Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chie one/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | Chie one

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Sir Sputnik (talk | contribs) at 00:05, 1 April 2018 (Archiving case from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chie one). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)


Chie one

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

14 October 2016

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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)[reply]
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)
Yet more implausibilities, and yet more contradictions with your earlier story. You said in your first message that you saw my comment. If his all started because you happened to be looking at CT's page because he happened to have edited the Ontario article yesterday, why would you have contacted me and asked me if I had noticed any suspicious behaviour on Rjensen's part, when it was obvious CT had more experience in the matter? It would make a whole lot more sense for you to have checked Rjensen's recent edits because you fought with him years ago, saw him argue with me over Jim Crow laws, and decided to ask me if I was aware that he was also a Conservapedia editor -- you may have also seen that I had been discussing Rjensen with another user, but you chose to contact me instead of him because it was me whose edits you had noticed first. Your claim that you didn't know Rjensen had admitted to being a Conservapedian doesn't make sense, since your first edit to my page simply stated in the affirmative that he is a Conservapedia editor. And it seems pretty implausible that you would just happen to throw Conservapedia out there in a manner so similar to how 36hourblock did four years ago. Seriously, what are the odds? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Read you comments with Curly. You were bringing up an issue with an editor. You both were. I never saw any comment you made only that you had an issue with him previously (so assumed you had). That's when I saw who it was by clicking on the example given. I then asked you did you know about his Cinservapedia background, and I then asked you have you seen any such views on here. By reading what you has written I assumed you knew him well. I have no idea what Wikipedia rules are regarding people from Conservapedia since both are completely different, one an encyclopedia, the other a Christian fundamentalist opinion piece.Imboredsenseless (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2016 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

24 December 2016

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

This edit is much like the harassment (targeting Rjensen) for which aptly-named 36hourblock is blocked. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

  • Comment (from the guy who opened the original SPI and so has this page automatically watchlisted) Wait, User:Bbb23, redirects can't be reopened under their original title?[1] But 36hourblock was unrelated to Chie one, and no one is accusing Chie one of being the IP. This seems really counterintuitive to me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:00, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait ... unless User:Chris troutman actually is accusing the IP of being both of these users. Why would you reopen a Chie one SPI with a sentence that clearly is accusing the IP of being 36hourblock, when CU already found that 36hourblock was unrelated to Chie one? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, that article sees infrequent IPs pushing the same basic point,[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] so while the timing is suspicious, the evidence looks insufficient to say that 36hourblock is evading his block, unless you could find evidence of 36hourblock making logged-in edits that look like the IP's edit. I would be willing to buy that 36hourblock was the previous IPs as well, but the main argument for this SPI appears to be that 36hourblock is evading his block, which is not technically the same thing as what he was accusing Rjensen anyway (so "hypocrite"[10] is somewhat irrelevant). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:19, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the purpose of the redirect if 36hourblock and Chie one aren't the same person. My accusation is that 36hourblock is behind the IP. Please advise. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:48, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris troutman: The redirect exists because the first 36hourblock SPI was opened by me when a suspicious account that was clearly somebody's sock showed up on my talk page, and 36hourblock was the closest I could find to a sockmaster. CU found that the actual sockmaster was Chie one, and the page was moved accordingly. There was no behavioural reason to believe that the sock was Chie one, so it would have been impossible for me to open the SPI at its current title. As for the current case, CU won't connect an IP to a named account, and given the history of that article I don't think you will be able to convince an admin to block based on behavioural evidence, unless you have something more convincing; has 36hourblock evaded blocks before, or edited logged out from an IP in that range? He has never edited the article while logged in. That said, it's really not clear why you chose to reopen the SPI on this page with completely new wording. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

Insufficient evidence. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

21 January 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Only a few days after Chie one was blocked, RichardHarris22 is registered and their first edit is to somewhat obscure article Jim Marshall (businessman), which a Chie one sock has shown interest in the past: [11]. This made me tiny bit suspicious, so I took a look at the Editor Interaction Utility: [12]. The number of articles they have in common is unbelievable, so I'm convinced. Compare also edit summaries with confirmed socks: "cite" [13] [14], "bare URL" [15] [16], etc. Sro23 (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

  • Wow. Given the previous (inconspicuous, unnoticed for some time) sock-farm, one would think Chie one, being as experienced as they are, would be more careful about covering their tracks. This was ridiculously sloppy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

16 April 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

See Editor Interaction Analyser here, the intersection with past socks is too frequent to be coincidence. Examples include article one: [17] [18] [19], article two: [20] [21] [22], article three: [23] [24] [25] Last time a number of sleepers were discovered also. Sro23 (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

23 December 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

See admission. So it looks like I misidentified most of the accounts here as belonging to The abominable Wiki troll, when in reality those were Chie one socks. I'm sorry about that, there's a great deal of overlap between the two sockfarms. Sro23 (talk) 06:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

This case is being reviewed by Sir Sputnik as part of the clerk training process. Please allow them to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on their Talk page or on this page if more appropriate.

11 January 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

New account, has suspiciously high overlap with previous sockpuppet User:DC80, similar minimal use of edit summaries: [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] Sro23 (talk) 03:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
Right. These two sockfarms have a lot of overlap and I confused them. Completely my fault, sorry about that. No need to merge since I already re-tagged the Chie one socks originally thought to be TAWT. Sro23 (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

31 March 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

See below. Bbb23 (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Chie_one/Archive&oldid=833504772"