue this talk, the ANI thread is still available. -- Atama頭 22:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

28 November 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Same editing interests as AP, in particular the British National Party and their first edit was to the virtually orphaned article Isaac Preston Cory, which was created by AP and only previously edited by him. 2 lines of K303 13:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

This is my first account on Wikipedia. Isaac Cory i edited because i updated the Assyria page of classical dates, and then discovered the dates on that page are wrong by more than a century. I'm here to contribute to articles, and all you can do is throw around baseless accusations because i edit the same page as someone more than a year ago. Sad. BrutusofTroy (talk) 13:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that argument is that it contradicts your actual editing history, that I already mentioned. Your first edit at 05:28, 23 November 2011 was to Isaac Preston Cory, your second edit at 05:45, 23 November 2011 was to Assyria. So your argument that you edited Isaac Preston Cory *after* editing Assyria does not wash. 2 lines of K303 14:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Style on BNP article is very similar - and there is a history here. Worth a check --Snowded TALK 14:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note also the username, given AP's interest in legendary kings of Britain. RolandR (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

At any rate, the data in the archive is  Stale, so there's nothing that CheckUser can do here. This will have to be considered on behavioural evidence alone. WilliamH (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

13 December 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

This is obviously an experienced user, and the contributions look like those of Anglo Pyramidologist. I note that the IP edits from the UK. Dougweller (talk) 14:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creating biographies and editing articles related to British Israelism are the obvious links. A CU against BrutusofTroy (talk · contribs) should help. Dougweller (talk) 15:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
21 September 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Alright the case is rather complicated because it took place over a few months. This mostly concerns Journal of Cosmology, a pseudoscience journal whose portfolio is mostly concerned with panspermia (panspermia itself is a legit field, however Journal of Cosmology's take on it isn't what anyone would call proper science), Big Bang denialism (pure quackery), anti-Darwinist (to be specific, anti-modern evolutionary synthesis) which is pure quackery, and Mars exploration (again, a legit field, but Journal of Cosmology's take on it would be called overly optimistic/enthusiastic by most), as well as other arcane topics, and it's editors (Rhawn Joseph, Rudolph Schild, Chandra Wickramasinghe) and contributors (Richard B. Hoover), and "philosophical fathers" (Fred Hoyle), and probably others too.

Back in March, Richard B. Hoover published an article declaring they found evidence of extraterrestrial life in meteors, and this was publicized by FOX news. The internet went crazy, and people started laughing at Journal of Cosmology for being a journal for cranks. NASA distanced itself from the claims, etc... In particular, Journal of Cosmology didn't like the criticism from PZ Myers and gave this reply ([3][4]). Since the Wikipedia article relates the mainstream opinion about Journal of Cosmology, and that mainstream opinion isn't friendly to the journal, they've employed legal threats (and formal ones at the WMF, as confirmed by User:Philippe (WMF), etc...

Now, I'm not saying Doommetal2 is the sockmaster, or that everyone mentioned is a sock. But there is definetaly meatpuppeting going around, and Doommetal2 is most definitely someone's sock/meatpuppet per this (I never even edited that page, yet this guy knows me and knows I think Rhawn Joseph is as credible an astrobiologist as Ken Ham is credible as a biologist). I've listed all suspects, defined mostly as everyone pro-Journal of Cosmology, anti-Big Bang, anti-Darwinist (or rather anti-modern evolutionary synthesis) that focused on Journal of Cosmology or closely related topics), and I'm requesting checkusers or whatever's deemed necessary to get rid of the sockpuppets, meatpuppets, and sock/meatmasters. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New development, we have Rhawn Joseph himself going on a rant about me. And as usual, he gets everything wrong (I'm a 27 y.o. atheist, not a 60 y.o. Christian). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another account, JournalOfCosmology (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) has made an appearance on Rhawn Joseph. I've semi'd the article for the moment. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another account popped up to restore an edit of User:Chemistryfan at Biogenesis: IntelligentDesign!12 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki).Novangelis (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And another new account, IndianNationalist (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), was created and commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhawn Joseph (created by User:Chemistryfan) minutes before UserIntelligentDesign!12 was created.Novangelis (talk) 00:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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

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

Without commenting on any IPs, the following are  Confirmed matches to each other:


 Confirmed BookWorm44 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) =

 IP blocked - hardblocked, one year.J.delanoygabsadds 05:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

27 September 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

These might be new socks, but I somehow doubt that very much. BookWorm et al were a bunch of editors who really don't like me on a personal level because of various Journal of Cosmology-related disputes. Earler today, I thought H.vonNeuman and Russelm were old accounts that were somehow not picked up because of whatever reason, and I was debating if there was actually a case to be made against those, but upon further inspection, it's quite clear that it's BookWorm et al. again.

This, combined with their "shared interests" in articles related to Journal of Cosmology, etc..., leads me to believe they are socks, if not BookWorm44 et al. or their previous IP, then of BookWorm44 et al. on a new IP. This would mesh well with the idea that BookWorm44 indeed had family editing from his computer (BookWorm himself seemed to have focused on history article, whereas all the socks were editing Astrobiology/Anti Big-Bang/Panspermia/Anti-Darwin related articles), and told them to edit from their own computer from now on. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is also 174.252.218.90 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)/75.218.93.189 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) making the same kind of edits that Bookworm et al. were making, also focusing on me personally. I'm mentioning them here, but I leave it up to the CU/Clerk to decide these look like editors with an axe to grind, or if these are just editors with a disagreement. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
  •  Clerk endorsed. These two are old accounts - old enough that we wouldn't have caught them in the previous sweep. Two accounts who jump headfirst into a discussion after months is rather suspicious, but I suppose it could be meatpuppetry. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
03 October 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Loudly quacking sock of User:Chemistryfan who was a sock of Bookworm44, recreating the G5'd "Initial Bipedalism" article (which has now been G5'd again). Blocked per the duck test, judging by the previous socking of this user suggest a checkuser for sleepers. The Bushranger One ping only 02:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

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

 Confirmed. Already appropriately blocked by another administrator. –MuZemike 02:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

03 October 2011, take 2
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

75.218.64.123 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Again, someone that passes the WP:DUCK test. First edit is to complain about WM Connolley and his involvement at Journal of Cosmology in an ARBCOM case. Second is to make the Journal of Cosmology friendlier than it warrants. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

174.252.213.159 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) This one is very similar to another IP mentioned in the previous investigation, with the same behaviour. I don't know if anything was concluded with regards to that IP, but might as well bring it up if the previous SPIs revealed anything about it, and let CUs use there judgement on what's the best course of action (if any). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

174.252.197.225 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Sadly HB is mistaken. I am not bookworm. My ISP is Verizon and I am assigned a dynamic IP address which changes daily. I request checkuser confirmation that bookworm or his known socks have edited from this ISP and their IP ranges. --174.252.197.157 (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that the edits from the above 3 IP addresses are mine. --174.255.66.196 (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
05 October 2011
[edit]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Same comment and request for CU verification of whether Bookworm or his socks are known to edit from Verizon wireless as an ISP. --174.252.214.218 (talk) 04:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that the above IP was mine. --174.252.214.218 (talk) 04:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All of the above are mine, as is the current IP. --174.252.193.151 (talk) 07:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This one is me too. --174.255.65.20 (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
  • These IPs are really constant in trying to clear BookWorm44's name which helps with making this a duck case. There is some other behavior that i'm not gonna list here for our purposes and i'm semi'ing Talk:Journal of Cosmology and this page because there has been nothing but BookWorm44 IPs from the behavior standpoint. The Checkuser request is no Declined because the privacy policy does not allow in this case for release of information in that fashion, neither is it needed. -- DQ (t) (e) 18:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
02 November 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Account's first edit was to Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy with a massive talk page section, similar style to his previous incarnation. —Ryulong (竜龙) 03:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

I have blocked per report at AIV. Daniel Case (talk) 03:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

 Confirmed match to Saxonshield (talk · contribs). Miniboglins (talk · contribs) looks also interesting. Elockid (Talk) 04:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

13 June 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

The Christian Schwabe article was recently created. It was deleted before because is was created by a BookWorm44 sockpuppet. Had an admin check the deleted article and it is an exact duplicate of the current article. The new editor has created a few other scientist articles in surprisingly quick fashion and well done. Bgwhite (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Bgwhite (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly the same, but close enough to be a copyright violation. Interesting indeed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quack. Previously blocked as User:Earthisalive, now returning as User:The earth has a mind, First edit is to recreate European origin of modern humans as Out of Europe theory. Check user requested to check for sleepers. SummerPhD (talk) 23:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


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

Even though it stale, I took good notes. :) Those two accounts are basically a  Confirmed match to Miniboglins (talk · contribs). Also  Confirmed are:

Also,  IP blocked. Elockid (Talk) 00:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

29 September 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Ghouls, The apparently new account, was able to, within 8 minutes, conclude on his first day of editing that my removal of material by the blocked sockpuppet BookWorm here [5] did not contain copyvio, and was able to conclude from this Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/GreenUniverse page that the issue of the CCI wasn't copyright infringement but unattributed merge, meanwhile making two other edits.

Obvious WP:DUCK. Checkuser also requested to check for sleepers. Possibly 86.10.119.131, and Reiskigen who have both restored an edit by GreenUniverse. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The DUCK is now edit warring at Parapsychology and starting to attack me at other unrelated venues: [9]. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
11 November 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Clear duck. This IP is pushing the exact same edits edits of BookWorms as the previous case namely parapsychology; tried to edit war it in then went to ANI: Wikipedia:ANI#SkepticalRaptor. No checkuser required unless you want to look for sleepers. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Reaper. A known sockpuppet edit warred to restore this part of BookWorms edits: [10]. Then an ip came restoring it all again: [11], then the ip listed came along restoring part of that [12]. To me this seems to be the same editor continuing the same edit war. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
24 December 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Logo filed a sockpuppet investigation (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bender235/Archive against myself and two other editors who disagreed with him on the talk page of the Atlantis article. The accusation was quickly dismissed. Somethingabitodd's only edits were repeating Logos unsourced accusations. [13] [14] [15]. PlatoAtlantis's only edits were repeating Logos unsourced accusations.[16][17][18][19] DefendingJohnVLuce's only posts is supporting PlatoAtlantis's unsourced accusations.[20] Somethingabitodd and PlatoAtlantis are currently blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Logos and DefendingJohnVLuce are not blocked. I have requested checkuser for two reasons. There is a small chance that the listed socks are a third party trying to get Logos in trouble and not Logos themselves. There has also been recent problems with socking on Atlantis (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Platonics/Archive and I think a check for undetected socks would be useful. Edward321 (talk) 23:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since Logos has not been checkusered and checkuser has revealed Platonics as one of the socks, I suggest this be archived under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Platonics. Edward321 (talk) 04:49, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

I encourage checkuser to accept this case and investigate further, so that I can see what common I have with these 3 accounts. This is more amusing than my filing at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bender235/Archive. At least I had some arguments; the only mistake was to include Deor in the list (Somethingabitodd was right). When Deor excluded, the intersection set of Edward and Bender seems considerable. As far as I know, nobody disagreed me on atlantis talk page, because I made only 1 comment. Since any user can see edits of any other user, Somethingabitodd must have seen my filing (either by looking at Edward's or Bender's history) and have tried to promote Edward=Bender suspicion further. Logos (talk) 00:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Deltaquad Goblinface might be a false-positive; because that account's edits are on completely different subjects. Logos (talk) 10:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@DeltaQuad: @Mike V: Mike, are you okay? You tagged my userpage as a sock of goblinface, in spite of Deltaquad's "Logos does not appear to be connected" comment below. I'm not connected with neither goblinface nor any account below listed.
Apart from that, I think there is a false-positive about goblinface; how come a user with a skeptic POV (i.e. goblinface), objects the presentation of Atlantis as fiction? Logos (talk) 17:16, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it's an automated tool that accidentally included you as well. My apologies. I've reverted my edit to your user page. In regards to the link to Goblin Face, while I don't have checkuser access, DeltaQuad has mentioned that it's a strong technical connection with the other socks. Mike V • Talk 17:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
-- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:17, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tagged the socks. I don't think Logos is related to this farm at all. Most of the evidence presented involved the named sock accounts and Logos was only tangentially suspected. Mike V • Talk 17:12, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
10 June 2015
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Per edits at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/bender235 / editing overlap on Atlantis. Discovered sockfarm during CU check. Tiptoety talk 23:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

I wonder if this sock farm is related to other incidents of sockpuppetry. The overlap between Atlantis and British Israelism in this sock farm (see the contribs of User:AncientScribal) is really intriguing--a few months ago a sockpuppet investigation (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Goblin_Face/Archive) turned up a huge sockfarm, some of which edited British Israelism (e.g., User:HerodotusReader) and some of whom edited Talk:Atlantis (e.g. User:PlatoAtlantis, User:DefendingJohnVLuce, User:Somethingabitodd). Some of those posts were hostile towards Edward321 and Bender235, e.g. [21]. Seems like the same guy. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
  • All of the above are  Confirmed /  Technically indistinguishable. Unknown who the "real" master account is, so I just picked the one with the most edits. Feel free to rename the case / tag differently if a different master is discovered. Tiptoety talk 23:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17 January 2016

[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • I don't have time to sort through this at the moment, but I just blocked
Black Murray (talk · contribs),
Jon Donnis Rome Viharo with an ectoplasm on top (talk · contribs),
AncientBritons (talk · contribs),
AlahAkbarAllah (talk · contribs), and
Hettydetty (talk · contribs).
Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham get in there my son (talk · contribs), JonathanJoshy (talk · contribs), CritiasAtlantis (talk · contribs), TonyDunkersANTIFA (talk · contribs), PlayingTOMBRAIDER (talk · contribs), and Cadfaelite (talk · contribs) were already blocked, all but one by Future Perfect at Sunrise. ​​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not familiar with the sockfarm, but per Tiptoety's comment in the archives from last June, Per edits at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/bender235, I'd say that the odds are pretty good. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh yeah. Look at the contributions to this article. We have AP, then BookWorm44, the OldScrolls, then MacRitchieFan, all AP?GoblinFace socks. So yes, the 2 new ons are also AP socks. Someone with spare time needs to sort out the GoblinFace/AP thing. Doug Weller talk 17:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I won't be able to run any checks before next Wednesday, so unless another CU wants to take a look, you might as well close this and copy the results over to the AP case. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

29 March 2016

[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


After the debate on whether to term the English Democrats party "right-wing" or "far-right" (which had previously been tainted by multiple WP:COI editors, see notice at top of Talk:English Democrats) reignited somewhat, the WP:SPAs listed above took part in various ways. The first two usernames are reminiscent of User:EnglishPassport, one of the blocked COI editors; the third was, if this inference is not too far-fetched, clearly targeting me, after I had reverted BritishIsraelite. User:LjL 22 has already been blocked (thanks DMacks) so I'm sorry if starting an SPI seems excessive, but I begin to get a little annoyed when it comes to people who pretend to be my sockpuppets, and I'd like checkuser to see if there are any more "LjL"-like sleepers and ascertain the status of the other two. LjL (talk) 14:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike V: I see you performed administrative actions on some of the users I called into cause but there was no update here, so I'm pinging you because I'm not sure if you saw this or simply stumbled upon these users in some other way. This can be closed, I guess. LjL (talk) 21:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(commenting after close) Fun. I should have known about TenchuPS1 but their edit was relatively benign, almost seemed like a reasonable compromise, so I forgot. I certainly didn't suspect there would be so many more. LjL (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

CU was performed by Mike V and many more accounts were blocked, see:

-- Vanjagenije (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LjL: Yep, I ran into these accounts through other avenues. The accounts Vanjagenije listed are all confirmed. Mike V • Talk 23:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

08 August 2016

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Latest socks of Anglo Pyramidologist/Goblin Face. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Dear @Opabinia regalis:... I figure this is moot because HealthyGirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has already marked their account as retired. But I just thought I would put a comment in here for the record. I worked with HealthyGirl on a number of articles, and I found that editor to be friendly, conscientious, diligent and just an all-around-good WP editor. The idea that this editor could be the same person as Anglo Pyramidologist seems weird to me. I never encountered AP, because I don't edit anywhere near British politics/history articles. But from what I gather from reading the talk pages, that editor was super into UK right-wing politics, was hyper argumentative and attacked other editors at every turn. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears to me that AP was WP:PROFRINGE in that they promoted ideas not supported by science or credible historians. HealthyGirl was exactly the opposite, their work always showed a skeptic point of view, and they positively contributed to the fringe theories noticeboard once or twice.

I'm not an admin or anything, and the docs around what CheckUser actually "checks" are understandably vague - but is it possible HealthyGirl is a false positive here? For instance, is it possible they merely used the same WiFi or proxy that AP once used? Or an IP address was re-assigned by an ISP?

Again I'll point out that I don't expect any action to be taken, as HealthyGirl has marked themselves as retired prior to this block taking place. But HealthyGirl did create a number of what I consider to be excellent articles and I'd hate to see someone start deleting them simply because they were created by a now-blocked sock.

Anyway, sorry to intrude, just wanted to make a comment on this one user being dragged in here. I have no comment on the other accounts in this report. Cheers. --Krelnik (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Healthygirl is not anglopyramidologist, you can clearly see that two or more users have used the same or similar IP addresses. I know for a fact they are not the same person because I know who healthygirl is. Not that it matters because they were abused with offsite harressment and they retired, but admins have done a lousy job of banning her. It is not the same person.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

Already all  Confirmed and blocked, just catching up on the paperwork. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Krelnik: Without getting into WP:BEANS, there is both technical and behavioral evidence for the connection. (FWIW, "good hand/bad hand" sets of accounts are not uncommon, in general. And I personally never advocate for deleting known-good content based on who contributed it.) As always, editors who think there's been a false positive are welcome to appeal, and CU-blocks can be appealed to (the rest of) arbcom if necessary. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

28 September 2016

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Doing the paperwork. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

Technically possible, behaviorally obvious. Blocked. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

21 January 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

These socks are CheckUser  Confirmed to each other and are technically  Possible to Anglo Pyramidologist. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

01 September 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Anglo Pyramidologist has been known to create sockpuppets (and potentially meatpuppets) in order to harass user:Deleet, Emil Kirkegaard. This account (Vihaan Khatri) appears to be posting exactly like one of Anglo Pyramidologist's previously blocked sockpuppets, user:Storyfellow. It also is similar to his sockpuppet user:WoodChopper. Vihaan Khatri's first edit after joining was an attack on Deleet: [23] No real newbie would behave this way. Godotskimp (talk) 19:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]


03 September 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

This IP appears to be the same person as the recently blocked sockpuppet user:Vihaan_Khatri. He's continuing the same argument that Vihaan Khatri made before being blocked. [24] [25]. The RationalWiki link posted by the IP in the first diff is the same as one that Vihaan Khatri posted: [26]. Deleet (talk) 04:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
 Administrator note: I agree that the IP seems to be a sock of User:Vihaan Khatri and I've blocked it for one month. Note that the IP made a post at 10:30 on 2 September in a thread at WP:COIN that had been begun by Khatri, who was blocked at 03:26 on 2 September so could not continue there. I am unsure how you normally tag IPs (or if you do so at all) so have left this to others. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

09 September 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

The London_Student_Journalist account is already blocked for disruptive editing, so I'm reporting it for record-keeping purposes (note that it is also an impersonation). I can't link to diffs from that account because its edits have been deleted and suppressed, but its deleted contributions show the same stalking behavior towards me as Anglo Pyramidologist's other recent socks.

The 89.163.221.47 IP has a different location from Anglo Pyramidologist's previous IPsock, but it appears to be a webserver, so it doesn't correspond to the real location of whoever is using it. At the fringe theories noticeboard, this IP is continuing the same argument begun by the previously blocked sockpuppet User:Vihaan_Khatri: [27] [28].

If 89.163.221.47 is blocked as a sock, could the blocking admin please also remove or strike the sock's posts? After the previous IPsock was blocked, its posts were removed by a regular user, [29] but another user restored them [30]. Restoring sockpuppet posts on these articles seems to be prohibited by this ArbCom decision, and I request that admins enforce that decision. Deleet (talk) 03:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Emil Kirkegaard (who posts his real name on his account) is a "neo-Nazi" according to the London Student article [31] - he should not be editing Wikipedia on race articles! There is no proof that the "London Student Journalist" account was an "impersonation" or a "sock-puppet".

An account "Vihaan Khatri" was blocked without technical evidence. This user claims to be an anti-fascist and incorrectly blocked. If someone merely criticizes Emil Kirkegaard, he opens up a sock-puppet investigation and claims it is all the same person "harassing" him when all they have done is quote from mainstream sources. It is not "harassment" to quote a newspaper article that mentions this far-right individual. Plenty of anti-racist websites have criticized this guys online behaviour and racism, quoting from them is not unethical activity or against Wikipedia rules.

Godotskimp was not a normal account, but one associated with defending Deleet and racist material. He has been blocked for disruptive editing.

Disclaimer: The above IP was me, but not the other account. 89.163.245.119 (talk) 12:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

03 July 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Fresh account that created Draft:OpenPsych, which is an implausibly polished article for a new user. Per the 1 September 2018 SPI, Anglo Pyramidologist has had a feud with Emil Kirkegaard. Kirkegaard is the editor of the journal. The draft certainly has enough criticism to not have been written by a fan of the editor.

Previous suspected socks WoodChopper and Rebecca Bird have also edited Toby Young who got into controversy by attending a "race and IQ" conference. Aliencatdog has so far edited two other attendees of that conference: Edward Dutton (anthropologist) and Noah Carl. Pudeo (talk) 12:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, they are now debating political labels and suggesting British National Party should be classified as not 'fascist' but 'right-wing populist' (diff). This would have a common pattern with older socks like EnglishAxeman (talk · contribs) who did something similar with the regards to the English Democrats. Very nuanced views of these political labels and their sub-labels would be a cue of the sockmaster. Someone privately messaged me that Stronghold1990 (talk · contribs) would also be a sock, but that seems stale as it has not edited in 6 months. Regardless, I doubt there will be any super obvious signs because Deleet is now blocked so they have no need to directly confront him here. --Pudeo (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, a CU-confirmed sock PlayingTOMBRAIDER (talk · contribs) had been arguing that editors were slandering the British National Party in these edits: [32][33]. Compare this with the recent comments by Aliencatdog I gave earlier. If anyone is confused, Anglo Pyramidologist has been defending certain right-wing POVs despite his opposition to the IQ stuff here. He seems to be changing positions normally advocated by the "right" and left" depending on the situation. FWIW, Aliencatdog also knows how to format references (in the draft) but is sometimes too lazy to use the cite news template: [34][35]. Previous sock Rebecca Bird also knows how to format references but another sock was too lazy to format them. Pinging @Doug Weller: who is familiar with the topic area and some of the earlier socking. --Pudeo (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Weird claims. If you read my edits I clearly point out BNP is far-right and have reverted someone here: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Jack_Buckby&action=history Aliencatdog (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

This case is  Stale. CU declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on behavioural evidence (not CU which I did not run as this is stale), I think it is likely that this account is connected to this case, and even more likely that it is a sock of some user.  Blocked and tagged. Closing. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22 July 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


This IP has the same single-minded focus on intelligence researchers as several of Anglo Pyramidologist's other sockpuppets, including the Noah Carl and Edward Dutton (author) articles, which both were edited in a similar way by his earlier sockpuppet Aliencatdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Compare to this edit to this one. Both of those edits added poorly-sourced negative information about Dutton (the sources for the second edit are OpenPysch, which is not a reliable source, and a paper that does not mention Dutton). The "Aliencatdog" sockpuppet was the creator of the OpenPsych article. Gardenofaleph (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldon1576 shows the same preoccupation with Emil Kirkegaard as some of Anglo Pyramidologist's previous sockpuppets, such as Vihaan Khatri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Storyfellow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I'm not sure what details about this can be mentioned in public, but Anglo Pyramidologist also has a major conflict of interest editing the article about the Kirkegaard v Smith case. Gardenofaleph (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Sheldon1567 says below that he and the 84.65.49.235 are the same person. Is it not an odd coincidence that in addition to Kirkegaard, Sheldon1567 also is showing the same preoccupation with Noah Carl and Edward Dutton as AP's previous socks?
If you must know, this report was made in response to an off-Wiki request, but not from Kirkegaard. The request was made by another intelligence researcher, who noticed the IP's edits to his biography and suspected that Anglo Pyramidologist was responsible. This researcher does not know me personally, but he and I have a few mutual friends, so he sent the request to them and they passed it along to me.
If you look closely at the history of the SPI report, you'll see I reported the IP user first, because that was the user that the researcher wanted reported. Then a few hours after making the report I noticed the registered account, and edited my report to include that user also.
The researcher in question is not under any blocks or sanctions. As far as I know he doesn't have a Wikipedia account at all, so is it a problem that I made this SPI report following a request from him? Gardenofaleph (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

The IP isn't a sockpuppet - I simply didn't log on my user in the last few days when editing; if you look there's no overlap in editing between the IP/account until now (editing separated by days) when I was contacted in the past hour on Facebook and Twitter about this SPI. I was not aware not logging in my account to edit was an offence. I've edited Wikipedia since 2007 on my IP. I had another account around 7-8 years back but forgot the password (it had minimal edits). I'm not AngloP and my IP has been in use for 14 years.

The above claim "the sources for the second edit are OpenPysch, which is not a reliable source, and a paper that does not mention Dutton" is incorrect. The source I provided is a peer-reviewed article. The second claim "does not mention Dutton" is irrelevant since the source was instead to note OpenPsych has a lack of peer-review. I never said it mentions Dutton.

Btw, I was informed on Twitter a dubious SPI would be filed against my account since there is a public thread on the article I created. Emil Kirkegaard is getting other users to file these SPI reports since he's banned from editing and has a victim complex anyone who criticises OpenPsych or him is AngloP.Sheldon1567 (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence Emil Kirkegaard is getting his friends/contacts to file these dubious SPIs can be simply found by looking at the edit histories who is filing them. They're hereditarians on race and IQ or at least sympathetic to that controversial viewpoint i.e. Gardenofaleph voted against calling hereditarianism a "fringe" viewpoint and their edits show a strong interest on the race and IQ debate and related topics (e.g. "nations and IQ"). I noticed numerous other accounts in the past filing questionable SPIs here are also Emil Kirkegaard's friends/contacts who share his hereditarianism POV for example, Godotskimp (now banned like Kirkegaard) who filed an SPI was blatantly a meatpuppet of Kirkegaard (i.e. someone he knows) who he got to file an arb enforcement against @MjolnirPants: (a user who got into a heated debate with Kirkegaard and the latter blames for his ban). I think it's disingenuous for Gardenofaleph to not mention it was Kirkegaard who got them to file this dubious SPI. Sheldon1567 (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, there is a public thread about Kirkegaard v Smith on Twitter. I'm not sure of the rules about linking to social media posts, so won't link to it but it can easily be found. I was alerted on Twitter about this SPI. I would normally reveal my identity but considering Emil Kirkegaard is notorious for doxxing and harassment (to the extent he offered $200 to dox someone) I don't want to link to my twitter account and real world identity here. Sheldon1567 (talk) 23:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also note @Deleet: (Emil Kirkegaard's banned user) filed the SPI against user:Vihaan_Khatri's IP (the user mentioned by Gardenofaleph) but I see no reliable evidence this account or IP is AngloP and it's not likely him (the behavioural evidence is incredibly weak to anyone who bothers to check i.e. Khatri was blocked for "attacking Kirkegaard", needless to say. not everyone who does that is AngloP since Kirkegaard is a very unpopular individual); the dubious SPI was also filed by Godotskimp - Kirkegaard's meatpuppet (both editors are banned). Dubious SPIs were filed by Kirkegaard and he's also (especially since banned) using meatpuppets and getting his hereditarianism pals to file them. It's quite shocking no admin can see the abuse and manipulation going on here. Sheldon1567 (talk) 00:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Doug Weller: and @MjolnirPants: who seem to be familiar with Kirkegaard's antics.Sheldon1567 (talk) 00:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, note an SPI was filed against user:Deleet (Emil Kirkegaard) for the account user:godotskimp, see here. This account wasn't a sockpuppet so the SPI failed, but is an obvious meatpuppet - as is user:Gardenofaleph. These are individuals he knows who share his hereditarianism POV and he contacts to file these SPIs. Like Vihaan_Khatri the evidence is dubious. Compare the two edits Gardenofaleph is using as behavioural evidence to link me to another user and suspected AngloP sock - they're not similar at all. Sheldon1567 (talk) 00:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've now looked through some of the other filed questionable SPIs against AngloP involving Emil Kirkegaard. Kirkegaard as user:Deleet (before he was banned) filed another dubious report (against the user London_Student_Journalist) that was discovered not to be AngloP but a seperate IP editor (89.163.245.119); above, Gardenofaleph mentions another SPI, against User:Aliencatdog. Gardenofaleph claims this account was AngloP but the SPI suggests otherwise. The technical evidence was stale and the behavioural inconclusive, the account was merely blocked as "more likely that it is a sock of some user" but not specifically AngloP. Sheldon1567 (talk) 03:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The behavioral evidence cited above is hardly enough to go on: It could be the behavior of a far-right racist who hates Emil, which is what Anglo is. But it could also be a moderate-to-far-left non-racist who hates Emil. Or a moderate-right non-racist/racist who hates Emil. Or it could be some editor whose politics are immaterial, but who saw the opportunity to write an article and chose to take it. I can't say which is those is true, or even more likely, because Sheldon is very clearly an SPA at this point. I have no opinion on the specific request here, however if CU is not stale (I suspect it is), then a CU should be run to make a determination, because as far as I can see, the only beneficial thing Anglo ever did for this project was harass Deleet, and Deleet's been indeffed already.
But I can say this: Garden is in lockstep agreement with Emil on every single topic I've seen those two weigh in on. If Sheldon has off-site evidence that Emil encouraged Garden to file this, they should present that. Given the circumstances here, it's quite a bit of a coincidence that Garden managed to notice Sheldon, decided to investigate and came to the conclusion that Sheldon is the sock of an editor who was blocked long before Garden joined WP. This situation just reeks of meatpuppetry on Garden's part. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

Yes, too stale to use CU. @MjolnirPants: I agree entirely. We have an SPA but with no reason to consider them anything other than an SPA, and a filer who is either a sock or a meatpuppet. Doug Weller talk 14:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing with no action taken. I did a little comparing of edits and didn't see any obvious evidence of socking. And frankly, I'm not inclined to invest much effort in an SPI filed by a user with minimal editing history who says they're proxying the SPI for an off-wiki contact. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

02 September 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Under my unblock request for a ban I am now fully exonorated of, Emil Kirkegaard HBD chimed in, who is clearly impersonating Deleet,[36] commenting:[37]

NightHeron is a shared account, he is responsible for reporting your account and getting you blocked as a sock. Speak to Captain Occam, he has the details. Please contact me on discord. The admins responding here are the same people who wrote my RationalWiki article [38]

I soon figured out that this couldn't be real because I found no active Discord at all,[39] contacted Kirkegaard via his personal website, and did the same per Captain Occam; and, again, nobody knew what this was about. Anglo Pyramidologist has been a very active contributor to RationalWiki over the years, and has had a long-standing vendetta with Kirkegaard. I think he is impersonating him now as to both make me and Kirkegaard look like we're somehow one big tag team with the same ideological motivations.

One of his four highly stereotypical edits has an edit summary that reads: "I am the domain owner of" per theMankind Quarterly article.[40] AP has been uniquely interested in this affair, and Deleet himself really has nothing to gain by including this information. There are various accounts previously banned without a CU having been conducted (e.g. [41]) that, for no apparent reason whatsoever, did the exact same thing with related journals, e.g. OpenPsych, while transparently posing as far-right figures. There is clearly a pattern of some LTA here, and a CU investigation is surely in order.

This is a WP:DUCK. Please carefully check for sleeper accounts as AP has been known for creating dozens of them in one go. Biohistorian15 (talk) 07:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

{{hat|Hatting no longer productive discussion as agreed to on PG's talk page. Note that parts of it still concern the now removed IP editor [[Special:Contributions/51.6.193.169|51.6.193.169]] as another possible sock puppet here}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biohistorian15 (talk • contribs) 07:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The impersonation account is likely to be the infamous Mikemikev who is well known in the alt-right manosphere for spoofing people's names, that behaviour doesn't match AP's editing history. After I filed the SPI he sent me a bunch of weird emails. I filed an SPI regarding that account to Mikemikev on August 9. The blocking admin put it down to "either blatant sock puppetry or Joe-jobbing" [42]. It was obviously a WP:NOTHERE account. This user Mikemikev has a history of impersonating Kirkegaard, for example [43], which was blocked in 2017. The IP data is likely stale so it probably wouldn't help. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just one problem: why would this far-right activist send me in the direction of a Discord that doesn't really exist etc., wasting my time. I think it is more likely that the post was solely about having my unblock associated with these extreme individuals as to make it less likely to be accepted such as grave dancing on Deleet. Biohistorian15 (talk) 10:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anything about that. AP has reached out to me, he says the accounts are not him and from what I have seen that is believable in this case. No evidence has been presented that the impersonation account is AP. Over the years I have filed a lot of SPI's, this one is devoid of evidence. You might want to check an SPI I filed back in 2021 - Mikemikev was creating other impersonation accounts of Deleet. Including one called Emil O. W. Kirkegaard. There are many other examples of this on his SPI archive, for example Emil Kirkegaard Deleet. Mikemikev has also impersonated Richard Lynn and others. This low-level type of impersonation of far-right figures doesn't match AP's history.
From what I have been told AP is disabled, not from Brighton and is involved in litigation with Deleet as he owes AP $1000s in legal costs. Deleet has since changed his name, moved country several times and opened and closed various bank accounts to avoid paying AP's costs. This isn't something I want to get involved with but I have been able to verify two of those claims. I find it unlikely AP would create an immature impersonation account when he is involved in legal proceedings against this individual. Deleet told you to file this SPI because he is involved in a feud with AP, it's a poor excuse to file an SPI. The IP below is a friend of Deleet and was the first to link to that individual on your talk-page. I believe a third-party is trying to stir trouble for AP and Deleet and judging from the immature impersonation attempt I believe it is more likely to be Mikemikev's behaviour. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kirkegaard didn't care to engage with me at all. He only really stated that he has nothing to do with this. While the point about Mikemikev potentially trying to stir trouble for AP and Deleet may be accurate, I still see no reason why a neonazi would make these edits; no clear rationale. A CU investigation is perfectly justified. Biohistorian15 (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I have been told (some of which I have managed to verify myself) - Kirkegaard was involved with the users who filed the previous SPI AP filings. Gardenofaleph (blocked) has co-written papers with Kirkegaard, Pudeo a user from Wikipediocracy who knows Kirkegaard, Godotskimp (blocked) a far-right user involved with Kirkegaard. Yourself a self-confessed right wing user who has email contact with Kirkegaard and the IP below who has admitted to being in contact with Kirkegaard and linked to content from his private Facebook [44]. I am not defending AP, but seriously it looks like Kirkegaard is the man behind the scenes asking other right-wing users to file SPI's against AP. None of the above users had any contact with AP but turned up on Wikipedia to file SPI. If an SPI is to be filed it should be based on evidence, not vendetta. I do not see any good-faith here. It looks like a political war from the far-right who are filing against AP because he is apparently far-left. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple attack pages online that detail the escapades of the person behind Anglo Pyramidologist. Kirkegaard, however, did not care very much about all this in his reply. I would be careful making these accusations. Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Psychologist Guy, what is your connection to Anglo Pyramidologist? Why is he (a banned user) sending you private information about his litigation, as you say he is doing? This is very unusual behavior. 2A02:FE1:7191:F500:1D68:AEEA:EBA5:D751 (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly, PG has his email available on his user page. I trust if he had reached out using an account, he would tell us about it. Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to have happened before. In this comment Psychologist Guy mentioned he was posting "what I have just been emailed", and at that time Anglo Pyramidologist was heavily involved in an off-wiki dispute with the subject of that other SPI, so AP was likely the source of PG's emails that time also.
I don't know what to think. Psychologist Guy's overall edits do not seem sock-like at all, but there is something unusual about his willingness to post whatever he says that a banned user is telling him. Hopefully checkuser will be able to shed light on what's going on. 2A02:FE1:7191:F500:1D68:AEEA:EBA5:D751 (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, checkuser should be conducted above. I very much agree. But PG is hardly anyone's sock puppet. Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My email address is public, I receive dozens of emails every week from all sorts. I received 1 email today from AP with some backstory of how he is being targeted by those on the far-right which Kirkegaard instigated and these accounts are not him. I believe the story checks out here. I have filed a lot of detailed SPI's over the years supported by good evidence. I am not convinced this SPI is being done in good-faith. Both of you are new here but have much knowledge of AP going back years. Kirkegaard is emailing you to come here and do this. It's not in the spirit of how this website should operate. Years ago a user filed a bogus SPI against me because he didn't agree with vegetarianism. SPI's filed out of grudges or personal feuds should be called out. If there was good behavioural evidence AP created those accounts I would be the first to support it but this is one of the weakest SPI's I have seen. There is some obvious meat-puppetry going on here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kirkegaard did not answer any of the questions regarding AP I personally asked him in that original email and my follow-up one. He seems to be over it. I had almost a whole month to think about potential sock puppets having been involved in my own ban, and would strongly advise you to stop your frivolous accusations. Biohistorian15 (talk) 18:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After spending some more time researching the background of the accounts and the IP here, I've discovered another connection between Psychologist Guy, Emil Kirkegaard HBD, and the 51.6.193.169 IP. On 4 June, Psychologist Guy added this content [45] [46] in the Mankind Quarterly and OpenPsych articles:

Emil Kirkegaard a Danish white supremacist and founder of the OpenPsych journal was the registrant of the Mankind Quarterly website between 2017 and February 2023, after which the WHOIS was anonymised.[1][2]

Danish white supremacist Emil Kirkegaard, the registrant of the Mankind Quarterly website.[3][2] Kirkegaard has controversially pushed for the legalization of child pornography.

On 3 July, the 51.6.193.169 IP posted this comment [47] on Talk:Helmuth Nyborg:

For the record, there are plenty of mainstream sources calling Kirkegaard a "white supremacist" which also document his abhorrent views on child pornography.

The article linked to in that comment was also cited in Psychologist Guy's two edits. Anglo Pyramidologist also had posted the same article on his Twitter before those edits were made. This article is from an obscure local news website for the U.S. state of Wyoming, not a well-known newspaper that lots of people would have noticed.
On 9 August, "Emil Kirkegaard HBD" edited the Mankind Quarterly article [48] with an edit summary saying,

I am the domain owner of Mankind Quarterly, it is not a racist journal.

This obviously was an impersonation, and only a tiny number of people (maybe only one person) care so much about publicizing his ownership of that domain that they would impersonate him to do it.
Now that Psychologist Guy has mentioned that he sometimes posts things that Anglo Pyramidologist sends him, this similarity between him, the fake Emil Kirkegaard and the 51.6.193.169 IP looks suspicious. It also is another reason "Emil Kirkegaard HBD" probably is not Mikemikev, as Mikemikev has never shown an interest in who owns that domain. 2A02:FE1:7191:F500:1D68:AEEA:EBA5:D751 (talk) 23:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This SPI has gone bizarre. "I've discovered another connection between Psychologist Guy, Emil Kirkegaard HBD, and the 51.6.193.169 IP", "Now that Psychologist Guy has mentioned that he sometimes posts things that Anglo Pyramidologist sends him", the former is delusion and the latter is misinformation. I received a single email and some of the facts I was told check out such as the claim you are heavily involved with Kirkegaard which is obvious from your own posting history.
I have no relation to these IPs or accounts, nor do I post for AP or have any personal association with this individual. The edits I made you quoted were made on June 4 and have no connection to any IP or other accounts, it's embarrassing if you are trying to connect me to that IP, you are getting desperate. In the past I have been attacked by Kirkegaard as have other Wikipedia editors, for example he refers to me on his blog as a "woke editor" [49], perhaps that is why you are targeting me now.
I have had private email correspondence with several experienced users about this current SPI. Not one user wants to get involved out of fear of getting abuse, harassed or stalked through Kirkegaard and his far-right followers. I regret getting involved and posting here because I will obviously be Kirkegaard's next victim (I have already received abuse through email from another of his followers only an hour ago), so I won't be commenting to you again. Your MO is obviously harassment and misinformation. This is the worst SPI I have seen in a while, an admin should look at this. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

<!-- sic -->{hab}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biohistorian15 (talk • contribs) 07:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am an IP editor, Biohistorian15 falsely accused of being linked to this random sockpuppet archive and two other IPs from different countries. There is now a discussion here on admin board. Biohistorian15 has been filing a bunch of frivolous SPIs and I have requested an admin takes action to prevent them filing more.90.255.65.51 (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging some admins who previously closed an SPI (@Doug Weller:, @RoySmith: for meatpuppetry. The same thing appears to be going on here alongside completely frivolous accusations. I may as well copy part of my discussion on the admin board:

Biohistorian15 a few days ago baselessly accused me (here and here) of being a WP:LOUTSOCK connected to two random IP editors from different geolocations (Brighton, UK and New Jersey, US) 51.6.193.169, 73.195.249.93 as well as at least one sockpuppet archive: Anglo_Pyramidologist. This was frivolous and an admin (Daniel Case) rejected their request for page protection of Diana Fleischman (I made a few edits as 90.255.70.21 and 90.255.83.64 since my IP is not static). Considering the accusation was completely unfounded (the IPs are from different countries, were active months/years apart, and have nothing in common in terms of the articles edited), I decided for the past day to look over Biohistorian15's edit history. I found this disruptive user has repeatedly filed frivolous or dubious SPIs over the past 2 weeks:

  • 2 September 2024: Anglo_Pyramidologist (based on the SPI discussion this SPI was probably filed proxying for a banned Wikipedia editor User:Deleet (note Deleet posted his real name Emil Kirkegaard on his account) who Biohistorian15 admitted on the same SPI to being in email communication with; on Biohistorians15's talk page a suspicious IP showed up and admitted to having access to Kirkegaard's private social media). The same IP tag-teamed with Biohistorian15 on SPI until they were blocked: "Disruptive editing/harassment, likely block evasion." As the user Psychologist Guy pointed out on the same SPI, it seems obvious it was not filed in good faith, is frivolous and involves bad actors/meatpuppetry: "this is one of the weakest SPI's I have seen. There is some obvious meat-puppetry going on here."
  • 3 September 2024: MonkEbobo08 (pointless SPI against IPs which was closed: "IP edits are too old, closing.").
  • 5 September 2024: Lp9mm8g (flimsy evidence for sockpuppetry?).
  • 6 September 2024: another frivolous SPI but which they oddly deleted but said they might readd at a later date. Biohistorian15's preposterous claim is someone purposely made ~170 disruptive edit reverts to disguise a single revert on OpenPsych. No evidence of course provided for this nonsense.
  • Biohistorian15 additionally filed an SPI against 51.6.193.169 which they baselessly accused me of being (despite a different geolocation and my edits have nothing in common with that IP).
  • There are possibly a few others I missed. 90.255.65.51 (talk) 21:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not want to directly engage with Biohistorian15 so will not further respond here and am not familiar with AP. I hope though admins can look into what is going on and prevent Biohistorian15 from filing more frivolous SPIs based on the above. Thank you. 90.255.65.51 (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Answered to IP at AN/I Biohistorian15 (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mikemikev

[edit]

Admins reviewing this case may want to look at the following I discovered after searching "Emil Kirkegaard" on another wiki, it is a NSFW wiki so I have used a webpage archive of a single page:

Both the above accounts were blocked on Encyclopedia Dramatica as Mikemikev and were presumably IP checked. I agree with User:Psychologist_Guy) that the Emil Kirkegaard HBD is likely Mikemikev based on behavioural evidence. As with AP I am not familiar with Mike although it is possible more EK have been blocked under his name on other wikis.90.255.86.97 (talk) 06:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  1. ^ Wilson, Jason (2024). "Scientist cited in push to oust Harvard's Claudine Gay has links to eugenicists". The Guardian. Archived from the original on May 29, 2024.
  2. ^ a b Wolfson, Leo (2024). "White Supremacist Who Wants Legal Child Porn Doing Business Through Wyoming LLC". Cowboy State Daily. Archived from the original on May 24, 2024.
  3. ^ Wilson, Jason (2024). "Scientist cited in push to oust Harvard's Claudine Gay has links to eugenicists". The Guardian. Archived from the original on May 29, 2024.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Anglo_Pyramidologist/Archive&oldid=1246353039"