Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ContentEditman/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


ContentEditman

27 June 2016

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Both the IP and user have a very limited edit history, and both contributed to the talk page discussion at Talk:Independence Day: Resurgence#Mixed and unfavorable (IP diff1 and diff2 and user diff1). While this isn't enough evidence on its own, also take into account that another article ContentEditman contributed to was Christine Cavanaugh (diff). In the edit history, there are a lot of edits around the same time frame from multiple IP addresses that fall in the same range as the IP listed above:

Normally, this wouldn't be an issue, except the IP and user claim to be two separate people in the talk page discussion I linked to above. I believe this is more than just coincidence. GoneIn60 (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On July 5, 2016, this account was created and made only one edit to the same discussion where the other suspected socks participated. It appears to be an attempt to game the system to falsely portray that one side in the debate has consensus. Please note that IP user 174.29.191.40 has stated that they are now editing from 184.96.160.15. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ContentEditman and 184.96.160.15 (formerly 174.29.191.40), who both have a very limited editing history, have now commented on Talk:Ghostbusters (2016 film). This is additional evidence that both accounts are somehow working in tandem, which started with similarities noted in the Christine Cavanaugh article above. If it wasn't for the extremely limited history of both accounts, this could be written off as possible coincidence. Now that we have three article examples in which both participated, I think it's fair to say we're way beyond mere coincidences at this point. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

ContentEditman is not my account. This is a ridiculous accusation. this 'is' a "coincidence." we are two separate people. if it is "more than a coincidence" then it is because gone60 is trying to twist this into "more" than it is. I came across this accusation by accident when checking the edit history of gone60 to see if she responded to me with regards to another matter on an article talk page. If contenteditman is ip-socking then that is on him. However i can say in my defense with 100% certainty and confidence that the user behind contenteditman is not using 'my' ip address or computer to do it. Hopefully the burden of proof for this false allegation is on the accuser and not the accused. hopefully there are consequences for making rash accusations of this kind. a valid Checkuser should clear my name. i speculate gone60 is doing it to undermine my presence on the independence day article because my reasonable edits do not agree with her edits. I have no other explanation for this rush-to-accusation by her. 174.29.191.40 (talk) 21:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GoneIn60 is throwing an tantrum and accuses others of sock puppetry when he does not get his way. Look at the Independence Day: Resurgence talk page and you can see he is not getting his way or the consensus. So this is what he does next. This is beyond sad and is harassment with even him admitting "While this isn't enough evidence on its own". ContentEditman (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit of an overreaction, especially these edits by ContentEditman (diff1 and diff2). If there's nothing to hide, then there's nothing to get excited about. Yes, I have submitted two SPI investigations in the past (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ghriscore/Archive), and both were found to be related to the same troll. Hopefully, I am wrong this time for your sake, but that would be a first. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: It is interesting that 174.29.191.40 was the first to respond here, considering he/she was not notified of this SPI investigation. I only left a notice at ContentEditman's talk page. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I just noticed that the IP explained how he/she found this thread. That is certainly a reasonable explanation. 174.29.191.40, I did not respond to the thread, because now that you've provided a source, I have let it be for now. In fact, if you check the edit history of the article, I actually fixed the ref you provided by properly citing its details. I was going to give the talk thread a bit more time before following up and providing a response, but at this time, I don't have a issue with using "negative". The issue before was that there wasn't a good ref; now there's a decent one in the article that comes closer to supporting the claim. That's all I was asking for. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I already addressed that above when I said,"I came across this accusation by accident when checking the edit history of gone60 to see if she responded to me with regards to another matter on an article talk page." You seem paranoid enough left to your own devices, I didn't want to give you more reasons to go off into conspiracy land. Thank you for acknowledging that. So noted. As for the rest, we can discuss the concerns of the article there. It doesn't belong here ... On an unrelated note: if it needs to be said again, I am not contenteditman and I have no relationship or connection to the owner of that account. ... With that out of the way, 60gone, you can hardly blame others for reacting strongly to a serious false accusation without good faith. You shouldn't make willy nilly accusations like that just because your ego tells you to. I would like to address your arrogant tone to the other user: there is a "first" time for everything, including your "being wrong." Hopefully, for 'your' sake and the sake of your ego, you can handle that. Look forward to it because, as you are about to find out, you are wrong. Keep me in the loop everyone.174.29.191.40 (talk) 02:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was necessary to describe the actions I took in that article as a response to your comment that I was attempting to get my way. My actions indicate otherwise. Also, if you look at the other SPI's I linked to above, you'll see that the editor there too strongly denied the allegations, both times. It always happens, and the more likely a connection exists, the louder they scream. If you've got nothing to worry about, then chill. This will be over before you know it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am as chill as an english cucumber after the Brexit vote, if that gives you any indication about my personal feelings on the matter. I see only one person kicking and screaming here. Your evidence is all anecdotal. I have no vendetta against you. Is that what this is about?? Someone got into it with you and now you see socks everywhere. So noted. The more you go down this road of anecdotal emotional reasoning, the more you expose your own flawed relationship with reality and this community. despite what you think, I'm not protesting the 'false' accusation. I believe in giving someone enough rope to hang themselves with. I wouldn't have it any other way. It should be obvious by now that contentededitman is NOT my account especially after carefully reviewing 60gone's 'evidence' and his painful-to-listen-to emotional reasoning and subsequent outbursts. That, itself, is the best karma of all. Needless to say, I am looking forward to the outcome with bated breath.174.29.191.40 (talk) 06:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To the patrolling admin/clerk:

After further investigation, it appears that the IP's first edits to Independence Day: Resurgence were aimed at the contentious part of the lead that was being discussed on the talk page (diff1). Then, he/she posted on talk page explaining why they made the change (diff2). This is eerily similar to the edits made by Ghriscore's sockpuppet Games Junn, which focused on the same contentious part of the lead:

This pattern of forcing changes into an article when the user is well aware that a discussion is under way is identical to the behavior exhibited by Ghriscore. I now believe this is the same user, who is apparently following discussions that I'm participating in and attempting to get payback as promised here (notice the use of "ego"). Not sure if this should be moved to the master account, but feel free to do so if needed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for being sarcastic, but this is entering strange Donald Trump conspiracy theory territory. Move this "investigation" into where you like. It doesn't change the fact, and never will, that ContentEditman is not my account. The owner of that account has no connection to me. 60gone bragged about his sockpuppet hunting here and listed his success slaying the user chriscore. I confess that I read up on their dispute~argument after he included the link here and borrowed from a little of the sock's complaint against gone60 to formulate my position. granted, chris's mistake was socking. but he never-the-less made good points about 60gone's ego. even a broken clock is right twice a day, so the saying goes. in retrospect I saw no harm in mentioning some of that here. a good point is a good point. 174.29.191.40 (talk) 05:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While it is remotely possible that you have no affiliation with ContentEditman, who has a very limited editing history, I would be shocked/surprised to learn that you also have no affiliation to Ghriscore. Your tone, lack of indentation, and persistence to reinstate edits when you're aware of an active discussion is all too familiar. From the get-go, you've been very forceful with your point of view, acting as though there is an existing history between us. Let's not forget that you just so happened to visit an article focusing on an area of the lead that Ghriscore (and fellow sockpuppets) shared an interest in. Also in a recent ANI discussion about page ownership at BvS (an article heavily socked by Ghriscore), an IP posted this comment. Notice the use of "going down that road" just like you used above. All that is a lot of coincidence to shake I'm afraid. If you've finally found a way to game the system and avoid detection – reflected by a level of arrogance on display in your recent responses – then more power to you. We'll see if that's the case. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it's interesting to note you referred to user Ghriscore as "chris". Yes, Ghriscore is a play on Chris Gore, but this would only seem natural to refer to the user as "chris" if you were the user who created that account. Very interesting indeed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is the difference between us. Because I can see reason and common sense. Not just my own opinions or feelings. Decent intent is just that, decent INTENT. Intent is what is INTENDED, not what you perceive. I thought I was done with this. hand it to you to find a new and creative way to be disruptive and draw me back into your drama. It's clear what you were implying, but the implication is wrong. I am not acting like there is an existing history between us. You are. Am I supposed to take your continued false accusations laying down? Good luck with that. onto your latest pieces of 'evidence' or 'trump' cards, which are every bit as paranoid and lame as one of his conspiracy theories- "Ghris" is such a strange spelling of a name found in error by my computer. My device assumed it a typo and auto-corrected it. Didn't notice it until you mentioned it. Adding to my plight is that I had to fight my device to no end to prevent it from doing it again before I committed to this edit. Honestly I thought it was said chris at first glance. Moving on. I never accused you of asserting "page ownership" which the sock you exposed drones on about endlessly in your battle with him. stubborn? yes you are. but I never accused you of wrong-doing, natch. Then, there's your "going down the road comparison" with me and now another disgruntled user you debate. Ridiculous as this charge is on its own, it is even lamer considering that I don't see an SPI with the owner of that IP. In that is the whole problem with your present behavior, which is nicely summarized by your insecure final sentence above when you reveal your agenda when you arrogantly assume that,"If you've finally found a way to game the system and avoid detection...then more power to you." So when you find out that I indeed 'DO NOT' have any affiliation with ContentEditman then it doesn't matter that you are wrong because you have already made up your mind that I'm socking. If you don't see the problem with that way of thinking, that's the problem. If true, how is that a strategy you can be proud of? Shouldn't you be trying to rise above that type of dishonest argument? You'll find that most of the members prefer a quality over quantity approach. You assumed something about me and you were wrong. Take that into account for the member who you upset earlier. I don't pick fights...I honestly don't even care about my own family fights (gave up).
NOW i have nothing left to say on the subject. fill me in on the outcome.174.29.191.40 (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I came back to the above comments, and there's a couple things I overlooked before. Spell check may flag "Ghris" and suggest spelling it "Chris", but it would not change "Ghriscore" to "Chriscore". Secondly, typing comments in the edit box on Wikipedia does not auto-correct. If you misspell something, it will underline it with a red squiggly line to let you know of a possible misspelling. You would have to manually select the suggested spelling for it to take effect. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gonein60 is either being deceptive or speaking on his limited personal experience with a android styled devices. As I type, as I'm doing now, I'm given the option to speed things up with a popup that gives several possible predictive choices. I have a keyboard touch screen hybrid. When I try to type ghriscore it intrusively gives me CHRIS in bold right smack in the center of my bar before I've even finished with the word! I'm a notoriously slow typer and horribly conditioned by my tech. Without thinking too deeply about it I tap my touch screen and select CHRIS since ghris doesn't feel right. Seriously, where do some people learn to spell??When the spelling nazi in me saw that I probably thought, as I'm in the habit and accustomed to, "Oh,must've got that wrong, just fix it." Then it memorizes my selection for future use by adding it to my custom dictionary app if I so like. This makes it a pain now to even get my device to spell ghriscore as it assumes I meant chriscore from prior edits. I don't get squigly red lines. My entire selection is underlined in black until I commit to it by selecting the predictive space or hit the space bar. If I leave it mispelled, only then will it 'sometimes' correct it for me. Glitchy and imperfectly inconsistent to say the least. I probably dont update as often as I should which might resolve bugs and stability issues. Niche chrome Google devices are far from perfect and don't conform to every device as Gonein60 would ignorantly like you to believe. An old bird like me lecturing computer junkies on how computers work. Times are a changing! Still dont get all the fuss over pokemon go. Forgive the aside. Couldnt resist. Again, this latest anecdotal observation, is as laughable as my bad sense of humor.50.207.104.18 (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You used the term "computer" in the earlier post, so one wouldn't normally include Android phone or tablet in that reasoning. You would just say "phone" or "tablet", even though both are technically computing devices (just not in the historical sense). Furthermore, you're all over the map with your excuses of changing IPs. First, you say you're having coffee and using the cafe's Wi-Fi. Then later, you claim to be using a friend's computer, apologizing again for the change in IP. Now it's your "Android" device? When does the charade end? Note that all of these instances were from the same exact IP address 50.207.104.18, despite the variety of explanations you've given. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, unless I have a cheap android laptop "computer" that is essentially a giant android niche device with a keyboard and a touch screen. But it still has an android os. Times are tough. Bestbuy salesman suckered me into one from the bargain bin for the fraction of the price :) As for being all over the map, you are exactly right. It's summer. I bicycle. I get around a lot. I'm part of a sustainable community that practices community. What's wrong with this old hippie taking the my cheap laptop along and stealing a little wifi here or there? God forbid, I'm guilty of even using a public computer at a hostel and, even, -gasp- my friend's rig at his domicile! :p Normally I wouldn't have even mentioned it (the other ips). I wasn't so much "apologizing." I was trying to avoid confusion since, yes, I don't invest in a traditional account and I also feel terrible for the clerks who have to read this. It's on us to make it as easy on them as possible and both of us get an F+ for that, not for a lack of trying to do better though. Sadly, had you not lucked out and tried to blacklist my home's WIFI IP address, I probably wouldn't have complained at all in the first place. I'm sure coffee shops and Starbuck WIFIs have wikipedia traffic all the time and have to deal with complaints. But others depend on that personal IP that I pay for. If you managed to blacklist it, I have no idea what the real world consequences are for the service provider. I'm not going to let a stalker like you get your way and get me in trouble with the internet company. I don't know what's in your heart. What if you are engaging in a scam? Maybe you are a Russian hacker? Who knows?? World's a scary place man and, sorry, you make my skin crawl.
As for "all these instances" (whatever that means) being from 50.207.104.18, you lost me there. I'm all over the map, as you quaintly put. The spelling problems I was experiencing when I was auto-correcting GHRIS CORE's name to say Chris Core was from another IP address, no disrespect meant to Mr.Core. And when you say "charade", you lost me there too. It should obvious by now that I edit from multiple IP addresses depending where the wind blows me on any particular day. That's not a crime. I'm not pretending to be different people from those IP. Isn't that the definition of socking? Maybe ContentEditman is IP socking but I don't have a way of investigating that on my end, so I don't know nor care. When I return home after my obligations, I will resume editing from my former IP at home. Rest assured. That's the boring truth whether you like it or not. Like telling you the truth will stop your emotional reasoning and stalking, as if you needed a reason.184.96.187.7 (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now it seems GoneIn60 is accusing me of being a sock puppet for "Ghriscore"? Like I said seems when GineIn60 does not get their way they throw a tantrum and just start accusing people to make them go away till they can get their way. They should be held accountable for their actions as this is a disgrace. ContentEditman (talk) 11:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it isn't socking, then it's likely meatpuppetry. That is the other way some people attempt to game the system. You had zero edits in this article, immediately join a discussion to side with an IP, and have nothing more to say but acting like your upset at the accusation. All that was required was a simple explanation. Flying off the handle is an overreaction, and cross-posting your dissatisfaction is disruptive (diff1, diff2, diff3). --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is not meatpuppetry either. I have never had any contact with ContentEditman prior, during or after my edits. We are not working together behind-the-scenes or in front of them to "game the system". When ContentEditman jumped in to offer his opinion on the ID4-sequel article talk page I simply agreed with him and drew attention to his position for the purpose of pointing out the current consensus much in the same way I was doing for TropicAces (the other editor involved). All 3 of us were making remarks and edits independent of each other without collusion. we just happen to be in a consensus that disagreed with 60gone. More interesting than any of this is your latest tactic: I will accept your 'shifting accusations' as an concession (intentional or otherwise) that you are on shaky ground with your false allegations since it now clearly exposes your commitment to a personal agenda for everyone to see **thumbs up**174.29.191.40 (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you were finished responding here, but apparently not. I only want to say that for the record, there was never any intention on my part to involve TropicAces in this SPI. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh so falsely accusing 2 people is enough? Even though as you said "While this isn't enough evidence on its own". So even you admit you have no cause and have only done so because you could not get your way on a talk page. Maybe you need to take a break as your edits are beyond good faith, they are just shameful now. ContentEditman (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
in response toGoneIn60, I 'WAS' satisfied with "moving on." Indeed I did say everything that needed to be said about your sockpuppetry false allegation. However you made a 'NEW' allegation about meatpuppetry which forced me to go on record to avoid the possibility of any misconceptions from a lack of a response. I am well aware of the waste of time and energy implied by your sarcasm. It is the price I pay for your continued disruptiveness with these false allegations here and elsewhere - which has become your signature tactic in the service of your agenda and your gaming of the system. Update: in your defense I would like to go on record and say I do not condone the tone or tactics by ContentEditman against you (ie. like the nonsense he posted on tropicace's page 'warning' him). In his defense, however, so he doesn't think we are all ganging up against him, you DID provoke ContentEditman with a very serious accusation out of left-field that would upset and embarrass any reasonable person. I wouldn't be too hard on poor ContentEditman. In these articles you come off as a cunning passiveaggressive control-freak. The way you manage conflict with those you clearly dislike is crazy-making. With all of that out of the way, barring another new false accusation from you GoneIn60, I intend for this to be my final thoughts on the matter.**fingers crossed**174.29.191.40 (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update#1 Staying at another household with a different family for a bit. Editing from this different address for now @ 184.96.160.15. My previous internet address was 174.29.191.40. Advise me if it would be easier for me to make an account to track my progress and I am all ears. Never on here enough to maintain an account, but, I'm all for mitigating confusion.184.96.160.15 (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update#2 Really now? Responding to the latest accusation. Ianmalcolmclone is also not my account. GoneIn60 is ignoring the fact that when Ianmalcolmclone showed up I too warned him about getting involved in the content dispute on the ID4-sequel article because of the investigation here. In the interest of fairness to all I embarrassingly bent over backwards at that time to warn everyone involved, especially 'ianmalomcone', about not resuming the content debate until this dispute is resolved. I politely shared my fear there that it might come off as some unintentional way to game the system and might stir up problems with this SPI. That much was implied by my warning. I also encouraged the other editors involved on the article talk section to weigh-in on the content dispute so we could arrive at a proper consensus knowing full well they might not agree with me. I was clear in my recommendation there that we should only act on a proper and thoughtful consensus and not a simple up and down vote just because a newcomer weighed in. GoneIn60 is conveniently ignoring this fact in favor of shoehorning the specifics into her self-serving narrative and paranoia.
Someone should point out that the motion picture itself titled "Independence Day" is a summer blockbuster in recent opening release. The new comments in dispute on the film's article are around the time of the extended opening weekends and especially the July 4th independence day holiday when marketing for the film was being pushed hard as a tie-in to the title's connection to the holiday theme. I mention this because this may explain the recent and renewed interest and activity on the page.
To be fair to GoneIn60, I acknowledge it is possible that Ianmalcolmclone and ContentEditman are the same person only because I do not know them personally and I have no other way of investigating this on my end. I have limited experience with this kind of abstruse drama that frequently plagues Wikipedia. Maybe she is seeing something here that I do not with her greater internet experience to inform her. I can only speak for myself. However, if it needs to be said again, ContentEditman is not my account. Ianmalcolmclone is not my account. I also do not know them personally or in any other way. i can say in my defense with 100% certainty and confidence that the user or users behind ContentEditman and Ianmalcolmclone are not using 'my' ip address or computer to participate in Wikipedia on this or any other matter.184.96.160.15 (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update#3: Gone60 is deliberately distorting the facts. One only needs to look at her edit history to see that she knows better than to make a false accusation like this. Yes. Contenteditman went on the ghostbusters talk page a full 3 days after I did. However, that is where Gone60 is being deceiving. If you examine contenteditman's edit carefully on the talk, he was arguing in favor of a position I am against. 3 days earlier I argued the ghostbusters reboot deserves mention of the positive reception it received by critics. However, contenteditman is part of a camp of editors who believe that the film received a mixed reception, a tag I firmly opposed. Gone60 conveniently left this detail out, suggesting that we are working "in tandem" when contenteditman and I clearly disagree.
The only real coincidence is that we have shown an interest in this movie at all. But that is also misleading as a lot of the same editors who like film show a similar interest in summer movies during opening weekend. The editor tropicaces, mentioned here before, is one of many editors who hop on a film article during opening weekend. Expect these same editors to be on the "Suicide Squad" page around opening weekend. This "coincidence" can be explained away by the simple fact of a common interest by film fans of big summer blockbuster movies. This is no more evidence of meat puppeting or socking than Gone60's presence on those articles.
But this pattern of cunning though desperate false accusations are evidence of Gone60s WP:wikihounding, as pointed out by another of the accused. It is also falling into a pattern of gaming the system by Gone60, as retaliation against those she is having an edit war against. Again, for the record, I do not know contenteditman nor am I working with him in any sense.
Note: For today I am using a friend's computer so my IP today will be different than my normal IP. SORRY for the confusion.50.207.104.18 (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ContentEditman has made just 2 edits outside of the Independence Day: Resurgence article since this discussion reached its peak, and one of those was to the talk page of Ghostbusters (2016 film) – a discussion I was already participating in. What are the chances? Your editing history also shows a similar pattern, in which the only other film article involvement was the exact same talk page discussion at Ghostbusters. It is always possible that patterns like this are a coincidence when they occur on their own, but a string of them together is extremely unlikely, going back to the Christine Cavanaugh article. The fact that you two disagreed two days apart in two different discussions on that talk page makes little difference to the overall picture. Sockpuppets and meatpuppets have been known to disagree with one another to deflect criticism during an ongoing investigation (you can look at the other SPI's I've been involved in to see just how common that is). You can deny it all you want, but it's highly suspicious that both accounts landed on the same talk pages with only a handful of edits in their history. And for the record to avoid future confusion, I'm male. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well, you could've fooled me. As for your false accusation that ContentEditman jumped on the page 3 days later hoping to mislead this investigation, the problem with that self-serving paranoid spin is that the Ghostbusters article was not the original source of contention (the Independence Day 2 article was). Neither one of us was involved in a direct (or indirect) dispute with you on the Ghostbusters article. Again....(since you conveniently ignored it earlier) had you honestly appraised my edits there, then compared it to ContenteEditman, you would see that our edits were completely 'independent' of each other in every meaningful sense (and spirit) of the word. Also, I have never had any interest in ChristineCavanaugh. So where the hell are you getting that from????? At best, there appears to be that mutual interest in summer popcorn movies during opening weekend. Get your facts straight.
A common interest in the opening weekend of a big summer films is truly the only coincidence you have on us. With that debunked, however, you are now saying (to paraphrase) that "meat puppets sometimes go in different directions on an article and dont always agree on everything". Maybe they do and maybe that isn't proof 'against' meatpuppeting. But taken by itself, it is not evidence of meatpuppeting either. However, that is not stopping you from offering this superficial correlation, and others like it, as hard 'evidence' anyways - which is why your 'argument' doesn't hold water.
You are deliberately trying to frame superficial correlations as meaningful coincidences. A superficial coincidence by itself is a leaky bucket and a poor substitute for an 'actual' argument. And no matter how many of these leaky buckets you stack together, your 'argument' will never hold water as long as you continue to ignore the 'facts' like this. This is the 'hole' in your accusations. And, again, the simple 'fact' (whether you like it or not) is that neither ContentEditman nor I have worked together on the 2016 Ghostbusters article in any meaningful sense. In other words, you have zero 'real' evidence. The burden of proof is on you, not us (the accused). You are engaging in a long winded appeal of ignorance.
And let's get something straight here: You are not going to convince me, of all people, that ContentEditman is my sockpuppet or meatpuppet when I'm the one person here who knows the truth and the truth here is that ContentEditman is neither my account NOR am I working "in tandem" with him! So you can stop. This latest paranoid anecdotal observation is something you are trying to weasel in as 'evidence'. You are either at best delusional or most likely deliberately trying to mislead others and manipulate this SPI process. I vote for the latter. It should be obvious if we thoughtfully dissect your latest attempt to stack the deck. All we need to do is look at carefully at your 'own' recent edit history, which you have overlooked.
For starters - there is "no string of coincidences", to quote you. As I demonstrated above, that is - at the very least - a gross exaggeration. When you look closely, it is also probably 'a lie.' This wouldn't be the first time in as many of days. After you made this new kneejerk defense, I did a little digging of my own and saw that you recently canvassed for page protection on the "Independence Day" article and not only was that request declined but you were also called out for trying to mislead the adminstrators there for suggesting that "multiple IPs were vandalising the page" when the truth was, according to them, it was clear that "only ONE IP" was responsible for the disruption. You were promptly lectured by them to use an API next time if you have a personal problem with an editor rather than trying to misuse the system toward that end. I mention this incident here since your pattern of exaggeration, and abusing process to game the system, is spilling here into your SPI in a glaring way.
The timing of that dispute and your knee jerk comments here indicate a failed attempt on your part to insincerely use page protection there as a means to help you advance an agenda in an edit war you lost over "language in the lead" (that clearly represented a WP:NPOV violation). It would be easier there to reverse our edits under the cover of page protection. Apparently this is something you're into. And here you are doing the same thing now with this SPI in a similar strategy to game system. Sorry, but that is too hard a 'real' coincidence to shake. Here and there is a pattern of you trying to abuse process to serve an agenda rather than acknowledging that these SPIs and APIs and requests for page protection should only be used with CLEAR evidence and toward the end of protecting the rules and guidelines, not 'your' self-interests. Clearly your long experience on wikipedia demands that you know better than to do this. It also demands you extend good faith even to those you perceive to be new editors rather than rashly judging them this way.
As for ContentEditman's interest in two pages that I have a loose interest in, I offered a plausible explanation: the 2016 Ghostbusters movie and Independence Day 2 movie were 'big' summer films and, as such, attract likeminded editors who are drawn to these pages during the opening weekends of these films. Some of us are big cinema fans (looking at you too). I notice the other editor here named tropicaces and you also page-hop on film articles during a film's opening weekend. Expect some of us to migrate to the "Suicide Squad" film page in coming days or weeks when that film opens. That "coincidence" alone isn't enough to suggest socking or meatpuppeting between you and tropicaces or me and any of you.
In your defense, since I dont know ContentEditman personally, if his interest in those two film articles I visited is truly "more than a coincidence"(to paraphrase you again) then, at worst, maybe (like you) he is guilty of WP:WIKIHOUNDING my IP address. In other words, there may be the remote possibility he is 'also' following me around. In the event he is doing that to harass me or because he secretly likes me or is simply using my edit history to find pages to edit (which some editors do out of boredom and laziness) then I would ask him to stop if he reads this. I don't know if stalking me is a bannable offense, but I 'do know' (for the record) that ContentEditman is not my account, not my sock, not my friend or ally, not my meat puppet, etc. I don't know him personally. I don't wish to know him or you personally.
Note: I'm having coffee, using their wifi. IP will be different for obvious reasons. Corrected grammar elsewhere. Might be IP overlap. Also, as a warning to others reading this novella, sorry for MY long winded response. My patience is at an end with this troll's 'crazy-making' sock witch hunt.50.207.104.18 (talk) 23:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Well, you could've fooled me"
Avoid the personal attacks. It doesn't help your case.
"...not only was that request declined but you were also called out for trying to mislead the adminstrators"
You can't be serious. The admin who reviewed the request missed this edit in his/her review. Things get missed sometimes, that's all it was. Had they caught it, they might have drawn a different conclusion. There was no language suggesting anyone was intentionally misleading. It does show, however, how closely you are monitoring my edits. It's a shame to think you dedicated two paragraphs to this "gotcha" investigation that fell flat. Interesting...
"...you have zero 'real' evidence"
That's exactly why we have the SPI process. A pattern of behavior is recognized, and administrators who possess tools to help confirm or deny those suspicions can weigh in. If it turns out that these suspicions were incorrect, then I would completely understand, as I don't have the ability to confirm them further beyond editing patterns and behavior. Regardless of the outcome, I'm confident that I had justification to raise the concerns in the first place.
"A common interest in...big summer films"
I'd agree with this argument if your "common interest" extended beyond two films. So far out of all the blockbuster films released this summer, these are the only two you both have focused on. Mere coincidence? I think not, considering all the other summer blockbusters.
"You are either at best delusional or most likely deliberately trying to mislead others and manipulate this SPI process."
For someone who has taken offense to a basic SPI report, it's a bit of double-standard to lob insults without hesitation. Why so sensitive on the receiving end?
I'm beginning to feel terrible for the clerk or patrolling admin who has to read all this. Hopefully they just look at the previous section, confirm/deny a link, and leave comments without wasting an hour they won't get back by reading this. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal:
"Avoid the personal attacks. It doesn't help your case."
But it can't hurt at this point. Lighten up. I was having fun with this. Otherwise I might succumb to your WP:Wikihounding, which thoroughly creeped me out. You've been 'MORE' than sarcastic and passive-aggressive for the two of us in your obsession with me. "Sorry, but my soap box is higher than your horse."
"You can't be serious...The admin who reviewed the request...might have drawn a different conclusion. There was no language suggesting anyone was intentionally misleading..."
Of course there was. And of course I am. You just tried to mislead again, here. Proving my point about your perchance to distort facts. You rashly tried to protect a page you are edit warring on with this claim - (you wrote)"Persistent vandalism – Multiple editors removing sourced content repeatedly."
Yet, you were told clearly by the editors, when they declined your request that "Warn the user appropriately then report them to AIV or ANI if they continue. There's only been one recent IP which removed that information." Even if it was as many as 'two' editors doing this, it certainly wasn't 'multiple' editors (as in, a lot of people) 'persistently' vandalizing a page. But that won't stop you from trying to make excuses for your tendency to exaggerate and mislead with more exaggeration and deception when called out on it.
you dedicated two paragraphs to this "gotcha" investigation that fell flat. Interesting...."
And yet another distortion. You are on a roll. I clearly "never investigated" you. So there was nothing to fall flat. Just something for the clerk to consider if he is curious about your agenda in this. Yes, I am exposing your pattern of gaming the system here in order to provide context for your latest false accusation. Clearly, when your request was declined, you didn't take it too well and you promptly came over here to your SPI to take it out on some of us. I simply wrote two meager paragraphs and left it at that. You've wasted a whole SPI here (speaking of investigations that have gone nowhere) and made countless, exhausting false accusations against me and others. Interesting indeed.
So far out of all the blockbuster films released this summer, these are the only two you both have focused on. Mere coincidence?"
Sure, if we remove your distortion here. You are making an assumption that I only focus on these two subjects. I can't speak for 'ContentEditman' but it looks like he too edits from multiple IPs and just now decided to make an account for whatever reason. I have no desire to have an account. It would be one thing is there was cross-interest between his IP addresses and mine but when you compare the four or five IPs you listed above with mine, the only articles that have any correlation are these two films. That is hardly a pattern. If he made his account around the time the summer blockbuster season kicked into high gear with the ID4 sequel, you are basing your correlation with the one time I disagreed with you, not my actual history editing.
Why so sensitive on the receiving end?"
You are trying to blacklist my IP address because I dared to disagree with you about a movie. Should I be doing cartwheels over it? You remind me of that joke where the child runs crying to her mother, and when asked what is wrong, she replies "That kid over there hit me back!"
That's exactly why we have the SPI process."
You said this in response to my complaint that you initiated this SPI without 'real' evidence. I can't speak for patrolling admins, but I would imagine they prefer SPIs where you do most of the work for them, and not the other way around. The sad part here is I really don't know 'ContentEditman'. So when you find out how much of their time you wasted on all of this, boy are you in for a surprise. I probably wouldn't have been so invested myself if it wasn't for the fact that we live in an age of vicious culture wars and government surveillance. If my IP address somehow got blacklisted by your shenanigans because I failed to respond to this, I would never forgive myself. Other people use this IP as well. Not worth the risk. Read too many horror stories in the news about the perils of internet stalking. I was being vigilant. Yes - I'm PTSD.
I'm beginning to feel terrible for the clerk or patrolling admin who has to read all this."
Finally. Something we can 'all' agree upon. To the patrolling admin(s), you have my empathy as well. If you are having trouble sleeping, maybe this long-winded SPI can substitute as a drug-free sedative.LoL ... Accept my humble apology.184.96.187.7 (talk) 08:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"You are making an assumption that I only focus on these two subjects...not my actual history editing."
Glad you brought it up. What is your "actual" editing history? Care to share the other blockbuster film articles you've edited, maybe provide some diffs showing the edits you've made? If you believe in being transparent, this would aid the cause. Also, you mentioned a few weeks ago that you were staying "with a different family" at "another household", which led to your IP change. Just curious here, but are there any plans to edit under the former IP again? Why not create an account? --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never seen a more blantant example of WP:BAIT in my life than this SPI and your drama surrounding it. Shame on me for enabling you and your soap opera. You insincerely whine about the length of our argument on this SPI and then, after the fact, you add 3+ unnecessary paragraphs in as many of days! "Poor clerks" is right!! So much for you "feeling terrible for the clerk or patrolling admin who has to read all this." You said, "Hopefully they just look at the previous section, confirm/deny a link, and leave comments without wasting an hour they won't get back by reading this." That was great advice. Too bad you don't follow it.
When you launched your SPI, it was based on a sole, solitary correlation between me and ContentEditman and 'NOT' an actual coincidence. That correlation was little more than us loosely disagreeing with your position during the opening weekend of a popular summer film, on the talk page no less! Neither one of us had even edited the page yet. You didn't base your SPI on "my actual edit history". You based it on that meaningless correlation, a lot emotional reasoning, anecdotal observations, and another meaningless correlation. Yes, ContentEditman joined some of us for the fun in another article about the opening weekend about the next biggest popular summer film of the year to come after the ID4 sequel. What that says about him, or I, seems rather benign when you remove your cunning trolling about it here and elsewhere. Have to -LOL- at myself for taking the bait when that much became clear. Learned my lesson.
Knowing that you like to get the last word in, please realize that my responses here will be limited moving forward. If you or another editor adds something new to the conversation that warrants a response, I'll chime back in. Don't expect a response otherwise.184.96.187.7 (talk) 04:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Copied one of my posts practically verbatim, how clever. So much for transparency; you've dodged the question about your supposed "editing history". No surprise there. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ContentEditman/Archive&oldid=738278545"