Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:19, 22 October 2010

– This SPI case is open.

Sonicyouth86

Sonicyouth86 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sonicyouth86/Archive.

19 October 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• Sonicyouth86 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Nick Levinson (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Evidence submitted by Cybermud

] Cybermud (talk) 22:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Sonicyouth86 appeared in a Talk page amidst a debate between myself and Nick Levinson. He/she had no edit history but proceeded to make ad-hominem attacks against me on that talk page. Sonicyouth86 then proceeded to make edits exclusively in other articles that I have edited and the nature of these edits, and associated wikilawyering on talk, clearly demonstrate someone very familiar with WP, a situation entirely inconsistent with their lack of edit history and indicative of sockpuppetry.

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

I have no other account and do not edit under an IP, except in the very beginning of my editing of WP, when I edited once under IP addressing and then used my account to acknowledge (in my first two edits' edit summaries) my specific IP-based editing. My account's name is my real name. I have never had another account in Wikimedia. I use this account across all Wikimedia projects in a single login. I don't know who Sonicyouth86 is.

Cybermud and I had a disagreement at Talk:Andrea Dworkin and I did not pursue it, as I didn't think there was much I could add that would be about improving the article (discussing without that goal is something I've done lots of times outside of WP and don't always want to spend time doing). While we strongly disagree on substance, it is a common and perennial disagreement and I thought Cybermud was courteous about it, a little funny or sarcastic (perhaps unintentionally) but well within the pale and, other than on the substantive disagreement, not objectionable.

I have enough editing to do, including some that involves controversy, that it didn't occur to me to look up either editor's work before this SPI. I have now for Sonicyouth86 and see only one article and one talk affected other than a noticeboard and the talk where all three of us met; I don't think I've ever visited the former two. Cybermud's contributions, just this month's, are far more extensive than Sonicyouth86's and, except for one article (on NOW) and the aforementioned, I don't think I've ever visited those pages, either, and, although some now look interesting, I don't plan to edit them and probably won't read them anytime soon, time being limited. Given the ratio of work, it doesn't seem to me that Sonicyouth86 is trying to edit most of Cybermud's work.

I do have skill and knowledge in various areas including WP editing but haven't judged whether Sonicyouth86's skill or knowledge is similar to mine, although Sonicyouth86's views in the area of the substantive disagreement with Cybermud seem to be similar to mine.

While it's annoying for me to be suspected, I do not think the complaint is made in bad faith.

I wish I could be of more help and if other research would assist, please let me know. Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 03:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I read the talk page of Andrea Dworkin and was absolutely shocked to see that a user wrote about "politically motivated rape" and that Andrea Dworkin's victimization deserves to be met with suspicion because she is "nasty" and resembles Jabba the Hutt according to Cybermud. I asked other editors if it was okay for Misplaced Pages to write such things on the talk page of a famous person. Cybermud deleted my comment and the comment was restored by user Nick Levinson. I have no connection to Nick Levinson or any other editor. I was shocked and saddened that users like Cybermud are allowed to write such horrible things on talk pages. His other contributions show the same tendency. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure the irony of the fact that you continue to make attacks on me and mischaracterize my edits and edit history on your own SPI page is completely lost on you. Like always you ignore the article or talk page your on to talk exclusively about me. In case you missed it, this page is about you being a sockpuppet. Perhaps you'd like to speak to that... no?--Cybermud (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Accusing me of having another account just because you didn't like my question if it was allowed for you to write such horrible things isn't okay, I think. I asked other editors if it was okay for you to do so. You deleted it and Nick Levinson restored it. So probably my question was okay and even justified. Your reasons for accusing me of having another account are transparent. Same goes for that other user who rejects changes to the article on the fathers' rights movement. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

SonicYouth, for someone with such a tiny number of edits and who has been here barely a week you have a highly unusual level of knowledge of Wikiepdia polices, processes not to mention quite a detailed appreciate of the history of the editing of some articles and editors. Cybermud should not be deleting comments but it's clearly false to suggest his accusations somehow stem simply from him not liking your question. I absolutely agree that Nick is innocent here, but your account appears to be highly suspicious (even ignoring the possible Wikihounding) and you please need to address the concerns at hand rather than pretending it's down to some sort of edit conflict. Many thanks. Also, it's blatantly obvious there are quite serious problems with Fathers' rights groups and more emerging every day, the evidence and consensus overwhelmingly contradicts you stance--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I just read what a sockpuppet was and found this quote: "Sometimes a brand new account is accused of being a sockpuppet account, simply because it is apparently experienced with the ways of Misplaced Pages, and leaps straight into areas of the project that the accusers think to be obscure, or shows proficiency with Misplaced Pages's mechanisms and processes. In years gone by, when Misplaced Pages was a very new project that hadn't yet come to the attention of the world in general, that was a fair argument. But it is now 2010." I don't know if I have a highly unusual level of knowledge of Misplaced Pages rules considering they can be read by anyone. It's obvious what this is: Cybermud is mad because his character assassination of Adrea Dworkin and his thoughts on "politically motivated rape" were challenged by me and because I disagree with you and him about the content of the article about the FRM.

On Cybermud's talk page you basically beg him to take back the ugly accusations here because you two know you have no evidence.

This case is clear. This is your way of solving a content dispute: Accuse everyone who disagrees of having another account or try to get rid of them by using other means. I wonder who's next on your list. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Once again you aren't being truthful here - I suggested Cybermud drop the accusation in relation to Nick as he doesn't appear to be involved, I didn't suggest and such action in relation to the allegations relating to yourself whatsoever.--Shakehandsman (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This is the last time I'm going to comment here, and I debate the pertinence of even doing so now. This is not the place for content debates. The only purpose of this page is the SPI. You are the one trying to muddle the issue with baseless assertions about my edits and edit history. As an editor of articles related to gender issues I am no stranger to content disputes or disagreements with other editors. You are the only one I have opened an SPI for, which illustrates your efforts to misdirect the focus of this page for exactly what they are. Your first WP edit was to add citation needed templates to sentences followed immediately by attacks on me that exhibited extensive knowledge of WP policies (though cited disingenuously.) Though you would clearly like to rehash debates about Andrea Dworkin I'm not going to here or anywhere else unless they are tied to discussions about actual content changes. I was very questionable about Nick being your puppetmaster from the beginning and am even more so now in light of his response, but you are clearly not a brand new editor, and your unwillingness to acknowledge having had previous accounts, or even editing as an IP, only further emphasizes the fact that you are acting in bad faith.--Cybermud (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You accuse me of having another account is that you're mad that I challenged your comments on the talk page of the Andrea Dworkin article. So this is about content. That other user that has been accusing me does so because of content; He wants the article about the FRM to be written by supporters of the FRM and get rid of all users who oppose this. So this is about content.

Your first WP edits were some elaborate quotes and citations of a book that exhibited extensive knowledge of WP stuff. Looks very suspicious. By your logic, you have multiple accounts too. Same goes for that other user who followed you here from the FRM article. You were clearly not a brand new editor, and your unwillingness to acknowledge having multiple accounts, or even editing as an IP, only further emphasizes the fact that you are acting in bad faith.

You wrote something very disturbing and off-topic about Adrea Dworkin and rape victims. Anyone can read the talk page. I asked other editors of this was appropriate behavior. And now you are sore about being held accountable for your comments. So you decided to bully me into silence.

The next person who disagrees with you, should expect accusations of having multiple accounts. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, more of the same. I'm still not going to defend any of my edits here and suggest you open an actual content dispute for them (where I will do so at length.) Actually this is my first edit in mainspace ] asking for help... and I'm a software engineer and computer programmer... but no doubt the use of WP templates came naturally to you, just like your knowledge of talk pages, and you just intuited what WP policies are.--Cybermud (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually your third edit was this http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Foreign_policy_of_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=356489125. It looks very elaborate to me. You were clearly not a brand new editor, and your unwillingness to acknowledge having multiple accounts, or even editing as an IP, only further emphasizes the fact that you are acting in bad faith.

You disliked being held responsible for your vile insults toward Andrea Dworkin and rape victims. You removed my comment and Nick Levinson restored it. You felt sore about this. And this was your "evidence" to start this effort here to harass me and Nick Levinson (who has nothing to do with me). I'm not familiar with the procedures here but I hope that users like you who try to settle content issues via this tool here are held responsible in some way. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

If you actually read my first edit, I said I spent hours working and editing an article that disappeared because I was not auto-confirmed and didn't fill out the captcha. That's not my 3rd edit.. not even my 30th. Nice try though. I'm not sore about anything and your ranting and raving is hardly "holding me responsible" for anything. Feel free to continue attacking me though the more you do the more convinced I am that you are the vandal you originally appeared to be.--Cybermud (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users

The sockpuppet also made false accusations concerning me also so I've looked at the evidence here and I don't see much at all pointing to Nick being guilty of anything. they do have similar views and perhaps a similar level of experience but I don't see any common editing patterns of similar use of language.style. It's blatantly obvious that Sonicyouth86 is someone's sockpuppet due to the level of understanding of Misplaced Pages relative to the lack of experience but I cannot work out who it might be. Nick and myself have never had any dealings on here either which again suggests he is not involved. I've given sonicyouth86 a warning regarding Wikihounding of User:Cybermud and also agree there is nothing at all malicious about Cybermud's report, he has been dealing with some serious biases in an article and the sockpuppet came along at the same time harassing him in the discussion and I think he's been a bit hasty. I am unsure as to how to identify who the Sockpuppet is in this case or what actions can be taken here, it really is quite a frustrating situation.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I've had another look, the user Sonicyouth86 appears to have significant knowledge of the history of the Fathers' rights groups article as seen here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3ANeutral_point_of_view%2FNoticeboard&action=historysubmit&diff=391708138&oldid=391704938 Nick doesn't edit there so it doesn't' seem to be him at all. This is almost certainly a sock of an editor at the Fathers' Rights article, also problems with that article are emerging all the time again arousing suspicions.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: This really does not look likely from a behavioural evidence point of view. The fact that there is no evidence per se speaks volumes. Actually, I doubt very much that this will actually be endorsed for checkuser.
  Cybermud I would suggest when two editors disagree with you on a topic that you assume good faith rather than jump to sock-puppetry reports.
  In reference to teh above comment Sonicyouth86's level of information could be a product of reading our public article history and talk pages. Indeed if anything that they said in their report to NPOV/N is true (and I know some of it is from past experience in that topic area) then there is an issue at that article and it is nothing to do with Nick or Sonicyouth86.
  Also for the record weeks ago I reminded Cybermud of site policy as regards civility and talk page usage - I would suggest they re-read my post--Cailil 23:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

What would be "likely" from a behavioral POV? SonicYouth has only edited pages I've edited (and mostly just talk pages at that,) and appeared with no edit history demonstrating knowledge, not just of WP syntax and policies but also WP terminology. The use of a brand new account for a single purpose (hounding me) seems like a 1st class behavioral basis and hardly a situation with "no evidence" (we seem to have different views on what evidence is.) You are setting the bar high enough that it becomes meaningless. While I agreed with your "reminder" on edit summaries (it's not a reminder the first time you read something btw) I still don't agree with the way you singled out the IP editor for admonishing while ignoring the misandrist comment that equated men's rights advocates to racists that it was responding to. Saying that NPA justified your going after the IP still doesn't fly since the original comment was much more of a personal attack than the IP's response. Though I'm sure your being a member of the "feminist task force" had nothing to do with that nor does it having any bearing on your support of my wikihounding sockpuppet. For the record, the talk page edit of mine in question ] and your "reminder" ]. With all due respect I think you could use a reading of your own reminder and, as an admin, hold yourself to an even higher standard of NPOV because, the way I read it, you ignored the truly offensive comment and personal attack to remonstrate the person who, justifiably, responded to it.--Cybermud (talk) 00:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

• Open SPI cases
• SPI cases awaiting administration
• SPI cases awaiting review