Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zenomonoz/Archive Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Zenomonoz/Archive


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

13 November 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

This smells like an undisclosed paid sock farm to me. Both editing in the same area and creating the same kind of promotional articles. The master created HiSmile last month, and the suspected sock created Alex Tomic and Nik Mirkovic (founders of HiSmile). I reviewed the two accounts and found multiple similarities between the two that I'll be happy to share through an email. Requesting CU for technical evidence. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[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]

 Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

08 October 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Zenomonoz (originally User:Mctuker) edited sporadically from 2010 to 2018, when he was blocked for socking. His other accounts were User:Nomnomnomnz (originally Limereid) and User:Businessppl. He focussed on businesspeople (particularly their net worth) and topics related to Dunedin, New Zealand.

  • Sxologist flickrwashed File:Milton_Diamond.jpg using a throwaway "mctuker" Flickr account.
  • Zenomonoz/Mctuker created an article about the New Zealand businessman Nick Mowbray. It was moved to draftspace and later deleted. Sxologist made an abortive attempt to request undeletion of the draft here.
  • Zenomonoz repeatedly added and defended tabloid-type gossip in the Jeffree Star article [1]; Sxologist added more scandal material and complained that the old stuff had been removed [2].
  • Zenomonoz and his socks have all added or changed net worth figures.

I think that is Zenomonoz because the IP edited Trojan Holdings and Company Bay (two obscure Dunedin-related articles edited by Zenomonoz and his socks and IPs) and added net worth-related material to National Business Review (a New Zealand-based business newspaper). This edit to Healthcare and the LGBT community is juvenile trolling. and are likely also Zenomonoz: both have recently made net-worth edits to pages he previously edited.

It is obvious that is Sxologist: see the (unsourced) comment about promiscuity statistics here and the added external link here. gnu57 07:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit to add:

1) While I'm inclined to doubt that this person is studying for a PhD, I don't wish to further embarrass him by making my reasons for thinking so public.

2) No, the IPs are definitely all Sxologist: they geolocate to the Otago region, while Freeknowledgecreator edits from a different area of New Zealand. How would Freeknowledgecreator know that making net worth-related edits from a Dunedin-based IP would implicate Sxologist? And why would he begin making these IP edits even before Sxologist had registered an account? Here is a fuller list of IPs Sxologist has used:

3) Regarding The old accounts are me (and the few edits on them are harmless), see diff.

4) This also comes off as deceptive: I have not had a prior username. [...] I think the fact I am a first time editor is apparent. gnu57 09:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Hi, yes – I apologize, I will admit that was me as Zenomonoz and Businessppl. I originally started as Zenomonoz and was editing random business figures, but I wanted a new account due to previous edits which made me somewhat identifiable and went to Bsnsppl. These accounts, however, have little relation to what I edit on now. I was simply dumb and didn't know that there were correct procedures for changing names, Businessppl was banned as a sock of the former. You can see here where I got accused of being a paid farm because of it, but that wasn't the case – I was just dumb, didn't understand how to go about things properly and didn't understand the problem with making another account. (Edit: this case, where a user was not banned, mirrors the same circumstances of my original ban. If you check my editing histories I never concurrently edited between them and expressed the unblock request here where I make that point clear. I also didn't edit in sexology or psychology on those accounts, at all. I do however accept that I should've made this clear which I apologize for.)

At the start of this year I was looking at sexual orientation articles which are at least related to psychology (but my focus is psychometrics involving instrumental variables estimation). I found a lot of the sexual orientation articles were outdated, relying on poor sources and had POV pushing, so I made Sxologist and started editing in sexology articles (where I had not edited before). I didn't come in as someone "evading" my shady past, I actually came in as somewhat of a WP novice and got reverted a few times because I was writing like WP was a personal meta analysis instead of relying on secondary sources. I improved on that front rather quickly.

I did have some reason to not declare my prior editing when asked. First, I assumed it was irrelevant given the difference in editing interested (despite GNU linking similar patterns, those comprise less than 0.3% of my accounts edits). This was a mistake on my part, and I absolutely acknowledge that. More importantly, I was editing the Wikipedia of a certain academic at Otago who promoted very fringe theories which promoted gay men as pedophiles. I have had personal interactions with this person and we have clashed (in a heated manner). One of those old accounts includes edits of suburbs in Dunedin. I live in the same suburb as this professor and we know each other. So yes, I did get paranoid about him finding about that.

GNU is also accusing me of being IP's and editors that I am not. For example - a rugby player? I don't know a thing about rugby lol. At most, it is likely an IP from my University so your sweeping assumptions about linking me to IP's when I attend a major university is totally unjustified. I can see that some of the IP's are me, such as this prior to me creating sexologist but a minor edit on an IP while I had no account for years??? If this is not allowed, I was unaware of it at the time so forgive me, but as I understand it people do the odd edit while logged out all the time. The comment about "doubting" my study is just an unnecessary personal comment which I will ignore. However GNU's comment about "embarrassing me publicly" (blatant outing threat) underscore that this report of me was suspicious. Someone who claims to know my real identity, and has made a threat of exposing me on here is clearly not a well intentioned editor (although I have no clue if they truly know my identity otherwise they wouldn't have made that weird claim about my PhD candidacy, although it isn't publicly listed anywhere except perhaps a page on my universities website). I suspect they do know who I am given the effort he went to put together this report, completely inappropriate and quite concerning. I suspect it to be the case that they dedicated their time to doing this after I commented somewhere that they might be the same editor as Skoojal, which I actually apologized for. GNU57 has also just accused another user of being freeknowledgecreator/Skoojal which I find odd. I'm upfront here and apologize for my misstep, and given the fact that the aforementioned professor who works at my university could likely work out who I am now, that's the best evidence I do care about correcting where I went wrong. If I cared more about saving myself from the potential embarrassment that I edited his Wikipedia page I wouldn't have replied here at all... but I'd rather be able to keep editing on Wikipedia because I like doing so and it's a good resource.

It will be a shame if I do get banned because there are not many other editors who have time to update the sexual orientation articles which are heavily reliant on primary sources and are pretty out of date. Other users have also been pretty supportive of my editing. I have been trying to update the these articles with good, robust, secondary sources, and I know the material reasonably well. Sorry to disappoint anyone and I am sorry I broke the rules. It was really, really stupid. I accept that WP admins generally just block socks, but given the nature of my misstep, I would kindly request that there might only be a temporary sanction. I really enjoy Wikipedia and I like spending my spare time updating the articles (when I can). If it is possible for temporary sanction, or to be able to return, that would be great. For example, I just stayed up late to make these large additions to this article because I'd rather it was significantly improved before I potentially can't edit anymore. Aside from not declaring my old editing which, by the way, was largely in other topics – I have tried to be a productive and helpful editor. I hope my apology and admission is heard and considered. Thanks :) Sxologist (talk) 16:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Logging on very quickly to state that I will be making a comment later on, just in case this was actioned very soon. Crossroads -talk- 22:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Second comment: I didn’t check a couple of my old edits properly. I made a very rude comment on my old account after bbb blocked me. That was not ‘benign’ on my part, I was an asshole - I am sorry about that. That’s not okay. I had no clue who he was and I must’ve been very annoyed about being blocked - and I reverted it 2 minutes after I made it. I missed the edit which was described as a ‘juvenile troll’. That comment was indeed juvenile, and in part, because I just had been sent a link to this page in this crackpot book (p37-38) by Erik Holland, a self published Swedish author, who used to come onto online discussions and present himself as a purveyor of science. The link was sent in an academic listserv, and only because they thought we might find it funny. I was dumbfounded by the content. So my edit wasn’t serious, I knew the edit would be reverted automatically and it was (immediately), but it was more of a mockery of the insanity of that book. You can read it and it talks about people needing to use a 10 inch inflatable device to stop “anal incontinence”. So that edit was still stupid of me and I just expected the content of the edit would be hidden. As you can see by my actual edit histories I removed fringe material which was worked into WP articles by a Russian who openly admits to running a Russian anti-lgbt hate site. So I’m not happy I ever made those edits (one which was not serious and I wasn’t logged in), and one which was very rude and unfounded 2 years ago. Whether or not an apology is accepted, I still have to apologise for it even if things aren’t looking great. Sometimes we can do really dumb things (I know this was immature) and we can apologize and learn from them. I recognise how rude that comment was and I had no memory of it so I was just being an idiot, and a very rude one. I have been keeping my discussion civil when editing and always co-op with other users. Thanks for hearing me out though. Sxologist (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Third comment: I also want to say that I do have a good history of edits which have improved articles. Edits I added last night seen here show that I am a suitable and productive editor who wants to help improve articles. I have restored content which got trimmed out by sock puppets, added more science writing to the conversion therapy article, updated articles related to sexual orientation such as this one which were being neglected and missing content, and replaced primary source POV pushing content with reliable secondary source material. Given my desire to keep doing that, I will promise that if I am allowed to stay, or if the sanction is only temporary, that I will only focus on continual editing in a professional manner. I only blame myself for my missteps. I hope my history of good editing is worth something though. Thanks. Sxologist (talk) 01:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fourth and important comment: as I explained, I had somewhat valid reasons for why I chose to abandon my first account and start a new one, and on its own that does not constitute sockpuppetry. BUT because I didn't declare that, I was (rightly) stung and that essentially got me a loop of worrying about declaring that. I wasn't ever banned because my first account was unproductive or fringe - I was banned because I switched to a second account, Bsnsppl (while Zenonomzo was not even blocked). For example looking at this case, that was practically parallel to my switch from the first to second account, but because I was editing in an area about commercial topics, admins had a fair reason to assume it was suspect, and I accept that. I hope that makes the nature of it clear. Sxologist (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Crossroads: This is unfortunate. But I think we need to keep in mind what WP:Blocking policy says: Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. I believe that Sxologist is a beneficial editor. I have been familiar with his activity as Sxologist from when he started the account; I myself have an interest in the sexual orientation topic area and have been around it for as long as I've been editing. Based on that, I can testify that Sxologist has been a collaborative editor, willing to work with others, yield to them, and take their advice; and has consistently tried to make our article content reflect the scientific viewpoint on such things as conversion therapy and biology and sexual orientation. As part of that, he worked to prevent and later mitigate the fringe POV pushing of the now-blocked sockpuppet Freeknowledgecreator.

It appears that Sxologist has an additional interest in businesspeople, and that jumpiness about possible paid editing and his switching to a new account led to him getting reported at SPI and then blocked by Bbb23 back in 2018. Sxologist (as Businessppl) even made an unblock request, with reasons that match his explanation above. The blocked accounts did not edit concurrently, and frankly I can't see how not perfectly understanding (probably being unaware of) WP:FRESHSTART merits getting both accounts blocked indefinitely, especially when the edits are otherwise fine. Some people are just interested in business and businesspeople. That situation was not any more problematic than this recent unrelated SPI case, mentioned above, where there was judged to be no violation. The Nomnomnomnz account has never been blocked, and edited just 6 times, all in November 2013, so it also seems like a non-issue. Occasional editing while not logged in also does not seem so serious as to warrant an indefinite block.

Now, there is some misbehavior pointed to above (though note that the "very rude" edit was self-reverted two minutes later). He has apologized for it. Again, blocks are not punitive, and I don't see how blocking Sxologist now would prevent any disruption, nor that it would be a net benefit to the encyclopedia. I propose that instead, Sxologist be instructed that he should only edit while logged in (to be on the safe side regarding WP:LOUTSOCK), to stick to one account, and to not repeat anything like the past uncivil or juvenile edits. Crossroads -talk- 03:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Flyer22 Frozen: I understand what Crossroads is stating and I ask others to consider his arguments. But as seen at User talk:Sxologist/Archive 1#Thesciencenewsonline and User talk:Sxologist/Archive 1#Previous editing, I very much suspected that Sxologist was not a newbie. And so did Mathglot. I didn't just suspect. I knew he was not a newbie and that he was a sock. Instead of coming clean about that, Sxologist lied and insulted my intelligence. As someone with as much experience identifying socks and other non-new accounts editors as I have, there was no way that I was going to believe his explanation about why he edited with the obvious experience he showcased. Crossroads was able to give Sxologist the benefit of the doubt regarding the socking matter, but I never could. I could never trust Sxologist because of his dishonesty and because I kept wondering what account(s) he used before. And I can't see why I should trust what he states now. I can't support him in this SPI. I won't support him in this SPI. And I don't care if that means that things will be awkward or tense between us if he is allowed to continue editing. It was already like that for me with regard to him. Genericusername57 emailed me about Sxologist being Zenomonoz, and seemed to want me to take action. I suggested that Genericusername57 start this SPI if they had convincing evidence. And here we are. I leave the decision about whether or not to indefinitely block Sxologist up to others. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Flyer, I strongly disagree with this assessment. When I created Sxologist I was definitely not an "experienced" editor, underscored by the small number of edits on old accounts, the fact that you reverted me numerous times, and I had to work up to doing better editing. This took a while, and when I finally got better you wrote "Having looked at it a bit more, it's not bad. I'll try not to come across as snippy regarding your edits in the future." You also had to tell me to cite proper page numbers, shown here for which I apologized, which also provides no support for the claim that you felt I was an experienced editor. You also accused me of being Thesciencenewsonline on one of my first few days of editing which was unjustified, since I showed no signs of being disruptive nor was I particularly good at editing (as highlighted above). You also comment here about understanding being "unjustly blocked" after I was accused of being FKC. So your assertion that "I didn't just suspect. I knew he was not a newbie and that he was a sock" is not in line with your interactions with me at all. As Crossroads has highlighted, my former editing was not in the manner of me hiding or evading a topic ban, it matched fresh start, and I was banned because I was accused me of being a promotional editor because I was editing in business related articles. Read the unblock request I made. So while I do accept that you are fairly annoyed that I didn't disclose any former editing, I also think it is fair to say that you have, on ocassion, unjustly accused people of being a sockpuppet... and your characterization of what I did is conflating a well meaning move with a person who got banned for nefarious reasons and kept coming back to edit like that. I haven't done that. It falls under WP:SOCKLEGIT. I'm going to ignore your comments about making things "tense", I don't know how that has any effect on my ability to edit, and it would be better to remain completely impartial. Thanks for your comments none the less. Sxologist (talk) 07:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can disagree with the assessment all you want to. User talk:Sxologist/Archive 1#Thesciencenewsonline and User talk:Sxologist/Archive 1#Previous editing are right there for everyone to see. It's not like I'm lying. I knew you weren't new and that you were a sock. You lied about it. Straight up lied. So your claim that your "former editing was not in the manner of [you] hiding or evading a topic ban" is false when it comes to what you were asked point-blank. Above, I did not use the word "experienced editor." But your editing was experienced enough for me, Mathglot, and apparently Genericusername57 to see that you weren't new. Furthermore, there are various editors who have been around for years, but are significantly less experienced than other editors because they never took the time to read our policies or guidelines, or are only familiar with a few of them, and/or don't communicate on talk pages. No, I do not unjustly accuse people of being a sockpuppet. That's just some silly thing a few people state when trying to discredit me calling out a sock or other non-new editor. This is even seen as recently as this case, where a sock says it. I always have valid/just reasons for calling out someone as non-new, and I've been right 99.9% of the time when stating that someone is a sock. I can ping numerous editors here, including Beyond My Ken, right now to speak on that. Editors who lied to me about being socks in the past were eventually found to be socks. This February 2020 section on my talk page says it all. Whether it's a month, a year, or years down the line, those I suspected as non-new are usually revealed as non-new. And, on the non-new front, it's not like I call everyone a sock. Unless I have no reason to, I tread carefully. At Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppetry/Archive 15#Guidance about whether to simply ask them, where other editors are clear that we are allowed to ask editors if they operated a previous account, I'm seen making that clear. With you, I didn't call you a sock either. I simply stated that you are non-new. I didn't "[accuse you] of being Thesciencenewsonline." I asked if you were him. It's not like everyone can't see that via the first link to your talk page that I pointed to. So all that stated, I don't know what you think you have to argue against when it comes to what I've stated about your non-newness, but I suggest you drop it. The "tense" thing is evident in this and this interaction between us. Stuff like that can affect individual editing, and it does affect editing alongside others. But whatever. While we're on the topics of lacking experience and blocking, I also suggest that you familiarize yourself with the fact that WP:Block is not the same thing as WP:Ban. And because you were indefinitely blocked, your Sxologist account does not at all fall under WP:SOCKLEGIT. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 09:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some of those points are correct, however my point still stands. You could not ‘know’ I had previously edited unless you were have CU, and the comments I highlighted indicate that you made an assumption. Second, my point about my original ban being unjustified is reasonable given the case I previously cited in which Brad did not ban a user for doing exactly as I did. With regards to disagreements on talk pages, actually I have never assumed you didn’t like me because you leave comments in similar tone on Wikipedia to other users (especially new people). I personally don’t mind your tone so to say it’s tense is an assumption, but perhaps I was naive. You also put a “no sir” remark in the edit summary which I’ll also ignore. As I said before, I’ve done good editing which hasn’t gone unappreciated, I didn’t previously edit in psychology articles, but only in a few bizarro articles where none of my contributions were particularly egregious. I didn’t edit with both accounts at the same time either, I abandoned the former and an admin didn’t like that I was editing business peoples profiles. Given the fact that I edited the National Business Review that’s a pretty clear sign it was an area of interest. I have kindly requested to not being booted off wiki for not declaring my old accounts, and I don’t think it will be greatly productive given the good edits I have been making (I don’t see anyone else doing them? For example, Neuroscience and sexual orientation has been sitting with an update tag for 2 years so I’ve been trying to update it). Given the nature of the case and the cited instance which indicates my original bans were not quite justified, I would say my request for leniency is not unreasonable and I hope the reviewer will consider it in due weight. Thanks again :) Sxologist (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All of the points I made are correct. Not some. And if it were the case that I "could not 'know' [you] had previously edited unless [I] were [to] have [a] CU", SPIs would only be based on CU evidence. But they are not. Besides using behavioral evidence to identify socks, which is why Genericusername57 was 100% certain that you had a previous account, many of us have common sense at this site. Socks are called out as socks at WP:ANI all the time without any CU looking into the matter. Stating that I could not know that you previously edited is insulting my intelligence/experience yet again. And I don't have the patience for it. As for the tense aspect? You stated that "actually [you] have never assumed [I] didn't like [you] because [I] leave comments in similar tone on Wikipedia to other users (especially new people)." You sound just like that sock I pointed to above, and, after this and this interaction between us, and the above, I am so tired of you mischaracterizing my viewpoints and/or actions. Wherever you have been reading up on me, you have it wrong. You and I have not interacted enough for you to state nonsense like that. I never stated that I don't like you. But those tense discussions involving the two of us? Very real. And experiences like that have not occurred with the vast majority of people I've interacted with/edited alongside. I'm done discussing this matter with you. Do not post to my talk page again in the hopes that I will defend you. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 10:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, very little this back and forth has anything to do with the topic and hand. You have interacted with a lot of users in the same fashion, I’m not going to bother linking to complaints. I never expected you to defend me, nor did I write that. I asked for your “input” and I quite clearly state in my original post here I expect no defence, and thanked you regardless. Most importantly, my old editing (from years ago) has no history in psychology/sexology articles, so your claim you knew/suspected I was a sock is totally unjustified - we had never crossed paths before? You’ve only cited evidence of an assumption on your part (and an accusation I was newscienceonline), and you’ve quizzed a lot of editors who come and edit in sexology. As is clear, my old accounts were completely unrelated to these topics, and the original ban happened despite me fairly abandoning the original account. I had never previously edited in this area so no need to restate your claim, thanks. Sxologist (talk) 10:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Very little [of] this back and forth has anything to do with the topic [at] hand"? You are the one who tried to make it about me. Whatever "fashion" you are referring to depends. If one means asking a new account about their non-newness, I already addressed that above. It is very clear that I'm not suspicious of a new account without very good reason. And there was very good reason to be suspicious in your case. Again, if this were not true, then Mathglot would not have also asked about your non-newness not long afterward. Addressing you about your non-newness was completely justified, as is clear by this SPI case. Having done so is also supported by Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppetry/Archive 15#Guidance about whether to simply ask them. And that you are arguing that it wasn't justified, as if editing in some different field was going to cloud your obvious editing experience, is plain ludicrous. It's laughable to me. If by "fashion", one means that I am stern with newbies or other editors, I am only stern when I feel I should be. If an editor is misbehaving or making problematic but well-intentioned edits, I'm not going to pat that editor on the back. But it's still the case that the tense experiences I've had with you have not occurred with the vast majority of people I've interacted with/edited alongside. I'm not going to ping many people to make that clear. My reputation, which is only ever attacked by socks who have been caught by me or disgruntled editors, speaks for itself. Again, "Wherever you have been reading up on me, you have it wrong. You and I have not interacted enough for you to state nonsense like that." You stated that I "quizzed a lot of editors who come and edit in sexology." That is a lie. Or I could call it a misrepresentation. And it makes me even more suspicious of you. The vast majority of editors I've "quizzed", such as at Talk:Pedophilia, have been problematic editors, including pedophiles, who have returned. This is why I noted that "Editors who lied to me about being socks in the past were eventually found to be socks." A big reason that articles like Pedophilia are typically free of socks (like this recent one, one of my stalkers/harassers known as WhenDatHotlineBling, a sockmaster who is no doubt watching this SPI) these days is because they know that they can't fool me. I report any number of them within a month every month, usually to a CU. When one is as familiar with how socks behave and is therefore as right about people being socks as I am, it is silly for someone to make the type of arguments you are making regarding "quizzing" editors, as if I just go around questioning any and every newbie. "[A]nd an accusation [you were] newscienceonline"? What? That is another no.
As for expecting me to defend you? I feel that you did. No one would go contact someone to comment in an SPI about them if they thought that person wasn't going to defend them. You also pinged me for help in your previous sock case. As is clear by your very long defense above, you are desperate to get out of this unscathed. But this "contacting me to defend you" thing is just something else we disagree on in this SPI. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) Even without knowing who the past accounts are, there are signs that an editor is not new, and longtime editors, especially those who have dealt with very many sockpuppets, as Flyer22 Frozen has, typically have learned to pick up on these signs. It does seem that Sxologist is unaware that blocks apply to the person, not just the account, so he was technically evading the block. Nonetheless, I have made a case above that the original block was unjust and excessive, and for leniency now per WP:NOTPUNITIVE and WP:NOTBURO. I believe this is a case of giving Sxologist WP:ROPE and seeing what he does with it. To me, it is of the utmost relevance that his past sanction was not for misrepresenting sources or promoting fringe theories, in sexology, psychology, or anywhere else (if that were so I would be saying something very different). They had nothing to do with that topic area, and were based on an itchy-trigger-finger around spam. I believe that this particular exchange here is unproductive and should cease; the longer this goes on, the longer getting this addressed will take. Crossroads -talk- 17:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Markworthen: (1) I experience Flyer22 Frozen's talk page posts—particularly in response to others' sincere efforts to resolve complex issues or to draw attention to a potentially controversial edit—to routinely exhibit an uncompromising, captious style of "discussion". I do not trust what he/she/they write about Sxologist. (2) On the other hand, I wholeheartedly agree with everything Crossroads wrote ("I believe that Sxologist is a beneficial editor. ..."). Let's forgive the understandable mistakes and move on. "To err is human ...." Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 17:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Markworthen, you are one of the editors I have butted heads with on multiple occasions. And your comments contrast the recent comments on my talk page from my talk page watchers. You are hardly an unbiased observer. It's not even like I use my talk page often these days. I'm not obliged to respond to everyone who posts there. I'm allowed to have the statements I have at the top of my user page/talk page. This is what my talk page looks like now; anyone can scroll through it and see that your "routinely exhibit an uncompromising, captious style of 'discussion'" claim does not hold up. It also contrasts what you recently stated in this post about me. So this, in fact, is where I will ping multiple editors to comment on this supposed style you speak of: Johnuniq, Girth Summit, Roxy the dog, Gandydancer, Cullen328, Viriditas, Figureskatingfan, MarnetteD, Meters, and Isaidnoway.
Don't trust what I write about Sxologist? And exactly what is it that you don't trust? In this SPI, I only focused on him briefly in my initial post and it was about him obviously being non-new, which was obviously true at the time that I questioned him. Almost everything else from me above is me defending myself against Sxologist's claims because he tried to make this SPI about me. And I see you've you tried to put me on trial as well. Tsk. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sundayclose, another one of my talk page watchers and someone good at spotting socks, is someone else who can attest to my behavior since this SPI is apparently about me now. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think he meant the replies you leave to people on article talk pages, rather than your talk page specifically. I already expressed my points earlier so not going to rehash. I was banned because I abandoned my account to move to a second account, Bsnsppl (while Zenonomzo was not even blocked). this case mirrors my own, for which they were not blocked. I have apologized for the mistake and asked to be given a chance. Sxologist (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm quite sure he meant my talk page and/or article talk pages. Regardless, he is not around me often enough to see what I post to others' talk pages or on article talk pages. And the vast majority of my posts to people's talk pages come in the form of automated WP:Huggle responses. I'm not out there talking on people's talk pages a lot, and I'm not being uncompromising or unduly harsh with people either. I mainly deal with problematic editors day in and day out. If an editor is being problematic, especially after multiple warnings, they are likely to get a stern, non-automated warning from me. Whatever Markworthen meant, he is wrong and should cease and desist on that front. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Markworthen:, beefs about another editor absolutely do not belong in a sock puppet investigation. I also think that enough has been said and that we should only be discussing what should be done about this editor who has admitted to socking. Doug Weller talk 18:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with what you wrote, Doug Weller. I apologize for letting my frustrations get the best of me; sparking an unnecessary diversion; and wasting time for other editors. // Flyer22 Frozen - I apologize for castigating you here (where it does not belong), and for doing so in the first place. You're right, I did recently praise you, a fact that should have caused me to slow down and think something like, "Sure, she's doggedly determined, but her intentions are good so take a deep breath and stay focused." // I need to go back and read what I wrote a few months ago: User:Markworthen/Feeling misunderstood and attacked. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 19:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Beyond My Ken - I wish to underline three things. First, there are very few non-adms who are as proficient in recognizing socking behavior than Flyer22 Frozen. I have not done a study of any sort, but I cannot recall any significant instance where they were wrong once they had presented their evidence. Now, sometimes the socking editor doesn't get blocked or sanctioned because of other circumstances, but nevertheless, Flyer22 was correct in spotting them as a sock. Anyone here who denigrates their ability to uncover socking simply does not know what they are talking about.

Second, if anyone has a beef with Floyer's behavior, the place to bring it up is at AN or ANI, but it has absolutely no relevance here, and can be seen only as an attempt to poison the well. Such comments do not bear on the question of whether Sxologist is a sock or not, which should be decided based on Flyer22's evidence, and any other relevant evidence that is brought up, most pertinently the editor's own admission.

Finally, Crossroads' argument that Sxologist shouldn't be blocked for socking because they have been a useful contributor recently does not carry much weight with me. The answer to that is simply, if they socked, they should be blocked. Once blocked, they can appeal based on their supposed value to the project, and the community, or an admin, can decide if that is sufficient to release them from the block. Blocks are not punitive, but they are meant to protect the project from editors who have behaved in the past as Sxologist has. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are of course correct, Beyond My Ken. I apologized (above), but I want to acknowledge that I also read your (appropriate) admonition. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 19:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Sxologist: Hi everyone - both Beyond My Ken and Flyer22 have pointed out WP:Standard offer to me. If it is preferential to ban me, temporarily or indefinitely, I would be happy to attempt a return through that route if it gives other editors more trust in me. After reading the relevant policy pages, I understand why blocks take place. Although I did disagree with the original ban, as outlined, which was probably not "fair" in nature, it is not really possible for admins to make decisions given how many potential socks go through the system. I apologize for beginning an unnecessary argument with Flyer22 Frozen which was irrelevant to the SPI. She has (very kindly) reached out to me regarding ongoing interactions here, which she did not have to do, as I know she is a trusted editor and I wasn't honest with her. If a block/ban (I don't know which would apply) is required to reinstate trust in me as an editor I have no problem with that. Of course it would be nice if a special provision could be made but that's not necessarily right - it was still my responsibility to read the policy pages and request an unblock via that route (although it's easy to say in retrospect). I hope that clears the air. Thanks again. Sxologist (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

  • I am commenting here because I was pinged. As an administrator, I mostly focus on other areas of work, and let sockpuppet specialists deal with socks. But I have observed enough to say with confidence that Flyer 22 Frozen is highly skilled at identifying socks. As for Sxologist, they evaded a block, and they blatantly lied when asked about previous accounts. That's two big strikes against them. I will let another administrator make the decision. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]