Meta/User talk:Abd/LTA/Anglo Pyramidologist/User data

From CFC
Jump to: navigation, search

The account commenting below, Special:CentralAuth/Bruce_Canada, has been globally locked as I expected, as LTA. I am leaving his comments as information about how this LTA operates. He lies, misrepresents, and finds any dirt to throw that he imagines will offend his target. I have reverted another now-locked sock attempting to comment. I will respect civil communications from anyone attempting to correct errors on the attached pages. Before these pages are used in any sanction or widespread information process, more commentary will be invited. No user named on these pages should worry that they would suffer consequences for old behavior or suspicions simply as a result of being listed here. Indeed, it is possible that some old accusations, leading to incorrect conclusions, will be corrected. --Abd (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The guy writing this hit-piece is User contributions, a perm blocked Wikipedia editor.

Abd was topic banned from editing the cold fusion article on Wikipedia and criticized by a number of admins for his "disruptive editing" and sock-puppeting. He was later community banned and received an indefinite block. [1]

He has a vendetta against "AngloPyramidologist" (AP) for unknown reasons and other skeptical users on Wikipedia that he believes are associated with that editor. Abd is not a check-user here on this website yet puts a load of un-connected accounts together and claims they were created by AP or others.

The information he is writing is thus slander. Abd claims AP or another user made an impersonation of Tumbleman, yet check-user does not support this allegation [2]. He is trying to discredit Wikipedia users by linking them to things they have not done. He has no technical evidence for some of his allegations just is pretending his claims are factual. This is harassment, stalking and should be deleted. Bruce Canada (talk) 11:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted the speedy deletion tag. If this is to be deleted, it should actually be discussed. If a functionary suspects that this page contains privacy violations, please contact me by email. Obviously, discussing privacy violations in public is inappropriate. However, I have been careful to avoid such, revealing less in this document than is available in public logs. So if there are any violations, please point them out to me by email.
Noting suspicion of something, if based in evidence or a pattern of behavior, is not a privacy violation. Such suspicions are noted in many SPI cases on Wikipedia. I have not included IP evidence here, even though many documentations on Wikipedia include it.
I am allowing the comment below, even though from an attack SPA, because some allegations are true, though irrelevant, and some are false but might seem plausible or relevant. However, I am responding interspersed, bolding the allegations and small-texting additional signatures for clarity.
This page was not linked from anywhere, it was only found by stalking my contributions. No user whose name appears in this study is accused thereby of abuse. I do believe that Wikipedia sock puppet tagging has been sloppy and inaccurate at times. However, if a user was accused, they were accused and that is simply fact. Being accused is not a conviction, not proof of much of anything. --Abd (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2017‎ continues below, sectioned.

Unethnical slander and stalking from abd

(From the edit summary) Definitely unethnical, I'm not British. Largely Irish and Scotch ancestry. --Abd (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The guy writing this hit-piece is User contributions, a perm blocked Wikipedia editor. part of Bruce Canada (talk) 11:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

You can see my global contributions here, along with blocks. I am actually "community-banned" on Wikipedia. I have never appealed that ban, though I certainly know how to do it, and I have good relations with many WMF functionaries. I decided that the Wikipedia environment was far too toxic, and the extended presence in it of AP socks and those who use them as attack dogs was a piece of that. That is, however, irrelevant to this work, which arose out of a specific case of impersonation socks being used to attack an enemy of the user, with damage to Wikiversity .... which has now been undone. I have connected the "Michael skater" family of socks -- so far unrecognized on Wikipedia, but clearly identified by steward checkuser, as shown in the page supra, with the older Anglo Pyramidologist family, partly by using IP evidence available to me, but not published. I have offered to provide that testimony and evidence to any functionary WMF authorized to see deleted material. I have not yet been requested to provide it. --Abd (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Abd was topic banned from editing the cold fusion article on Wikipedia and criticized by a number of admins for his "disruptive editing" and sock-puppeting. He was later community banned and received an indefinite block. [3] part of Bruce Canada (talk) 11:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes. And two of these admins were sanctioned for what they did, one losing his tools for banning me from cold fusion and one only being sanctioned (though he then resigned his tools, only later recovering them). And all this is irrelevant here. If the sock master had confined himself to Wikipedia disruption, I would probably not have paid any attention. In fact, one of the tagged socks on Wikipedia was known to me as abusive, from interactions I had observed, but this would not have led me to investigate. It was only when Wikipedia impersonation sock puppetry was used to attack a user who had been active, non-disruptively, on Wikiversity, and Wikiversity content was then damaged, that I intervened, and exposed massive sock puppetry on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has not yet noticed. That's not my problem, though I may eventually rattle some cages, as I can do legitimately. I have respected my Wikipedia ban since the single sock puppet I created as a test of the system -- since that test was done, and that was many years ago. --Abd (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

He has a vendetta against "AngloPyramidologist" (AP) for unknown reasons and other skeptical users on Wikipedia that he believes are associated with that editor. part of Bruce Canada (talk) 11:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The Michael skater socks (the recently identified subfamily as shown on the page supra) clearly established that connection. That is, they started defending a user before he was attacked, and he has not been attacked, and he is not even listed (yet) on this page. That user, however, is not mentioned on the attached page, and he, though not blocked or under any cloud, stopped editing quite some time ago.
I do not have a vendetta against "AP," other than now responding to massive global attack, but consider whoever is behind the sock family to be one of the most effectively disruptive users I've encountered, precisely because they self-aligned with the "skeptical faction" on Wikipedia, and they also claim off-wiki communication with that faction. This, at this point, is not documented on the attached page. And the claims of these socks cannot be trusted, but following up on them is normal.
It is entirely possible that actually independent editors are listed on the page attached, merely because of coincidences in edit history. Such users, in a final LTA report, will be clearly distinguished if they are included at all, and it is very possible that there has been checkuser error, in isolated cases. There is, as well, the "family" problem. In early cases, the users claimed that the disruptive editor was another family member. However, there is a consequence to allowing a family member to edit from the same IP address as oneself. Checkuser may identify one as a sock of the other, and it is even stronger if the same computer is used. This can also happen from using an internet cafe. In reviewing the individual edit histories, I have seen very few accounts that are not content-related, in some way, however. Part of the reason for doing this study is to distinguish accounts by behavioral patterns as well as checkuser data.
If any user believes they have been unfairly included here, email to me is invited. I will carefully consider such arguments, and might remove content either permanently or temporarily. SPAs may email me, and unless such email is abusive, privacy will be maintained. --Abd (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Abd is not a check-user here on this website yet puts a load of un-connected accounts together and claims they were created by AP or others. part of Bruce Canada (talk) 11:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, so far, I have only extracted the account names (using the checkuser template simply for convenience), I have not make the claim stated. Rather, so far, as to documentation, this is almost entirely (one or two exceptions) accounts already connected by Wikipedia checkuser or sometimes the duck test. There will be plenty of time to correct errors before this study is condensed to a report or request.
The real objection of the SPA here is that I'm looking at and documenting a long-term pattern of socking and abusive behavior, now continuing with two more new obvious socks (and more have appeared). When I created this page and started compiling it, I was aware that this could attract the attention of the sock family, which has demonstrated that it is stalking my contributions. The page has not been linked from anywhere, and would only be seen by someone following me. So the probability is high that this is the same user as is in the Michael skater family, and that family likely includes, from evidence I have seen, the user who registered as Anglo Pyramidologist, which Wikipedia (not me) identified as the "master" account. As I have written, this could very well be more than one person in the same literal family. Two brothers are often mentioned. But the real-life identity is not important here, so I have not mentioned it.

The information he is writing is thus slander. Abd claims AP or another user made an impersonation of Tumbleman, yet check-user does not support this allegation [4]. He is trying to discredit Wikipedia users by linking them to things they have not done. part of Bruce Canada (talk) 11:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I have not done what the SPA claims I did here. The known and clear impersonation was of w:User:Blastikus, and that is fully supported by steward checkuer, as documented on the page supra. Tumbleman was attacked by this family (the attack might be documented, but has not, so far), and that attack continues on another wiki. The family also created an article on me on the other wiki, blatantly as revenge for exposing what they had done with "Blastikus," and one of them promised that revenge before going quiet for a few days.
Because of the possibility of impersonation socks in the other direction, I will be filing another checkuser request on meta, given that there is now ongoing disruption. I will first add the present sock names to the page supra, then file checkuser. --Abd (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

He has no technical evidence for some of his allegations just is pretending his claims are factual. This is harassment, stalking and should be deleted. Bruce Canada (talk) 11:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

What claims? This is typical of the SPA attacks on my exposure of this sock family. They simply lie. The phrase "no technical evidence" has commonly been used and is one of the signs by which I identified a sock on another wiki. This is in spite of ample technical evidence, plus content evidence (called the "duck test"), which is generally considered adequate on en.Wikipedia, that shows, if not direct socking, then meat puppetry, and the result is the same: blocks and tagging as suspected sock puppets. That is routine on Wikipedia.
These pages are archived. A trick that I learned from this sock family: they create attack articles (elsewhere) and immediately archive them so that when these are deleted, there is still a copy that cannot be altered, which they can then, in subsequent attacks, link to.
However, I fully respect the right of decision of stewards and meta administrators, and would address any problems with these pages directly, per normal dispute resolution procedure. I am not expecting that. So far, stewards have acted with deliberates speed to identify and lock these accounts. I will also request cascading semi-protection for this page set, which will create the first link, outside this set, to this page.
The sock master said that he was disengaging. Unless these new socks are impersonations -- someone else learning the trick from the AP family and using it against them -- he was lying, and the comment itself was self-contradictory, because it promised continued attack on my content. --Abd (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
This is my user space. I will take some liberties here that I would not take elsewhere on meta. In particular, I will again respond interspersed. This is done because the user makes many claims, and storing them up to respond in a single long post is tedious and unnecessarily confusing. I do not intend to allow extended repetitive argument here. I have requested semiprotection, which may quiet things down. The user is attracting attention to these pages that it would not otherwise have. He is apparently hoping to get them deleted. But they are regularly being archived and the content is not illegal or in violation of policy. And this is "free content," others may pick it up and reproduce it. The sock master here has made many enemies, and some of them just might use this. That is not the purpose here, but by throwing a fit, the user makes it more likely.

I am not the 'sock master' AP. I am somebody else, you have mentioned one of my users. part of Bruce Canada (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Basically, Bruce Canada, you are admitting sock puppetry. You know and do not care that you are likely to be globally locked, The one obsessed is you, most clearly and for the longest term. The history that is appearing on these pages makes it clear, to anyone who actually studies it. Actual study is often called "obsession" on the wikis. It's a lot of work. However, I have done this work many times in many areas, and it has paid off, quite well. --Abd (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no technical evidence to link the recent Michael Skater family to the AngloPyramidologist family from years ago.part of Bruce Canada (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Not true. I have evidence but have not published it, just as checkusers don't publish all that they see. As well, it doesn't matter yet. It involves IP evidence linked back from some mistakes you (or another member of the family) made. From many claims you have made -- you really do shoot off your foot with your mouth -- you partition access to avoid checkuser, but I've seen many do that, and almost always they eventually slip up somewhere. And then it's visible. and then they may take action to cover it up. But the action then reveals more. Basically, when we attempt to deceive, we weave a tangled web. This connected back to a user tagged as AP. And so I will look for additional confirming evidence. I know methods for doing that which you never dreamed of. It simply takes time, and the more you attack, the more motivated I am to complete this. You are continuing to create disruption globally. You have claimed to have many Wikipedia accounts, thus creating a motivation to look for them. They will not be on that list, but the behavior of the list will generate patterns that can then be sought with other accounts. You have, for years, avoided consequences by imagining that what you do could not be detected. Maybe you are right, but ... maybe not. I have noticed that an account you have defended (even though that user was not being attacked) became completely inactive. Why? If you are running many socks, perhaps that was a sock and other active accounts became more important to you. Or perhaps the user realized how he was being used, and your attempt today to hide behind the Guerilla Skeptics is noticed, and I expect I will be in communication with them. They don't need help from people like you, you gave them a bad name with your misbehavior on Wikipedia. --Abd (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

You have linked the two without admin approval or checkuser/technical evidence. part of Bruce Canada (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

It is not necessary to have admin approval to, for example, compile and file checkuser requests or SPIs on Wikipedia. It is not necessary to have checkuser evidence to create suspected sock puppet reports, and it is possible that the majority of blocks on Wikipedia for sock puppetry have no such identification. You have been waving the same red flag, in exactly the same way, as you have done with other accounts, and no "checkuser/technical evidence" is necessary. You are correct, as far as I know at this time, that there is no such direct and public evidence, but you also know that such evidence would be impossible because of accounts being stale. But there are other ways to link accounts. For example, suppose a particular user also edits by IP, and then carries on with work done by another user who was blocked. That's a connection, and users are commonly blocked for it. It might not be literal sock puppetry, but then could easily be meat puppetry, which is treated the same as sock puppetry. --Abd (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

You present your allegations as factual. In other words you are writing libel. You have also linked the AngloPyramidologist (AP) family to other accounts, i.e. Tumbleman and unconnected users associated with the Journal of Cosmology (H.vonNeumann, Russellml etc) or an abusive account Jamenta. All these accounts are entirely unrelated but you are putting them all under one person AP. part of Bruce Canada (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

My, you have studied the tome obsessively! Why the high motivation? Jamenta 2 has been tagged as a sock, creating suspicion about Jementa. That's all. You claim they are entirely unrelated, but you are an abusive LTA who lies frequently. Tumbleman is listed as a possible target of abuse (so editor interactions might be of interest). The Journal of Cosmology is a fascinating mess, I have recently documented some of this elsewhere. However, H.vonNeumann and Russellml showed up in looking at identified socks and interests. For you to pick those accounts out of that enormous list shows a very high level of knowledge of who is and who might not be actual AP socks. The listing on the attached page is not an accusation, merely a noting of a level of suspicion, which is not libel if rooted in evidence. I have not claimed that the evidence is probative. However, closer study might make it so.

This is not acceptable, none of these accounts belong to AP. part of Bruce Canada (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

This could be true, if "AP" is the least disruptive brother of a family that uses the same internet access, at least on occasion. I don't care. There is a family of accounts, and some members of that family have been highly abusive, and some are continuing to be so now, and the fuss confirms the connection. A mere error, on an obscure page, would not create this reaction. If one pokes an unknown animal, and it quacks like a duck, maybe it's a duck!

Why are you creating pages about users on Wikimedia? part of Bruce Canada (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

This user created pages about many users on Wikipedia, to get them blocked and banned, or supported this. This user also created an article on me on RationalWiki, and the timing and arguments made show clear connection, that this was an attempt at revenge for what I'd done -- ruining their attack plan on a non-disruptive user and getting them locked and the "work" they had accomplished undone. I am planning on creating an LTA page when the research is completed. I do not want to make any false accusations. It takes work to do this. The pages at this point are drafts and explicitly may contain errors. I have invited users to correct errors, but instead there has only been overall attack. One problem is that the attacks claim I have wrongfully accused users of this or that, when inclusion on the page is not an accusation, merely a note for investigation. Many Wikipedia SPI investigations end up as either inconclusive or clearing the user. I had accumulated a list of suspected socks, and just used it for a checkuser request. Now there are even more! --Abd (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

You are the first user to do this here Abd, it is not in line with the goals of this wiki. part of Bruce Canada (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Obviously you have never seen global ban requests or LTA vandalism reports. Or you are simply lying. You have been cross-wiki disruptive, and protecting the wikis from that is very much a goal of this project. --Abd (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

You are also claiming users have been impersonated and they were done by AP but there is no evidence for this. The Michael Skater family is not AP, neither is the Journal of Cosmology editors or these other users. part of Bruce Canada (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

"AP" is one brother in a family, and there is evidence that the other brother (and there may be a third) has been highly abusive as a puppet master. In going over the accounts, my goal is to see if I can distinguish the users. "AP" is, in this study, as it is on Wikipedia, a name for the family of accounts, connected technically or by the duck test, as being related. As I have explained above, I have presented no technical evidence linking Michael skater to the literal user AP. However, human beings are fantastic at pattern recognition, we can see patterns through substantial noise. I will examine the "skater = AP" hypothesis, but at this point, the quacking is deafening. All this will be eventually taken into consideration and the pages will go public and I lose control at that time. I also lose control if they are deleted here (I won't recreate them, but a deleting admin may restore them, that will be up to the admin or another.) When I lose control, it all becomes fully public with no opportunity to correct. I have already removed on name listed based on an apparent request (and the name was not important at this time.)
strictly speaking, that was not a correction, because there was no error, but it was removed as a courtesy. It will only come back if some necessity appears. --Abd (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Your evidence is your own word. part of Bruce Canada (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, on one point where presenting the evidence publically could involve a privacy violation. However, that is only a tiny part of what is presented here. Who is so concerned about Anglo Pyramidologist, a user whose name has been dragged through the mud on Wikipedia for years? Here, at least, I can note the very real possibility that AP is not literally the other users. The study doesn't show much on that yet. Expect it to. --Abd (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

What stops me then from creating a page about you on metawiki linking you to a hundred of unrelated accounts? You say something so it must be true? This is not evidence. Bruce Canada (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

A shred of prudence perhaps? You could create such pages and you would probably be whacked and the pages deleted. Do you think I would raise a big fuss? About harmless pages in your user space? I would not even notice them unless you pinged me (which mentions might do). And then I might file a single report or request, if it mattered to me. If your pages claimed to a draft for a checkuser report, or a ban request, or a vandalism report, I'd simply laugh! Go ahead, make my day! File it!
I do not expect anyone to think anything is "true" that is not clearly shown with evidence. I use AP as the name of the sock master because I found connections and so I suspect it. No steward would lock that account just because I say so. AP could, in fact, request unblock on Wikipedia, he is not banned and not even blocked here, he could defend himself. You, creating a massive sock army, are simply being disurptive, probably believing that your other accounts are safe. Maybe they are, and maybe you tempt fate one to many times, and you fall off a cliff. --Abd (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
My original comment has been moved and edited, please see the original here [5]. I am tired of this user abd, he was blocked on Wikipedia, is not an admin here yet he thinks he runs this place creating pages about users. I guess I will have to contact an admin about his abuse. I noticed another user on Abd's talk-page said he was doing this. Bruce Canada (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
There was no intention to alter the user's comment, and the original is still in place. He was correct that I'm not an admin here, nor, at present, anywhere in the WMF. I do have admin privileges elsewhere, and can see private data, and this user's patterns are normally blatant, but he does have accounts that he keeps hidden, obviously partitioning access to avoid checkuser, but there are details that allow identification, once one is familiar. Becoming familiar was the original purpose of these studies. There are also apparent collaborations with more-legitimate users, who may or may not realize what they have supported or even encouraged. This user tosses some names about, as if he is "defending" them. He has claimed to be paid by organizations to do his editing. All this is clearly grounds for investigation. He will attempt to stop this, going to great lengths, including, from prior and recent behavior, off-wiki harassment.
The user is, ah, incorrect, in saying he has "tired" of me. He has simply moved attack on me elsewhere, which I do not need to bring here, but, above, the user refers to "another user on Abd's talk page." That was simply another of his socks. This kind of blatant deception, original and pure sock-puppetry, intended to create an impression of more than one user, is typical for this LTA. The users involved in this comment:
The present study is not targeting any users other than socks of Anglo Pyramidologist or identified in the recent disruptions, or reasonably connected with them. Because of the vagaries of Wikipedia sock identification, some users who are not AP socks may have been named. Nobody should be sanctioned solely because of being named here. I have only requested checkuser of strongly identified socks, or immediate SPAs.
A common claim of AP socks is that someone exposing their behavior is "doxxing" or "outing" them. I have not given real-life information, as far as I recall, even though it is widely known or believed. I have IP information which I have not given. However, I am not excluding IP contributions where they appear, which is similar to Wikipedia practice. I have found one IP, from my own private study, that, when I checked, was globally blocked as LTA, and that showed extensive AP-interest contributions on Wikipedia. I will be looking for connections there to active accounts, I have seen some.
Two socks active on Commons where already locked and Commons contributions deleted, and that, in fact, led to more socks.
The more this sock master reacts and attacks, the more revealed he becomes. Or they become, because common opinion is that this is actually two brothers, which can be seen in the early Anglo Pyramidologist SPI cases. Patterns can be seen that do indicate two personalities. But both are highly disruptive.


I have been actively researching this user, who has created hundreds of socks on other wikis and sites allowing comment. I have technical evidence, equivalent to checkuser and/or strong duck test, showing connections, but am not revealing that here to avoid privacy concerns. The research is linking back to various unidentified Wikipedia socks, or socks incorrectly identified with other users. (Impersonation has been a long-term behavior of this sock master.) I have compiled extensive documentation elsewhere, but am not bringing that here as yet; the current disruption is mostly outside the WMF; but there is current WMF activity which may be documented as I have time. --Abd (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Ping, I read this and it seemed to be more than 1 person. --Artix Kreiger (Message Wall) 21:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I'm avoiding real-life identification here unless it becomes necessary. So far, not. However, there are two basic behavioral patterns, so what you see is sensible. In early sock edits, one claims that his brother is the one doing most of the socking, and he actually asks for his IP to be blocked to stop it. Off-wiki, there is much information about this user, claiming two brothers, who are named. There was also early mention of a sister. We can see that a later tagging was of a female username. However, the vast majority of socks are pushing one of two fairly narrow agendas. It has become very personal, revenge and harassment, not so much ideological.
However, it is also possible that there is one user pretending to be or acting as more than one personality. There are definite personality shifts. There is a user who seems relatively sane and balanced, but when he is blocked in some way or frustrated, there is an avalanche of anger and attack and massive trolling.
All the "personalities" are blocked and should probably be banned. Checkuser will tag as related if family members use the same access on occasion. However, Wikipedia, which would be the place for a ban to start, where most long-term activity has taken place, seems quite inattentive. That's up to them. It's not my decision, being banned there! I'm just collecting data, both here, and elsewhere, mostly on RationalWiki, where a revenge article on me was created, and clearly by AP socks. --Abd (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)