Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Peter Damian/Archive

Report date August 25 2009, 22:20 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

--Apoc2400 (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Apoc2400
 * The user page
 * Paulatim mistakenly answers for Peter Damian and soon reverts (back in June)
 * Evidence of abuse: Attacks the admin that blocked other Peter Damian sock.


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

has already blocked this account indefinitely. J.delanoy gabs adds 20:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Report date September 15 2009, 01:59 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Fences and windows

This IP user has lately been focussing on deleting and criticising articles edited by User:Benjiboi, e.g. they nominated by proxy Articles for deletion/Tactical frivolity. A sockpuppet of Peter Damian, User:The Land Surveyor, had already been blocked after opening Articles for deletion/DJ Pusspuss (2nd nomination), an article which Benjiboi started.

The IP first crossed paths with Benjiboi on 16 August, before the DJ Pusspuss AfD:.

From his posts on Wikipedia Review Peter Damian seems obsessed with Benjiboi's editing, and Peter Damian was previously in disagreement with Benjiboi on-wiki too. On that thread he makes plain the reason for the choice of the username "Peter Damian" - St. Peter Damian was a notable opponent of homosexuality; the articles the IP user is objecting to mostly concern the SF gay scene.

Peter Damian has shown an interest off-wiki in the editing of this IP user, to the extent of quoting this in his signature on Wikipedia Review: "I have this horrible psychological tic which leaves me unable to productively collaborate with compulsive plagiarists and liars. Obviously, Wikipedia is full of these, and an ability to interact positively with them is important. We should strive to make everyone, especially game-players and liars, feel at home. If regular people try to stop this, they should be banned.24.22.141.252 (talk) 12:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)."

What gives me pause is that the topics the IP started editing on, linguistics, are not those same as the interests of Peter Damian, which were philosophy. But the editor is clearly not a newbie - they are well versed in the ways of Wikipedia and dropped a note to User:Thekohser, another WR regular - and the quacking is loud enough for me to file this. If this isn't a sockpuppet of Peter Damian, it'll be the sock of another editor.


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Even a simple whois can verify that I'm not Peter Damian - different continent, not a proxy.whois Also, I'm not a sockpuppet, I'm an anon IP. Otherwise, these (for example) are sockpuppets of User:Benjiboi, right?24.22.141.252 (talk) 02:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Re "This IP user has lately been focussing on deleting and criticising articles edited by User:Benjiboi, e.g. they nominated by proxy Articles for deletion/Tactical frivolity." Benjiboi has never edited Tactical Frivolity, has he?24.22.141.252 (talk) 03:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested by Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

Additional information needed: Please provide a code letter. SPCUClerkbot (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Nope. Brandon (talk) 05:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

Report date September 19 2009, 15:21 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

The username and this diff reveals that this user is a sock. Requesting a checkuser to find out if this user is indeed previously banned and/or who it may be.  Triplestop  x3  15:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by  Triplestop  x3


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * "Sockpuppet inquiry pages are only about account and IP misuse—nothing else. If the evidence is not there, then the case will be closed without any adverse finding of any kind." . This account (as other accounts of mine) has contributed one new article, and has improved a number of others.  Hence there is no evidence of misuse.  Please close.  Previously banned user (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project" - CheckUser policy. --Deskana (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Case moved from Sockpuppet investigations/Previously banned user and added to Sockpuppet investigations/Peter Damian. NW ( Talk ) 18:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * Sockpuppet of User:Peter Damian. Account blocked. --Deskana (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Report date September 19 2009, 18:20 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets
 * (already checked and blocked)
 * (already checked and blocked)

All pages this user has edited were edited by banned user Peter Damian. I suspect this is a sock.  Triplestop  x3  18:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by  Triplestop  x3


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by  Triplestop  x3  18:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * ✅. Brandon (talk) 18:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ that Cement == Previously ++Lar: t/c 19:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Evidence submitted by Fram
Peter Damian was community banned in August 2009 here. That ban is still active. For the moment, an unban request is being discussed at An. 5 Socks of Peter Damian (and an IP he used once, probably by accident) were blocked last week, the first after a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive593. Four of these edited at the same time, a few of them were sleepers. This gives the strong impression that there are more of them still around.


 * User:John Watkins LLD: edited 17 December 2009 - 9 February 2010
 * User:Short lived account: edited 7 February 2010 - 8 February 2010
 * User:The Rationalist: edited 16 February 2008 - 28 January 2010
 * User:A history of the modern world: edited 20 November 2009 - 30 January 2010
 * User:Editor with a background in philosophy: edited 21 January 2010 - 27 January 2010

Evidence that they are all the same user: The Rationalist = Editor with..., A history... as well, short lived account, and John Watkins. Behaviour is pretty consistent as well.

This request is not for confirmation that all these users are Peter Damian, that is quite obvious, but to unearth and block his other socks that have been active recently. Fram (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any edits from that IP, have they been deleted, or did you get the address wrong? (If you did get the address wrong then there's no real need to reveal the correct address, the accounts are plenty for the CU to go on for sleepers, and there's no need to breach Peter's privacy). Kindest regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 14:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Fram (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

to run a check for sleepers. Thanks, SpitfireTally-ho! 17:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

✅ the following:
 * Dominic·t 09:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Dominic·t 09:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Dominic·t 09:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Dominic·t 09:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Dominic·t 09:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Dominic·t 09:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Dominic·t 09:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Dominic·t 09:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Dominic·t 09:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Fram
The IP posted "I won't put this on the HOL talk page as certain administrators will be looking there. I doubt they will be looking here. You could of course 'turn me in' but I would appreciate it if you didn't. Peter. " HOL refers to History of Logic, a page Peter Damian tries to get to FA. The other accounts all were very active there. Logic Historian was blocked as a PD sock by Rlevse, the other ones by me. Lgic Historian was a self-declared sockpuppet, the other ones had a similar name, and very similar edits. HistorianofLogic tagged a number of accounts as PD socks as well. User From the other side claimed not to be PD, but to be proxying for him... 

These are pretty clear, but since PD has the habit of having quite a lot of socks, some of them for completely unrelated edits (as evidenced by last month's checkuser), I believe that a new checkuser may be useful. Fram (talk) 10:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Fram (talk) 10:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

–MuZemike 17:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing new. IP is him, of course, but since he confessed you already knew that. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 04:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by SteveMcCluskey
He's raising a legitimate problem about one of his articles with these edits, but is a long-time banned user.

SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

 * I've added 86.182.216.133, who self-identifies as Peter Damian as well. Note that his second post to Athenean is no longer "raising a legitimate problem", but canvassing for support against his ban (with a rather unrealistic description of why he was actually banned). Fram (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Here for a bit added, plus one more IP. I do believe that a checkuser would be useful, since Peter Damian has in the past used parallel accounts for unrelated editing, to escape notice. Fram (talk) 06:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Added User:The Logical Positivist. Name of user very similar to older socks (like User:The Rationalist, User:HistorianofLogic and User:Logic Historian. User's contributions are not what one would expect from a new user (creating a list as a redirect to a category after one hour? Editing templates the next hour?) Topics are similar to the ones edited by Damian, including Arthur Prior, where the previous edit was by 86.186.86.97, a PD ip. Fram (talk) 07:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Well, there's not much that can be done here. Revert, if you must. Blocking the dynamic IPs is pointless. The point he makes is, I believe, acted upon. Amalthea 21:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Based on new evidence and the fact that he has had more socks in the past, I think a check is needed.  B s a d o w s k i 1   07:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The Logical Positivist is ❌. Amalthea  21:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

12 December 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

This user has created multiple usernames with Roman numerals after his name. Logan Talk Contributions 19:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * See this comment for evidence. Logan Talk Contributions 19:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Would CU find potential sleepers? -- Addi hockey  10 e-mail 19:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Obvious sock is obvious. Blocked and tagged. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 19:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

13 December 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Per discussion with, this one seems pretty obvious. CU needed to root out sleepers. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

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

This is quite outrageous. I am not Peter Damian, have never met him, and have no kind of association with him. The only evidence against me would appear to be that I restored obviously helpful and constructive changes to Walter Burley. If you'll see the talk page, you'll find that another editor - KD Tries Again - agrees with me that that was the correct thing to do. Does that make him a sockpuppet of Peter Damian too? In addition, note that while Peter Damian's normal edit time is 15:25:16, mine is 3:58:1, showing that I am editing from a different time zone and, therefore, am a different person. I expect an apology for this false accusation. Philosophy Teacher (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
❌ – completely opposite locations on the globe. –MuZemike 22:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh, okay. Sorry about that. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

19 December 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Quack. ~  Nerdy Science  Dude  14:36, 19 December 2010 (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 48 hours. Userpage semi-protected. Elockid  ( Talk ) 14:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

09 February 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Appears a tad obvious. Unless, of course, the socks are now unbanned from the past? (II, III, IV and V) Collect (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC) Collect (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2011 (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

 * Blocked and tagged per WP:DUCK. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 22:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

22 April 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

This IP takes credit for writing "The Logic Museum", which says in the May 11 2008 entry, "My ban from Wikipedia is now over, and I am back as Peter Damian." Since Peter Damian is again banned, this IP should be eligible for blocking. Because he has used many alternate accounts in the past, this may be a worthwhile time to fish around and see if there are current named accounts edited from this IP, if that is permitted by policy. Wnt (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC) Wnt (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2011 (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 IP matches up to some of the ones in the archive. Per that, as well as the evidence given here, I've blocked the IP for two weeks for evasion. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 12:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

21 November 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Peter Damian has a long and well-documented history of attempting to evade his ban, and is known to use IPs in the 109.* range. Links to his web site were added by IPs in that range in the past few days after a five-month period of inactivity. Coincidentally, Quisquiliae made his first edits in five months at about the same time to the same pages. The 109.* IPs geolocate to London, England, as does the IP 86.173.254.152 used here by Quisquiliae. The accounts Dunz Scotuz and I Cee Katz were created and used solely to further the goal of adding links to Damian's site, and the site is also adding new URLs to avoid the spam filter. Quisquiliae is actively restoring those same links, monitoring the link and the blacklist (as seen here). Ckatz chat spy  19:25, 21 November 2011 (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

 * Dunz and I Cee are already blocked, obviously Peter will be stale himself, so all CU can do is link the three named accounts really. Alexandria (chew out) 21:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The following are ✅ to matching each other:
 * Further, Quisquiliae appears ❌ o the above three. Of course, Peter Damian and all prior socks are stale, so more than that will be a behaviour question, though I'd encourage a longer-tenured CU to have a look around. Courcelles 23:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Gonna leave Quisquiliae alone for now. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Further, Quisquiliae appears ❌ o the above three. Of course, Peter Damian and all prior socks are stale, so more than that will be a behaviour question, though I'd encourage a longer-tenured CU to have a look around. Courcelles 23:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Gonna leave Quisquiliae alone for now. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Gonna leave Quisquiliae alone for now. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * These are not socks of Peter Damian; they are socks of Johnny the Vandal. Please change tags on the accounts appropriately.  Risker (talk) 02:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but who is "Johnny the Vandal"? That account has only one edit (that I can see), and the edit (from 2006) is in no way similar to these accounts. and ICK/DS (along with the IPs) fit the pattern of Damian. --Ckatz chat spy   09:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Serial creator of vandal accounts, frequently "mocking" the usernames or real names of administrators and other users. We do not maintain lists of his "socks" here because, bluntly, he likes it too much. This is one of those vandals whose accounts are subject to the "RBI" treatment. I've shown Courcelles the checkuser-identifiable hallmarks.  Risker (talk) 11:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What Risker is saying here. I've had to deal with JtV socks at SPI for years now and I know them when I see them. These are ✅ as being JtV accounts. needless to say. I don't even bother tagging them any more - what's the point? However, I'm tagging them here, for the sole purpose to indicate that these are not related to the 'Peter Damien' editor, who's actually quite annoyed about the whole matter - A l is o n  ❤ 23:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It would make me wonder if this SPI report even belongs in this archive in that instance...but I can't think of any alternatives. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  23:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Worth it for future reference, both to ID JtV clones and to indicate that PD is still using IP socks to actively evade his ban and add links. (The 109.* edits) --Ckatz chat spy  00:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

05 February 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Amongst edits are promotion of the logicmuseum, along with the fact of this being variations of the name User:Edward Buckner and creation of these accounts within minutes of each other. Fæ (talk) 13:39, 5 February 2012 (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
Not Peter Damian, but rather, an unrelated troll. Those three are the same, plus. I've blocked them all -please re-post if more disruption occurs. TN X</b> Man 14:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)