Draft RW AP sock study

Red x.svg An editor believes that this user page should be deleted. The reason given is Abd ul-Rahman Lomax‘s personal vendetta against a Wikipedia user. Not relevant to Rationalwiki. Off-mission.”
Please discuss this assassination attempt on this article’s entry on the Articles for deletion page.

Because a mangled version of the name (a common AP trait) — and many false accusations about what I have found — has been posted, I am creating this study on RationalWiki. A foundation of this study is found on meta, you can see my contributions there, I’m [1] there. That study, however, is only of WMF socks, beginning with those found in w:Suspected sock puppets/Anglo Pyramidologist/, and adding in new socks identified on Wikiversity and meta, checkusered as “Michael skater” socks (many reports), that being the earliest then-identified account, and found (by me) to be connected with AP socks by private evidence, as well as obvious behavioral traits and claims of the socks, there are more than 200 of them, since 2011 (with one account going back to about 2008, as I recall (but not named as the puppet master).

Since the most recent sock creation here, at this writing, admitted to being a returning user familiar with my account here, and another, clearly having done an obsessive level of research into my internet history (which is extensive, going back into the 1980s, pre-web), and claimed to have 700 socks here (a “joke,” later claimed), I’ve decided to study the RW activity. This page will list suspected AP socks on RationalWiki. Because the identifying behavior could also happen independently, there is no claim here that all listed are AP socks, but most will likely be, from 100% success at identifying them on the meta wiki.

Whether or not RationalWiki wants to do anything about this is not up to me. I am an observer and watcher, reporting what I see and, then, after I have seen much, perhaps some analysis.

One of the characteristics of these socks is impersonation of others, so it is always possible, as well, that some enemy creates an impersonation sock for them. The AP “family” may also literally be a family, early edits claimed that the disruptive sock master was “my brother,” being identified with him by coincident IP. Thus when AP/X claims not to be AP/Y, it might be true. So one of the current aspects of my study on meta has been looking for other behavioral traits, to be able to classify these accounts as one brother or another, and there is also a claim of a sister being blocked as well, for the same reason. There is one clear candidate for that; but the problem is that the interest area of this account was identical to that of another brother, she was merely better behaved. As pointed out on Wikipedia, in the SPI case, this could also be a “good hand” account. Still in violation of policy. Block in spite of apparent positive contributions. A Wikipedia problem, Wikipedia became inflexible and hyper-reactive, it was not always like that.

Many of the account names found in WMF history also show up on RationalWiki. Because of impersonation (or, more rarely, coincidence), no “proof” is claimed that these are the same user (or user family), but it’s an obvious working hypothesis.

To be added to this list: reg date, first edit, total visible contributions as of listing, last edit as of listing, and other qualities.

At this point, this is just the tip of the iceberg. There are major AP targets that I have not looked at yet, this is just from a few pages and recent activity.

List of accounts

  1. Abd (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) Not an SPA, but focus on Abd, recently.
  2. Boredatwork (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) SPA. interest in Abd, betrays long-term RW.
  3. Asgardian (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) SPA, interest in Abd. Waves sign, “Sock.” See also AP interest
  4. Marky (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) SPA, interest in Abd.
  5. EmilOWK (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) not AP, but AP interest area, probably the real Emil O. W. Kirkegaard, could be verified if needed. Probably harmless sock of User:E. O. W. Kirkegaard
Disclosure: I do not know and had zero familiarity with Emil O. W. Kirkegaard.
  1. EmilOWK2 (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) impersonation of EmilOWK[2]
  2. BenSteigmans (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) SPA for AP interests, started the Kirkegaard article. Many AP socks impersonate Ben Steigmann.
  3. Igobymanynames (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) long-term but still SPA, AP interests, name is a sock admission
  4. OldSword (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) SPA, AP interests, “Sword” is common among AP socks.
  5. Welliver (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) still SPA, many AP interests.
  6. Waller Joel from Florida (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) SPA interest in Abd
  7. Waller MU Joel Abd (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) SPA, “Abd” in username an AP trait, trolling for approval of spiritualism
  8. (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) long term, AP interests, persistent ISP matches prior WP SPI for AP
  9. Michael_Coombs_heyguy (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) SPA, probable impersonation sock, attempts to impugn EmilOWK
  10. Wing Street (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename)
  11. Skeptical (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) SPA, AP interests, but just got sysop rights. This requires some serious caution.
  • See [3] where Skeptical blocks a gaggle of socks and deletes harassment article contributions by likely AP socks — or impersonators.
  • On the other hand, AP, to create the appearance of being someone else, has been known to “oppose” himself. He has nothing invested in those socks and pages, knows from the start that they will probably be blocked and pages deleted.
  • I still want to list Skeptical here. This is not a list of proven socks, merely possible suspects. This would be done on Wikipedia, though, hopefully, with more behavioral study; this is not a request, just a study and before it becomes any request (which may or may not happen here), it would be cleaned up. The same is true of the studies on meta that also triggered a firestorm of burning socks, and the same on Wikiversity, when ever anyone openly starts to look at AP behavior, he unleashes an army of toy soldiers. His hope, I suspect, is that administrators will then blame me for “provoking” him.
  • Meanwhile, assuming that Skeptical is not AP, my condolences. AP has been creating conflict between “believers” (or claimed believers) and “skeptics” for a long time. He has claimed or implied affiliation with Guerilla Skeptics and well-known skeptical figures. He is a false friend of skepticism, giving it a very bad name in some circles.
  1. Heyguy 2 (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) SPA, probable trolling for attack on EmilOWK
  2. Kirkegaard (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) ditto
  3. Antifa_Ireland (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) Recent socks elsewhere used “Antifa”
  4. Heyguy 3 (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) again
  5. Heyguy 4 (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) and over and over
  6. Maybe”Chuck” (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) or maybe not
  7. Muslim (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename)
  8. Abd is my hero (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename)

and now a huge pile, created possibly in response to the first version of this page — which did not name anyone except “Anglo Pyramidologist” — simply the Wikipedia name for the sock family — and me. The extreme reaction to something that, in itself, is harmless, (but that is defying AP threats) is an AP trait.

When I was blocked on RationalWiki and this page was deleted — by Skeptical — I created the version here, which has been greatly expanded. The original page had no “doxxing,” i.e., revelation of a real name for an account or other personal information, only suspected socks (which are quite obvious, most of them, when one knows what to look for. It is not, as AP has often claimed, merely being “skeptical.” )

Leave a Reply