Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ContentEditman

ContentEditman

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

Populated account categories: confirmed

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ContentEditman/Archive.

27 June 2016

– This SPI case is open.

Suspected sockpuppets

• 174.29.191.40 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

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

Both the IP and user have a very limited edit history, and both contributed to the talk page discussion at Talk:Independence Day: Resurgence#Mixed and unfavorable (IP diff1 and diff2 and user diff1). While this isn't enough evidence on its own, also take into account that another article ContentEditman contributed to was Christine Cavanaugh (diff). In the edit history, there are a lot of edits around the same time frame from multiple IP addresses that fall in the same range as the IP listed above:

• 174.29.66.30 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) – diff
• 174.29.75.30 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) – diff
• 174.29.1.56 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) – diff
• 174.29.184.198 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) – diff
• 174.29.69.250 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) – diff

Normally, this wouldn't be an issue, except the IP and user claim to be two separate people in the talk page discussion I linked to above. I believe this is more than just coincidence. GoneIn60 (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

ContentEditman is not my account. This is a ridiculous accusation. this 'is' a "coincidence." we are two separate people. if it is "more than a coincidence" then it is because gone60 is trying to twist this into "more" than it is. I came across this accusation by accident when checking the edit history of gone60 to see if she responded to me with regards to another matter on an article talk page. If contenteditman is ip-socking then that is on him. However i can say in my defense with 100% certainty and confidence that the user behind contenteditman is not using 'my' ip address or computer to do it. Hopefully the burden of proof for this false allegation is on the accuser and not the accused. hopefully there are consequences for making rash accusations of this kind. a valid Checkuser should clear my name. i speculate gone60 is doing it to undermine my presence on the independence day article because my reasonable edits do not agree with her edits. I have no other explanation for this rush-to-accusation by her. 174.29.191.40 (talk) 21:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

GoneIn60 is throwing an tantrum and accuses others of sock puppetry when he does not get his way. Look at the Independence Day: Resurgence talk page and you can see he is not getting his way or the consensus. So this is what he does next. This is beyond sad and is harassment with even him admitting "While this isn't enough evidence on its own". ContentEditman (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a bit of an overreaction, especially these edits by ContentEditman (diff1 and diff2). If there's nothing to hide, then there's nothing to get excited about. Yes, I have submitted two SPI investigations in the past (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ghriscore/Archive), and both were found to be related to the same troll. Hopefully, I am wrong this time for your sake, but that would be a first. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Note: It is interesting that 174.29.191.40 was the first to respond here, considering he/she was not notified of this SPI investigation. I only left a notice at ContentEditman's talk page. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Update: I just noticed that the IP explained how he/she found this thread. That is certainly a reasonable explanation. 174.29.191.40, I did not respond to the thread, because now that you've provided a source, I have let it be for now. In fact, if you check the edit history of the article, I actually fixed the ref you provided by properly citing its details. I was going to give the talk thread a bit more time before following up and providing a response, but at this time, I don't have a issue with using "negative". The issue before was that there wasn't a good ref; now there's a decent one in the article that comes closer to supporting the claim. That's all I was asking for. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I already addressed that above when I said,"I came across this accusation by accident when checking the edit history of gone60 to see if she responded to me with regards to another matter on an article talk page." You seem paranoid enough left to your own devices, I didn't want to give you more reasons to go off into conspiracy land. Thank you for acknowledging that. So noted. As for the rest, we can discuss the concerns of the article there. It doesn't belong here ... On an unrelated note: if it needs to be said again, I am not contenteditman and I have no relationship or connection to the owner of that account. ... With that out of the way, 60gone, you can hardly blame others for reacting strongly to a serious false accusation without good faith. You shouldn't make willy nilly accusations like that just because your ego tells you to. I would like to address your arrogant tone to the other user: there is a "first" time for everything, including your "being wrong." Hopefully, for 'your' sake and the sake of your ego, you can handle that. Look forward to it because, as you are about to find out, you are wrong. Keep me in the loop everyone.174.29.191.40 (talk) 02:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It was necessary to describe the actions I took in that article as a response to your comment that I was attempting to get my way. My actions indicate otherwise. Also, if you look at the other SPI's I linked to above, you'll see that the editor there too strongly denied the allegations, both times. It always happens, and the more likely a connection exists, the louder they scream. If you've got nothing to worry about, then chill. This will be over before you know it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I am as chill as an english cucumber after the Brexit vote, if that gives you any indication about my personal feelings on the matter. I see only one person kicking and screaming here. Your evidence is all anecdotal. I have no vendetta against you. Is that what this is about?? Someone got into it with you and now you see socks everywhere. So noted. The more you go down this road of anecdotal emotional reasoning, the more you expose your own flawed relationship with reality and this community. despite what you think, I'm not protesting the 'false' accusation. I believe in giving someone enough rope to hang themselves with. I wouldn't have it any other way. It should be obvious by now that contentededitman is NOT my account especially after carefully reviewing 60gone's 'evidence' and his painful-to-listen-to emotional reasoning and subsequent outbursts. That, itself, is the best karma of all. Needless to say, I am looking forward to the outcome with bated breath.174.29.191.40 (talk) 06:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

To the patrolling admin/clerk:

After further investigation, it appears that the IP's first edits to Independence Day: Resurgence were aimed at the contentious part of the lead that was being discussed on the talk page (diff1). Then, he/she posted on talk page explaining why they made the change (diff2). This is eerily similar to the edits made by Ghriscore's sockpuppet Games Junn, which focused on the same contentious part of the lead:

• diff3
• diff4
• diff5

This pattern of forcing changes into an article when the user is well aware that a discussion is under way is identical to the behavior exhibited by Ghriscore. I now believe this is the same user, who is apparently following discussions that I'm participating in and attempting to get payback as promised here (notice the use of "ego"). Not sure if this should be moved to the master account, but feel free to do so if needed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Forgive me for being sarcastic, but this is entering strange Donald Trump conspiracy theory territory. Move this "investigation" into where you like. It doesn't change the fact, and never will, that ContentEditman is not my account. The owner of that account has no connection to me. 60gone bragged about his sockpuppet hunting here and listed his success slaying the user chriscore. I confess that I read up on their dispute~argument after he included the link here and borrowed from a little of the sock's complaint against gone60 to formulate my position. granted, chris's mistake was socking. but he never-the-less made good points about 60gone's ego. even a broken clock is right twice a day, so the saying goes. in retrospect I saw no harm in mentioning some of that here. a good point is a good point. 174.29.191.40 (talk) 05:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

While it is remotely possible that you have no affiliation with ContentEditman, who has a very limited editing history, I would be shocked/surprised to learn that you also have no affiliation to Ghriscore. Your tone, lack of indentation, and persistence to reinstate edits when you're aware of an active discussion is all too familiar. From the get-go, you've been very forceful with your point of view, acting as though there is an existing history between us. Let's not forget that you just so happened to visit an article focusing on an area of the lead that Ghriscore (and fellow sockpuppets) shared an interest in. Also in a recent ANI discussion about page ownership at BvS (an article heavily socked by Ghriscore), an IP posted this comment. Notice the use of "going down that road" just like you used above. All that is a lot of coincidence to shake I'm afraid. If you've finally found a way to game the system and avoid detection – reflected by a level of arrogance on display in your recent responses – then more power to you. We'll see if that's the case. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, it's interesting to note you referred to user Ghriscore as "chris". Yes, Ghriscore is a play on Chris Gore, but this would only seem natural to refer to the user as "chris" if you were the user who created that account. Very interesting indeed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

This is the difference between us. Because I can see reason and common sense. Not just my own opinions or feelings. Decent intent is just that, decent INTENT. Intent is what is INTENDED, not what you perceive. I thought I was done with this. hand it to you to find a new and creative way to be disruptive and draw me back into your drama. It's clear what you were implying, but the implication is wrong. I am not acting like there is an existing history between us. You are. Am I supposed to take your continued false accusations laying down? Good luck with that. onto your latest pieces of 'evidence' or 'trump' cards, which are every bit as paranoid and lame as one of his conspiracy theories- "Ghris" is such a strange spelling of a name found in error by my computer. My device assumed it a typo and auto-corrected it. Didn't notice it until you mentioned it. Adding to my plight is that I had to fight my device to no end to prevent it from doing it again before I committed to this edit. Honestly I thought it was said chris at first glance. Moving on. I never accused you of asserting "page ownership" which the sock you exposed drones on about endlessly in your battle with him. stubborn? yes you are. but I never accused you of wrong-doing, natch. Then, there's your "going down the road comparison" with me and now another disgruntled user you debate. Ridiculous as this charge is on its own, it is even lamer considering that I don't see an SPI with the owner of that IP. In that is the whole problem with your present behavior, which is nicely summarized by your insecure final sentence above when you reveal your agenda when you arrogantly assume that,"If you've finally found a way to game the system and avoid detection...then more power to you." So when you find out that I indeed 'DO NOT' have any affiliation with ContentEditman then it doesn't matter than you are wrong because you have already made up your mind that I'm socking. If you don't see the problem with that way of thinking, that's the problem. If true, how is that a strategy you can be proud of? Shouldn't you be trying to rise above that type of dishonest argument? You'll find that most of the members prefer a quality over quantity approach. You assumed something about me and you were wrong. Take that into account for the member who upset earlier. I don't pick fights...I honestly don't even care about my own family fights (gave up). NOW i have nothing left to say on the subject. fill me in on the outcome.174.29.191.40 (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

---