Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Strivingsoul/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

All copied from this revision (with slight modifications).

Note the User:Expectant of Light/Media bias project page. It seems uncannily similar to Strivingsoul's notion of "correcting" so-called "systematic bias", which they invoked multiple times as justification for using unreliable, pro-Iran sources.

Strivingsoul stated that they were "planning and preparing" and "hoping" to do something about this so-called "systematic bias" on Wikipedia, like that was a mission of theirs. The new user's so-called "media bias project", given the above considerations, reads exactly like an implementation or restatement of this mission, which fully suggests a line of continuity between the two user accounts. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Requesting CU confirmation. I noticed your involvement in this unblock request, which suggests that you are more familiar with Strivingsoul's editing than I am. The POV disruption caused by this user on Battle of Al Hudaydah and its talk page is too much to handle. It's frustrating to even look and I have more important content-related matters to deal with right now (I commend for their patience in dealing with this). The CU request may very well be declined for technical reasons. Would you please help provide the missing evidence if there's any? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Beware, posting just out of bed with no caffeine: glancing at his user talk page posts, I don't see Expectant of Light even hinting at the existence of Jews, much less saying anything anti-Semitic, much less reacting to any opposition by accusing "opponents" of with Jew-baiting. When it was made clear to Strivingsoul that David Duke is not only an unreliable source but that Duke's views are obviously morally reprehensible to any human with a tenth of a brain and a sliver of a heart, Strivingsoul was as confused as if one had similarly dismissed Paul Krugman.  He tried to argue that Duke is an expert who just presents an alternative but proven view that needs to be respected.  He was as confused about being blocked for anti-Semitism as one would be for being blocked for not writing in E-Prime.  He could not understand that that was the issue and so tried to address other issues while defending his anti-Semitism.  Strivingsoul's level of anti-Semitism was at a level of blind and pathological stupidity that would need to be fixed with medication and constant monitoring.  Barring the CU coming up as "technically indistinguishable," I don't think we have a case here.
 * No comment on what might be other issues on Expectant of Light's part, as this wouldn't be the right venue for it. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess that leaves only two of us convinced that they are both the same person: (I assume) and myself. I'll have to disagree with the first part of your observation here (the one related to Jews), given the comments by Expectant of Light on this thread, such as this:"I explained anti-Semitism is mostly a propaganda term that partisan Zionist sources use to discredit any criticism even by Jews who are critical of Israel accusing them of "self-hatred" which is laughable. And if you check most sources that develop the literature about this concept you find they are mostly Jewish sources with strong bias towards Israel."


 * Then you have this by Strivingsoul from a hatted thread in which you were involved:"they rely mainly on blatantly biased sources such as the Anti-Defamation League notorious for its history of shameless espionage/spying operations against civilians, blatant political bias towards Israel, and its persistent campaign of defamation and smear against all critiques of Israel or Judo-Zionist political power by resorting to its typical arbitrary anti-Semitic labeling nonsense"


 * They do share some similarities, don't you think? The comments on David Duke and the remarks on Beverly Hills 90210 being an "evil incarnate" may have caught the attention of both you and Iridescent respectively, but they only appear to be the tip of the iceberg. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There's also the defending here (EoL) and here (Ss) of Fars News Agency, a highly questionable source. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's what was needed. I'm not saying they're the same, but I'm not saying they're distinct.  Ian.thomson (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Responding to ping on my phone, so apologies for any typos. Strivingsoul had a very specific agenda, to "prove" that television was part of an evil Jewish plot to corrupt young minds, and I'm not really seeing that here. The whole "Wikipedia is biased and we need to correct it" is one that has quite wide circulation, particularly on the alt-right in the US and the Corbynista left in the UK; Unless there's something specific to connect the accounts, assume they're unrelated. &#8209; Iridescent 11:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  15:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * because the master is stale and no other accounts have been indicated so we don't know who to check against. This case will have to be decided based on behavior unless more evidence comes to light.
 * There's not enough for administrative action here. Closing. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Per own admission. Already blocked. Filing for the record. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:06, 5 August 2018 (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 per above. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets


(sock of ) was heavily involved in the People's Mujahedin of Iran article prior to getting blocked in August this year. Now User:Cah5896 (an editor 10 edits) has started making significant edits on the MEK page and making accusations against me  that are reminiscent of 's previous accusations against me. This also includes:
 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

User:Cah5896 : "Wikipedia moving toward parroting the exact same viewpoint across the board." User:Expectant of Light : "Why do you keep parroting your baseless accusation?"
 * Using the term "parroting":


 * Allegations of media bias:

User:Cah5896: "The whole internet is getting tighter and tighter as far as restricting viewpoints. Coincides also with a mass deletion of Facebook profiles due to the Atlantic Council partnership. Everything works in tandem nowadays, all news outlets, social media, Wikipedia moving toward parroting the exact same viewpoint across the board. Very scary and fascist." User:Expectant of Light : "One of my key concerns in Wikipedia is reflection of media bias in Wikipedia articles. This comes in various forms but most primary of which are ideological, political and corporate forms of media bias. I aim to gradually collect examples and critical essays/articles that illuminate these forms of bias." 


 * Mentioning John Bolton's support for the MEK:

User:Cah5896: "the fact that America's neoconservatives like John Bolton are rabidly pro-MEK". 

User:Expectant of Light : "and is supported by the “bomb Iran” John Bolton"

All these similarities derive from a single edit by User:Cah5896, which makes all this too much of a coincidence (specially for a user with only 10 edits).

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * This report was filed unconventionally so I added the missing templates. But it's nowhere to be found on the SPI list in the main page, even after purging. Could you take a look? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for analysis. Considering the evidence above, could this be a duck or a meatpuppet case? It just seems like too much of a coincidence for a user with 10 edits to have a sudden interest in this article and to write so similarly to Expectant of Light. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Purging doesn't cut it. Reports are added to the list by a bot, I think it's every 7 minutes or something like that. Thanks for helping out.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * - Please compare to Expectant of Light. Thanks, GABgab 03:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Reping for because this goes stale soon. Thanks,  GABgab 17:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Technically or evading CU - TNT 💖 18:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Closing. GABgab 18:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)