Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lightbringer (usurped - blocked)

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:Lightbringer

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Lightbringer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Davinciscode (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); MSJaapan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - blocked impostor account

Report submission by

WegianWarrior (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

In the first place Freemasonrywatch.org is not a hate site, it is a site that is critical of Freemasonry - there is a big difference, although obviously not to members of this cult-like organization. In the second place given the bias and distortions contained in the existing Freemasonry article that the Masonic editors of this page do not want any criticism's of Freemasonry included, and are prepared to immediately attack anyone doing so. I have no idea what game these gentlemen are playing at, other than some kind of grotesque game of abuse and deception. I thought it was very strange indeed that I was unable to link to an article on this site in counterbalance to the existing exclusive list of obviously biased pro-masonic articles. Now I understand the reason for that bias, it wasn't a mistake, it was the result of actions by Masons who feel they 'control' any entries related to Freemasonry on the Wikipedia site. No wonder the articles are so lopsided in Freemasonry's favour.Davinciscode (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also now see after doing a little digging that the user these gentlemen are alleging I am is from three years ago, and at the time only had a block for a year by the looks at it. In any case I am a new user who would like to be able to contribute my knowledge and research on this subject. Thank-you. Davinciscode (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to Freemasonry as a cult-like organization is 'quacking' and referring to these "gentlemen" as gentlemen is "further proof". This is real star-chamber stuff. I bet dollars to donuts that this 'Lightbringer' allegation is some kind of standard 'come-on' gambit that is made against any editor who disagrees with the absurd bias of the article. I mean the article is positively turgid and unreadable. Paragraph after paragraph of inane boilerplate and irrelevancies without any real information for the average Wikipedia user. It's about time someone fixed that.Davinciscode (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Lightbringer is a repeat vandal with multiple socks who has been banned from editing Wikipedia in general and articles relating to Freemasonry in particular. He has after his ban been using a hoast of sockpuppets to further his POV and attack other editors. ‎Part of Lightbringers MO is to attempt to link to freemasonerywatch.org - a hate site that has been put on the spamlist for good reasons - and to push the claim that masonry is an occult, secret society that tries to control the world.

Today a 'new' user pop up and his second and third edits are an attempt to get FMW of the spamlist (see diffs: [1] and [2]), while his fourt and fifth edits are pushing his anti masonic POV on the main Freemasonery article (see diffs [3] and [4]).

What makes me suspect a sock in this case (apaert from WP:DUCK) is the fact that the users first edit outside the sandbox was to attempt to unblock FMW, and his next edits was a negative edit on the Freemasonry article.

Comments

The pattern is obvious - the edit to sandbox was to test to see if the account could edit. The second and third were to get his site unblacklisted (and he didn't do it right the first time), and the fourth and fifth edits were to claim in Freemasonry that Masons are biased against non-Masons (again not getting his edit right the first time). The POV and the stylistic errors WP:LB so loud it becomes difficult to claim otherwise. Could someone block the IP and any other created accounts as well so we don't get a sockfarm like usually happens when he is left unattended? MSJapan (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was unsure of this until Davincicode posted his reply. It is now quacking loudly. Calling Freemasonry a "cult-like" organization, and his repeated use of the word "gentlemen" in his reply above all fit the Lightbringer pattern. See: Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Lightbringer. Blueboar (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Resolved via RFCU. Davinciscode blocked, MSJaapan unrelated. MSJapan (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]