Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin


Daner's Creek

Daner's Creek (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

10 September 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


These sockpuppet accounts were announced by the Arbitration Committee in this statement. This is a pro forma SPI case to house any future SPIs concerning these socks. We reiterate that we have not determined that Flyer22 operated or controlled these accounts; the use of these accounts is inappropriate regardless of the circumstances described in the statement. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Additional accounts have also been reviewed in relation to this. If their usernames are subsequently added to this SPI, I will provide information about their "sockiness". Risker (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14 September 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


The user name "Earth's gate" is similar to "Daner's creek", and they both use geographic nouns, "earth" and "creek". User page is the same as the sock User:ReaperRoe. Earth’s gate began editing two days after Flyer22 Frozen's retirement message on December 10, 2020.[1] Flyer has argued with User:Jonathan f1 at Talk:White Americans in the past. Earth's gate's fourth edit, made 23 minutes after the account was created, was apparently speaking of User:Jonathan f1:

See the recent POV edits [at White Americans]. Think that person may be the guy on the talk page saying he'll fight his block? Earth's gate (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC) [2]

User:Jonathan f1 is the one who said he'll fight his block/ban:

Obviously I am going to protest this ridiculous ban. I will also take this issue to Reliable Sources for more input if no ground is made here. In the meantime I've left several references for objective editors to consider and, hopefully, use to fix this page.Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Flyer argued with him here at Talk:White Americans: [3]

Account edits Gay panic defense, Empathy, and sex differences articles, etc., similar to the other socks. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

This account was active for three hours ten months ago. That being the case I fail to see any point to an investigation of any kind. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Stale. Nothing to do here. – bradv🍁 23:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

03 May 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

This sequence of edits made me think that Enlightenedstranger0 was a sockpuppet or returning user. (Notice the page titles.) Enlightenedstranger0 and the Daner's Creek group share an interest in human sexuality and sex differences. This comment by a Daner's Creek sock, referencing an SPI I had recently filed, reminds me somewhat of this (plus this and this) by Enlightenedstranger0, referencing a different SPI also by me. It seems surprising that two new users would both be following my SPI filings. Cheers, gnu57 18:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

This is strange because I'm not related to any accounts except for the one I'm using. It's been a long time since I made that "sequence of edits," and I'm not sure what it's supposed to prove. But I made those edits after the daughter of a friend won her track meet (or track championship). The mother selected a bunch of unrelated songs for her that day to add to the celebration, and You Can't Catch Me and Nothin' You Can Do About It were two of them. I told her that the "You Can't Catch Me" title made me think of the Catch Me If You Can book and film. And "checkmate" was mentioned because the daughter said that track was like a game of chess to her. As I had just logged on to Wikipedia when I got the phone call, I headed to those articles.

I wasn't aware that editors can't share an interest in human sexuality and sex differences without being accused of being another editor or a group of editors. But, to set the record straight, I'm interested in human sexuality (primarily). I can't find where Genericusername57 determines that I'm interested in sex differences. I'm not. And my contributions reflect that. As Enlightenedstranger, I did make a couple of edits to list of related male and female reproductive organs. Whether or not that's labeled a sex differences article, I made one edit there because I was looking into information about the G-spot. The other edit was straightening out the text.

I don't understand how what a user said here compares to what I said here.

And, lastly, I'm not following Genericusername57's SPI filings. I'd edited the sexting article months before AFreshStart did. I became more familiar with the editor here and here at Talk:Gay men, and I occasionally looked at their contributions (like I look at others' contributions). When I saw AFreshStart at the sexting article, I looked at their contributions again and saw that they'd been blocked. Until that point, that was the extent of my knowledge of Genericusername57's SPI filings. And the only reason I know of this one is because I was tipped off about it. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 23:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I should also say that I might have chosen a different word than "celebration" above if I hadn't read this post by one of the blocked editors minutes before posting. "Celebrate" stuck with me and sounded better than "party" for the occasion concerning the daughter's milestone. GeneralNotability, I think I have the answer for why my CU data is "kind of odd." I've sent you an email about it. Feel free to pass it on to other trusted parties looking over this case. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 07:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • You may want to look for signs that this editor is an American who is masking their identity with non-American IPs. Here they use the American spelling of "coloring". Also note the oddly repetitive phrase track meet (or track championship) above, and compare with similar phraseology from the blocked sock LearnerB: partly or mostly...a gendered topic (or other topic) WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find this evidence, like the initial evidence above, spurious. I'm accused of being "a sockpuppet or returning user," but I didn't even understand how to properly use Wikipedia when I joined or that it was important to register with an email. Someone on my talk page gave me advice to add an email. I've only used the same Internet service since joining Wikipedia. I'm confident there are no signs that I'm "an American who is masking their identity with non-American IPs." And that's not what I emailed GeneralNotability about. Typing "or" in front of words and using parentheses to enclose it is evidence? Do not many other people do this, whether it's to indicate a synonym or an alternative? Would you have preferred I not use the parentheses? I said "or track championship" because I couldn't remember whether it was a typical track meet or a championship meet. Unless I'm mistaken, every track meet isn't a championship meet. So "oddly repetitive phrase" isn't true. But I texted the mother a few minutes ago, and she confirmed that it was a championship. Other than what I've shared so far, I won't answer questions about who, where, and when. So don't ask for this personal information. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    LearnerB is a sock of RazTazz, which seems to be unrelated to this case. Crossroads -talk- 07:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Enlightenedstranger0 noticing that another editor who edits the topic area has been blocked, an editor they were in disagreement with, is really not unusual or remarkable in my view. The profile links are easily accessible and I myself (and probably many others) sometimes look at them, and have at times noticed that an editor had been blocked. Crossroads -talk- 07:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  •  On hold - I'd like to talk this over with some other CUs. (CUs interested in this case, feel free to drop me an email). GeneralNotability (talk) 01:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • CU data here is kind of odd, so I'm reluctant to make a call either way, but it is not consistent with data on the previous accounts. Recommend behavioral evaluation. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • From a behavioral point of view, I see a shared interest in a general topic, but nothing that screams "socking" to me. In any case, they haven't edited in over a month, so there's no rush to do anything here. Closing. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note added post-archiving: I received an off-wiki request to take another look at this, which I did. CUs working this case should see my notes in cuwiki. All I will state publicly is that, as noted above, WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE argues against taking any further action at this time. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

05 July 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Main discussion with evidence at WP:ANI#GBFEE's_aspersion_casting_and_likely_sockpuppetry. Permalink.

Added here for recordkeeping purposes and per WTT's comment.[4]

The previous Enlightenedstranger0 SPI[5] was closed with no action per WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE, but Enlightenedstranger0 has continued to disprupt.[6]

CUs working this case should see the notes in cuwiki Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It won't be spilling the WP:BEANS to say that Flyer delights in people being obsessed with her and baiting them into it. See:
Notice that after Daner's Creek socks were blocked on April 23, 2021,[8] Enlightenedstranger began editing on May 10, 2021,[9][10] and GBFEE apparently began editing under the IP above on May 18, 2021.[11][12] Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith, I am continuing to find more evidence. Please reopen this case so I will not have to open a new one on GBFEE tomorrow. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kolya Butternut This SPI is closed, please do not continue to edit it. And please do not open a new one. Much effort (only some of it publicly visible) has been spent investigating this. That's enough on this. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • @Tamzin: I'm confused by the mentions of apparent evidence where I can't easily find that evidence. I don't have any thoughts about who or who isn't a sock, but given the pretty startling claims at ANI it would be good to be precise. Sorry to be dumb but I can't find the "Catch Me If You Can" or "You Can't Catch Me" diffs mentioned by Black Kite. Is that merely suggesting that someone is trolling, or is it related to Flyer? What "behavioral comparisons to" (from ANI) Flyer are there? (I'm not after an exhaustive statement, just a couple of examples.) At ANI, Black Kite wrote "then produce this for their first edit" as being unbelievable for a first edit. That is understandable but another way of looking at that diff is that GBFEE is definitely not a sock of anyone with a clue because such a person would be much more discreet. Re "this comment in August and its characteristic detour into praise" below, what text is praise? I don't see it. Johnuniq (talk) 10:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Johnuniq: The "Can't Catch" edit are here (read the article names of the last six articles edited, from earliest to latest. Note that the 3 edits to You Can't Catch Me deliberately reverted each other, it was just the article names they wanted). There's no doubt that ES0 is a sock (or at least a returning editor) and it's equally obvious that there's a link between ES0 and GBFEE - even if they aren't socks, there is a link between them. Black Kite (talk) 11:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Black Kite: Got it, thanks. The idea is that the three edits at You Can't Catch Me may suggest trolling particularly because the edits were not effective and gave no overall change. However, searching this SPI archive for "catch" finds a plausible explanation by Enlightenedstranger0 here. That explanation fits Enlightenedstranger0's edits at that time. Why would Daner's Creek wish to announce a return? If it's trolling, is there a pattern of that among the many socks in the archive? I am reminded of Pareidolia where people can find patterns in any set of large data. That's similar to this ANI comment by Only in death which claims there is "quite definitive off-wiki evidence that the real person behind the Flyer account is alive". There are 330 million people in the USA alone so it's not surprising that sleuths have been able to find someone who they think fits Flyer's profile, however it's much more likely that they are deluded. Johnuniq (talk) 02:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have fuller thoughts coming on the evidence re these two accounts, but I'll just briefly reïterate my point at AN/I that I don't think it's constructive to focus on whether Daner's Creek is or isn't Flyer. We know empirically that Daner's Creek acts a lot like Flyer and speaks well of Flyer, and that's what matters for the purposes of behavioral investigation of potential Daner's Creek sox. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I totally agree—I'm the one who promised to indef people who kept it up. However, the ANI discussion has allowed an evidence-free assertion (see "quite definitive off-wiki evidence..." above) without any pushback. There are also hints such as your "fuller thoughts" and "speaks well of Flyer" above, with more at ANI. My purpose for posting here was to gather what evidence exists. For example, this SPI's archive has two occurrences of "behav" with no one saying there is a behavioral similarity. Millions of people are interested in sexuality topics and thousands of them have significant familiarity with the topic so I don't find it surprising that dozens of them turn up at Wikipedia and some of them will have similarities with how Flyer edited. I'm not wanting a debate on that—I just want to gather what evidence is available. If there is none, why do we let an evidence-free assertion that Flyer is alive to stand at ANI? Johnuniq (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have no opinion on what should be done about the assertion that Flyer is alive. I don't think any evidence presented here will have a bearing on what to do about it either, since no one here is trying to prove that (at least not in this venue). As to evidence regarding GBFEE, my endorse was per a general sense of things, plus the diff I linked. What I was referringto as praise... maybe "praise" was the wrong word; what I meant was the second paragraph, all of which is damning, but in particular [pings converted to nopings]: I would suggest someone contact Flyer22 Frozen's brother, but it looks like he saw this coming and has been through the ringer [...] From what I glean from the brother's talk page and SMcCandlish's post in this discussion, Crossroads and SMcCandlish know things we don't. Invoking Flyer or those close to her is characteristic for Daner's Creek, who, as Beeblebrox noted at AN/I, sees themself as carrying on Flyer's legacy.
              That's not enough to block on, though, for sure. At AN/I I criticized the quality of SPI filings against DC to date, so I think you and I are on the same page that there hasn't been much (public) behavioral analysis. Since I said that, an editor has emailed me a behavioral analysis. Today is day one of a week-long trip to see some loved ones after almost a year away, so I've been unable to look through that evidence today, but I hope to find time tomorrow or the next day. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • When you have time to check that email, please bear in mind what I said about false detection of patterns. For example, I see nothing damning in "I would suggest someone..." above. Testing the hypothesis that GBFEE is not a sock and just happens to be one of the dozens of people I mentioned, what would you expect a six-week old account to do when they are named as the first supposed sock of Flyer at a now-deleted SPI. Naturally they would investigate the background and that would make GBFEE's response entirely understandable and almost predictable. Johnuniq (talk) 07:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not sure why you felt the need to ping me. Your ill-informed comments are meaningless. Your threats to indef people who have to deal with a serial sockmaster are actively working to protect them. The only question is why are you trying to hard to protect a serial sockmaster? Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • Johnuniq, which seems more likely: some new, random editors immediately get involved in furthering Flyer's fights on wiki and have an intimate knowledge of her beefs and feuds with other editors to the point they are the ones bringing her name into it, not the people you've threatened to block. Or they're socks? This isn't rocket science, and these accounts all smell to high heaven because they do the exact same stuff, with the same interests, replete with making sure to canvass people they specifically think will support them[13] (something that was going to be part of the findings of fact in Flyer's ArbCom case.[14]) Calling a spade a spade is not a blockable offense, which I presume some part of you realizes, given you haven't blocked them for crossing your ridiculous and non-policy-based bright line. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 12:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                A "ridiculous and non-policy-based bright line" that has impacted the integrity of subsequent SPIs, because those who well could submit behavioral evidence probably won't. That Johnuniq hasn't blocked doesn't mean the comment didn't have the desired effect, or continue the problem of Flyer family accounts letting others know their behaviors were protected by a group of friendly admins. If anyone still has the courage to submit behavioral evidence, I suggest they look at the characteristic imperious tone in user talk and article talk page posts, which were what had such a negative impact at WP:MED all along. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                I am not sure it is useful to speculate on; but it's at least sufficiently possible that I don't think it's reasonable to threaten to sanction people simply for discussing the possibility, and I tend to agree that the heat in response to such discussion is not helpful and needs to die down. The core events happened well over a year ago. It's not reasonable to suggest that the mere discussion or speculation about this could do serious harm at this point - WP:BDP long since expired, and what evidence we have, while limited and circumstantial, is more than enough to satisfy WP:CIVIL; nor is it WP:GRAVEDANCING to discuss things of actual (potential) importance to editors, even if people disagree. It may be that the evidence is genuinely insufficient and that the people who focus on that aspect are making clowns of themselves and wasting their time, but there's not enough to justify throwing around threats of blocks and the like, and the people who have done that need to back down. --Aquillion (talk) 03:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Johnuniq: On this page, you've weighed in repeatedly on topics related to Flyer22, in ways that clearly show a specific opinion, and are therefore WP:INVOLVED; you cannot act as an administrator in this area going forwards. Could you acknowledge this, and state clearly that you will not act as an administrator for anything involving Flyer22 in the future? (And, in particular, that this is no longer applicable, though you can of course take someone to WP:ANI to request an uninvolved adminsitrator block them.) The fact that you're posting above and not below the fold for administrative responses implies this, but given the concerns multiple editors have raised I want it to be clear. If your position is correct, a less-involved administrator will step in, but you cannot repeatedly argue a point here and retain the option of blocking people who make statements at odds with your conclusions. --Aquillion (talk) 03:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • @Aquillion: I made a single post in the Arbcom Noticeboard discussion where 32 accounts commented. My statement included "I will indefinitely block you if there is any continuation of this battle on-wiki (examples from above: diff + diff). If you have any additional evidence, email it to Arbcom." Four editors supported that statement including three admins. There was no opposition—there were other comments, some supporting shutting down on-wiki speculation and some questioning how any further socks should be handled (answer: post any on-wiki evidence or email Arbcom with any off-wiki evidence). I have expressed two opinions only. First, that there should be clear descriptions of a problem rather than assertions of disruption with no explanation. The "a sock of a previous account" posted below is a clear statement. My second opinion is that there should be no on-wiki speculation that a deceased editor is alive and socking unless accompanied by clear evidence. That's very basic and I am not WP:INVOLVED. I would be involved regarding certain disagreements where I have expressed an opinion but shutting down aspersions is standard procedure and not covered by INVOLVED. Is anyone suggesting that "Do not provide links to what would be regarded as off-wiki harassment" (diff) is inappropriate advice? The reason I did not post under "patrolling admin comments" is that I am not patrolling and I do not have an opinion regarding Enlightenedstranger0. Johnuniq (talk) 05:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Concerning My second opinion is that there should be no on-wiki speculation that a deceased editor is alive and socking unless accompanied by clear evidence - do you recognize that there has been considerable disagreement amomg both editors and admins about the principle you are advocating here, and in particular concerning what counts as clear evidence? Do you feel able to adjudicate what comments should count as inappropriate on-wiki speculation because the evidence is insufficient? I would hope that you would evaluate this based on the consensus understanding within the community about how the relevant policies should be applied, and not based only on your own individual judgements when these conflict with views held by most other admins who have expressed thoughtful opinions on this. Newimpartial (talk) 05:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I am as able as anyone to adjudicate what is inappropriate "on-wiki speculation". Indeed, reviewing my history will show that it is very unlikely that I am about to go rogue. For example, I issued a warning, not a block, in diff and I haven't commented about the recent ANI discussion apart from my remarks above about "quite definitive off-wiki evidence". Anyone new here might bear in mind that the underlying topic area is an intractable mess with two main groups. Members of one group oppose (almost) everything proposed by a member of the other group, and they support sanctioning such members. And vice versa. It would take a lot of time to confirm, but I have seen several cases against Flyer at ANI where I did not comment—I generally see stuff at ANI but I don't reflexively comment in support of one side or the other. Johnuniq (talk) 07:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                  • You have made multiple posts here (on this page) expressing skepticism about the evidence discussed here, which directly relates to the question of how the accounts in question relate to Flyer22; see eg. [15][16][17][18] and especially [19]; all of these are expressing opinions on the topic and engaging in the underlying dispute from a clear point of view (as you conceded yourself, you are not a patrolling admin; you are merely arguing a point of view as an editor.) The suggestion that you believe you could still block an editor for expressing a view that diverges from yours on that evidence is shocking. You can weigh in on discussions as an editor, debating evidence and making arguments, or you can act as an admin; you cannot, as you have here, make arguments and express opinions as an editor disagreeing with a SPI, then turn around and block people who disagree. If, as you say, your view is widely held, it will be easy to wait until an uninvolved administrator weighs in. But if you take any administrative action related to Flyer22 at this point (or even make any further statements implying that you could do so in a way that could have the chilling effect people discuss above) I will take you to ANI immediately, and if necessary to whatever ArbCom case inevitably grows out of it. It would be a clear-cut abuse of the tools by using them to gain advantage in a dispute in which you have unequivocally expressed an opinion favoring one side. You're an experienced administrator; I recognize that you feel strongly about this and want to calm this sometimes-overwrought discussion down. But please slow down, review what you've said here, compare it to what most other people are saying, and recognize that you've expressed opinions to the point where trying to step in an admin from here on out would be throwing oil on the fires and not water. Look at the comments above - multiple editors in good standing (including several with sterling histories) who are expressing the opinion that the evidence is at least sufficient to warrant further discussion are expressing fears that you, an editor who has plainly expressed skepticism of it, will block them if they continue to express that position. That is not how we do things. This discussion and topic has received massive amounts of attention (far more than it really deserves or needs, and only seems to get more when people wade in to try and solve it); anyone who needs to be blocked will be blocked by a genuinely uninvolved administrator. --Aquillion (talk) 06:27, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I am not "arguing a point of view". I have asserted that vague mentions of disruption are insufficient for a case like this—by definition, disruption is something that happens on-wiki so it should be possible to link to a discussion showing that there was disruption. I tried checking a couple of points but have not found anything which couldn't readily be interpreted another way. For example, see my "what text is praise?" above. If there is clear off-wiki evidence (as opposed to speculation) regarding Flyer's state, Arbcom should be able to make a much clearer statement than this. Johnuniq (talk) 07:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                      I agree ArbCom could do/should do better, but it seems in the past, there may have been too much division among the members for any consensus to form, so we got tortured responses. But things have a way of becoming more clear with the passage of time.
                      Re: Members of one group oppose (almost) everything proposed by a member of the other group ... Not always. Remove the disruption (that is, constant pinging in of friendly admins by one party and other unpleasant tactics that made even what should have been friendly discussions at WP:MED difficult), and it is now demonstrated that these two "groups" can work collegially together to restore an extremely controversial J. K. Rowling to featured status. That is the best example I can offer the (several) admins like those who acknowledge "I am probably involved due to my past support for Flyer" that they might contemplate whether their blind support was part of the problem that enabled disruptive behaviors all along, and prolonged disputes and made them more intractible ... and led partly to these alleged "two groups" (who did just fine in the four months at JKR) ... and that Wikipedia would be best served if they (those admins) were removed from this arena and let others present evidence without threats of retaliation. It is unlikely that anyone who could would submit any evidence considering your stance in the last few hours. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Every post you've made here is clearly taking one specific side in the ongoing dispute about whether these are sockpuppets of Flyer22. I don't think your arguments are terrible or completely unreasonable, but you only have to compare what you're saying to what most other people are saying to make it clear that you have an opinion here. And if you look at the ArbCom statements both there and in the more recent WP:ANI, you can see that they, unlike you, are being extremely cautious - carefully leaving the door open to multiple possibilities while noting the evidence that does exist. Look at Beeblebrox or Worm's statements, there. Compare that to your "are you sure the evidence justifies this? Are you suuuuuure? Please provide me with a breakdown of how, if you take any action" etc etc etc in this discussion, and it's plain you've WP:INVOLVED yourself. Again, I don't think there's anything wrong with saying those things as a user but they're incompatible with then turning around and banning people involved in that larger dispute. More generally - whether you agree or not, multiple experienced editors have looked at the same evidence and sequence of events you're seeing, and have come to the conclusion that it is enough of a reason to focus on the possibility that these socks are Flyer22. They don't have to decisively prove that to your satisfaction to be safe from you blocking them for disagreeing with your analysis; it just has to be an opinion that someone can reasonably hold in good faith, while being one whose discussion is reasonably germane to ongoing Wikipedia processes. Both those thresholds are plainly passed. A lot of people involved would still benefit from dialing it down and focusing on the SPI aspect (as Worm says), but having you weighing in with aggressive dismissals of the evidence while simultaneously talking as if you're going to ban anyone who says otherwise is not helping. We have over a thousand administrators, and a huge number of them have their eyes on this, specifically. Nothing is going to break if you accept that you're too WP:INVOLVED now to act as an admin here and back out. --Aquillion (talk) 08:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Johnuniq, you yourself have engaged in on-wiki speculation about things off-wiki which you know nothing about:
There are 330 million people in the USA alone so it's not surprising that sleuths have been able to find someone who they think fits Flyer's profile, however it's much more likely that they are deluded.[20]
You did the same at the arbcom case: I have no idea what Flyer does off-wiki but a suggestion that she spends time making "transphobic attacks against editors" is totally incompatible with her on-wiki conduct. It's much more likely that the army of haters (hello Wikipediocracy!) have concocted a joe job. Johnuniq (talk) 01:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[21]
Unlike you, I have seen the off-wiki evidence about Flyer's identity and off-wiki canvassing. You are casting aspersions and you are involved. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The allegation that Flyer is still alive and that DC is really her is ridiculous. One piece of "behavioral evidence" is that this is relatively late in this investigation, and I only just heard about it this morning, from Flyer's brother via email. Flyer would always "canvas" me early on, almost immediately, about any allegations against her. If DC were Flyer, they would have contacted me two days ago and requested help. I have no opinion about DC using sockpuppets, but you people just need to stop. It's disrespectful and hurtful. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interesting, since Flyer's brother (or at least his known account) hasn't edited for over a year. Black Kite (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • To clarify, Figureskatingfan: your evidence that Flyer can't be alive because she always canvassed you is her brother canvassed you to appear here instead? You really don't see how this is suspect to people (and, again, non-neutral canvassing?) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wow. Exactly. WP:MEAT. This post amply illustrates that the arbs need to re-open the case and put some sanctions in place. Whether it is the Halo account, Flyer herself, or people acting on behalf of or directed by the Flyer family accounts, unprovoked posts like those highlighted in the ANI by GFBee, Enlightened, and the past posts from the whole Daner's Creek sock farm are what need to stop. Christine's post only adds more evidence that these accounts continue to stir a pot that the arbs should have closed, and the "non-policy-based bright line" threat should become a sanction aimed to stop posts just like that. As the Halo account leveled several threats at me, I 'spose I'm next in the line of fire. Christine's post illustrates precisely the behavior that the premature close of the arb case failed to address, and highlights the origin of the disruption that continuues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • When Flyer22 was first blocked for socking, an IP identifying themself as JacobTrue and Banking honesty, and Flyer22's brother, confessed to the socking in April 2012. [22]
      • Flyer22 was reblocked by Alison in December 2012 for socking, with AGK concurring, although she was later cleared. [23]
      • At that time, Dennis Brown observed: More importantly, regardless [if] everything you say is true, Flyer, this has been an ongoing source of drama for a long time. At some point, WP:DE kicks in and "why" no longer matters. Again, I'm not sure what to believe. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 07:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC) [24] Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please, I have sent emails to the Arbitration committee, Tamzin, and now Dennis Brown. I'm not a troll or a sock of anyone. I promise you. I know that trolls exist on Wikipedia. I identified what I thought was trolling. But I haven't been trolling. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation I gave about the "series of edits" actually happened. When I was on the phone, I told my friend to look at the edits I'd made. I reverted myself for three of them. I know I didn't use Wikipedia correctly for that, but I didn't think it was improper at the time. My account was only a month old. As I said in the first investigation, I didn't understand how to properly use Wikipedia when I joined or that it was important to register with an email. Someone on my talk page gave me advice to add an email.

A year has passed now, and I'd like to continue editing Wikipedia. I actually have no connection to any of the editors in the investigation, and I don't think I've ever praised or spoken about Flyer22 Frozen. I was surprised when GBFEE commented on my talk page, and I only commented in the admin forum because they notified me to it by linking my username. I wouldn't even have known about the discussion. I don't know if the tools used to check my account can see it, but I've also never emailed any of those editors. Nor have they emailed me. If I'm blocked, how can I appeal? What would I say after RoySmith and Reaper Eternal both found me to be an independent editor and if I was still blocked? I've looked all around for how to most appropriately comment and how I'd even appeal. And WP:OFFER doesn't seem like it'd fit my case. I was building toward being a good editor until the first sockpuppet investigation. I haven't been disruptive on Wikipedia. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith, Enlightenedstranger0 above stated that "RoySmith and Reaper Eternal both found me to be an independent editor". That sounds like a misrepresentation of what you've stated publicly.[25] (Note that she did not ping you, but did ping Reaper Eternal who she represented accurately.) Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't presume my gender. I confused RoySmith with another. But RoySmith said, "From a behavioral point of view, I see a shared interest in a general topic, but nothing that screams 'socking' to me." I didn't ping RoySmith because he was already asked to look into my case a second time. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, but I thought you said earlier that the "series of edits" was made after a friend won a track meet Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You said that at the previous SPI. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know I said that. I didn't retract. I was on the phone with her. I also said that. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And it's the mother who's my friend. The daughter, not the mother, competed. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. You did say it was the daughter. I am still confused though. Forgive my brain fog, and other health issues, but were you celebrating when you made those edits or were you testing Wikipedia? Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Sorry to hear about your health issues. I'd just logged on, told the mother I was editing Wikipedia, and what account I was using. I then directed her to the articles while we were talking about the topics and said I'd just made tiny edits to them. It was my way of celebrating in that moment, but it was also something to keep my hands busy before I thought better of it. It was stupid. I thought of it as WP:NULL and H:DUMMY practices that wouldn't hurt anything. I'm a much more diligent editor now and wouldn't do something like that again. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 00:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. I won't ask any more questions. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the clocked times for the edits I made that day. My first edit that day was to rubber and PVC fetishism (01:06). After expanding and sourcing the human sexual activity article (01:41), I moved to the anal sex (01:58) and sexual intercourse ‎(02:01) articles. I got the call around this time, and this is why I made a sharp turn to Catch Me If You Can (book) (02:04) and the other articles. That's why these few edits were uncharacteristic of my edits that day. I hadn't been on Wikipedia long after logging in, and this is why I say I'd just logged on. After the final edit, I logged off for around two weeks. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 01:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC) ‎ ‎[reply]
I can understand editing Wikipedia to amuse someone you know. The first time I edited Wikipedia with this account, I was trying to amuse some friends.[26] But I did it by making an actual change to an article. I wouldn't think to use a dummy edit for this purpose; those are typically made for an audience of other editors. So I find this story very odd. (Though I suppose, somtimes, the truth is odd.) WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to say anything and add lighter fluid to the fire. However, it appears I'll be blocked no matter what I say, even with a CU affirming and then reaffirming that I'm unrelated to Enlightenedstranger0 and Johnuniq saying what he said about how he is "reminded of Pareidolia where people can find patterns in any set of large data". Here, there's taking Flyer22's large data set to say I'm copying her or to make the other claims. As Johnuniq correctly found, I had no choice but to learn who Flyer22 was from the beginning. I wasn't praising her or her brother in the original ANI thread where I defended myself. I haven't spoken highly of them anywhere. I commented on Enlightenedstranger0's talk page because I knew about the anti-wiki thread, the SPI, and I had watchlisted their talk page. I can't believe that I share many behavioral similarities with Enlightenedstranger0. In the SPI where it was just about them, one of the evidences was using "or" in a repetitive/unnecessary way. I don't challenge that I've also done this. I've seen a lot of people on talk pages do this. Some have copied what I said almost word for word. It doesn't mean that I'm them, related to them, or that I'm other people who might have used similar phrases.

When Reaper Eternal was asked about the evidence beyond a technical relation, they said, "This is an Unrelated finding, and as such I would be very surprised if these people are the same person." Why would they sound so confident if it was likely that I'm Daner's Creek, other profiles related to Daner's Creek, or Enlightenedstranger0? I'm not IP 37.47.128.238. I wasn't baiting anyone at Talk:Obsession. Yes, I've used the word data, like the IP did. So have others involved with these articles. And when using primary for "primary sources", etc. True, I was in dispute with an editor multiple times over sex differences information, but what I said to them was supported by multiple other editors.[27] When they insulted me, I didn't insult them back.[28] I work hard to gather resources. And I add information to articles. But Dennis Brown says I'm not needed here? I made a big mistake where I was derelict in assuming good faith. It happens to both the best and worst editors. At ANI, Endwise said, "You will see about 5 to 10 worse instances of "not assuming good faith" reading the talk page of any American politics article."[29]. The people in those disputes move on and get second chances to be better. Some never try to be better, but I do after every mistake I make.

When I'm blocked, I won't request an unblock. But if my future here, or lack thereof, is to be decided based on the behavioural evidence that has been shared with two admins who've said from the outset that I'm a sock, can it also be shared with admins who haven't made up their minds that I'm a sock or, if willing to review it, with Reaper Eternal who says the opposite as of this post? GBFEE (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My own preference, meanwhile, is that it's presented publicly. I understand there's some concern about letting you in on your tells. But I'm personally tired of all this sneaking around. WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If anyone is going to issue blocks, please also post a clear explanation below with what evidence is available. My efforts to find such evidence have turned up nothing, although that might be due to my lack of time (some RL issues are taking my time at the moment). I see mention of "clearly disruptive" which I could not confirm in a short investigation. If disruption is part of a blocking rational, there should be a public explanation. If a block involves tells that should not be disclosed, please say that and add anything that can be public. I have investigated the "speaks well of Flyer" claim and a couple of other minor points and the claims were not correct. Johnuniq (talk) 05:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  •  Clerk endorsed with respect to GBFEE per general behavior, and, in particular, this comment in August and its characteristic detour into praise for Flyer22, her brother, and her friends. (See my recent comment at AN/I about why comparisons to Flyer are useful evidence in finding someone impersonating her.) As to Enlightenedstranger0, I'm sure the reviewing CU will know better than I whether there's any value in re-checking. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also the other comments at ANI (such as the "You Can't Catch Me" edits). There is also some other evidence strongly linking the two accounts (ES0 and GBFEE) but per BEANS I'd rather not place that online, and can provide by email if necessary. Black Kite (talk) 07:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Enlightenedstranger0 and GBFEE are Red X Unrelated to each other and most likely Red X Unrelated to Daner's Creek. no No comment with respect to IP address(es). Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Reaper Eternal: To clarify, is this a finding of no technical relation, or an affirmative finding of not being the same person? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is an Red X Unrelated finding, and as such I would be very surprised if these people are the same person.  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust and can never truly prove a negative (proxies do exist, but do not appear to be in use here, and people can move). Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Reaper Eternal: As I said at the ANI, I would have been seriously surprised if there had been a technical connection between the two accounts, though an in-depth analysis of their actual edits do strongly suggest that there is at the very least some co-ordination between the two. Black Kite (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both of these editors may fall under the catchall "Is a sock of someone", based on behavior. I'm leaning that way after a cursory look at the evidence. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dennis Brown: I have received enough evidence via email to be convinced that Enlightenedstranger0 is a sock, and I'm leaning heavily towards GBFEE being linked to ES0 (if not the same person). The post by Figureskatingfan above is just the cherry on top, really. Black Kite (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Long story short, I've been involved with Flyer and brother before the socking got started, too much in fact. And while the person seem to be trying to imitate Flyer, they aren't Flyer. This isn't necessarily related but just answering the above questions. Flyer isn't here. Sad that I have to even say that. I'm sure there is lots more evidence in private, to respond to your note. I just spent enough time clerking here to trust my gut, and my gut says that regardless who they are socking for, we don't need them here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, this is the point, really - in the end we can all argue about who is or isn't behind the accounts, but it doesn't actually matter. They are clearly disruptive. If no-one else provides a good rationale for not blocking them (and no-one else blocks them, obviously), I will do so presently. I'm not going to do it now, because it's past midnight here, I'm at work tomorrow and I don't want to block and run on something controversial. Black Kite (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just to note that I haven't forgotten this - I'm still discussing it and looking at a (now somewhat bigger) pile of evidence. I'm going to be AFK for the whole of Saturday, so for that reason also I'm not taking any action yet. I will come back to it on Sunday morning if no other action has been taken. Black Kite (talk) 13:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • You seem to have the most evidence going on, so I'm sure we're all fine with you taking the lead. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Black Kite: This also works for me. I've forwarded you the analysis I was sent, if it's of any use. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have blocked Enlightenedstranger0 as the evidence suggests that they are a sock of a previous account and there is no evidence that WP:SOCKLEGIT has been met. I also believe GBFEE to fall under the same criteria, however I do not have enough hard evidence to prove that, only a significant amount of circumstantial evidence. Per WP:BEANS, and despite the demand above, I will not be posting evidence on-wiki, though I will provide it via email to any admin answering an unblock request. I will also not be commenting on the person operating this account and their links to others. Black Kite (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • One account has been blocked, there doesn't seem to be sufficient evidence to block the other one, and the IPs haven't edited in many months. I don't see that there's anything left to do here, so I'm closing this. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @RoySmith: I wouldn't take the lack of a block on GBFEE as a statement that there isn't sufficient evidence, just that evidence is still being analyzed... But no objection to a close, since what's happening above isn't helping anyone. I'll add a post-close/post-archival note, whatever the analysis finds. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-archival note, as promised: GBFEE blocked indef. See my note here. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:41, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Daner%27s_Creek/Archive

Leave a Reply