Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zeraeph/Archive

Evidence submitted by Penbat
User:Alamanth is a new user who suddenly arrived on the scene and almost entirely concentrated on making radical changes to my work. She mixed a few minor intelligent edits with wholly irrational ones such as changing whole articles to redirects without any discussion and for no apparent logical reason.


 * 1) User:Zeraeph and User:Alamanth both had an interest almost exclusively in psychology Wikipedia articles and even often identical psychology articles on abnormal behavior (such as narcissism, psychopathy and workplace bullying for example).
 * 2) User:Zeraeph was a Wikipedia administrator before she was permanently banned and that would explain why new user User:Alamanth is suspiciously so very knowledgeable about Wikipedia procedures.
 * 3) User:Zeraeph and User:Alamanth both singled out my work for criticism in particular. I think about 30% of psychology articles dont even have a single citation and deviate far more from Wikipedia rules than any of my work.
 * 4) User:Zeraeph made a habit of blanking out large amounts of other users work without warning using overzealous excuses of contravening one or another WP guideline. User:Alamanth's behavior seems similar.
 * 5) User:Zeraeph and User:Alamanth both have uncannily similar types of name. They both sound related to Greek mythology or at least have Greek cultural connections. This is a huge coincidence.
 * 6) A few days ago I posted the fact that I was working on Wikipedia and listed the articles I was working on in the following 2 forums http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/workbully-support http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/bullyonline I posted similar information about my work on Wikipedia a few years back, on the same forums, when User:Zeraeph was still free to work on Wikipedia and shortly afterward she attacked and singled out my work in a similar way as User:Alamanth seems to be doing now. It had long been known that User:Zeraeph had a sockpuppet sleeper membership name on at least one of the forums so this would explain how User:Alamanth got wind of my recent work in an identical way as User:Zeraeph did in the past. (I can assist with investigators having access to these forums to check the specific posts if required).--Penbat (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims. One small problem User:Alamanth had nothing, whatsoever to do with me, and this is the first I have heard of him/her, today, check the actual pathways and I feel sure you will find that out. I have no sockpuppets. I also REALLY think it is time someone put a stop to User:Penbat's more abstract capacity for equal misinformation, he is filling up psyhology articles with left of field nonsense, most of which is, at best, a considerable distortion of any source he cites, and, at worse simply made up off the top of his head. signed - The REAL Zeraeph --109.79.193.159 (talk) 08:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * I've looked at the overlap and the stalking reports (linked below)--what do they mean? From the sidelines, Drmies (talk) 16:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 2.User:Zeraeph was a Wikipedia administrator before she was permanently banned ...  No, she wasn't. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * i thought she was - certainly acted as if she was. --Penbat (talk) 14:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * Here is the overlap report. here is the wikistalk report. Nathan  T 21:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

1. In a private email, Zeraeph was quite insistent that Alamanth is a different user. Zeraeph shared information about his or her geographical location and ISP and suggested that a proper checkuser would show how impossible this is.

2. I ran a checkuser on Zeraeph - the claims about geolocation and ISP were confirmed.

3. I ran a checkuser on Alamanth. The ip number appears to me to be a cable modem with a very stable ip, on a different continent.

4. Looking at the ip number in a number of different ways, I saw nothing unusual about it.

5. I leave any unblocking to other admins, as I have not reviewed the non-ip evidence. However, at least based on checkuser data and my own experience level, this is unlikely to be a sockpuppet. (I am probably pretty decent at checkuser due to general technical knowledge, but would be pleased for another checkuser to verify my work.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No need to second guess you Jimbo. The "confirmation as a sock" is based on a similarity in editing pattern, not on checkusering of IP addresses. Alamanth was engaged in disrupting Wikipedia in the same manner as Zeraeph once did. It is that pattern of disruption which is at issue; not the actual identity of either editor. It is obvious at this point that they are different people. We need to find a way to express this better; not simply say "clear sock". Fred Talk 20:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That's putting it kinda mildly isn't it Fred? I mean, following the same reasoning, we probably shouldn't look at a parking violater and say "Book him Danno, murder one" - should we now?


 * Also, if you thought I was "guilty of disrupting wikpedia" through my namespace editing, it's none of my business, but you *maybe* shouldn't have personally invited me to edit on your own Wikipedia equivalent straight after? (DAMN I hate having to take away my respect from an old man on Christmas day...why'd you have to go and be dishonest and hypocritical enough to make me do that, huh? Shame on you!)


 * Pure truth is, Penbat regularly breaks EVERY rule on Wikipedia, and posts abject rubbish (with a heavy overlay of POV, OR and just plain "nuts") to the namespace of numerous articles on a couple of his "special interests". He gets away with it because he played along with "SandyGeorgia" in the matter of *me* and Sandygeorgia is POWERFUL so Wikipedia editors "in the know" are afraid to challenge him. The fac t that he is a puffed up little bully, doesn't help (all this is "visible to naked eye")


 * NEWSFLASH* It is not necessary to be *me* to notice the shortcomings of his edits, nor is noticing that a symptom of being about to turn into *me* (which does seem to be your point in some way? Correct me if I am wrong?)...and BY THE WAY one of the few things I have never been falsely accused of here is is disruptive namespace editing (are you starting to have memory problems? I would honestly have expected even hypocrasy and deceit from a top class lawyer to be more effective). I was actually falsely accused of stalking Sandygeorgia (a person, or, more likely, commercial PR cabal, who was, in fact, actually stalking me), then I wasn't give time to recover from pneumonia (I have COPD) to defend that, while arbcom itself concealed, and tried to misrepresent hard evidence in my favor,...my health came first...I do not see any symptoms of pneumonia in Alamanth's edits?? Perhaps you could show some diffs?


 * Let's leave all that aside Fred, it's complicated, and unnecessary. Go find yourself enough self respect, to actually LOOK at Alamanth's edits, and describe them accurately. I don't always agree with them (and HOW!), but they are solid and factual...Penbat's editing is obsessive rubbish, and you know it, everybody in the REAL world knows that the guy is wired to the moon, and nasdty to boot. There isn't even a true "similarity in editing patterns" between Alamanth and myself, and even if there were, it wouldn't actually mean anything...Penbat shows a distinct "similarity in editing patterns" to me over and over again...AND I freely confess he is my sockpuppet...deal with THAT.


 * Just for once, be a man and have the GUTS to admit that a Wikipedia Admin was persuaded to support a nasty, disruptive little man in bullying a new, and, potentially, good editor into giving him his own way, and reverse it, unconditionally...PLEASE...do it for me...just to show me I wasn't a COMPLETE fool for standing up for Wikipedia so often in the past. signed ZED --109.79.237.186 (talk) 21:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Based on his editing history I have unblocked. The edits for which he was blocked were reasonable. Fred Talk 23:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you Fred, and I am sorry if my temper ran away with me a little there, it just upsets me to see an innocent person get hammered without a fair trial, or a court of appeal, especially at Christmas. Now I guess I can wish you all the compliments of the season, and hope that who ever Alamanth is, he, or she, can now feel safe as a Wikipedia Editor in good standing just as if none of this had happened. Zed --109.79.159.210 (talk) 23:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions
Clear sock. Blocked and tagged. MuZemike 23:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Penbat
User Special:Contributions/109.79.193.159 self confesses that she is a sockpuppet of banned User:Zeraeph

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

I certainly did post from those IPs (and clearly identified myself as Zeraeph). I was under moral obligation to, because a checkuser is urgently required to exonerate User:Alamanth who has been falsely accused and banned for being a sockpuppet of mine, simply on the, questionable, word of User:Penbat because User:Alamanth challenged some of his remarkably left of field editing of his psuedo psychology articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Zeraeph/Archive

User:Alamanth certainly is not me, so a simple "checkuser" (that surely should have been done in the first place before applying an indefinate ban) should completely exonerate them. I do not even know WHO User:Alamanth IS...so I really think they deserve that small justice and consideration.

With the greatesat respect, I do not personally give a flying fig what Wikipedia does, or does not, make of me...it would be a refreshing change to be accused of something I have actually DONE for a change...


 * o)

But User:Alamanth is a totally innocent party caught between the wheels of User:Penbat's vindictive egomania. It is Christmas, and it is easy enough to put that straight with a checkuser...then all is well that ends well.--109.79.255.154 (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, anyone is welcome to mail me through the Zeraeph account to validate my identity, and I am prepared to give my landline number to ONE admin (that I will choose, I don't trust a lot of you, with cause) to facillitate the exoneration of User:Alamanth by confirming my geolocation. --109.79.255.154 (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions
Rangeblocks issued. We do not allow banned editors to come back and vouch for other users. Second, even if this wasn't sock puppetry, per our banning policy, enlisting another person to edit on behalf of a banned user (i.e. "proxying") is not allowed. Finally, we do not endorse requests for CheckUser to prove one's innocence. –MuZemike 20:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)