User talk:ජපස

He signs “jps,” his real-life initials. His user name is his initials in Sinhalese. Why does he do this? He doesn’t say.  I won’t either, though it’s obvious to anyone who knows his history, or at least the parts of it that I know. It’s not relevant here. This is not really about JPS. The conversation on his Talk page:

Abd posting slanders about you[edit]

There is a banned Wikipedia user and coldfusion advocate Abd who has been posting your personal details, Wikipedia history and dox on internet forums and also his personal blog. I will not link to this forum or his blog but Abd is a known pseudoscience promoter [2] with a notorious online history. He is currently on Wikiversity where he defends and works with the banned sock-puppeteer Ben Steigmann. As this guy has been slandering you in various places I was just giving you a heads up. He is currently doing the same to me so I know how it feels. He also likes to stalk peoples families and post deliberate slanders about them. He is banned on Wikipedia but Wikiversity still hosts his pseudoscientific content, he wrote most of their cold fusion article117.20.41.9 (talk) 04:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Abd’s new slander about you post. Can you help get this guy banned from Wikiversity? He defames skeptical Wikipedia editors on his blog, he writes slanders, falsehoods and misinformation, he is banned from Wikipedia yet Wikiversity hosts his nonsense. (talk) 06:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

This IP had just been blocked as

(and is about to be blocked as this IP, and as others that appear in this conversation. This is a highly disruptive user, and the previous IP (.10) was attacking Ben Steigmann. Steigmann had apparently actually socked on Wikipedia, with a few scattered edits, but the IP with his report and attack was far more disruptive, and cross-wiki disruptive.

JPS knows who I am, we had interaction — some of it positive — when I was editing Wikipedia. And here, the IP is on an agenda that has nothing to do with JPS, attempting to get him involved in a huge can of worms. I have not “stalked” anyone’s “family.” There is a sock farm, Anglo Pyramidologist, 190 socks so far, and one of the socks, early on, claimed to be a brother of the disruptive creator of many socks. There was also mention of a “sister.” One of the socks identified has a female name and was not herself disruptive — though aligned with the others as to POV, possibly. I have noted the possibility that an occasional visit to the family home and use of the same internet access, then, may have led checkusers to tag others, possibly incorrectly. That is the only mention of “family” in the study I have done. It is not even an attack, could even be seen as some kind of excuse or exoneration. But … at least one member of this sock “family” is vicious and routinely lies, which he is doing here. And the others don’t blow the whistle, at least not any more, and that makes them responsible.

AP uses the word “slander,” which refers to the spoken word, he’s not sophisticated. It would be “libels,” if it was false and defamatory. However, I have no intention to present any false information, and intention is required for violation of law (and sometimes for the civil tort, unless reckless negligence is asserted.) The law is reasonably settled on blogging. 

In this case, I had indeed written a post about JPS, his account history and work after last coverage (by others following him).  It was at the beginning of October. Until just the other day, it seems nobody had noticed it. Then complaints from this IP user and by another AP sock on RationalWiki appeared, linking to archive copies, making it difficult to remove. I did remove it, promptly, as a courtesy to JPS, and I requested that the post on the forum (single forum, not plural) be deleted. Moderation there has not yet responded, AFAIK. I also immediately emailed JPS and offered to cooperate with him in getting the material removed. He has not responded well. But maybe he will wake up. If he is actually being harmed, fixing that would be, rationally, the first order of business. I’m taking a minor risk acknowledging that I wrote the forum post, but … I did, and I don’t hide. It was not libelous, as far as I know, and no specific libels have been alleged.

Generally, Wikiversity doesn’t have “articles,” though articles can be drafted there, as JPS used Wikisource to draft a Wikipedia article on Optics (which I supported moving to Wikipedia.) User space there has extremely high freedom. Mainspace often veers off of neutrality, just because it’s a wiki, but anyone can fix that, and custodians are cooperative. It is very, very different from Wikipedia, where conflict is high.

Thanks for the note. There are people with better connections who watch this use talkpage than I who can maybe deal with some of the Wikiversity stuff. I try to steer clear of that website when possible. jps (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a long history of attempts by Wikipedians to control Wikiversity. Those attempts generally fail. JPS is confused about the history. Wikiversity has welcomed user who were banned from Wikipedia, and who usually — not always — become useful contributors on Wikiversity. The problem is?

So, what does “Wikiversity” have to do with this “information” from the LTA sock? Why JPS tries to “steer clear” of Wikiversity is unclear. It’s quite a safe place, and that is somewhat of the complaint, and JPS is showing his sense about this. Wikiversity does not ban “fringe” or “pseudoscience.” But it does have a neutrality policy, and if a resource there is not presented neutrally, it’s a policy violation. But if “anti-fringe” and “anti-pseudosciece” users stay way, what’s left?

Me, that’s what is left, and I am totally against the presentation of fringe as mainstream and pseudoscience as being science, and I’ve demonstrated that. JPS has never tried to correct misinformation on Wikiversity. He could, easily, but Wikiversity has ways of handling conflict that usually don’t involve blocks. Revert warring is generally unnecessary there, because resources can be forked if conflict appears. 

Abd has removed the slander about you on his personal website because I complained, but the stuff he posted on two forums still remains.

There was no slander. No libel either. It was not because he complained, I didn’t care about his opinions, but I did remove it as a courtesty to JPS. I could always put it back, after all. As to the forum (again, singular, not plural), moderation has not yet responded and I have no idea if JPS has also made the request. With the support of me as author, he could probably get it done. He might be able, the same, to get the archive copies taken down, particularly with my support as author. He is not indicating any interest in working on that. Maybe he will change his mind.

He has now changed his original post about you and turns it into a hit-piece against me.

Well, this user is also editing RationalWiki (and I have strong technical evidence) and is the one who archived the posts. He linked to that page, so I wanted readers to see the other side. He can call it a hit-piece, but he has never alleged any specific errors. He created an article on me on RationalWiki with many errors and misleading statements, and I gave corrections on the Talk page — and described what was obvious, the creator of that article, an SPA made just for the purpose — had created it as revenge. And then I started to document just how much damage this user had done on RationalWiki. 190 socks on Wikipedia, probably more on RationalWiki, at least he claimed 700. The response, by a new, wet-behind the ears sysop, clearly also a sock of AP, was to block me. (It is easy to get sysop privileges there.) Not a problem, I will write corrections on my blog, and as long as my blog is linked from the article (right now there are multiple links), that’s enough for me. He is complaining because I use the resources available to me to report, and I’m a reporter. I have many more resources I have not yet used. 

He’s been obsessed by this since I began investigating, doing everything he can to try to stop it. Except actually correcting errors. As far as I can tell, he is not being directly supported by others. He claims as independent voices, comments made by checkuser-identified socks of the same user. It’s all totally preposterous.

“Me” and other comments like this are where he admits to being AP. Experienced block-evaders learn to partition IP, and he usually does it. But he is not aware of all the breadcrumbs he drops. I’m not revealing it all yet because I’m happy that he reveals more. Eventually, if he doesn’t drop the cudgel, I expect to see a global ban request. And then the WMF will complete take over enforcement, and they are stiff.

His original post about you is very different to his now deceptive live version.

It actually states that it’s different. How is it “deceptive”? Again, what errors or “deceptions”? He is never specific, these are empty claims. If a registered editor made claims like this on Wikipedia, they’d be blocked in fairly short order. He routinely lies about what is in my pages.

How now claims I have ‘harassed’ him and that it is ‘libel’ to archive his original website posts.

He has, multiple times, revert warred with me on my own user talk page. This set of IPs did it, all mutually confirming. He has placed complaints about me on steward pages (they blocked him). 

I have not stated that it was “libel” to archive his posts; rather, it was, if the goal was to protect JPS, extremely foolish, cementing what he claims is “slander” into archives where it is cumbersome to remove. JPS could make it all irrelevant, but … isn’t asking how. He’d prefer to continue, I’m guessing, with a badly broken strategy that does not actually protect him.

Notice that he is effectively admitting he archived the posts, making it unnecessary for me to disclose the technical evidence. Otherwise, why would he even bother to point this out? If I make some stupid mistake, what difference does it make? But I already knew. He did it.

Indeed, he has entirely spun this round to try and hide his old blog post.

How can I “hide” it? He archived it! I’m not linking to it, for obvious reasons. But he is. He is the one who lives by hiding, I don’t hide. I’m open. Even when I was socking on Wikipedia (for a short time as a test), I was disclosing it all. I never created a big disruption or made SPI investigations necessary. Most of the sock edits, at first, actually had an edit summary “will self-revert per ban of Abd,” and then reverted immediately. It drove the admins crazy. That’s part of what I wanted to test. I had cleared self-reversion as a method for banned users to cooperate with a ban, by making enforcement simple and creating no mess to clean up. In the recent mess with Blastikus, he had self-reverted, but his motives were different. Long story. But the big fuss was not necessary, there was no need to restore content and nobody needed to read those edits who didn’t want to. I made sure that users knew who was editing and that the editor was banned. Blastikus did not know to do that, and in any case, even though an arbitrator had approved of self-reversion (I had first suggested it to JPS when he was topic-banned, and he rejected it, uncivilly….) admins saw it as a defiance of authority and responded with extreme measures, all for edits that were, in themselves, not disruptive and actually useful. And they never learned. Instead, they raged and blamed…. too bad! The original Wikipedia Rule Number One was lost. It was only a short test and I stopped quickly and have not done it again, since, I think, 2011.

The community has the right to ban! It may not always be the sanest response to problems, though.

In any case, AP is trying to make removing allegedly slanderous content into an offense of its own! And it drives him crazy that, instead of my starting to foam at the mouth, as he does, I take advantage of it. To get Blastikus socks blocked he creates massive disruption. He might look at what I did to obtain global locks for his socks. Succinct. These latest took little more than two words: “open proxy.”

He now tries to make out I am the bad guy for signing up to Wikipedia and informing you about his article.

Weird. He did not “sign up to Wikipedia.” I have documented what he does, and it was not necessary to use open proxies to “inform” JPS. The simple way would have been to create an account (using an undetected open proxy if needed, if his regular home IP is blocked — which it is) — which he has done more than 190 times on Wikipedia — and enable email — which he almost never does — and then email JPS through the interface. My Wikipedia email was never blocked because it was never claimed that I abused it. I used email to inform JPS, through the Wikipedia interface, of the issue, and to suggest cooperation in getting content removed.

Never, ever, call attention to alleged privacy violations openly. That’s all clear to any experienced user. And I was very surprised that JPS allowed this conversation on his talk page, which would reveal it to anyone looking there. In particular, any enemy. His enemies (and I think he has many) will not be watching the new talk page, because of the name change. However, the disruptive IP edits would lead to looking at all the IPs edits. This is simply normal, totally normal. And that is how I learned of JPS’ new account. Not by other means (which I have but which would have been far more cumbersome.)

I have not claimed he is a “bad guy” for providing this information, but that he is clearly not actually interested in JPS welfare. He’s got his own very private and very personal agenda, and is using skeptics (and possibly skeptic organizations, he has claimed support) as cover.

He even promote a wacky conspiracy theory I am responsible for his Rationalwiki article (I’m not).

Lying — or presenting misleading information. It might be his brother. However, while the AP socks often claim “there is no technical evidence” — an argument they use to divert attention from massive “duck test” evidence — there is such evidence. It is not a “conspiracy theory” to assert that one person who has threatened retaliation, a person known to use voluminous numbers of socks, has acted on what he threatened. He imagines that because he’s using different accounts, on RationalWiki which has no checkuser, that he cannot be found out. He’s wrong. There is clear evidence. And there is evidence elsewhere, in the edits of his identified socks. That is part of what the meta LTA study is about, to make it possible to see those, collected, otherwise it would be quite cumbersome.

He accuses me of being a paid Wikipedia Guerrilla Skeptic, a banned Wikipedia user (someone called AP), and an admitted schizophrenic (all these claims are false)

He is blocked there as AP, whether he is actually AP or not. There are behavioral identifications of AP socks (with possibly more than one pattern, I have found two basic patterns, but that is weak, relatively speaking), and there are checkuser and other technical identifications. One of the AP socks, in the recent checkusered famlly that could be called “Michaelskater,” claimed that he was paid (or offered payment) by a “skeptical organization.” There are two reasonable suspect organizations. And this is mostly outside what I’m researching. I have seen no evidence of his being paid by GS, so I have not accused him (or them) of that. Again, AP almost never provides evidence for his claims of error. “Admitted schizophrenic” was from what may have been an impersonation. Again, I have not claimed truth on this, though I might have reported what was said. That is not an accusation, it’s a report. I do not trust what any real or possibly impersonating AP sock might have written, those edit records are full of lies and deceptions. He sometimes attacks himself, and as a sysop on RationalWiki, he has blocked himself. Or maybe his brother….

I show this to you as an interesting case study.

Fascinating, I’m sure. I warned JPS. I suggested, as I recall, that he delete this comment without reply and that he request an admin rev-del them and any others referring on-wiki to the comments I had made. He has not done this, obviously.

In no place in his new post does he apologize to writing slander about you.

That is correct, and that is because I did not write slander. However, I did remove visibility of the content out of courtesy to JPS, certainly pending resolution. However, the material on JPS talk page is now in a place where enemies will readily come across it, i.e., his talk page. And this discussion, kept in the open like that, and with no request to me not to cover it, becomes fair game. 

With his old article entirely changed, anyone now visiting his website will instead think I have been harassing him and yourself.

Indeed. Too bad for him! But, ah, who is he? Why would anyone care about this no-account loser? However, the facts are easily established. And what will people think about me, reading what AP created on RationalWiki? He claims he didn’t do that. Okay, who did? However, remember, I have technical evidence. He’s lying. But suppose he isn’t. Suppose his brother used the same open proxy. Just suppose…. And there is a vast difference between what I have written about this and what AP wrote on RationalWiki. I have a strong desire to be clear and only to present verifiable fact, or if I speculate, to state it as such. AP blatantly lies and deceives and claims what is directly contrary to fact.

But I’m not taking the time to present additional evidence here. This is just a conversation. If I file a global ban request, everything in it will have evidence presented. I’m just not sure it’s worth the effort at this point. If WMF disruption continues, maybe…. 

This is serious deception and misinformation from abd.

Lie. Not one piece of verifiable evidence shown, of specific deception or misinformation.

This is just another example for me of why irrational people cannot be trusted. I will not be further responding here but I hope you see this is the sort of deception I have to put with from abd.

What I would hope is that JPS actually follows up on what he’s been given. He knows how to contact me, if he needs assistance. I generally would hope that Wikipedians and others not form any opinions just based on what so-and-so says. A great deal of mischief has been done on Wikipedia by misapplying Assume Good Faith. When an anon or SPA attacks someone, assuming that the evidence presented is not cherry-picked or framed to make it look bad is a serious error. Even very good and careful editors make mistakes, sometimes huge ones.

He also claims it is ‘illegal’ to archive his blog posts


and I will get in trouble for this.

Lie. But he is already in trouble for other acts. What this did was reveal substantially more evidence about his real-life identity, at least his physical location. If he is in legal trouble (he isn’t from me, so far), that could assist a plaintiff. But it is not about archiving being illegal it isn’t.

He was banned on Wikipedia for this sort of behaviour,

Lie. Nothing like this at all. I was banned for socking, one sock for a short time. AP has 190 socks blocked, over six years or so. But he’s not “banned,” I think.

and as to this present day he defends the banned sock-puppeteer and pseudoscience promoter Ben Steigmann and claims I have ‘attacked’ this user.

Steigmann is not banned, either, just blocked. And AP is here personally attacking him without any reasonable justification other than attempting to attack me. This was the truth, though, aside from the imprecations about Steigmann. I did defend him from false charges and also have claimed that AP has attacked Steigmann, and he did this many times in the recent edits of this mutually-connected (and very obvious and admitted) IP sock family. (See the study, which is updated as new WMF socks appear.) Reporting socking, in itself, is not “attack,” but it can be done in an uncivil manner with unnecessary accusations, etc., which AP did.

Unfortunately he is still active on meta-wiki and has a whole slanderous ‘project’ about skeptical users over there.

Lie. Not about “skeptical users.” At all. It’s about him, or two or more users who have been tagged on Wikipedia as socks of Anglo Pyramidologist. Because JPS will identify as a skeptic, he wants JPS to think he is a target. He has used this tactic before. He attempts to create catfights between users.

He claims he is emailing you and that I am the guilty party.

JPS knows that I emailed him, and knows what I wrote. “Guilty” is not a word I use. AP is socking, massively and contrary to WMF policy, in a number of ways. That’s just what is happening, not a complex judgment like “guilty.”

He no doubt will write 2000 words to you about how he is innocent. Hopefully you can see through this guys deception. I have not harassed anyone.

Lie. He admits as this IP family that he will continue to look for Ben Steigmann socks and report them. Even though he has been blocked and locked for his activities. He attempts to get Steigmann blocked and his work deleted. And he harasses users on their talk pages, and admins and stewards who won’t act on his attacks. It’s all totally visible, if one looks. If not, what happens is that users and some admins tut-tut, “why are they fighting? I wish it would stop. Yeah, and that disruptive Abd….” This is common in wiki communities. If two people fight, 

I archived his blog post so I could warn people about his harassment. The reason I took interest in this is because he slanders skeptics like myself on his website every week. I was interested in his other targets and I thought I was doing the right thing in informing you about it. Take care. (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Lies. He archived it because he thinks this is dirt about Abd. What “other targets” (plural)? “Every week”? Then there must be a long list. Where is it? There are skeptics and there are pseudoskeptics. I have neither slandered (the wrong word) nor libelled any. This is typical for AP: claims so wildly exaggerated from reality that the fact underneath becomes almost irrelevant. I exposed AP, and I have reported the history of Joshua Schroeder. Not of it was libel or slander. It might be considered some kind of privacy violation, that would be arguable. But the one who most egregiously violated the privacy of one skeptic, Joshua Schroeder, is not me, it’s AP, by those totally unnecessary archivings. One may privately warn people, and one may publically warn without pointing to alleged libel, thus publicizing it. This user wanted to warn JPS, yes, and easily could have done so without creating a huge fuss. Instead, he spammed WMF wikis with his lies, and then, having established who he was and drawing attention, he edited JPS talk page.

There is only one so-called skeptic who is regularly covered, and it’s not on the blog itself, where it would be quite visible. It is on this page: Rational Wiki/Anglo Pyramidologist. Like the meta page on Anglo Pyramodologist, it does not attack “skeptics,” though AP claims it does. It ”documents” obvious socking on RationalWiki. . Like a Sock Puppet Investigation on Wikipedia, it may include incorrect identifications; however, that is only likely for a few of the listings, because some had a very brief edit history.

Because of all the Wikipedia claims, there are now more pages here, see Wikipedia/Conversations — which includes this page.

This is remarkable: I have not seen any recent blocked Anglo Pyramidologist socks who have appealed the block. All that has happened from the AP end is general attack on the documentation (on meta and here). On meta, sock puppets are used and they are uniformly blocked as IP, or locked as accounts. If there are errors of identification, one would think that the erroneously identified sock would attempt to correct that specific information. But, no, that has not happened. The most recent activity (from the IP posting on JPS talk).

Here, the IP is essentially admitting that he is Anglo Pyramidologist, or at least a prominent sock. The AP documentation is “about me,” he says. Okay, what’s true and what is false? Most of the page is links to contributions histories, with only a little interpretation. If a specific user claims to not be AP, I would incorporate that claim into the documentation until the issue is resolved — if it is ever resolved. But a general attack on me and the entire study will not result in any changes. It is simply trolling and I revert without comment. Comments are also open on this blog. So far, no corrections.

Why not? I think it is obvious: the user knows that this would reveal IP to me. Nobody else is standing up for him, except JPS, a little, and ineffectually, and on another page, also one of the Conversations here. AP is hiding, attacking many from behind a screen of anonymity. I have recommended to JPS that he come out into the open. He is far safer being actually public; otherwise, he is running scared, afraid of any revelation of his new identity. But that’s his choice. I have criticized the ideas of some pretty nasty people. I took out a post office box at San Quentin, California, to be more careful. There had been bomb threats.

If JPS has suffered severe harassment, he has not disclosed it. AP targets have, the information can readily be found on the internet in a few minutes.

I recommend taking refuge in the truth.

I appreciate your transparency in posting to my talkpage. The entire thing is rather tiresome to me. Abd has sent me two e-mails telling me that he wants to take down his attacks of me. He has also said that we are friends, though I have no idea who you are.Whatever allows for things to settle down is fine for me. It may be a good idea to get arbcomm involved. In fact, I think I’ll ping Drmies to see if he has any thoughts on this matter. jps (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I actually told him I had taken it down and requested that the moderator of that forum take that post down. (I can’t do it myself there.) But cats resist being stuffed back into bags, and AP has been noising all this on many pages, on RationalWiki and on WMF wikis. I have seen no sign that JPS is making any attempt to get material removed from publication. Instead, it appears that he is looking for some kind of retaliation or punishment. Doesn’t he understand that this backfires? Punishing Scibaby led that user to create a sock farm with more than a thousand socks, last time I looked. But Wikipedia too often does not look at how heavy-handed administration leads to more disruption. I’ve looked a bit more at JPS contributions. He is still engaged in battle, and then regrets that other users point it out.

Transparency? Using a series of open proxies? Lying about his identity? That’s “transparent”?

WP:DENY would be best. There is no reason to talk about off-wiki things that cannot be controlled here. Johnuniq (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Right. There was personal information, on the face, for JPS. Email. Not on a talk page, using open proxies! 

I don’t have much. I don’t understand these people; I wish they took up fishing. They were outed themselves a few times, so I would think they’d know what a shitty thing that is: you don’t mix up people’s private lives with Wikipedia editing. What does it take, Ajraddatz and RadiX, to get a global ban for someone who has been indefinitely banned on en-Wikipedia and is obviously harassing a current editor, albeit in an off-wiki forum? Drmies (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Drmies doesn’t understand because understanding takes time and patience. What he is doing here is apparently trusting the account of a massive sock puppeteer, highly disruptive, heavily blocked on Wikipedia and globally locked, using open proxies (he could as easily check that as I did) and not looking at actual evidence. So he asks the wrong question, even though it is a question that has been answered many times. Generally, nothing can be done. I’m not complaining on WMF wikis about AP doxxing me elsewhere — though now, because he’s linking to it on WMF wikis, maybe …. except that I don’t think a global ban would stop him or even slow him down. There are people looking at legal action, but it’s difficult and expensive. I’ll say that as to my action, JPS wouldn’t have a prayer of collecting anything.

Thanks. The last time nonsense like this came up, there was some serious talk about shutting down Wikiversity. I think they came within a hair’s width of doing so. jps (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Of note: [3] jps (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

JPS is clueless. What he points to is a disruptive discussion that was started to shut down “Beta Wikiversity,” not “Wikiversity.” There are many language Wikiversity, and I’m active on en.wikiversity. I also have been active on Beta, but Beta is a language Wikiversity incubator, and the user wanted to move it to the incubator wiki, which was opposed by the majority. Maybe a good idea, maybe not. Has nothing to do with the ordinary Wikiversity projects. His hostility to Wikiversity, and lack of understanding of it, has been manifest elsewhere.

A community global ban would require Abd to be indef blocked on two wikis or more, which isn’t the case. If there is significant off-wiki harassment occurring, you could forward the case to the Wikimedia Foundation’s Support and Safetyteam (email ca[at], and they might be able to take some action. If Abd is willing to take down the posts in question, then it might be best to pursue that route. — Ajraddatz (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: Sorry for the late reply. Ajraddatz has just explained exactly what should be done in this case and how it should be done as well. 🙂 RadiX 02:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks RadiXAjraddatz–I appreciate the explanation. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Weirder things have happened. The WMF, of late, has drastically increased office actions banning users. These bans are never explained. Banned users are actually not told why, from what I’ve heard, other than “violations of the terms of use.” So if I were banned, what term of use would have been violated by me. It’s a catch-all phrase used meaning “we decided to do this, and don’t ask why.” However, this is truly unlikely. For most WMF bans, there has been at least some kind of excuse. The WMF used to avoid this kind of thing because it increases legal risk, the trope of “it’s up to the community, we just provide hosting” legally protects them in most situations. I’ve never seen a decent explanation of the change. It’s caused quite a bit of disruption, consider the Russavia case, with extensive fallout and Russavia continuing to edit, and the Commons community not particularly cooperative with the WMF.

Theoretically, blocks and bans are protective, not punitive, and when they actually protect, that makes sense. However, if the “offense” is off-wiki documentation from public logs, how would a ban protect? Seems to me it would be more likely to encourage the alleged offenses. If a user abuses checkuser to obtain and inappropriately use private information, the remedy is to remove the checkuser privilege. However, the social reality is that bans are used as punishment, even though it’s useless.

JPS is a participant in a faction on Wikipedia that often gets what it wants when discussions are kept narrow, and that’s how I was banned. In fact, that ban had zero effect on my behavior, it changed nothing. There was no ongoing socking, just one sock. It was revenge, and that’s obvious. “Participant” does not mean improper off-wiki collusion. It simply means that a pattern of behavior can be seen, if one looks, that is pushing a factional point of view. Watchlists are the main tool, and notice that JPS is depending on certain admins watching his talk page. His friends.

That is simply how Wikipedia works. It’s not personal.

As there are admins present on the page here, I wanted to ask for help. Abd who has been blocked on Wikipedia is still active on wikimedia where he indulges in a very strange stalking project here of supposed “skeptical users” [4]. This project or study of his was originally on Wikiversity. It included real life names of people but he was warned for doxing and outing several users by an admin over there, so he removed the real life names. He then ported the study to meta.wikimedia. Abd has a strong grudge against a banned sock-puppet known as “Anglo_Pyramidologist” (AP). He then incorrectly links this user’s socks to another user Michael Skater (active in 2017). This user appeared to have some kind of vendetta against Abd and spoofed his username. He is now linking me to this person. He has incorrectly linked several peoples accounts/socks together and then claims it all the same person. He now has a section on my recent IPs here [5], and he keeps requesting for them to be globally locked. I am seriously concerned about this ‘project’. It contains serious misinformation and slander.

He is lying. What I do is examine edit logs and edits, which is otherwise tedious. People like AP would prefer that people remain in the dark. I don’t need an account to do that. The meta project is there because this user is a cross-wiki disruptive LTA, though most activity has been on Wikipedia. It is not about “skeptics,” though AP pretends to be a skeptic and allies with some. He claimed to be a “good friend” of JPS. JPS doesn’t recognize it, because AP did not give the user name by which he was known.

I created the first study on Wikiversity, but it became obvious that major attack on it would continue, and it was really a cross-wiki study, so I moved it to meta, where checkuser access is ready. The study being on Wikiversity was creating extensive disruption there, and Wikiversity does not have the staffing level that meta has.

It did not actually include “real-life names” of users, but there was one link, initially, to a web site that did, in the URL (and on the page). So that was rev-del’d, without any objection from me, it was unnecessary. Michaelskater was the tip of a very large iceberg. It appears that this sock is claiming that he is not Michaelskater (but who is he?).

However, while he clearly takes precautions, such as segmenting internet access, to avoid checkuser, he makes mistakes. He uploaded two images to Commons. The two accounts were locked by stewards from the investigation, and I filed a request on Commons for admin attention, and the images were deleted, permissions were improper anyway. The image had been used on RationalWiki and it was noticed there that it disappeared. But who had put it there? It was used shortly after being uploaded to Commons. The first insertion was by an IP, and the IP had edited Wikipedia, following up on other edits by an identified AP sock. That insertion was revision-deleted, and it is now apparently suppressed so intensely that there is no trace in logs. Someone at RationalWiki with high privilege is protecting the AP socks — which had already become obvious to me.

I have other technical evidence that I am not disclosing, because it is quite handy that the user does not understand how visible he is. If he learns, he may modify his behavior. Instead, I’m happier to continue collecting evidence, which may or may not be published.

I did not know anything about Anglo Pyramidologist until after the Michaelskater affair. I exposed what had happened, and was immediately attacked by an avalanche of socks. That got my attention! So I began documenting it. It is not about some old grudge. It’s all pretty fresh, and maintained by constant attack from AP socks. It’s slowed a bit, maybe. Maybe not. 

As another user who appears to have been blocked pointed out, Abd is not a check-user, nor admin, but seems to have put together four separate check-user results from different time spans going back years. He then claims all these accounts belong to the same person, a skeptic he blames for attacking his friend Ben Steigmann. But there is no solid evidence for this. A comment from another user claims there is more than one person involved [6]

Some truth! I am not a checkuser or WMF admin. This is not “four separate checkuser results,” it is a much larger series of results from the Wikipedia SPI page for Anglo Pyramidologist, plus recent meta steward checkuser, plus data from other sites in the background (not actually incorporated in the WMF study). This IP directly attacked Steigmann, which, all by itself, would link him to AP, from the past. However, there is technical evidence, this IP was being used by the sockmaster, and his location is revealed. He just doesn’t know what it is, and maybe he’s losing sleep over it. Too bad. A central source of information is the article that he created on me on RationalWiki. That is about as much hint as I’ll give. I have a page here with extensive RationalWiki sock descriptions, and that study is just beginning. He has claimed to have 700 socks on RW. I haven’t found that many, but this has been going on for years, I’m just the latest target. And previously, he was targeting people on Wikipedia. I have not been studying that, it’s complicated, but I may eventually get to it.

The reality is more complex than what AP asserts here. See the context of his link. I agree with that user, there appear to be two personalities in the study of actual user behavior.  I am not claiming that there is only one person, but that there are two (and maybe three) related persons, who, on occasion, share internet access. I don’t really care how many there are, because the persons support each other, usually. And they are all blocked on Wikipedia, but continue to edit anyway, what they accuse others of, like Steigmann.  

The talk-page has been locked so I cannot comment, but it appears another blocked user has also complained about the material that is there [7].

He is lying. It was him. So why was that talk page locked? (Actually, it is merely semiprotected, so that IP editors and new accounts cannot edit it, because it (and other pages) were the target of attack and vandalism by what were then checkuser-identified as socks. Michaelskater was fresh, then! (though some were also blockable as vandals). They would still be still be, which could be why he is using open proxies, but those are even more easily blocked, as soon as identified as open proxies. It doesn’t stop him. He just finds another open proxy. I’ve mentioned to the stewards that he is doing the WMF a service, revealing open proxies.

The “person” in question is From a tower who made arguments almost identical to the IP here. This is clearly the same person. That user was identified as a Michaelskater sock and globally locked. That and one more AP sock vandalizing, and the page was semiprotected. I can still be contacted, easily, but so far, all contacts from AP socks have been abusive. If there are errors in the studies, I don’t care who the corrections come from. But simple denials are not corrections of errors. They are claims. If a specific claim is made, I will see that it is incorporated in the study, by reference if not directly.

Abd has also edited this persons comments so this is deceptive.

This “person” — notice the lack of specificity — had no right to comment, but I did actually reply. To see what was going on, the page histories. the claim of deception from formatting

The real underling cause of this ‘project’ seems to be to defend Ben Steigmann. Indeed at the bottom of the ‘project’, Abd claims that Ben has only socked “relatively harmlessly” and he is has been the victim of skeptic harassment. He even recommends Ben request an unblock in the future.

So, a user has been blocked on Wikipedia but is not banned. “in the future” is specifically about the Standard Offer. I have acted to protect a Wikiversityi user from harassment, and there was very clearly harassment in the recent activity. Steigmann may have been harassed on Wikipedia, but I have not investigated that. He was blocked on Wikipedia and it was recommended that if he wanted to research parapsychological material, he could do that safely on Wikiversity. And he did. And occasionally harassment appeared. Suspected socks doing that are in the AP study. The AP characteristic is an SPA, hiding prior accounts (and thus obviously socking), but clearly promoting a Wikipedia-factional “skeptical” agenda. Skeptics are certainly welcome on Wikiversity, but not to harass other users. And protecting Wikiversity was my basic goal, and part of that is protecting users. Protecting Steigmann against consequences for socking on Wikipedia was not. I have advised him not to sock, and if he does sock, there is a danger of consequences.

But at the level of socking that he did, probably not. Indeed, that is why AP created all those impersonation socks, because the ordinary socking consequences were not going to extend to Wikiversity, and attacking Steigmann so that it would hurt was his motive.

Socking on one project is not generally grounds for a block on another project, this is very well-established. Cross-wiki socking can lead to locks, as we saw in the Michaelskater affair, and AP had many accounts locked. But not the old ones, and any of those old accounts with substantial activity would be able to edit the meta talk page, or could get there easily.

The sock mentioned above claimed that Anglo Pyramidologist denied the claims of identity with Michaelskater socks. If this is not AP, who is he? and how does he know what AP denies? This IP did just comment on the Wikipedia AP talk page, (lies) but it was long after that claim on meta. (That IP is now globally blocked.)

The Steigmann socking was, in itself, relatively nondisruptive, compared to the mess AP — Michaelskater — created with impersonation socks. It was simple and if all the IP had done was file the SPI, I might not even have noticed. Instead, he again went to Wikiversity and attempted to attack Steigmann (and me) there.

Abd’s entire case study seems to be an absolute mess and mind-wreck and I am now featured in it.

How is he “featured” in it? The study is about a sock farm, the whole farm, not an individual sock. AP was not actually the first account, but it doesn’t matter. It’s the name being used. The IP is listed, for obvious reasons, but is hardly featured, it’s a couple of lines in the IP section.

He is obviously mentioned in the study more than the IP. His behavior is identical to many of the socks there, so he is extremely likely to be them, and maybe he is almost all of them. That’s why he thinks he is “featured.” It’s because he is. And that’s obvious. Who does he think he’s fooling? He would only fool people who are distracted, paying little attention. And that’s worked for him for a long time.

I warned that he was attacking the tar-baby, that it was a Bad Idea. But he thinks he is winning. After all, the RationalWiki article! — which he has been pointing to on Wikipedia. Hmm…. I could ask for it to be blacklisted. Nah. It’s kind of fun. If it causes real harm (so far, not, which is different than the situation for some others he has harassed) then I’d reconsider.

How do I get his inaccurate study removed? He is logging in everyday writing more and more words on this study. I cannot work it out. This user has been blocked from Wikipedia but he is now active to defame anyone he likes on Wikimedia.

He is talking about the documentation of his IP edits. That would be this set of edits. Almost all of that activity was simply listing the IP socking and reporting the blocks. Who is defamed there? Correction of errors is invited; instead there have only been attacks on the entire study, which is just an extension of the Wikipedia SPI case, bringing in meta information.

As an identified Michaelskater sock, he claimed that he would work tirelessly to get the study deleted. He’s just doing what he promised to do. He’s attempting to find a way to enlist JPS in his plan.

I have not seen any other ‘studies’ like this, and Abd is now linking to this study on his website.

It’s being linked in these conversations, because it was linked on Wikipedia. By attacking it, AP is making it more visible. He claims he hasn’t seen other studies. Possibly he hasn’t. It’s time he learns that his activity can have consequences. It can bring high attention, which he is not accustomed to. This is only done for highly abusive users, called LTAs. See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse. On meta, see Vandalism_reports/Archives/Users/Beleiutz

As far as I can see no other user has ever done anything like this on Wikimedia

His lack of experience does not establish fact. That study is only about Wikimedia activity. And it could be here (on this blog rather than there, easily, though it is only peripherally related to the issues here). But I’d rather it be open to editing and review by all WMF users. It’s a wiki. Errors can be fixed.

yet no admins have paid attention to what Abd is writing. He has separate pages here [8], which appears more than obsessional. Is it in meta.wikimedia’s interest that this guy is hosting grudges against people?

You want to see what grudges look like, look at the wikiversity and meta activity of the Michaelskater socks, as shown in the study, and then this IP user is mild by comparison, but with the same basic message. I do think it likely that some sock reports will be filed on Wikipedia that will refer to the study. That study is just a collection of data from logs. It is not a collection of conclusions, primarily. Nearly every report there was backed by checkuser. They are socks, though it may be debated as to socks of whom? 

(Obviously, I cannot file sock reports on Wikipedia. But others can.)

This is not based on a grudge. To some extent, as I’ve written before, it is based on defiance of a demand from this highly disruptive attack troll that I stop. It was when those demands appeared that I realized I was onto something. Nobody would waste that much time trying to hide what would otherwise be harmless. This guy has been attacking many people (on Wikipedia and elsewhere), often outs them, and then attacks them even more severely if they complain about what has become obvious. One user or one close set of users, I don’t care which. I find it more useful to think of one, but to notice the basic patterns of interest. I have found some single socks with both sets of interests.

I mean can I turn up there, create an account and write about 10,000 words about him? The answer would be no, So why he is doing it about other users? This is not the objective of Wikimedia or any other Wiki. I really do not understand what is happening here. Should I write an email to the Wikimedia foundation to complain about this? How can this inaccurate study be taken down? (talk) 08:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

He can’t, most likely, because he’d immediately be recognized and blocked. Notice that he has filed many reports about Ben Steigmann, and this is just one example. I could find other users he has gone after, I’d bet. Yes, he doesn’t write a long study, because those people are not creating long, complicated edit histories, as the AP socks have done. He’d be welcome to try, but cannot do it without violating policy, since he’s blocked on Wikipedia, Wikiversity, and Meta, and attacking Abd has become a recognizable trait.

There is a careful study of my meager Wikipedia socking on Wikiversity. I wrote it. You won’t find it on Wikipedia, because I never generated the need for extensive admin attention due to socking. Abd is Abd, and it is actually my most-used name in real life.

As I understand it Rationalwiki is not part of Wikimedia, but this is interesting [9], […]

Fascinating, I’m sure. He wrote it. This is doxxing, by the way. But he’s already blocked. He knows RationalWiki very well, he has claimed to have 700 accounts there. Joke, he later said, of course. But … I haven’t counted what I’ve found so far. It’s hundreds. He creates an SPA, uses it to attack enemies, then disappears. When the targets point out the obvious, they are then blocked for “doxxing.” Neat strategy, eh? 

Abd was banned over there for “repeated doxxing as well as harassment, now attacking rationalwiki users on his personal blog”. He seems to have a history of attacking skeptical users and is now using Wikimedia as a place to do this. (talk) 08:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, indef blocked by Skeptical, an obvious AP sock. Very, very obvious to anyone who knows the specific interests. He’s disappeared. Wonder why? I am not “banned” on RationalWiki, merely blocked. I was desysopped without a Cooping, the standard process there, then blocked by Skeptical, all without Cooping. Why not? Because someone really did not want attention brought to the situation there, which I’d started doing. And many others have pointed it out, they are immediately blocked and edits rev-del’d. But it’s coming unravelled.

And this was entirely irrelevant to the situation of JPS. 

Would you be willing to compose an e-mail to Support and Safety team (email ca[at] If you want to draft it here, and I agree with it, I’m willing to send it too. jps (talk) 11:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

JPS is tempting me to look into his editing patterns. He is himself, no recent socking is suspected. Well, not on WMF wikis, anyway. And maybe not elsewhere. He is a real scientist now, not a bored grad student that he was when originally getting in so much trouble on Wikipedia, he finished his PhD.

Thanks for your advice, unfortunately no admin seems to have looked into Abd’s recent activities. I am in the process of writing an email and making an official complaint about Abd’s abuse and harassment. This issue is now very serious. Abd is following this discussion [10] so he is aware about what has been written here.

My activities have been seen by many administrators. Stewards have the highest privilege level on WMF wikis, and they have seen what I’m doing. The study was protected by a steward. Is the IP surprised that, after he attacked Steigmann again on Wikiversity and me, I’m following the contributions and looking for any new socks? Of course I would be aware of the discussion! It’s not a private discussion! And it was the worst possible place to complain about that old post, after having archived it so it could not be deleted. And, yes, this was him. Technical evidence, you know.

In his recent post he says I have admitted to “being the LTA Anglo Pyramidologist” on your user talk-page. Read above when did I say that? I am not that person and strictly denied it above.

But he is claiming that the study is about him. Which is it? About him or not? If it is wrong, where? And how would he know and why would he care so much, to obsessively research my past and create that RW article, and to create all this fuss? And he’s lying. As I have pointed out, there might be two (or maybe three) persons behind the AP socks. It is also not impossible that, out of the nearly 200 socks I’ve identified operating in the WMF, there are some false identifications (especially the brothers, but Wikipedia doesn’t consider that false, that’s a complicated issue). But those could be corrected, and it would actually be fairly easy for a good-faith editor. I know the actual geographic location. This user has claimed that I’m claiming to know where he lives, as if it would be his house address. Nope, it is ISP and ISP location, based on multiple identifications and confirmed by others who have researched him. It’s blocked on WMF sites, for a long time, as LTA. However, I have been told that his house address and other personal information is known. He has attacked many people, and some are resourceful and might take action. That’s his problem. I’m just documenting what I find, and it may eventually have some process relevance. I will disclose the technical evidence to any WMF functionary with the right to see private data. I will also assist other blog or web-site owners as may be appropriate. People are starting to communicate.

As you can see Abd is involved in serious deception, he is not a trustworthy source, his agenda seems to be wanting to attack skeptical users or IP/s he has a grudge against and he will lie about them if he needs to. He has a long history of being banned on forums and Wikis on the internet for harassing people, he is now using Wikimedia to do this. As I said above I do not believe it is in Wikimedia’s interest to be hosting his personal grudges. There is something very unethical about his study. Abd has since removed the slander about you on his blog but replaced it with something else entirely, which is confusing to say the least, but his posts attacking you on the thunderbolts forum and elsewhere still remain.

Definitely “confusing” for AP, who linked to a page and then found that the page now exposed what he was doing. So does he remove the link? What is he hiding?

Actually, there were two posts on Thunderbolts. I filed reports on them requesting them to be taken down. There has been no action or response. If JPS were to take action, I have promised support for it. It is also possible, in theory at least, to have archived material on and removed. Definitely for As author I would support it. However, JPS has shown no interest in cooperating with me, and was demanding and hostile. Not good. No wonder so many people have been after him. 

It wasn’t slander. I’m not linking to it, but if someone is tempted to believe AP, it can be found and read, thanks to the archiving AP initiated. If there was libel, I would issue a retraction. No retraction has been requested, only deletion.

I understand this issue does not involve you any longer so I will not bother with you with it anymore. As Abd is following this like a hawk, I will cease commenting here. I will email the support and safety team in privacy and hopefully they can take action. Thanks again for your help. (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Of course, that’s what he should have done in the first place, handled all this by email instead of plopping it down on JPS’s talk page, if it is sensitive as alleged. But that would not serve his primary purpose, which is revenge against Abd for frustrating his plan to get Steigmann blocked and his work deleted on Wikiversity, and exposing his extensive socking.

I have taken precautions, AP linked to it above. It’s the material at the top of the LTA study and then the material on Talk. If necessary, I would also take this to the WMF Board, but I doubt that it will be necessary.