Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blastikus

Blastikus

Blastikus (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/Blastikus/Archive.

29 November 2017

– A user has requested CheckUser. An SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse or decline the request.

Suspected sockpuppets

• Com18 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Rhine Revival (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 12.104.177.146 (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

Blastikus / Ben Steigmann is a known Wikipedia sock-puppeteer who has been blocked on many accounts. His interests involve pushing fringe material and pseudoscience on parapsychology, Oswald Spengler and racism related articles. Most of the content he uploads is actually spam from his Wikiversity project.

For the last few years he has had an obsession with editing the Frederic W. H. Myers article and the Oswald Spengler one.

His blocked Gggtt account added this to the Spengler article a few months ago.[1], compare this edit to his new sock [2]. It is exactly the same material about an "influence" section.

Ben Steigmann also has an active Wikiversity project that he has recently started editing again [3]. He links to his Wikipedia edits on this project, so this is useful evidence because it proves that the socks on Wikipedia are his. Please examine the diffs I list. Ben knows that his content will not stay on Wikipedia because of policies regarding fringe material and undue weight, so a clever tactic he uses is to upload his fringe and pseudoscientific content and then remove it once or twice after a few minutes. He does this so his content is stored in the Wikipedia database and he can link to it on his Wikiversity project.

He does that here on his new sock Rhine Revival, he adds a huge chunk of spam from his Wikiversity project and then he removes it knowing that it will technically stays online but not in a current version. He then links to his edits on his Wikiversity page. He did that recently on his Ben Steigmann account. Please see this edit [4] on Wikiversity. He directly links to his edit on Wikipedia [5] that he did on his Rhine Revival account.

He is basically sock-puppeting on Wikipedia but also abusing privileges on Wikiversity. I am not sure why he has an account over there because he has been perm blocked on Wikipedia but he does not sort of thing every few months and never refuses to give up. I am just reporting this because I have been monitoring his activities and I believe they are damaging to Wikipedia. 117.20.41.10 (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC) 117.20.41.10 (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I also strongly suggest that an admin strikes his fringe content that he uploaded on his Rhine Revival account and entirely removes it, because he is linking to these edits on Wikiversity and elsewhere as a valid source. 117.20.41.10 (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

As of 30 November 05:42 [6], Steigmann on Rhine Revival is still editing the Joseph Banks Rhine article uploading his fringe content from Wikiversity into the Wikipedia database and then removing it. 117.20.41.10 (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

I was invited to comment by the reopening IP, I'm guessing because I accepted the accused IP's self-revert edit to Frederic W. H. Myers. That edit restored a Blastikus version, and was obvious.

The Wikiversity edits are a compelling sign of sock puppetry. Intentionally introducing lengthy copy/pastes into an article's history for off-site citations is a WP:COPYVIO nightmare, so this behavior is extremely disruptive. Wikiversity apparently allows for citing sources directly, so I have no idea what the point was, either.

The Ben Steigmann account on Wikiversity was unblocked, as it was determined to have been impersonated. Meta:Steward requests/Checkuser/2017-09#Ben_Steigmann.40en.wikiversity, the two entries immediately after that one, Meta:Steward requests/Checkuser/2017-10#Sci-fi-.40en.wikiversity 2, and probably others, have details on this. This does not justify gaming the system by added and self-reverting to create a reference, but from the meta discussions it appears this mess involves at least two different sock-puppeteers. Grayfell (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I am well aware there has been a long dispute between Ben and a group of skeptical sock-puppets on Wikiversity. But Ben Steigmann was not impersonated on Wikiversity, in the above steward case there was no relationship between Steigmann and the other accounts, it came back negative. Abd a personal friend of Steigmann and blocked Wikipedia user has since tried to defend Steigmann but even he admits Ben has socked on Wikipedia. So Ben is not a victim here. There are no impersonations in this case. The sock-puppetry is still on-going.

As for the history apparently Ben was harassed by a couple of skeptic users who tried to get his pseudoscientific Wikiproject deleted but it backfired and they ended up getting blocked because they wrote negative things about him on a bunch of socks. But all this Wikiversity history from months ago is irrelevant to the case here. The main thing that is relevant here is that Ben is still sock-puppeting on Wikipedia and spamming material from his project. The accounts com18 and Rhine Revival are definitely him, there is conclusive evidence because he links to those edits themselves directly on his active Wikiversity account Ben Steigmann. 117.20.41.10 (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

As I understand it in regard to Wikiversity, Ben Steigmann has already been on his last warning so he should now be blocked on there as well. This is cross-wiki vandalism because he is creating sock-puppets on Wikipedia and then linking to his edits on Wikiversity. He was warned in the past about this, but he has not listened. It might be worth filing a new case about this on Meta-Wiki. 117.20.41.10 (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

In regard to Ben's edits on Joseph Banks Rhine that he did on his account Rhine Revival [7] he copies 844 words (I did a word count) from a parapsychologist Samuel Soal. Copying 844 words from a book? This is more than excessive and smacks of copyvio. I don't have time to go through all his sources but it appears to be mostly copyvio from unreliable psychic sources like the Journal of Parapsychology that he copied from his Wikiversity project [8]. I think these edits should entirely be removed from the database. I will request this at the correct avenue. 117.20.41.10 (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I support the suggestion that the "add/revert" edits ought to be rev-delled per WP:DENY, even if they prove not to be copyvios per se. Mangoe (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I, as the user Blastikus, apologize for the antisemitism that got me banned in the first place, though I will note the existence of very trobubling sources fueling that (e.g. [9]), and the belief that I as a part-Jew had to come clean about this, in the spirit of people like Dr. Oscar Levy.

My current interests put me at odds with the skeptic movement as it involves finding solid sources related to conspiracy theories (e.g. [10]), alternative medicine, and the paranormal. I understand that some sources like the Journal of Parapsychology are not appropriate for wikipedia (while other added sources most certainly are) and I did not push for their long-term inclusion - only to reveal what they said in the article history, so as to be able to help people challenge one-sided condemnations of the field off of Wikipedia, and educate Wikipedia users that there is more to the subject than the hostile perspective - ideally with the more solid sources I provide eventually being included in the articles by other editors.

I do not believe that this is a significant infraction if I do not edit war as I did in the past. I understand that I am unwanted on Wikipedia - I will respond that I have ceased attempting to be confrontational, and now merely desire to archive information. All of my edits hoped for eventual consensus before inclusion, and I retain for myself, if allowed, the role of a person who embraces the Bold, Revert, Discuss guideline.Areyoumoral (talk) 17:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

---