Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Til Eulenspiegel/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Til Eulenspiegel

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

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

15 February 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


User:Christina_jax too experienced to be a new editor. Account created recently and was most active when User:Til_Eulenspiegel was blocked. History of edits is very similar (generally, nationalistic Ethiopian POV-pushing). First talkpage contribution was supporting Til, and so was the second one. Edits are generally very similar. For example: adding Ethiopia to Coffee infobox: Christina, Til Λuα (Operibus anteire) 17:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw the request and apologize to both editors.
Thank you.
Cheers, Λuα (Operibus anteire) 01:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • Note: ChristinaJax claims on her userpage to be an Amhara Muslim. I am certainly not. I do not know who she is or anything else about her. User:Aua just tried unsuccessfully a few moments ago to get me blocked for "vandalism" over a content dispute as well. He also mentioned that I have displayed the old Lion of Judah flag on my page in a bid to accuse me of "nationalism". I guess nobody is allowed to choose that flag to display on their userpage, eh? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to factually contradict Aua, I took a look at her contribs and it appears that she only made two (2) edits during the time when I was blocked (Feb 5-12), not that she was "most active" during that time. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Prior the coffee row (today and yesterday), a third of all of Christina's edits were when you were blocked. That was my point. Cheers, Λuα (Operibus anteire) 17:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bureaucrat at the Amharic wikipedia with my only other declared (global) account, and I can tell you there are many hundreds of Amhara editors on wikipedia nowadays, and they are not actually all the same, even if they all seem the same to you. I do not make use of sockpuppets. Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Look, the worse that can happen is that I'm proven wrong in my suspicion. if I'm wrong, then I apologize (and there is no harm in checking since evidence crossed the threshold on this one). If not, then at least we've caught a couple of socks. That sounds OK, no?
The patten of behavior, articles of interest, and timing all contribute to my a well-founded suspicion.
Cheers, Λuα (Operibus anteire) 18:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of sincere "apology" is that, it doesn't sound very contrite, more like utterly shameless which you should be since you are accusing me falsely. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not apologizing since nothing has been proven yet. I will if I'm wrong. Cheers, Λuα (Operibus anteire) 18:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Im not Ethiopian but your claim is a "fringe theory". I did not post on my userpage that was by another user. Christina jax (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
14 September 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Edits and edit summaries at Amharic language Dougweller (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2014 (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]

Obvious WP:GIANTDUCK and blocked by The Bushranger for block evasion. Adding this to for the record as various proxies and IP ranges are being used by him since his block. Dougweller (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

24 February 2015[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Editing similar areas plus below. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:15, 24 February 2015 (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 four users are  Confirmed to Til Eulenspiegel (blocked and tagged). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

24 January 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets


Every contribution this user has made at Talk:Genesis creation narrative closely matches the contributions of this known sockpuppet master. jps (talk) 16:23, 24 January 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]

  • No activity in the last 4 days, and the IP looks dynamic. Closing. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

07 March 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets


Background
Til Eulenspiegel was engaged in a lengthy discussion at the article Getae (Talk:Getae#Getae_vs._Geats_vs._Goths_in_Jordanes, his first post on 2 October 2013), defending the current state of a section of the article which simply reproduced views of some early medieval authors who claimed that the Getae were identical the Goths (which identification has been disproved by modern scholarship since long ago). He offen referred to WP:NPOV and other wiki policies in that discussion. The first edit of "Mr. Lunt", Til Eulenspiegel's confirmed sock, was a revert of an edit that contradicted his view expressed in that conversation, again referring to NPOV. "Mr. Lunt" then reverted an edit on the same article, removing a commentary of a historian negating the alleged identity of the Getae with the Jats (an Iranian people). The content he reverted to merely stated the claim of some historians that those two peoples are identical (which is actually a fringe theory), and an opposition to this theory was removed in his revert. In his edit summary, "Mr. Lunt" again referred to WP:NPOV.
The current sock
I added secondary academic sources to the article Getae, which explain the confusion of some early medieval authors about the identity of the Getae with the Goths (the mainstream academic view on the matter). First I added one source, and this was in half an hour reverted by IP 172.58.185.32 (its first edit), with an edit summary in line with the above-mentioned discussion by Til Eulenspiegel and reverts by "Mr. Lunt". I reverted and added five more sources on the same subject, but this was again reverted by the IP. This was repeated two more times, the IP thus breaching WP:3RR (see the article's revision history). After that, the IP edit warred on, reverting yet another editor on the same issue. In addition, he indicated that he would edit war on this indefinitely. So this poses one more question: how to treat further socks that will likely appear to prevent adding reliable sources to that section of the article Getae (if this sock were blocked)? The IP also involved itself in articles and talk pages of Sumer (at the top of interest of Til Eulenspiegel), Hittites, Pocahontas, and Nimrod, all frequently edited or discussed by Til Eulenspiegel (with more than one hundred of edits in each of them by him). Vladimir (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Well spotted, it's him. Doug Weller talk 20:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

05 September 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


First of all, the interaction stats show a remarkable overlap in interests between the two. Digging down, we find for instance nearly identical edits to List of pharaohs by Eulenspiegel and Rabbit. The Rabbit account has been dormant for several years, but just awoke to edit-war on the Sheba article, with an agenda very similar to that of Eulenpiegel – compare the edit summaries "Britannica claims for itself a priority over Ethiopian histories, this white supremacist bias ought to be a case for mediation" (Eulenspiegel) and "systemic bias vs Ethiopians - Ethiopians say this was an country in Ethiopia and their extensive traditions and histories on Sheba are relevant and obscured by this trash piece" (Rabbit). All in all, there is enough for me to block the sock and close this case, as it is only here to maintain the paper trail. Favonian (talk) 18:06, 5 September 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]

22 June 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Edit warring at Book of Daniel (WP:DUCK as far as both IPs are concerned) from a biblical inerrancy POV-pushing position, one of Til Eulenspiegel's favorite occupation on Wikipedia (before he got indeffed). Legal threat at [1] claiming a violation of the constitutional right to free speech (also Til's favorite accusation). Showing that he is the same person at [2]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:30, 22 June 2017 (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]

  • Pink clock Awaiting administrative action - These IPs are clearly the same person, but pinging Favonian and Doug Weller whether these look like TE. (Of course, any passing admin who believes so can block as desired.) Thanks, GABgab 02:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocked -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 09:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @GeneralizationsAreBad: I doubt it. Wrong geolocation for a start. And although TE edited this article a lot, see [3] where his edit summary was "I'm sure the anon was acting in good faith, but really, who ascribes the book to Daniel? The book doesn't even claim itself to be written by Daniel." This editor, who calls himself Nathan, argues the opposite. Doug Weller talk 11:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

13 October 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Three years ago, Til Eulenspiegel was blocked, and ever since has continued to return under a variety of names, most recently in June [4].


So far, CanCanqr1989 has focused solely on two pages — Esau (6 edits), and Canaan (son of Ham) (15 edits). Both are pages that Til Eulenspiegel edited (51 to Canaan and 20 to Esau). See [5].

The confirmed sock of Til, User:B'er Rabbit, also edited Esau once.

But what is really interesting is the overlap in topics, first brought to my attention at Talk:Esau.

At Esau, CanCanqr1989 has been adding a medieval Christian tradition about Scythians, Germans, and a Jewish tradition about Romans and Christian Europeans descending from Esau — thoroughly obscure stuff sourced to a 19th-century book and the medieval Gregory of Akner [6]. Til Eulenspiegel also added information about this Jewish tradition of Edom as progenitor of Rome and Christians / Europeans: [7].

At Canaan (son of Ham), CanCanqr has been adding information cited to Jewish traditions including the Book of Jubilees about Canaanites fleeing to Africa around the time of the Israelite conquest: [8]. Similarly, Til adding information about how the Book of Jubilees placed the proper domain of the Canaanites in Africa: [9], and a medieval tradition about Canaan being the ancestor of Africans [10]. More of the same (Jubilees, Canaanites as Africans, use of medieval traditions) [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17].

These are very similar profiles. We have a new user picking up where an old one left off. As can be easily seen through the Editor Interaction Tool and its timeline buttons, both users show a pattern of repeatedly reverting over the objections of a variety of editors to insert the same kinds of obscure information from the same kinds of little-known medieval sources into the same articles, and both editors use requests for page protection as a way of managing editing conflict.

I think there's a pretty good behavioral case for concluding that we're dealing with the same editor. Alephb (talk) 13:31, 13 October 2017 (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]

05 May 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

All the suspected sock's edits (till now only 3 edits, [18], [19], [20]) were about Til's favorite book (Book of Daniel) with a biblical literalist and inerrantist slant against WP:RS/AC and also show Til's obsession that Porphyry's claim about the prophecies of that book would be bunk. See e.g. [21], [22]. Also, the "newbie" got <ref> right from his/her very first edit, even if he/she did not employ the visual editor. And that despite the fact that the article did not use that sort of references (it uses {{sfn}}). If he/she wasn't Til, he/she was RoyBurtonson (Allenroyboy), who has also socked the article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And not only that, but the suspected sock has plagiarized a blog, meanwhile his/her edits to the article have been rev-deleted as copyvio. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I do not know or even know of Til or Eulenspiegel or Til Eulenspiegel if this is one person. I intend to come back and prove that whoever it is that has written on the Book of Daniel is quite lopsided in his statements. They are completely biased. I'll deal with it when I get the time to come back. Thank you 1stSkyRider (talk) 04:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

This case is  Stale. CU declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The user hasn't edited since May 20. They made very few edits. Their location does not match the location of the master/socks in the CU logs. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

25 August 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

See below. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2019 (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]

  • All of the above are  Likely to the master and  Confirmed to one another.  Blocked and tagged. Closing. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

30 April 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

To me saying Daniel was fictional is fringe. We have over 2,000 years and billions of Christians and Jews saying Daniel was an actual person and a few thousand (at best) atheists saying he is a fictional character. Christians will all point you to Mathew, an authority whose work is still read 2,000 years after it was written. How many will be reading your "scholars" in another 2,000 years. Per you the opinion of a few thousand outweighs the opinion of a few billion. at [23] Rings a bell? Daniel is Til's favorite book and Til is a champion of its literal and fundamentalist interpretation, against WP:RS/AC of Bible scholars. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:12, 30 April 2020 (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]

  • IP has been temporarily blocked from talkspace. Nothing more to do. Closing. Cabayi (talk) 08:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

24 March 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Reasons: Book of Daniel is true + WP:RGW + fundamentalist POV-pushing, all at Talk:Old Testament messianic prophecies quoted in the New Testament. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good omen: [24], There are 2.5 billion Christians in the world. ... The reality is more people believe in prophesy than do not. Til also made similar ad populum appeals for his claims. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2021 (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]

  • Closing given CU result. Sro23 (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

01 January 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

See below. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2022 (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]

24 March 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

The Book of Daniel was the paramount article for Til's edits inside Wikipedia. Odd pleonasms, such as Academic scholars ([25]) are perfectly in line with Til's repeated claims that we only allow Wikipedians to WP:CITE "our own scholars". See his edits at Wikipedia talk:Academic bias, search for "No true Scotsman" ([26]). See also [27].

Please note that Proveallthings is fighting at such article against WP:YESPOV, WP:GEVAL, and WP:RS/AC. That is a match with Til's POV. Yup, the 2nd century BC dating had to go, since it is a major slap in the face of fundamentalist Bible scholars, [28].

Proveallthings's claim that their account dates from 2009 seems weird (no such edits), see [29]. Oh, yes, according to [30], their account was registered in January 2009, but there are no edits until July 2018. According to their own punch card, they are very rarely active between 8:00 and 14:00 UTC.

And, lo and behold, seven days since their first edit they could write arcane templates like {{User wikipedia/WikiDragon2}} {{#Babel:en|el-2|he-1}} {{User:UBX/Rome}}. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: Sorry for that. I thought that writing something like a particular set of scholars who approach the bible with certain presuppositions was Til's oddity, but I'm beginning to see that it is shared by a large group of people. I'm eager at noticing similarities, but it is hard for me to understand which are non-trivial similarities. When you'll have the time, please teach me what are non-trivial similarities. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:07, 25 March 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]

  • @Tgeorgescu: I am mostly on leave from admin work at the moment, but this was brought to my attention because I have previously warned you regarding improper SPIs. This is now the third time in the past year or so that you have filed an SPI against someone you were in a dispute with, without presenting any meaningful evidence of sockpuppetry. This is, frankly, at this point, a competence issue—an editor of your tenure should know that filing an SPI where the only significant shared behavior is the usage of a common phrase, accompanied by some vague similarities you could find between any two editors, is never going to lead to a CU endorsement or block. As I did previously warn you, please consider this your final warning: If you file another SPI that is not supported by multiple pairs of diffs showing non-trivial similarities, especially an SPI against someone with whom you are in a dispute, I will instruct you to stop posting at SPI and may take other administrative/clerical actions as necessary. no Closing without action -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Til_Eulenspiegel/Archive&oldid=1146593220"