Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NorthBySouthBaranof/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

I have ceased editing Wikipedia, but I still log in to monitor my watchlist and I just can't let this one slide.

I am pretty sure that 'Seraphim System' is not this user's first account. This editor arrived late last year and had a "newbie" persona. After an editing break through January and February, they returned a seemingly expert user, cognizant with Wikipedia policies and capable of making advanced edits such as creating advanced templates.

After some research, I am increasingly certain that 'Seraphim System' is a sockpuppet of 'NorthBySouthBaranof'. Here's the evidence:

Note that the above is not a judgement on whether those edits are right or wrong, just to show they have a similar modus operandi. There are actually some key differences in the "personality" of the two editors. NorthBySouthBaranof is haughty and combative, Seraphim System is much more erudite. However, both are forthright in their views and steadfast in their interactions with other editors. Both concentrate on undermining the validity of opposing editors' sources. I also have some additional behavioral evidence that I've withheld here, but I can email to the Checkuser or clerk, and is quite convincing.

Furthermore, I noticed that the two accounts appear to make complex sets of edits in "tandem" as if switching between accounts. See for example the timings from the early hours of 2 May 2017 UTC:


 * 08:57, 2 May 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-30)‎ . . m Southern Poverty Law Center ‎ (tighten) (current)
 * 08:56, 2 May 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+191)‎ . . Southern Poverty Law Center ‎ (Add specific reference)
 * 08:53, 2 May 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+92)‎ . . Southern Poverty Law Center ‎ (Explain specifically why the SPLC labels the FRC a hate group.)
 * 08:50, 2 May 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-267)‎ . . Southern Poverty Law Center ‎ (Out-of-context throwaway quote doesn't provide any insight whatsoever, seems chosen for shock value.)
 * 08:27, 2 May 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-1,833)‎ . . Southern Poverty Law Center ‎ (rm cherry-picked quote w/o context, misplaced things, rewrite for clarity, remove section unrelated to hate group/extremist listings)
 * 08:17, 2 May 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-787)‎ . . Southern Poverty Law Center ‎ (This is already adequately covered in the other article, no reason to precisely duplicate it here; though if there was, it would require the context of the other article.)
 * 08:15, 2 May 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-418)‎ . . Southern Poverty Law Center ‎ (Not sure why it's relevant which requests a group did or didn't answer, and no secondary source seems to take note.)
 * Hour and a half editing break, switches to NorthBySouthBaranof
 * 06:47, 2 May 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-2)‎ . . m Neville–Neville feud ‎ (typo →‎Background and causes) (current)
 * 06:46, 2 May 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+35)‎ . . Neville–Neville feud ‎ (→‎Background and causes)
 *  ...snip half an hour or so of solid editing... 
 * 06:07, 2 May 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+267)‎ . . m User:Seraphim System/sandbox ‎
 * 06:05, 2 May 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+893)‎ . . m User:Seraphim System/sandbox ‎
 * Switches to Seraphim System
 * 05:52, 2 May 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+14)‎ . . m List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-LGBT hate groups ‎ (→‎Alliance Defending Freedom) (current)
 * 05:51, 2 May 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+23)‎ . . List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-LGBT hate groups ‎ (→‎Alliance Defending Freedom)
 * 05:51, 2 May 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+908)‎ . . List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-LGBT hate groups ‎ (→‎Alliance Defending Freedom: Clearly explain why SPLC lists this group)
 * Switches to NorthBySouthBaranof
 * 05:30, 2 May 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+8)‎ . . User talk:Seraphim System ‎
 * 05:28, 2 May 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+283)‎ . . User talk:Seraphim System ‎
 * 05:08, 2 May 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+425)‎ . . Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure ‎ (close request)
 * 04:59, 2 May 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+375)‎ . . Neville–Neville feud ‎ (clarified technical term enfeoffment)
 * 04:56, 2 May 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+27)‎ . . User:Seraphim System/sandbox ‎
 * 04:55, 2 May 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+8)‎ . . User:Seraphim System/sandbox ‎ (→‎Notes)
 * 04:55, 2 May 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-71)‎ . . User:Seraphim System/sandbox ‎ (→‎Background and causes)
 * 04:36, 2 May 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+27)‎ . . m User:Seraphim System/sandbox ‎
 * 04:35, 2 May 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+639)‎ . . m User:Seraphim System/sandbox ‎
 * Starts as Seraphim System

A similar pattern is evident on prior days. Where there is overlap, they tend to be minor edits, or simple, non-time consuming edits, such as reverts. It's also possible they are composing edits in advance.

Finally, for the avoidance of doubt, assuming I'm correct, the two accounts engaged in open-and-shut sockpuppetry when they both weighed into this content dispute/RfC at Talk:Protests against Donald_Trump and both accounts "voted" in Articles for deletion/Effects of air pollution on health in communities of color in America. (1)AnotherNewAccount (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

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

I came to know NorthBySouthBaranof as an experienced editor before I crossed paths with Seraphim System, and I had a lengthy dispute with Seraphim System when she was obviously a new editor learning the ropes. Based on this experience, I'm quite certain that they are two different people. Given the very weak evidence presented here, I recommend a speedy close. Eperoton (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm having trouble coming up with anything civil to say in response to this SPI beyond "oh please." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. I felt the timings in particular looked fairly convincing to me. There was several days worth too. Thanks for looking into it though. Awfully sorry, NorthBySouthBaranof and Seraphim System. (1)AnotherNewAccount (talk) 00:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

His Vandal edit have direct connection with his later edit that want to show it was a "Show trial" --Shrike (talk) 06:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why was blocked.  The account  made a total of one edit which was obviously vandalism and served no useful purpose.   What if it was his/her computer or a shared IP and someone else was using it? From what I see, I think the block should be lifted and/or is excessive.  --David Tornheim (talk) 00:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I've blocked/tagged the filer, the master alternative account, and another newer account, although I suspect they will be unblocked.
 * The two accounts in this case are ❌. However, Seraphim System and, which is already blocked, are ✅. I've blocked Seraphim Sytem for one week and tagged 1001nightsx3.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure there were sufficient grounds to run a CU in this case—evidence seems rather anecdotal in nature. As David Tornheim mentions, the result is perplexing. As well, the block itself is supposed to prevent what disruption(?), seeing as the alleged socking (one vandal edit) took place about a month ago. El_C 05:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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


 * See also: Sockpuppet investigations/FCYTravis

Polarscribe was blocked for a week on May 4, 2013. He retired on the same day, citing dissatisfaction with BLP issues. NorthBySouthBaranof made their first edit on 9 May, 2013, thus evading the block for 3 days.

Polarscribe is a former admin that had changed his username from FCYTravis. He went inactive after misuse of his tools, according to a 2008 ANI thread. He requested the tools back in 2012, but after there was considerable opposition in BN thread, he voluntarily accounced he will not be seeking the tools back while an ArbCom request was underway, meaning he resigned under a cloud.

The editor interaction utility show some common interests like US West Coast national parks, forests, towns and small airports. The two articles that they edited within 10 days of NSBS's registration include West Fertilizer Company explosion and Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev. In the latter, both Polarscribe and NorthBySouthBaranof removed information about the associates of the perpetrators:. Both used the edit summary of "reword" in the article:.

While NBSB has apparently not resumed any feuds related to this retirement, WP:CLEANSTART also states: Certain articles and topics are particularly contentious, and have attracted additional community scrutiny in the form of requests for comment, community sanctions, or arbitration cases. These areas should be completely avoided by the editor attempting a clean start. NBSB has 491 edits at WP:ANI, 400 edits at WP:3RRN, 153 edits at WP:AE and was subject to an ArbCom topic ban. This is hardly uncontroversial. Polarscribe has a block log with 4 blocks. Editors that NBSB has disputes with have a right to know this.

Furthermore, there is some private evidence which should establish the connection between the accounts without a doubt. I have emailed this to the functionary mailing list. Because the block evasion happened years ago, no action might be required. However, I hope that a functionary can verify the connection between these accounts so Polarscribe's history and block log is no longer secret and that this can be archived publicly. Thank you. Pudeo (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Where exposing block evasion in violation of WP:CLEANSTART and a undisclosed accounts with blocks should be done if not at SPI? --Pudeo (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I am no one's sockpuppet. One may wish to consider why Pudeo is carrying on a long-term vendetta against me; I would not be surprised to find it part of an off-wiki-coordinated harassment campaign. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * There was no good reason to file this report. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ilhan_Omar&type=revision&diff=1004472699&oldid=1004471566

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ilhan_Omar&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ilhan_Omar&type=revision&diff=1004468800&oldid=1004467591

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isra_Hirsi&action=history

The user's accounts did not suggest talking about the edit. When I went on the users talk page, I accused them of sockpuppeteering; they did not deny it. The page I have cited the edits has 1 revert rule. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof&oldid=1004486175 J.Turner99 (talk) 09:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I would also add that I feel this behavour is unbefitting of an extended comfired user. The fact that this user has already been reported on two occasions, is troubling. I feel certain admins give this user favourable treatment. This is not appropriate in a setting like this. J.Turner99 (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * To be clear, I am not reporting this user because I disagree with their edit, I genuinely feel this is a sockpuppet account. I felt it was worth mentioning the fact the user has been reported before — how often is the same account reported for being a Sockpuppet? The 2nd account reverted my edit just six minutes after I reverted the 1st account (there is a 1RR rule). The same two users had edits confilcting mine edit on a completely different page. Is it not strange that two users have exactly the same interest in a particular part of an article at roughly the same time? I request a CheckUser please. J.Turner99 (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * JayBeeEll Just removed something from NorthBySouthBaranof's talk page . Why would a user engage in refactoring another editor's comments on another editor's talk page . . . ? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof&diff=prev&oldid=1004641504 J.Turner99 (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Ha, funny. I hope the closing admin gives J.Turner a good talking-to; tried already and it wasn't very effective. --JBL (talk) 11:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Ilhan Omar is on my watchlist, so, following the edits there led here, but struggling to understand the basis of the complaint. If an edit of yours is challenged, it is incumbent upon you to initiate a discussion. If I had seen what you tried to insert into the Omar and the Hirsi articles respectively, I would've removed it as well. Pointing out past filings that were found to be meritless does not seem to be a useful argument. ValarianB (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

"Two people reverted my terrible edits - they must be socks of each other!" NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The article gets several thousand pageviews every day, it would only make sense more than one editor would be there to revert your undiscussed change. Do not file bad faith reports like this. Closing with no action. Sro23 (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)