From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Blastikus

Blastikus ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
10 March 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Obsessed with the same topics and articles, particularly Jewish Bolshevism. Filling the Talk: page with the lengthy semi-literate original research (compare Talk:Jewish Bolshevism#items of dispute to http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Jewish_Bolshevism&oldid=431810524#I_have_refuted_this_article ). His IPs generally geolocated to California, near the Bay Area (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Blastikus). Jayjg (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC) Jayjg (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Clerk declined this is most likely a duck - the accounts clearly have the same POV (both appear to push the view that Jews made up a significant part of the Bolshevik party / Soviet Union was a tyranny ruled by Jews [1] & talkpage link above (also the IPs do this [2])) and MO (as shown by the talkpage links in the evidence).
Unfortunately we will not be able to get very much useful CU data on this as Blastikus is already  Stale, as is the only other (behaviourally) linked account, Theworldinstrument. Additionally CU generally cannot be used to link accounts to IP addresses per privacy concerns. Spitfire Tally-ho! 22:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC) reply
29 April 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


In this edit, Pottinger's cats appears to be saying s/he is the same editor as Blastikus. Zad 68 04:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • I have blocked Pottinger's cats as a compromised account. Other than the recent edits on April 28, I see no evidence at all that this account has anything to do with Blastikus, so a compromised account is the most likely story. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply
09 December 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


  • Socks 24.130.19.195 and 71.202.210.61 have been established elsewhere. [3] [4] [5]
  • While 98.210.147.182 has not been active for a month, I still wish to establish the connection for the record.
  • The geolocation of 98.210.147.182 is a match.
  • The IPs edit only a handful fringe science articles. The comments have a distinct style of being long, containing one-paragraph sentences, and containing raw URL text instead of wikified URL markup via brackets [].
  • A common theme is Brian Josephson.
  • References to physicsessays.org/doi/abs/10.4006
  • References to deanradin.com/evidence
  • References to www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed
  • The Other IPs have said: "I do not recognize the legitimacy of the initial topic ban...I maintain that administrators may act against me for this, but there actions do not have a legitimate basis and are akin to the political corruption in Maoist or Soviet systems". [18] Thus it is expected this person will continue violating the topic ban, as was done through 98.210.147.182.

Since 98.210.147.182 has not edited for a month, admins may decide to do nothing, which is fine. This SPI is mainly for the record, with the anticipation of future socks. vzaak 02:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
03 December 2014
Suspected sockpuppets
  • 71.202.210.124 says "I am blocked" in reference to prior socks Blastikus, Pottinger's cats, 67.188.88.161, 98.210.147.182 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 198.189.184.243 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). [19] The latter two IPs are older socks in the archive here.
  • Ben Steigmann continues the conversation where 71.202.210.124 left off, "All right this is the last thing I'll post on here..." [20]
  • 71.202.210.124 changes Ben Steigmann's signature to 71.202.210.124's signature [21] and then explicitly admits the connection. [22]
  • The user page of Pottinger's cats has a link to a blog named "bensteigmann".
  • Pottinger's cats: "this is Blastikus". [23]
  • 67.188.88.161: "I'm Ben Steigmann and my only former two sockpuppets are Pottinger's Cats and Blastikus, aside from many IPs". [24] 67.188.88.161 shares the same geolocation as other socks, including an exact match with 24.130.19.195 [25] [26] (found in archive).
  • All socks share a common style of verbose screeds on fringe topics.
  • Note for example the focus on orthomolecular medicine by 198.189.184.243 and Pottinger's cats, [27] [28] in particular the use of vitamin C for cancer treatment [29] [30] (search for "cancer treatment").
  • New master is Blastikus.

-- Manul 01:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

This IP is tagged as a shared IP and therefore to archive content should be moved to a username. I'll leave that to the people in charge of this to decide, though. VegasCasinoKid ( talk) 12:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC) reply

The note "New master is Blastikus" above was intended to mean that everything under 198.189.184.243 should be moved to the Blastikus case. Manul 13:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • Ben Steigmann pretty well admits to being a sockpuppet, so I have blocked the account. Other accounts are already blocked. The IP addresses are either blocked or have not edited for a long time or both, except for 198.189.184.243. That IP address clearly has been used by this editor in the past, but it is not evident to me that recent edits on that IP address are from the same person. Unless there is evidence of that, there is nothing more to do. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 20:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Closing. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 08:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC) reply

19 August 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Psychicbias, which probably needs to be moved here. Ben Steigmann Blissentia is obviously Ben Steigmann, Gggtt Steigmann is obviously Gggtt and Ben Steigmann, Myers Lover Spirit of James is obviously Myerslover, and Spirit of James and Spirit of James 2 are obviously Myers Lover Spirit of James. Filing for the record, CU for sleepers (is that still a thing?). Only Spirit of James is stale. Ian.thomson ( talk) 22:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Added Spirit of Myers and Ben the Blissentia. I'm not seeing a need to explain any further than " WP:DUCK." Ian.thomson ( talk) 23:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC) reply
And Blastikus the cat, which I shouldn't even have to say "WP:DUCK" for. Ian.thomson ( talk) 23:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Psychicbiases but WP:DUCK for the others, which proves that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Psychicbias needs to be merged here. Ian.thomson ( talk) 23:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC) reply
For Jamenta 2, see below. For Jamenta, I would like to call on this expert's testimonial. Ian.thomson ( talk) 02:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Ian is biased against psychic powers. He has reverted many of my accounts on the Myers article. I made a controversial pro-Myers edit here [31] yet he keeps reverting it. I have a wikiversity project where I have all the Myers material and I have proven psychics were genuine. You will never get it deleted [32]. As for this investigation, I am now using hundreds of VPNs which are not blocked. So I will keep coming back here. Ben Steigmann. Jamenta 2 ( talk) 02:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC) reply

You were blocked, which means that you are not welcome here. If you will not operate within this site's policies and guidelines, we have no reason to respect you regardless of whatever claims you want to argue for. Ian.thomson ( talk) 02:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Also, you're obviously just in this for the money. I'm just in this for truth. Greed's one of the strongest biasing factors out there, charitable curious skepticism quite its opposite. Ian.thomson ( talk) 03:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

22 June 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Hi, I have been following for a while the material of a banned user Ben Steigmann on Wikiversity so I wanted to sign up here to Wikipedia and report this user, hopefully this goes through. This user was banned on Wikipedia but now seems to have come back here.

Psychicbias is a sock-puppet account of the banned user Ben Steigmann. He admits that here on wikiversity in this edit [33]. "I made some notes on FWH Myers in a saved wiki draft that I later reverted." His agenda is to remove skeptical information or criticisms from Myers article or make it more 'balanced' as he writes on the talk-page.

Steigmann has been editing the Frederic W. H. Myers article inserting fringe material on an account called psychicbias. He has also been using the IP 50.185.21.78 and another account Myerslover.

Steigmann has a sockpuppet investigation archive here [34], his main account was Blastikus.

He uses Wikiversity to push his psychic beliefs because he was banned on Wikipedia. He has a Wikiversity project he where he attacks Wikipedia [35] for being skeptical of psychic phenomena. He has admitted to being psychicbias but a checkuser may be needed because he obviously has other accounts, another I have spotted is A111112a.

His IP addresses that he has used in the past trace to [36] San Jose California which matches 50.185.21.78 . Psychicbias is definitely Steigmann. Michael skater ( talk) 16:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Update

This investigation is very slow, no admin has yet looked at this. All you need to do is check the Frederic W. H. Myers article and the diff I gave above. Steigmann has been sock-puppeting on that article as Psychicbias, Myerslover and others.

@ Manul: had previously reported Steigmann [37], he might be able to help. Michael skater ( talk) 18:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Further update

Ok I still see no action has been taken, it has been over 2 weeks. I will make it very clear, see this edit [38]. "I made some notes on FWH Myers in a saved wiki draft that I later reverted." On his account Ben Steigmann he has admitted to being psychicbias there and the IP I listed. Check the history of Frederic W. H. Myers article. Michael skater ( talk) 15:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Is it also possible to get his Wikiversity account banned? @ JamesBWatson: has previously blocked Steigmann's socks on wikipedia. I wonder if he can help here with further blocking. Michael skater ( talk) 15:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply

A111112a is Ben Steigmann, [39] in this edit he was trying to defend the discredited spiritualist experiments of Agénor de Gasparin by citing a fringe source. The same fringe source and page number is cited on his project "Hereward Carrington, in The Physical Phenomena of Spiritualism, p. 65n2, rejected Frank Podmore's dismissal of these experiments." [40] (search for the above quote and you will find it on the page). As for psychicbias, Ben Steigmann had admitted to being that user in the diff cited above, so he should be blocked on that account as well. Michael skater ( talk) 18:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
In relation to Frederic Myers an interest of Steigmann there was also another account making fringe-related edits in that area. The account "Spirit of James" [41] was defending Myers on various articles. It is possible this account is also Steigmann or related to him some how. Michael skater ( talk) 18:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Sorry this is Michael skater here I cannot remember my password so I am using a public IP to post. Can you please block another sockpuppet of Ben Steigmann, he has admitted to it here on his facebook [42], note this is not doxxing, Ben has already used his real name Ben Steigmann and even linked to his facebook on one of his banned socks. He admits in his facebook post to owning the account Gggtt which he used to insert POV on the Julius Evola article. He links to that edit here [43]. He had admitted to being Gggtt so that account should also be blocked and tagged. 82.132.247.196 ( talk) 01:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Michael skater, is this your only account? -- Marvellous Spider-Man 16:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi I do not use Wikipedia but I have a Wikiversity account. But I do not want to disclose my identity of my account on wikiversity otherwise I will be targeted by Steigmann. Michael skater ( talk) 16:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC) reply
I've blocked Gggtt because of his reappearance as Gggtt Steigmann. Ian.thomson ( talk) 22:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Also, Ben Steigmann Blissentia, Myers Lover Spirit of James, and Spirit of James. Ian.thomson ( talk) 22:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Spirit of James 2... Ian.thomson ( talk) 22:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • @ Michael skater: I know it must be frustrating to see the investigation that you opened languishing with no action taken over a long time, but unfortunately there is always a large backlog of SPI cases waiting to be dealt with (at present there are 102 open cases) and sometimes it does take a long time.
  •  Clerk assistance requested: This case should be filed under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blastikus, so could a clerk please refile it?
  • One of the striking things about Blastikus's sockpuppets is that they have a history of saying things which effectively amount to admitting to their sockpuppetry. In a link to Wikiversity provided above by Michael skater we see Ben Steigmann (a known sockpuppet of Blastikus) claiming authorship of a Wikipedia edit made by the account Psychicbias, and the edit histories tend to confirm that the two accounts are the same person, so I see no reason to doubt Ben Steigmann's word about that. Here Psychicbias admits to being Myerslover, so I shall block both those accounts. Behavioural evidence suggests that the IP address is also used by the same person, and when we add to that the fact that it comes from the same ISP and the same area as IP addresses known to have been used by this editor in the past, we can reasonably conclude it is the same person again.
  • It is not at all obvious that Joe Heato and A111112a are also the same person, and the accounts are stale for CheckUser, so unless Michael skater or someone else can explain why they are thought to be the same person, we will have to leave those out.
  • In view of the history of sockpuppetry from this editor, I suggest that a CheckUser for sleepers or other undetected accounts may be a good idea. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 16:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • @ Michael skater: You ask whether it is possible to get the Wikiversity account banned. You will have to ask at Wikiversity, as Wikipedia administrators have no power over Wikiversity accounts. I have no idea how things work over there, so I can't even give you advice on the matter. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 16:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Not running a CU with only a single account. CU declined.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 17:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I don't understand that, since there are two accounts (ignoring accounts that are stale and ones where there is no proof of sockpuppetry). However, granted that my CheckUser request has been declined, the only other thing to be done is to wait for a clerk to respond my request for the case to be refiled under Blastikus. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 20:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  •  Clerk note: - Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention - Resubmitting because from Bbb23's comment above it seems the first CURequest lacked in clarity. CU is request to compare Myerslover and Psychicbias & especially check for sleepers.   Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 06:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  •  Check declined by a checkuser - All of the accounts, except Psychicbias, are stale. ​— DoRD ( talk)​ 11:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Closing, as it appears every account that is going to be blocked already has per JamesBWatson's post above.  Clerk assistance requested: This should be moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blastikus. ~ Rob13 Talk 02:14, 27 August 2017 (UTC) reply

29 November 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Blastikus / Ben Steigmann is a known Wikipedia sock-puppeteer who has been blocked on many accounts. His interests involve pushing fringe material and pseudoscience on parapsychology, Oswald Spengler and racism related articles. Most of the content he uploads is actually spam from his Wikiversity project.

For the last few years he has had an obsession with editing the Frederic W. H. Myers article and the Oswald Spengler one.

His blocked Gggtt account added this to the Spengler article a few months ago. [44], compare this edit to his new sock [45]. It is exactly the same material about an "influence" section.

Ben Steigmann also has an active Wikiversity project that he has recently started editing again [46]. He links to his Wikipedia edits on this project, so this is useful evidence because it proves that the socks on Wikipedia are his. Please examine the diffs I list. Ben knows that his content will not stay on Wikipedia because of policies regarding fringe material and undue weight, so a clever tactic he uses is to upload his fringe and pseudoscientific content and then remove it once or twice after a few minutes. He does this so his content is stored in the Wikipedia database and he can link to it on his Wikiversity project.

He does that here on his new sock Rhine Revival, he adds a huge chunk of spam from his Wikiversity project and then he removes it knowing that it will technically stays online but not in a current version. He then links to his edits on his Wikiversity page. He did that recently on his Ben Steigmann account. Please see this edit [47] on Wikiversity. He directly links to his edit on Wikipedia [48] that he did on his Rhine Revival account.

He is basically sock-puppeting on Wikipedia but also abusing privileges on Wikiversity. I am not sure why he has an account over there because he has been perm blocked on Wikipedia but he does not sort of thing every few months and never refuses to give up. I am just reporting this because I have been monitoring his activities and I believe they are damaging to Wikipedia. 117.20.41.10 ( talk) 20:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC) 117.20.41.10 ( talk) 20:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC) reply

I also strongly suggest that an admin strikes his fringe content that he uploaded on his Rhine Revival account and entirely removes it, because he is linking to these edits on Wikiversity and elsewhere as a valid source. 117.20.41.10 ( talk) 20:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC) reply
As of 30 November 05:42 [49], Steigmann on Rhine Revival is still editing the Joseph Banks Rhine article uploading his fringe content from Wikiversity into the Wikipedia database and then removing it. 117.20.41.10 ( talk) 15:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Ben is now using his IP address on the talk-page of the Frederic W. H. Myers article. 117.20.41.10 ( talk) 20:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

I was invited to comment by the reopening IP, I'm guessing because I accepted the accused IP's self-revert edit to Frederic W. H. Myers. That edit restored a Blastikus version, and was obvious.
The Wikiversity edits are a compelling sign of sock puppetry. Intentionally introducing lengthy copy/pastes into an article's history for off-site citations is a WP:COPYVIO nightmare, so this behavior is extremely disruptive. Wikiversity apparently allows for citing sources directly, so I have no idea what the point was, either.
The Ben Steigmann account on Wikiversity was unblocked, as it was determined to have been impersonated. Meta:Steward requests/Checkuser/2017-09#Ben_Steigmann.40en.wikiversity, the two entries immediately after that one, Meta:Steward requests/Checkuser/2017-10#Sci-fi-.40en.wikiversity 2, and probably others, have details on this. This does not justify gaming the system by added and self-reverting to create a reference, but from the meta discussions it appears this mess involves at least two different sock-puppeteers. Grayfell ( talk) 22:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the info. I am well aware there has been a long dispute between Ben and a group of skeptical sock-puppets on Wikiversity. But Ben Steigmann was not impersonated on Wikiversity, in the above steward case there was no relationship between Steigmann and the other accounts, it came back negative. Abd a personal friend of Steigmann and blocked Wikipedia user has since tried to defend Steigmann but even he admits Ben has socked on Wikipedia. So Ben is not a victim here. There are no impersonations in this case. The sock-puppetry is still on-going.
As for the history apparently Ben was harassed by a couple of skeptic users who tried to get his pseudoscientific Wikiproject deleted but it backfired and they ended up getting blocked because they wrote negative things about him on a bunch of socks. But all this Wikiversity history from months ago is irrelevant to the case here. The main thing that is relevant here is that Ben is still sock-puppeting on Wikipedia and spamming material from his project. The accounts com18 and Rhine Revival are definitely him, there is conclusive evidence because he links to those edits themselves directly on his active Wikiversity account Ben Steigmann. 117.20.41.10 ( talk) 23:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC) reply
As I understand it in regard to Wikiversity, Ben Steigmann has already been on his last warning so he should now be blocked on there as well. This is cross-wiki vandalism because he is creating sock-puppets on Wikipedia and then linking to his edits on Wikiversity. He was warned in the past about this, but he has not listened. It might be worth filing a new case about this on Meta-Wiki. 117.20.41.10 ( talk) 00:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC) reply
In regard to Ben's edits on Joseph Banks Rhine that he did on his account Rhine Revival [50] he copies 844 words (I did a word count) from a parapsychologist Samuel Soal. Copying 844 words from a book? This is more than excessive and smacks of copyvio. I don't have time to go through all his sources but it appears to be mostly copyvio from unreliable psychic sources like the Journal of Parapsychology that he copied from his Wikiversity project [51]. I think these edits should entirely be removed from the database. I will request this at the correct avenue. 117.20.41.10 ( talk) 01:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I support the suggestion that the "add/revert" edits ought to be rev-delled per WP:DENY, even if they prove not to be copyvios per se. Mangoe ( talk) 16:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I, as the user Blastikus, apologize for the antisemitism that got me banned in the first place, though I will note the existence of very trobubling sources fueling that (e.g. [52]), and the belief that I as a part-Jew had to come clean about this, in the spirit of people like Dr. Oscar Levy.
My current interests put me at odds with the skeptic movement as it involves finding solid sources related to conspiracy theories (e.g. [53]), alternative medicine, and the paranormal. I understand that some sources like the Journal of Parapsychology are not appropriate for wikipedia (while other added sources most certainly are) and I did not push for their long-term inclusion - only to reveal what they said in the article history, so as to be able to help people challenge one-sided condemnations of the field off of Wikipedia, and educate Wikipedia users that there is more to the subject than the hostile perspective - ideally with the more solid sources I provide eventually being included in the articles by other editors.
I do not believe that this is a significant infraction if I do not edit war as I did in the past. I understand that I am unwanted on Wikipedia - I will respond that I have ceased attempting to be confrontational, and now merely desire to archive information. All of my edits hoped for eventual consensus before inclusion, and I retain for myself, if allowed, the role of a person who embraces the Bold, Revert, Discuss guideline. Areyoumoral ( talk) 17:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The purpose of Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for your fringe material and conspiracy theories about race or parapsychology. You are using this website to store your material. It is also problematic because you are doing this on a number of different accounts and IPs and then citing your edits on Wikiversity. In one of your edit summaries on the J. B. Rhine article you wrote that you are waiting for Wikipedia to turn pro-parapsychology until you will re-upload the content again. Do you really think that is going to happen? Have a look at WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV or WP:RSUW. I do not see Wikipedia supporting your "pro-paranormal" Wikiversity material at any time in the future. Your sources are not considered reliable by Wikipedia standards. You keep doing this sort of thing every few months and it has not got you anywhere in years. You claim you hope for an eventual consensus but this is not realistic. Alternative medicine proponents and creationists also want the same thing but it has never happened. Reading this [54] essay might help explain why. 117.20.41.10 ( talk) 19:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Ben is now claiming that Wikipedia is "censoring" his edits [55]. 117.20.41.10 ( talk) 21:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • A check of the editing history leaves no doubt whatever about the sockpuppetry, so I have blocked the accounts and the IP address. I am leaving the CU request open, so that a clerk can decide whether a check for sleepers and/or other as yet undetected accounts is justified. Since two of the three accounts listed here have been editing undetected for months, I think such a check would probably be a good idea. (I note with interest that Steigmann has been indulging in his usual blatant lies, as for example his statement at User talk:INeverCry that he would never again use sockpuppets or IP editing. I also note his usual nonsense such as using the expression "the skeptic movement" to mean "everybody in the world except the supporters of fringe notions".) The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 21:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • The case is of course  Stale. The three blocked puppets listed here are  Technically indistinguishable from each other, along with Eeyoreqs ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki), whom I’ve blocked without tags. Closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC) reply

04 February 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

All accounts have similar usernames and similar interests in promoting fringe views on Joseph Banks Rhine, usually only few edits. Identical content by Radin revival and Rhine defender, same article topic and thrust and similar username by Defending Rhine. Rhine defender mentions a same archive as Defending Rhine. Pinging JamesBWatson as there may be a connection to User:Rhine Revival; putting this up as a separate report for now but it will eventually need merging, I believe. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 17:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC) reply

For what it's worth, if a CU to Blasticus is warranted, these accounts do not appear to be stale yet:
Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

09 October 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

IP's sole edit reintroduced old garbage from previous sock puppets. Compare to this edit by Gggtt, a sock of Blastikus. Several paragraphs are verbatim copy/pastes.

There is also overlap with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Antichristos as those sockpuppets have also restored this exact content, but that may just be a byproduct of edit warring to restore their preferred wording. Grayfell ( talk) 04:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Blastikus seems like the right master.  IP blocked for a week. Closing. DatGuy Talk Contribs 10:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Blastikus/Archive&oldid=1138667795"