Two longstanding editors announce they are socks

[The Garbage Scow]

Yesterday, administrator established editor Darkness Shines announced that he is a sockpuppet of blocked sockpuppeteer Marknutley.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... dents#I_am
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... Marknutley

On the same AN/I thread, NE2 announced that he's also a Marknutley sock, although this may have been a joke (I guess.... it's hard to tell when people are joking and when they are not sometimes).

Thoughts? Comments?

[HRA1924]

Is it true that Darkness Shines is (a) an Admin on WP:EN and (b) an admitted sock ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... WB/Archive
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MonaPisser#Stop

[The Garbage Scow]

Is it true that Darkness Shines is (a) an Admin on WP:EN and (b) an admitted sock ?

According to his AN/I post, yes. Although the SPI is ongoing, and someone acked for Checkuser, even though the last known Marknutley activity is 3 years old.

(edit: DS is not an admin but is a sock)

[eppur si muove]

Is it true that Darkness Shines is (a) an Admin on WP:EN and (b) an admitted sock ?

According to his AN/I post, yes. Although the SPI is ongoing, and someone acked for Checkuser, even though the last known Marknutley activity is 3 years old.

A CU was done to confirm that Darkness Shines is using their usual IP etc. and they are as confirmed by Courcelles on DS's user talk page.

[Kumioko]

We all knew that there were admins who were formerly blocked editors (sockpuppets or otherwise). This just confirms what we already knew. What I don't agree with is how they can do a checkuser on something that is so old unless they are keeping external copies of checkuser block logs on their own PC's or something. The CU logs only last for a few months so there is no way to check with any validity other than to simply take the users word for it.

Now they need to go back and undo all his edits as a sockpuppet! Since he is an admin now though, the policy will get waived, he will be back to editing soon I am sure and probably still be an admin. His last few years counts for a lot IMO, but in the end its the fact of being an admin that will save him from being blocked/Rebanned. If he were an editor, they wouldn't even be talking about the issue.

[HRA1924]

We have about 200 members now on the Wikimedia India Editors Forum, and 1 of them who was blocked 3 days ago, complained that somebody was manipulating her old edits before her very eyes to block her as a sock / proxy user. The contractor for her case was Darkness Shines.

My 3 edits at RSN were made soon after AshLin's. And I objected that ABP was not at all a Reliable Source, and I gave some evidences. This is a serious matter. Please investigate the SYSOPS who can fabricate records here to protect corporates. MonaPisser (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
You never posted there, ever. There have been no deletions at all, the page history is plain to see, and I am not at all sure what you hope to achieve from such weird allegations. Also, read WP:INDENT Darkness Shines (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I made 3 consecutive edits there. 1 major and 2 minors. Who is the SYSOP here. Call in Billinghurst to investigate this. MonaPisser (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The instant she asked for Billinghurst, she was blocked for user name violation, and 20 minutes later indeffed+TPA-email-revoked as a confirmed Checkuser sock for WP:LTA/IAC . She never IPed or proxied or edited any IAC article or IAC related article, and is planning to go to the police to get her account back.

[Sitush]

We all knew that there were admins who were formerly blocked editors (sockpuppets or otherwise). This just confirms what we already knew. What I don't agree with is how they can do a checkuser on something that is so old unless they are keeping external copies of checkuser block logs on their own PC's or something. The CU logs only last for a few months so there is no way to check with any validity other than to simply take the users word for it.

What the CU confirmed, and what was asked of it, was that DS's normal IP range was the same range that was used when he self-outed, etc. No conspiracy theories needed. It was a check for a comprimised account.

[Mason]

Darkness Shines is not an admin.

[Kumioko]

My bad your right, I didn't think so but then the discussion said they were and I didn't follow up. I just thought it happened while I was rebelling against my block and didn't notice. I still stand by that there are some admins who are returned banned editors though.

[Michaeldsuarez]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Darkness_Shines:

Final (0/13/1); ended 22:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC) <!-- Template:finaltally --> Unsuccessful per [[WP:SNOW]]. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' ^{[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]} 22:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&page=User%3ADarkness_Shines

Darkness_Shines was never a sysop. Darkness_Shines was never made any entries to the block log, the deletion log, or the protection log.

[Michaeldsuarez]

[...] but then the discussion said they were and I didn't follow up.

Viriditas was complaining about the typical sysop's reluctance to take action against people like Darkness_Shines. Viriditas never called Darkness_Shines an "admin".

[The Garbage Scow]

Darkness_Shines was never a sysop. Darkness_Shines was never made any entries to the block log, the deletion log, or the protection log.

My mistake, OP edited to reflect.

[Poetlister]

The instant she asked for Billinghurst, she was blocked for user name violation ... planning to go to the police to get her account back.

Are you saying she asked to usurp the name of one of the best-known editors on Wikipedia? And what does she think the police could do? It sounds to me as if she's better off not editing!

[Sitush]

The block was a coincidence of events, not cause/effect. That India Against Corruption user was part of a massive sock/meatfarm that has admitted to having 100s of accounts and, in a rather brilliant move, managed to register wikimedia.xyz before WMF did. They're now passing off as "Wikimedia India Forums", as well as claiming to have taken legal action against all sorts of people including myself. For a group that claims to be fighting corruption, they are very fond of lying but, fortunately, not particularly good at it. I've got a pretty big dossier on them and the lawyers have a copy.

That said, they are critics of WP and WMF and thus I suppose this is a natural home for them.

[Lukeno94]

The instant she asked for Billinghurst, she was blocked for user name violation ... planning to go to the police to get her account back.

Are you saying she asked to usurp the name of one of the best-known editors on Wikipedia? And what does she think the police could do? It sounds to me as if she's better off not editing!

No, I'm pretty sure she would've been asking for help from that editor.

[SB_Johnny]

We all knew that there were admins who were formerly blocked editors (sockpuppets or otherwise). This just confirms what we already knew. What I don't agree with is how they can do a checkuser on something that is so old unless they are keeping external copies of checkuser block logs on their own PC's or something. The CU logs only last for a few months so there is no way to check with any validity other than to simply take the users word for it.

What the CU confirmed, and what was asked of it, was that DS's normal IP range was the same range that was used when he self-outed, etc. No conspiracy theories needed. It was a check for a comprimised account.

The stupid, it burns.

Yes, the CUs keep information about IPs, MOs, and other stuff related to people who have engaged in long-term sockpuppetry in the past. That's pretty much a requirement if they're going to do their job effectively. The dumping data after 3 months thing is just the usual WMF CYA.

[Sitush]

I'm sure they do but that wasn't what was needed in this instance.

[Anthonyhcole]

The block was a coincidence of events, not cause/effect. That India Against Corruption user was part of a massive sock/meatfarm that has admitted to having 100s of accounts and, in a rather brilliant move, managed to register wikimedia.xyz before WMF did. They're now passing off as "Wikimedia India Forums", as well as claiming to have taken legal action against all sorts of people including myself. For a group that claims to be fighting corruption, they are very fond of lying but, fortunately, not particularly good at it. I've got a pretty big dossier on them and the lawyers have a copy.

That said, they are critics of WP and WMF and thus I suppose this is a natural home for them.

Hi Sitush. (Sorry, this is off-topic but while you're here...) I haven't been following the IAC-Wikipedia kerfuffle. Do you feel like writing up an executive summary for the uninformed - or pointing me to a concise explanation if one already exists?

[mac]

This reminds me of BarkingFish (T-C-L):

I have no need to defend myself against something I have admitted already is perfectly true. I've proxied into wikipedia through holes you'll never find, I've committed very tiny pieces of vandalism over a period of quite a long time, most of it before the Abuse filter was active on here, so a lot of it was missed, and had more than 20 throwaway accounts from multiple ISPs. I think i've covered everything. Smell ya later. '''[[User:BarkingFish|<font color="red" size="2" face="Ubuntu">Fish</font>]][[User_talk:BarkingFish|<font color="blue" size="2" face="Ubuntu">^Barking?</font>]]''' 00:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

[EricBarbour]

This reminds me of BarkingFish (T-C-L):

I have no need to defend myself against something I have admitted already is perfectly true. I've proxied into wikipedia through holes you'll never find, I've committed very tiny pieces of vandalism over a period of quite a long time, most of it before the Abuse filter was active on here, so a lot of it was missed, and had more than 20 throwaway accounts from multiple ISPs. I think i've covered everything. Smell ya later. '''[[User:BarkingFish|<font color="red" size="2" face="Ubuntu">Fish</font>]][[User_talk:BarkingFish|<font color="blue" size="2" face="Ubuntu">^Barking?</font>]]''' 00:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to get that guy to tell me exactly what he did, so I can write it down for future historians. Even by the weird standards of serious Wikipedia vandals, he's a very strange character.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... d=35305136

[Tero]

Coming out of lurker mode for this, because it's the first time I actually know something!

On the same AN/I thread, NE2 announced that he's also a Marknutley sock, although this may have been a joke (I guess.... it's hard to tell when people are joking and when they are not sometimes).

I'm certain NE2 is joking. He uses a lot of sarcasm.

However! NE2 (T-C-L) was a sockpuppet for SPUI (T-C-L). This was only an issue once when he defended NE2 as SPUI, and the SPUI account is no longer active.

I wasn't around when this happened, but I'm told from someone who was that nobody had sufficient evidence at the time that he was both accounts. Off Wikipedia, though, in the road/highway enthusiast community, the two identities have been exposed long ago, to the point that people use both names interchangeably and everybody understands. NE2 gets called "SPUI" and responds to it.

Of course, shit like this happens all the time and since NE2 has not and will never be an admin, and appears to have stayed out of trouble for a long time, we have bigger fish to fry. I just wanted to clear up this part of the OP since nobody else had.

[Sparky]

I'll be interested to see how long the "enemy of my enemy" holds out here.

[Sparky]

DS had a block/unblock history that lists the who's who of WO topics.

[Poetlister]

Coming out of lurker mode for this, because it's the first time I actually know something!

[snowskarlet]

Coming out of lurker mode for this, because it's the first time I actually know something!

Welcome also. I can relate. There is often nothing I know but I value very much being here.

[Michaeldsuarez]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#Darkness_Shines (permalink)

Russavia is Commons' biggest hypocrite.

[Michaeldsuarez]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#Darkness_Shines (permalink)

Russavia is Commons' biggest hypocrite.

And Nick shuts down the discussion:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections&diff=139966985&oldid=139966595

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections&diff=139968691&oldid=139968407

[Poetlister]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#Darkness_Shines (permalink)

Russavia is Commons' biggest hypocrite.

One of the biggest, certainly, but he has tough opposition!

[The Garbage Scow]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#Darkness_Shines (permalink)

Russavia is Commons' biggest hypocrite.

One of the biggest, certainly, but he has tough opposition!

Someone who breaks rules they then enforce against others. He has the mark of a great sociopath and would make an excellent politician.

[Cedric]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#Darkness_Shines (permalink)

Russavia is Commons' biggest hypocrite.

One of the biggest, certainly, but he has tough opposition!

Someone who breaks rules they then enforce against others. He has the mark of a great sociopath and would make an excellent politician.

"You very well might think that, but I couldn't possibly comment"