Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lexigator/Archive

13 April 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Same name, same behavior. Original user was blocked; new user started up. 1, 2, etc. New user's contributions seem to be nearly exclusively mentions in articles of Wikipedia books Qexigator or Lexigator created; warnings are ignored. hgilbert (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

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

in the article Dichtung und Wahrheit here. Qexigator has made several similar edits to other articles:. This doesn't seem right but is there a specific policy against this? --EPadmirateur (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Question: Is it appropriate to advertise WP-generated books in WP articles? For example, User:Qexigator posted this advert: "This article 'Dichtung und Wahrheit' is included in the Wikipedia book ' "Poetry & Truth": Goethe & some others'."

In rebuttal
Qexigator (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC) Where can Qexigator reply to this 'investigation'? Qexigator (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * " Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. "

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

Has Lexigator appealed? If the IPS info. is available to admin., T.Canens (who I see blocked Lexigator in 2010) or other, then let that settle the matter and avoid this being any further distraction.

Qexigator advises: Bona fide discussion of edits is one thing, resorting to inciting groundless suspicion of sockpuppetry is another.

I (Qexigator) note that Hgilbert (who set this 'investigation' going) can be congratulated for having given time, skill and knowledge as a multiple contributor for some years and as a participant in certain Wikipedia project/s, and for having attained some status among this site's administrators. If the few small edits, or any response to him/her, which I have made to date have caused this person discomfort to the point that s/he has resorted to a wrongful call of 'foul' (by waving a 'sockpuppet' flag), then I would prefer to make no further edits and apply such time, skill and knowledge as I may have available in other ways.

But I would propose to Hgilbert that, if time allows, in a calmer mood and more tranquil moment, s/he lets her/himself reconsider her/his reactions to my responses.

1.It should not be too difficult to observe that Qexigator started this account for the purpose of making the connection between the architect Matthew Digby Wyatt and the images of Newells fortuitously available by link from the article Newells Preparatory School(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Qexigator).

2.Digby's connection with Newells had been discovered in the first place from other sources, as mentioned in Qexigator's contributions, a few days ago. (A glance at Qexigator's Watchlist will disclose an active interest, among others, in notable English architects and their work).

3.Before opening the account, it had been noted that there was an article about Wyatt himself, and that this had a link to the article 'Wyatt family', but that these failed to mention his significant connection with the RIBA. It was further noted that one of the categories for RIBA was one with about 20 others (including another notable architect: Thomas Graham Jackson) the whole of which had been made available to all comers as a Wikipedia book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book:Architects_Registration_in_the_United_Kingdom.

Later, Qexigator included that category in Watchlist.

4.The results of a websearch included the following:

User:Lexigator/Books/About UNO vol. 1 (ready reference)

User:Lexigator/Books/"Looking abroad: some architects and styles, 20c. and before" vol. 3

User:Lexigator/Books/"My Architect": Old Waves and New?

User:Lexigator/Books/"Poetry & Truth": Goethe & some others

PediaPress – Wikipedia Book “The practice of ARCHITECTURE”

http://www.aaruk.info/AARU2.htm

Category:Wikipedia books (user books)

That category has also been put on Qexigator's Watchlist.

5.It was apparent that the principal author of most of the other articles in that Wikipedia book had been Lexigator, and when making up a name for the account 'Qexigator' came to mind, and was adopted after a websearch at that time showed that its use elsewhere was nil or negligible. (A websearch today had only two results: 1)User:Qexigator and 2)Wikipedia:Teahouse/Hosts/Database reports.)

6.But a review of the Wikipedia information about Lexigator showed that Lexigator had been blocked. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Lexigator has now been added to Qexigator's Watchlist for ease of reference.)

7.Following the links from that page discloses an allegation of 'sockpuppetry', and records that a response from Lexigator had begun 'I come a little late into this discussion, but not I hope too late to help restore some goodwill and good sense. There appears to have been a deliberate attempt to sidetrack the only real point at issue....'

It continued: '...given (1) that the content of the Lexigator articles have been treated as good enough in themselves to be appropriated (by a non-contributor who has shown no evidence of any prior knowledge or interest in the topic) for a book, viz. by whoever is behind the strange name "Headbomb"; (2) that Headbomb has done so with questionable and unscholarly alterations, such as the omission of the article on Prof. Budden (perhaps due to a superficial scrutiny of the prior Lexigator bookmaking); (3) that the grouping of the articles as a subcategory is also found to be convenient enough for the purpose (subject to Headbomb's alteration of article title, probably well meant but based essentially on some ignorance of the subject which seems too stubborn to allow intelligent discourse, if not on his part then on Lara's, whose intervention, so far as I know, is unexplained):

then how can it possibly be of any bona fide concern to others whether there is a connection between Lexigator and any other contributor? That is how such material is likely to be created and originated: by those willing to work collaboratively, creatively and usefully, unencumbered by an excess of amour propre. If H. (or is it L.?) will get off this high horse it would still be possible, so far as I am concerned, to reach an amicable agreement about how best to present these articles to whatever readership is likely to want to see them.

Headbomb and Lara cannot fail to be aware that objection was made to alterations which were unnecessary and unhelpful, and their reaction is bound to raise a prima facie suspicion (unproven as far as I am aware) of malice.

Mr Wh-'s comments are wholly correct (I confirm that we are connected only by goodwill in the fellowship of bona fide contributors on a topic of mutual interest); and can it be reasonable to persons of Common Law countries to leave it to some remote person purporting to have some kind of official status to presume to be in a position to judge otherwise, in order to protect persons styling themselves as editors or as of some other status (whose reaction gives every sign that they are simply piqued by an imagined slight to amour propre) when an entirely reasonable and reasoned objection has been made, which they have not yet taken the trouble to justify to the satisfaction of a manifestly better informed party? This is contrary to the declared ethics and ideals of Wikipedia which these quasi-officials profess to be supporting, and is therefore unlikely to be endorsed by Mr Wales.' [6 December 2010 (UTC) ]

8.There was also a separate response from Mr Wh- : 'Perhaps I could direct readers to the point of this page and the accusation of four sockpuppets, no one had proved any involvement of my "sockpuppetry", and any insinuation of "meatpuppetry" is tenuous at best, and totally ignored my first post here about the ARB being in the professional press, some of which can be found online. I would be grateful the the Wikipedia powers-that-be conclude this witch hunt at its earliest convenience.' [8 December 2010 (UTC)]

9.I (Qexigator) will now adopt what I see Mr Wh- had written: 'I would be grateful [if] the Wikipedia powers-that-be conclude this witch hunt at its earliest convenience.' Qexigator (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

10.ADDENDUM: for the information of those concerned with this investigation.

After some further websearching, Qexigator has been able to compile the following report (with external citations for ease of verification): An intelligent reading of the information connected with Lexigator on various Wikipedia pages together with web search results for AARUK such as and  will suffice to show both: that before the block on Lexigator was imposed in December 2010, the name was being used to identify the authorship of a person distinct from the owner of the AARUK website (who had used his own name for Wikipedia inputs of his own authorship); and that neither of those two persons had in fact been a sockpuppet for the other. The issue seemed to be that Lexigator had begun to log on directly when starting to use the Create a book function to make books for the AARUK 'Library' (for legitimately disseminating useful information, and in no way commercially or for profit, other than such profit as PediaPress derives for itself from any resulting orders on their printing and binding service). If it had been known then that this would be treated as if it were an objectionable infraction of Wikipedia requirements, it would have been simple to have opened a new account with a new password, or simpler still to make those and other books without logging on at all.

11.Qexigator is not aware that any of that is contrary to Wikipedia requirements. But if the above information is claimed to disclose conduct amounting to infraction of some Wikipedia requirement, please explain and advise. Qexigator (talk) 10:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

12.For the information of whom it may concern: (QUOTE)Why this name? When I was child I use to dream I had a timemachine and this timemachine was a called The Lexigator.
 * To Qexigator's knowledge there never appears to have been any connection between Lexigator and The Lexigators http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=231618
 * A websearch found this on their site today:

Would you sign a record contract with a major label? Not if we can help it.

Band History: Form in 1964 with Ken Kesey on the merry pranksters bus, ken has since moved on to lesser things, i begged him not to go but he insisted

Your influences? Tom Waits, Beefheart

Favorite spot? Canvey Island

Equipment used: The Imax Clock / Tinman guitars / binman jass basses / computer brain supplied by Warren 2 wheelbarrels Thompson and his kind granma. Anything else...?

We play experimental mayhem, medieval ballads and stones style mamma mia romps (QUOTE ENDS) Qexigator (talk) 11:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Blocked and tagged. It is also apparent, from the above comment, that the user still flatout refuses to understand that we do not share accounts here. --MuZemike 20:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Qexigator appears to have openly admitted to being a reincarnation of Lexigator here. Lexigator is already indeffed for suspected sockpuppetry. The IP 87.102.116.36 shows a very similar pattern of editing, and Qexigator is now involved in strongly supporting an RM which that IP raised using the same arguments Qexigator now uses. A request to discuss on their talk page was simply removed. Andrewa (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' Qexigator has no connection with or knowledge of IP 87.102.116.36 The suspicion of SP is entirely groundless, meddlesome and objectionable. It should be withdrawn with apology on the part of Andrewa, see here and here. It is quite illogical, and in this case vexatious, to suppose that two editors who happen to edit on topics of common interest are in SP connection. Please note, for example, among other things Qexigator's contributions to Common law, Succession to the British throne, Perth Agreement. Qexigator (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

+ Noted that User:Sir Sputnik "is against Monarchy" and may be affected by a bias against topics such those connected with Monarchy. Qexigator (talk) 21:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Please note Qexigator's comment above, and this SPI should be summarily closed. Qexigator (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Given the admission, and the similar username, Qexigator looks like a duck to me. Given the significant overlapping interests and similar edit summaries, the IP is likely the same person as well. Please block the named account indefinitely and the IP temporarily bearing in mind that it's been used consistently for over a year now. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging JamesBWatson who unblocked this editor after they admitted to sockpuppetry. What's that all about? Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That was over five years ago, and I don't remember the circumstances, so I can only go by what can be read in the editing history. However, it seems fairly clear to me that at the time I was unaware that the editor had "admitted to sockpuppetry". I am also unable to find that admission now, so can you point me to it? I can only see an admission of previously having shared an account, which is of course a completely different matter. The block notice at User talk:Lexigator says "You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because shared accounts are not permitted." The blog log and the closing statement at Sockpuppet investigations/Ian Salisbury/Archive both also give "shared account" as the reason for the block on Lexigator, not sockpuppetry. One of the editors who had shared that account therefore created a new account for his or her personal use, not for shared use. That therefore completely dealt with the reason for the block. If somewhere else that I haven't seen that same editor also admitted to sockpuppetry then that is obviously a different matter, but as I have said, I can't find that admission now, and what I wrote at the time indicates that I didn't see it then either. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * There's nothing you're not seeing. This was entirely my mistake. I didn't realize that the new account wasn't actually registered block evasion. Given that, there's no actual misuse here, so I'm closing this case with no action. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)