Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gardenofaleph/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Gardenofaleph

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

28 November 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

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 [1] and [2]). This IP user nonetheless continued to edit in the topic area (see [3]), including continuing to push the conspiracy theory for which they were t-banned [4], [5] (discussed at [6]).

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: [7]. More recently, Gardenofaleph has taken up pushing this conspiracy theory rather aggressively on the ArbCom talk page, despite multiple entreaties to stop: [8], [9], [10].

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: [11] and [12] (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: [13] 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: [14], [15]. And both have expressed a similar confidence that, because of this allegation, the R&I topic area will be end up in arbitration: [16], [17].

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 [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24] (Gardenofaleph) and [25], [26], [27], [28] (IP).

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

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@DGG: What evidence do you have that GeneralNotability is involved in the subject area? They did not weigh in at either of the recent RfCs [29], [30], and I do not recall them ever commenting during the time I've been focusing on the topic. Indeed, a search for "GeneralNotability" in the talk page archives at Talk:Race and intelligence yields zero results. Are you perhaps confusing them with me due to the similarity in our usernames? Generalrelative (talk) 08:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I have indeed found the evidence: its on User_talk:NightHeron, see your comments of Oct. 27 and Nov. 20, DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: GeneralNotability has never edited NightHeron's talk page, as you can see from the history or this Toolforge page. Firefangledfeathers 03:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
right. as I just said below, I fugured out the problem--I confused them with Generalrelative, who certainly has. DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should there be concern about whether an indef is overly harsh (and I'm not saying it is), a TBAN from R&I might be an appropriate lesser step. Frankly, I think even without considering connections to the IP, there is enough in those diffs (and general behavior in this topic area) to justify a TBAN, and it's a DS area. Levivich 16:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Blablubbs: I'd like you to be aware that I and Gardenofaleph vaguely know one another via a mutual friend, so I know what U.S. state he lives in. I was given this information more than a year ago, before there was any suspicion that he was a sockpuppet. To avoid WP:OUTING I won't mention what I know about him or his location, but it's very unfortunate that no one is willing to do a checkuser or ask him to privately provide proof of his identity. I'm confident he's telling the truth that either of these things would show he does not live anywhere near to where the IP is located. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 15:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. This level of cooperation does not seem at all atypical for a divisive subject with two strongly-entrenched "camps". Stonkaments (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the 2600 IP user. I've registered an account for the sole purpose of making it possible to run checkuser comparing me to Gardenofaleph, since it seems checkuser can only be used on accounts, not IPs. I'm unable to stay logged into an account on the device that I normally use, so the edits I make in the next couple of days, using a computer that I've borrowed for this exact purpose, will most likely be the only edits I ever make from a registered account. Now that there is an actual account to which Gardenofaleph can be compared, could someone please perform a technical comparison? Alexg2021 (talk) 11:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just updated my notes considering this SPI, and saw that I too had seen strong correlation between 2600:1004:B100::/40 and Gardenofaleph (but not only that user), notably Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B147:4751:3970:E21B:3D74:B13A. The latter raises serious concerns, since someone posted on WP admitting to have abused the TOS of another wiki (RationalWiki), then using that as an argument that somehow, Wikipedia would have reflected RW's position since (because of that parodic trolling). If it ever influenced some editors at some point, it is irrelevant today anyway. I very rarely read RW myself and have participated to some RFCs and discussions. There is no reason to trust someone who trolls wikis (no matter who it really is). They wouldn't have had to troll RW either in the first place if it wasn't motivated... As for divisive subject with two strongly-entrenched 'camps', it's not as WP:GEVAL in the real world than you would like to portray it (a clue is where they need to publish, the poor reputation of those journals and why they must resort to the propaganda method instead, including on WP, which is the inverse of the normal process; and of course I don't mean raw score data, but those who push controversial interpretations that are understood to be flawed by mainstream psychologists and anthropologists)... Oh and since we're here, an admin may want to look at the recent spam by the same range. —PaleoNeonate – 04:27, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • 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)[reply]
  •  Check declined – Checkusers will not link accounts to IPs, per the privacy policy. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • @DGG: Could you explain in more detail why you believe GN to be involved? I don't recall him ever showing any interest in R&I (admittedly, I don't know much about the topic area, but I certainly don't see anything recent), and even if he had made the occasional edit there, I wouldn't consider that sufficient for him to be barred from using his tools on anyone who has also edited it. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    DGG I beg your pardon? First of all, your premise is dead wrong. I am not in the least active in the R&I topic area and I cannot think of any edits I've ever made on the topic. Perhaps I have acted in an administrative capacity at some point by acting on a page protection request or the like, but I'm sure you know that isn't disqualifying. Second: if you're going to level an accusation at me, at least have the courtesy to ping me in your comment. And finally, I am rather offended that you think I am the sort of admin who would act if I were INVOLVED like you suggested. I hold myself to a high standard, thank you very much. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    GeneralNotability yes, I appear to be mistaken. I'm tryign to figure out why I thought otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 23:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    GeneralNotability, looking more carefully, I see I confused you with User:Generalrelative On User_talk:NightHeron, see their comments of Oct. 27 and Nov. 20 DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, a few substantive notes:
    • @Generalrelative: No worries, my decline was just to push this into the right part of the queue – "decline" is just a red version of "open".
    • @Gardenofaleph: I presume it wasn't intentional, but please refrain from pinging a bunch of people who share your side in an editorial dispute to a discussion about your conduct – it is unlikely to change case outcomes, but it could be construed as a form of canvassing.
    • @GeneralNotability: From a brief-ish look, I think a connection is far more likely than not. An indef would appear to be an appropriate sanction, given the denial and the evasion of the TBAN against the /40.
  • --Blablubbs (talk) 10:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Folks. The problem is not that we can't run CU. The problem is that it violates CU policy to publicly connect accounts to IP addresses. Even if I did run CU, I could not comment publicly on the results one way or another. Regardless, I believe that the behavior shows these two coordinating inappropriately regardless of whether or not they're the same person. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have blocked Gardenofaleph and will be keeping an eye on the /40 - their behavior does not currently justify the collateral damage in blocking the /40, but if I do have to block it I will. GeneralNotability (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gardenofaleph/Archive&oldid=1060052085"