Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Homey

[edit] Homey

• Homey (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 209.112.57.209 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log • checkip)

• Code letter: F

This IP made a few edits today that strongly suggest User:Homey. He has unmerged two recently-merged articles that Homey created (Global apartheid) and (Sexual apartheid) and placed them on the Apartheid (disambiguation) page that Homey also created, using as edit summaries arguments that Homey used to make. For those familiar with his account, an earlier edit in the IP's contribution history also very strongly suggests this is either Homey or someone who once tried to impersonate him (please contact me privately for details if you don't know what I'm referring to). I'm going to go ahead and revert his edits.

I'm not sure what policy or procedure is in cases of a sort-of-banned user editing without logging in - please excuse me if this RFCU is out-of-process or just clueless. Kla'quot 05:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

F is for "evasion of community ban or block" as there is no such community ban or block there is no violation. 74.98.247.123 15:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Update: 74.98.247.123 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser) reverted my three reversions and posted this: [1] on my Talk page. He also posted the same comment on my page that you see above. Comment: The writing style and the habit of putting the same comment in two (or more) places at the same time is very much Homey. I'm not planning to pursue this further today or get into a revert war, as I think getting into a fight on AN/I would probably make Homey's day. Kla'quot 16:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Clerk note: The Homey account is too old for technical confirmation. To further confuse things, there does not seem to have been a formal community ban, for example see the last part of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive129#Ex-Homey, where Fred Bauder suggests that if Homey registers a new account and begins editing quietly he should be left alone. However, on September 18 Jayjg blocked some Homey sockpuppets with the block summary promised to mend ways, but continued with the exact same behavior (see the noincluded section of this page). Thatcher131 17:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It appears there is no currently-blocked or banned main account, and no two being used simultaneously. You'll need to get consensus for a community ban first. Dmcdevit·t 21:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

A few observations:

• (i) Homey is not a banned or blocked user.
• (ii) The "sockpuppets" listed below (blocked by JayJG) are not sockpuppets. Most were legitimate alternate accounts created by User:Homey after he ceased using his main account. JayJG was potentially in a conflict-of-interest situation over blocking of these accounts, as he had previously been involved in content disputes with Homey. Homey has also denied specific accusations of sockpuppetry.
• (iii) The "promised to mend ways" comment should not be interpreted to refer to "provocative editing" or content disputes.

CJCurrie 21:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

A few observations of my own:

• (i) Homey was allowed to edit under the condition he do so quietly and non-controversially, under one userid. He broke that with his Farnsworth accounts, which he also operated from open proxies (another no-no), and with these most recent edits.
• (ii) The "sockpuppets" were, in fact, sockpuppets, used by Homey to hide the extent and range of his edits, to edit disruptively, and to attack other editors. The fact that he pretended that they were new users says it all. As for the "conflict of interest" canard, oft-repeated by Homey as well, I think the Big Lie article covers it.
• (iii) Indeed that's exactly what it referred to; a promise to stop editing disruptively, particularly on a certain set of articles which he used to wreak havoc on Wikipedia, and from which it has still not yet fully recovered.

Jayjg ^(talk) 23:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be mistaken on a few key points. Homey was indeed exempted from one specific block on the condition that he "edit quietly" while questions relating to his status were under discussion. That particular matter is no longer active, or relevant. He is not currently under any prohibition from making "provocative edits" or engaging in content disputes.

I will repeat that the "sockpuppets" were not sockpuppets. In fact, they were acknowledged as alternate accounts at the time: [2].

The final accusation is preposterous, and does not merit a response. CJCurrie 23:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

He avoided an ArbCom case on the grounds that he stop acting up; that was forever, not just for a few weeks till things got quiet and everyone forgot what he'd been up to; and in any case he violated that agreement even as he was making it. And ex post facto claims that outed sockpuppets have suddenly become "alternate accounts" (a disputed concept to begin with) are bogus. That's when he wasn't claiming they were shared IPs, or tricks by his roommate, or that his computer had been taken over and someone was remotely editing for him. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any point in continuing this discussion, except to say that every single one of Jay's points is disputed. CJCurrie 00:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

What you say isn't correct, CJ. Homey promised a number of people, including Jimbo and I believe Fred Bauder, that he'd edit in a non-controversial way from now on and would stick to one account. That's how he avoided a community ban. Since then, he's used a number of different accounts and IP addresses, making just a few edits with each one so that his overall contribs can't be tracked, which is not how regular editors behave. Jimbo deleted his user page, per Homey's request, with the words "courtesy delete based on promise of good behavior going forward." Homey hasn't kept that promise, and indeed he continued to edit uninterrupted with sockpuppets even as the promise was being made — e.g. with User:Farnsworth J and User:Farnsworth J., which he used to disrupt animal rights articles and New antisemitism in an effort to bait me, because I edit animal rights. Jay's right that parts of Wikipedia haven't recovered from what he did; editing relationships were severed because of him that will never be fixed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Slim, your last edit to this page removed commentary from both Jay and myself. I'll assume this was accidental. CJCurrie 19:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that. Those posts weren't there when I made the edit (I remember that very clearly) so I can only assume there was some kind of server glitch. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I've restored them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homey/Farnsworth accounts

• Farnsworth J. (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser), (with a period) created August 13
• Farnsworth J (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser), (no period) created August 22
• 72.60.227.118 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log • checkip), first used on August 5 by Homey to argue against the proposed community ban against him; [3] used on August 27 by Farnsworth J [4]
• Other IP addresses used by Homey are listed at Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Homey#IP_addresses

Evidence

On August 27, Farnsworth J asked a question on Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. [5] I replied and asked Farnsworth J another question. [6] 72.60.22.118 replied, but appeared to be the same person. [7] This IP resolves to Rogers in Oakville, Ontario, and is one previously and still used by Homey.

I believe the Farnsworth accounts are being operated for the purposes of disruption by User:Homey. In response to a proposed community ban, [8] Homey promised to edit quietly with one account. On August 19, Jimbo made a courtesy delete of Homey's user page with the edit summary "courtesy delete based on promise of good behavior going forward." [9] If he's editing as Farnsworth J., Farnsworth J, and 72.60.227.118, and is making the same old disruptive edits on the same pages, he has broken that promise.

Two of Homey's habits were to make provocative edits to New anti-Semitism and animal-rights related articles (the latter because I edited in that area), suggesting the animal rights movement was anti-Semitic. These are exactly the edits the Farnsworth accounts have been making since August 13, reverting against mutiple editors. They've claimed the animal rights movement is fascist or anti-Semitic in Animal rights, New anti-Semitism, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and Bans on ritual slaughter. Farnsworth J also created a POV fork, Animal rights and anti-Semitism, by lifting material he couldn't get into other articles and pasting it into a new page without editing it, which was a habit of Homey's.

Apart from content and a shared IP address, the editing style is suggestive of Homey: reverting against multiple editors, obsessed with a single issue, idiosyncratic spelling, difficulty using source material, engaging in revert wars against multiple editors then requesting page protection, [10] and uncivil. It was also a tactic of Homey's to switch accounts to make tracking his contribs harder.

I asked Farnsworth J on August 31 which other accounts he was using, because it was obvious he was a sockpuppet, but he admitted only to Farnsworth J. (with a period). He then asked me which other accounts I was editing with, using the same words I had used. This was a standard practise of Homey's. [11]

Previous Homey sockpuppets who edited animal rights pages:

• Hunting Thomas (talk • contribs)
• Shalom1980 (talk • contribs) e.g. here, he added material criticizing People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals for using Holocaust imagery.

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed And he's been also been testing out open proxies, which is particularly naughty. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking User:Homey sockpuppets

On July 23 User:Homey claimed to have left Wikipedia and asked to have his account blocked, in order to avoid an arbitration case that was being brought against him for various abuses, including sockpuppeting. As it turns out, even while the case was being considered, and before he claimed to have left, he was creating even more sockpuppets, and since then this has continued. In all he has created at least a dozen sockpuppets, some of which he has used to harass former "enemies", and some of which ended up being blocked for various kinds of disruptive behavior. Yesterday, while following up on one of the accounts that had been blocked as a sockpuppet of WordBomb, I discovered the extent of Homey's behavior. I consulted with the Arbitration Committee list, and in agreement with them I have now tagged and blocked all of his sockpuppets (well, all the sockuppets that weren't already blocked by others). The entire list of sockpuppets can be found here: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Homey. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed

• 4thright (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Barbamama (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Darmok yes (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Deuteronomy2000 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Fluffy the Cotton Fish (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Holy Jehosophat (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Hunting Thomas (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Joshua Tree (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• KublaiKhan (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Labour Ready (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Schroedinger the Cat (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Sonofzion (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

Clerk note: Copied from Administrators' noticeboard.

[edit] Homey

• Homey (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Sonofzion (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 216.249.5.164 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log • checkip)

Please check if there is any concurrence between users who have used IP address 72.60.226.29 and the blocked User:Sonofzion. We know both users are in the same city, is there any overlap in IPs?User:Homey 16:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Clerk note: Sonofzion has been blocked as a alleged sockpuppet of User:Homey (see User talk:Sonofzion). Given this history, would you like to take a second stab at explaining why this check should be performed? Thatcher131 17:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Because I want to disprove the allegation. User:Homey 17:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It is clear in such cases that a savy users has the technical means to circumvent the technical parts of Checkuser. What he "forgot" to note was that the sockpuppet became very active EXACTLY at the 48 hours Homey himself was blocked for 3RR violations and that the sock was active in the same way/articles Homey was. Zeq 18:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The edits are not those I would have made. In any case, suspicion is not fact and I have a right to seek evidence that would cast doubt on a false accusation. If you prefer suspicion over fact, so be it. Request withdrawn.User:Homey 18:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Likely Actually, I'd already done a CheckUser, because the sockpuppetry and editing pattern was so obvious. Unsurprisingly, the CheckUser evidence was consistent and strongly suggestive (though not 100% conclusive) with them being sockpuppets of Homey. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC). See [12] and [13].

Clerk note: This result was originally posted here and here.

As Jayjg is in a content dispute with me it is inappropriate for him to be analysing checkuser evidence. Someone else should review his run and see, for instance, if it shows "same network" or "not same network". If it is merely the same city than one should take into account the size of the city. User:Homey 18:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Clerk note: I have reposted this request to the main page so that other checkusers will see it. There is a request for confirmation from a second checkuser. Thatcher131 18:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Results of request for review

Checkuser policy states, "Users with checkuser privilege crosscheck each others' work frequently. Please do not make requests for crosschecking for a particular case." However, due to the unique nature of this situation I have reviewed the case. My review included examination of checkuser evidence and various other data sources including the contribution history and whois data from ARIN and related sources.

Likely I concur with Jayjg's analysis that the editing pattern is strongly suggestive that the edits by Homey and Sonofzion (talk • contribs) originate from the same person; indeed, the evidence is nearly conclusive. The checkuser evidence itself is strong. In reviewing the two users' contributions, I note that (a) Sonofzion is clearly not new to Wikipedia; (b) the two users have similar editing interests, and (c) the conversational pattern is similar with certain characteristic grammatical structures in common.

Checkuser policy prohibits me from sharing the exact nature of the checkuser output that led me to conclude that the checkuser evidence is strong. I will note my concurrence however with Homey's assertion that checkuser evidence that merely showed editing from the same large city would not be strong.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

And what of Sonofzion's edits from last night as User:216.249.5.164? Have you run an analysis of them?User:Homey 19:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't want to know. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I misspoke, User:216.249.5.164 was the account Sonofzion was using as an unlogged in user back in June thus the results would be identical to the check on User:Sonofzion. The edits from this week were made from User:130.94.134.250 - has that account been checkusered and what is the result?User:Homey 16:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further requests

Clerk note: The requests below were added after Jayjg's check of 23 June. It is not clear whether they were included in the recent review performed by UninvitedCompany. Thatcher131 02:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• 130.94.134.250 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log • checkip)
• 75.2.106.46 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log • checkip)
• Daughterofzion (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• SlaveCrixus (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• CryingLion (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Fullsome prison (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 205.188.116.67 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log • checkip) ( this edit [14]was 5 minutes after he indefinatly blocked me but while homey was blocked but - it is unlikely that anyone else would be putting this message on my user page)

Also, a checkuser should be run on User:130.94.134.250 who was posting last night and signing his posts "Sonofzion"[15] on User talk:Sonofzion. My trace of the IP shows that we were in different cities last night. User:Homey 18:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Please also check User:Daughterofzion who is also not me.User:Homey 19:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Zeq's added a number of requests. I don't oppose any of them though I think checkusers may have already been run on some of them due to Zeq's relationship with Jayjg. User:Homey 19:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

By all means, Zeq has been harassing me for months with specious allegations, let's settle this. User:Homey 03:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW Fullsome prison, listed above, nominated for AfD the article on Israeli apartheid that Homey started and put a lot of work into: [16] - the article survived via no consensus. This is strange behavior if it was a sockpuppet of Homey. --Ben Houston 16:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Declined I don't understand how these checks are in any way material to this matter. I believe the evidence regarding Sonofzion and Homey is nearly conclusive. Whether or not these myriad other socks or IPs are related in some way doesn't change that and is a distraction from the central matter. It is not rare for IPs to impersonate other users either by a direct claim or a deliberate imitation of editing pattern. If either Zeq or Homey wish to have further checks run, I suggest that they open a new case and present the rationale for it. While I am willing to entertain requests for checks that may produce potentially exculpatory results, I do not understand how these requests bear sufficiently on the matter at hand to be exculpatory regardless of the result of the check. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

If Sonofzion was posting from California as User:130.94.134.250 (according to Thatcher131[your talk page]) at the same time as I was posting from Toronto it clearly shows we are not the same person. Given that the earlier finding was likely and not confirmed I think a run on this IP is justified. User:Homey 16:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I ran the check and found nothing material to your case. In particular, there is no checkuser evidence tying this IP to User:Sonofzion. It might be another person. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Clerk note: This request seems to have been answered regarding both the request for independent confirmation of the June 23 findings and the more recent allegations. Further discussion should probably take place on Homey's talk page, WP:ANI, or the arbitration case if it is accepted. Thanks. (The talk page here is fine too.) Thatcher131 17:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SlaveCrixus

• SlaveCrixus (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Homey (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

SlaveCrixus is a suspected sockpuppet and I have been wrongly accused of being the puppeteer. I require that this suspicion be put to rest via checkuser. User:Homey 05:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Declined. First, you don't require anything. Second, self-requested checks are valuless; it is seen by most individuals as an admission that the individual making the request abused technical means to avoid detection. Such requests are a waste of checkuser time and will not be performed. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Or it could be what it seems to be, an attempt by a wrongly accused user to prove a the accusation false. If you think it's a waste of time, fine, but it's not fair for you to respond with inferences. User:Homey 13:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

He didn't accuse you of anything. He's repeatedly declined self-requests on the basis that other edits have held little reguard for the results because of the possiblity of abuse through preparation for a self-request. Kevin_b_er 22:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)