Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Naarter/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Naarter is using the IP to work around the significant number of reverts of their edits. At some articles, they started editing using the IP and then switched to Naarter. At others, they started with Naarter, and then switched to the IP. At one article, they alternated between both.

At General Butt Naked:
 * IP edit.
 * Reverted by User:JPxG.
 * Reverted back by Naarter.
 * Reverted back by User:David Gerard.

At Bobbi Starr, Naarter made 11 edits over a week-long period. Many of those edits were deleted by: Naarter then continued editing using the IP.
 * User:discospinster.
 * User:Morbidthoughts.
 * ClueBot.
 * User:usernamekiran.

At Belladonna (actress), Naarter began editing using the IP, was reverted repeatedly by User:Morbidthoughts, and then began editing using Naarter, where they were reverted repeatedly by myself, User:discospinster, and User:Morbidthoughts.

At Stoya, they began editing as Naarter. All their edits were reverted by User:Morbidthoughts, who directed Naarter to a discussion on the talk page. In response, the IP added many of the same edits back (and were reverted again).

At Nina Hartley, the IP and Naarter alternated as the edits were reverted.

On my talk page, the IP left this message scolding me for reverting Naarter. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2022 (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

 * Yeah, obviously the same person and obviously improper use of logged-out editing to win edit wars. - please block  for two weeks (anon only, account creation blocked) and Naarter for one week. Thanks,  Spicy (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Edit-conflicted on clerking here, so will just add a reminder to all: Unverified statements of a pseudonymous BLP subject's personal name should be reported to the OS team. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 23:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Blocked as requested. The issues with Naarter's conduct seem to go beyond socking, and I would recommend that any further disruption be met with an indefinite block. Closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Similar activity on Nina Hartley such as insisting on describing Hartley primarily as a "(sex-positive) feminist", similar style of personal attack in edit summaries, e.g. and  (weird that Cameronnoah would be protesting that Naarter's sources "took time to find"). Naarter was blocked for socking just a few months ago. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2022 (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

 * Sometimes it's hard to know whether to AGF when a new account starts making edits in line with one party in an ongoing editorial dispute. After all, if one person has a particular take on an article, it's usually plausible that some other person might have that same take. However, what much more greatly strains credulity is the new account indicating that they are aware of the ongoing dispute, explicitly taking the side of one party to it, and praising that party's efforts, as seen in this pair of ESes Sangdebeouf linked. Could be a joe-job. Could be someone excited to see in the page history someone they agree with. But given Naarter has already once been found to have socked, Occam's razor cuts away from those two hypotheses. . --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 20:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * - -- RoySmith (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- RoySmith (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Similar pattern of adding poorly sourced information characterizing primarily as a "feminist", specifically a "sex positive feminist"; see e.g.  and.

Both and  mention Hartley's role in the "feminist porn wars" without adequate sourcing.

Moderateasneeded and Naarter write similar lengthy edit summaries (compare e.g. and ) about Hartley's. Also similar is Naarter's addition and confirmed sock 's addition.

Moderateasneeded is brand-new yet seemingly already aware of months-old disputes, questioning why others' edits about  were reverted. The most recent edit by Magnolia677 that seems to fit was when they almost a year earlier.

There's a pattern of Naarter's sockpuppets defending the sockmaster; Naarter's IP sock for reverting Naarter, and Cameronnoah also  in an edit summary.

Another talk page comment says Hartley is, very similar to Cameronnoah's comment. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC) edited 09:06, 14 January 2023 (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

 * - the behavioural evidence is convincing; please indef Moderateasneeded as a suspected sock. CU is unlikely to be useful here as the previous accounts are probably stale. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing. firefly  ( t · c ) 17:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Both User:Naarter, User:71.183.232.66 and User:Torah mishna have primarily edited Nina Hartley, where they have focused on "sex-positive feminism". There is a similarity to their edits.

User:Naarter:
 * - "I am studying gender studies and feminism in an academic capacity", and will "contribute to the patriarchal influenced wikipedia articles. Over 90% of wikipedia editors are men and their bias can be seen outright".
 * - "He is playing like he is on top of a hegemony with out making any clear contributions."
 * - edit summary: "I know your lazy ass is just going to delete it because you believe you maintain hegemony over the public image of Nina Hartley from your mothers-basement".
 * - over-linking.

User:71.183.232.66:
 * - hostile to User:Morbidthoughts: "You just personally don't want this information to be connected due to fear of discourse."
 * - hostile to me: "The fact that you can't wrap your head around that or are willing to do research your self is your own issue".

User:Torah mishna:
 * - "I am a current graduate student...in feminism... My thesis details the effects of sex positive feminism".
 * - "I don't know where we draw the line between dialogue and patriarchal intellectual hegemony on with respect to this page. "
 * - "You guys are taking this article personally against ME."
 * - Edit summary: "The men who control this page asked me to provide citations because they have trouble doing it them selves".
 * - over-linking. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:47, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

I'll add that shares a peculiar fixation on Hartley's supposed "contributions" to sex-positivity and role in feminism's "porn wars" with  & their sockpuppets (especially in edit summaries), without any sources directly supporting such claims; compare  &  to Naarter, suspected Naarter sock, and confirmed sock.

Torah mishna takes a defensive tone regarding Hartley's academic bona fides as a speaker, author, and support of sex education, also absent any published sources, similar to both Moderateasneeded and Cameronnoah. Also compare Torah mishna's claim that Hartley is "listed on the sex positive and feminist porn wars pages" with Moderateasneeded's statement "she is listed in an article about sex positive feminism"

There's also a pattern of brand-new accounts bringing up old disputes; compare multiple messages defending certain "prior edits" and Hartley's role in the "feminist porn wars" at 's user talk page. and WP:EFFP to Moderateasneeded, Cameronnoah, and earlier IP sock. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Now that has been blocked, they have provided new evidence with their even more vigorous defense of Naarter and statement that they "learned about Nina Hartley in class"; Compare to : "the first time I heard about Nina Hartley was in college". Also compare the (unsourced) claim that there are "countless sources" for Hartley's role in the porn wars to Moderateasneeded's similar comment on my user talk page. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * , closing. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 04:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
More Nina Hartley related edits with the same style as the Master and other puppets. I've already blocked for 1 year as block evasion. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:13, 9 October 2023 (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

 * Closing. Spicy (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)