Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chie one

36hourblock

36hourblock (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Please note that a case was originally opened under Chie one (talk · contribs) but has been moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/36hourblock. Future cases should be placed under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/36hourblock.

14 October 2016

– A checkuser is in the process of checking relevant users.

Suspected sockpuppets

• Imboredsenseless (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

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

The Imboredsenseless (talk · contribs) account was apparently created for the sole purpose of posting on my talk page about an editor I conflicted with a few weeks back. This looked super-suspicious, so I checked to see if anyone else had tried to connect User:Rjensen to a Conservapedia editor before. (I googled site:en.wikipedia.org "Rjensen" "Conservapedia"; for whatever reason I can't copy-paste Google search results on my iPad.) This came up first. The username of the new account is also a pretty clear indicator of sockpuppetry, and the main account, 36hourblock (talk · contribs), very recently emerged from a two-year absence, which gels with the new account's stating that they "use Wikipedia every now and then". Even if this wasn't 36hourblock, it is obviously someone, and if it is 36hourblock it seems likely that they've done this before, so requesting CU. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, the Conservapedia account he claims is Rjensen hasn't edited Conservapedia since April 2010. If the scenario presented (this person looks at the behind-the-scenes workings of various Wikis but rarely gets involved, and happened to notice someone with a similar username, and happened to notice a conversation between me and User:Curly Turkey in which Rjensen's name wasn't actually used except in the source code, and posted on my page more than a week later) is accurate, Iamboredsenseless has the most incredible memory imaginable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

And do SPIs no longer automatically ping the suspects? Iamboredsenseless also presented another somewhat elaborate explanation for how they came across this SPI (see below), which seems a bit weird. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

By the way: I'm not advocating an indefinite block of the sockmaster, assuming this kind of sockpuppetry on their part is rare. Looking at past interactions between Rjensen and 36hourblock shows a lot of incivility on both sides, and the clean/almost-clean block logs on both sides imply the admin corps has not stepped in to deal with the problem (apparently no such intervention has ever been requested). This means that removing one side from the project for briefly stepping over the line (again, assuming CU doesn't find a massive sock farm!) would serve to vindicate the poor behaviour of the other side. As I pointed out on my talk page, the question of whether either of these accounts has attempted to "out" Rjensen by connecting them to Conservapedia is iffy at best, since Rjensen himself made that connection first (in the second hit on my above-cited search). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Noticed Hijiri88 had posted here as I was awaiting his response. I first saw RJensen's name yesterday after Hijiri88 made a comment about him on a page I was reading. I know the name from Conservapedia which is why I mentioned this to Hijiri88. Conservapedia promotes non encyclopedic work: for example denies science, and gives fundamentalist opinions on every topic. I then asked Hijiri88 did he know about this. I didn't know RJensen had already stated he had used Conservapedia so that seems fair enough. He's been open about coming from a conservative, Christian fundamentalist angle. I've asked Hijiri88 has he seen RJensen exhibit Christian fundamentalist views on here. I'm not of course saying Wikipedia should be left wing, liberal etc, what it should be is encyclopedic, which Conservapedia isn't for the most part (see the site's articles on evolution, on homosexuality etc). See here, http://www.conservapedia.com/Sexual_immorality with homosexuality and pedophilia in the same sentence. Imboredsenseless (talk) 10:40, 14 November 2016 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, Conservapedia is a wretched hive of scum and villainy. If Rjensen still sympathizes with their agenda (he apparently hasn't edited there in almost seven years) his edits to topics like that should be examined. But neither of these things have anything whatsoever to do with whether you have anoher account. The account you presented on my talk page is not very plausible. The IP edits, both made yesterday, look like a deliberate attempt to cover the bases; no one who was only editing as an IP and wouldn't even start doing that for over a week would be examining he source code behind Curly Turkey's talk page and just happening to recognize a similar username to one they saw on an external website the better part of a decade ago. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Which is why I asked you did you see such views from RJensen on here. Curly had been editing Ontario (state I am originally from), and I clicked on his page. I saw your conflict and you were talking about issues with an editor giving examples, so I clicked on what it was and that's when I saw the name RJensen. I knew the name but checked to see if it was the same as the Conservapedia admin and it was. That's when I then asked you did you know about his Conservapedia background. I assumed by your conflict you knew him well as examples were given. I asked did you witness any fundamentalist Christian viewpoints on here. As I said I didn't know: A. that it was fine to have a Cinservaoedia angle on here (which is why I asked did Wikipedia people know about his background), nor did I know B. that he had declared that he was a Conservapedia editor. Had I knew either I wouldn't have brought this up. Imboredsenseless (talk) 13:54, 14 November 2016 2016 (UTC)

Actually my memory is pretty poor (age does that to you). Conservapedia is incredibly low in terms of edits, so a recent edit could be from years ago (look at the page I presented above). An edit from 2008 could be the third most recent. I had seen Hijiri88 conflict and clicked on who it was he was referring to, the name I recognized instantly. That's when I then asked Hijiri88 did he know the user was from Conservapedia. Now I didn't know RJensen had already declared he was a user on there, so in fairness he's been open about that. I then asked Hijiri88 had he seen any Christian fundamentalist viewpoints creeping on to this site. Conservapedia presents a horrible viewpoint on the world and is not an encyclopedia. Imboredsenseless (talk) 13:25, 14 November 2016 2016 (UTC)

How on earth did you see me conflicting with someone? And doesn't that contradict your earlier story about how you saw Curly Turkey's comment on his talk page because you were monitoring his page for some other reason? And don't both of these stories contradict your original story that you saw me commenting on Rjensen? And the fact that I didn't directly refer to anything in particular Rjensen-related and CT was forced to accurately interpret what I said and refer indirectly to Rjensen in the form of diffs so that even now "Rjensen" doesn't appear anywhere on the page? This is the kind of inconsistent, overly elaborate and hole-filled story someone might make up if they were trying to pose as someone who wasn't socking. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

---