Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GroundRisk/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


GroundRisk

26 April 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


I first came across GroundRisk when nominating his "Civilization Jihad" screed for deletion (now at User:GroundRisk/sandbox).

  • As things went on, I noticed that the CeceliaXIV and GroundRisk accounts edited each other's sandboxes (eg. [1] [2]), which both contained the same content; I warned GroundRisk not to sockpuppet, at which point use of the CeceliaXIV account stopped. (Which, in my view, isn't worthy of punishment now that the behavior has stopped; I submit the evidence in case it helps clerks get a bead on the IP address.)
  • Now I find that a new user Gravyknife has created a new article (see a diff here) that links the original "Civilization Jihad" article (now deleted) and bears all the hallmarks of GroundRisk's old article, namely unabashed conspiracy-theorizing (particularly about American Muslims), original research, and a fairly well-formed citation style that does not use templates.
  • Dagnytaggartmoxie I came across when searching WP for other users of "civilization jihad"; some of the text s/he added is identical to text by GroundRisk/CeceliaXIV in aforementioned sandbox/es.
  • Silicate minerals's first edit was restoring material removed from Semantic infiltration ([3]); this may be a coincidence, but worth CU anyway.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

  1. Let me first say that in my over 5 years on Wikipedia that (believe it or not) I've never come across a suspected sockpuppet before, so you should take that into account when reading my further comments. Also, to be clear, I have occasionally butted heads with "GroundRisk (GR)" over the content in his Civilization Jihad "article" since the end of last year. With that being said, in previously reviewing "GR's" short history of edits on Wikipedia, it's pretty obvious to me that that account is a single purpose account which has been dedicated to pushing the Civilization Jihad "article" around Wikipedia in the Jihad and Muslim Brotherhood articles. I don't think that "GR" has edited a single article on Wikipedia beyond those two articles, with the exception of his/her/it's and other's sandbox entries. Also based on a previous review of their edits on Wikipedia, it actually seems to me that "GR" is a sockpuppet of "CeceliaXIV" in that both users have attempted to push the same content (mostly Civilization Jihad stuff) in the Jihad and Muslim Brotherhood articles in November of 2012. In any event, "CeceliaXIV" has edited way more articles (mostly it appears from an American Right-wing POV) than "GR" has on Wikipedia. I have previously brought up to "GR" the fact that he/she/it has previously claimed to have "did wikipedia work years ago" but "GR" has IMHO been unable to answer this issue clearly on several occasions ("I don't have to sit here and be interrogated on my past workings on Wikipedia"). "GR" also has a history of trying to lie about their edits on Wikipedia. As far the other users listed above, "Dagnytaggartmoxie" appears to have some kind of axe to grind with the Muslim Brotherhood and/or the Muslim Students' Association, but that's all that I can tell from my admittedly inexperienced end. I hope that at least some of the above info helps out in this investigation. Guy1890 (talk) 01:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am getting blamed for articles I have nothing to do with. Maybe the fact that I am not the only one writing about this should be proof that it is not a conspiracy. I will admit I messed up when I took the article from CeceliaXIV but I do NOT multiple accounts. GroundRisk (talk) 12:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what "GR" is specifically admitting to above. The Civilization Jihad page appears to have gone into one of "GR's" sandboxes at 23:13 on April 3, 2013, then it almost immediately went into CeceliaXIV's sandbox at 23:14 on April 3, 2013, but it was only "userfied" into another one of "GR's" sandboxes by User:Someguy1221 (after being previously speedily deleted at the end of March of 2013) at 23:20 on April 3, 2013. I'm confused by this timeline of events. Guy1890 (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rules for Checkuser are very strict: I quote from the instructions Checkuser has very strict usage and privacy policies. The CheckUser tool will only be used if a Checkuser believes there is clear evidence of likely sock abuse and also good reason why Checkuser is needed to resolve the matter. Requests for CheckUser attention without both of these will be declined. It seems that "maybe a coincidence but" is somewhat short of that rather high bar. No apology necessary. Silicate minerals (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Silicate minerals" appears to be a "brand new" (started editing on April 26, 2013) Wikipedia user that appears to be giving advice to another user on how to develop a sockpuppet to avoid a potential block ("I seriously suggest that you consider as your plan B simply dropping your current user name, adopting a new one with no references to external identities and continue editing as before under the new name. You should not make any kind of link between them on-wiki"). Wow, weird...I should note that I've had no prior experience whatsoever with this user before right here & now. Guy1890 (talk) 08:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's called Wikipedia:Clean start. You might also like to review WP:WIAPA before throwing accusations around. Silicate minerals (talk) 08:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not quite a clean start. From the page, "It is expected that the new account will be a true "fresh start", will edit in new areas and avoid old disputes, and will follow community norms of behavior," as opposed to what you said, "continue editing as before under the new name". Ansh666 10:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And is that advise on how to "develop a sockpuppet" in your opinion? Silicate minerals (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't commenting on sockpuppetry (despite being in SPI; ironic, eh?), but instead on your misunderstanding of "clean start". If I were to guess, I'd say that you're not a sockpuppet/meatpuppet, but another user trying to follow that slightly corrupted version of "clean start" - your first 4 edits were participating in edit wars and removing a PROD, which isn't particularly promising. Ansh666 11:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whoopsies! Guess I guessed wrong. Ansh666 21:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a min...why did you strike his text already? I understand it might be obvious, but shouldn't the investigation finish first? Ansh666 21:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the investigation is over for User: Silicate minerals, as they got blocked indefinitely for being a sockpuppet. Guy1890 (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(If you're referring to me, which you probably aren't but whatever:) It wasn't when I said that, but I guess WP:DUCK. Not sure how I didn't notice that, as I'm pretty sure I've seen another Echigo mole sock somewhere before. (Then again, as I admitted on AfD, I really need more sleep nowadays.) I'm going to leave this now as I have no more relation to it. Good luck everyone! Ansh666 21:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

 Check declined by a checkuser. In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:

  1. At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
  2. At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
  3. In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this.

--(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

03 May 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


See Economic jihad (can't give diff of article creation, so here is 2nd diff [4]). WP:DUCK on the content and citation style of "Civilization jihad", an article promulgated by GroundRisk and various socks that has now been deleted in several namespaces. (Also uses a sandbox, which, while obviously not suspicious in itself, is another thing that those accounts did.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:07, 3 May 2013 (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]
13 May 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Creator of Cultural infiltration, which bears strong similarities to articles created by GroundRisk and socks (Civilization Jihad, Economic jihad, Semantic infiltration), content reverted at Transnational organization - both in terms of content (scary Muslims and Soviets undermining our society) and style (capital letters in headings, well-formatted citations without the use of templates, the use of a sandbox). FWIW, I found this article when searching WP for articles that cited Patrick Sookhdeo, whom several GroundRisk articles cited, in order to flush out more socks. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by other users
[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. First of all, this is a ridiculous accusation. I can't believe you are accusing every single person that uses that book to be a sockpuppet. Also are you seriously denying cultural infiltration from Soviets during the Cold War. HAHA wow. You need to read some books buddy. GroundRisk (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence do you guys have for this being an account of mine?? I have never even seen this page until now! GroundRisk (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - As I've stated in this forum before, I have very limited experience dealing with sockpuppets on Wikipedia, but we have a user here ("GroundRisk") that has created at least 6 sockpuppets/single purpose accounts (User:Julia Weiland, User:CeceliaXIV, User:Gravyknife, User:Dagnytaggartmoxie, User:Nm280220 & User:Wam5995) and that same user has only been blocked for one week so far? I understand the hesitation at blocking a user for things that they stealthly did before a block was originally imposed, but, especially given the user in question's displayed attitude here & elsewhere, what kind of message is it sending if a user can pretty much edit at will from multiple Wikipedia accounts over at least a series of months & basically get away with it? Guy1890 (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
  • I've blocked Julia Weiland as an obvious sock. I did not block the sockmaster because he already received a week-long block for socking on May 2, which is after the Julia Weiland sock was active. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/GroundRisk/Archive&oldid=1079622298"