Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/123dantek/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Earlier this year: User:BernardZ got into an edit war at The Exodus. Started here; other examples  ; example of talk page discussion diff

May: User:Tgeorgescu warned BernardZ and filed at ANI (Note: previous SPI negative for BernardZ & User:Macquaire)

28 Jun: A second ANI filing against BernardZ led to an indef block

30 Jun: User:Ecopeacevision, an account created in 2017 but dormant, starts editing:  and also User:Ecopeacevision/sandbox and User:Ecopeacevision

5 Jul: User:123dantek account is created, does not edit much

For months thereafter: (see below for detail) a variety of IP addresses and usernames make edits to The Exodus (see below). All or almost all edits are of the same type; almost all of these accounts are SPA based on contribs (usually only a handful of contribs).

21 Dec: User:123dantek, after being dormant, starts editing:
 * User:123dantek's 18th edit was filing an ArbCom request against User:Tgeorgescu.

More diffs: I went backwards and stopped at 20 IPs. (You're welcome.) There are many more edits like this.

27 Sep: 46.133.114.76 diff

30 Sep: 2601:4C4:C203:5BBD:F9B4:DDC8:B405:6C56 diff

30 Sep: 122.62.54.75 diff

30 Sep: 174.255.9.117 diff

2 Oct: Durfels diff1 diff2

14 Oct: 12.237.119.12 diff

14 Oct: 88.105.239.124 diff

18 Oct: 68.102.88.87 diff

25 Oct: 65.190.31.158 diff

25 Oct: 206.211.34.3 diff

29 Oct: 165.255.210.187 diff

30 Oct: 188.156.47.149 diff

1 Nov: 2600:1702:E40:D0A0:3C92:97D4:C466:7085 diff

6 Nov: 2601:1C0:CA01:72EF:F7:BE2D:8DB:EFC6 diff1 diff2

6 Nov: Versionary diff

14 Nov: 172.58.41.143 diff

15 Nov: MJervis79 diff1 diff2

21 Nov: 74.139.231.131 diff

4 Dec 5:21: 71.179.81.228 diff

4 Dec 5:52: 2601:243:2080:48A0:2174:3706:49A8:D4F4 diff

5 Dec: 2600:100D:B12B:68B3:F902:1009:C146:1284 diff

10 Dec: 68.170.107.213 diff

13 Dec: 173.3.232.197 diff

21–22 Dec: 123dantek's diff's given diff diff diff and arc

Thank you for checking this. Levivich (talk) 07:21, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

I think that isn't. BernardZ at least bothered to quote real professors and while he wasn't a star of WP:CIR, his level of WP:CIR was far above Ecopeacevision's. R.E. Friedman and the Exodus are WP:DUCK for BernardZ. How do I know? Talk:The Exodus/Archive 17. WP:Advocacy for Friedman's view of the Exodus is precisely what did at. While Friedman could be seen in general as a mainstream scholar, his vision about the Exodus did not gain much traction, and it wasn't completely original, as stated about the theories of "mixed multitude". Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:30, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I saw the 'sock puppet' accusation on my page and I vehemently deny any and all such claims. I am not the other accounts who have made edits to The Exodus Wikipedia page. I am also not advocating myself or my views. I am simply looking at the evidence and I a different conclusion than the article and I wouldn't back down and now I am being accused of being a 'sock puppet'. This is despicable, I am NOT the other accounts. 123dantek (talk) 08:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * For a start, you have found WP:ARC page really, really fast. This makes it highly unlikely that you would be a newbie. By the way, you don't indent your replies, same behavior as . Both him and had problems with properly indenting their replies. See e.g.  and . Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:11, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I have had The Exodus article on my watchlist for quite some time, and it regurarly attracts vandals and Biblical literalists. While User:123dantek's edits are disruptive, he/she did not summarize Friedman's theories. He mostly added an external link to an interview with Friedman. I doubt he is . On another topic, User:123dantek's citation was improperly titled and was missing information on whose ideas it was citing. I may be wrong, but this does not sound like a veteran editor. Dimadick (talk) 09:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Yup, he/she did not summarize the Levites hypothesis, but the interview is definitely about it. Also, his/her first and second attempts produced a properly formatted reference, he/she got it wrong in his/her third attempt. In total, at the Exodus he/she got reverted by only two editors, none of which was me, but he/she has only accused me or wrongdoing. So, he/she has an axe to grind against me, not against or . Another diff for improper indentation: . Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

You actually think just because of my formatting I'm someone else? I found things quickly because it was in my notifications with a link. I agree that there is insufficient evidence for this 'sock puppet' claim and that it is quite suspicious. 123dantek (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Insufficient evidence. I find the filer of this report more suspicious than the alleged master.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC)