| Revision as of 14:35, 7 July 2022 editKolya Butternut (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,507 edits →Suspected sockpuppets: a couple diffs of behavioral evidence← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:33, 7 July 2022 edit undoReaper Eternal (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Checkusers, Administrators62,577 edits UnrelatedNext edit → | ||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
| *Enlightenedstranger0 and GBFEE are {{unrelated}} to each other and most likely {{unrelated}} to Daner's Creek. {{nc}}. ] (]) 21:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC) | *Enlightenedstranger0 and GBFEE are {{unrelated}} to each other and most likely {{unrelated}} to Daner's Creek. {{nc}}. ] (]) 21:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC) | ||
| *:{{re|Reaper Eternal}} To clarify, is this a finding of no technical relation, or an affirmative finding of not being the same person? <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- ]</span><sup>]'']</sup> (she|they|xe)</span> 00:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC) | *:{{re|Reaper Eternal}} To clarify, is this a finding of no technical relation, or an affirmative finding of not being the same person? <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- ]</span><sup>]'']</sup> (she|they|xe)</span> 00:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC) | ||
| ::* This is an {{unrelated}} finding, and as such I would be very surprised if these people are the same person. {{pixiedust}} and can never truly prove a negative (proxies do exist, but do not appear to be in use here, and people can move). ] (]) 15:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ----<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. --> | ----<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. --> | ||
Revision as of 15:33, 7 July 2022
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)
For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Daner's Creek/Archive.
05 July 2022
– A checkuser has completed a check on relevant users in this case, and it is now awaiting administration and close.
Suspected sockpuppets
- Enlightenedstranger0 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- GBFEE (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- 5.184.76.71 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
- 37.47.128.238 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
- Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools
Main discussion with evidence at WP:ANI#GBFEE's_aspersion_casting_and_likely_sockpuppetry. Permalink as of 09:15, 5 July 2022.
Added here for recordkeeping purposes and per WTT's comment.
The previous Enlightenedstranger0 SPI was closed with no action per WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE, but Enlightenedstranger0 has continued to disprupt.
CUs working this case should see the notes in cuwiki Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- 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:
- GBFEE at Talk:Obsession#General page
- Flyer at Talk:Anal sex: Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments by other users
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)
- @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)
- @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)
- 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 (she|they|xe) 03:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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 :
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 (she|they|xe) 06:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)- 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)
- 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)
- 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 (something that was going to be part of the findings of fact in Flyer's ArbCom case.) 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 12:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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 (something that was going to be part of the findings of fact in Flyer's ArbCom case.) 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 12:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- 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 :
- 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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 (she|they|xe) 03:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- @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)
- @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)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
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 (she|they|xe) 05:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- Enlightenedstranger0 and GBFEE are
Unrelated to each other and most likely Unrelated to Daner's Creek. 
No comment with respect to IP address(es). Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Reaper Eternal: To clarify, is this a finding of no technical relation, or an affirmative finding of not being the same person? -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 00:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- This is an 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)
- This is an
Categories: