The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Kephera975[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Kephera975 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

IPSOS (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User:Kephera975 shows a remarkable similarity in POV-pushing for the articles involved in Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn with User:Frater FiatLux who has already been blocked for contentiuous editing and page move vandalism.

There has been a history of short term single-purpose accounts backing up the POV of both these users. Many but not all are listed above. Some are no longer accessible because they only edited deleted article Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega. A whole series of these which appeared during a short period of time have already been blocked as sock or meatpuppets, but the puppetmaster was never identified. These, who were all blocked as obvious socks by Tariqabjotu are:

MA'AT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Hogd2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Mp474ret (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Tatenen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Leviathan6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Both the primary users repeatedly accuse other established editors with edits over a wide range of articles of having a conflict of interest. After Kephera975 could not intimidate me into agreeing to change the name of that article without documentation of the actual name of the organization, he nominated a whole range of articles for deletion, apparently in retaliation for my insistence on his providing sources to verify his claims. Now that it appears that the ones he really wanted deleted will survive, he has continued with false accusations that I closed an AfD at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#The_Hermetic_Order_of_the_Golden_Dawn.2C_Inc. and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/JMax555 where he bases his bizarre accusations of sockpuppetry on the "fact" that I closed an AfD "prematurely" when it was actually closed by JoshuaZ.

The most recent apparent sockpuppet Rondus has repeatedly spammed AfDs and talk pages with a bizarre accusatory rant. He apparently has knowledge of 3RR, because when he was about to break it, suddenly C00483033 appeared and continue the revert to reinclude this rant multiple times until blocked for 3RR. He also makes the same accusations of conflict of interest against me as Kephera975 and Frater FiatLux, continuing to repeat them after I have clearly stated my lack of affiliation with the person and organization they accuse me of being an "agent" of.

Both Kephera975 and Frater FiatLux's methods include frequent accusations that opposing editors are "members" or "agents" of The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc.. I have repeated truthfully stated that I have no affiliation with any of the Golden Dawn orders, but these baseless accusations continue to be repeated, for example in the AfD for the articles.

I am at the end of my rope with these baseless accusation, and since they seem to be coming from Kephera975, User:Frater FiatLux, and now from users Rondus and C00483033, I can only assume that there is either sockpuppetry or coordinated meatpuppetry occurring here. I feel that I am now being intentionally harassed and intimidated by the repeated accusations on the AfD and the opening of a suspected sockpuppet report based on a complete falsity. Please someone look into the relation between these users. I will help in whatever way I can, but much of the evidence has been deleted along with the articles:

primarily in the first article and primarily on the talk pages.

(The following was noted by Mattisse on my talk page.) "Look at User:Frater FiatLux's contribution history.[1] It's very interesting. There is a year hiatus. Look at User:Kephera975's contribution history [2] Almost the same hiatus."

An easier way to compare is using Interiot's tool, bring up a window for each: Kephera975 vs. Frater FiatLux. Both were active June-July 2006, inactive August 2006-April 2007. Both made exactly 14 edits in May 2007! Both inactive again in June. Only in July is there a difference, with Frater FiatLux making some edits and Kephera975 remaining inactive. In August, Frater FiatLux starts editing on the 1st until he is [3] blocked on the 2nd at 22:08. Kephera975 then reappears nearly immediately. I can't tell exactly when because his first edit was to a deleted article talk page Special:Undelete/Talk:Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega.

What happened in May 2007 is especially interesting, each having so few edits. Kephera975 appears first on May 2, and is especially interested in the dab at the top of Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn: [4], [5], [6], [7]. His last edit to the dab was May 3. Frater FiatLux appears on May 4, to make further edits to the dab: [8], [9], [10], [11]

Also note that all the short-term socks listed above were active at this time supporting and reverting to Kephera975's changes. They were all blocked on May 3, just before Frater FiatLux became active.

Additional Evidence provided by other users

There is another open SSP case involving Rondus and C00483033 at this link.

While I can't say for sure, the actions of those editors do seem to be consistently in line with Kephera975 and the timing of their appearance to support multiple AfD's proposed by Kephera975 seems quite coincidental, to state it as fairly as I can and not imply that I know with certainty.

Aside from any other user names that may be involved, Rondus and C00483033 strongly appear to be puppets of a single user. These diffs of multiple almost-identical sequential disruptive edits on multiple articles are already listed in the SSP case I linked just above regarding User:Frater FiatLux, but they apply here as well so I will provide them for convenience:

Rondus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log):

[12]
[13]
[14] (note this diff connects to an article that has since been deleted - the content was identical to the prior two diffs)
[15]
[16]

C00483033 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log):

[17]
[18]
[19] (note this diff connects to an article that has since been deleted - the content was identical to the prior two diffs)
[20]
[21]

From the block log, regarding another series of identical edits by this user on the AfD that resulted in the deletion of the article relating to the third listed diff under the name of Rhondus above:

15:09, 8 August 2007 Isotope23 (Talk | contribs) blocked "C00483033 (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega)

There are more examples in the contribs --Parsifal _Hello 00:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further evidence confirming that C00483033 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is the same as indef blocked user Frater FiatLux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is this comment, which is practically identical to an argument archived from Frater FiatLux's talk page, here (first section). GlassFET 18:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the permanent old-version link: Frater FiatLux/Archive 1 (first section) in case that page gets changed after the above info was posted. --Parsifal _Hello 20:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Hi User:IPSOS Just to say that the record of all AfDs is there if you click on the link and trace it back.

Also- for all readers- Kephera's sockpuppet filing against Ipsos was in response to Ipsos' filing one against him. [

For User:IPSOS- when users are scrapping over an article quite a few users will accuse you of being a fan of the org concerned, if you do edits they don't like. I had the same problem on Gillian McKeith- just because I removed some tripe, they thought I was a McKeith lover. As your edits are pro-Cicero and HOGD Inc, you are bound to meet these accusations. If they're untrue, simply deny them as you've been doing. This is more a matter for RfC or something than sockpuppeting.Merkinsmum 23:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In point of fact, I have not added any material to these articles. The only thing I have done is to make minor improvements like adding text to external links in references, fix capitalization in headings and that sort of thing. Then Frater FiatLux started blindly reverting to a months-old version losing all of my improvements, and those of another editor, Isotope23. Both myself and Isotope23 reverted these edits and asked Frater FiatLux to please focus on changing what he objected to. He refused and continued to edit war until he was blocked. I challenge Kephera975 to find one pro-HOGD, Inc. addition by me. I have not made any. I have simply undo bad reverts. I invite other editors to review my edits to the article also with my explanatory edit comments. I am sure that you will find that what I say is true! (Note: this primarily involved the deleted article Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega, so only admins can really review, but if you check my edits to the remaining articles, you will see that they are routine grammar, style, linking, etc. improvements, and do not add any pro-organizational information. IPSOS (talk) 00:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I recently joined Wikipedia, only to be immediately persecuted by User IPSOS. My first impression at Wikipedia has been a very bad one because of him. I had not been a member here 24 hours before User IPSOS because stuck a "Suspected Sock Puppet" tag on my talk page (I have since learned that this was inappropriate behavior from him). Moreover, IPSOS has harassed me on my talk page non-stop ever since. Since the very moment that I arrived here, I have been forced to defend myself against one false accusation after the other coming from User IPSOS. He accused me of being a sock puppet after my very first contribution. He is now also accusing me of being an SPA (whatever that means). During entire time at Wikipedia I have been forced to spend hours and hours learning my way around an ocean of rules, merely to defend myself against the BULLYING tactics of user IPSOS. Along the way, I found a rule called "Be nice to newcomers." If only that rule were truly in effect, I would have had a very different experience here until now.

Upon joining Wikipedia, I immediately was given the impression that user IPSOS was using his superior knowledge of the rules here in order to manipulate discussions to fit his point of view as well as to silence any and all opposing opinions. I do not even know who user Fiat Lux or C00... are. I have never even had any contact with them. User Keph..., however, I have noticed is a frequent critic of User IPSOS tactics as well as of his biased point of view.

I would like to state clearly that I am not any of the users listed in this article. I am not a sock puppet of anyone nor do I use more than one account. I have not intended to break any other rules here either. A simple investigation of my IP address should be enough to clear me of this latest, baseless charge from User, IPSOS.

If I have broken ANY rule here, it is only due to my goofiness being new together with being forced to defend myself against bullying from the very first moment that I arrived. Unfortunately, what has happened here since I arrived has given me the distinct impression that what is really going on at Wikipedia has precious little to do with the accuracy of the Encyclopedia, but rather with the egos of the Editors and that the first and foremost rule here is: "THE BIGGEST BULLY WITH THE BEST UNDERSTANDING OF THE RULES PREVAILS." I have also unfortunately been given the distinct impression that newcomers are most unwelcome at Wikipedia. I would greatly appreciate it if an administrator would ask User IPSOS to kindly quit bullying me once and for all.--Rondus 16:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Assuming good faith and that your story above may be accurate,... this is what I don't understand, please explain: Why are the three edits listed above under your name exactly the same - word for word - as the three edits listed under the name of User: C00483033? The above examples are only a few of many that were all added around the same time that day. If you and User: C00483033 are not the same person, how did it result that you made the same long, detailed and identical edits within a short time of each other? Thank you. --Parsifal _Hello 19:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response. I frankly have no idea. It is highly interesting though that this happenned right after I joined Wikipedia and that IPSOS slapped a suspected sock puppet tag on my account immediately following. I therefore suspect that C00483033 may actually IPSOS himself, using some sort of sophisticated bullying tactic trying to get me into trouble because I disagree with him. I do not want to be uncivil here, but consideriing how badly I have been bullied, the suspicion seems reasonable enough.--Rondus 00:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not. I have no reason to frame you when you're shooting yourself in the foot. Doh! IPSOS (talk) 02:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Note: This report here and at the one at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Frater FiatLux (2nd) appear to be almost identical and contain much of the same information and list of accounts. As a result, the comment above by Rhondus and my question for him have been cross-posted for clarity. It might be useful to combine the two reports, but I don't know anything about those procedures or if it should be done. --Parsifal _Hello 20:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

All of the listed sockpuppets have already been indefinitely blocked, so the only remaining question is whether Kephera975 is the same person as Frater FiatLux et al. (or a meatpuppet working in tandem with him/them).
There are a lot of similarities in Kephera975's editing and Frater FiatLux's--both are virtual single purpose-accounts focusing on the same esoteric organizations, and both took a substantial wikibreak from July 2006 to May 2007, with apparently coordinated editing happening from almost the moment of their return in May 2007. This could be explained by their being the same person, or by being in off-wiki contact. Either way, the case that Kephera975 is a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Frater FiatLux is strong, and since Frater FiatLux is now indef blocked for his disruptive editing, Kephera975 should be blocked as well. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]