Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChildofMidnight

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NuclearWarfare (talk | contribs) at 23:24, 27 August 2010 (Comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.

ChildofMidnight

ChildofMidnight (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected
24 August 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Beeblebrox

A lot of crossover between articles edited on rather obscure topics is reflected in the Wikistalk report [1]. General behavioral pattern and timing of account creation are consistent, and there is a standing, unanswered direct question to the user regarding whether they might be CoM. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence submitted by Rd232

0. It is unfortunate that checkuser isn't corroborative, but that isn't the end of the story; IPs may change due to a user physically moving, or using technical measures (VPN). CoM, being the subject of a one-year ban (rather than indefinite) would have a higher motivation than most sockmasters to use technical measures designed to defeat checkuser. As Wikipedia:CheckUser says, "CheckUser is not magic wiki pixie dust. ... An editing pattern match is the important thing; the IP match is really just extra evidence (or not)." So, onward to the behavioural evidence.

1. Basic overlap in US political views, including climate change and creationism. There is a basic overlap in interests between Freakshownerd (talk · contribs), ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs) and CoM's sock Electroshoxcure (talk · contribs) in terms of shared US conservative political views, reflected in interests in Barack Obama (eg FSN's recent creation of BLPs appointed in Obama recess appointments, like Winslow Sargeant), intelligent design (eg FSN editing William Dembski and CoM's subpage) and climate-change-related pages (eg FSN's Michael E. Mann edits and Electroshoxcure's contribution to Climatic Research Unit email controversy [2]). These views go together, and lots of users fit this profile - so it's edits outside of these topics which are of interest.

2. Interest in junk food excess. Junk food, particularly bacon, was a CoM favourite topic, which those familiar should remember and it can be verified if necessary). Freakshownerd demonstrates the same interest:

which is not a blip, but a continuing interest:

3. Pasco County, Florida connection

Freakshownerd has created

4. Obscure wikistalk overlap. There is a very notable wikistalk overlap between Freakshownerd and CoM at a very hard to reach page, outside the main political-interest arena they share: Todos_Santos_Chocolates was created by CoM, has no inbound links to speak of, and not even a talk page.

5. Posting at ANI in support of another user after just 8 days. CoM has a high wikistalk overlap (showing strong onwiki relationship) with User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), who FSN posted at WP:ANI in support of [4] just one week after registering the account. The post is worth quoting in full:

Clear harassment and abuse of a contributor to the encyclopedia building effort. And now we see those standing up to the vile abuse being attacked as well. Shame on Gwen Gale, Newyorkbrad, Treasurytag, AGK, Ncmvocalist and others for their involvement in this sordid affair. If you can't be bothered to investigate and put things right then you should resign your positions of authority. There is no justification for the outrageous and abusive blocks now in Richard Norton's log, despite his being stalked with socks and other efforts to drive him off. Those who have stood by and allowed this to happen or encouraged it by attacking anyone who points out how grotesque it is should be ashamed of themselves. Civility policy my ass, these behaviors are sick and those defending them have no constructive role to here in building a supportive community or an encyclopedia.

The post was preceded earlier that day by a post on Norton's user talk page (FSN's first post there) [5] saying "Sorry to see the usual suspects involved in the harassment and abuse of a good contributor. Your sullied block log will remain even after these villains move on to other prey. This place is very sick indeed. Best of luck to you." This was just 8 days after registering the account! (And I can't even see any reason, from their respective contributions, why FSN would even be aware of Richard Arthur Norton's existence, never mind come unprompted to his support. He'd never previously posted to ANI, so can't even plausibly claim to have come across the issue that way.)

6. Freakshownerd's sole deletion review to date, 17 days after registering the account, [6] just happens to be an article CoM substantially rewrote [7] (Matthew Hoh)

7. Some interest in American football: wikistalk overlap at Robert McClain.

Nonspecific evidence of F being a sock:

8. within first dozen edits created an article as well structured as this: [8]

All of this evidence is purely edit history; but of course a number of people have commented on how much FSN sounds like CoM. See for example FSN's user talk page (and history) and block history. Rd232 talk 14:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

A checkuser has already agreed to investigate this some time today, and another to do so tomorrow if they're unable to due to RL time constraints. I've so far not posted the evidence that Freakshownerd is ChildofMidnight as I don't want to tell CoM in great detail where he went wrong, and hence how to do better next time. (cf user:Electroshoxcure - he's already socked once to avoid his 1-year ban). The evidence has been emailed to about ten admins and there's no need to duplicate the work done. (Of course, if any one of those admins feels the need to publish the evidence, they can do so.) Rd232 talk 17:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Freakshownerd has edited edited unique pages:704, and only 30 or about 5 percent are combined with COM, but it is the obscurity of the connections that appears undeniable. Full breakfast - Obama - Rick Scott - The Heartland Institute - Todos Santos Chocolates - this one is shouting connection to me, such an obscure article with only six edits total, four to COM and one to Freakshownerd and one to another. A propensity to edit Fringe theories, also combined Matthew Hoh - Robert McClain -  ? and the fact that this account was created two weeks after COMs last socking was blocked, I have had a good look with User:Delta's user compare tool and the undeniable implausible connections to such obscure articles warrants a checkuser clarification imo. Off2riorob (talk) 17:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@rd232: I never found CoM to be stupid, I figured he already knew how we caught socks and didn't care or didn't think we would catch this one for whatever reason. Really, I find Rob's evidence compelling enough to block as a duck and the account's behavior and block record thus far to be enough to block regardless, but since there is an ArbCom placed ban in play here it would be good to get confirmation from CU. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't support a lengthier block without a checkuser, but I do see enough of a connection to warrant a CU as regards block evasion.Off2riorob (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having edited all those common articles, especially the more obscure ones, pretty much means that the two accounts are the same person. But so what? Glancing at several random edits from the account in question, I don't see any harm. On the contrary, what I see is someone who loves to add legitimate content to the encyclopedia. So blocking the account won't serve to make the encyclopedia any better - in fact it will just make it worse. Why block such a productive editor? 72.95.237.208 (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
A banned user (User:Grundle2600) effectively saying we shouldn't enforce bans. Hm. Rd232 talk 08:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Get a good look at it,please , no trolling. Off2riorob (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The style of Fsn's responses to criticism, mostly long rants about corrupt administrators with lists of same and lists of unsupported assertions, is exactly CoM's style. No way this is Grundle; for all his faults he has a sense of humor and is rarely if ever mean. PhGustaf (talk) 22:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Grundle was an early idea; detailed investigation shows CoM. And as you say (as have others) CoM's voice is pretty recognisable. Rd232 talk 22:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This does look very much like CoM. I agree with your conclusions. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

F mentioned a previous allegation that he was User:William M. Connolley, which I wasn't aware of. For the record, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/William_M._Connolley/Archive#28_June_2010 shows some evidence that F is a sock, but the idea that it's WMC is pretty ludicrous and a checkuser request was unsurprisingly declined. Rd232 talk 10:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've no opinion on whether COM is FSN or not, but "A lot of crossover between articles edited on rather obscure topics is reflected in the Wikistalk report [9]" is one of the more dubious pieces of 'evidence' I've seen at SPI. @Beeblebrox: the same tool shows CoM has roughly five times as much crossover with you as with FSN. – iridescent 13:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're comparing apples and eggs (overlap between a 3k account and a 40k, and between two 40k accounts). Also Beeblebrox's summary of the wikistalk overlap doesn't reflect the details of why it's damning; and in any case that wikistalk overlap is only part of the evidence. Rd232 talk 13:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I edited some of those articles because I used to watch CoM's talk page and saw mention of them. The others are not extremely obscure topics but rather common ones. I'm willing to admit that causal relationship and state unequivocally that I am not CoM, something Freakshownerd did not seem willing to do. The behavioral evidence coupled with the very obscure articles they both edited and the timing of the account creation were my evidence, not just the report alone. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The behavioral evidence alone is more than enough IMO, from the crossed paths at obscure articles to the ever-widening accusations of conspiracy/incompetence/abuse/trolling to every admin that steps in, either to block him or to support the block done by another. If it's really needed, we could pore through CoM's talk page archives and the archives of WP:AE where the language and tone will match to a T. And this? I don't think one could find a more obvious ha-ha-nose-thumbing moment than that. Tarc (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the behavioral evidence is suggestive of sockpuppetry, there are other plausible explanations for it. Given that the checkuser evidence contradicts the presumption that they are the same (rather than simply fails to confirm it) requires us to conclude that this thing that quacks may not be a duck after all. Bongomatic 13:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please re-evaluate in light of the posting of the full evidence. Rd232 talk 14:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would recommend that we AGF on this one, due to the geolocation data. It's not impossible that they could be the same person, but it's extremely unlikely. I haven't seen any reasons to be worried about Freakshownerd; every time I've run into him he's been helpful and friendly. That would be my feedback. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please look again at just point five in my evidence and then justify the claim "they could be the same person, but it's extremely unlikely", without reference to the checkuser (which is defeatable by technical measures, or simply moving). Thank you. Rd232 talk 15:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said before that I felt the behavioral evidence was enough , and I still feel that way. When this guy talks, it's in CoM's voice. The obscure nature of some of the edit crossover is too much to be mere coincidence. Throw the timing of the account creation on top of all that and I think a block is in order. I now find myself wishing I had gone ahead and done that and not waited on the CU results because now Rd has had to post all of his carefully collected evidence here to strengthen the public case and unfortunately this could be used by CoM to improve his next sock. Anyway, I'm going to block FSN. Re:The above remark "I haven't seen any reason to be worried about Freakshownerd," check his block log and tell me again that there is nothing to be worried about. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk endorsed, AGFing on Rd232's part that a CheckUser has already agreed to look into this case. –MuZemike 05:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be me. I'll comment later today, still waiting on some feedback. Amalthea 14:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, feedback is not forthcoming, so I'll have to do with what I have, which is not much.
IPs used suggest that the two accounts are unrelated. Geolocation data puts them 1000+ miles apart, if both accounts were controlled by the same person they must have moved back in May. They have the same ISP, but that's not surprising.
Needs to be decided based on behavioral evidence. Amalthea 08:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
information Administrator note FSN has been blocked by Beeblebrox. While I anticipate much discussion about this, the best place for it would be AN or ANI. I'll mark this case for close. TNXMan 16:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As indicated above, checkuser did not establish any connection, but there is substantial editing and behavioral evidence. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you've seen fit to block FSN and are now seeking an indef ban on CoM for socking, despite CU having indicated that they weren't obvious socks, I'm left pondering two things: Why even bother going through the motions of CU if you were intending to block anyway?, and what on earth would your Divine Wrath have been like if they had been demonstrated to be socks?!
This whole business stinks. CoM was a well-intentioned drama queen, far too fond of flogging the old drama llama, but clearly with a broad intention to contribute positively to content. I could never have supported an entire year's block for them, and I still feel ashamed that one of my own comments might have been taken as a call to support this. Secondly this action against FSN, and especially the call for an indef ban of CoM (WHY?!), are utterly disproportionate. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; I think Beeblebrox is abusing his administrator's privileges here. I would be willing to support an investigation into Beeblebrox's handling of this matter, should someone choose to file one. As I said before, I never had any problems with FSN; he was always friendly and helpful when I encountered him. So this definitely seems like witch-hunting (fishing?) to me. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea how to file such a thing (I cannot express what utter disinterest I have in such things), but if anyone does do so, please point me at it too. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As to where to discuss this (if you must, even though FSN seems to have given up and never seriously contested the evidence), TNXman above pointed to WP:AN/WP:ANI. Rd232 talk 23:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(a) all these comments are in the wrong area (b) FSN himself hasn't bothered to seriously challenge the behavioural SPI details (c) it is irrelevant whether FSN was well-behaved[and did you see his recent lashing out on his talk page (some now deleted)? he had talk page access revoked twice for abusive behaviour reminiscent of CoM], he is blocked for being a WP:SOCK of a banned user (d) this is CoM's second sock during his ban, and extending the ban (possibly to indefinite) is a perfectly normal response. Rd232 talk 23:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But there is no proof that he is a sock of CoM at all. Have you and Beeblebrox no respect for AGF at all? Stonemason89 (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be confusing CU with magic pixie dust (cf opening part of my evidence) and AGF with a suicide pact. Also, if you have as little interest in discussing the behavioural evidence as FSN appears to, there's little more to discuss. Rd232 talk 23:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ChildofMidnight&oldid=381400959"