Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tumbleman/Archive: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 501: Line 501:


* Question: Does the checkuser tool only compare against the original Tumbleman account, or does it also check the subsequent sockpuppets? Reaper has said that Tumbleman is adept at hiding other accounts.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Reaper_Eternal&diff=583278718&oldid=583242857] [[User talk:Vzaak|vzaak]] 19:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
* Question: Does the checkuser tool only compare against the original Tumbleman account, or does it also check the subsequent sockpuppets? Reaper has said that Tumbleman is adept at hiding other accounts.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Reaper_Eternal&diff=583278718&oldid=583242857] [[User talk:Vzaak|vzaak]] 19:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

*There are a few issues about these recurring sockpuppeting claims that I'd like to address and examine. Does anyone have any proof Tumbleman has had more than one account active on Wikipedia at the same time? As far as I can tell, the records show that he has not; the disputed charge of sockpuppeting was not the reason he was blocked. The reason I ask is that under the assumption that Tumbleman has countless aliases a large number of users have had sanction threatened or levied against them. Since his blocking an unreasonable number of editors have been accused of secretly being Tumbleman and blocked, in many cases with only cursory, arbitrary or biased evidence. As I've mentioned before, I've noticed that most editors who argue for similar purposes as Tumbleman end up getting slammed with warnings, sanctions or blocks. I strongly feel the chilling effect this has had on certain WP articles is more disruptive than anything Tumbleman or these other editors did (what exactly did they do that was so disruptive again?). I've been trying to look into the situation whenever I can and reached out to Tumbleman to get his perspective, as I noted on my talk page. I also reached out to several of the editors who were accused of being socks for Tumbleman, and the ones I’ve contacted appeared to be clearly separate people.

:Tumbleman argued that he felt his indefinite block was the result of harassment by Vzaak and others who worked to damage his personal credibility and silence dissenting positions on the Sheldrake article. He acknowledged to me that he did not accept his blocking as just and has created new Wikipedia accounts when his previous accounts got banned so he could continue contributing to Wikipedia. He insisted that none of his accounts have done any disruptive editing and asked admins to peruse his activity to prove as much.

:Out of respect for WP policies I requested that Tumbleman create no new accounts or contribute on WP except through transparant avenues (appeals, etc), which he agreed to out of a belief that upon closer review his blocking would eventually be reversed. Since he is going to refrain from editing anyway, I asked him to list every account he has had on WP so that we can determine how many editors have been unjustly blocked after accusations of being a sockpuppet and identify a pattern for CheckUser. He lists the following as the only accounts he has used: 'The Tumbleman', 'Philosophy Fellow', 'Halfman Halfthing' and 'No more scary monsters'. He states he has not performed any IP edits. I think it’s obvious that he has nothing to gain from admitting to some blocked accounts and denying other blocked accounts, so the conclusion is that those blocked as Tumbleman socks other than the above were wrongly blocked.
:Aside from the question of Tumbleman's blocking in the first place, it's clear that there's a serious problem with the fact that a large number of innocent editors have been blocked as collateral damage in the search for someone who was never clearly abusive. As I've said from the beginning, it's better for WP to give the benefit of the doubt to any given editor as opposed to robbing the community of whatever knowledge and insight they may possess. I'm not proposing blanket amnesties, but this is an issue that's going to need to be addressed for future editors. By all means we need to look out for sock/meatpuppetry, but the priority has got to be maintaining an environment where people feel free to contribute without fearing they're going to be accused of something. [[User:Askahrc|The Cap'n]] ([[User talk:Askahrc|talk]]) 01:21, 10 February 2014 (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 01:21, 10 February 2014


Tumbleman

Tumbleman (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
13 October 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


New editor appeared with an awareness of wikipedia policies [1], and on his second edit jumps into a controversial debate to agree with The Tumbleman [2] and advance his arguments. Most telling of all is that the only person to call Sheldrake by "sheldrake" lower case, consistently, is Tumbleman (ctrl+f through [3]), something this "new" editor is repeating [4]. Checkuser needed to confirm and look for potential sleepers. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Just my opinion, but if it is Tumbleman, then this is far below his normal standard of operation when trolling. He is much better at it than that. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 17:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I share IRWolfie's concerns, for the following reasons:

  • Tumbleman's logged-out posts give a Los Angeles IP [5]
  • Tumbleman announces he'll be gone for 2 days [6]
  • Oh boy chicken again (talk · contribs) shows up with a Palm Springs IP [7]
  • Both say they find disputes "interesting", use the same phrases "a small group of skeptic editors" and "create a more balanced and neutral POV"

Given that Tumbleman has created the socks KateGompert (talk · contribs) and KemRP (talk · contribs) it's not unreasonable to suspect that Tumbleman may have socked as Oh boy chicken again (talk · contribs) while on his "2 days off" in Palm Springs, a popular weekend destination for Los Angelinos. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, there are socks on both sides of this Sheldrake debate. There are other accounts that popped up just to participate in this discussion who seem to know a fair amount about WP practices (see Dan_skeptic). I've suggested this to other Editors and an Admin and received agreement that this was likely but was also told that CU would not connect an IP account to a registered account. Also, no one wanted to take this on, to sort it all out as it's been a complicated discussion with many accounts taking part.
As for Tumbleman, the evidence below seems completely non-conclusive and it could be used to argue against this account as a sock puppet as much as for it being a sock puppet. It defines "borderline" and appears to me to be punitive as this Editor has clearly irritated others over the course of discussing this article.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you go looking for socks in the Sheldrake debate (for the past month), you'll find them and there will be much more convincing connections than in this example. Liz Read! Talk! 12:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no. You are saying the evidence of Technically indistinguishable by the checkuser is non-conclusive? Are you kidding? He got caught with his hands in the cookie jar, by having an account appear that just happens to register just to agree with him from the same IP and then claimed on his user page that it was because he went to a Wikipedia consultancy company and got someone else there to use his account and then create their own [8]: " I shared my account PW with this professional so they could make changes in my sandbox regarding my references at their office.", and then mysteriously dhe decided to edit wikipedia and by chance edited the same article, and by chance agreed with Tumbleman. A "professional" who doesn't even have a wikipedia account of their own that they use at their own work. How convenient. How did this professional get their experience? Then for some reason this professional also set up an account expressing how they've been lurking since 2010 [9] and just decided now to take part in the debate. And then there is how this sock uses the exact same language as Oh boy chicken again on its user page and was active for roughly the same sort of short period before disappearing.
"As far as I can tell, there are socks on both sides of this Sheldrake debate." Present your evidence at SPI or retract the accusation. Accusations without evidence to try and make a false parity and tar everyone with the same brush help no one. Also, I severely doubt Dan skeptic is a sock, the only evidence being he is new (WP:BITE) and competent generally (although he doesn't appear that aware of our policies and guidelines beyond what I would expect of a new editor), but can you please not try and de-rail this SPI with accusations against someone else, take that to a new filing. (Also referring to anonymous admins you have talked to off wiki is hardly a something to mention, some admins I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw them). IRWolfie- (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tumbleman's assertions "I shared my account PW with this professional so they could make changes in my sandbox regarding my references at their office. I only requested them to use my account and no other. I asked for help regarding references because I wanted to make sure I am editing with proper WP protocols regarding references and needed help. This professional works in public relations in an office setting so it is likely their office has WP activity since they do online public relations and outreach support for many social sites in general.[10] " (emph added) and "However, I do work in media and technology, and many companies do have to manage or create accounts, usually for the purposes of compliancy, and they all do so transparently or within what ever TOS a platform has. There is nothing alarming happening with that, it's standard practice and occurs on any large platform online." [11] (emph added) when taken with the self outing that he did previously, is a very troubling, particularly when taken with the "Technically indistinguishable" from other accounts.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As ever, people get hung up about sockpuppetry when the real problem here was not the socks but the extremely bizarre and creative interpretation of policy. That this was designed to soften criticism of Rupert Sheldrake, while acting as some kind of devil's advocate in order to further some social experiment, or something, is actually more of a concern because it diverts editors from writing about people who actually achieved things in their careers to Rupert who wouldn't be fit to lace most scientist's shoelaces. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are two issues going on. One is socks, particularly potential socking by/via PR agencies; and the other is the WP:TE. But perhaps a thorough removal of the socks would remove those who are responsible for the TE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find it more likely that the story about the PR firm was invented to explain the checkuser results -- that he just edited WP from another location. In any case I assume such a story couldn't get his block lifted, as any socker could say the same thing. In addition to the evidence already presented, I would like to point out:

  • Tumbleman was very frustrated the day before the socking, claiming "editors with a clear bias are making changes with no clear consensus"[12] He may have broken the 3RR[13][14][15][16][17][18][19]. This was his first time shouting in ALL CAPS in edit comments and in the talk page.
  • KateGompert's very first edit was to her user page, announcing "there's been a lively debate happening at Rupert Sheldrake's talk page, and I want to take part in it".[20] chicken-boy announces the same interest, "I created an account because of the controversy on the Rupert sheldrake article. I wanted to lend a voice to the page and want to be neutral"[21]. After being away for four years, the first thing Tumbleman did was edit his user page to say "I enjoy engaging in the 'talk' debates".[22] How many users do this kind of "announcing" of wanting to debate on talk pages?
  • KateGompert and chicken-boy both begin a sentence "I've been lurking" as their first or second edit.[23] [24]
  • chicken-boy starts off his support for Tumbleman with "I want to jump in".[25] "Jumping in" is a phrase used by Tumbleman three times prior on the talk page [26] ([27] [28]) [29]. (This is not strong in itself, but in the context here it is odd.)
  • chicken-boy introduces himself with "I like the idea of helping create a more balanced and neutral POV".[30] Similar phrasings by Tumbleman include "the middle, the center, the neutral POV"[31] "the reasonable and neutral POV"[32] "without bias and with a neutral POV"[33] "in a neutral POV"[34] It is characteristic of Tumbleman to say "neutral POV" instead of "NPOV" like everyone else.
  • chicken-boy and nobody else uses lower case "sheldrake", as pointed out by others.
  • chicken-boy's lumbering, hazy prose is a distinct fingerprint of Tumbleman. This is a cumulative judgment built over time; I could give hundreds of diffs, but it would be easier to look at Talk:Rupert Sheldrake. I concede that evaluating this piece of evidence would be the time-consuming and ultimately subjective, but I offer my opinion anyway.
  • chicken-boy and Tumbleman exhibit exactly the same misunderstanding regarding unfalsifiability and pseudoscience, which is a unique misunderstanding in itself. chicken-boy's only conversation is about falsifiability, making three posts on it: [35][36][37]. Tumbleman is hung up on falsifiability on a huge way: [38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52].
  • As that long list of links in the previous point may already indicate, Tumbleman is an antisocial individual on the Internet. He has gleefully trolled many websites in the past. Here is one site that banned him, where he is shown bragging about trolling, e.g. "I should be able to create a rather large discussion that will just continue to grow until mass or close to mass consensus...Now, by ‘staging’ I mean in the theatrical sense. I employed a personality that was designed to talk about world peace and rational thinking that was a bit obnoxious and over the top and playful. Tricks." As the link says, "OS 012" is some kind of trolling recipe, and this ties him to WP here. More info here. While this stuff may be more appropriate in a separate ANI, I think it bears directly on this sockpuppeting behavior since it is consonant with previous behavior.

vzaak (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I ever got involved in this. I am not Tumbleman. I also do not live in Palm Springs, but do agree it's a popular weekend retreat for people like myself who live in Irvine, CA. I think this is nuts. Yes I jumped in and supported an argument. One of my teachers encourages us to help wikipedia and we go to various message boards to find articles that are being contested. I found the Sheldrake page from there. I was following it for a number of days, so was familiar with the discussion. I wanted to jump in because many of the editors seemed highly biased and were making ridiculous arguments and the Sheldrake page itself is a monstrosity. As a journalism major, I was shocked at the bias of editors who were abusing the page and edit warring. Tumbleman seemed to be pretty neutral, his arguments made sense and a number of other editors were supporting them too. And they were being ignored so I wanted to address it. Worst. Mistake. Ever. Thanks for genuinely turning me off of this whole process. I'm out.Oh boy chicken again (talk) 00:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The timing is rather interesting that a mere 15 minutes after Oh boy chicken again posts a comment on Tumbleman's page (and a mere 10 minutes after Oh boy chicken again's last post) that Tumbleman is aware of the comment and responds to the ping on his talk page. Maybe Tumbleman spends a lot of time paging through Wikipedia and happened to be on and notice that someone had left a comment on their talk page, but ... a response within 15 minutes? thats pretty speedy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tumbleman (talk · contribs) has posted on his talk page [53] that he was online working on his defense and could have responded earlier but waited because he thought an immediate response would signal that he was a sock.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad chicken-boy made the above comment because it puts the spotlight on yet another tell-tale sign of Tumbleman: he is obsessed with saying that editors are biased. I told him many times to comment on content, not on editors -- that throwing accusations around is not constructive -- but he never got it. chicken-boy's comment above shows the same obsession expressed in the same manner. This is a uniquely Tumblemanian trait. Without exception, other editors who disapprove of the article have taken some other strategy; they understand (as most anyone would) that just making accusations toward editors is not the way to go. Even the most ardent Sheldrake supporters complain about bias in the article, not about people as Tumbleman/chicken-boy do.

  • chicken-boy:
  • "many of the editors seemed highly biased" (above)
  • "I was shocked at the bias of editors who were abusing the page" (above)
  • Tumbleman:
  • "many editors here have a bias" [54]
  • "language from editors clearly shows a bias on the page" [55]
  • "commenting from editors shows a biased POV" [56]
  • "the bias that they clearly have" [57]
  • "a lot of biased sources and opinions" [58]
  • "we have biased editors quoting opinions" [59]
  • "editor is not able to provide a decent source and expresses a clear bias" [60]
  • "those with negative bias here" [61]
  • "your voice sounds a little biased here" [62]

vzaak (talk) 02:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Technically, it's somewhat Unlikely that they are related. However, Tumbleman is Technically indistinguishable from KateGompert and the zero-edit KemRP, whose account was created less than 15 minutes before Kate's. Be aware that this is not a Confirmed, since the IP all three are on is extremely dynamic. You'll have to rely mainly on behavior."
I would call this inconclusive or, at best, mixed results, clearly not certainty. Liz Read! Talk! 04:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, you are misreading this SPI. It's technically unlikely with Oh boy chicken again but a  Technically indistinguishable match with KateGompert and KemRP. Oh boy chicken again should be blocked on the behavioural evidence, KateGompert and KemRP have already been blocked based on behaviourial evidence and the checkuser. Checkuser isn't magic pixie dust, it provides additional evidence. The reason people are compiling evidence of sockpuppetry is, presumably, because you are egging Tumbleman on despite the sockpuppetry being rather obvious [63] and despite his history of trolling under the same name being rather obvious as well (also provided). IRWolfie- (talk) 08:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What you call "egging on", I see as standing up for someone who is being bullied. People who oppose his viewpoint have targeted him and now it's a pile-on. You label him a "troll" and a "sock" so that other Editors will disregard his argument. It's an easy way to silence someone you find annoying and get them kicked off of WP. I mean, you had to really go searching to find old discussion board messages from 2005, right? Liz Read! Talk! 18:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Worth pointing out that for a self declared "social media expert" not to know that handing out your password is not acceptable behaviour, as he has claimed recently. Even normal people , never mind experts, know not to do this. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 03:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, have you taken the time to actually look through the evidence presented here? Much of your wording indicates you haven't read the evidence. Rather you appear to dismiss everything out of hand, for no good reason, including evidence that he's directly continued off-wiki disruption to on-wiki. IRWolfie- (talk) 06:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it's necessary to take a deep breath, pause, step back, and make sure that one is not missing the forest for the trees. Any long-term editor here can take one look at the contributions list of this Chicken person, and realize that he or she is someone's sock. Maybe not the sock of Tumbleman, but with almost 100% certainty someone's sock. That they are not here to build an encyclopedia is also blatantly obvious - one can see that just by looking at the contribs. Given this, it seems counter-productive and detrimental to the project to allow Chicken to continue editing. They have already been disruptive, and have made virtually no productive edits. This is a person we really don't need around, whether it's a sock of Tumbleman, or a sock of some other editor, or just some random yahoo out to create a little brouhaha on Wikipedia. Ultimately, it is the duty of admins to protect the project from harm, which is why I request of someone: Indef block, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Considering he's still using the sockpuppet to comment at WP:AE, can someone indef it? IRWolfie- (talk) 11:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, can someone indef this sock, please? LuckyLouie (talk) 12:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC) ...He's now loose on the blocking admin's page, ranting against "coordinated pseudo-skepticism." [64] LuckyLouie (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • Technically, it's somewhat  Unlikely that they are related. However, Tumbleman (talk · contribs) is  Technically indistinguishable from KateGompert (talk · contribs) and the zero-edit KemRP (talk · contribs), whose account was created less than 15 minutes before Kate's. Be aware that this is not a  Confirmed, since the IP all three are on is extremely dynamic. You'll have to rely mainly on behavior. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked KateGompert (talk · contribs) and KemRP (talk · contribs) indef as suspected sock puppets, and blocked Tumbleman (talk · contribs) for one week for sockpuppetry. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocked suspected sock. On a purely behavioral basis there are very strong links that are adequately convincing to support a block, in my opinion. NativeForeigner Talk 20:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Tumbleman and Oh boy chicken again have both been indefinitely blocked, I think we can close this now. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
25 November 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


  • Generally speaking, Philosophyfellow advances the same arguments Tumbleman did, along the lines that the focus of the Rupert Sheldrake article should shift to philosophy. Philosophyfellow also holds the same general misunderstanding of how science works; he thinks that expert scientific critique is to be placed equally alongside other critiques, just as Tumbleman thinks.
  • Four minutes after creating his account,[65] Philosophyfellow creates his own user page[66] and user talk page.[67] This doesn't seem like a brand new user; it's strange that a new user would immediately post to BLPN as well (BLPN edits shown later).
  • Tumblemanian odd capitalization: "Hypothesis"
    • Philosophyfellow
      • "Sheldrakes Resonance concept an Hypothesis ... calling it properly an Hypothesis"[77]
      • "to refer to his Hypothesis"[78]
    • Tumbleman
      • "SHeldrake's Hypothesis"[79]
      • "His Hypothesis"[80]
  • Without prompting, introduces 'extended mind', written with single quotes:
  • "hypothesis or theory"
    • Philosophyfellow: "I don't think Sheldrakes concepts of 'extended mind' would be either hypothesis or theory, it's a concept in Philosophy so neither should apply."[89]
    • Tumbleman: "There is no reason any editor should mistake a philosophical discussion about science as pseudoscience as it's not an hypothesis or theory"[90]
  • "list the sources"
    • Philosophyfellow: "it would be productive for everyone on the page list the sources"[91]
    • Tumbleman: "I created this section so GSM editors or anyone else can list the sources"[92]
  • Tumblemanian focus on "bias" of editors instead of content
    • Philosophyfellow
      • "From what I have gone through already on this talk page, it's obvious that there is a bias against the man among editors here"[93]
      • "the problem with biased editors in question"[94]
      • "I'm concerned that editors here have to many personal feelings about Sheldrake"[95]
    • Tumbleman (copied from AE request)
      • "many editors here have a bias" [96]
      • "language from editors clearly shows a bias on the page" [97]
      • "commenting from editors shows a biased POV" [98]
      • "the bias that they clearly have" [99]
      • "a lot of biased sources and opinions" [100]
      • "we have biased editors quoting opinions" [101]
      • "editor is not able to provide a decent source and expresses a clear bias" [102]
      • "those with negative bias here" [103]
      • "your voice sounds a little biased here" [104]
  • "a very circular argument"
    • Tumbleman
      • "This entire argument of applying WP FRINGE to the page is based on a very circular argument"[111]
    • Philosophyfellow
      • "This is a very circular argument...circular argument to support something"[112]
      • "given circular argumentation"[113]
      • "your argument now rests on a tautology and circular reasoning"[114]
  • General lashing out the people who gathered the evidence culminating in his block. On BLPN, he aggressively promotes the idea that all current editors should be blocked, a peculiar move for a brand new editor.
    • "The only solution at this stage is just block all current editors from the page"[115]
    • "let's get these editors out of here"[116]
    • "we need to get a new team in here"[117]
    • "Let's get a new team in here"[118]
    • "we need to get a new team in here"[119]
    • "we need to get a team in here"[120]
    • "If anyone is wondering why there would be IP editors or new editors coming in with fresh accounts, consider that they are probably just protecting themselves from harassment"[121]

. vzaak (talk) 06:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I am extremely impressed by Vzaak's good work here. It's much appreciated. We don't need any socks here. Now let's see what CU says. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't gone through contributions to the same extent as Vzaak (talk · contribs) but I just got a feeling about this one. It's not just the use of language, it's the same condescending arrogant disregard for Wikipedia and its policies (especially WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE, science and scientists who give us the consensus from which we must work, and editors who wish to implement these policies. That said, he's not being hugely more disruptive than other pro-Sheldrake editors, and I'm somewhat concerned that we have to ban on "naughty behaviour" (i.e. socking) rather than the ignoring and trying to circumvent/redefine policy, bizarrely interpreting sources to get them to say things they don't, pretending that sources don't exist, etc, which is still being done by various other fans of Sheldrake (and which technically is naughty under WP:ARB/PS). But admins will only pull their fingers out for the socking. Huh? Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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

I've restored the archive because I asked Reaper at his talk page about the checkuser results, as Tumbleman has had sleepers before. (I should have asked here.) vzaak (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response from PhilosophyFellow

I think the valid quote here which was pulled by Vzaak is "If anyone is wondering why there would be IP editors or new editors coming in with fresh accounts, consider that they are probably just protecting themselves from harassment". If anyone checks ANI cases, they will see that this team, especially Vzaak and Barney the Barney Barney, have quite a history of ignoring policy of assuming good faith and choosing instead to harass editors who disagree with them and trying to remove or bully them off of the page. That evidence speaks for itself and requires no interpretation. I have gotten a number of 'Thank you's' for my edits on the talk page from other editors. This will be my only comment on the matter. Philosophyfellow (talk) 12:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Re-opened by vzaak to request sleeper check. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've already checked, and nothing showed up. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


25 November 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


  • Shaynekori creates an account and immediately knows to use {{edit semi-protected}}.
  • As the account's only action, an edit request is posted to Talk:Rupert Sheldrake with title "‎why is panpsychism not mentioned?".[122]
  • Tumbleman had been pushing hard for the panpsychism angle.[123] [124] [125] [126] [127]
  • Philosophyfellow (talk · contribs), a confirmed sockpuppet of Tumbleman, responds to Shaynekori, "Thank you", "I believe this was raised before", "I absolutely agree", "it's quite a mainstream academic concept these days", "I support this edit."[128]
  • Like Tumbleman and his socks, Shaynekori wants to focus on Sheldrake's philosophical points.[129]
  • Only Tumbleman/Philosophyfellow has been interested in panpsychism; no other user mentions it in the entire history of the Sheldrake talk page.[130]

--vzaak (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC) vzaak (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
08 December 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


  • Generally speaking, 23.241.74.200 continues advancing the same arguments as Tumbleman and his sockpuppets; 23.241.74.200 holds the same general misunderstandings as Tumbleman regarding how science works.
  • 23.241.74.200 argues on Talk:Rupert Sheldrake that Sheldrake should be called a biologist.[131] In the very same thread, and on the very same day, Tumbleman's confirmed sockpuppet Philosophyfellow continues the very same argument where 23.241.74.200 left off.[132]
  • Tumbleman has failed to log in several times before,[133][134] so we should not be surprised that the same thing happened with his confirmed sockpuppet Philosophyfellow, as indicated above.
  • The IP edits by Tumbleman are from the same geolocation as 23.241.74.200.
  • The aforementioned edit by 23.241.74.200 was the IP's very first edit. The IP didn't edit again until 7 Dec 2013, at which time it appears as though Tumbleman didn't realize that the 7 Nov 2013 existed and would be damning.
  • All of 23.241.74.200's edits are Sheldrake-related, and this new editor was familiar with the recent failed ArbCom case concerning the Sheldrake article.[135]
  • Tumbleman's sockpuppets have traditionally supplied a cover story for being involved with the Sheldrake article.
    • KateGompert: "I decided to create an account because there's been a lively debate happening at Rupert Sheldrake's talk page"[154]
    • Oh boy chicken again: "I created an account because of the controversy on the Rupert sheldrake article."[155]
    • Philosophyfellow: "I have spent the past 4 or 5 days over on the Rupert Sheldrake article. I was going to jump in and help when I heard of the problem from the BBC coverage of the issue on the page."[156]
    • 23.241.74.200: "I'm interested in this page primarily regarding the recently declined ARBCOM case"[157]
  • Despite the finding by five admins that Tumbleman is WP:NOTHERE,[158] and despite that Tumbleman was caught red-handed for sockpuppetry, Tumbleman thinks he was harassed off Wikipedia. After his block, Tumbleman pushed this idea through his confirmed sockpuppet Philosophyfellow, and has continued doing so through 23.241.74.200.
    • 23.241.74.200
      • "especially regarding the harassment of editors"[159]
    • Tumbleman
      • "choosing instead to harass editors"[160]
      • "I don't want to get harassed like other editors"[161]
      • "editors get attacked or harassed...protecting themselves from harassment"[162]
  • Like Tumbleman, 23.241.74.200 thinks skepticism is a big problem on Wikipedia.
    • 23.241.74.200: ""Skepticism" however is also an ideology and a movement."[163]
    • [From LuckyLouie's AE statement;[164] note "GSM" is "Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia", a group Tumbleman mistakenly thought was involved with the Sheldrake page -- see here and here for backstory] Tumbleman appears to be at the center of it, making a lot of noise about working "for the good of Wikipedia" to protect Wikipedia from "skeptics" and something he calls "GSM". His first direct Talk page comment to me claimed I was advancing a "GSM editors" agenda [165]. This prompted my further attention, and I noted a number of his Talk page arguments have included rants against the "groupthink ideological agenda of skeptics" [166], the dangers of a "skeptical POV agenda" [167] and the agenda of "GSM editors" [168], [169], [170], [171]. Ironically, he professes his own neutrality and lack of bias while accusing other editors of bias and organized "GSM" conspiracy [172].
  • Tumblemanian peculiar capitalization: "Skeptical POV"
  • "Personal POV" / "NPOV"
    • 23.241.74.200: "Personal POV is stripped from a NPOV"[179]
    • Tumbleman: "personal POV over a NPOV"[180] "appeal to a personal POV"[181]
  • "x, y, and z"
    • 23.241.74.200: "Rupert Sheldrake is an x, y, and z"[182]
    • Tumbleman: "x, y, and z about Rupert Sheldrake"[183]
  • Framing fringe
    • 23.241.74.200
      • "frame an entire BLP page under a FRINGE guideline"[184]
    • Tumbleman
      • "frame sheldrake as something he is not to prop up a WP:FRINGE claim"[185]
      • "frame their arguments is the WP FRINGE claim"[186]
      • "I agree that the article must frame the reactions...not seeing anything that qualifies this article which is governed under WP:ALIVE to fall under jurisdiction of WP:FRINGE"[187]

-- vzaak (talk) 04:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • information Administrator note Thank you for the thorough report User:Vzaak, it makes reviewing the case and evidence much easier. IP blocked for one month. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
18 December 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


  • 70.211.67.178 has already been blocked; this evidence is just for the record, to aid in identifying future sockpuppets.
  • The very specific misunderstanding of Tumbleman that expert scientific opinion should placed on the same level as other opinions.
    • 70.211.67.178
      • "I'm not aware that Sheldrake is a pseudoscientist or MR is pseudoscience other than a handful of opinions of a few scientists."[188]
    • Tumbleman
      • "a few scientists who hold the opinion that sheldrake's work is pseudoscience...I am not talking about opinions of scientists."[189]
      • "I am not seeing any proper sources that sheldrake pushes pseudoscience other than a few referenced opinions."[190]
      • "All the references editors have here are quoting OPINIONS of scientists and opinions"[191]
      • "I'm not here to defend Morphic Resonance...Sources that are opinions do not count"[192]
      • "a scientist that has an opinion about what all other scientists think of sheldrake"[193]
      • "If every opinion that came out of every expert scientists mouth"[194]
  • Biography, not morphic resonance.
    • 70.211.67.178
      • "this is not an article about MR. Morphic Resonance has been a controversial notion for years and it's an hypothesis. This is a biography!"[202]
    • Tumbleman
      • "This is a biography page, not a page about Morphic Resonance"[203]
      • "If this were a page about Morphic Resonance, then perhaps that argument would apply, but since this is a biography page"[204]
  • [Partially copied from previous SPI] Tumbleman is obsessed with saying that editors are biased. I told him many times to comment on content, not on editors -- that throwing accusations around is not constructive -- but he never got it. The following comment shows the same obsession expressed in the same manner. This is a uniquely Tumblemanian trait.
    • 70.211.67.178:
      • "it is apparent that the editors guarding this article truly have a personal bias against him"[205]
      • "your own language against Rupert the individual should disqualify you from editing"[206]
    • Tumbleman:
      • "From what I have gone through already on this talk page, it's obvious that there is a bias against the man among editors here"[207]
      • "many editors here have a bias"[208]
      • "language from editors clearly shows a bias on the page"[209]
      • "commenting from editors shows a biased POV"[210]
      • "the bias that they clearly have"[211]
      • "a lot of biased sources and opinions"[212]
      • "we have biased editors quoting opinions"[213]
      • "editor is not able to provide a decent source and expresses a clear bias"[214]
      • "those with negative bias here"[215]
      • "your voice sounds a little biased here"[216]
      • "the problem with biased editors in question"[217]
      • "I'm concerned that editors here have to many personal feelings about Sheldrake"[218]
  • Guarding.
    • 70.211.67.178: "editors guarding this article"[219]
    • Tumbleman: "editors are going to guard the page"[220]

-- vzaak 02:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
02 January 2014
Suspected sockpuppets


  • Despite the finding by five admins that Tumbleman was WP:NOTHERE,[223] and despite that Tumbleman was caught red-handed for sockpuppetry, Tumbleman thinks he was harassed and "bullied" off Wikipedia. After his block, Tumbleman pushed this idea through his sockpuppets, and has continued doing so through Halfman halfthing:
    • Halfman halfthing:
    • Tumbleman
      • "choosing instead to harass editors"[225]
      • "I don't want to get harassed like other editors"[226]
      • "editors get attacked or harassed...protecting themselves from harassment"[227]
      • "especially regarding the harassment of editors"[228]
  • Exact phrase: "make the page more neutral"
  • Uses three question marks.
  • Uses single quotes in edit comments.
    • Halfman halfthing:
      • "removed 'pseudoscientist' before Sheldrake's name"[247]
    • Tumbleman:
      • "removed 'sheldrake argues...mysterious telepathy type connections' as it's not his argument"[248]
      • "added 'based on original research" [249]
      • "removed misleading weasel word 'proposal'"[250]
  • Like Tumbleman, Halfman halfthing thinks Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia (GSM) is a big problem (GSM is unrelated to the Sheldrake article; backstory is here).
    • Halfman halfthing: [251]
    • [From LuckyLouie's AE statement.] Tumbleman appears to be at the center of it, making a lot of noise about working "for the good of Wikipedia" to protect Wikipedia from "skeptics" and something he calls "GSM". His first direct Talk page comment to me claimed I was advancing a "GSM editors" agenda [252]. This prompted my further attention, and I noted a number of his Talk page arguments have included rants against the "groupthink ideological agenda of skeptics" [253], the dangers of a "skeptical POV agenda" [254] and the agenda of "GSM editors" [255], [256], [257], [258]. Ironically, he professes his own neutrality and lack of bias while accusing other editors of bias and organized "GSM" conspiracy [259].

-- vzaak 16:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Comment by Half-man Half Thing

Nothing controversial here and not socking. I'm not participating in the Sheldrake article either. Nothing disruptive here at all. I updated the criticisms of wikipedia page which included a section on Rupert Sheldrake. I removed the word 'pseudoscientist' from his description because it's being used as a pejorative and not how his Wikipedia article describes his professional work. I updated the article to include what Sheldrake speaks about on the BBC interview which is GSoW. Not sure why that's so controversial, it's what Sheldrake actually mentions in the interview and this is notable as Jerry Coyne mentions it too in his article on New Republic. I removed a few 'weasel' words. I updated Rupert's criticisms of Wikipedia also referencing the posting of the case study on his site which details the instances happening on his article from an account that was banned there, and criticizes Vzaak extensively ironically enough for harassing editors and using AE to get them banned or blocked. Vzaak of course is also the editor responsible for this sock hearing.

If my edit on that page was so controversial, then remove it. I'm not here to haggle, harass or sock. Halfman halfthing (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
19 January 2014
Suspected sockpuppets
  • Despite the finding by five admins that Tumbleman was WP:NOTHERE,[260] and despite that Tumbleman was caught red-handed for sockpuppetry, Tumbleman thinks he was "harassed" and "bullied" off Wikipedia. After his block, Tumbleman has pushed this idea through his sockpuppets.[261]
  • With his last sockpuppet that was blocked, Tumbleman was promoting this idea through his new website.[262][263]
  • Four days after the last sockpuppet was blocked,[264][265] the "No more scary monsters" account was created to promote the same website.[266]
  • The name "No more scary monsters" suggests a continuation of the last sockpuppet blocked, named "Halfman halfthing".
  • The day before the "No more scary monsters" account was created, a highly disruptive IP 192.69.217.195 in exactly the same geolocation as Tumbleman was warring on Terence McKenna, violating 3RR.[267] Tumbleman's raison d'être was the Rupert Sheldrake article; Sheldrake wrote several books with McKenna.
  • 192.69.217.195 has a vendetta against me, attacking me by name while linking to the original blog post that put forth the conspiracy theories about the Sheldrake article.[268][269] (Backstory is here.) The website that Tumbleman has been promoting through his sock puppets is an extensive (but silly) attack piece on me.
  • In the first Tumbleman SPI, I described Tumbleman as an antisocial individual on the Internet.[270] He has focused on this characterization here[271] and has given great attention to it on his website that "No more scary monsters" and "Halfman halfthing" have been promoting. 192.69.217.195 calls me the same term, "anti-social".[272][273]
  • These accounts are WP:DUCKs. Though "No more scary monsters" has since been inactive, considering Tumbleman's off-site proclamations to continue sockpuppeting, the disruptions from the above IP, and Tumbleman's previous use of sleepers, a checkuser for sleepers should be done.

--vzaak 15:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC) vzaak 15:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Liz is not an admin. Cardamon (talk) 10:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Barney, Tumbleman had a much closer relationship to Liz, who advised, supported, and encouraged him. Also, Weiler has no known socks, while Tumbleman has had many socks and has forthrightly stated his determination to continue socking. vzaak 16:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Does the checkuser tool only compare against the original Tumbleman account, or does it also check the subsequent sockpuppets? Reaper has said that Tumbleman is adept at hiding other accounts.[274] vzaak 19:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few issues about these recurring sockpuppeting claims that I'd like to address and examine. Does anyone have any proof Tumbleman has had more than one account active on Wikipedia at the same time? As far as I can tell, the records show that he has not; the disputed charge of sockpuppeting was not the reason he was blocked. The reason I ask is that under the assumption that Tumbleman has countless aliases a large number of users have had sanction threatened or levied against them. Since his blocking an unreasonable number of editors have been accused of secretly being Tumbleman and blocked, in many cases with only cursory, arbitrary or biased evidence. As I've mentioned before, I've noticed that most editors who argue for similar purposes as Tumbleman end up getting slammed with warnings, sanctions or blocks. I strongly feel the chilling effect this has had on certain WP articles is more disruptive than anything Tumbleman or these other editors did (what exactly did they do that was so disruptive again?). I've been trying to look into the situation whenever I can and reached out to Tumbleman to get his perspective, as I noted on my talk page. I also reached out to several of the editors who were accused of being socks for Tumbleman, and the ones I’ve contacted appeared to be clearly separate people.
Tumbleman argued that he felt his indefinite block was the result of harassment by Vzaak and others who worked to damage his personal credibility and silence dissenting positions on the Sheldrake article. He acknowledged to me that he did not accept his blocking as just and has created new Wikipedia accounts when his previous accounts got banned so he could continue contributing to Wikipedia. He insisted that none of his accounts have done any disruptive editing and asked admins to peruse his activity to prove as much.
Out of respect for WP policies I requested that Tumbleman create no new accounts or contribute on WP except through transparant avenues (appeals, etc), which he agreed to out of a belief that upon closer review his blocking would eventually be reversed. Since he is going to refrain from editing anyway, I asked him to list every account he has had on WP so that we can determine how many editors have been unjustly blocked after accusations of being a sockpuppet and identify a pattern for CheckUser. He lists the following as the only accounts he has used: 'The Tumbleman', 'Philosophy Fellow', 'Halfman Halfthing' and 'No more scary monsters'. He states he has not performed any IP edits. I think it’s obvious that he has nothing to gain from admitting to some blocked accounts and denying other blocked accounts, so the conclusion is that those blocked as Tumbleman socks other than the above were wrongly blocked.
Aside from the question of Tumbleman's blocking in the first place, it's clear that there's a serious problem with the fact that a large number of innocent editors have been blocked as collateral damage in the search for someone who was never clearly abusive. As I've said from the beginning, it's better for WP to give the benefit of the doubt to any given editor as opposed to robbing the community of whatever knowledge and insight they may possess. I'm not proposing blanket amnesties, but this is an issue that's going to need to be addressed for future editors. By all means we need to look out for sock/meatpuppetry, but the priority has got to be maintaining an environment where people feel free to contribute without fearing they're going to be accused of something. The Cap'n (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Clerk endorsed - for confirm and the usual LTA stuff. Rschen7754 09:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No more scary monsters is a  Confirmed match to Halfman halfthing (talk · contribs). no No comment with respect to IP address(es). ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confirmed sock blocked indef and tagged, IP is stale. Closing now. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tumbleman/Archive&oldid=594757809"