Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Editor of All Things Wikipedia/Archive

09 August 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

User:Beyond My Ken has accused me User:The Editor of All Things Wikipedia of being the sockpuppet master of User:Cityside189. I am opening the case against myself in order to prove my innocence. I give you permission to look at my IP. User:Beyond My Ken claims to have evidence, Im assuming in the form of diffs so I will notify him to provide it here so the investigation can proceed and we can clear my name as well as CitySide's. I will alert Cityside on thsir talk page as well. Thanks  The Editor of All Things Wikipedia  《Talk》 05:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)  The Editor of All Things Wikipedia  《Talk》  05:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My statement is above as I started this investigation against myself.  The Editor of All Things Wikipedia  《Talk》 06:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * BMK said that a checkuser request would be turned down so I did a SPI. He did not say until after that this would be turned down. And anyway, its not going to hurt, it can only clarify this already confusing situation. I must have been mistaken about the evidence, I retracted that above. And free at last chit chat, dont worry about it, you made your comment in a very non offensive way and it kinda brightened my day or night or whatever, its nesring 2 am where I am. :) Thanks,  The Editor of All Things Wikipedia  《Talk》 08:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

So now you are on a fishing expedition. I was just reporting a username that blatantly violated Wikipedia policy. I obviously have no relation to TEOTW or Cityside. This is getting nuts. I am not either one of them. My behavior is totally different than their behavior. Let it go bro. So every new account that fights vandalism is going to be reported by you. Epic fail bro  RbAxM33320 (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As I noted at my talk page, I truly am sorry if it's just a coincidence, which it sounds like it is. That said, I think I had legitimate (if, as it may be, incorrect) concerns given the circumstances I have explained below and at my talk page.  Thanks, North of Eden (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
The statement above, that I claimed to have "evidence" is entirely incorrect [as is the claim it was replaced with that he is the "sockpuppet master", There may be a problem in understanding plain English here]. Please see this AN/I thread for background (it's long): Help, and this section (not so long) for specifics: Another side of the street. (Also look at the last half dozen or so comments before "Another side of the street".) In these threads you will see that I voiced suspicions, "tingling", vague possibilities, something not smelling quite right, etc. etc. If I had hard evidence, I would have opened an SPI myself, but I don't, so I didn'tIn those threads, specifically the second one, you will also see that I specifically told The Editor of All Things Wikipedia (TEoATW) that "innocence" requests would be turned down. He said he couldn't find a policy that said that, so I quoted him the policy, from WP:CheckUsers; he said, well, maybe the CheckUSers he had already contacted wouldn't know the rules and would do the check anyway. Then he went and filed this, an obvious "innocence" request masquerading as an SPI.All I can say is, this is not my request, and I do not endorse it, but I would not be at all surprised if after reading the threads cited above, a clerk or CU were to get the same kind of "tingling" of suspicion that I had. This is either an aggresive and overbearing newbie who learned a lot about Wikipedia in a very short time, or a quite sophisticated troll, I don't know which. Socking? Maybe yes, maybe no, but something is most definitely rotten in Denmark. That's not evidence, but 10 years of hanging around this place does sensitize one to certain... peculiarities when they pop up. BMK (talk) 06:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have been following the situation on the noticeboard. The user in question appears to be .....how should i put it now without offending anyone?....well the only thing I can say is that his behavior appears to resemble a hyperactive menopausal lady.(My apologies for being blunt). And even though there is nothing to warrant an SPI, he may well be sanctioned in another way in the near future.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * has said that he feels harassed and frightened by the opening of this SPI here and . I see no behavioral evidence that Cityside189 is a scock of TEoATW or of anyone else. He has said here and and later in the same Teahouse thread] that he has edited as an IP in the past. This all strikes me as consistent.
 * As to TEoATW, I have no evidence that isn't very public. My personal believe is that s/he is a quick-learning, over-zealous, well-intentioned but somewhat hard of listening new volunteer. But s/he does need to stop digging in that case, and it is possible that s/he is a very subtle socking vandal. But i don't think so. S/he reminds me a bit of User:Maoririder, and of many young geeky smart but socially challenged types I have met in the computer and SF worlds, but that is just speculation with no evidence. DES (talk) 11:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I personally don't think TEoATW is a sock- as DESiege said, he/she's probably just an overzealous new user wanting to take it all in at once. - K u r o u s a g i  12:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * May or may not be a sock. But, I don't really can get my head around on how the user was very, in fact very very comfortable in navigating all Wiki pages, policies and in arguing (based on policies) with experienced editors.. Baffled by the facts! *sigh*-- JAaron95 Talk   12:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * True... Perhaps this user has contributed anonymously in the past and got familiar with Wikipedia then, and has just made an account (like me)? - K u r o u s a g i  12:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen 'this' impact from an IP. If the user were actually editing for sometime (unregistered), I'd expect some but sure disruption which one and all might have noted. But, never have I seen such disruption or else, the account is a troll. But Dakarias, you were 'that' thorough of all the policies when you registered? 'cause I wasn't. In fact I'm still learning new policies.-- JAaron95 Talk   12:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I certainly wasn't- but it's a possibility. Perhaps the IP was warned, then read the policies to make up for it. Just a theory. - K u r o u s a g i  12:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I wasn't planning to become involved here, but I noticed this, frankly, bizarre exchange at Cityside189's talk page, which makes me wonder exactly what is going on. I hope I don't sound like a member of the John Birch Society, but a number of things (the newness of each account, similarities in when they edit--things I didn't look at during the ANI discussion) are starting to making me suspicious. North of Eden (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Cityside189 says to TEoATW: {{blockquote|text=If you want to really dialog, you should be ready to hear my interpretation of your behavior and submit to my supervision of your activities. You should be prepared to take action to do new things, and you should be prepared to stop doing things even if you think you shouldn't have to.  You may have to stretch out of your comfort zone.  If you want my dialog and support here on Wikipedia, you will have to agree up front to do whatever I say to do, and refrain from doing whatever I say to refrain from doing.  If you don't like the ideas of this or think it's wrong, or simply disagree, then I will not dialog with you or support you, and I probably will share my views with important wikipedia administrators that you should be removed from Wikipedia.  So it's up to you. {emphasis added)}} As Johnny Carson used to say "That's some weird stuff."  (Remember, these are two accounts which have both been here for a matter of days.) It's things like that, and Cityside sounding like a bullmoose today after running to my talk page sounding like a scared little mouse yesterday,  that raise my hackles.  More and more, this sounds like a doubles act, good hand/bad hand.  To quote Harrison Ford: "I've got a bad feeling about this." BMK (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've changed my mind, there really is now sufficient behavioral evidence here to link these two accounts as either sockpuppets or meatpuppets, and to support a request for a CheckUser, so I formally do so now. Please CheckUser The Editor of All Things Wikipedia and Cityside129 and look for sleepers as well. This is now not an "innocence" check, this is a third-party editor's request. BMK (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Bear with me while I wander into the land of speculation, but here goes. I apologize in advance for my failure to assume good faith, but I am also becoming very suspicious.  It's possible that TEoATW created his original account on August 4 (maybe with good intentions of mediating, fighting vandalism, etc.)  He found a content issue that interested him (the Regnerus issue), then created Cityside189 on August 7 to argue his point.  He then appointed himself mediator of that thread.  To make things look legitimate, he was pretty heavyhanded with Cityside189; later, he could have used his "evenhandedness" as a justification for supporting Cityside's arguments.  But then the TEoATW account got in trouble for overzealousness (and associated disruptions), so he had to switch things up.  So now it's Cityside who's laying down the law with TEoATW...and next thing you know, he'll be a "Recent Changes Officer" issuing non-admin "one-year" bans?  Again, this is just speculation, and could be just as outrageous as insinuating that Dwight Eisenhower was a Commie, but I think it's fairly well founded.  North of Eden (talk) 16:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This could be unrelated, but it's bothering me. Please see Special:Contributions/RbAxM33320.  This user created an account on August 2 and then started editing again today.  Almost from the bat, s/he was fighting vandalism.  Out of the blue, apparently, as they seem to have had no interaction outside of this, this user made a big fuss about TEoATW's username.  The threat visible at User talk:The Editor of All Things Wikipedia kind of reminds me of Cityside's "imperious" attitude toward TEoATW, also.  North of Eden (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The user has posted a reply here: User talk:North of Eden. This is a plausible explanation; the circumstances just raised my suspicions due to Cityside189's MO of criticizing TEoATW/warning of consequences.  North of Eden (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I find these blocks outragous, unsupported by ewithre evidence or consensus. I stand ready to unblock, and I ask you to reverse yourself. DES (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @Robert McC: I thnk the point is to find out whether either of the two socks are puppets of aa third account, and to look for sleepers who can be quickly activated once the currently active socks are blocked. It's a precautinary measure taken after an admoin has already determined that socking has gone on. BMK (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As an significant participant in the AN/I discussion about The Editor of etc., you are most definitely WP:INVOLVED, so I wouldn't recommend your taking that action, especially hard on the heels of the KWW ArbCom case. BMK (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I find it extremely unlikely that truly good faith newbies, no matter how poor their judgement, would act and say things like these two have been. That two such users have intersected with each other like this makes it a certain. Someone is playing silly buggers with us, and I have to grudgingly tip my hat to the length of the ANI thread he was able to generate without getting blocked. Blocking both accounts on behavioral evidence, a CU might be able to identify which sock master this is. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Both are now blocked, and I tagged them. Closing the case.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  16:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You don't think a CU to identify master and check for sleepers in useful? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Since both are now blocked, I don't see of what use would it be to identify the master. And for sleepers check, we need some evidence that there might be sleepers, which I don't see.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  16:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there any way that a Checkuser can distinguish a sockmaster from a sockpuppet anyway? A Checkuser can tell that they have the same IP address or same group of dynamic IP addresses.  If they are the same human being, which is "sockmaster" and which is "sockpuppet" is an empty distinction anyway.  Thank you for closing a weird episode.  (Good hand, bad hand??)  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What Floquenbeam wanted to say is that there is a possibility that both those accounts are socks of some other older master.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  17:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * . This case escalated far beyond my expectations (See: WP:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents). I'm endorsing the CU to compare those two accounts based on the evidence provided here and in the said ANI discussion.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  20:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Checkuser comment: The results are .  No further information can be provided without potentially violating the privacy of one or both accounts.  Risker (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, since both are already blocked, closing the case (again).  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Post-archiving note from blocking admin: On further review, I am no longer confident that Cityside189 is a sockpuppet of The Editor of All Things Wikipedia, and (depending on how discussion pans out) I'll either be unblocking, or revising the block rationale. One main reason for this change of heart is the similarity in style between The Editor of All Things Wikipedia and his new checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet, User:Wikipenguin 8, and their mutual dissimilarity from Cityside189's style.  It appears that the interaction of two editors both behaving strangely was actually a coincidence.
 * While I'm here, this seems a good place to note that yesterday User:Risker blocked Wikipenguin 8 as a sock of TEoatW:

, please let me know if there's a better way to note this than editing the SPI archive. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Checkuser confirmed block
 * It's OK.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  15:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

13 August 2015
As shown in  haas an editing style that is at least somewhat similar to that of "The Editor of All Things Wikipedia". I can't say that I am strongly convinved that GF is a scock of TEoATW, but I do think inspection by additional eyes, and perhaps a checkuser, is warranted. Other users responded to the above edit by suggesting socking. DES (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Suspected sockpuppets
 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility
 * Editor interaction utility

Comments by other users

 * DES What is socking? Is it bad because I didn't do anything bad on purpose, I was just looking for something to do on here and thought I should give my opinion on something. And what is a checkuser? Is that bad? Glacialfrost (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you mind looking at the question I asked in the teahouse? I got a mentor to answer some of those questions but if you know specific answers, I would appreciate it. You dont have to explain what the checkuser is anymore because I found the page for it. Why would needing to know my IP Address be neceszary? Im not against it if it will do something good, but now Im just curious. Glacialfrost (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I found the article about sockpuppeting but could you explain it in simpler terms because I dont get what exactly you are saying I am doing. Thank You. Glacialfrost (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , Sock puppetry, also known as "socking" is when a person uses more than one Wikipedia account in an improper way. Especially, when a person who has been blocked or banned from editing creates a new account to evade the block or ban. I don';t know for sure if you have done this or not, but your editing style seemed to me to resemble that of a recently blocked editor, known as User:The Editor of All Things Wikipedia. If I am mistaken about this, I apologize. Other experienced editors will look into the matter and make a decision. This may or may not involve checking otherwise private logs with the "checkuser" tool. DES (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I understand that now and I am not doing that but I clicked on the second link down from the top that says sockpuppet archives and it took me to another page that had The editor of all things wikipedia at the top and said that Cityside189 is a suspected sockpuppet like it says for me and I recently became "buddies" with cityside so what happened to them before with the editor...? Were they a sockpuppeter? Thank you.Glacialfrost (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I concur with DES that this editor is a sock puppet of TEoATW, and that there is more behavior evidence than might be apparent at first glance. Most telling are: a. his need to have attention paid to his issues immediately, such as was the case when TEoATW wanted to be auto-confirmed at head of the timeline, running from admin to admin to request it; b.  his need to "collect" status, previously as many rights as he could, and now the all badges and a falsified barnstar from "The Great Wikipedia Adventure" displayed on his user page; and third, his desire to immediately involve himself in various forms of issue resolution -- as TEoATW, he joined and was quickly removed from WP:DRN because of his inability to be impartial, as Glacialfrost, he found his way to WP:3O, discovered a malformed request relating to the article on CSI, and had the effrontery to, at length, evaluate the conduct of three editors, basically telling them what to do (see here). Common to all of this conduct by both editors is the inability to limit or edit their behavior, and the need for immediate attention. Moreover, TEoATW and his previously identified sock are from San Diego, and Glacialfrost notes he is from California. He knows his way around Wikipedia too well, was able to indent in discussion from his first talk page post, and is generally too familiar with less well known areas, such as 3O, despite his baloney about socking above. This one has ducks quacking loudly, and should be a slam dunk to resolve. --Drmargi (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * While i am not going to disagree with your overall view, I do think you should note that The_Wikipedia_Adventure is a training module that new users are now routinely advised to run, and it automatically places the badges and barnstar you refer to above. You will find these on the pages of many recently joined editors, and i don't think that this is evidence of anything but the user following more or less official suggestions. DES (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of that DES, but it appears he's added the badges and has definitely added the barnstar himself, rather than actually running the adventure. I could be wrong, of course, but the timing and the edit history on his user page look pretty fishy. Regardless, he's running all over the Teahouse and Wikipedia Co-op, trying to get someone to mentor him, just as TEoATW did, as noted above.   --Drmargi (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You are just upset at me because you didn't like what I said in my comment at CSI. I didnt find the CSI page from the third opinion page anyway. Cityside responded to my teahouse question on my userpage saying to look at my interests and I was at CSI because it was my interest and I happened upon the argument. I dont think that knowing how to indent proves in any way that I am a cheater, I just picked it up from posting comments and seeing that others used the colon to do it. If I was really cheating wikipedia, why would I list my location after doing it on another account that I was at. You have caused problems at the CSI page, deleting others comments and picking fights. On this page, User talk:Floquenbeam, you are trying to blow the situation out of proportions. You make it seem like I am causing trouble, especially with Cityside even though with Cityside, thats anything but the case, we are wikifriends. I still dont know how Cityside plays into all this but your mean comments are clearly in anger because of my comment critticising you. I did not tell people what to do at CSI, I noticed that things were out of control and geve each user a tip to put things more in control, it doesnt take previous knowledge to do that. Also all the awards were posted on my page automatically by the wikipedia adventure and I dont have another place for them so that doesnt show antthing. Except the barnstar award which was given to me on my talk page inside the adventure and I copied and pasted, I didnt falsify it. And why would I spend almost an hour on the wikipedia adventure if I knew so much anyway. Your arguments are invalid and out of anger for my comment at CSI. I do not want to argue with you so please stop trying to blow this up and make a crazy situation out of nothing like at CSI. Glacialfrost (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I looked at my history and it kinda does look like I added them so I cant blame you but if you look at any other user with these badges, im sure they would be automatically added the same way. And if I added them myself, why would I do them one by one? And please dont reply so quickly because I had to find my way through two of the edit conflict things and it was very frustrating. The barnstar award i did add myself but it was given to my fake talk page in the adventure.Glacialfrost (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And also I couldnt have gotten the barnstar to put on my page if I didnt extract it from inside the adventure which proves I did do it. Please stop accusing me of stuff. Glacialfrost (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And Im not "running all over" the teahouse and coop. You are making things bigger than they are. I posted one question on the teahouse and someone told me to get a mentor at the coop so I went there and requested a mentor. You are being way to mean. Glacialfrost (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * DES I still dont get how the checkuser tool helps prove this or not, please explain further. Glacialfrost (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank You Yunshui, lets begin the mentoring soon, thanks for putting this to rest. Glacialfrost (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not so much "at rest" (the closing administrator will need to weigh behavioural evidence as well as technical), but to my mind it seems unlikley that you are the same editor. I have, however, been wrong before. Yunshui 雲 水 21:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm a little worried about this SPI, which seems to be operating as though this editor fits a TEoATW sock profile. Unless I'm misreading something, when the SPI was opened, here are Glacialfrost's only edits:
 * going through the Wikipedia Adventure (which, yes, automatically generates all of that stuff)
 * five edits copyediting Lake Superior Zoo
 * 5 edits to the Teahouse asking about ways to get involved
 * The response GF received at the Teahouse, from, was to check out the Co-Op. Thus 5 edits creating Co-op/Glacialfrost
 * When thanked him/her for an edit, a message back
 * weighing in (a quasi-third opinion) at the CSI talk page
 * Finally, the only somewhat weird thing -- and only in the context of this SPI -- is the exchange with Cityside189 on Glacialfrost's talk page


 * So in other words, it's a new user more or less doing exactly what we want new users to do: go through a training module like the Adventure, look for guidance, do some copyediting, and use talk pages. There are many now-long-time Wikipedians who jumped into talk page disputes among their first edits. The only thing relevant to this SPI is the exchange with Cityside189, who was judged not to actually be TEoATW.


 * Let me put it one other way: what exactly is it we're worried this user is going to do such that we would want to block a new user based on this level of evidence? I see only an indication of a potentially productive, good faith if maybe a little over-eager, newbie. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 22:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah. By the time I hit save Floquenbeam had already made a similar case in the section below... &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 22:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Checkuser shows Glacialfrost to be ❌ to TEoATW. Yunshui 雲 水 20:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I was asked earlier to comment here. The only thing GF did that reminded me of TEoatW was the pseudo-3O comment (which, I agree, looks alot like TEoatW's style - Yunshui, when you start mentoring, please ask him not to do that kind of thing anymore). Everything else is kind of the direction we push newbies now: we've decided that it's a great idea to make them think it's an adventure, get them interested in badge collecting, etc.  We point them to the Teahouse (which actually isn't a bad idea at all; I'm just saying that participation at the Teahouse can't really be used as a "tell"). Same with the Co-op.  Not saying they are 100% definitely not the same person using some kind of IP trick; just saying I don't think there's enough there, and if Yunshui says it's "unrelated" rather than "inconclusive", that's good enough for me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Closing with no action taken. Mike V • Talk 16:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)