Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bov/Archive

Report date April 14 2009, 21:16 (UTC) (copy from Huntdowntheconspiracists)

 * Suspected sockpuppets
 * - active since 2006, all edits confined to 9/11 conspiracy theory promotion, will also list this one at WP:AE and request an indefinite topic ban. Possible master account.
 * - possible username violation as well.
 * - active since 2006, all edits confined to 9/11 conspiracy theory promotion, will also list this one at WP:AE and request an indefinite topic ban. Possible master account.
 * - possible username violation as well.
 * - active since 2006, all edits confined to 9/11 conspiracy theory promotion, will also list this one at WP:AE and request an indefinite topic ban. Possible master account.
 * - possible username violation as well.
 * - active since 2006, all edits confined to 9/11 conspiracy theory promotion, will also list this one at WP:AE and request an indefinite topic ban. Possible master account.
 * - possible username violation as well.
 * - active since 2006, all edits confined to 9/11 conspiracy theory promotion, will also list this one at WP:AE and request an indefinite topic ban. Possible master account.
 * - possible username violation as well.
 * - possible username violation as well.


 * (and another — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC))


 * Evidence submitted by Jehochman Talk

The above accounts are an example of the stead stream of redlink accounts (or recycled banned users) coming to disrupt Collapse of the World Trade Center‎ and World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. See WP:ARB9/11 for a list of previously banned users, and the relevant general sanctions. See the above user's contributions. As they are single purpose accounts, it is quite easy to see their agendas are all one and the same.

There is a possibility that meat puppetry is involved, rather than simple socking. See [ and (note the latter is trying to get people to add some text to an article). User:Hut 8.5 originally posted those links and analysis. We should check and try to distinguish the nature of these single purpose, disruptive accounts.Jehochman Talk 21:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Although there is clearly a personal dispute going on between Jehochman and me, we have started to discuss this in a more civilized way on his talk page. He also has reintroced a section from a talk page that he had previously deleted. In order to reduce administrative work, I suggest to ask Jehochman whether he specifically insists on the sock puppet investigation with regard to my account. --Cs32en (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm listing all the single purpose accounts that showed up at the page in a short time frame espousing the same point of view. You happen to be one of them.  You might be an uninvolved bystander, or not.  I can't tell for sure.  A check is warranted. Jehochman Talk 21:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know whether you will also accuse me of meat-puppetry or not. For the record, I will say that I have not been asked by anyone to open my Wikipedia account nor did I ask any other person to do so. I also did not see the websites on which people suggest to open new accounts on Wikipedia before Hut 8.5 has reported on them on the Administrators'_noticeboard. I don't object to the investigation, actually I have thought about asking for such an investigation myself. (Such requests, however, are not accepted.) --Cs32en (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I have seen a warning on a user talk page that includes the sentence "Unless you try to seek consensus very carefully, it is possible there will be a mass enforcement in which many accounts that are all trying to insert the same point of view will be blocked." (diff). Is this language acceptable on Wikipedia, and will the compliance or non-compliance of one of several accounts that are part of an investigation have an effect on possible measures taken against other accounts? --Cs32en (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem to be different enough from the others that I'd oppose blocking your account for sock puppetry in the absence of technical evidence. I think there is enough circumstantial evidence (could just be bad luck) to warrant a check.  The other accounts could very well be meat puppets, and I might support blocking them even without technical evidence.  Checking them for sock puppetry may be useful because it could reveal connections to other accounts not yet listed here.  I hope these distinctions are helpful. Jehochman Talk 23:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no connection whatsoever with any of the other accounts on this page, as checkuser will verify. Nor have I broken any rules.  I understand fully that anyone expressing a "Truther POV" is routinely blocked on the basis of expressing this forbidden POV, as Jehochman has pointed out several times.  However, I have not expressed any POV; I only questioned what the reason is why we cannot mention the existence of the recent report alleging nanothermite use, as relevant to the conspiracy theory article, when practically everyone already knows about it now anyway. I've never suggested the report be presented as reliable; only that it seems more strange to pretend the report has no relevance, and grossly unjust to try to punish editors like me simply for asking questions. If the point of all this is to quash a full and free discussion on whether or not the nanothermite report is relevant to the  article on theorists, it's working. No Time Toulouse (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

While this issue is not directly related to the sockpuppet investigation, there is now a discussion on (one of the) underlying disagreements about the interpretation of established Wikipedia policies on the WP:Verifiability talk page. --Cs32en (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I hardly know how to respond to the special attention I've received from Jehochman. First of all, my purpose is not to promote conspiracy theories per se but to try do something about the biased way they are treated on many Wikipedia articles. Some of my edits stuck, while some stuck for long until suddenly removed by someone. I don't have very much time to devote to Wikipedia, so I concentrate on the topic that I consider to be the subject of especially biased treatment, based on both my knowledge of historical conspiracies and false-flag operations and the rather voluminous evidence that points to 9/11 also being a false-flag operation. So, I'm acting on what I see as an agenda by some Wikipedia editors and try to promote a fairer and more neutral treatment of the issues. It is, for example, difficult not to suspect an agenda when an influential article, published in a peer-reviewed science journal presenting evidence for demolition and receiving respectful mainstream coverage is removed from a Wikipedia article dealing with WTC demolition conspiracy theory - please see my comments here:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories#Respectful_and_serious_coverage_of_the_nanothermite_residue_article_in_reliable_sources_in_Danmark


 * And no, I have not engaged in sock puppetry, so I request that my username be removed from the list. Witch hunts should have no place on Wikipedia.
 * Perscurator (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "Possible master account"
 * I forgot to comment on that. I don't even really understand what "master account" means here. It is possible that someone really wants to extinguish different perspectives. Perscurator (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The master account is the "puppet master" of the sock puppets and/or meat puppets. That means, the main account being used to coordinate the disruption. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users

User:Huntdowntheconpiracists has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of User:DawnisuponUS, amongst other users. See this ANI thread. Hut 8.5 19:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This blog post and its replies are trying to get people to add material to Wikipedia articles, including advice on wearing down editors removing the material in question. One of the people posting this is "Vesa", who edits Wikipedia as Perscurator. Hut 8.5 16:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested by Jehochman Talk21:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

Additional information needed: Please provide a code letter. SPCUClerkbot (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you meant code letter A, Jehochman? I do not see any ArbCom ban mentioned above. Tiptoety  talk 21:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * now that the Arbcom breach has been made clear. Mayalld (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * I can see how AC sanction evasion might apply in this case. Jehochman, can you provide a few diffs from each account demonstrating the similarity between them? Avruch  T 22:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Check the "contribs" for any of the accounts and look at the pages they've edited, then click any diff (or a random sample of three diffs) and you'll see that virtually all contributions by these accounts are of the same nature: pushing Truther POV. That's why I've called them single purpose accounts.  Jehochman Talk 23:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Right, buy what we are asking is why you chose code letter A (arbcom sanctions violation). Is there a ArbCom case this user has violated? Tiptoety  talk 23:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:ARB9/11. Oh, wait.  I already mentioned that in my evidence.  Maybe you missed it.  A large number of users have been banned.  These apparent newcomers could be recycled banned users, or this might be meat puppetry.  In any case, the accounts are gaming the rules and editing disruptively.  The arbitration case requires notification before somebody can be banned.  Users starting new accounts to get multiple bites of the apple looks like an arbitration violation to me. Jehochman Talk 16:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Also ✅ the following as one user: ,, , , , , , are ❌ to any user listed. is – operating from an open proxy. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * ✅ the following as one user:


 * I have blocked both groups of confirmed socks indefinitely, but I am not going to tag as I am not sure there is a clear sockmaster. As for the other accounts, I am leaving them unblocked. Tiptoety  talk 00:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's not close this yet. We have an allegation that Perscurator has been canvassing off site for meat puppets.  I'd like that account blocked (or banned from all 9/11 pages under WP:ARB9/11. The meat puppet accounts also need to be deal with.  As we know, checkuser does not help in determining meat puppetry. Finally, there is an account editing through an open proxy.  Considering the large number of users banned from 9/11 topics, and that IrFactor is a single purpose, I think that account should also be blocked or banned. Jehochman Talk 01:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, also I totally missed . I have since indef blocked that account as well. Tiptoety  talk 02:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest that Bov be marked as the sockmaster of the first group, since his account was created in 2005, earlier than the other two. In the second group, Huntdowntheconspiractists might be tagged as the master, but only for convenience, since that's the title of the whole SPI report. In my opinion, a three-month block of Perscurator for meat-puppetry would be justified, based on his off-site POV recruitment efforts shown by the blog posting. EdJohnston (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In addition to any block of Perscurator, I recommend an indefinite topic ban from all 9/11 pages, broadly construed. You can look at the history of Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories and see all the meat puppet accounts that have participated in disrupting the page.  I recommend banning them also.  They are just starting thread after thread raising the same issues in an attempt to drive off reasonable editors from the talk page.  We need strong administrative action to put an end to this massive disruption.  Ban are available under WP:ARB9/11. Any bans issued should be logged on that page. Jehochman Talk 16:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Since Huntdowntheconpiracists was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:DawnisuponUS, who was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Tachyonbursts, and since Thingsrelatedornot (confirmed as the same person as Huntdowntheconpiracists above) spent all their edits either supporting DawnisuponUS on an article discussion page or opposing a block of DawnisuponUS on ANI, I propose we tag the second group as sockpuppets of Tachyonbursts. Hut 8.5 16:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding my request for topic ban of Perscurator and their meat puppets, see Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. Jehochman Talk 16:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As an administrator currently evaluating that request, I would appreciate the thoughts of others who are familiar with this case at AE.  Sandstein   16:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Socks tagged as Tachyonbursts - not strictly in line with the CU conclusion, but it seems reasonable given that it is the apparent sockmaster based on behavior. Marking this as closed, conversation re: topic bans and other administrative action unrelated to SPI should be taken to the appropriate forum. Nathan  T (formerly Avruch) 19:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It might be useful to leave this open. User:PiedmontRes is probably Bov, and there will likely be others. Tom Harrison Talk 20:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No harm in a new request. Since additional requests for a check would need the same initial processing, it's easier to handle without all the discussion above. Nathan  T (formerly Avruch) 20:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, the second group of socks (Huntdowntheconpiracists et al) appear to be related to Tachyonbursts, according to the CU logs. The first group of socks are editing thousands of miles away - but they are all related to one another. PiedmontRes is a sock of Bov - Bov appears to be the sockmaster, and is unrelated to Tachyonbursts. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * PiedmontRes tagged appropriately. I see the others are fixed, thanks for the clarification! Nathan  T (formerly Avruch) 22:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Report date April 21 2009, 21:13 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Jehochman Talk

At WP:ARB9/11 administrators were empowered to topic ban users from 9/11 articles to control disruption. A large number of accounts have been topic banned, yet a steady stream of new accounts appear repeating the same arguments to include the same rejected sources. These two accounts appear to be following that pattern. Please check if they are recycled users. At Sockpuppet investigations/Huntdowntheconspiracists we found two groups of sock puppets and one group of meat puppets. Please compare these accounts to Bov, as well as the other accounts at Sockpuppet investigations/Huntdowntheconspiracists. For diffs, see recent contributions of these accounts pushing the Bentham journal and 911truth.org, such as and. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 21:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I very much doubt that Arthur Warrington Thomas is a sockpuppet. That account has over 8,000 edits going back to 2004, and seems to have only made that many edits to 9/11 pages. This stands in complete contrast to Bov, who rarely edited anything else. They probably aren't a master account either, since there's no reason for this person to use a sockpuppet. --Hut 8.5 21:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users


 * Ok. I am confused about why that account is joining the chorus of disruptive pro-CT accounts.  Perhaps the Arthur account was abandoned and compromised.  Their edit I cited above is inexplicable.  Jehochman Talk 21:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The diff you cited above says they came here in response to seeing some of the forum/blog posts on Truther websites. That would explain it. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 21:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd recommend a warning then, as this appears to be an established editor. Naturally, somebody uninvolved needs to make the determination of what to do. Jehochman Talk 22:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested by Jehochman Talk 21:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

with a rider that as there is an ongoing issue of sock/meat puppets gaming the system on warnings, the case ought to be referred back to Arbcom for them to consider how they might revise their ruling in the light of evidence that it is being gamed. Mayalld (talk) 09:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This case needs to be merged with Sockpuppet_investigations/Huntdowntheconspiracists.  Syn  ergy 17:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions

--Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 18:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Bov = Locewtus, but we already knew that, right?
 * No comment on the IP.
 * No comment on the IP.
 * Thank you very much, Dan. The IP is not related to anybody listed at WP:ARB9/11 or Sockpuppet investigations/Huntdowntheconspiracists/Archive.  Eh?  Jehochman Talk 00:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The IP is Bov, and has been blocked as such. Dominic·t 15:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This case is over. There is nothing more we can do as far as this process goes. If a request to arbcom needs to be made, refer to the archive of this case. Also please tag/archive ;) ——  nix eagle email me 17:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)