Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikiman2718/Archive

• 66.244.121.212 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 68.45.46.177 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1702:1BD0:6A00:9991:A805:0:0/64 (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.

He has admitted to using IP sockpuppets for months at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Socking_wrt_Lovaas?. Additionally, he has engaged in edit warring repeatedly, claiming that "none of my detractors seem to be able to write a better article than I have".

He also claims to have lost his password at Talk:Ole_Ivar_Lovaas#Misinformation, though he did not create a new account and disclose that this was his previous account, but eventually managed to log in. Atdevel (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• My use of multiple accounts was non-abusive, as I went to IP to avoid harassment. This is an accepted reason to go to IP. I never represented myself as multiple users. I will be happy to respond to the remaining claims when I get back from work. However, I would like to note the obvious-- the account reporting me also looks kind of like a sock. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • They admitted it, so leniency should be offered for first time offenders. They are prompted not to do it again, the second time they should be blocked. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, User:Tgeorgescu! Isn't going to IP in this way considered non-abusive? I had a good reason for it and I never tried to make anyone think I was multiple people. All interested parties may view the thread here for a full explanation circumstances in which the events occurred. Note to admins: I am preparing a case that the User:Atdevel is a sock based on behavioral evidence. Please keep this thread open until it is posted. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 20:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • You were pretending to be anonymous without disclosing or creating a new account. If you get into an edit war, you have to learn how to appropriately resolve conflicts. Atdevel (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see a good case for harassment, but the way to deal with that would be reporting the editor(s) at an admin noticeboard, requesting an interaction ban, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 23:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • User:PaleoNeonate: I tried that and it didn't go so well. We all know that ANI isn't perfect at handling harassment. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at Atdevel's contribution log shows that they registered in 2013, but made no edits to the encyclopedia until five days ago. The user has accumulated about 20 edits in the last five days, all related to Bernie Sander, but suddenly seems interested in my dispute with ATC over an obscure bit of medical science. He seems to have a knowledge of Wikipedia internals operations that includes AFD, ANI, SPI, as well as policies on socks and edit wars. Clearly, this user is not five days old and must be a sleeper of a returning user. That user's account must be at least seven years old, judging by the age of the sleeper. Using behavioral evidence, I will now argue that the sleeper belongs to ATC.

ATC was the only editor I was involved in a dispute with five days ago, and therefore the only editor who had the motive to activate a sleeper sock against me at that time. He has already tried twice to get me blocked or banned, here and here. The dispute we are involved in is on a topic called discrete trial training, which is a method of behavioral therapy with very little evidence behind it. Despite that, supporters of the method typically refuse to acknowledge any flaws in the evidence. So basically, he's pushing a fringe view.

This editor is highly invested in his pro-behaviorism viewpoint. Even his username (ATC) is an acronym for Acceptance and commitment therapy, which is a different (possibly effective?) behavioral therapy. The consensus that we reach on discrete trial training will effect many pages he is invested in including Ivar Lovaas, where he has done the worst of his stonewalling. The other editors at ANI have not fully weighed in yet, but I have argued on that thread that he is using some nasty tactics. A quick look at his block log shows multiple blocks for socking. Could a checkuser possibly look into this?

Conclusion: This editor was loading up a sleeper account for four days before he filed his bogus ANI report against me. He will clearly go to any length to push his POV and get me banned. He has made my last week an unproductive hell, and I don't care what sanction you give him as long as I never have to interact with him again. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I just noticed one last thing. ATdevel is a play on ATC. AT-C and AT-devil, get it? This guy is obviously the master. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 03:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiman2718, these two accounts are  Unrelated. – bradv🍁 03:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•  Clerk declined - Only one user account listed, CU request is not appropriate. ST47 (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• It looks like Wikiman2718 acknowledges these IPs, or at least some of them, so there is nothing for checkusers to do. Closing without action. – bradv🍁 03:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Mathematician2718 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Obviously, both accounts end in "2718".  The only interaction between these accounts is that Wikiman2718 left a smiley face on Mathematician2718 with no explanation, which also seems suspicious.  I don't think that this counts as formally declaring a connection.  Additionally, Mathematician2718 was only created in November 2020. At one point, he claimed to have multiple accounts, but didn't mention anything about them. He said "It is not socking to edit while logged out, as I never at any point managed **my accounts** abusively.". 35.10.126.126 (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Reporting IP is pretty clearly as sock of Ylevental. IP geolocates to the same location of his known IP range. This is the third time this sockmaster has filed a phony report on me. Wikiman2718 (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• 147.92.106.221, the IP that has most recently edited this page, also geolocates to the same area as the OP and Ylevental's known range. Besides editing this page, the only edits by 147.92.106.221 are these two diffs, [1] [2] which are both controversial changes to pages that Ylevental has edited heavily. Last time Ylevental filed a sockpuppet report against me it was under the guise of Atdevel and Atdevel2. He has also filed a phony ANI report against me under the guise of Chris3991m. Filing these reports has become a pattern of behavior for him. Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Taking a closer look at the edits, 147.92.106.221 proposed an article for deletion. The prod was removed, and just two hours later, Ylevental nominated that very same page for deletion. Can we list these IPs as confirmed socks already? Wikiman2718 (talk) 23:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Unrelated as far as checkuser evidence goes... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• For a variety of reasons, we don't tag IP addresses as socks. However, I have semi'd this page to hopefully cut down on the frivolous filings. I see no reason to overturn the CU findings, so closing without further action. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]