Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:45, 10 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.

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) Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:36, 9 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)

Notice that after Daner's Creek socks were blocked on April 23, 2021, Enlightenedstranger began editing on May 10, 2021, and GBFEE apparently began editing under the IP above on May 18, 2021. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:16, 8 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)

  • The allegation that Flyer is still alive and that DC is really her is ridiculous. One piece of "behavioral evidence" is that this is relatively late in this investigation, and I only just heard about it this morning, from Flyer's brother via email. Flyer would always "canvas" me early on, almost immediately, about any allegations against her. If DC were Flyer, they would have contacted me two days ago and requested help. I have no opinion about DC using sockpuppets, but you people just need to stop. It's disrespectful and hurtful. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Interesting, since Flyer's brother (or at least his known account) hasn't edited for over a year. Black Kite (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
    • To clarify, Figureskatingfan: your evidence that Flyer can't be alive because she always canvassed you is her brother canvassed you to appear here instead? You really don't see how this is suspect to people (and, again, non-neutral canvassing?) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 17:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
      • Wow. Exactly. WP:MEAT. This post amply illustrates that the arbs need to re-open the case and put some sanctions in place. Whether it is the Halo account, Flyer herself, or people acting on behalf of or directed by the Flyer family accounts, unprovoked posts like those highlighted in the ANI by GFBee, Enlightened, and the past posts from the whole Daner's Creek sock farm are what need to stop. Christine's post only adds more evidence that these accounts continue to stir a pot that the arbs should have closed, and the "non-policy-based bright line" threat should become a sanction aimed to stop posts just like that. As the Halo account leveled several threats at me, I 'spose I'm next in the line of fire. Christine's post illustrates precisely the behavior that the premature close of the arb case failed to address, and highlights the origin of the disruption that continuues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
    • When Flyer22 was first blocked for socking, an IP identifying themself as JacobTrue and Banking honesty, and Flyer22's brother, confessed to the socking in April 2012.
    • Flyer22 was reblocked by Alison in December 2012 for socking, with AGK concurring, although she was later cleared.
    • At that time, Dennis Brown observed: More importantly, regardless everything you say is true, Flyer, this has been an ongoing source of drama for a long time. At some point, WP:DE kicks in and "why" no longer matters. Again, I'm not sure what to believe. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 07:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

RoySmith, Enlightenedstranger0 above stated that "RoySmith and Reaper Eternal both found me to be an independent editor". That sounds like a misrepresentation of what you've stated publicly. (Note that she did not ping you, but did ping Reaper Eternal who she represented accurately.) Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Please don't presume my gender. I confused RoySmith with another. But RoySmith said, "From a behavioral point of view, I see a shared interest in a general topic, but nothing that screams 'socking' to me." I didn't ping RoySmith because he was already asked to look into my case a second time. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I thought you said earlier that the "series of edits" was made after a friend won a track meet Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

You said that at the previous SPI. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I know I said that. I didn't retract. I was on the phone with her. I also said that. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

And it's the mother who's my friend. The daughter, not the mother, competed. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

You're right. You did say it was the daughter. I am still confused though. Forgive my brain fog, and other health issues, but were you celebrating when you made those edits or were you testing Misplaced Pages? Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Sorry to hear about your health issues. I'd just logged on, told the mother I was editing Misplaced Pages, and what account I was using. I then directed her to the articles while we were talking about the topics and said I'd just made tiny edits to them. It was my way of celebrating in that moment, but it was also something to keep my hands busy before I thought better of it. It was stupid. I thought of it as WP:NULL and H:DUMMY practices that wouldn't hurt anything. I'm a much more diligent editor now and wouldn't do something like that again. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 00:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I won't ask any more questions. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I reviewed the clocked times for the edits I made that day. My first edit that day was to rubber and PVC fetishism (01:06). After expanding and sourcing the human sexual activity article (01:41), I moved to the anal sex (01:58) and sexual intercourse ‎(02:01) articles. I got the call around this time, and this is why I made a sharp turn to Catch Me If You Can (book) (02:04) and the other articles. That's why these few edits were uncharacteristic of my edits that day. I hadn't been on Misplaced Pages long after logging in, and this is why I say I'd just logged on. After the final edit, I logged off for around two weeks. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 01:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC) ‎ ‎

I can understand editing Misplaced Pages to amuse someone you know. The first time I edited Misplaced Pages with this account, I was trying to amuse some friends. But I did it by making an actual change to an article. I wouldn't think to use a dummy edit for this purpose; those are typically made for an audience of other editors. So I find this story very odd. (Though I suppose, somtimes, the truth is odd.) WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

My own preference, meanwhile, is that it's presented publicly. I understand there's some concern about letting you in on your tells. But I'm personally tired of all this sneaking around. WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• If anyone is going to issue blocks, please also post a clear explanation below with what evidence is available. My efforts to find such evidence have turned up nothing, although that might be due to my lack of time (some RL issues are taking my time at the moment). I see mention of "clearly disruptive" which I could not confirm in a short investigation. If disruption is part of a blocking rational, there should be a public explanation. If a block involves tells that should not be disclosed, please say that and add anything that can be public. I have investigated the "speaks well of Flyer" claim and a couple of other minor points and the claims were not correct. Johnuniq (talk) 05:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

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)
    • @Reaper Eternal: As I said at the ANI, I would have been seriously surprised if there had been a technical connection between the two accounts, though an in-depth analysis of their actual edits do strongly suggest that there is at the very least some co-ordination between the two. Black Kite (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• Both of these editors may fall under the catchall "Is a sock of someone", based on behavior. I'm leaning that way after a cursory look at the evidence. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
  • @Dennis Brown: I have received enough evidence via email to be convinced that Enlightenedstranger0 is a sock, and I'm leaning heavily towards GBFEE being linked to ES0 (if not the same person). The post by Figureskatingfan above is just the cherry on top, really. Black Kite (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Long story short, I've been involved with Flyer and brother before the socking got started, too much in fact. And while the person seem to be trying to imitate Flyer, they aren't Flyer. This isn't necessarily related but just answering the above questions. Flyer isn't here. Sad that I have to even say that. I'm sure there is lots more evidence in private, to respond to your note. I just spent enough time clerking here to trust my gut, and my gut says that regardless who they are socking for, we don't need them here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
      • Yes, this is the point, really - in the end we can all argue about who is or isn't behind the accounts, but it doesn't actually matter. They are clearly disruptive. If no-one else provides a good rationale for not blocking them (and no-one else blocks them, obviously), I will do so presently. I'm not going to do it now, because it's past midnight here, I'm at work tomorrow and I don't want to block and run on something controversial. Black Kite (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
        • Just to note that I haven't forgotten this - I'm still discussing it and looking at a (now somewhat bigger) pile of evidence. I'm going to be AFK for the whole of Saturday, so for that reason also I'm not taking any action yet. I will come back to it on Sunday morning if no other action has been taken. Black Kite (talk) 13:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
          • You seem to have the most evidence going on, so I'm sure we're all fine with you taking the lead. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
          • @Black Kite: This also works for me. I've forwarded you the analysis I was sent, if it's of any use. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 21:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
• I have blocked Enlightenedstranger0 as the evidence suggests that they are a sock of a previous account and there is no evidence that WP:SOCKLEGIT has been met. I also believe GBFEE to fall under the same criteria, however I do not have enough hard evidence to prove that, only a significant amount of circumstantial evidence. Per WP:BEANS, and despite the demand above, I will not be posting evidence on-wiki, though I will provide it via email to any admin answering an unblock request. I will also not be commenting on the person operating this account and their links to others. Black Kite (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• Open SPI cases
• SPI cases awaiting administration
• SPI cases CU complete