Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jono2013/Archive

17 May 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Jono2013 has been a prolific editor of some industrial processes of cement. Now, however, this IP (213.66.81.80) has appeared, apparently attempting to defend the same articles. is exactly the sort of long-winded style Jono2013 uses -. There's a hell of a lot of overlap between the two texts as well. Also note that Jono2013 created/is defending Energetically modified cement, and look at this edit by the IP:. It is very, very apparent this user has been editing whilst logged in since the 2nd April, and started using the IP the day after. They've overlapped, but prior to the AfD thread, it could be argued that this was simply Jono2013 forgetting to log in. Now, given the "Speedy Keep" vote by the IP, it's obvious the IP is also being used to deceive. Jono2013 has been disruptive at times, and various attempts to resolve this appear to have had varying degrees of success - prior to this IP edit, I'd have believed that they had worked; now, it's evident that they haven't. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 11:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * is a wall-of-text consistent with Jono13, and has made some absurd allegations that are bang in line with Jono2013's ones (apparently, I'm leading a crusade against Jono) whilst making a frankly disturbing comment "If you think the EMC page is just about EMC, you are wrong. It is setting a benchmark for entries on Wikipedia in a subject matter which is missing or very poor." Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 12:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Jono2013 and this IP are teaming up to vote twice in an AfD, which is not allowed of the same person. The IP's style is very like Jono2013's. I would like to see Jono2013 admit to socking and promise not to do it again before being able to edit further. Binksternet (talk) 12:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * If you must know, Jono2013 collapsed at home yesterday due to stress. His wife has banned him from having any further input of Wikipedia for at least the next couple of weeks. She considers that what he has had to suffer these past two weeks to be the factor. We are all appalled at the constant harassment of Jono2013 and the EMC Page. That is why I felt compelled to "break my silence" and make the entry I did on the AfD. But now I am going to get harassed too. Despite the fact I am in Sweden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.66.81.80 (talk) 13:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not the most convincing argument. Also, drop the line about "harassment" - I filed this case because there is clear evidence that you and Jono2013 are one and the same. Considering I've seen the Jono2013 make bogus claims about Barney the Barney Barney being a sock of the original AFD's filer, that's also a very ironic statement. At the very least, you're a clear meatpuppet of this user. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 13:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not going dignify your comment by responding to it other than to say a perfectly harmless man collapsed yesterday. The upset to his wife is terrible. And I consider this harassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.66.81.80 (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * IP blocked 1 week for meatpuppetry, closing. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

18 May 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

- clear trolling, frivolous allegation, and appeared after the first IP was blocked. is consistent with Jono2013. The IP has also confirmed with that edit that they are indeed the same user as the first IP. Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 09:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Also has made a half-baked legal threat against me in the AfD, stating that the wife of Jono2013 should make use of a "2007 harassment law" against me. Yawn. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 09:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * IP blocked 1 month for making legal threats and block evasion. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 09:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

19 May 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

. Yet again, we have another meatpuppet or sockpuppet IP wandering in to try and get the AfD closed. Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 10:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Adding another user to the investigation; at the very least meatpuppetry since the account was created today, and its first contribution outside of its own userpage was. L Faraone  18:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I would agree with your analysis, but was reluctant to add yet another user into this case, as I'd been the sole person making the links (or most proactive one). The language has definitely change, but the fact that the user is Swedish is a constant. I'm not sure the IP I've listed here is Swedish, but that doesn't necessarily mean a lot. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 19:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Dear sirs

I am Swedish Gold. You can email me if you like.

First of all, why did no one notify me of this? Am I not supposed to be told before you start judging things?

I was contacted yesterday early evening (Swedish) by a very senior US academic who was concerned about statements made on the deletion discussion that EMC was not "notable", and someone known as "Epic Crusader" was saying things that could cause embarrassment to Berkeley. I was asked to "intervene". If you read what follows, now you know why I was contacted.

I did not know the Professor, although I have since emailed him at about 11.00pm Swedish last night. Below is the email he sent me this morning (it is part in Swedish but I can translate for you). As you will see, the Professor has responded and had already written to the Dean and Vice Dean of the School of Chemistry for Berkeley, yesterday afternoon. Check out the deletion discussion and you'll see I was not hiding anything and I did not know the Professor had already contacted Berkeley. So at least I know why I was contacted from the US yesterday early evening Swedish.

I hope this clears it up. I suggest you email Professor Ronin and he can give you details of any developments. He gave me permission to publish this in his email below.

Yours

ps. OBS! I have removed the email addresses below ds.

Swedish Gold (talk) 10:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * From: Vladimir Ronin


 * Sent: den 21 maj 2013 09:55


 * To: Swedish Gold


 * Subject: RE: Wikipedia


 * Hej:
 * Hej:


 * Tack för ditt e-mail och dina uppmuntrande ord! Jag fick vetskap om detta under gårdagen och nedan finner du e-malet jag skickade. Du kan publicera det om du finner det lämpligt.
 * Tack för ditt e-mail och dina uppmuntrande ord! Jag fick vetskap om detta under gårdagen och nedan finner du e-malet jag skickade. Du kan publicera det om du finner det lämpligt.


 * Mvh Ronin/
 * Mvh Ronin/


 * Vladimir Ronin, Tekn. Dr., Professor i Konstruktionsteknik / Structural Engineering
 * Inst. för Samhällsbyggnad och naturresurser, SBN / Dept. of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering
 * Luleå tekniska universitet, LTU / Luleå University of Technology, SE-971 87 Luleå, Sweden
 * Tel +46 920 10 00; +46 70 549 88 92(med röstbrevlåda / with voice recorders)
 * Fax +46 920 492 81 www.ltu.se /
 * Fax +46 920 492 81 www.ltu.se /


 * From: Vladimir Ronin


 * Sent: den 20 maj 2013 13:55


 * To: 'Richard Mathies'; 'David E Wemmer'


 * Cc: 'Geralyn Unterberg'; 'Doris Kaeo'


 * Subject: URGENT: HOAX CLAIMS MADE BY "PROFESSOR" OF UCB


 * Importance: High




 * Dear Professors:


 * I am a professor at Luleå University of Technology, in the far north of Sweden, who over 20 years ago, discovered/invented the (patented) process leading to the "phenomenon" of "Energetically Modified Cement".
 * I am a professor at Luleå University of Technology, in the far north of Sweden, who over 20 years ago, discovered/invented the (patented) process leading to the "phenomenon" of "Energetically Modified Cement".


 * It has been brought to my attention that in discussion thread, a person who claims to be a "Professor of Chemistry in University of California, Berkeley", is claiming that Energetically Modified Cement is a "pure hoax" and that "there is nothing called Energetically Modified Cement"
 * It has been brought to my attention that in discussion thread, a person who claims to be a "Professor of Chemistry in University of California, Berkeley", is claiming that Energetically Modified Cement is a "pure hoax" and that "there is nothing called Energetically Modified Cement"


 * The person claims to be an "expert" and states that "My research topics include material science, Chemistry and related topics"
 * The person claims to be an "expert" and states that "My research topics include material science, Chemistry and related topics"


 * As to the claims made by that person, note they are not substantiated at all. The evidence is flatly contradicts this assertion.
 * As to the claims made by that person, note they are not substantiated at all. The evidence is flatly contradicts this assertion.


 * Frankly, I believe the said person is an impostor, and therefore is something you should be aware about, as it runs the risk of seriously damaging UCB's good standing.
 * Frankly, I believe the said person is an impostor, and therefore is something you should be aware about, as it runs the risk of seriously damaging UCB's good standing.


 * Nevertheless, out of an abundance of caution I must also cover the possibility that the person is genuine. Therefore, I am not asking you to name names, however I would be grateful if you could use your responsibilities as Dean of the School of Chemistry of UCB, to confirm in short order if the claimant is genuinely a member of your faculty and if genuine, if the comments made reflect official UCB policy (i) in terms of making claims of hoaxes (which implies an academic hoax of over 20 years) (ii) in terms of reflecting the views of UCB.
 * Nevertheless, out of an abundance of caution I must also cover the possibility that the person is genuine. Therefore, I am not asking you to name names, however I would be grateful if you could use your responsibilities as Dean of the School of Chemistry of UCB, to confirm in short order if the claimant is genuinely a member of your faculty and if genuine, if the comments made reflect official UCB policy (i) in terms of making claims of hoaxes (which implies an academic hoax of over 20 years) (ii) in terms of reflecting the views of UCB.


 * I appreciate that the matter is delicate, but you should be aware of the matters above, as either someone is claiming to be a faculty member of your college when they are not, or, if so, they are taking it upon themselves and running the risk of disparaging the name of UCB.
 * I appreciate that the matter is delicate, but you should be aware of the matters above, as either someone is claiming to be a faculty member of your college when they are not, or, if so, they are taking it upon themselves and running the risk of disparaging the name of UCB.


 * I do not wish to escalate this to the Dean's office of my University, but clearly if your College is disparaging the work of another University in such strong terms, then my hands will be tied in such respects.
 * I do not wish to escalate this to the Dean's office of my University, but clearly if your College is disparaging the work of another University in such strong terms, then my hands will be tied in such respects.


 * If I do not hear from you in the next 48 hours, I will assume that the claims made are a hoax, and the individual is an impostor.
 * If I do not hear from you in the next 48 hours, I will assume that the claims made are a hoax, and the individual is an impostor.


 * Thank you for your time.
 * Thank you for your time.


 * Your sincerely
 * Your sincerely


 * Vladimir Ronin


 * Vladimir Ronin, Tekn. Dr., Professor i Konstruktionsteknik / Structural Engineering
 * Inst. för Samhällsbyggnad och naturresurser, SBN / Dept. of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering
 * Luleå tekniska universitet, LTU / Luleå University of Technology, SE-971 87 Luleå, Sweden
 * Tel +46 920 10 00; +46 70 549 88 92(med röstbrevlåda / with voice recorders)
 * Fax +46 920 492 81 www.ltu.se /
 * Fax +46 920 492 81 www.ltu.se /


 * From: Swedish Gold


 * Sent: den 20 maj 2013 23:05


 * To: Vladimir Ronin; Lennart Elfgren


 * Subject: Wikipedia


 * Importance: High




 * Hej professorer!


 * Jag hoppas du mår bra. Jag skriver detta meddelande för att informera dig om att det pågår en diskussion om att ta bort EMC. Normalt hade jag tyckt att detta var skrattretande, men det bör tas på allvar. Jag är orolig för att de som inte är experter inte förstår poängen eller att det finns några som låtsas vara experter i syfte att ta bort inlägget, eller få det borttaget.


 * För att ge diskussionen trovärdighet bestämde jag mig för att ge mig in i den, på EMC's sida. Detta för att inlägget håller hög kvalitet och resultaten som beskrivs är fantastiska.
 * För att ge diskussionen trovärdighet bestämde jag mig för att ge mig in i den, på EMC's sida. Detta för att inlägget håller hög kvalitet och resultaten som beskrivs är fantastiska.


 * Jag vill informera dig om att en av användarna utger sig för att vara en professor på universitetet i Berkeley och skriver att (Engelska) "hoax", "tweak", "not supported by mainstream", "there is nothing called energetically modifed cement".
 * Jag vill informera dig om att en av användarna utger sig för att vara en professor på universitetet i Berkeley och skriver att (Engelska) "hoax", "tweak", "not supported by mainstream", "there is nothing called energetically modifed cement".


 * Jag önskar dig lycka till med EMC!
 * Jag önskar dig lycka till med EMC!


 * Mvh /
 * Mvh /

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Just comparing the edits in that AFD are enough to make the two look like one. Could be meatpuppetry or socking.  Two material scientists from Sweden that specialize in concrete just happening upon the exact same article as their only main contribs?  Unlikely unless they are linked somehow. Dennis Brown - 2¢  - © - @ - Join WER 00:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Jono2013 and Swedish Gold are bordering . T. Canens (talk) 05:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * For a variety of reasons, including the plausible link as established by the Checkuser, I am convinced these two are one. I've blocked Jono for a week and indef blocked the sock.  Closing. Dennis Brown - 2¢  - © - @ - Join WER 14:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

27 March 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

This is an atypical case in that it involves no new socks and no new operation across multiple accounts (that is known, in any event). Rather what it is required is clarification on a check-user that was already deemed appropriate and performed by clerks/administrators, , and. was suspected of using the sock, along with a number of IP's, to unduly influence opinion on an AfD for Energetically modified cement. Timotheus confirmed as a likely sock of  and Dennis blocked accordingly. However, did not note in his findings if either of the IPs geolocated to the same area as Jono2013; it would seem that because one of the IPs in question had essentially admitted to meat-puppetry, that finding sufficed for a short term block (a later IP was also blocked for legal threats and block evasion), and no further investigation deemed necessary to determine if the nature of the puppeting was meatpuppeting or sockpuppeting (presumably because the response would be the same either way). At present, there is a rather lengthy discussion underway at ANI that concerns the first of those IPs (User:213.66.81.80) and the same article to which the AfD pertained (Energetically modified cement) as well as its talk page. The IP user has been engaged in numerous instances of uncivil behaviour, displays ownership mentality and is suspected of a conflict of interest regarding the subject of the page (please see the afore-referenced ANI posting and article talk page for full details; the currently involved administrator is ). The purpose of this request is to establish not whether Jono2013 is socking again (that account seems dormant), but whether he has reemerged as the IP in question. Establishing this link will prove useful in determining the extent of the user's disruptive habits, his possible conflict of interest, and whether a topic ban is appropriate, which is the currently proposed response to his ongoing violations of WP:Civility.

As to proving cause for suspecting User:213.66.81.80 and User:Jono2013 of being the same contributor, there are many suggestive factors. Aside from the timing of the IP's arrival in the second AfD for the article in question, and the that both editors have edited solely within the same narrow scope of a handful of articles relating to the subject of "energetically modified cement" and its purported inventor, both users share point by point perspectives on the content of the article and its sources and express them in nearly identical ways. Their posting and format styles on talk and discussion pages are nearly identical, sharing many uncommon and telling idiosyncrasies; both users, for example, use extremely long discussion posts which are formatted in a very particular way--sectioned into short paragraphs of a few sentences each, with a header section, an end section and multiple bulleted paragraphs inbetween; please see for example: These entries made by Jono in the first AfD (best viewed for comparison in the versions themselves) and these postings on the ANI  (see the current version of the ANI for numerous other examples). Even more telling is that both users share a distinctive reaction to criticism, no matter how slight; in the case of both editors, there are scores of examples demonstrating that quite literally any time either contributor has encountered another editor who disagrees with them on a matter of content or sourcing --even if it slight and presented respectfully as a matter of common process-- they respond in the same way, vitriolically condemning the other editor's right to comment on the subject by way of questioning their credentials. Again, scores of these examples can be found, but here are some decent examples, starting with one from Jono2013 in the second AfD:

" Mr. Markowitz: If you cannot make a constructive comment, please refrain. Your background? - oh I see it: no background whatsoever in ADVANCED material sciences. NO qualifications WHATSOEVER to assess. May I ask, do you see advanced Biochemistry as being more or less specialized than advanced material sciences? If MORE, what is your basis? Have you seen the entry for (for example) Pyruvate dehydrogenase complex? Or maybe try Histone_acetyltransferase. Are they easier or more difficult than the plain English of energetically modified cement? Or is it still too difficult for someone who has no background in ADVANCED material sciences? Please KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE and please stop giving the appearance of patronizing the SUBJECT by ASSUMING it's a "mickey mouse" or "low level" subject RIPE for the "armchair lawyer" brigade. "

and another from Jono2013 in the first AfD:

" Excuse me???? WHERE is it promotional? It is discussing the phenomenon in a manner which is substantiated by over 50 journal entries spanning 20 years. Dont just use words, justify them. The journal entries you mention are just two of them, and are listed in the references. You've not written ONE scientific article let alone have any background in what is a highly specialized and rarefied discipline. Have you even read the talk page of the article? For godsake."

Please compare with 213.66.81.80 in a talk discussion yesterday:

" XFM Skier: What do you mean "fantastic claims"? Will you curb pejorative language? 4.5 MILLION cubic yards for TXDOT? I spent an hour writing to you last week. I thought you said you were an expert???? How can you possibly use a pejorative term like "fantastic" when 4.5 million have been cast in spec for a formal DOT? Do you understand the meaning of the word "in spec"? Have you EVER worked on a real U.S. civil engineering project ? "

Note that not only is the approach to denigrating the other users credentials and right to contribute to the discussion consistent in every single instance of both editors' reactions to being questioned, but there are many common orthographical features. Both editors, when their ire is raised and only then, intersperse their texts with all-caps words for emphasis (both users use bolding for reference in other posts, for the record). Under these circumstances, both users also have the habit of using exactly four question marks to punctuate questions. In most all cases they both uses histrionic rhetorical questions. There are many other common markers between them, but I believe this is sufficient evidence to pass the WP:DUCK test.

To the responding administrator, thank you for the indulgence in reading this lengthy filing, but as the circumstances of this request are atypical for SPI, I figured I ought to thorough. Again I will reiterate that I have not as yet seen evidence that socking has resumed, but establishing a link between these users may prove essential to reigning in an abusive and habitually hostile user whom all other involved editors believe must be removed from the article in question if there is to be any chance of salvaging it. Snow (talk) 06:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims[[User:Snow Rise|Snow (talk) 23:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)]].''


 * Checkusers do not comment on geolocation, though the location of the involved IPs inform their decisions. In this case, the identical behavior is what must guide any blocking administrators. It is abundantly clear that any IP from 213 is Jono2013 if that IP is hotly debating/promoting the topic of energetically modified cement. Binksternet (talk) 14:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If no information on geolocation is going to come out of this then there is not really a point to it and it should be closed. There is no active sock-puppetry between 213 and Jono2013, as Jono2013 is not active anymore. I just don't see a purpose of opening up this front unless someone can confirm locations. I believe their a bigger issues that the editors should stick to. XFEM Skier (talk) 18:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Respectfully XFEM, I strongly disagree. We need a clear and unambiguous indication of whether this is a case of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry.   It goes to establishing how far back this users' abuses of process and principles of civility go.  While it's true that its well established in the ANI and the talk page that most all involved editors agree that his actions as the IP alone are sufficient to warrant a topic ban at the least, he has shown a marked willingness to distort past events for the purpose of misleading process and if this situation is left unresolved, do you have any doubt, based on his past behaviour, that he will try to exploit that ambiguity to muddy the waters further?  As  notes, an involved admin can easily make a call as to sockpuppetry without the need to disclose the locations of either account.  Other editors are free to involve themselves in this part of the process or not as they see fit, but I for one think this goes to the heart of the user's abusive and disruptive approach to the project as a whole and, as he continues to insist on claiming that he is not Jono2013, when he very clearly is, I think a formal determination is necessary to move forward. In any event, the filing has been made and I couldn't withdraw it even if I wanted to.  The responding administrator will, I believe, decide whether to conduct or decline the CU on the basis of the behavioral evidence presented, not on the outcome's relevance to the other discussions, because SPI is a separate oversight process from ANI and it exists specifically for the purpose of elucidating these matters.  I've made it clear in the filing that I am not seeking administrator action against the IP here, as there is not currently socking at play, but it is reasonable in the circumstances for us to want to know whether he is a meatpuppet of the original disruptive editor (as originally ruled) or the same contributor up to his old tricks. Snow (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: At this point in the conversation, 71.33.155.41 made a posting which concerned, amongst other things, his suspicions that was another sock to be looked at in this investigation, but later redacted this statement in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  This posting is made solely to mark the continuity of discussion without restoring 71's prohibitively lengthy posting. Snow (talk) 10:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't believe there is much of a case. being a sock of 213. First the user has a long edit history on multiple topics. Has in general been more on 213 side then on 71 side in the debate on EMC, but in general has been neutral. They have given many warnings to 213 about his behavior and have even voted to ban 213 on the topic. They have civil throughout the whole discussion, even when disagreeing with other users, which is not in character with 213/Jono2013 editing style. XFEM Skier (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with XFEM Skier that Aunva6 is not a sockpuppet, because of a long history working on other topics, and a very reasonable outlook. Sorry, Karl. Binksternet (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello!::::::Skier said: "...user has a long edit history on multiple topics." Binksternet said: "...long history working on other topics."
 * I thought that I had checked this, and found not much in the way of edits. After you said this, I did a more thorough check, and you are both correct. I have made another mistake because of my inexperience. I was looking for edit history, in the wrong place. I would not have posted anything, if I had realized this. I will delete my post, and will not re-post. Thank you for your understanding. I offer profound apologies to Aunva6 for my mistake. I will now go away, red-faced. Karl 71.33.155.41 (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * i did get a chuckle out of it. i think an SPI between us wouldn't get far at all. not to mention, i do have a disclosed alt account. but yeah, i did try to keep as neutral as I could in this. -- Aunva6talk - contribs  00:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we're all on the same page here, but just for the record, not only am I fairly certain that aunva is is not the IP in question, but I've been quite impressed with his neutrality. He at first reached out as the last of a series of editors making good-faith efforts to bridge the gap with the IP in question and continued with that effort as long as he reasonably could, but then ultimately made the call he had to with regard to the topic ban proposal when it became clear 213 was not going to take his advice of showing restraint and reconciling his desires with policy and the principle of a cooperation seriously.  I think most involved with the ANI can relate to that to some extent, but aunva came the closest to making to breaking through and still was willing to put the project ahead of his own initial efforts when it became necesary to make a call.  So double props to to him for civility and neutrality on my part.  And extra points aside for keeping calm and of good-humour in face of Karl's ill-informed suspicion.  Snow (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello! Unfortunately, I made the incorrect, lengthy post mentioned above (which I deleted only about an hour or so after posting, and then retracted), when I was sick as a dog, and had had only 3 hours of sleep. I will refrain from posting in the future, when my thinking is that unclear. Again, my apologies. Karl 75.171.218.169 (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Returning to one of the actual suspected socks - I think 's decision regarding the topic ban on ANI has highlighted another (and in retrospect, the most obvious and important) reason to have a clear confirmation that the two editors are the same; if 213 decides to evade his topic ban in the future with yet another autoconfirmed account and we have to file another SPI to confirm it is him, we will want to have his previous socking history already clarified. Snow (talk) 10:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello! The section referenced with the above link in Snow's post, has been deleted. This history link, I believe last before the deletion, should get you there, though: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=602254503&oldid=602254192#Adult_supervision_needed_at_Talk:Energetically_modified_cement
 * Scroll down to the blue background, closed section: proposal: topic ban
 * Karl 75.171.218.169 (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Response by 213.
This is long and has taken time to type. It is complex. (and User:Binksternet I think you should declare that you have also voted for me to be banned from the subject - Yes? - and I am not "hotly debating/promoting the topic of energetically modified cement" I am adding substantive knowledge and have never received a warning for the tone of my posts.)

This user SNOW persists (and is the only one) on insisting in personalizing' matters, when I have said to him many time now that I will not be drawn into that kind of discussion. As part of this "crusade" he has insisted that I be banned from the page, but only now on a repeated asserted "theory" that I am a "sock" (as he puts it) of Jono2013. This is easy to understand why: because he wants to place a entire history of Jono2013 onto my feet, as part of his "evidence" to make sure that he does not look foolish (this is the most kind theory - but I will develop this if you persist)

I have never hidden that I knew Jono2013. For example, ([|see half down the page here]). I know Swedish Gold personally, and have never hidden it. And yes, he lives in Stockholm.

So,


 * Jono2013 London - (I know this because he came to Stockholm to meet me to ask me to help with the page. Never made a secret of it.). We created the page together at my house in Stockholm (never made a secret of that either) and then he went back to London and I went away to Singapore.
 * Me Stockholm (2000 kms from London). I got banned because I voted of the AfD and because I was novice, did not know that I should have declared that. That was my "sin" --- as a complete novice. My comments were scraped (with a line) and I was banned.
 * Swedish Gold Stockholm (2000 Kms from London) - Never appealed his ban. I have spoken to him lots -- connected to Swedish Government, was sick and tired of the way the Second AfD had been polluted by an impostor masquerading as a professor from Berkeley (which unfortunately for that fraudster was the University where Swedish Gold knew academics. Swedish Gold exposed the fraud, and he got banned for his "services". Because he was Swedish (same as me)
 * 80.244.73.167 Umeå (no idea who that is - call that 3000 kms from London, 750 mks form me here is Stockholm).
 * 81.13.207.104 is Switzerland (no idea who that is - call that 2000 kms from London and 3000 kms from Stockholm and 4000 kms from Umeå).

Now:


 * So that's three Swedish users banned and Jono 2013 who is in England - all last May
 * Jono 2013 last edit was 7 may, his ban for one week was imposed on 21 May. He never returned.
 * I made my first edit mid to late September.

So ask: Besides the fact that I am in Stockholm, here is the obvious, if I was Jono2013 why would I wait until mid September 2013 to make my first edit?

PLUS: here is the big one: Jono2013 was a complete novice in material science. All of the "heavy" science I have written. Jono2013 could never have written that - he was a retired biochemistry professor). For example, my latest additions to the page last week about "Tribochemistry" confirm this even more (these were erased 2 days ago). You only have to see my knowledge of the real substantive by looking at the substantive quality of my comments made on the talk page (Talk:Energetically_modified_cement). There is no way on this blue planet Jono2013 could have possibly done these edits. No way whatsoever. You have to have real project experience and a hell of a lot of knowledge.

Now:'

I have just had the most horrible time being abused and bullied by the user 71.33.155.41. Go to his user page and you will see he received an immediate level 4 warning - and still he did not stop (all you have to do is expand the collapsed section of the talk page of Talk:Energetically_modified_cement and you will see it). Relentless and persistent allegations that I was a LIAR, the science is FAKE, (all in CAPS) the and the the said user claimed that not only was the science refutable but also refuted (and there is a very big difference. I refused to answer these relentless abusive TLDRS and not ONCE id i get warned for my behaviors. The entire thing was very odd and and persistent and (not to be lying) very stressing for me - yes? It was so persistent.


 * In strong contrast to Jono 2013, despite attack after attack, I kept it focused on the substantives, and yes, every time I picked on one BS point made by that user - he could not justify it, except to respond by even more abusive TLDRs.


 * Then "out of nowhere" comes SNOW and offers himself as a "guardian angel". But immediately focuses only on my behavior. I have told him repeatedly I will not get drawn into that. Probably 10 times now. But still he persists.


 * So, this out of nowhere guardian angel appears, and despite claiming to "neutrality" has made ever more wild assertions such as "they are cuing up around the block to get you banned". He has made comments on user:drmies talk page, "lobbying" this theory - and drmies has said said nothing to support him. But even then he cannot stop and has to respond to drmies.([|see here]).


 * And still he persists with trying to make this personalized. And I have told him I will not get drawn into it, just as I will not respond "like for like" to abusive TLDRs.


 * Then, he supports my ban from the topic (with more lobbying text) BUT opposes the ban on 71.33.155.41. In fact far from that he lobbies against the ban of 71.33.155.41

The persistence and refusal to accept my requests NOT to personalize, and his incessant "go on and on and on", his lobbying for 71.33.155.41 to remain, his appearing out on nowhere like a guardian angel, his obvious bias, and then his supporting my ban (and persistent lobbying for it) --- despite the level 4 warning 71.33.155.41 received for for his abusive TLDRS, can mean only one thing:


 * There is the possibility of strong connection between 71.33.155.41 and SNOW. Do they both go in the US? (I would make a request for an "SPI" myself but I do not have named account precisely to show I am in STOCKHOLM).

In Conclusion:' The only reason for his request is so that he can make another assertion that Jono2013 and I are the same and all the others cited here, so that all the personal assertions he has made against me (centering exclusively on the "theory" that we are the same) can give him further ammunition to personalize this, which I refuse to do.

But it the persistence and wild assertions (e.g "they are cuing up around the block to get you banned" I could list them, but I don't have time) that make this so odd. Which is why I do wonder if SNOW and 71.33.155.41 are the same. Persistent and odd twice? Does lightning strike twice? I do not think this is such a unreasonable to wonder - yes?

213.66.81.80 (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "User:Binksternet I think you should declare that you have also voted for me to be banned from the subject - Yes?"


 * First, what policy requires him to do that? Second, why would he feel he needs to hilight himself in that regard?  Every single editor who has responded to that proposal supports the topic ban for you. which reflects on your next statement:


 * "I am adding substantive knowledge and have never received a warning for the tone of my posts."


 * Categorically false on both points. The entire reason the ANI came to focus upon you was because of your complete inability to keep your comments focused on the content and how policy applies to it, instead preferring to lob personal attacks at any editor wishing to make changes to your work, typically in the form of questioning their right to contribute based on their formal credentials, no matter how many times you have been told over the last year that this is not how Wikipedia functions.  You persisted, and, contrary to your assertion Drmies noted your behaviour and gave a strong suggestion that it was probably best that you back away from the article.


 * "This user SNOW persists (and is the only one) on insisting in personalizing' matters, when I have said to him many time now that I will not be drawn into that kind of discussion."


 * I have better things to do on this project, and in general, than pick on an IP for kicks. I didn't engage with you on a whim; I would much rather have ignored you as much as possible altogether. But unfortunately, rather than heed Drmies' advice, you immediately returned to the talk page and again engaged in attacking other editors in response to their comments on how to proceed with the article.  What did you think was going to happen?  You keep framing this situation as other editors coming after you as some sort of "crusade" as you put it, but the reason you keep meeting with the same trouble with other users is because you keep making the same blatant violations of WP:Civility.  It really is that simple.  As to my being the only one there who has issues with your behaviour, that perspective is in complete conflict with the involvement and comments of, , , ,, ,  and ; in short, every editor involved at present.


 * "As part of this "crusade" he has insisted that I be banned from the page"


 * Case in point. Look at your language. And note that I'm not the one who made the formal proposal for a topic-ban --that would be, the same user who took your behaviour to ANI in the first place.-- though I've made no secret that I support that move.  Ultimately it will fall to Drmies or another adminsitrator to decide, but frankly, people have earned themselves a full project ban for a fraction of the disruptive behaviour you have exhibited.


 * "he wants to place a entire history of Jono2013 onto my feet"


 * That's actually pretty much correct. I want to shine a light on how long you have been at this, because once I began investigating the history of the article and its AfDs I was aghast at how long you have been getting away with this behaviour, under all of the involved accounts.   And I know you're still confident that the methods you've used up until now --particularly the smokescreen of allegations of harrassment composed by misrepresenting the actions and motives of other editors-- will continue to shield you, but you're wrong about that, trust me.   Editors who concentrate their efforts in SPI, like those at ANI,  are practiced in separating the assertions of abusive contributors from the facts as the are set in record.   And people with a temper like yours make it all the easier.  They are going to look through the evidence I presented, and the broader histories of the talk page and related discussions and they are going to see exactly what I saw when I started looking into what has transpired there.  And they aren't going to like it any more than I did.


 * "to make sure that he does not look foolish (this is the most kind theory - but I will develop this if you persist)"


 * You don't have any "kind" theories. Every time anyone disagrees with you, you have a reason to explain why they are "harassing" you.  Amongst the theories we've been subjected to for why you keep coming into conflict with others: Because they are cement industry agents sent to disrupt your efforts on the article, because other editors are on a crusade to destroy you personally, or because you're Swedish.  You never have an evidence to support these claims, but it doesn't stop you from coming up with a more ludicrous explanation every time you post.  I've said already in ANI that I honestly don't know if you believe these assertions or if they are just a part of your effort to willfully obfuscate the record and contest any kind of community effort to reign in your behaviour, but it doesn't really matter -- what matters is that you will clearly never stop on your own.


 * "I made my first edit mid to late September."


 * Not true. (May 27, ten days after block).  You were involved in second AfD previous to that.


 * "I have just had the most horrible time being abused and bullied by the user 71.33.155.41. Go to his user page and you will see he received an immediate level 4 warning. and still he did not stop"


 * Bullied is hardly the way I would describe the situation (and I'm echoing comments from the ANI made by other editors in saying so). You two were clearly on-uping one-another in the incivility department for days on end by the time TRPoD's ANI brought the rest of us there.  And actually, you're being dishonest about his reaction.  After Drmies warned him he actually did reform his behaviour on the page and has not once adressed or responded to your directly since.  You are the editor who continued to exhibit battleground mentality, which is how we all found ourselves here.


 * "Then "out of nowhere" comes SNOW and offers himself as a "guardian angel". But immediately focuses only on my behavior. I have told him repeatedly I will not get drawn into that. Probably 10 times now. But still he persists."


 * First, I did not come "out of nowhere", I came after seeing the discussion on ANI.  And your "guardian angel" line is getting truly tired.  ANI is a common procedural process for bringing attention to flagrant violations of policy.  I did not conduct myself in any way different than any other editor would in that situation (aside from to say that an admin likely would have given you a temporary ban very shortly into your reaction to having other parties disagreeing with you there.   And I most certainly did address both you and the other IP when I pointed out that both of you were in violation of civility standards.  My continued involvement there and in the ANI has never strayed into personal territory.   I have consistently kept my comments focused on where your actions have violated policy.  I am confident that any experienced administrator reviewing my actions will confirm that.  You want to leverage my involvement as a cover for your own actions, which the record will also show that you have many times before with other editors who have tried to confront your outbursts.  But you are vastly underestimating the abilities of the members of our community to cut through your misdirection, I assure you.


 * "And still he persists with trying to make this personalized. And I have told him I will not get drawn into it, just as I will not respond "like for like" to abusive TLDRs."


 * Do you not realize how your constant use of "TLDR" reflects how unwilling you are to even attempt to engage in dialogue with other editors? You create these massive vortexes of negative energy and then don't even have the courtesy to pretend that you are open to self-reflection about your role as the cause or the consequences.  It's also ironic, given you are the most prolific poster involved in the ANI.


 * "Then, he supports my ban from the topic (with more lobbying text) BUT opposes the ban on 71.33.155.41. In fact far from that he lobbies against the ban of 71.33.155.41"


 * I didn't lobby for anyone. A vote was called on the proposal of a topic ban for both of you.  Every editor present supported it for you, but we were divided evenly on him.  The reason I did not support the ban for him is that, as I noted above, he had desisted in his uncivil behaviour, where you continued to exhibit it towards every editor involved on the talk page who disagreed with you.   Making a seperate determination for each of you is how that process works.  How is that at all untoward or suspicious?  Is it truly incomprehensible to you that someone could find you to be in error without them having some nefarious ulterior motive?  That is a very myopic attitude to have, but consistent with everyhting you have ever said to another editor who disagrees with you in the entirety of your involvement in this project.


 * "There is the possibility of strong connection between 71.33.155.41 and SNOW. Do they both go in the US? (I would make a request for an "SPI" myself but I do not have named account precisely to show I am in STOCKHOLM)."


 * Oh, you can't possible think this is going to work for you? So he and I are the same person, based solely on the fact that we have both disagreed with you and I showed up at the page?  You do realize that you need more evidence than that, correct?  Your inability to file an SPI is not limited by your account type, it's prohibited by your complete and utter lack of evidence.  Let's compare the evidence I supplied for this SPI with your spurious accusation here:


 * 1) 213.66.81.80 and Jono2013 have both edited solely in a handful of articles related to one central topic, their efforts are entirely focused in this area to near-absolute exclusion of other interests and they arrived on the project within a very short order of one-another. 71.33.155.41 and I have no previous crossover in common articles and I have been editing here as a trusted contributor for years without the slightest history of uncivil conduct or so much as a single accusation of such.


 * 2) 213.66.81.80 and Jono2013 have a long history of sock- and meatpuppet investigation, starting one day a few weeks after their arrivals on the project, respectively. A total of five separate requests have been made to investigate links between them and other autoconfirmed users and IPs, each by separate editors and each time the administrative finding has been that there is meat or sockpuppetry at play.    Neither I nor (to the best of my knowledge) 71.33.155.41 have been the subject of an SPI, nor have I faced allegations of such until your transparent attempt at repraisal here.


 * 3) I presented a behaviour and style analysis above of the posts of 213.66.81.80 and Jono2013 that is compelling enough that I doubt one experienced editor in a hundred would doubt that you are the same person on that evidence alone (nevermind the forthcoming CU evidence).  You both share identical perspectives on every aspect of the one article that is the sole focus of both of your efforts, you use formatting habits that are incredibly rare and highly distinctive, which you both share, and you both have a habit of impugning the abilities and knowledge of other editors who want to alter your work that is simply identical.   My style of formatting and posting, my ability to interact with my fellow editors without hyperbole and my propensity to cite policy as opposed to personal opinion couldn't contrast more with 71.33.155.41's history on that talk page.   Contrary to your claims, I called you both out equally for incivility when I arrived on the talk page.  Besides, what's your argument here, that I engaged with you, as a completely separate identity for five days and waited to arrive with a different account after ANI got involved because I can see the future?  Or wait, let me guess,  are the same person also?  You can't possibly think it helping your situation to make such accusations on the basis of absolutely zero evidence, can you?


 * "But it the persistence and wild assertions (e.g "they are cuing up around the block to get you banned""


 * You need to stop using quotes to imply I said things I in fact did not. If you want to quote, you go to the original comment and you copy and paste.  Don't give a vague rewording to make it sound as sinister as possible.


 * I know you think you are winning at this game of yours, but I know this community and its processes, so I can afford to keep rebutting your misdirection and attempts to hijack process, because I know it is only a matter of time before it all catches up with you. True, I'm befuddled that this has not happened yet, but I'm not concerned about the ultimate outcome.  Snow (talk) 23:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - the CU info on the majority of relevant accounts is . This is a collaborative project; people are going to edit together and work to improve articles together. No allegation of current socking seems to be made in this request. Risker (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This investigation has been open for a long time, and it's obvious no action is going to be taken, since the only thing being asked for is CU confirmation and that can't be given. There is no need to make behavioral comparisons, so I'm going to mark this for closure. --  At am a  頭 21:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)