Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ERIDU-DREAMING/Archive

26 February 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

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

Right-wing politics was protected 26 January (Protected Right-wing politics: Semi-protection: vandalism, Socks abound....) Talk:Right-wing politics was semi-protected 30 January (Presistent sockpuppetry)  The socks were IPs. The account ERIDU-DREAMING was created 22 February.

Both the IP and Eridu's main issue is that fascism should not be called right-wing in the lead, and they both provide extensive writing supporting their views. Talk:Right-wing politics/Archive 9 is almost exclusively discussion with the IPs about this topic. Here Eridu continues the argument. The IPs appear to be socks of a blocked editor, possibly User:Yorkshirian.

Compare these two edits, one by the IP and the other by Eridu. Notice both refer to George Watson.
 * ...it may be the case that every book that you have ever read calls fascism and racism right-wing, but all this tells me is that you ought to go and have a look at the politics/history section of the library at your university, where you will discover (assuming that it is a reasonably good library) that your assertion that fascism is right-wing is far from uncontroversial (indeed it is generally disputed) amongst scholars who have researched the subject in recent decades....With regard to the racism claim. THE FOUR DEUCES drew your attention to a book by George Watson called "The Lost Literature of Socialism" which notes that racism (by which I do not simply mean anti-Jewish sentiments but the active promotion of the genocide of "inferior races") was strongly associated with the political left (for example Marx) in the C19th and early C20th....This may make you uncomfortable, and you would prefer that it was not the case, but if the aim is truth rather than deception, ignorance is no defence. (85.211.70.152 (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).
 * What Gregor is arguing (and as you increase your familiarity with the writings of the numerous scholars who have written about this topic you will discover he is far from alone) is that the claim (which Gregor particularly associates with the political interpretation promoted by the Bolsheviks) that fascism (racism and nationalism) and communism (progressivism and anti-capitalism) are political opposites is false. This, he argues, helps to explain why, as Collect has pointed out (and contrary to what Boris G says!) communism has (right back to Marx as George Watson has proved) been associated with, and continues to be associated with, nationalism and racism.... The best we can hope for in a Wikipedia article is that one side or the other refrains from denying that this issue is controversial. That is why (in my opinion) fascism and racism (and the claim that they are right wing) SHOULD be discussed in the body of the text, but should NOT be part of the uncontroversial definition of right wing in the lede, because this bit of the current lede is far from uncontroversial - as these Talkpages prove! ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 10:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

There are other dynamic IPs which I have not listed. TFD (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Tentontunic: Below is a comparison of edits by Yorkhirian and one of the IPs on the talk page. Since the IPs were engaged in sock-puppetry in order to exceed 3RR, it does not matter whether or not they were socks of Yorkshirian, but they appear to have made the same edits.

Here is text from Yorkshirian:
 * This is a very contentious and bias addition. Fascists are certainly not part of the traditional right, far or otherwise. They didn't even exist when the traditional right was defined following the French Revolution. Which is made up of monarchists, theocracists and reactionaries. Mussolini was a revolutionary, who began his career as a Marxist and claimed as his biggest influence Georges Sorel, the revolutionary syndicalist. He and his movement are to the left of Bonapartism. It is absolutely disputed where this is on the political spectrum and as thus should not be included here.
 * Then you seem to be confused, or at least not very well read on the subject. Study the origins of the political spectrum—when it was first traditionally defined following the French Revolution, on the right were Theocratic Catholics and the Absolute Monarchists. It has always been disputed whether fascism is on the right, since it emerged during the 1930s (more than a century after the traditional definition of "the right"). Even by fascists themselves, such as Oswald Mosley who presented themselves as a third way. Though the left, especially in North America, seem to try to negate the complexities of this quite persistently, especially the inconvient fact that Mussolini began as a Marxist and throughout his career was influenced most prominently by Georges Sorel. Most scholars on fascism disagree with your opinion, to put it bluntly.

Here ia a posting by the IP:
 * If the terms "Right" and Left" in politics is being traced to the French Revolution (which is to say if "Right" is being defined as those who oppose the French Revolution, and "Left" is being defined as those who support the French Revolution) then Fascism is linked (both historically and ideologically) with the Left. This is evident to anybody who knows anything about the history. For the C19th history of revolutionary nationalistic socialism see the historian J.L.Talmon. This has been explained to Rick Norwood and The Four Deuces many, many, many, times, and although the latter's dismissal of nearly every major scholar who was written on the topic in the last thirty years as "non-mainstream" is not without its amusing side, it should not disguise the fact that their determination that this Wikipedia entry should promote the falsehood that [former allies] Hitler and Stalin were not only political rivals but also ideological opposites, is testimony either to their lack of interest in what they said and did, or in the continuing power of a lie cooked up by Stalin over 70 years ago to deceive.
 * I note that (yet again) The Four Deuces has made entirely false allegations. This time he claims that I am the person who disputed the value of his Oxford Dictionary reference. I note that he is also the person who consistently hides any discussion that draws attention to his historical ignorance of the origins of Fascism. I note that he now sees fit to delete any changes I make to the Wikipedia entry (and urges everybody else as well) on the grounds that I am a "sock puppet" and was banned for edit warring on this article. Assuming that "sock puppet" is somebody who contributes occasionally without registering, all I can say is that his claim that I was banned from contributing to this article is simply yet another lie. Maybe contributions to Wikipedia articles should be considered merely on their merits, now there is a revolutionary idea! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.72.11 (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

TFD (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

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

This is a strange report, were any of those IP`s investigated as socks of Yorkshirian? And are you saying that ERIDU-DREAMING is a sock of yorkshirian? If as you say ''Talk:Right-wing politics was semi-protected 30 January (Presistent sockpuppetry)[2] The socks were IPs. The account ERIDU-DREAMING was created 22 February.'' then an account created nearly a month after the IP`s is sock puppetry how? None of the IP`s which have an active talk page are blocked. I do not see how an IP editor creating an account can be sock puppetry at all. Tentontunic (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me that "The Four Deuces" has accused me being a sock puppet of Yorkshirean. I have tried to briefly set out the context below. Oh I have just noticed a thing on the bottom of the page that you can click on which automatically signs your posts! Plus a sign that inserts references! Excellent. Anyway how many times will he accuse me (and delete my posts) I wonder? Thanks again for drawing my attention to this matter. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Since I am the person being accused of being a sock puppet by The Four Deuces (as usual!) maybe it is appropriate to point out, yet again, that I am not Yorkshirean, I never have been Yorkshirean, and I have no intention in the future of becoming a Yorkshirean! I used to come onto Wikipedia unregistered (with whatever IP my computer generated) in the past and would make the odd contribution. I then got involved in a debate on the Right Wing politics page which led to me being accused (by the The Four Deuces) of being a sock puppet of Yorkshirean, on the grounds that he also made one of the points that I was making, and this was picked up by (somebody called Slim Virgin I recall) who used it as a reason for not contributing to the Roger Scruton page - along with the accusation that I go around calling people stupid - which to cut a long story short led to temporary three revert bans (or whatever they are called) at which point I began to find contributing to Wikipedia rather tiresome. Another editor called Jprw preserved some of my comments that were being deleted on the Roger Scruton page because she thought the treatment of me was unfair. An entire quite good article (not by me) on Philip Rieff was then deleted because I had made an addition to it which was a good summary of the content of his early books, done by somebody else but to which I had not done an attribution! Anyway, when I contributed to the Right-Wing page again (God knows why but the issue which had caused the original controversy was still being extensively debated by other editors) I thought I would register with a name (Eridu Dreaming) so that every edit I made to Wikipedia could be tracked, so I will not have to go through the sock puppet fiasco claims again. At which point needless to add The Four Deuces accuses me of being a Sock Puppet! He will no doubt (on those grounds) take it upon himself to start deleting my posts, which I will then restore, and we shall go around the jolly roundabout once again.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. There is a list here of the IPs this person has used. He has engaged in sustained personal attacks against people who disagree with him; has triggered multiple article and talk-page semi-protections, and a range block of 88.110.0.0/20 on Dec 5, 2010 by T Canens; and has added plagiarism to two articles, one of which was so extensive the page had to be deleted and rewritten; see discussion here. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 20:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Also see AN/I discussion in January. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 20:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh surprise, surprise, up pops Slim Virgin with a "He has engaged in sustained personal attacks against people who disagree with him"! As I recall I said that your posts indicated that you lacked knowledge of the philosophical writings of Roger Scruton, which no doubt counts as a "sustained attack" in your book, because you certainly continually deleted my posts, and yes I did complain to Jprw on her Talkpage about your behaviour, and she could only agree! As for The Four Deuces, other than responding to his points on the Right Wing talkpage, the only "sustained attack" has been The Four Deuces constantly deleting (a habit he shares with the Slim Virgin it seems) or hiding my contributions to the talk page discussion of an issue, an issue which Slim Virgin I notice has sought to resolve but which is still going on - not that I have contributed to it recently except in the last few days when (to avoid the usual accusations of sock puppetry) I registered as Eridu Dreaming. As for triggering "multiple article and talk-page semi-protections" Hmmmmmm I think your role in that Slim Virgin is something you have forgotten to mention (as well as The Four Deuces of course) but then I do not want to say something that can be construed as a "sustained attack"! I certainly did revert some of my comments and some of the changes to the Right-Wing and the Roger Scruton article for which I received a temporary ban - on both pages! This was then used as evidence that I was a sock puppet. I think that the deletion of the Philip Rieff article (an interesting cultural critic) is unfortunate to say the least, but since it seems that it was Slim Virgin who initiated that action, I cannot help noticing a pattern emerging i.e. wherever I go up pops The Four Deuces and Slim Virgin! At least by registering as ERIDU DREAMING they can delete my posts in a much more convinient way, while (as usual) The Four Deuces is able to carry on accusing me of being a sock puppet. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You regularly refer to other users as liars and bigots in long-winded posts about how they know nothing and you know everything. It had reached the point where I was considering filing an abuse report with your ISP. Whether you're Yorkshirian, I don't know, and I'll leave that for others to decide. But you certainly shouldn't be editing given the amount of trouble you've caused, and particularly not if you see nothing wrong with it. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 21:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It is OK I will not call your description of my erudite posts as "long winded" and "they know nothing I know everything" as a personal attack. I am grateful that you did not file an abuse claim. But maybe you ought to, because you certainly seem very keen to join in with the Four Deuces each time he makes his usual accusation of me being a sock puppet, and so perhaps it would save time? You could say he said "Oh surprise, surprise, up pops Slim Virgin" as evidence of a personal attack. It might work. Maybe you could get me to retract my claim that it appears you do not know much about the philosophy of Roger Scruton. Or get me entirely banned from Wikipedia for calling a bigot a bigot - you have to trawl back in the archives for that one but I do recall somebody making a bigoted remark. It happens. I do not recall however calling anybody a liar, but if I did it must have been you! There we go I said it again! If it was not you I apologise. If it was, then I am pretty sure I will have had a good reason for making that claim. Maybe you could use the fact that I said that "I do not recall calling anybody a liar but if I did it must have been you" as evidence against me? You could use that as evidence of your claims that I am constantly going around calling people liars. It is all so important, and not a waste of everybodies time I am sure you will agree.ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Every person who disputes TFD on any topic seems to be a "sock of Yorkshirian." So far, the accusation is based on sleim or no evidence. Too many fishing expecitions  even for a Captain Ahab at this point.  See also  and     as part of an apparent CANVASS set up here.  Of all places where CANVASS is horrid, SPI investigations are one of the worst.    Collect (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yup, not only am I "reprehensible", I'm really quite "horrid", too. I struggle against that in my character, but to no avail, evidently... Good Lord, Collect, you know what a huge problem socking is for Wikipedia. You should be glad people care enough to try to do something about it, even when they get it wrong. For my part, I'd consider it to be irresponsible to take it personally if someone were to suspect me of socking. If I hadn't been, there's no way my reaction would be anything other than, "If you have any suspicion at all, please do file an SPI." That's the reaction that would be best for Wikipedia. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 05:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

( ← outdenting ) With that in mind, and because Collect is claiming there's been some kind of hidden conspiracy that's gone on here, I've posted the result of the three-post (total) talk page exchange I had with TFD, below. That brief exchange has been the only communication I've had with TFD on this matter. Further, TFD didn't inform me of this SPI: I saw it because I had ERIDU's talk page watchlisted after I'd posted to it, and I saw this edit come in there. The result of my very brief exchange with TFD was that I e-mailed the clerk for this SPI. I've not received any answer back, as yet, and don't imagine I will, now that this is posted here.

That was my sole non-public action around the "canvassing" Collect has suggested. In the following, I've redacted three words, to try to be sensitive to his privacy in this public forum. ( He can let me know if he wants me to "unredact" them here, I'd have no objection. ) I'm sure he'll find my characterization of him as being "bitter", in the following, to be offensive, but please remember that this was intended as a wholly private communication, not for public consumption. Perhaps he can take some solace for that in my positive comments about his integrity.

The full text ( except for the three redacted words I mentioned ) of the e-mail I sent follows below. I expect Collect will respond with his usual misstatements of my actions, but I'm not going to try to correct those that I'm sure will be coming, and will trust instead to the diligence of other users to just examine any claims he makes, if they care about any such claims. More generally, because he's been so extremely reactive to me since I took part in a discussion that resulted in him being blocked last October, I'm not going to respond to Collect any further here, to try to keep the drama level as low as it can be in this. But I'll of course be glad to respond to any questions or comments any uninvolved user or SPI admin might like to direct my way. If anyone has any, any comments or questions about any of this, please post them after the e-mail that follows so this post and that disclosure remain together on the page. Thanks, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 05:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The Skullduggery

Here's the e-mail I sent to the clerk for this SPI, user "HelloAnnyong". Aside from the three-word redaction I've already mentioned, and will undo, if Collect requests it, the only change in the following from what I actually sent is that I've surrounded a couple of links with "nowiki" tags, to preserve the sense of the original message. – OhioStandard  (talk) 05:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

- -

Hi "Hello" -

I was considering adding the following ( sorry, you'll have to paste into a wikiwindow to make sense of it ) to the SPI you're clerking here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ERIDU-DREAMING

But I know little about SPI's, and I'd prefer not to unnecessarily ruffle the feathers of the user I suspect. He is, imo, a very bitter man, and would no doubt start yelling about any suggestion of socking on his part, but he's also (as he's said online) < THREE WORDS REDACTED > and I don't want to cause him unnecessary stress if I'm wrong in my suspicion.

Can you advise me as to whether I'd be well-advised to drop this, or to post it? I'd be very grateful for the favor if you can extend it without violating any policies. Many thanks, -- Wikipedia editor "Ohiostandard"

PS: If user Collect doesn't edit from England, I think there'd be no point in reading the rest of this. Thanks again. Text follows below.

- - -

I'd also thought this was someone's sock, and had thought about filing a report, myself. My guess as to possible sockmaster, though, was User:Collect. I doubt he'd do anything so dumb, and I think he has more integrity than to try, but there a few some points that make it hard to dismiss the possibility. If Collect doesn't edit from England, there's no point in considering the following points, but here's what made me think it might be at least possible:


 * The Eridu-Dreaming account was created just after the mediator on the Right-wing politics article disclosed his belief in a connection between fascism and "the right-wing", something Collect had argued very hard against.


 * The Eridu-Dreaming account took up that argument very strongly, as well.


 * Eridu-Dreaming's first edit to Right-wing politics was to correct Collect's spelling. So was his second edit to the article, two hours later. So was his fourth. So was his sixth. And this one. The account hasn't bothered to correct any other editor's spelling that I've seen.


 * Collect has a strong interest in antiquities, ancient history, and mythology, and a considerable store of what fairly obscure knowledge about the same. ( E.g. this edit to the Right-wing politics article, citing a rather obscure fact about the Ancient Olympics, complete with a pdf source. )


 * The Eridu-Dreaming account's first edit was to an article about a poet of Ancient Greece, as were subsequent ones.


 * The Eridu-Dreaming account instances a name that would occur to few editors who don't have an interest and familiarity with antiquities, ancient history, and mythology.


 * Then there's some very much weaker "behavioural" evidence: The Eridu-Dreaming account name was created in all caps; Collect resorts to CAPS and boldface more quickly than any other long term editor I know of. Likewise, the Eridu-Dreaming account exhibits the same tendencies toward formatting and placement of posts that Collect also employs with the effect of setting off talk page contribtions more prominently in a thread than is usual.

As I said, I sincerely doubt Collect would ever try anything like this. OTOH, I also think it's better to initiate an SPI when one has any doubt than to just wonder, since socking is such a huge problem on Wikipedia. I imagine Collect will take this personally, given our negative history, but for my part, I'd want anyone who had any suspicion I might be socking to initiate an SPI. Anyway, he asked me to stay off his talk page after I took part in a discussion that led to his being blocked last October, so if it's required to inform him of this, would someone please do so on my behalf? Thank you, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 05:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Considering I have strongly stated my opposition to sock using, I am aghast that my name would be inserted here in a lefthanded manner at all. TFD has a long history of alleging socking, with a very low batting average (under .300) of accuracy.  This is, in short, a fishing expedition at best.  You shoulfd note that TFD has, indeed, made claims about me in the past.  My simple defense is that a hundred CUs on me will never show any impropriety. Ever.  BTW, for me to edit from England is exceedingly unlikely.  Though I have, indeed, visited there.   Collect (talk) 13:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I have never accused you of sockpuppetry and have made no comments here. ERIDU-DREAMING btw has conceded that the IPs belong to him.  TFD (talk) 13:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

So it seems that anybody who has pointed out that it is false to assume that fascism is right-wing has been accused of being a "sock puppet" by The Four Deuces at some point, indeed accused of being the same sock puppet; and it would appear that he has now been joined by "what does little old me know about anything" Ohiostandard. I have no idea what Ohiostandard's dispute with Collect was about, but let me take a wild guess, it was about right wing politics. Oh yes, and there is Slim Virgin and that article about, oh yes, the right wing philosopher Roger Scruton. Hmmmmm. There seems to be a theme emerging here. Must dash now. I have to scrub the remarks left on my personal Talkpage by Ohiostandard. I am sure you will understand. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 12:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * @Eridu: I'm sorry to learn that you've taken offence, and so much so that you're choosing to delete the two friendly comments I left on your talk page. I certainly meant no offence, nor have I taken any from your reaction here... Oh, wait: I just noticed your "what does little old me know" remark. That was hardly charitable, but I understand that you're feeling chafed at the moment, so just the very smallest offence taken at that. ;-)
 * @TFD: If you have a 30% accuracy ratio on SPI filings, then please keep up the good work! I'd certainly much, much rather see seven users of ten that you suspect subjected to the minor inconvenience of an SPI that turns up negative than let three of ten users you have reason to suspect just continue socking. Good on you: if you can maintain that level of accuracy then please file more of them. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Just as a procedural note, the ranges to cover these IPs would be 85.211.64.0/19 and 88.110.0.0/20. Problem is that both of those are really active, and there'd be a great deal of collateral damage in blocking them. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm closing this for now, as ERIDU has admitted that the IPs are theirs. Since s/he registered none of the IPs has edited, so this is a moot point; an IP registering is not sockpuppetry.
 * As a side note, I'm getting pretty tired of these long-winded cases with everyone accusing everyone else of violating every Wiki policy. It's pretty clear to me that some form of resolution is needed here. My guess is that you need to go to either mediation or ArbCom. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If an IP is blocked from editing, does that not mean they should not be editing, even if they set up an account? Some of the IPs were blocked and a range block was applied to 88.110.0.0/20 on Dec 5.  TFD (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The IP range was blocked for evasion. What that means isn't particularly clear, but it could refer to another case/sockfarm or something. It doesn't necessarily equate with this editor. If the editor was banned or indef blocked for something else, then there'd be something to go on. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The range block was applied specifically to block this user. See Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/Archives/Archive9.  TFD (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no idea how relevant it might be, but I see this range has been blocked before: Sept 2008, and again (?) in July 2009, but by following links from that one it seems there was more going on, i.e. this and the links it contains. I'm sure the clerk has better tools, but this was the search I used. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * 1. The IP range is for a substantial ISP. 2. "The abominable Wiki troll" was not active on political issues. Thus the above comments are wondrously unrelated to the current registered user who has dynamically assigned IP addresses.  WP has no rule that people with dynamically assigned addresses are violating any WP policies at all.  3. WP:DEADHORSE now applies. Collect (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)