Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Korvex/Archive


Korvex

07 March 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


Both users either claimed to have expert knowledge or have displayed signs of "insider knowledge" ([1], [2], [3], [4]), both are involved in articles pertaining to the history of Ancient Israel, both users push a maximalist (read: either fundamentalist or conservative evangelical) standpoint, both users have claimed to redress obvious WP:NPOV problems existing in Wikipedia articles ([5], [6], [7], [8]) both use <ref name=":0"> style of references ([9], [10]), both users have been warned about disruptive editing, although not blocked for doing it ([11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]). More diffs can be provided if needed, but the arguments are unlikely to change. Just to avoid misunderstandings: I do not profess to know that they are sockpuppets, but this is a question that needs an answer. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

This is very disconcerting. So this person accuses me of using multiple accounts (i am not, please do whatever is necessary to prove this) because I have claimed that some articles are not showing NPOV and am a Christian. ANd believes this is the case because he believes another person has the same attributes. Is it possible that those claims made by myself and whoever this other person is because they are indeed weaknesses in the articles for showing a biased view? This person who is making this claim is prejudice. He should not be allowed to edit articles where he is trying to find a way to not let people who he has designated as having an agenda, when it appears it is he who has an agenda.Siefert (talk) 11:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are additional similarities between the two users. Despite the fact that both users are relatively new, both users have singled out material by the archaeologist William Dever and argued that it should be deleted: [19] [20], which is awfully specific. In the case of both editors, they spend most of their time on Wikipedia not directly making edits, but having long talk-page disagreements about their edits with other users [21] [22]. Alephb (talk) 12:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Involved so won't take any action. However unlikely this may be, I do see some similarities in approach that might warrant a CU to clear it up. Doug Weller talk 13:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Please can someone clear this up? How soon does a CU act on this? Siefert (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Alephb's comments: Please read that entire thread about Devers. I was making a point. The editor had written that just because I had written a summary of an article and cited it, it should not be assumed that I had correctly summarized, admitting that he/she had not read the article to make that accusation. My point was that by your comments/logic, if you haven't read the one about Dever it should be taken out because it was indeed summarized incorrectly because I HAD read the article. And to the point that their are long discussions.. the necessity to constantly having to defend my good faith work on wikipedia because editors don't seem to be actually trying to improve the quality of the article, but putting multiple roadblocks without taking a serious look at what is being stated... mystifying to me, why this is happening. Siefert (talk) 13:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One other question. Is it wikipedia's policy for their editors to identify people by their religion (or race, gender etc) as a reason to suspect them of some sort of suspicious/malicious activity? Siefert (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Unrelated. Siefert is by far the older account. Closing with no action.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16 January 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Greetings Wikipedia, I'm from Syria, was born and currently live in Canada and really need to work on my Arabic. from User:Korvex. Editshmedt seems to employ similar geolocation.

At [23] Editshmedt confessed they were Wallingfordtoday. At [24] Wallingfordtoday confessed they edited from certain IPs. Those IPs geolocate to Ontario, Canada, same as Korvex, when editing without logging in (e.g. Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:A5A0:51A:F8D8:416B:D6DB:6112, Special:Contributions/2605:8D80:607:1923:8FBF:A159:ACA7:1318, Special:Contributions/69.158.163.200, and Special:Contributions/69.157.44.136, see [25], they all seem to use Bell Canada or Bell DSL Internet, maybe also Rogers Wireless or Rogers Cable). Both the sockmaster and the sockpuppet are concerned with Bible scholarship, both edited aggressively and both have called me names (Editshmedt just got blocked for that, their block has expired). See [26] and [27].

Other arguments: just click on the contributions of those IPs (including those at User:Wallingfordtoday, i.e. Special:Contributions/70.49.181.61, Special:Contributions/67.71.37.48, Special:Contributions/64.231.43.14, and Special:Contributions/64.229.115.87), you will see they all have shared interests (like Christian theology, Catholic especially). They (most of them, including the accounts) also pay special attention to Muhammad, e.g. Muhammad and the Bible, Christianity and Islam, and so on. They (i.e. Wallingfordtoday and Korvex) share an interest in Christ myth theory with proven WP:SOCK Damiano Tommasi.

Speak of the wolf, and there is its tail: Special:Contributions/2605:8D80:604:1D5E:2C42:CAE8:C888:2512, Special:Contributions/70.24.84.202.

By Googling you may find other evidence, but since that involves WP:OUTING, I'll pass.

From User:Korvex: I also possess tremendous respect for scholars including William F. Albright, Richard Bauckham, Steven Collins, Yosef Garfinkel, Avraham Faust, William Lane Craig, Eilat Mazar, and several others. I.e. most like Editshmedt was arguing at Talk:David. This edit at Eilat Mazar: [28]. At Richard Bauckham: [29].

Same POV as Editshmedt (namely, Finkelstein is a minimalist and writes fiction): [30] and [31], house of cards at [32]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Neutrality: You have blocked Korvex. May I e-mail some information to you, in order that I won't be accused of WP:OUTING? Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tgeorgescu: I think it would make more sense to email a CheckUser. Thanks, Neutralitytalk 17:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. E-mailed Oshwah. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
70.24.84.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) had just been blocked for a week, for violating WP:NPA against me. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Neutrality and Oshwah: What do I do with the incriminating evidence gathered from Google? Can I spill the beans without getting accused of WP:OUTING? I have evidence that Korvex at Wikipedia is the user called ... from the website .... And that that user from that website matches the edits of Editshmedt. Please state if I am allowed to do that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tgeorgescu - To disclose that information on Wikipedia could be considered outing, yes. In general, if the user didn't disclose this information themselves on Wikipedia, you don't want to disclose it on Wikipedia. Don't leave comments or discussions saying "this user is also this user on x website", or anything of that sort. That website could have other information that could reveal their personal identity, or link readers to other websites or information that might do so. If you need to submit off-wiki evidence, you can do so by emailing the checkuser team so that they can start an investigation. Just remember when it comes to outing: when in doubt; don't give it out. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Surprise, surprise, at [33] used books.google.ca, i.e. they geolocate to Canada. Special:Contributions/2605:8D80:600::/45 have been blocked from editing my talk page. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Something striking: [34], [35], [36] vs. [37], [38], [39]. See that? There is no space, nor any -- between the text and the signature. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Edits with summaries:
Korvex 85 · (21.5%) [40]
Editshmedt 257 · (25.6%) [41]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Punch cards:
Editshmedt: generally not active 10:00 to 14:00 UTC
Korvex: generally not active 6:00 to 14:00 UTC Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-automated edits:
Editshmedt 5 (1.1%)
Korvex 8 (9.1%) Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[42] and [43] speaking about Tgeorg instead of Tgeorgescu, in the later Korvex accused me of sold yourself to pure fundamentalism, so apparently Korvex isn't fundamentalist. Compare with [44] and [45] and [46] and [47] also calling me Tgeorg. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Editshmedt: I found more about you by Googling, but WP:OUTING does not allow me to state it openly. But I did e-mail the checkusers team with that information. So, no, this SPI is not a figment of imagination, it is based upon what I learned about you from Google. I'm not jury, judge and executioner, just saying that I have enough information to warrant an investigation. And speaking about banning, it is fairly straightforward that you seek to get WP:RS by Finkelstein discredited or banned from Wikipedia articles, since you see him as the only obstacle towards the consensual acceptance of the existence of the United Monarchy. So, it is the pot calling the kettle black. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since I've already blatantly said that Yosef Garfinkel also doesn't accept a United Monarchy, I can only see the latter half of the comment as sheer dishonesty and an attempt at poisoning the well. Your pretending about outing is humorous given that you've already claimed to have OUTED the region where I live earlier. I demand Oshwah (talk · contribs) that such information be immediately permanently deleted from Wikipedia and only kept in discourse in Tgeorg's private email exchange. I also claim that this is already an example of WP:OUTING on Tgeorg's part and should be dealt with as such. Once this is closed, I demand that these IP addresses be immediately deleted themselves since they are linked to the region where I wrote them. Furthermore, who can I privately email to find out what other personal information Tgeorg claims to have about me? This has already gone past Tgeorg's desperate attempts to ban me for many months and now concerns my personal identity. Hope you're happy Tgeorg.Editshmedt (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Editshmedt: Friend, publicly available information from https://en.wikipedia.org is fair game. It never was otherwise. You seek to breach the way Wikimedia Foundation and this website work, see WP:NLT. Oh, yes, I forgot: you outed yourself. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You miss the fact that there's no reason for it to be publicized and there simply is nothing wrong with request for removal. I am also unsure when I went from a paid off "rat" to "friend" in your eyes? I hardly think it needs to be said that the motive behind your dozen or so attempts to get me banned over the last several months boil down to the fact that I am introducing scholarship that you find deeply uncomfortable given your personal views. Editshmedt (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel it deeply uncomfortable. You cannot imagine that I have respect for both Dever and Finkelstein, but I do. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I can't imagine that. It's probably because you want citations to William Dever banned from any page on David because he disagrees with Finkelstein. If there was ever a telling indication of deep discomfort with academia, it's this. Jerm said it best:

The fact that you had already made a previous report against the editor and about the same article David, still accusing the editor of paid editing even though you knew Editshmedt had already denied it, and filing an SPI case via Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Korvex only shows your desperation.

Editshmedt (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are wrong: I have accused you of paid editing only before you had denied it, not afterwards. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And the accusation was based on a desperate attempt to catch me. In other words, Jerm is right. I've already wasted all your pseudoparallels below which are clearly figmented. We now have two other users you have falsely accused of being User:Korvex and now there is both me and an IP address that has been continuously editing since 2016 (and even to now) that you attempt to link to User:Korvex. The only similarities between the three of us is that we are Ontarian Christians with some general interest in articles about Christianity with only extraordinarily light editing overlap on a handful of articles disregarding the hundreds I've edited. Any further correlations are a figment of your imagination to get me banned. The only thing you rely on now is this mysteriously googled information that proves I am User:Korvex which was emailed, apparently, half a month ago and yet, still, no one has tried to contact me about anything to do with it. Sounds like wishful thinking. Editshmedt (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm not the judge of this matter; I just have information that has to be judged by the checkusers. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of seems like it was judged as "Inconclusive" below. Is this ongoing regardless? If so, and if I wanted to get in contact with these checkusers to know exactly what personal information about me is being juggled, how can I do this?Editshmedt (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was judged inconclusive because Korvex is stale, and checkusers never publicly link usernames to IPs. Essential in this respect is that my request was endorsed, not rejected. So, the checkuser has spoken that my request is not frivolous. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All that means is that User:Korvex is so old compared to my own activity that no immediate conclusion can be made. Furthermore, you made a claim that User:Korvex has evidence of editing activity on Muhammad and the Bible. The whole history of the contributions on User:Korvex, which I just checked, shows not a single edit on Muhammad and the Bible. Is this another one of your figmented claims?Editshmedt (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote e.g. Muhammad and the Bible, Christianity and Islam, and so on. You may not quote mine my statement. Diff: [48]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find a single edit of User:Korvex on any page related to Muhammad or Islam. In other words, another pseudoparallel. As for the Christ myth theory overlap, after reviewing it, asides a few edits on its talk page User:Korvex has made a single edit on the main page of that page. In other words, pure desperation.Editshmedt (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will grant you such point: maybe I conflated the sockmaster, i.e. conflated between GoogleMeNowPlease and Korvex. Anyway, it remains just as damning as before. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, what? So now I'm also User:GoogleMeNowPlease? This broad stroke of wishful thinking gets better and better. If User:GoogleMeNowPlease was the sockmaster, then why exactly did you open an investigation under User:Korvex? Better get to work and post a second one for User:GoogleMeNowPlease as well. Editshmedt (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is hard for me to distinguish between the two: AFAIK, they're both Canadian, maybe they are only one person.
Listen, I don't know who Korvex is, who GoogleMeNowPlease is, and who you are. It is called "investigation" precisely because Wikipedia admins do not know this. If I have an above 50% success rate at WP:SPI I should be proclaimed Master Socks Hunter. Tgeorgescu (talk)
LOL. In other words, we now literally have up to four completely unrelated accounts: me, User:Korvex, GoogleMeNowPlease, and the IP address that dropped some insults on your talk page. And the whole connection you have between all four is that they are Christians from the most densely populated region of Canada. I applaud you for your brilliant investigative skills which are wrong 50% of the time. I still want to know who I can get in contact with and how to learn about the personal information being juggled about me. Editshmedt (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you posted such information yourself, you have outed yourself. You may request WP:RFO, but I am extremely skeptical that it will be granted.
And it's not head or tails: a coin only has two faces, Wikipedia has 146,633 active editors. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your success rate at at connecting users with User:Korvex stands at 0% despite five claimed links. What is the Checkuser account that I can email to find out about this personal information? Editshmedt (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:CheckUser#Contacting a CheckUser, but they will never e-mail you personal information pertaining other people than you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So HOW can I know what personal information you claim to know about me and are connecting it to User:Korvex? Editshmedt (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not allowed to tell anyone, except Wikipedia checkusers. They will be jury, judge and executioners. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking you to tell me. I want to know if the checkusers will ever converse with me directly about this personal information about me. From what you're saying, clearly not. Editshmedt (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you have to ask them. You will never know if you don't ask. I am not allowed to tell anyone else. If I tell, I will be indeffed. As the saying goes, I might be crazy, but I'm not also dumb. I Maybe Crazy But I'm Not Stupid. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't remember saying that Korvex is a Catholic. An interest in the Catholic theology does not mean one is a Catholic. As someone argued, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Protestants share the same Nicene theology, so the differences between their theologies are minor, while they have big differences of practice (Fraser MacWilliams, https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-different-sects-correct-me-if-Im-wrong-in-using-this-term-of-Christianity ). Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At [49] Editshmedt wrote J. Rasman. Rasman is an Arabic name, I presume, thereupon see Korvex's comments upon mastering Arabic. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually a last name from southeastern Asia. Boy, that was a funny slip of delusion. Anything else you want to add? Editshmedt (talk) 06:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
wikt:رسم and wikt:رسما.
As far as I can tell, Editshmedt has not violated any policies.—that's of course irrelevant, checkusers have to answer the question if you are Korvex. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus Christ you're delusional. Click on the link I just gave. It is a southeastern last name. Clicking on the Wiki page you give for an Arabic word "rsm" reveals this not to be a name but an "adverb" which when googled is shown to mean "fee" or "drawing". The way you so confidently invent your own facts amazes me. Is this thing over now? User:Korvex claims to be Arabic and yet "Rasman" is a southeast Asian last name unattested in the Arab world. Editshmedt (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neither me, nor you, are judge in this matter. Checkusers are the judge. But I'll grant you that the information from Google about this family name is extremely scarce.
In general remember: if I would abuse the WP:SPI process by providing fake data, I would get blocked for it. See WP:BOOMERANG: the fact that I'm the accuser here does not immunize me from consequences such as blocks and bans. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that is a conversation that should be had, then, as I construe your behaviour towards me as sufficient evidence that you are here to promote your personal agenda rather than contribute to Wikipedia. By the way, are you sure that this investigation is actually still open? Editshmedt (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NPA. Again, I have data which allow for reasonable suspicion, but I am not allowed to make the data public.
Investigation is still open until it gets formally closed and archived. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute. How do you know that those contributions by User:Korvex when not logged in are actually edits of User:Korvex? Editshmedt (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a gold standard, WP:DUCK. Anyway, I don't have to know that you are Korvex, I just have to have enough ground/data that makes the investigation worth performing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. In other words, you have no data on where User:Korvex is more precise than Canada per the bio? Editshmedt (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In addition from WP:SPI: "Additionally, CheckUsers will not publicly connect an account with an IP address per the privacy policy except in extremely rare circumstances." Editshmedt (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:DUCK it is either Korvex, or a joe job. But there is no rational incentive to perform a joe job for an indeffed user, so the conclusion is that Korvex continued to edit war after getting indeffed.
I'm not a checkuser, I don't have access to private user data, so the policy does not apply to me. As I said, public data from en.wiki is fair game. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Three of the four IP addresses have three or less edits. In other words, WP:DUCK is inapplicable as there is no data to compare User:Korvex to. Editshmedt (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even one edit is enough if it complies with WP:DUCK. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All complete dishonesty. Figured out how to look at geolocation data. The first IP address geolocates to Toronto, Ontario, Canada. The second IP address geolocates to Beauharnois, Quebec, Canada. (Notice that this individual is from Quebec, literally a different province, notwithstanding the different city.) The third IP address geolocates to Yarker, Ontario, Canada. The fourth IP address geolocates to Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. Four different IP addresses, four completely different people living in completely different cities. So much for your failed application of WP:DUCK. Editshmedt (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can also grant you the point that maybe those IPs were another banned user. Or maybe they were WP:MEAT. But that does not change the point that it still is a violation of WP:RULES. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant investigative skills, Tgeorg! Four IP addresses, all of which are User:Korvex, and yet magically represent completely different people. Editshmedt (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the data which I have e-mailed to the checkusers team points towards Korvex. I'm not a fool, I've been doing WP:SPI reports for years. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have the high distinction among humanity of being four completely different people at the same time. Incredible! Editshmedt (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, I just had to e-mail the data truthfully to the checkusers. That is my duty. It is not my duty to make the call; checkusers make the call.
You presume that my duty would be to be right about you being Korvex. No, my duty is to truthfully report the data to the checkusers team. They will be the judge of its truthfulness.
Also, you seem to conflate between Wikipedia accounts, real persons, sockpuppets and meatpuppets. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know if it is truthful to claim a user is another user, with a misconstrued application of WP:DUCK, with the sole intention of getting another user banned in mind. I have made no conflations. Indeed, this conversation has shown your ability to distinguish or cross-reference users is no more that of an equally inexperienced user, if not lower - an inexperienced user will not commit to false correlations in the absence of evidence. The idea is similar to "I may not have figured out the right answer, but at least I didn't give a wrong answer." Editshmedt (talk) 04:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, neither me, nor you are the judge of that matter; checkusers are the judge.
I take full responsibility for the e-mail I sent to the checkusers team, and if they think there is something wrong with it, they will take action.
So, it is not appropriate to complain about the e-mail, since you don't know what I wrote therein. And if it is appropriate that I should be blocked for the e-mail, checkusers will be the judge of that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The IP addresses I linked to on my account User:Wallingfordtoday, which you appealed to, geolocate to Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. How do you explain that? Editshmedt (talk) 06:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to explain anything, since I am not the one who makes the call. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get things straight. The geolocation you allege belongs to User:Korvex is different than the documented geolocation from my computer when I posted from those IP addresses. What does that tell you prima facie? Editshmedt (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the judge of that. Checkusers are the judge of that. So it is irrelevant what I think about your geolocation. They will decide this matter. I presented my arguments, you presented your arguments, they will decide. So, I'm not substituting my judgment for theirs. I don't have the knowledge and expertise to decide this matter, that's why Wikipedia has checkusers instead of everyone taking the solution in their own hand. This isn't Debatepedia. A rational dialogue between you and me won't solve the matter. So, it's utterly futile to try to convince me, since I am not decision maker in this matter. So it's not like I would know everything about this matter and could explain everything about it. The decision will be taken by somebody who has the knowledge, expertise and authority (i.e. power) to do so. So, even if it turns out that I am wrong, this is a bona fide investigation and I see absolutely no reason to retract my request. And you are not the judge if it is bona fide or not, but checkusers are. The Wikipedia Community has invested them with authority and power to decide such questions.
And all the objected differences are predicated under the assumption that Korvex cannot change their mind in the past years. Evidence e-mailed to the checkusers team proves otherwise. I mean Korvex is no less apologist than before, but they read their share of mainstream Bible scholarship and changed their mind on important theological issues. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is interesting. You're not the judge of the geolocation data saying two different places, but you are the judge of where every single difference (including agenda, belief, citation style, tone, etc) comes from (unfalsifiable development) ? Editshmedt (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not the judge, this had to be obvious by now: checkusers are the judge.
The comparison is available at https://interaction-timeline.toolforge.org/?wiki=enwiki&user=Wallingfordtoday&user=Korvex&startDate=1262304000 , see especially that the claim changed from Dever falsified (title Exodus Research has not been abandoned as a "fruitless pursuit") to Dever misunderstood (title William Dever misrepresented a wee bit). Maybe they had a talent for learning and improved their views. Talent for learning is not speculation, but it is proven by the evidence e-mailed to the checkusers team. It shows that Korvex developed from fringe apologist to academically educated apologist.
E.g. this was your view about the Exodus:

The phrasing of the page isn't what Dever says. Historicity being abandoned isn't the same as archaeological investigation being abandoned.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

And I probably agree with Friedman's Levite Exodus.
Another strong argument: apparently Korvex got air of this discussion and began covering their tracks by deleting their own posts. Evidence thereof has been e-mailed to the checkusers team.
I have e-mailed the checkusers team the end of this investigation. Editshmedt outed themselves as J. Rasman, and Editshmedt is indeed Korvex. So, I was right all along, they faked naivete in order to dodge the fact that they are a banned user, so not allowed to edit Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is where they outed themselves as the owner of that blog: [50]. The connection of that blog to Korvex is for the eyes of the checkusers only. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller stated he cannot match Korvex to their other username. But there are too many details that match, including the other username suddenly deleting all their posts after learning the details of this SPI.

I may even grant the point that none of my arguments is convincing in itself. But all my arguments taken together show that the coincidence is too big to be ignored.

To use an analogy from cryptography: there could be collisions of hashes. But if two files have all sorts of collisions (all of MD5, SHA1, SHA224, SHA256, SHA384, SHA512 and RIPEMD160), it would be lunacy to claim those files are different.

And if you want an example of evolution from fundie to liberal religionist, just look at the difference between my first edits and my edits from the couple of last years. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the end you have to ask yourself how many people who are both Wikipedians and Christian apologists are there in Canadian places close to New York. And who regularly write .~~~~ like the quote from Wallingfordtoday from above.

Note that I'm not saying both Wikipedian and Christian. Christian means a believer. Apologist means a man with a mission.

The Canadian Christian apologist just got blocked for trolling, see Special:Contributions/2605:8D80:604:C9FC:0:0:0:0/64.

I don't know how many persons are these Christian apologists (one, two or three), but they all have a foul mouth for a believing Christian, to the extent that I was inclined to think that Editshmedt is a Finkelstein-denigration-bot (they called Finkelstein incompetent and insane, [51] and [52]). Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

This is simply the latest accusation by Tgeorgescu trying to get me banned. The user Tgeorgescu has already admitted that he is trying to get me banned. A few days ago, Tgeorgescu accused me of being a paid editor on Wikipedia in order to get me banned - and then quickly dropped it when other users accused him of desperation. Indeed, on this administrators noticeboard discussion which Tgeorg opened to get me banned (again - you can find numerous other links to other noticeboard discussions where Tgeorg has been repeatedly trying to do this for the last two months), another user commented:

The fact that you had already made a previous report against the editor and about the same article David, still accusing the editor of paid editing even though you knew Editshmedt had already denied it, and filing an SPI case via Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Korvex only shows your desperation. As far as I can tell, Editshmedt has not violated any policies. Btw, in your previous report, you stated you could "smell a rat"? Seriously? And now Editshmedt is a troll? Tgeorgescu, you are really pushing you're luck with this report. Jerm (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

This very sockpuppet page shows that Tgeorg has already falsely accused two other accounts of being sockpuppets of User:Korvex.

Tgeorg's "evidence" is utterly skewed. Yes, I am a Canadian living in Ontario (a province where something like 40% of all Canadians live). That is technically one point of "overlap" since the userpage of User:Korvex also shows this is a Canadian user. However, this is where much of Tgeorg's other correlations collapse into a single correlation. Roger and Bell, along with Telus, make up 97% of providers in Canada. Tgeorg's correlation of editing times shows I edit over literally twice the length of time that User:Korvex edits. This is a fanciful correlation - not to mention that if any correlation in editing time did exist, it would simply reflect the fact that people living in the same region have the same waking hours. Once again, pure imagination. So far, all we've seen is that there is another Canadian user that was banned.

The connection in actual content overlap seems to be something vague about topics that relate to Christianity. Anything more specific, however, seems to be a figment of Tgeorg's imagination. Tgeorg says we are both interested in "Catholic theology". In fact, I have no interest in Catholic theology. I am not a Catholic at all. In fact, the one page I've edited relevant to Catholic theology, Original sin, was me documenting that this was a later doctrine that developed from the 3rd-5th centuries CE. Tgeorg focuses deep down on the general interest in articles related to Christianity, utterly ignoring my significant editing history on articles concerning the Middle Ages which is simply not seen with User:Korvex. The account I lost because I forgot a password, User:WallingfordToday, is named after Richard Wallingford, the inventor of the clock. I have created an article called List of common misconceptions about the Middle Ages. A purview of my edits will show editing on numerous other topics of medieval history and significant relevant contributions to such pages.

Tgeorgescu has found that I and User:Korvex both have an interest in articles in some way tangentially related to Christianity. What he has completely failed to do is to see if my opinions are even remotely similar to the views expressed by User:Korvex. It is clear that User:Korvex was banned for an obsession on the topic of the Exodus and much of the dispute leading to the ban can be found on this and this talk page. Users should simply compare the way the two of us talk and discover there is no resemblance. What about actual opinions? User:Korvex, from these talk pages, clearly believes the following claims: 1) the Exodus is not a "charter myth" and the maximalist view of the Exodus is not "fringe" 2) Douglas Petrovich has discovered that Hebrew is the worlds oldest alphabet 3) Avraham Fausts work on the timing of the ethnogenesis of Israel (in the 12th-11th centuries BC) is inaccurate 4) the user thinks that the former is inaccurate because they date the Exodus to the 15th century BC under Amenhotep II (a well known fundamentalist position) 5) Dever is apparently "annihilated" when it comes to his claims on the Exodus 6) the "600 thousand" in the Israelite census should be read as "600 troops" instead.

In fact, literally everything here contradicts my views. Every single one of User:Korvex's opinions in the discussion contradict my own. I think that the Exodus narratives are a charter myth and that the biblical narratives are pretty fanciful. Of course, there may have been a couple hundred Semites to have escaped to Canaan as many archaeologists believe, but there is little in the narration of the Book of Exodus that I accept as history. It is obviously a story. I think Douglas Petrovich is a pseudoscholar. User:Korvex dismisses Avraham Faust's work on Israel's ethnogenesis as happening in the time that Faust says it happens - I completely agree with Faust on that. In fact, my editing history on this website will show I extensively cite William Devers' work, including works of his (e.g. his book Beyond the Texts) which date Israel's ethnogenesis between 1250-1150 BC. This actually shows another discrepancy - User:Korvex extensively dismisses the work of William Devers, whereas I do the complete opposite in the course of my editing history. I do not believe there was any 15th century exodus under Amenhotep II. The claim that the Exodus dates to the 15th century relies on the number given 1 Kings 9:15. My editing history documents the fact that I consider such biblical numbers fictitious. I absolutely do not claim that the "600 thousand" are "600 troops" or something. The biblical text simply makes a completely fanciful claim in terms of the number of Israelite's.

There are plenty of other examples of extreme discrepancy between my views and that of User:Korvex. Another massive issue taken up with this user is the identification of Khirbet el-Maqatir with Ai, in accordance with the work of Bryant G. Wood. I think Bryant Wood is a pseudoscholar and I agree with the majority of archaeologists with the usual identification of et Tell.

Tgeorg completely figments a parallel in writing style when he observes that we both add a signature without a space. For one, that is actually not correct. I have not universally added a signature after my comment, although it is frequent, but I sometimes also add my signature on the next line. However, why doesn't Tgeorg comment about any other feature of our writing styles? User:Korvex extensively quotes full names of articles and pages within the body of a page. User:Korvex rarely if ever offers significant quotations from the scholarly literature, a significant difference with my editing history. My extensive editing history shows a massive discrepancy between the way that User:Korvex cites something and I do. Consider this example of sourcing by User:Korvex. Or this one. Compare this with the extensively documented citation style that I use. I synthesize all my own citations according to the followering format: First name Last name. "Name of paper". Journal title (Year). Sometimes I add in page numbers, but sometimes I do not. This is absent from User:Korvex.

Tgeorgescu is a user that has been trying to ban me for the last few months on all the charges you can think of, including paid editing. Tgeorgescu has already falsely accused two other users of being sockpuppets of User:Korvex. Tgeorgescu has only shown I have an interest in Christianity, only occasionally editing the same pages. (However, all the pages that User:Korvex has shown significant editing on is absent from my editing history and all the pages that I have shown extensive editing on is absent from the history of User:Korvex). However, Tgeorgescu completely censors the numerous other topics and dozens if not hundreds of other pages I have a documented extensive history of editing on Wikipedia, and therefore the parallel is wishful thinking. Tgeorgescu's connection in writing style amounts to a single similarity, ignoring the vast differences in 1) tone of speaking 2) citation style 3) opinion, agenda and so forth. Tgeorgescu offers a few other non-parallels: I have a 1.1% semi-automated edit rate and User:Korvex has it at 9.1% - a difference of a factor of 9. Tgeorg has cited the fact that I actively edit over twice the length of time that User:Korvex edits as a parallel. Tgeorgescu has cited similar levels of Edit summaries, although this is likely a figment of imagination because this account is a few months old. The rate of Edit summaries is therefore likely highly volatile and changing all the time. In fact, Tgeorg is very careful not to mention the rate of Edit summaries on the account I lost due to password forgetting, Wallingfordtoday. This is because my Edit summary on that account, which includes a sample size of over 1,000 edits, is 62.1%. Automated edits on this account are also 1% - exactly in line with the rate of automated edits on this account (Editshmedt at 1.1%), but 9 times too small for the rate of User:Korvex which is over 9%. Tgeorgescu can easily check in from a month ago or a month from now and my rate could be, and almost certainly is/will be, entirely different. Tgeorg, at times, adduces additional evidence that there is in fact no similarity. For example, in one of the edits cited by Tgeorg, User:Korvex cites Kenneth Kitchen. User:Korvex also appears to have an interest in James Hoffmeier. I may be wrong, but I have no memory of ever citing either of these two scholars myself. In fact, I have not read a single one of their books. I can actually prove that I have not read any of their books because I have a Goodreads account which shows a detailed summary of all the books I have read over the years. I will say that I have read one or two of their papers, but I have essentially never cited them. Tgeorg cites an overlap in interest in Mazar, Faust, Garfinkel, and others. What Tgeorg does not mention is that these are the most cited scholars in the entire field. An extensive look at my editing history will also finally show, building off of this point, that the scholarship I cite has no connection whatsoever to the scholarship User:Korvex cites. Completely different literatures. I also use a number of Wikipedia features that User:Korvex does not use. The user page style of User:Korvex is completely different from that of my account and the lost account I used of User:Wallingfordtoday. All the comparisons are simply superficial, all the differences are put aside as if they do not exist.

To end, Tgeorg finds yet another completely unrelated Christian living in Canada, this one being an IP address continuously active since 2016 no less, and claims it is me: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/2605:8D80:600::/45&offset=&limit=500&target=2605%3A8D80%3A600%3A%3A%2F45 In other words, we are dealing with a bright stroke of imaginative thinking.

ADDENDUM ON CONTENT OVERLAP: Tgeorg has claimed that User:Korvex shows evidence of editing, like I do, on the page Muhammad and the Bible and other pages related to Islam and Muhammad. In fact, the whole history of the contributions of User:Korvex shows that there is actually not a single edit from this account on Muhammad and the Bible or any other topic related to Muhammad or Islam. Tgeorg also claims that, like me, User:Korvex shows evidence of editing on Christ myth theory. Besides a few comments on the talk page, User:Korvex has a single edit on the main page of Christ myth theory. These are, apparently, Tgeorg's two examples.

ADDENDUM ON GEOLOCATION: Tgeorg has claimed that he knows where User:Korvex lives because he has examples of four different IP addresses that represent User:Korvex editing while not logged in. In fact, all four of these IP addresses represent four completely different people. The first IP address geolocates to Toronto, Ontario, Canada. The second IP address geolocates to Beauharnois, Quebec, Canada. (Notice that this individual is from Quebec, literally a different province, notwithstanding the different city.) The third IP address geolocates to Yarker, Ontario, Canada. The fourth IP address geolocates to Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. Four different IP addresses, four completely different people living in completely different cities.

As noted earlier, Jerm said it best. Editshmedt (talk) 03:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note:
  • 2021-02-17T23:53:05: 96.246.38.12 triggered filter 809, performing the action "edit" on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Korvex. Actions taken: Disallow; Filter description: Possible SPI disruption
  • 2021-02-17T23:53:01: 96.246.38.12 triggered filter 809, performing the action "edit" on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Korvex. Actions taken: Disallow; Filter description: Possible SPI disruption
  • 2021-02-17T23:52:52: 96.246.38.12 triggered filter 809, performing the action "edit" on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Korvex. Actions taken: Disallow; Filter description: Possible SPI disruption

~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

20 February 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Tuvyaamiller wrote You have a certificate (which you call your "masters" degree) from a school that not only is not a top 100 university, it's also not even a top-1000 university!!! [53]

2605:8D80:604:C9FC:4EA6:222:1F18:3AA1 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (geolocation Toronto, Ontario, Canada) wrote You are a failed academic who is way too proud of their Mickey Mouse degree from backwoods Bucharest [54].

He could also be GoogleMeNowPlease. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Not Editshmedit, haven't checked GoogleMeNowPlease. Doug Weller talk 11:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

26 April 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Karma1998 stating Finkelstein changed his position 3 times at [55]

Same argument by WP:SOCK Editshmedt at [56]

Karma1998 restoring an edit by Editshmedt at [57], see [58]

At [59] Karma1998 pushing the POV of the Levite Exodus, WP:SOCK Wallingfordtoday agrees with that POV at [60]

Also, notice that Karma1998 (essentially) only began editing Bible scholarship topics after Editshmedt was indeffed.

[61] [62] [63] there is no space between the punctuation mark and --.

Why is this relevant? See previous WP:SPI report for Editshmedt, namely

Something striking: [64], [65], [66] vs. [67], [68], [69]. See that? There is no space, nor any -- between the text and the signature. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Citing myself Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

20 November 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Same geolocation. Same aggressiveness against mainstream Bible scholarship. Or maybe they are GoogleMeNowPlease. GoogleMeNowPlease is a better match because they are a Catholic true believer. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: OK, got it: checkusers cannot tell. So, if one is socking as IP, there is no remedy against it. In the future I won't report IPs to WP:SPI. I thought that in respect to GoogleMeNowPlease the data are somewhat newer than for Korvex. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

@Tgeorgescu: They cannot tell because it would be a violation of both local and global CheckUser policy and grounds for reprimand. That does not, however, mean that reports of IP addresses cannot be made. I did not mean to discourage you from making reports, merely was seeking clarification if I was missing something obvious as to why a CU would be of use. The report is still valid, just can't be CU'd. Please still keep making reports as you find them, just leave them as "open" and don't request CU if there are only IP addresses listed, that's all. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]