Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ERIDU-DREAMING: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Comments by other users: CANVASSing on this SPI makes me concerned
Line 73: Line 73:


It is OK I will not call your description of my erudite posts as "long winded" and "they know nothing I know everything" as a personal attack. I am grateful that you did not file an abuse claim. But maybe you ought to, because you certainly seem very keen to join in with the Four Deuces each time he makes his usual accusation of me being a sock puppet, and so perhaps it would save time? You could say he said "Oh surprise, surprise, up pops Slim Virgin" as evidence of a personal attack. It might work. Maybe you could get me to retract my claim that it appears you do not know much about the philosophy of Roger Scruton. Or get me entirely banned from Wikipedia for calling a bigot a bigot - you have to trawl back in the archives for that one but I do recall somebody making a bigoted remark. It happens. I do not recall however calling anybody a liar, but if I did it must have been you! There we go I said it again! If it was not you I apologise. If it was, then I am pretty sure I will have had a good reason for making that claim. Maybe you could use the fact that I said that "I do not recall calling anybody a liar but if I did it must have been you" as evidence against me? You could use that as evidence of your claims that I am constantly going around calling people liars. It is all so important, and not a waste of everybodies time I am sure you will agree.[[User:ERIDU-DREAMING|ERIDU-DREAMING]] ([[User talk:ERIDU-DREAMING|talk]]) 21:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
It is OK I will not call your description of my erudite posts as "long winded" and "they know nothing I know everything" as a personal attack. I am grateful that you did not file an abuse claim. But maybe you ought to, because you certainly seem very keen to join in with the Four Deuces each time he makes his usual accusation of me being a sock puppet, and so perhaps it would save time? You could say he said "Oh surprise, surprise, up pops Slim Virgin" as evidence of a personal attack. It might work. Maybe you could get me to retract my claim that it appears you do not know much about the philosophy of Roger Scruton. Or get me entirely banned from Wikipedia for calling a bigot a bigot - you have to trawl back in the archives for that one but I do recall somebody making a bigoted remark. It happens. I do not recall however calling anybody a liar, but if I did it must have been you! There we go I said it again! If it was not you I apologise. If it was, then I am pretty sure I will have had a good reason for making that claim. Maybe you could use the fact that I said that "I do not recall calling anybody a liar but if I did it must have been you" as evidence against me? You could use that as evidence of your claims that I am constantly going around calling people liars. It is all so important, and not a waste of everybodies time I am sure you will agree.[[User:ERIDU-DREAMING|ERIDU-DREAMING]] ([[User talk:ERIDU-DREAMING|talk]]) 21:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


''Every person'' who disputes TFD on any topic seems to be a "sock of Yorkshirian." So far, the accusation is based on sleim or no evidence. Too many fishing expecitions even for a Captain Ahab at this point. See also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ohiostandard&diff=prev&oldid=416093267] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&diff=prev&oldid=416084185] as part of an apparent CANVASS set up here. Of all places where CANVASS is horrid, SPI investigations are one of the worst. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 01:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


======<span style="font-size:150%">Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</span>======
======<span style="font-size:150%">Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</span>======

Revision as of 01:33, 27 February 2011

– This SPI case is open.

ERIDU-DREAMING

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
26 February 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Right-wing politics was protected 26 January (Protected Right-wing politics: Semi-protection: vandalism, Socks abound....)[1] Talk:Right-wing politics was semi-protected 30 January (Presistent sockpuppetry)[2] The socks were IPs. The account ERIDU-DREAMING was created 22 February.

Both the IP and Eridu's main issue is that fascism should not be called right-wing in the lead, and they both provide extensive writing supporting their views. Talk:Right-wing politics/Archive 9 is almost exclusively discussion with the IPs about this topic. Here Eridu continues the argument. The IPs appear to be socks of a blocked editor, possibly User:Yorkshirian.


Compare these two edits, one by the IP and the other by Eridu. Notice both refer to George Watson.

...it may be the case that every book that you have ever read calls fascism and racism right-wing, but all this tells me is that you ought to go and have a look at the politics/history section of the library at your university, where you will discover (assuming that it is a reasonably good library) that your assertion that fascism is right-wing is far from uncontroversial (indeed it is generally disputed) amongst scholars who have researched the subject in recent decades....With regard to the racism claim. THE FOUR DEUCES drew your attention to a book by George Watson called "The Lost Literature of Socialism" which notes that racism (by which I do not simply mean anti-Jewish sentiments but the active promotion of the genocide of "inferior races") was strongly associated with the political left (for example Marx) in the C19th and early C20th....This may make you uncomfortable, and you would prefer that it was not the case, but if the aim is truth rather than deception, ignorance is no defence. (85.211.70.152 (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).[3]
What Gregor is arguing (and as you increase your familiarity with the writings of the numerous scholars who have written about this topic you will discover he is far from alone) is that the claim (which Gregor particularly associates with the political interpretation promoted by the Bolsheviks) that fascism (racism and nationalism) and communism (progressivism and anti-capitalism) are political opposites is false. This, he argues, helps to explain why, as Collect has pointed out (and contrary to what Boris G says!) communism has (right back to Marx as George Watson has proved) been associated with, and continues to be associated with, nationalism and racism.... The best we can hope for in a Wikipedia article is that one side or the other refrains from denying that this issue is controversial. That is why (in my opinion) fascism and racism (and the claim that they are right wing) SHOULD be discussed in the body of the text, but should NOT be part of the uncontroversial definition of right wing in the lede, because this bit of the current lede is far from uncontroversial - as these Talkpages prove! ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 10:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[4]

There are other dynamic IPs which I have not listed. TFD (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Tentontunic: Below is a comparison of edits by Yorkhirian and one of the IPs on the talk page. Since the IPs were engaged in sock-puppetry in order to exceed 3RR, it does not matter whether or not they were socks of Yorkshirian, but they appear to have made the same edits.

Here is text from Yorkshirian:

This is a very contentious and bias addition. Fascists are certainly not part of the traditional right, far or otherwise. They didn't even exist when the traditional right was defined following the French Revolution. Which is made up of monarchists, theocracists and reactionaries. Mussolini was a revolutionary, who began his career as a Marxist and claimed as his biggest influence Georges Sorel, the revolutionary syndicalist. He and his movement are to the left of Bonapartism. It is absolutely disputed where this is on the political spectrum and as thus should not be included here.
Then you seem to be confused, or at least not very well read on the subject. Study the origins of the political spectrum—when it was first traditionally defined following the French Revolution, on the right were Theocratic Catholics and the Absolute Monarchists. It has always been disputed whether fascism is on the right, since it emerged during the 1930s (more than a century after the traditional definition of "the right"). Even by fascists themselves, such as Oswald Mosley who presented themselves as a third way. Though the left, especially in North America, seem to try to negate the complexities of this quite persistently, especially the inconvient fact that Mussolini began as a Marxist and throughout his career was influenced most prominently by Georges Sorel. Most scholars on fascism disagree with your opinion, to put it bluntly.[5]


Here ia a posting by the IP:

If the terms "Right" and Left" in politics is being traced to the French Revolution (which is to say if "Right" is being defined as those who oppose the French Revolution, and "Left" is being defined as those who support the French Revolution) then Fascism is linked (both historically and ideologically) with the Left. This is evident to anybody who knows anything about the history. For the C19th history of revolutionary nationalistic socialism see the historian J.L.Talmon. This has been explained to Rick Norwood and The Four Deuces many, many, many, times, and although the latter's dismissal of nearly every major scholar who was written on the topic in the last thirty years as "non-mainstream" is not without its amusing side, it should not disguise the fact that their determination that this Wikipedia entry should promote the falsehood that [former allies] Hitler and Stalin were not only political rivals but also ideological opposites, is testimony either to their lack of interest in what they said and did, or in the continuing power of a lie cooked up by Stalin over 70 years ago to deceive.
I note that (yet again) The Four Deuces has made entirely false allegations. This time he claims that I am the person who disputed the value of his Oxford Dictionary reference. I note that he is also the person who consistently hides any discussion that draws attention to his historical ignorance of the origins of Fascism. I note that he now sees fit to delete any changes I make to the Wikipedia entry (and urges everybody else as well) on the grounds that I am a "sock puppet" and was banned for edit warring on this article. Assuming that "sock puppet" is somebody who contributes occasionally without registering, all I can say is that his claim that I was banned from contributing to this article is simply yet another lie. Maybe contributions to Wikipedia articles should be considered merely on their merits, now there is a revolutionary idea! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.72.11 (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

TFD (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

This is a strange report, were any of those IP`s investigated as socks of Yorkshirian? And are you saying that ERIDU-DREAMING is a sock of yorkshirian? If as you say Talk:Right-wing politics was semi-protected 30 January (Presistent sockpuppetry)[2] The socks were IPs. The account ERIDU-DREAMING was created 22 February. then an account created nearly a month after the IP`s is sock puppetry how? None of the IP`s which have an active talk page are blocked. I do not see how an IP editor creating an account can be sock puppetry at all. Tentontunic (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing me that "The Four Deuces" has accused me being a sock puppet of Yorkshirean. I have tried to briefly set out the context below. Oh I have just noticed a thing on the bottom of the page that you can click on which automatically signs your posts! Plus a sign that inserts references! Excellent. Anyway how many times will he accuse me (and delete my posts) I wonder? Thanks again for drawing my attention to this matter.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Since I am the person being accused of being a sock puppet by The Four Deuces (as usual!) maybe it is appropriate to point out, yet again, that I am not Yorkshirean, I never have been Yorkshirean, and I have no intention in the future of becoming a Yorkshirean! I used to come onto Wikipedia unregistered (with whatever IP my computer generated) in the past and would make the odd contribution. I then got involved in a debate on the Right Wing politics page which led to me being accused (by the The Four Deuces) of being a sock puppet of Yorkshirean, on the grounds that he also made one of the points that I was making, and this was picked up by (somebody called Slim Virgin I recall) who used it as a reason for not contributing to the Roger Scruton page - along with the accusation that I go around calling people stupid - which to cut a long story short led to temporary three revert bans (or whatever they are called) at which point I began to find contributing to Wikipedia rather tiresome. Another editor called Jprw preserved some of my comments that were being deleted on the Roger Scruton page because she thought the treatment of me was unfair. An entire quite good article (not by me) on Philip Rieff was then deleted because I had made an addition to it which was a good summary of the content of his early books, done by somebody else but to which I had not done an attribution! Anyway, when I contributed to the Right-Wing page again (God knows why but the issue which had caused the original controversy was still being extensively debated by other editors) I thought I would register with a name (Eridu Dreaming) so that every edit I made to Wikipedia could be tracked, so I will not have to go through the sock puppet fiasco claims again. At which point needless to add The Four Deuces accuses me of being a Sock Puppet! He will no doubt (on those grounds) take it upon himself to start deleting my posts, which I will then restore, and we shall go around the jolly roundabout once again.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. There is a list here of the IPs this person has used. He has engaged in sustained personal attacks against people who disagree with him; has triggered multiple article and talk-page semi-protections, and a range block of 88.110.0.0/20 on Dec 5, 2010 by T Canens; and has added plagiarism to two articles, one of which was so extensive the page had to be deleted and rewritten; see discussion here. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 20:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh surprise, surprise, up pops Slim Virgin with a "He has engaged in sustained personal attacks against people who disagree with him"! As I recall I said that your posts indicated that you lacked knowledge of the philosophical writings of Roger Scruton, which no doubt counts as a "sustained attack" in your book, because you certainly continually deleted my posts, and yes I did complain to Jprw on her Talkpage about your behaviour, and she could only agree! As for The Four Deuces, other than responding to his points on the Right Wing talkpage, the only "sustained attack" has been The Four Deuces constantly deleting (a habit he shares with the Slim Virgin it seems) or hiding my contributions to the talk page discussion of an issue, an issue which Slim Virgin I notice has sought to resolve but which is still going on - not that I have contributed to it recently except in the last few days when (to avoid the usual accusations of sock puppetry) I registered as Eridu Dreaming. As for triggering "multiple article and talk-page semi-protections" Hmmmmmm I think your role in that Slim Virgin is something you have forgotten to mention (as well as The Four Deuces of course) but then I do not want to say something that can be construed as a "sustained attack"! I certainly did revert some of my comments and some of the changes to the Right-Wing and the Roger Scruton article for which I received a temporary ban - on both pages! This was then used as evidence that I was a sock puppet. I think that the deletion of the Philip Rieff article (an interesting cultural critic) is unfortunate to say the least, but since it seems that it was Slim Virgin who initiated that action, I cannot help noticing a pattern emerging i.e. wherever I go up pops The Four Deuces and Slim Virgin! At least by registering as ERIDU DREAMING they can delete my posts in a much more convinient way, while (as usual) The Four Deuces is able to carry on accusing me of being a sock puppet. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You regularly refer to other users as liars and bigots in long-winded posts about how they know nothing and you know everything. It had reached the point where I was considering filing an abuse report with your ISP. Whether you're Yorkshirian, I don't know, and I'll leave that for others to decide. But you certainly shouldn't be editing given the amount of trouble you've caused, and particularly not if you see nothing wrong with it. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 21:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is OK I will not call your description of my erudite posts as "long winded" and "they know nothing I know everything" as a personal attack. I am grateful that you did not file an abuse claim. But maybe you ought to, because you certainly seem very keen to join in with the Four Deuces each time he makes his usual accusation of me being a sock puppet, and so perhaps it would save time? You could say he said "Oh surprise, surprise, up pops Slim Virgin" as evidence of a personal attack. It might work. Maybe you could get me to retract my claim that it appears you do not know much about the philosophy of Roger Scruton. Or get me entirely banned from Wikipedia for calling a bigot a bigot - you have to trawl back in the archives for that one but I do recall somebody making a bigoted remark. It happens. I do not recall however calling anybody a liar, but if I did it must have been you! There we go I said it again! If it was not you I apologise. If it was, then I am pretty sure I will have had a good reason for making that claim. Maybe you could use the fact that I said that "I do not recall calling anybody a liar but if I did it must have been you" as evidence against me? You could use that as evidence of your claims that I am constantly going around calling people liars. It is all so important, and not a waste of everybodies time I am sure you will agree.ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Every person who disputes TFD on any topic seems to be a "sock of Yorkshirian." So far, the accusation is based on sleim or no evidence. Too many fishing expecitions even for a Captain Ahab at this point. See also [6] and [7] as part of an apparent CANVASS set up here. Of all places where CANVASS is horrid, SPI investigations are one of the worst. Collect (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ERIDU-DREAMING&oldid=416132622"