Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Holtj/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Holtj

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

18 November 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets


All five of these accounts edit almost nothing but articles related to the modern Pagan religion of Heathenry (sometimes known as Odinism or Asatru), as can be seen from their respective contribution lists: ThorLives ([1]), Holtj ([2]), Heathenguy ([3]), Mod221 ([4]), and Osred ([5]).

Similarly, these different accounts have often edited the same particular articles. For example, ThorLives and Heathenguy edited the Odin Brotherhood page within a month of each other ([6]), while four of these accounts have edited Odinism ([7]) and all five have edited Heathenry (new religious movement) ([8]). In both the Odinism and Heathenry articles, the edits of ThorLives, Heathenguy, and Mod221 overlap in time, which would be the case if they were trying to give the impression of being separate editors.

Three of these users identify their interest and/or affiliation with Heathenry on their User pages, in each case in a very similar manner (i.e. with a few words alluding to "Odinism", a term favoured by a minority of Heathens); compare the very similar user pages of ThorLives [9], Holtj, [10] and Heathenguy [11].

ThorLives, Osred, Holtj, and Heathenguy have all chosen user names pertaining to Heathenry and Norse mythology.

The contributions of all of these users are similar; all typically add information that is sourced to non-reliable, primary sources (namely self-published books and websites by Odinist groups). Compare, for instance, the addition of non-RS in edits by Heathenguy [12] [13] [14] with these from ThorLives [15] [16] [17] [18]. Although they have made few contributions of text themselves, Holtj meanwhile insisted on repeatedly re-integrating ThorLives' problematic text to Odinism despite having the problems with this material explained to them [19] [20] [21]. Similarly, Mod221 repeatedly tried to prevent poorly sourced information being removed by constructive editors [22] [23], for which they were criticised by User:HelloAnnyong [24]. Both Osred [25] [26] and Mod221 [27] have added text to the articles which is entirely un-referenced.

Heathenguy [28] [29] [30] [31], ThorLives [32] [33] [34], Holtj [35] [36] [37] and Mod221 [38] [39] [40] have all been responsible for edit warring with the intent of retaining poorly sourced material when other editors have tried to remove it. Both Heathenguy and ThorLives have also been responsible for a wider pattern of disruptive editing, and have been called out for it by other editors on their respective talk pages, see for instance here where User:Enric Naval took Heathenguy to task (and here where it got taken to the Administrators' Noticeboard), and see also this list of ThorLives' disruptive edits. Mod221 has been warned about edit warring too.[41] If this is the same individual behind different accounts this makes it even more apparent that they know all too well what they are doing when they edit disruptively and that they are using multiple accounts to reduce the threat that they will face sanctions.

When commenting on talk pages, the writing style of these users is highly similar and exhibits similar idiosyncracies. For instance, here you can see Heathenguy posting a message that consists of several short paragraphs separated by a whole space and ending in the idiosyncratic word "Cheers." [42] An almost identical style of response, replete with the solitary end-of-message "Cheers", was given by ThorLives here [43] and here [44]. Similarly, here is Heathenguy accusing a critic of seeking to cause him "mischief" [45] – and here is ThorLives attacking a critic using exactly the same, unusual word. [46]. Note how the structure of this comment by Heathenguy [47] is very similar to those provided by ThorLives here [48], here [49] and here [50].

Here is Heathenguy claiming that he has been involved in the Odinist movement since the 1970s [51]; here is ThorLives claiming to have been involved since the 1980s [52]. Not identical, but it reflects a desire to claim that they have been involved for a very long time; it needn't necessarily be an accurate claim, as ThorLives has for instance been caught out making demonstrably false claims about his background elsewhere [53].

Moreover, there are clear similarities between the actions and wording of ThorLives and Holtj. Here is a talk page comment by Holtj [54] which is very similar to a comment provided elsewhere by ThorLives [55]. This is particularly odd given how flagrantly nonsensical the claim being made in these comments actually is; it is very unlikely indeed that you have two separate individuals convinced of the same bizarre notion when all the evidence points against it. Here is ThorLives falsely accusing an editor of vandalism in his edit summary [56]; here is Holtj making exactly the same false allegation in an edit summary [57]; both users clearly misunderstand what constitutes WP:Vandalism. Further, both ThorLives [58] and Holtj [59] like to capitalise words in their talk page comment titles (shouting, as it were), which is an otherwise unusual trait.

Recently, ThorLives became the subject to a Community Discussion (see here) as to whether he should be given a Topic Ban on articles related to Heathenry due to his persistent disruptive editing on said articles, including his creation of a WP:Coatrack at Odinism. After it began to look like the majority of contributors to the conversation were going to support the imposition of a Topic Ban, on 12 November ThorLives stated "perhaps the prudent thing would be for me to leave Wikipedia"[60] as their final word on the issue; nothing more has been heard from them since. The very next day, on 13 November, Holtj (who had not edited since 2 July 2008 [61]) suddenly reappeared and began editing the Odinism article in order to protect all the unsourced and non-RS material that ThorLives had stuffed into Odinism but which I was trying to remove [62]. In doing so, Holtj revealed themselves to be a classic sleeper account that was reactivated after seven years in order to protect ThorLives' edits yet evade the scrutiny that ThorLives was now under. Here is Holtj then taking up ThorLives' cause, trying to imply that they are separate individuals.

Here ThorLives claims that they "stopped editing wikipedia in 2005 or so because of life responsibilities" but "returned here in late 2011". Given that the ThorLives user account was not active until October 2011 it stands to reason that (if true), this implies an earlier usage of different accounts (or anonymous IP usage).

And here we have ThorLives (falsely) accusing me of sock puppetry on my talk page ([63]); in doing so, he actually praises me, stating "I admire the cunning… I admire the disinformation trick." A reference to his own behaviour, perhaps...? Midnightblueowl (talk) 02:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I hate to dignify this with a response, but Osred is an Australian Odinist dying of cancer. ThorLives is my dad, a university professor, and also has cancer. (He has stopped editing because of his health and the endless attacks by the person who made this charge.) I returned when he left (Something wrong with that?) One of the others is my mother. She is afraid of Midnightblueowl and has not really posted on the Odinism page or the Heathenry (new religious movement) page . I have no idea who the other editors are. --Holtj (talk) 07:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that we have never cast "group votes" on the talk pages or anywhere else.

I would list are real names here, but my mother is afraid of Midnightblueowl. She has attacked my father and tried to have him banned, she has attacked me here, and she will no doubt go after my mother next

Thank you.

--Holtj (talk) 07:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • How convenient- that leaves at least three accounts which might be editing from the same computers. While Midnightblueowl may have displayed some exasperation (and has defended herself in no unclear terms) to suggest that she has "attacked" people or that someone might be scared of her (unless you have some information the rest of us don't have access to) seems baseless. Based on behavioural evidence, I am of the view that the user behind ThorLives is the same as the user behind Holtj. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • And is Holtj's behaviour really consistent with this story? "Someone on this website has been harassing my parents. Oh, I know, I'll tag in and continue the same arguments with that person." That is not how I would behave if my mother told me that someone had been harassing her/my dad and she was scared of them- not even close. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Furthermore, if these users were individual editors, as Holtj is claiming, then surely their use of language and the structure of their comments would differ? Which of course they don't. I for one write in a very different style to my other family members and don't behave in exactly the same way as them. I am quite sure that this is simply a case of Holtj getting a bit scared that they have been caught out as a sock puppet and desperately trying to invent some cockamamie story in a strained attempt to prevent themselves getting banned or blocked so that they can go right back to disruptive editing and pushing their own Odinist POV on related articles. The addition of the "these individuals have cancer" element to these stories is an unnecessary component to their statements that purely serves to demonise me as some sort of un-feeling monster while trying to gain sympathy from other editors and evade sanctions. It is pretty insulting to those who really have had to deal with the horrors of that disease that a) they are using this to win sympathy in a sanction discussion, and b) quite possibly making the whole cancer issue up in the first place. It's all thoroughly disingenuous. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that when Midnightblueowl attacked my father and tried to ban him on the administration page, WE DID NOT PARTICIPATE in the debate there. Would not real sock puppets post in such debates to "rig" the vote? --Holtj (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I were Holtj/ThorLives/Heathenguy and one of my user accounts was threatened with a ban, I would not be stupid enough to use my other accounts to rig the vote, because that would then bring attention to the very existence of my other accounts and get me into even deeper trouble. Rather, I would allow that account to be banned, and then just continue editing using one of my other accounts in the hope that no-one would realise that sock puppetry was at play. This is apparent in the way in which the Holtj account was re-activated the very day after the ThorLives account bowed out amid a community discussion surrounding a topic ban. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • The following accounts are  Confirmed:
Holtj (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
ThorLives (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Heathenguy (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

The following accounts are  Stale:

Mod221 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Osred (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
I'm going to block the two stale accounts as socks based upon the behavior. Mike V • Talk 20:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

29 September 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Multiple behavioral factors demonstrate that Eswedenborg, an editor whose first edit appeared on 30 August 2016, is a sock of the indefinitely blocked Holtj, who has previously also edited under the socks ThorLives, Heathenguy, (and probably) Osred and Mod221, all of which were blocked in November 2015.

As their contribution list illustrates, Eswedenborg has almost exclusively edited the article on Heathenry (new religious movement) and its talk page. Note the strong similarity here with Holtj (here) and their socks ThorLives (here) and Heathenguy (here), who again focused almost exclusively on editing Heathen-themed articles (like "Heathenry (new religious movement)", "Odinism", "Asatru", "Odin Brotherhood" etc). It appears that Holtj is an adherent of one particular Heathen denomination and seeks to use Wikipedia to promote an image of the religion rooted in their own particular perspective (which is, of course, WP:Advocacy).

Here ([64] [65]) and here ([ [66] ) is Eswedenborg engaging in edit warring to get their favored edits into the article. Edit warring was also a favored tactic of Heathenguy [67] [68] [69] [70], ThorLives [71] [72] [73], Holtj [74] [75] [76] and Mod221 [77] [78] [79].

The claims being made on the Talk Page by Eswedenborg are also similar to those of the banned Holtj socks. Both are clearly unhappy with the presentation of Heathenry as it appears in the Heathenry (new religious movement) article. Here Eswedenborg has started a section called "Rewrite needed"; similarly, here is Holtj stating that the article "needs work". Both are antagonistic to the fact that the article relies largely on academic sources; both Eswedenborg [80] and Holtj/ThorLives [81] [82] are dismissive toward these academic texts, repeatedly trying to undermine them as a source of information about Heathenry. Both Eswedenborg ([83]) and ThorLives ([84]) are unhappy that the article cites Snook's observation that there are similarities between many Heathen and conservative Christian responses to issues like same-sex marriage, instead insisting that Christian and Heathen ethical views are not akin to one another. Eswedenborg argues ([85]) for the use of Mark Mirabello's The Odin Brotherhood in the article, claiming that it is an "academic source" (it really isn't; it's a highly unreliable primary source). Not dissimilarly, Heathenguy repeatedly endorsed the use of this particular book and claimed that the (highly dubious) claims it contains are factual ([86]). Both Holtj (here) and Eswedenborg (here) have made a point of highlighting that an Australian Odinist named Osred has cancer, as if that is somehow relevant to the discussion; in both cases their apparent motive is to make me appear like a 'bad person' who has no problem causing issues for those inflicted with that disease. Would two completely independent editors use that same tactic?

When posting messages on an article talk page, the writing style of Eswedenborg is highly similar to that of the banned Hotlj socks. See Eswedenborg's writing style here and here. Note that it is dominated by short sentences, each spaced apart, as if they were separate paragraphs. Note also how random words are capitalised throughout in order to add emphasis. This idiosyncratic style of writing is identical to that employed by Holtj (here) and ThorLives (here). The wider structure of their writing patterns is also identical. Rather than expressing their views within a single section of the article Talk Page, both Eswedenborg (here) and ThorLives (here) bombarded the Talk Page with new sections, creating one after the other, typically only days apart, whilst the other sections were still active. This is a very unusual and uncommon way of going about promoting one's views.

There are also more specific tell-tale signs that the same hand is behind both sets of comments: here is Eswedenborg using an exclamation point in an unusual manner ("a literature professor (!),"), and here is Holtj doing exactly the same ("the Odinism page (48 books!),"). Here is Eswedenborg stating "Please be respectful" at the end of one of their brief comments. Here is ThorLives also stating "Please be respectful" at the end of a similarly short sentence. Both Eswedenborg ([87]) and Heathenguy ([88]) have added fully capitalised words into their edit summaries. Both Eswedenborg and the Holtj sock puppets idiosyncratically always referred to "heathen" in the lower case, while the standard practice among academics and indeed within much of this religious movement is to capitalise the term. Both Eswedenborg (here) and ThorLives (here) sometimes liked to capitalise the word "NOT" in a sentence, to add emphasis. The two accounts also like to add emphasis by putting part of their talk page comment in bold (ThorLives did so here; here, here and here, while Eswedenborg did so here).

Is it really plausible that we have we have two separate individuals who are interested in exactly the same topics, promote exactly the same arguments about how those topics should be presented at Wikipedia, and write in exactly the same (idiosyncratic) manner? I doubt it. In my opinion, the behavioural evidence demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that the individual behind Eswedenborg is the same individual behind Holtj and their previous sock puppets. All of this is consistent with a scenario in which Holtj, having been blocked along with their sock puppets in November 2015, has waited several months before returning to Wikipedia in order to continue right where they left off. By both allowing several months to pass and by using the non-Heathen themed user name of Eswedenborg (a reference to Emmanuel Swedenborg no doubt) they are likely trying to escape any recognition. Perhaps they also moved their location and thus are using a different IP address, although that will require further investigation; whatever the outcome of the IP investigation, I believe that the behavioural evidence alone is sufficient to demonstrate that we have a sock puppet on our hands. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Hello. If it helps, my last name is Blevings, and I am a student from Shawnee State University in Ohio. I have taken a class here on Alternative Religions. --Eswedenborg (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Here is my ip address — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.85.78.99 (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This may be true, but let's not forget that Holtj has produced not dissimilar claims for their sock puppets in the past (here). Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


To wikipedia, please check the history of this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heathenry_(new_religious_movement)&action=history

Please note that Midnightblueowl, the person making the spurious charge against me, has not only completely rewritten the article, but she also has REVERSED every content edit made by others since at least September 2015. I did manage to convince her to remove one of her errors from the page (See the talk page where I list some of the errors). The error was she did not know the proper word heathens use for soul.

--Eswedenborg (talk) 08:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"by others" - no, just by Eswedenborg, because their edit was contentious and they have not exhausted the Talk Page process nor gained any wider support for their proposed changes. I brought this article to GA status several months ago (despite having faced repeated disruptive editing by Holtj and their socks over a period of several months). I of course do not own the article and have happily sat by while some editors have made improvements (in September, Alexb102072 for instance made a range of good prose alterations), but I have raised concerns when those edits are contentious or look very much like Holtj has returned in a new guise. I think the latter scenario to be highly likely here as a result of behavioural similarities and would ask an uninvolved administrator to step in and determine if there is further evidence for sock puppetry. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I recently protected the page in question because of editing back and forth by Midnightblueowl and Eswedenborg. I hope this case can be resolved one way or another soon; I note that the protection wears off imminently, and discussions on the talk page do not seem to have reached any conclusions. I have some comments which may be relevant to the current case which I am not comfortable sharing publicly; any CheckUser can email me if they feel that further information on the present case might help. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mike V, as you were involved in the banning of Holtj's previous socks, would you be interested in looking into this situation too? No pressure to do so, of course, but just thought that I'd ask as this SPI has been open for quite some time now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment:I've previously had minor involvement with the page before Thor Lives was blocked as a sock. Eswedenborg. exhibits all the same behaviour so I think an SPI check is called for ----Snowded TALK 20:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

 Clerk note:: CheckUser is  Not possible as all accounts in the archive are  Stale, however with the behavioural evidence  Looks like a duck to me. Please block. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • information Administrator note  Blocked and tagged. Marking as closed. Mkdwtalk 03:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

24 October 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Mere days after Eswedenborg (talk · contribs) was blocked as a suspected sockpuppet of Holtj (talk · contribs), 146.85.212.39 (talk · contribs) began changing a part of Heathenry (new religious movement) which Eswedenborg was concerned about (note, also, how both users make some rather odd claims about what does and does not count as "ethics"). The only other edit by the anonymous user, which was also on the topic of new religious movements, was made between the block of Holtj but before the creation of Eswedenborg, which leads me to suspect that these are all the same person. However, I am not particularly familiar with these things, and so would rather not deploy my own admin tools in this case. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:21, 24 October 2016 (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]

We don't publicly disclose the IP(s) of named accounts. CU request declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pink clock Awaiting administrative action: in the archive, Eswedenborg revealed they were using an IP address in the same /16 as this one, and this one has been reverted before for being a sockpuppet with a disruptive interest in heathenry. Please block 72 hours. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • information Administrator note I've opted for 31 hours because this is the first incident of logged out IP editing for this individual. They also seemingly have the ability to hop IPs. If you strongly feel it needs to be increased, let me know. Marking as closed. Mkdwtalk 15:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
31 hours seems fine. Just noting it's the second instance of logged-out IP block evasion for this editor, that we know of (per my diff above). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


24 October 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Holtj and their socks HeathenGuy and ThorLives were blocked in November 2015. In August 2016, Holtj then returned as Eswedenborg, who was subsequently identified as a sock and blocked several days ago. Since that time they have begun editing again as an IP address, which has also been blocked. Investigating further, I believe that in the intervening months between November 2015 and August 2016 they had been involved in creating at least five sleeper accounts which they may seek to reactivate in the future.

The five suspected sock puppets listed here all appeared on Wikipedia between December 2015 and September 2016, i.e. after Holtj was originally blocked. All five accounts have only edited the page Heathenry (new religious movement) (which was a regular haunt of all the previous Holtj socks) and nothing else. None have made more than three edits (indeed, three of them have only made one edit each). None have created a user page (just as Eswedenborg account did not). Two of these accounts (Mjolling and Irminsul19090) have Heathen-themed user names (as did Holj with their accounts ThorLives and HeathenGuy).

Given that Holtj has a long record of sock puppetry, including the use of sleeper accounts (the Holtj account was left as a sleeper for many years while they edited as HeathenGuy and ThorLives), it is likely that we are looking at further examples of their socks here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2016 (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]

Oh, I see what happened. @Midnightblueowl: when you fill in the checkuser template or submit a report with Twinkle, you don't need to include "User:", just fill in the account name. I corrected the templates but I've not investigated yet. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: I am closing this with no action. I will say that Staskon4 is definitively not a sock, their only edit was a newbie test edit. Without going into it too much the other accounts are similarly doubtful, and there's just not enough history with any of them to suggest a connection. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


07 November 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

This IP address is very close to another West Virginian IP (146.85.212.39), which was active in late October and blocked as a Holtj sock. Moreover, this IP has edited only two articles, one being Heathenry (new religious movement), the other being User talk:MelanieN, where they were complaining about edits on the Heathenry article. This is completely consistent with Holtj and their (many) other socks, which also displayed an obsession with this particular article and subject matter. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:13, 7 November 2016 (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]

  • The IP hasn't edited in four days. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

08 November 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

This IP is trying to add information in to the Heathenry (new religious movement) article that was previously added by IP 146.85.212.30. These are the same edits that the sock puppeteer Holtj has previously tried to integrate into the article using such socks as ThorLives and Eswedenborg. These edits come within a month of their most recent sock, Eswedenborg, having been identified and blocked. Clearly, we have an individual using different IP addresses in the same area of West Virginia to continue making additions to the article after their accounts were blocked for sock puppetry. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:19, 8 November 2016 (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]

  •  Looks like a duck to me - please block 146.85.212.0/24 for 2 weeks. This is the fourth reported instance of IP block evasion by this editor (there are more that have not been reported) and I see no other activity in this range other than this sockmaster, other than one innocent edit in July.
Another range is 146.85.198.0/24. They haven't edited on it very recently and there would be some collateral damage so no block is requested, but noted in case they appear on it again. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note Special:Block/146.85.198.0/24 has been blocked for 2 weeks. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

09 November 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Another IP (resolving to the same university) has arrived and immediately started adding the same kind of material to the same article with the same kind of edit summaries. I want to say for the record that I have no view about whether these edits are good ones or bad ones; my concern is solely about the apparent socking and clear edit warring. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I agree with Josh. It is now very clear that this user (who first edited as Holtj) is now continuing to push for their desired edits by using a range of IPs at a West Virginia university. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

10 November 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Socks of User:Holtj have been making disruptive edits to Heathenry (new religious movement) for well over a year now, first using a number of (since blocked) accounts and recently with a number of IP addresses linked to Shawnee State University, Ohio. We now have an IP based at Frontier Communications of America Inc in Logan, Ohio that is restoring their deleted edits on both the Heathenry article and its talk page. This is almost certainly another sock, or possibly a meat puppet. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:07, 10 November 2016 (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]

29 November 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Holtj and associated accounts have, for a considerable amount of time, been edit warring, engaging in tendentious discussion and hounding Midnightblueowl in relation to Heathenry (new religious movement)- see the archived SPIs for further details. This anonymous user has arrived and filed a dispute resolution request, all but confessing to being a blocked user. They admit that they have "discussed this issue on a talk page already" and that they "have been trying to add academically referenced information to the page", but lament that "one editor has removed content or blocked editors (on false sock puppet charges) for the last two years. She has taken down at least six editors". (Incidentally, it is false that MBO has blocked editors; editors have been blocked by a range of administrators. MBO and I have both reported users here, but neither of us have blocked them.) This IP resolves to the same small university as many of the others. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • I'm putting this in the "other users" section because I've been doing some digging, and it's going to be tl;dr for the clerks section (I'll comment there later).
After the last investigation, the user(s) apparently complained to the university, resulting in this exchange on Salvidrim!'s talk page in which a user who is supposedly a staff member of the university appealed on their students' behalf. That user, Tstrickland (talk · contribs), has been otherwise inactive, their only edits participating in a dispute with Holtj ten years ago in which they stated "there are about 30 or so Odinists at this university". About two years later Tstrickland and Holtj made back-to-back edits to add an external link to the Odin Brotherhood website from a disambiguation page, and then this appeal on Holtj's behalf just this month.
The dispute ten years ago was about a former article at Odin Brotherhood. It's a subject on which a book was written by a professor at Shawntee State University, Mark Mirabello. That AfD and the very related Mark Mirabello AfD were both rank with canvassed Odinists and the university's IPs, as well as Mirabello himself who claimed his academic credentials as reason why he should be allowed to write on Wikipedia both his autobiography and an article about his work. Both were deleted; Odin Brotherhood was later recreated by a Holtj sock.
Now observe the creation dates of a few accounts named in the archive and the various AfDs (not all of these are confirmed socks):
  • Holtj 28 Oct 2006
  • ThorLives 20 Oct 2011
  • HeathenGuy 27 Oct 2011
  • Tstrickland 11 Nov 2006
  • Staskon4 8 Dec 2015
  • Stege1 15 Dec 2005
  • HroptR 9 Nov 2005
  • Mmirabello 15 Dec 2005
There's a pattern here: accounts with a singular focus in Odinism created not at the same time but at roughly the same time of year. Say, perhaps, the time of year that such a topic might be covered in the recurring curriculum of a professor who wrote a book on Odinism. We see a similar intersect of new accounts at the same time as the articles were put up for deletion (roughly February 2006), as though the discussions were somehow publicized among Odinists at the university. There is the possibility then that these are all students in Mirabello's class, with an added possibility that Mirabello (or some other person related to this group) is recruiting students to advocate on Wikipedia (or simply unintentionally motivating them to do so). If that hypothesis is accepted, what it shows is in fact that these are all separate users with a common interest, with the obvious exception of ThorLives and HeathenGuy that are CU-confirmed to Holtj. That's backed up by Tstrickland's observation about the population of Odinists at Shawnee State.
But! The Arbitration Committee has established that "for the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets."[1] (taken from WP:MEAT)
The users who have been accused (not the list above) are consistently single-purpose accounts interested in new religious movements generally and Odinism specifically, and all wish to add the same "academically-supported" material to our article on heathenry. They all further seem to be of the opinion that the use of a reliable source exempts an editor from seeking consensus and abiding by Wikipedia conduct guidelines, such as the sockpuppetry policy and the conflict of interest policy, an opinion which is incorrect. Therefore, and with the Arbcom ruling in mind, I observe that the users who match this pattern of behaviour are sockpuppets of Holtj (or meatpuppets in our newer site jargon) notwithstanding the fact that they may be separate individuals. The ongoing campaign of advocacy from this IP range is part of the same. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And all that being said, I think it would be a good idea for a neutral reviewer with some knowledge of this topic (I'm not one) to review the substance of the sockfarm's suggested edits, if in fact the material is supported by reliable sources. SPI is not the venue for debating content matters. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding Ted Kennedy#Sockpuppets

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

  •  Clerk note: as noted above in extremely long form, the IP is a sock of Holtj. Please block the range 146.85.212.0/24 for 2 more weeks. The range's prior 2-week block just expired but I'm uneasy about suggesting a longer block for a university IP range, although there doesn't seem to be much unrelated activity. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Range blocked for 2 weeks. - GB fan 19:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

07 June 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Between 31 May and 3 June 2023, an IP user, 45.53.207.255, sought to change information about the god Baldr at the FA-rated Heathenry (new religious movement) article ([89]; [90]). Ealdgyth reverted the IP's edits (at which the IP began edit-warring), after which Acroterion increased the protection level on the article on 3 June ([91]). Within two days, Bluebeetle (an account that had not been active since December 2006), appeared and began introducing the same changes about Baldr into the article, once again edit warring to do so ([92]; [93]). It is evident that the IP and Bluebeetle are the same person, or two people operating in tandem.

However, it is also apparent that the figure behind 45.53.207.255/Bluebeetle is the prolific sock-puppeteer who used the Holtj account. First, their editing patterns are very similar. Bluebeetle's editing history shows a particular interest in Shawnee State University and topics pertaining to Heathenry (they have edited both the main Heathenry article and Odinist Fellowship). This mirrors the Holtj socks, which were preoccupied with Heathenry topics and were also associated with Shawnee State University (using various IPs linked to the university and repeatedly citing The Odin Brotherhood, a non-academic book by a staff member at that university). Evidence for Holtj's interests and connections to the university is extensively documented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Holtj/Archive.

Second, the IP editor included a fully capitalised word in a Talk Page post ("Wiki articles must NOT mislead" [94]), which was a trait of Holtj socks, as noted in the archive of earlier investigations. Third, the IP address can be traced to southern Ohio, around the area of Shawnee State University. Fourth, the Bluebeetle account was established in August 2006, around the same time as Holtj (October 2006 [95]), and not too long after other suspected Holtj socks HroptR (Nov 2005), Stege1 (Dec 2005), and Mmirabello (Dec 2005), suggesting its use as a WP:Sleeper account. Finally, the IP/Bluebeetle accounts display a clear willingness to edit war, another trait of Holtj socks.

This is almost certainly Holtj back once again, first operating through an IP account and, after the article's protection level was increased, through a re-activated sleeper account. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2023 (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]

  • Bluebeetle is  Likely comparing historical data and current behavior;  Blocked and tagged, no No comment with respect to IP address(es). Closing... Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 00:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Holtj/Archive&oldid=1166548741"