Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Einsteindonut/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets


The following accounts that have responded to this SPI are also puppets operated by Einsteindonut and the JIDF.

Other IPs used, not part of original report above

Older JIDF ids not part of original report

Evidence submitted by Peter cohen
Since his perma-blocking user:Einsteindonut has maintained a number of puppets to maintain the article on the Jewish Internet Defense Force in a manner that presents his organisation in a way that suits him. In recent months he has been operating various IP accounts side by side. On occasion he loses track of which is posting what as in this edit where IP addresses 14 apart agree with each other as if they were different users.

The characteristic features of these accounts are that
 * They are single purpose accounts dedicated to editing the article on the JIDF and only venturing to other pages (Wikipedia boards or user talk space) when the matter concerns the JIDF.
 * They are single-minded supporters of the JIDF, defending particular portrayals of the group as anti-terrorist or anti-racist in general rather than a narrower interpretation as a pro-Israeli internet lobby group that would be supported by the sources. Similarly they attempt to remove reference material that referes to them and the JIDF as "hackers" or "hactivists". They seek to remove any criticism from the article and are highly sensitive about the portrayal of "David Appletree" the persona used for interviews and public statements by the JIDF.
 * They are familiar with JIDF propaganda against particular Wikipedians (User:Nagle, User:Malik Shabazz and myself) portraying us as being anti-JIDF and, especially in my case, as motivated by their attacks on us on their pages. In reality, the three of us were only picked out for criticism on the JIDF website after we started editing the JIDF page and trying to prevent it turning into the hagiography of the organisation which Einsteindonut and his various puppets wanted to produce.
 * They are familiar with how Wikipedia works e.g. quoting policy or using editor contribution pages to WP:STALK me and others. In the past Einsteindonut/the JIDF have created User:Peter Cohn explicitly to stalk me in all my activities, though it was quickly blocked by User:Antandrus. Nowadays, they tend to watch only for JIDF-related edits by me and others they have identified as enemies on boards and user pages. There has also been off-Wikipedia harassment directed at my private email address and, I believe, at other Wikipedians including one who has himself been banned.
 * They carry out a pretence that the multiple IPs, logons and persona are independent of each other and not coordinated. They never acknowledge that they are the same person, or alternatively have been triggered into actions by off-Wikipedia campaign boards. (This bullet list is a later insert --Peter cohen (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC))

I believe that these are mostly sockpuppets rather than meatpuppets though there is a possibility that meat puppetry is going on too. I notice that many of the IP addresses are nominally in different coutries or different US states. Others more technologically aware would need to decide whether this is evidence of separate individuals being involved, of one individual travelling around, or or of technical solutions beign used to appear to be located elsewhere than one really is. In any case the IPs and userids are well versed in JIDF propaganda against myself and other long-standing Wikipedians. See, for an example from today of one puppet agreeing with another and trotting out exactly the same attack on me that the second puppet had just used elsewhere.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

For a while I and other users have tended not to raise SPIs as most editing was by IPs and not by named accounts. When an account is used repeatedly or particularly disruptively, User:Spartaz or other admins have blocked them as JIDF puppet accounts. However, the editor who has handled a page protection request by me today wants to see the results of an SPI. I have not requested a CU as I believe that the information for ED and other significant blocked accoutns is stale. However, if people wish to compare the IPs with the named accounts above, they are welcome to do so.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is another example of the standard attack on me and other users, one of his quoting the JIDF's factfile at me and another pretending that they have an understanding from somewhere about me. Basically all evidence of operating as one intelligence, that of the JIDF and its spokesman.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

And look at the first comment by other users below which shows the standard behaviour of the puppet farm where the same attack on me is made by someone who pretends to have just come along. Either meat or sock, puppet in any case.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

And this is an example of a previously identified Einsteindonut sock attacking John Nagle, one of the users who is attacked like me in some of the above links. Basically the pretending to be independent users while also wheeling out attacks on me, Nagle, Malik and other eds is part of the established modus operandi of ED and his various identities.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

All are SPAs in that their only edits are to the JIDF page or on matters relating to it.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Nb User:Howdypardner seems to be another member of the JIDF family of accounts that was referred to checkuser. Some puppets are therefore identified as this account's rather than Einsteindonut's. I've added Howdy and other previously uncategorised but already blocked JIDF-related puppets to a newly created Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Einsteindonut to facilitate anyone looking at the history of puppetry in this area of contribution.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Response to responses below from the JIDF. All three of the IPs below make reference to material on this page created by the JIDF as an attack page against Wikipedians who they have decided have crossed them. The fact that they reference it shows that
 * either they have arrived at Wikipedia not with the intention of creating an encyclopedia but rather as a result of external prompting by an external lobbying and campaigning group whose aims are incompatible with those of Wikipedia
 * or rather than being prompted by this external group they are among its core activists responsible for maintaining itspublic face including the attack page.

Although they deny being sockpuppets, they effectively admit to being meatpuppets, creating SPAs in order to act on behalf of the JIDF and of its individual activisists such as User:Einsteindonut and User:Howdypardner, both of whom have been previously blocked as sockpuppeteers who have also violated various other core rules of conduct on Wikipedia such as WP:NPA, WP:NPOV etc. The references to my alleged paranoia actually includes a tacit admission by the individual concerned that he was part of the email harassment I received which included claims of paranoia.

It is neither here nor there whether there are one, two, ten or twenty individuals who have operated the ids I have listed above. They are all operated on behalf of the JIDF which seeks to covertly influence its coverage in Wikipedia in violation of WP:COI. Meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry are equally unacceptable and the problem of serial puppets operated by the JIDF to influence its page needs to be clearly documented as a continuing problem.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.
 * It's a shame that Mr. Cohen continues to not assume good faith. Ever since the JIDF called him out on their website, the man has had a personal vendetta against the JIDF.  This is only a list of anonymous IP's and other editors that have edited the JIDF article and talk page in the slightest bit of an objective light.  This troubles Mr. Cohen, who has consistently tried to place his own anti-Israel and anti-JIDF bias into the article (as he has done in numerous other articles about Israel).  The JIDF has many supporters.  Wikipedia allows anyone to edit it.  Just because a variety of people from a variety of places are trying to keep this article objective, it does not mean that Mr. Cohen's suspicions are true.  --195.242.152.46 (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A new editor tried to add edits which were grammatically incorrect and in which he did not form consensus in the talk area before making them. They were reverted.  Mr. Cohen is trying, and has tried, to change the article to put the JIDF  (with whom he has personal qualms) in the worst possible light and lock it in that way.  All of this protection nonsense and his widespread allegations of meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry is just an extension of that.--98.143.144.83 (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is impressive! It's a shame Peter Cohen has so much time and paranoia on his hands, though.  The JIDF has a large internet presence, but to think that one person or a group of people would act in such a coordinated fashion just to try to keep the article about the organization objective is a little crazy.  I fail to see the problem with SPA's who are interested in trying to keep the JIDF article objective, fair, and unbiased, especially since we see so much evidence of bias against Jews and Israel throughout Wikipedia.  It only makes sense that people would be protective of this article though I think Peter Cohen is a little overboard with the paranoia.--95.143.192.90 (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * I agree with Peter. These IPs (and Mreditguy) all edit the same way, all write the same things, etc. As far as the argument that the JIDF has "many supporters", that may be, but it has only a handful of determined members who would continually make the same edits to Wikipedia. If they're not sockpuppets, they're meatpuppets. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a question but... does a sock puppet require an account? i.e. a username and not just an IP address? - Thanks in advance for any feedback / links to similar issues! Oboler (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The JIDF has had only one press reference known to Google News since August 2009. So there's no new info from reliable sources, and they're no longer getting press attention. There's not really much more to be said about them at this point. The editing disputes seem to be about getting attention. See WP:DRAMA for guidance.   --John Nagle (talk) 03:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
The current full protection will expire on 16 March. I suggest that full protection of JIDF for three months could be the simplest solution to the current wave of sock attacks. There are too many IPs listed in the SPI to allow a rangeblock, some socks are registered, the article is reasonably neutral and complete right now, and editprotected might be used for any changes that have consensus of good-faith editors. Full protection is most consistent with WP:DENY. The socks want to be able to show that people on Wikipedia are pushing back against their plucky little operation and preventing them from presenting the WP:TRUTH in their article. They may be drawing satisfaction from the debates here about their article, and using the conflict here as a recruiting and fundraising device. If their article is frozen, they won't have much to show for their efforts. Tanthalas39, who imposed the most recent protection, would go along with this. EdJohnston (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this is more likely to be meatpuppetry as opposed to straight socking. In any case, I think the current courses of action (in the form of article protection) is the right and most sensical way to go here. –MuZemike 19:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There have been no further comments in two days. If the editing of this article is actually meatpuppetry, a checkuser won't be too helpful. I've imposed the full protection on Jewish Internet Defence Force that I mentioned above. I suggest that it may be time to close this report. EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

marking as closed, SpitfireTally-ho! 20:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets






























Evidence submitted by RolandR
This clear sock has already once been reported, on 11 March 2010, but no action was then taken. Sock is now continuing to edit war on Jewish Internet Defense Force. Puppeteer also seems to be using several IPs. RolandR (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC) RolandR (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The second apparent sock appeared after the first was reported, making the same edit and using the same arguments. RolandR (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Just added a further IP, 173.52.128.102. As well as continuing the edit-war on JIDF, this IP left a talk page message] that effectively admits to being a sock. RolandR (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment Weaponbb7
Can we also check for sleepers this guy makes a living with this internet Meat/Sock puppets ranting across the web. Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If by "this guy" you mean me, that is false information. I'd like to know how you think I make a living by creating meat/sock puppets across the web?  Who would pay me to do that?  Where did you get this information?  Thanks!  --DavidAppletree (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Personal observation, no citation needed Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So you have personally observed me making money by creating sock/meat puppets across the web? Fascinating!  You're welcome to admit that this is a fabrication/personal attack, and apologize, if you'd like.  --DavidAppletree (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol you got nerve, are you familair with our term of "Quacking like a duck," if you feel that strongly take it to WP:ANI in the mean time. I stand by the Statement, as your own website is quite open about you organization of meat-puppetry. Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, my own website is not quite open about "meat-puppetry." I'm not even sure what you're talking about, but either way, this is more about a large barrage of WP editors taking their personal issues with me, and my work with the JIDF out on any remotely pro-JIDF editor, than it is about my work, or about me.  It's just a shame that WP editors can get away with so much harassment and personal attacks, so long as consensus supports it.  --DavidAppletree (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

My main issue with trying to edit WP from the beginning was my own privacy and security, so I have done things in certain ways to protect that. Many have accused Einsteindonut of being me. From what it looks like, that account hasn't done anything on Wikipedia for years. Now it seems anyone and everyone who has anything remotely positive to say about me, or my organization, is labeled as a sock of ED, who has been accused of being me. This is simply unfair. There's now 51 suspected socks? Some of them have only made a few edits here and there.

I may have had access to some of these "socks" from time to time, but that does not make me the ringleader, necessarily. Nor does it mean they are all socks. There are also many JIDF supporters from various IP addresses who have added a comment here and there and I think it's wrong of WP editors to assume they are all me, as that represents a privacy concern. Many people who are supportive of the JIDF have just edited w/out bothering to create a username and now their IP address is associated with ED, who people have accused of being me. I remember in one case one pro-JIDF WP editor was accused of being a sock. The evidence? That he shared the same mac webkit info as ED! That's the proof of a sock? Many people who use macs are using the same browser and webkit! It wouldn't prove anything! I think after a month or so of the guy begging WP to look into it, they finally reversed the sock decision, but still, this seems to me to be a mass witch hunt against any remotely pro-JIDF editor.

Anyway, I have created this DavidAppletree account so that I can address the problem head on and defend my name and my organization, myself. I don't need random JIDF supporters coming onto WP and disrupting the project and appearing to speak for me, or for my organization, as it appears many WP editors wish to pin the blame on me for all of it.

I also don't need personal attacks and breaches of BLP with regard to me all over WP.

So yes, I've been involved, somewhat, in these "socks", possibly, but I do believe that this is a witch hunt to get any JIDF sympathizers off of this platform. Also, as I indicated elsewhere, the JIDF has over 37,000 fans on Facebook, and I have nearly 54,000 followers on Twitter. Don't you think if I make a comment about something happening on Wikipedia that some random JIDF supporters are going to chime in? Also, if they sound like me, there's a reason for that, too. Since the beginning, my goal was to find likeminded people. So of course many random people who come in to "support" the JIDF might sound like me, or each other for that matter. To assume that the are socks based on webkit information or how they sound, is just wrong, though.

I can tell you that I simply do not have the time to do everything WP has accused me, personally, of doing.

My goal with this account is to have a presence on Wikipedia that is fully within the rules of Wikipedia, so that I can defend my name, my organization, and respond to the wide-ranging attacks, as well as answer general questions about my work. --DavidAppletree (talk) 15:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Response to Hans' latest From what I can tell, the only reason ED was banned is b/c any remotely pro-JIDF editor has been wrongly "suspected" of being his sock. Were some of the socks his? Possibly. We're they all? Doubtfully. Evidence that proves that each and every 50+ accounts in question are the same person, is dubious. Only 4 socks have been confirmed, and they were from a very long time ago, it seems. So ED (who I am suspected of being) gets wrongly banned from the site based on little evidence, and I've been accused of being ED, and all the socks, which is also wrong and again, is a privacy and security concern. If you look at the edits of most of the accused "socks" which lead to the overwhelming BAN of ED, they weren't even causing much of a disruption at all. Some of them were minor edits just on talk pages! What was their "crime?" What is the evidence to suggest they were socks? --Apparently being pro-JIDF and not having much of a edit history. If that's all it takes to get someone banned from the site, then how can I expect any sort of balance with anything written about me or my organization here, if anyone who might be new to the project who knows about my work and is generally supportive of it, is going to be automatically suspected of wiki-crimes? --DavidAppletree (talk) 11:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
Last time I reported Einsteindonut, the result was somewhat inconclusive because a host of IP addresses were used. Whether he has ways to use multiple accounts, or if he has readers of his alert list doesn't matter. Meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry are both equal violations of policy and equally disruptive. In the unlikely event of the tow accounts above beign distinct, then a checkuser for sleepers run by both of them would be useful.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In favour of the one user, multiple IP addresses are these two IP edits and. Although they're apparently submitted from different continents, they both open with the same words "I don't think" and "You're clearly" as the posts to which they are replying. A curious coincidence if they're not the same person deliberately mimicking me. These two IP addresses were active immediately before JIDF was semi-protected, the two accounts listed by Roland above took over duties after the protection.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And here is another IP edit from today from yet another country who has suddenly decided to reinsert Einsteindonut's slogan on his talk page. Clearly another JIDF edit thumbing his nose at us. The multiple IPs need to be taken into account when considering the puppetry.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This smells of proxies. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 13:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Last time the decision was that there were too many IP addresses to block, but if Einsteindonut/Appletree can do it, so can others. Can't the IPs be blocked on sight in the same manner that User:Runtshit's and other long-term abusers' socks are?--Peter cohen (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no proof that I have been behind all 51 suspected sockpuppets. The JIDF has over 37,000 fans on Facebook and I have about 54,000 followers on Twitter.  Don't you think if I say something about some problems here that some random folks might chime in?  Please stop accusing me of being behind every single remotely pro-JIDF edit.  --DavidAppletree (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want any IPs blocked, you should add them to the 'suspected sockpuppets' list above. Admins will often block IPs if the socking charge is confirmed and if the IPs have contributed recently. A throwaway IP with only a few edits is not worth it. Even in a case where an IP is not blocked, it is worth listing them to get an overall picture of the socking. (It may suggest checking for open proxies). EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. I've added the IPs. Can I also draw people's attention to the ban proposal in the JIDF thread at AN/I? Their presence here is wholly inimical to Wikipedia's purpose and they like to niggle away in the hope of stirring proper Wikipedians into action that allows them to make wikilawyering complaints. The more steps that can be taken to ease a revert/block/ignore response, the better--Peter cohen (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've filed 212.78.230.241 at WP:Open proxies for them to check out. EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * User:zzuuzz has rangeblocked for five years as an open proxy. EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at my last report, Einsteindonut/Appletree/JIDF has used that ISP before. was in that list.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no proof that I have been behind all 51 suspected sockpuppets. The JIDF has over 37,000 fans on Facebook and I have about 54,000 followers on Twitter.  Don't you think if I say something about some problems here that some random folks might chime in?  Please stop accusing me of being behind every single remotely pro-JIDF edit.  --DavidAppletree (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The creation of the following account has given the matter a new facet:

"David Appletree" is the pseudonym of the JIDF's founder. The most interesting question is, of course, whether the new account's story is true. The JIDF webpage is so over the top that in spite of the story's plausibility I am not entirely convinced. Hans Adler 09:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What are you not convinced of? What do you find "over the top" about my website?  Is this the place to discuss your personal feelings about my work, and website?  --DavidAppletree (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I might be able to tell you specific things about your website that are over the top if it hadn't recently started to freeze my browser (fully patched Firefox on Windows) each time I go there. And yes, since this is a sockpuppet case made complicated by the sockmaster's apparent access to a wide range of international IP addresses (perhaps provided by the JIDF infrastructure?), we need to use all available information, including what can be gleaned about Einsteindonut's character from Einsteindonut's editing, and about your character from the JIDF website. Hans Adler 15:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A big part of the JIDF, since the beginning, was to find like-minded people to join the cause. So many people who are fans of my work, are going to think like me and express themselves, like me.  I don't know what type of computer issues you are having, but I wish you luck in fixing them.  Rest assured, there's no JIDF conspiracy on your computer.  --DavidAppletree (talk) 15:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hans: Below is something over the top posted by the pseudonymous "David Appletree" at the JIDF website (whether the same person is behind the pseudonymous "DavidAppletree" account here, I don't know). There are many more examples of content like this, which confirms that the site is run by a bigot with an agenda far beyond "defense." (It's like a baby Stormfront in its rhetoric, just with a different focus, even down to the grammar problems).Bali ultimate (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "As we have mentioned, we are against the Ground Zero mosque, just as we are against ALL mosques, as they are tributes to the genocidal pedophile false prophet (idol), Mohammed, who was a murderer of Jews, and anyone else who didn't think and believe the way he did. Before you claim that we are bigots who are against all Musilms, please note, we are talking about the ideology, not those who may or may not representative of it. The ideology itself is clearly one of hatred and violence, which is declaring war against the entire non-Islamic world. If you take the time to study Islam, you will see that it is determined to dominate the world, just as Nazism was."
 * So is this an investigation of people's opinions of the JIDF and our work? Or is it a sockpuppet investigation?  It's clear that most of the people contributing to this "investigation" do not like my work or my opinions.  That is established.  The sad part of this witch hunt is that many innocent IP's and accounts are being charged, suspected, stigmatized, and ostracized with no proof other than their pro-JIDF edits.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidAppletree (talk • contribs) 16:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah yeah, the new "DavidAppletree" account admits to using socks/meats on his userpage. Emphasis mine. "As to my purpose on Wikipedia? I've become tired of baseless allegations about me and my organization on this site. Just because there's a handful of pro-JIDF sockpuppets out there, it doesn't mean they are all me, all the time. While I might have had access to some of them upon occasion for an edit here or there, I'm currently working this out with Wikipedia itself, privately" I don't think this user should be allowed to keep his socks secret, given the long term abuse over this website.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have any secret sockpuppets. This is currently my only WP account, and I intend to keep it that way, providing WP allows me to stay here in order to answer questions, defend myself and my organization against the wide barrage of attacks, and fabrications happening on this site, and edit from time to time, fully within WP's rules and policies.  Being that I am offering full disclosure as to my connection with my organization, and I am representing my organization here, I fully intend to keep things Kosher, but either way, I cannot allow WP editors to have free reign in attacking me and my organization without a response. --DavidAppletree (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I doubt your honesty. Your webpage has been listed here for two years and you suddenly decide that today is the day to create an account and make a show? No, I don't think so. You may as well admit who you really are, because nobody with three brain cells huddling together for warmth in their skull is going to fall for it. Half Shadow  17:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm David Appletree, founder of the JIDF. --DavidAppletree (talk) 19:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And I'm Darth Vader, Lord of the Sith. Under the circumstances, that's not believable, either. Half  Shadow  20:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice to meet you, Darth. You're free to contact me at:  david@thejidf.org or admin@thejidf.org for confirmation.  Later at some point I might also Tweet about my presence on WP (@JIDF).  I may also do a post about this on the JIDF site soon.  Believe what you want, though.  I realize with all the lies and misinformation about me and my work out there (especially on WP), that it's difficult for people to trust anything.  --DavidAppletree (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Response to Avi: The most important question at this point is whether the person known as David Appletree is behind the Einsteindonut account, and therefore banned. Checkuser may or may not be able to help with this. I think Arbcom may be dealing with the problem, see User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 63. Hans Adler 08:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Response to DavidAppletree's "Response to Hans' latest:" :Please. You or one or more of your supporters have been messing with one of the top ten internet sites by size. Since our main goal is providing neutral information rather than networking people (as in the case of Facebook), and since we are a target of uncounted spamming and astroturfing campaigns, Wikipedia has developed a flexible and efficient defence mechanism. Part of this defence mechanism are principles such as "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck" and "A new user who engages in the same behaviour as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behaviour they are joining." Combine this with our extensive experience with campaigns to manipulate our site, some of them by big players, and you simply don't have a chance to skew the article about you in the long run. When even more supporters of the "JIDF" appear quickly out of nowhere than ever happened with Scientology topics, almost reaching the level comparable to the global warming "sceptic" and Intelligent Design supporter swarms for a few days and then disappearing again, we simply don't care much whether it's sock puppets or meat puppets. We ban people not because we want to enforce some universal standards of justice that would include guarantees such as the benefit of doubt; we ban people because they are interfering with the creation of our encyclopedia and we want the disruption to stop. Therefore it's a feature, not a bug, if we treat several individuals as one for being indistinguishable to us. We take some measures to avoid doing it, but ultimately it's not very important to tell the zombies apart. You are not going to get away on the technicality that we can't decide how many real persons were involved, so long as we feel that you are taking pains to undermine our consensus-building processes. Hans Adler 11:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Messing with?" Interesting.  Considering there are a lot of JIDF supporters who are generally on the same page, the duck test isn't a fair one, in this case.  I'm not interested in "skewing" the article about my organization, but I do think it should be fair, and accurate, and not solely edited by those who are against me, and my effort (as the case has been).--DavidAppletree (talk) 11:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Another Statement by Weaponbb7
I just had my userpage attacked I request a checkuser i have added it Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Please note my response to these attacks here, here, here, here, here and even on Twitter, here. Despite ALL of this, it doesn't seem Weaponbb7 is willing to assume good faith, whatsoever, as per this.  It does not seem anything that I, or any remotely pro-JIDF Wikipedia editor does, will be trusted by Weaponbb7, who seems to have had some serious issues with me, and my organization for a while now, constantly making false accusations and derogatory statements, and creating needless drama at ANI (and I'm not attacking anyone here, I can easily provide all the diffs for all that, if needed, too).  While I'm trying to show WP what type of editor I can be and the wide variety of ways I can encourage JIDF supporters to be more constructive here, it seems some wish to try to constantly bait me, and assume the worst faith.  --DavidAppletree (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
per the developments with the WPYellowStars account. It's likely he was more socks around. –MuZemike 00:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC) I note there is no overlap of editing, and if the older accounts are blocked and discarded, technically David Appletree would be correct in his statement that he has no other active accounts. I would welcome another checkuser confirming or refuting my findings. -- Avi (talk) 11:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * With the developments at WP:ANI is this still necessary? -- Avi (talk) 08:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a use of proxies that prevents absolute certainty, but in my opinion, based on the technical evidence, the following relationships may be shown:


 * ❌ Technical evidence indicates there is no apparent relation between the account below and the DavidAppletree suite.
 * Should that read "no apparent relation"?  RolandR (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. mea culpa -- Avi (talk) 01:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

-- Avi (talk) 00:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I found the following two accounts to be ✅ with respect to each other:



–MuZemike 00:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Clerk Request Then they should be placed in a new SPI record. -- Avi (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅, Sockpuppet investigations/Jewdefence/Archive. SpitfireTally-ho! 15:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)