Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sonicyouth86/Archive

Sonicyouth86 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Sonicyouth86 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Nick Levinson (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

[[1]] Cybermud (talk) 22:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sonicyouth86 appeared in a Talk page amidst a debate between myself and Nick Levinson. He/she had no edit history but proceeded to make ad-hominem attacks against me on that talk page. Sonicyouth86 then proceeded to make edits exclusively in other articles that I have edited and the nature of these edits, and associated wikilawyering on talk, clearly demonstrate someone very familiar with WP, a situation entirely inconsistent with their lack of edit history and indicative of sockpuppetry.

I have removed Nick from this SPI. The contribs page was pretty short and clear when I originally opened it. It has since been muddled by SonicYouths additional editing. That said, and in repetition of my comments below, at the time that I opened this SPI. Every article he edited was one I had edited and every talk page he went to was to respond in a conversation that I had been a part of (in some cases conversations finished weeks prior.) Quite literally, everything in his short contribs page (at the time this was opened) supported that he was a SPA (to harrass me) and showed uncharacteristic knowledge of WP for someone here barely a week.

Building upon that, please consider SonicYouths very first edit on WP and edit summary [[2]]. He used an inline template and wrote a perfect edit summary evincing an established working knowledge of Wikipedia policy and practice. Also note that, in the extended, and unfortunate debate on this page, he has feigned complete innocence and ignorance and has not even acknowledged editing as an IP before registering as a user (something I expect is probably common.)--Cybermud (talk) 01:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Defending yourself against claims.

I have no other account and do not edit under an IP, except in the very beginning of my editing of WP, when I edited once under IP addressing and then used my account to acknowledge (in my first two edits' edit summaries) my specific IP-based editing. My account's name is my real name. I have never had another account in Wikimedia. I use this account across all Wikimedia projects in a single login. I don't know who Sonicyouth86 is.

Cybermud and I had a disagreement at Talk:Andrea Dworkin and I did not pursue it, as I didn't think there was much I could add that would be about improving the article (discussing without that goal is something I've done lots of times outside of WP and don't always want to spend time doing). While we strongly disagree on substance, it is a common and perennial disagreement and I thought Cybermud was courteous about it, a little funny or sarcastic (perhaps unintentionally) but well within the pale and, other than on the substantive disagreement, not objectionable.

I have enough editing to do, including some that involves controversy, that it didn't occur to me to look up either editor's work before this SPI. I have now for Sonicyouth86 and see only one article and one talk affected other than a noticeboard and the talk where all three of us met; I don't think I've ever visited the former two. Cybermud's contributions, just this month's, are far more extensive than Sonicyouth86's and, except for one article (on NOW) and the aforementioned, I don't think I've ever visited those pages, either, and, although some now look interesting, I don't plan to edit them and probably won't read them anytime soon, time being limited. Given the ratio of work, it doesn't seem to me that Sonicyouth86 is trying to edit most of Cybermud's work.

I do have skill and knowledge in various areas including WP editing but haven't judged whether Sonicyouth86's skill or knowledge is similar to mine, although Sonicyouth86's views in the area of the substantive disagreement with Cybermud seem to be similar to mine.

While it's annoying for me to be suspected, I do not think the complaint is made in bad faith.

I wish I could be of more help and if other research would assist, please let me know. Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 03:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read the talk page of Andrea Dworkin and was absolutely shocked to see that a user wrote about "politically motivated rape" and that Andrea Dworkin's victimization deserves to be met with suspicion because she is "nasty" and resembles Jabba the Hutt according to Cybermud. I asked other editors if it was okay for Wikipedia to write such things on the talk page of a famous person. Cybermud deleted my comment and the comment was restored by user Nick Levinson. I have no connection to Nick Levinson or any other editor. I was shocked and saddened that users like Cybermud are allowed to write such horrible things on talk pages. His other contributions show the same tendency. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the irony of the fact that you continue to make attacks on me and mischaracterize my edits and edit history on your own SPI page is completely lost on you. Like always you ignore the article or talk page your on to talk exclusively about me. In case you missed it, this page is about you being a sockpuppet. Perhaps you'd like to speak to that... no?--Cybermud (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing me of having another account just because you didn't like my question if it was allowed for you to write such horrible things isn't okay, I think. I asked other editors if it was okay for you to do so. You deleted it and Nick Levinson restored it. So probably my question was okay and even justified. Your reasons for accusing me of having another account are transparent. Same goes for that other user who rejects changes to the article on the fathers' rights movement. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SonicYouth, for someone with such a tiny number of edits and who has been here barely a week you have a highly unusual level of knowledge of Wikiepdia polices, processes not to mention quite a detailed appreciate of the history of the editing of some articles and editors. Cybermud should not be deleting comments but it's clearly false to suggest his accusations somehow stem simply from him not liking your question. I absolutely agree that Nick is innocent here, but your account appears to be highly suspicious (even ignoring the possible Wikihounding) and you please need to address the concerns at hand rather than pretending it's down to some sort of edit conflict. Many thanks. Also, it's blatantly obvious there are quite serious problems with Fathers' rights groups and more emerging every day, the evidence and consensus overwhelmingly contradicts you stance--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just read what a sockpuppet was and found this quote: "Sometimes a brand new account is accused of being a sockpuppet account, simply because it is apparently experienced with the ways of Wikipedia, and leaps straight into areas of the project that the accusers think to be obscure, or shows proficiency with Wikipedia's mechanisms and processes. In years gone by, when Wikipedia was a very new project that hadn't yet come to the attention of the world in general, that was a fair argument. But it is now 2010." I don't know if I have a highly unusual level of knowledge of Wikipedia rules considering they can be read by anyone. It's obvious what this is: Cybermud is mad because his character assassination of Adrea Dworkin and his thoughts on "politically motivated rape" were challenged by me and because I disagree with you and him about the content of the article about the FRM.

On Cybermud's talk page you basically beg him to take back the ugly accusations here because you two know you have no evidence.

This case is clear. This is your way of solving a content dispute: Accuse everyone who disagrees of having another account or try to get rid of them by using other means. I wonder who's next on your list. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you aren't being truthful here - I suggested Cybermud drop the accusation in relation to Nick as he doesn't appear to be involved, I didn't suggest and such action in relation to the allegations relating to yourself whatsoever.--Shakehandsman (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last time I'm going to comment here, and I debate the pertinence of even doing so now. This is not the place for content debates. The only purpose of this page is the SPI. You are the one trying to muddle the issue with baseless assertions about my edits and edit history. As an editor of articles related to gender issues I am no stranger to content disputes or disagreements with other editors. You are the only one I have opened an SPI for, which illustrates your efforts to misdirect the focus of this page for exactly what they are. Your first WP edit was to add citation needed templates to sentences followed immediately by attacks on me that exhibited extensive knowledge of WP policies (though cited disingenuously.) Though you would clearly like to rehash debates about Andrea Dworkin I'm not going to here or anywhere else unless they are tied to discussions about actual content changes. I was very questionable about Nick being your puppetmaster from the beginning and am even more so now in light of his response, but you are clearly not a brand new editor, and your unwillingness to acknowledge having had previous accounts, or even editing as an IP, only further emphasizes the fact that you are acting in bad faith.--Cybermud (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You accuse me of having another account is that you're mad that I challenged your comments on the talk page of the Andrea Dworkin article. So this is about content. That other user that has been accusing me does so because of content; He wants the article about the FRM to be written by supporters of the FRM and get rid of all users who oppose this. So this is about content.

Your first WP edits were some elaborate quotes and citations of a book that exhibited extensive knowledge of WP stuff. Looks very suspicious. By your logic, you have multiple accounts too. Same goes for that other user who followed you here from the FRM article. You were clearly not a brand new editor, and your unwillingness to acknowledge having multiple accounts, or even editing as an IP, only further emphasizes the fact that you are acting in bad faith.

You wrote something very disturbing and off-topic about Adrea Dworkin and rape victims. Anyone can read the talk page. I asked other editors of this was appropriate behavior. And now you are sore about being held accountable for your comments. So you decided to bully me into silence.

The next person who disagrees with you, should expect accusations of having multiple accounts. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, more of the same. I'm still not going to defend any of my edits here and suggest you open an actual content dispute for them (where I will do so at length.) Actually this is my first edit in mainspace [[3]] asking for help... and I'm a software engineer and computer programmer... but no doubt the use of WP templates came naturally to you, just like your knowledge of talk pages, and you just intuited what WP policies are.--Cybermud (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually your third edit was this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foreign_policy_of_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=356489125. It looks very elaborate to me. You were clearly not a brand new editor, and your unwillingness to acknowledge having multiple accounts, or even editing as an IP, only further emphasizes the fact that you are acting in bad faith.

You disliked being held responsible for your vile insults toward Andrea Dworkin and rape victims. You removed my comment and Nick Levinson restored it. You felt sore about this. And this was your "evidence" to start this effort here to harass me and Nick Levinson (who has nothing to do with me). I'm not familiar with the procedures here but I hope that users like you who try to settle content issues via this tool here are held responsible in some way. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually read my first edit, I said I spent hours working and editing an article that disappeared because I was not auto-confirmed and didn't fill out the captcha. That's not my 3rd edit.. not even my 30th. Nice try though. I'm not sore about anything and your ranting and raving is hardly "holding me responsible" for anything. Feel free to continue attacking me though the more you do the more convinced I am that you are the vandal you originally appeared to be.--Cybermud (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A vandal, "SonicSpoof", accused of stalking you and having multiple accounts... because I disagree with your vile comments about Andrea Dworkin and rape victims? Is this the same reason you deleted my comment on the Andrea Dworkin talk page and wrote as a reason "vandalism"? Or is it because you and that other user from the fathers' rights article are out of options to threaten and besmirch users who you see as members of the "feminist task force" (as you write to Cailil below)? I suppose Cailil is next on your list because s/he disagrees with you and happens to edit one or two of the same articles.

It is your third edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20100424062033&limit=500&target=Cybermud When you scroll down and click on the third edit (16 April 2010), you'll see that you added an entire elaborate reference. So how many other accounts do you have?

And what qualifies as "extensive knowledge" about Wikipedia? When someone clicks on edit on the talk page and sees from Cybermud's comment that to make something blue and clickable you have to add two square brackets left and right? Or because someone asks if it's okay to write on a talk page that "nasty" Jabba the Hutt type women deserve to be ridiculed when they are raped?

You keep writing that I'm a vandal and a stalker and pretty much all the screw-ups under the sun. Okay. Everyone can see that you're mistaken. But why not contact me and clarify your comments? Why not report me for vandalism or stalking? Because then you would get to harass only one user you dislike when you can harass two by using this reporting method.

You don't have any EVIDENCE. Your friend told you that you don't. You yourself wrote that you don't. But you don't care. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cybermud, why do you delete comments like these http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cybermud&diff=391910091&oldid=391909125 ? Is there a reason for that other than that you want to get rid of evidence of your misconduct while simultaneously making sure that you besmirch other users you don't agree with? Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I deleted it to avoid another argument on this subject in yet another location, though I do note how you have suddenly become a supporter of Shakehandsman rather than calling him a men's right activist troll or, just above " that other user from the fathers' rights article.. out of options to threaten and besmirch users who you see as members of the "feminist task force"". My talk page is my talk page. Shakehandsman is not "my friend" he's a WP editor who also views your history as indicative of you being a sockpuppet (and has said as much here.) Just because I don't view Nick as your presumptive puppet-master anymore doesn't change the way I view you. I won't apologize to Nick, as I'm still not sure of him either, and because, and I'm sure it's already clear to him per his statement above, my surmising he was your owner was not in bad faith as your actions do represent the actions of a SPA/sockpupppet and you appeared amidst a disagreement with him after all. If your puppetmaster is revealed to be someone else I will apologize to him for the inconvenience of asking him to respond here and defend himself, though I still view you as ultimately at fault in that as well.--Cybermud (talk) 03:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted the comment left by that other user from the fathers' rights article because you wanted to hide evidence of you own misconduct.

Are you projecting? Show me ONE instance where I called Shakehandsman or any other user a "troll." Just ONE. Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrea_Dworkin&diff=391160141&oldid=391101154), however, YOU accuse ME of vandalism and trolling. You've repeatedly referred to me as "SonicSpoof"... all because you feel sore because someone pointed out to you that your rants about how "nasty" women deserve to be ridiculed and mistrusted when they are raped were inappropriate for Wikipedia talk pages.

Other users should be able to leave comments on your talk page, especially if those comments address your misconduct.

Actually, by your "logic" (which is if someone knows how to make something blue and clickable right away they must have multiple accounts) your actions are those of a "SPA/sockpupppet" as your third edit ever was extremely elaborate: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foreign_policy_of_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=356489125 So how many accounts do you have?

The sad truth is that you have NO evidence. Your goal is to besmirch two editors who have nothing in common except disagreeing with you. I went even a step further and wrote that I though that your behavior was inappropriate for talk pages (and it was). This is your petty little way of getting back at a user who had the audacity to say that your rants about rape victims and your character assassination of Andrea Dworkin were in bad taste. Stop trying to solve your content issues by accusing other editors of having sockpuppets. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not only are you a sockpuppet but you are also a broken record. Repeating the same hyperbolic theatrics in every one of your posts won't make them any more valid. I wonder when Cailil will come tell you to be civil and AGF (or at least stop spamming the same things over and over "in talk" ad nauseum.)--Cybermud (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit that you have multiple accounts by your logic and that you refer to other users as vandals, trolls, spoofs, sockpuppets, and what have you just because they disagree with your vile comments about Andrea Dworkin and rape victims and your abuse of talk pages. Good to know. And your not too subtle jibe at Cailil is very indicative of your misconduct here.

In case you haven't noticed, "accused parties" are supposed to comment here. But you keep on writing and writing to hide the fact that you have NO EVIDENCE whatsoever for your accusation and that you abuse this investigation to settle a content issue and to harass two users. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suppose you'd care to clarify what this "content issue" is that you keep ranting about? You have not added any content to WP, nor are you effectively (or even ineffectively) objecting to any edits I'd like to make. You are not a significant, or even insignificant, editor of any article I'm interested in, indeed you are not an editor of any article with this account, period, so if I'm so preoccupied with content what content is it exactly that I am trying to push past your insurmountable editorial objections via an SPI?--Cybermud (talk) 00:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You want the article about the fathers' rights movement to be written exclusively by fathers' rights activists (specifically Stephen Baskerville) because you want to depict it non-neutrally as an entirely benevolent social movement. Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=391704938&oldid=391682804) you rant about how qualified he is to write about the fathers' rights movement because, get that, he has a PhD and all and "is, himself, a father who, like many father's rights activists, feels that his rights and those of his children were violated by the existing legal and social structures." I wrote that it would be unwise to let Ron Hubbard write the article about Scientology and the "true goals" of Scientology because Hubbard would write that Scientology is the best thing that's happened to the world since the invention of penicillin. Critics, however, see Scientology very differently. And isn't Wikipedia supposed to present all important opinions? Since then you've been engaged in deleting all information that is critical of the fathers' rights movement. I was one of two editors who told you that this is not okay. You didn't like that, so you thought that accusing me of having other accounts might help you harass me and drive me away.

You misused the talk page of the Andrea Dworkin article to express your unsubstantiated theories about rape victims and "politically motivated rape." According to you "nasty" or, as you wrote, Jabba the Hutt type women mustn't be believed when they are raped because no decent rapist would touch such a "nasty" woman. In your summary you wrote "Jabba the Hutt factor." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrea_Dworkin&diff=385011441&oldid=384938202 Then, out of the blue, you started to rant about "blatant misandry" and "all men are rapists" and accuse Nick Levson of "rhetorical acrobatics" because s/he pointed out to you that not only beautiful women are raped.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrea_Dworkin&diff=385206653&oldid=385094346 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrea_Dworkin&diff=390283310&oldid=389538291 Then I wrote my first comment and asked users if it was okay for you to engage in off topic diatribes, conduct a character assassination of Dworkin, attack Nick Levison, and rant about "politically motivates rape." You deleted the comment as "vandalism." Nick Levinson restored it. I thanked her/him. And then you got REALLY mad. You accused be of vandalism and trolling and, all of a sudden, started ranting about being a man so your mother wouldn't be ashamed of you and things like that. And even though I pointed out repeatedly that, unlike you, I was addressing your misconduct and misuse of the talk page YOU kept accusing ME of making ad hominem attacks.

Another article where we met was the one about the glass ceiling. I deleted some irrelevant information about the buying power of women and a questionable paragraph without any references, and you swooped in, and restored everything. All your contributions follow one pattern: Delete everything that might disprove the "blatant misandry" you keep ranting about and restore everything that might support it.

So this is a brief summary of the content issue. As the title indicates, "accused parties" are supposed to comment here. You seem to disregard even this simple instruction.

By your own logic, you have multiple accounts. Care to share how many? Probably not. You're just interested in besmirching other user you dislike because they disagree with your misconduct. This is probably the reason why you deleted this comment from your talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cybermud&diff=391910091&oldid=391909125 Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware that, besides Cailil who came and jumped on your bandwagon without actually looking at the articles or my edits, no editors from the Fathers' rights movement, nor Andrea Dworkin have agreed with you about my edits or editorial behavior? Now, I'm really not responding to you again and will only state, in closing, that anyone entertaining the validity of any of SonicYouth's assertions about my editing actually look at the articles in question rather than lend credence to SonicYouth's dishonest characterizations of them. And Cailil, now might be a good time to advise SonicYouth about "casting aspersions," "AGF" and "resorting to sockpuppetry reports." Even, Nick, whom you are so quick to defend against my "aspersions" has said he doesn't feel my report was in bad faith. Yet SonicYouth has now accused me several times of being a sockpuppet and cast all sorts of unsupported aspersions about me. Your silence on this speaks volumes.--Cybermud (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, even that other user from the fathers' rights movement article points out that your behavior here isn't okay: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cybermud&diff=391910091&oldid=391909125 This despite the fact that you agree that the article should be written exclusively by fathers' rights activists. It's the message you deleted from your talk page. Now THIS peaks volumes. Here that other user actually begs you to withdraw the case for LACK OF EVIDENCE http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cybermud&diff=391791442&oldid=391791307 It's interesting that that user then goes on to suspect user Slp1 to be me. Why? Just because Slp1 edits the fathers' rights article and disagrees with bot Cybermud and Shakehandsman. See the pattern: Anyone who doesn't agree with you or other supporters of the fathers' rights movement gets labeled as a sockpuppet.

Nick Levinson, who by your own admission has nothing to do with me, restored my comment which you deleted as "vandalism" and pointed out in the summary that the question was addressed to her/him too http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrea_Dworkin&diff=390882390&oldid=390823830

Cailil pointed out several instances where you violate the rules.

I wrote repeatedly that BY YOUR OWN LOGIC (which is: any new user who knows that two square brackets will make something blue and clickable is a sockpuppet) you are a sockpuppet. Because your third edit ever was so elaborate that I couldn't possibly repeat it http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foreign_policy_of_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=356489125. *I* am not accusing you of sockpuppetry (and you show your dishonesty by saying that I do). I am just saying that BY YOUR OWN LOGIC you must be one. Basically, what I and Cailil and even Shakehandsman are saying is that you have NO EVIDENCE for your accusations.

If anyone wants to see how Cybermud calls me a vandal, a troll, a wikihounder, "SonicSpoof" and what not, look, for example, here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrea_Dworkin&diff=391160141&oldid=391101154 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=391717450&oldid=391716126 You have called me all the screw-ups under the sun simply because I think that the fathers' rights movement article shouldn't be exempt from Wikipedia's neutrality rules and because I pointed out your misuse of talk pages. You have insulted me with the most offensive terms Wiki lingo has to offer. Vandal, troll, wikihounder, sockpuppet, dishonest. You can have nothing further to say. Nothing has changed about your accusations: You have NO EVIDENCE. This is just your way of besmirching two unrelated users who don't agree with you and point out your misconduct. Your extreme hostility toward Cailil adds to the overall impression you convey. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Correction Cybermud I have never said anything about agreeing with Sonicyouth86. Don't misrepresent other users. Both of you should step back and let this report be examined by an outside admin. Both of you are in breach of talk space guidelines - stop making personalized remarks and stop using wikipedia as a soapbox.
  Cybermud you listed this report in the section on WP:SPI for reports not requiring checkuser assistance therefore you need to show evidence (diffs) of how these accounts are related. Currently the only evidence presented is that User:Sonicyouth86 disagrees with you and that User:Nick Levinson disagrees with you - even if you re-file this for checkuser (see the how to on WP:SPI to see what to do) you will need to show more evidence than that.
  If your issue is just with Sonicyouth86 then this is the wrong forum--Cailil ^talk 22:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cailil, I read your comment after posting mine. I'm sorry. I just feel like I must defend myself against his insults that I'm a vandal, troll, wikihounder, sockpuppet, dishonest, and what not. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Cailil The quite short contribs page of SonicYouth was pretty clear at the time that I opened this SPI. Every article he edited was one I had edited and every talk page he went to was to respond in a conversation that I had been a part of (in some cases conversations finished weeks prior.) Quite literally, everything in his short contribs page (at the time this was opened) supported that he was a SPA (to harrass me) and showed uncharacteristic knowledge of WP for someone here barely a week.

I have removed Nick from this SPI and wasn't too keen on adding him in the first place aside from feeling required to add a putative puppetmaster to open the SPI. There are no diffs that show Nick and SY's accounts as being related besides the single instance where SY first appeared amidst a discussion between Nick and myself. If a non-check-user SPI must have presumptive puppetmaster I will withdraw this SPI. If not, I do still believe SY is a sockpuppet on the basis of his immediate knowledge of WP templates, how to follow (and hound) users, and spout WP policy (even if I'm at a loss as to what other accounts he is tied to.) As far as misrepresenting users, everything SY has said on this page is a gross misrepresentation of me, my behavior and my edits. I apologize for not assuming good faith on your behalf, but you have certainly not made that task any easier (though I will not belabor that point any further.)--Cybermud (talk) 00:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a disagreement on the Fathers' rights movement article that may surprise participants here, and because of that I've posted my view at that article's talk page.

Judging what most editors involved with a page think is nearly impossible except for editors who comment. Most tend to stay silent and usually are not even tentatively obligated to post even if they watch, so that what silence means is just silence.

On the substantive disagreement that arose at Talk:Andrea Dworkin, although I'm a biased party, I propose we accept that we disagree. (I've been taught that in political campaigning for a candidate's election (e.g., in on-street leafletting of voters) we should not engage in lengthy debates with opposing voters, because it's not worth the time when we could be getting support from likelier supporters in higher volume, and I've seen this confirmed in practice.) Except when there are more sources or editing suggestions, other websites than Wikimedia's are better places for the substantive discussion about Andrea Dworkin's life and work. Cybermud's more recent response at the Andrea Dworkin talk topic Evidence?, being briefer and tending to closure, is more suited to the policy on in-Wikipedia responses to such questions even though I would have answered very differently.

The accusation that Cybermud is a sockpuppet for a prohibited purpose was conditional only and was contingent on a point by Cybermud now effectively withdrawn.

The description of Sonicyouth86's contributions history at the time this SPI was begun leads me to wonder if I'm seeing a much shorter list than anyone else sees.

I have done work in off-Wikipedia fields where I far exceeded in quality what someone with my formal education or lack thereof should have been expected to accomplish, sometimes rattling a fully credentialed professional (e.g., legal writing) and sometimes annoying a skilled colleague I worked together with (e.g., database design), among other effects. (This ignores mistakes I've also made.) Having achieved out-of-scale quality does not prove that sudden expertise is irrelevant; yet sudden expertise is not always dispositive.

No apology is wanted or warranted. While I think filing an SPI was excessive even for the allegations stated, I take both the inclusion of me and the deletion of me as sincere.

Nick Levinson (talk) 08:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC) (Correction: My last edit was this reply; this edit is the acknowledging of that and, minor, the adding of an italicization: 09:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Nick Levinson, I'm glad that Cybermud removed you from this accusation.

Cailil, I read your warning about space guidelines and I'm sorry but I'll have to address Cybermud's response again.

Cybermud, nothing was clear when you posted this accusation. I have read your comment on the Andrea Dwokrin page and decided to contribute to the conversation. I wrote why I thought your comment was inappropriate. First you deleted my comment as vandalism (which is against the rules as I gathered from this comment from Shakehandsman http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cybermud&diff=391910091&oldid=391909125). After Nick Levinson restored it, you wrote why you thought my comment was inappropriate. Okay. I don't see the problem here or why you resorted to accusing me or Nick Levinson of having other accounts.

Not every article I edited was one you edited and you know it. And even if I had, the appropriate way to solve this would have been to report me for stalking or something. I don't intend to "harrass" you. I commented on a talk page because I thought that this was well within the rules! How am I harrassing YOU? Actually, *I* feel harrassed by your calling me a vandal, a troll, a wikihounder, "SonicSpoof," a sockpuppet, and what not.

I have addressed your theories about my "uncharacteristic knowledge of WP." I wrote to you that you don't have to be a rocket scientist to click on edit on a talk page and see that to make Jabba the Hutt clickable and blue you need two square brackets left and right and then click on preview to check. This I learned from your comment. I see what users do and I copy it. I think that this is the way how most users here learn. I also wrote that BY YOUR OWN LOGIC (new editors with an "uncharacteristic knowledge of WP" must be sockpuppets) you must be a sockpuppet because your third edit ever was an elaborate reference that I still can't manage.

Everything I wrote on this page is a perfectly accurate representation of you, your behavior and your edits. Unlike you, I provided links to prove everything.

You were very quick to jump to these unsubstantiated accusations. You accused me, Nick Levinson, and even Slp1 of being sockpuppets. Here is the discussion on your talk page where you and Shakehandsman engage in speculating if Slp1 is me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cybermud#Fathers.27s_Rights_Article. What the three of us have in common is that we disagreed with you at one point or the other.

HERE yet another user is pointing out to you that you have "gone way overboard with your comments" and your accusations http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cybermud&diff=392880454&oldid=391910091. As this user points out, you are unlikely to "use WP:Strikethrough to retract some of your worse commentary" and even less likely to apologize. You replied that you felt the need to report a "user whose sole purpose seems to be following me to talk pages and vociferously disagreeing with, and attacking, me on articles he doesn't edit." Yes, my "mistake" was that I had the cheek to "vociferously disagree with you." True. Nick Levinson disagreed with you and was accused of having multiple accounts. I disagreed with you and was accused of having multiple accounts. Slp1 disagreed with you and you speculated if he was guilty of having multiple accounts. I really hope that someone sees the pattern here.

You have called me all the screw ups under the sun. Vandal, troll, wikihounder, "SonicSpoof." You can have nothing further to add. And YOU accuse ME of harassment? Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SUMMARY:

I disagreed with Cybermud on the talk page of the Andrea Dwokrin article. I asked other users of it was okay for Cybermud to write the things that he did. Cybermud removed the comment as "vandalism" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrea_Dworkin&diff=390823830&oldid=390588337. Nick Levinson restored the comment http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrea_Dworkin&diff=390882390&oldid=390823830 Shakehandsman told Cybermud that it was inappropriate to delete legitimate comments from talk pages. Cybermud deleted the comment. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cybermud&diff=391910091&oldid=391909125

I commented on a noticeboard about the fathers' rights movement and wrote that I believe that such an article shouldn't be written exclusively by fathers' rights activists and that sources critical of the fathers' rights movement have a right to be included.

After that, Cybermud reported me and Nick Levinson and accused me and Nick Levinson of having multiple accounts. Besides, Cybermud and Shakehandsman (another user from the fathers' rights article) speculated that user Slp1 is me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cybermud#Fathers.27s_Rights_Article

Bwilkins has pointed out to Cybermud that accusing me of having multiple accounts because of a content issue and because Cybermud thinks that I'm stalking him is inappropriate http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cybermud&diff=392880454&oldid=391910091

Cailil wrote repeatedly that Cybermud has no evidence for his accusation other than the fact that Nick Levinson and I disagree with him http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sonicyouth86&diff=392126043&oldid=392123929

Cybermud and Shakehandsman themselves agree that they have no evidence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cybermud#Fathers.27s_Rights_Article

Beside accusing me of having multiple accounts, Cybermud accuses me of being a vandal, a troll, and "SonicSpoof." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrea_Dworkin&diff=391160141&oldid=391101154 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=391717450&oldid=391716126 On his talk page Cybermud explained this report by saying that I am a user "whose sole purpose seems to be following me to talk pages and vociferously disagreeing with, and attacking, me on articles he doesn't edit" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cybermud&diff=392896465&oldid=392880454 "Vociferously disagreeing" with Cybermud is the thing that started this entire thing here. Nick Levinson and Slp1 also disagreed with Cybermud and were immediately suspected/accused of having multiple accounts.

I apologize for taking up so much space. Thank you. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that there's ever been cause for this investigation. On Cybermud's talk page an administrator wrote: "As an outside party, I wanted to say that you've gone way overboard in your comments Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sonicyouth86|here. SPI filings are not for fishing as they take up huge personnel resources, and allowing one to continue if you're convinced that it does not apply is pretty bad faith. We have such a thing as dispute resolution, and a policy on WP:WIKIHOUNDING. If you're having issues with an editor, follow DR to the letter...and SPI is not part of it. Although I anticipate that you're an adult and are not likely to be prodded into apologizing, you might wish to use WP:Strikethrough to retract some of your worse commentary." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cybermud&diff=392880454&oldid=391910091

I apologize again for taking up space and time. Thank you. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 00:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again SonicYouth is mischaracterizing me and a whole slew of other editors. He is also continuing to pretend this is about anything above and beyond an SPI (which is the primary reason this page is so long.) He's posted a whole lot of nothing here without ever once being clear on his editorial history on WP. The real issue is concisely stated in the evidence section. I reported SonicYouth as a sockpuppet because I believe he is one. If admins already up to speed on this SPI have no interest in pursuing it then I don't either. It has consumed enough of real editor's time, my own included, that, no matter what the final result is, I regret having opened it without waiting for SonicYouth to establish a clearer modus operandi (not to mention having pulled Nick into this investigation.)--Cybermud (talk) 03:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That really is a quite ridiculous summary of events by Sonicyouth. I see you've managed to mention the warning I gave to Cybermud yet neglected the earlier and far more significant warning I gave to yourself in relation to Wikihounding. Also I've previously suggested politely that your retract some of your false allegations yet instead you just come up with a stream of new ones. It's little wonder people suspect you of Sockpuppetry when you carry on like this.--Shakehandsman (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sockpuppet also made false accusations concerning me also so I've looked at the evidence here and I don't see much at all pointing to Nick being guilty of anything. they do have similar views and perhaps a similar level of experience but I don't see any common editing patterns of similar use of language.style. It's blatantly obvious that Sonicyouth86 is someone's sockpuppet due to the level of understanding of Wikipedia relative to the lack of experience but I cannot work out who it might be. Nick and myself have never had any dealings on here either which again suggests he is not involved. I've given sonicyouth86 a warning regarding Wikihounding of User:Cybermud and also agree there is nothing at all malicious about Cybermud's report, he has been dealing with some serious biases in an article and the sockpuppet came along at the same time harassing him in the discussion and I think he's been a bit hasty. I am unsure as to how to identify who the Sockpuppet is in this case or what actions can be taken here, it really is quite a frustrating situation.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had another look, the user Sonicyouth86 appears to have significant knowledge of the history of the Fathers' rights groups article as seen here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANeutral_point_of_view%2FNoticeboard&action=historysubmit&diff=391708138&oldid=391704938 Nick doesn't edit there so it doesn't' seem to be him at all. This is almost certainly a sock of an editor at the Fathers' Rights article, also problems with that article are emerging all the time again arousing suspicions.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This really does not look likely from a behavioural evidence point of view. The fact that there is no evidence per se speaks volumes. Actually, I doubt very much that this will actually be endorsed for checkuser.
  Cybermud I would suggest when two editors disagree with you on a topic that you assume good faith rather than jump to sock-puppetry reports.
  In reference to teh above comment Sonicyouth86's level of information could be a product of reading our public article history and talk pages. Indeed if anything that they said in their report to NPOV/N is true (and I know some of it is from past experience in that topic area) then there is an issue at that article and it is nothing to do with Nick or Sonicyouth86.
  Also for the record weeks ago I reminded Cybermud of site policy as regards civility and talk page usage[4] - I would suggest they re-read my post--Cailil ^talk 23:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What would be "likely" from a behavioral POV? SonicYouth has only edited pages I've edited (and mostly just talk pages at that,) and appeared with no edit history demonstrating knowledge, not just of WP syntax and policies but also WP terminology. The use of a brand new account for a single purpose (hounding me) seems like a 1st class behavioral basis and hardly a situation with "no evidence" (we seem to have different views on what evidence is.) You are setting the bar high enough that it becomes meaningless. While I agreed with your "reminder" on edit summaries (it's not a reminder the first time you read something btw) I still don't agree with the way you singled out the IP editor for admonishing while ignoring the misandrist comment that equated men's rights advocates to racists that it was responding to. Saying that NPA justified your going after the IP still doesn't fly since the original comment was much more of a personal attack than the IP's response. Though I'm sure your being a member of the "feminist task force" had nothing to do with that nor does it having any bearing on your support of my wikihounding sockpuppet. For the record, the talk page edit of mine in question [[5]] and your "reminder" [[6]]. With all due respect I think you could use a reading of your own reminder and, as an admin, hold yourself to an even higher standard of NPOV because, the way I read it, you ignored the truly offensive comment and personal attack to remonstrate the person who, justifiably, responded to it.--Cybermud (talk) 00:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cybermud you've accused Nick of being Sonicyouth86 - there is no evidence of this, except that they both don't agree with you. You've had warning to Assume good faith and your failure to so with the above post will not go unnoticed. Wikipedia is not a forum, and it is utterly inappropriate to cast aspersions about other users which you are using this page to do. In fact on your talk page you admit the connection between these two users is probably not likely yourself[7][8] - something you have failed to note here.
And no admins don't have a "higher" standards to abide by we all abide by the same ones. You've had fair warning to stop and reassess your behaviour you have failed to do so--Cailil ^talk 12:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you would just scroll up and read what I've written on this very page you'll see I said, "I was very questionable about Nick being your puppetmaster from the beginning and am even more so now in light of his response." Ban me or block me if you will, you seem to have your own history of censoring views contrary to your own and smacking people with the admin stick in content debates behind thinly veiled, overly-broad interpretations of WP:AGF and WP:Civil. I suggest you spend time contemplating what it means to practice what you preach. I am also a moderator on various forums and actually do hold myself to a higher standard when I am because my opinions and statements can be viewed as official site policy and have a chilling effect on other users... but to each their own.--Cybermud (talk) 13:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cybermud, you've just crossed the line quite severely in terms of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. and if you are a mod elsewhere then you know you've crossed the line. I don't have such a "history" as I have never blocked anyone whom I was in a content dispute with, and again using the talk space to cast aspersions about other users is not appropriate.
If you don't think Nick is a sock-puppeteer then you should in the very least withdraw this request for checkuser, apologise to him and start trying to AGF.
Furthermore I have not threatened you here or anywhere and anyone who wants to review the history of this page will note my first edit summary was suffixed with "(not in admin role)"[9]--Cailil ^talk 16:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hypocrisy seems the word of the day with you. Were you not casting aspersions when you came to this very page? I'll take you up on your suggestion that "anyone who wants may review the history of this page." First of all, qualifying your admin-like aspersions and condescensions by saying "not in admin role" really just emphasizes the fact that you are, in fact, an admin and want the right to be able to pontificate in admin-like fashion without the responsibility that is commensurate with that right. You said:

This really does not look likely from a behavioural evidence point of view. The fact that there is no evidence per se speaks volumes. Actually, I doubt very much that this will actually be endorsed for checkuser.
Cybermud I would suggest when two editors disagree with you on a topic that you assume good faith rather than jump to sock-puppetry reports.
In reference to teh above Sonicyouth information could be a product of our public article history and talk pages. Indeed if anything that they said in their report to NPOV/N is true (and I know some of it is from past experience in that topic area) then there is an issue here and it is not with Nick or Sonicyouth86.
Also for the record weeks ago I reminded Cybermud of site policy as regards civility and talk page usage - I would suggest they re-read my post"

I do not have an English Phd, and furthermore choose not to hide my aspersions behind passive aggressive euphemisms like "speaks volumes," but in over 1000 edits, many in very contentious articles, I have never opened an admin action prior to this SPI, yet you imply you have had to "remind" me of something or other in the past and "suggest" I "AGF rather than jump to sock-puppetry reports" in content debates. You came here ostensibly under "not as admin" banner, to wax poetic about the validity of this SPI, my POV and "where the real issue lies," but I'm the one who has crossed the line for "casting aspersions" and not "AGF"? If the glove fits (or in WP lingo it quacks like a duck...) --Cybermud (talk) 04:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not reading all of this (49k of text!). Brief summary please? TNXMan 19:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand all of this, the case was originally opened to investigate a link between Sonicyouth86 and Nick Levinson. Nick's name has now been removed from the case. Is there any cause for further investigation or can this be closed? TNXMan 21:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm marking this for close. Cybermud has withdrawn the investigation (above). Please feel free to refile in the future if new evidence comes to light. TNXMan 11:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---