Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:42, 2 December 2021

Gardenofaleph

Gardenofaleph (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/Gardenofaleph/Archive.

28 November 2021

– An SPI clerk has declined a request for CheckUser, and the case is now awaiting a behavioural investigation.

Suspected sockpuppets

• 2600:1004:b100::/40 (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 • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The main behavioral similarity between these two accounts is their relentless promotion of the same bizarre conspiracy theory about User:NightHeron.

In April 2020, this 2600 IP range was t-banned from the race & intelligence topic area after pushing this conspiracy theory while appealing the result of an RfC which NightHeron had launched (see and ). This IP user nonetheless continued to edit in the topic area (see ), including continuing to push the conspiracy theory for which they were t-banned , (discussed at ).

Like the IP range, Gardenofaleph has also been a vocal opponent of the consensus on race &intelligence established by NightHeron's RfC. But more to the point, the owner of this account has claimed, like the IP, to have insider knowledge of the same conspiracy. The first time Gardenofaleph chimed in to support the IP’s assertion was on a user talk page: . More recently, Gardenofaleph has taken up pushing this conspiracy theory rather aggressively on the ArbCom talk page, despite multiple entreaties to stop: , , .

It is certainly possible that two users are either coordinating off-Wiki or else were both fooled by the same hoax, but there are other behavioral indicators that we might simply be dealing with a sock.

See for instance the tag-teaming between this 2600 IP range and Gardenofaleph to edit war over the same content here: and (note that this intervention from Gardenofaleph occurs after Johnuniq observes that a couple of shifting IPs is not consensus). And to add the same copyvio content here: and at 20:14, 29 September 2019‎ (can’t add second diff here because it was revdelled).

Both have resorted to the same rhetorical tactic of blaming a couple of active editors when disputing the existence of a consensus against them in the R&I topic area: , . And both have expressed a similar confidence that, because of this allegation, the R&I topic area will be end up in arbitration: , .

Further digging has revealed that way back in the late summer / autumn of 2018, both Gardenofaleph and the IP range appear to have shared a strong focus on pharmaceuticals. C.f. for example , , , , , , (Gardenofaleph) and , , , (IP).

I would suggest that the above behavioral evidence is sufficient to merit a checkuser. Generalrelative (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@Blablubbs: Understood, I won't make that mistake again. Thanks for explaining your reason for declining checkuser and apologies for the wasted time. Generalrelative (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, I still think that a behavioral investigation is warranted here, given the extensive similarities in the activities of the account and the IP over time. Generalrelative (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, GeneralNotability, for giving this your attention. Anyone who is not yet aware of Gardenofaleph's past off-wiki coordination in the race & intelligence topic area might want to look at this SPI filing from last summer. Generalrelative (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

I've never used that IP range, and it's located hundreds of miles from me. Admins, please use checkuser to look at the IP history of my account, and you'll see I and that IP user aren't the same person. Gardenofaleph (talk) 03:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Admins, could you please look at the history in this topic of all the editors who share similar views about these articles, including myself, DGG, Stonkaments, Sesquivalent, and Ferahgo the Assassin, and (in the older discussions where the IP was more active) AndewNguyen, Literaturegeek and Insertcleverphrasehere? We've all supported one another in discussions because we're generally agreed about the nature of the current problems in this topic, but I don't think that I and the IP have supported one another more than either of us have supported any of those other users, or more than they've supported us.

ArbCom has more information about the sockpuppet investigation linked above, because the individual who requested that I open it (who does not have a Misplaced Pages account) eventually contacted ArbCom and oversight about it directly. If this is going to be considered as evidence against me, please at least get the full background. Gardenofaleph (talk) 01:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I recommend also comparing the amount of coordination between Gardenofaleph and the IP to the amount that there's been between Generalrelative and NightHeron. My point in mentioning this is not to accuse anyone of wrongdoing; it's just that this type of cooperation is completely typical on a controversial topic where the editors are divided into two "camps". If this is a blockable offense, there probably are dozens of editors on other controversial topics who would have to be blocked also. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 04:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

• Even with permission from Gardenofaleph, a check will not be run, and Generalrelative, you should not have requested a CU.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
•  Check declined – Checkusers will not link accounts to IPs, per the privacy policy. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
• I feel confident, based on the diffs above and a few other overlaps I've seen, that these two have a history of coordinating in an inappropriate manner. I'm not sure what the correct action is here, though; I'm honestly considering an indef here for Gardenofaleph, but not certain whether that's too much, and I expect that a full block on the /40 would result in too much collateral damage. I'm interested to hear what other admins/clerks think. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
• GN, I consider you involved in the subject area, and you should not be passing judgement on an opponent. I suggest you strike your comment. I'm not going to comment myself, based upon what I "feel confident " in the absence of unmistakable evidence, about when it involves someone whose views I have often supported but do not know personally, and you should hold yourself to the same standard. DGG ( talk ) 07:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Open SPI cases
• SPI cases awaiting administration
• SPI cases declined for checkuser by clerk