Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Frater FiatLux (2nd)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Frater FiatLux

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Frater FiatLux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Brahman0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Rondus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
C00483033 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

IPSOS (talk) 05:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

Following on these two, C00483033 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is obvious.


Additional Evidence provided by other users

Further evidence confirming that C00483033 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is the same as indef blocked user Frater FiatLux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is this comment, which is practically identical to an argument archived from Frater FiatLux's talk page, here (first section). GlassFET 18:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the permanent old-version link: Frater FiatLux/Archive 1 (first section) in case that page gets changed after the above info was posted. --Parsifal Hello 20:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]



I noticed these accounts doing multiple almost-identical sequential disruptive edits tonight on multiple articles. I came here to report them and found this report already open, so I am adding this note to confirm that I saw the problem also.

Examples of a few of the identical edits all within a half-hour or so tonight:

Rondus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log):

  • [5]
  • [6]
  • [7] (note this diff connects to an article that has since been deleted - the content was identical to the prior two diffs)
  • [8]
  • [9]


C00483033 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log):

  • [10]
  • [11]
  • [12] (note this diff connects to an article that has since been deleted - the content was identical to the prior two diffs)
  • [13]
  • [14]
  • From the block log, regarding another series of identical edits by this user on the AfD that resulted in the deletion of the article relating to the third listed diff under the name of Rhondus above:
15:09, 8 August 2007 Isotope23 (Talk | contribs) blocked "C00483033 (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega)

There are more in the contribs - those are the most recent. --Parsifal Hello 07:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid confusion, please note, there is another open SSP case involving Rondus and C00483033 at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kephera975. --Parsifal Hello 00:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that this looks like pretty obvious sockpuppetry. I tried to have conversations with Frater FiatLux and got similar legalistic responses, for example: [15], [16], [17] . GlassFET 14:50, 8 August 2007


Comments


Rebuttal

I am not a sock puppet of anyone as can easily be verified from my IP address by Wikipedia administration. What is actually happenning here is that user IPSOS is acting as an agent of HOGD, Inc. in an inappropriate attempt to manipulate Wikipedia to gain unfair business advantage in an ongoing legal dispute. I got involved in this when it was brought to my attention what user IPSOS has been doing. This nonsensical complaint by user IPSOS is merely an atempt to inappropriately use Wikipedia rules to silence anyone who disagrees with his POV that should be barred due to conflict of interest. User IPSOS is attemptiing to use this end run around Wiki rules in order to get unlimited reversions and suppress the following and highly relevant information

HOGD, Inc. Manipulating Wikipedia for Unfair Business Advantage

I would like to point out that what is actually happening here is that Wikipedia is allowing itself to be dragged into a fifteen-year old legal dispute between two esoteric orders. One of the parties, the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc., is presently sending its members en masse here to Wikipedia to “edit” in a misguided attempt to use Wikipedia as an advertising medium for their order in an attempt to 1. gain an unfair business advantage, 2. misrepresent the status and results of litigation, 3. misrepresent the current status of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn trademark, and to 4. falsely portray HOGD, Inc. as the successor of the historical, Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, while depriving the other party of its legitimate and legal rights.

The following is true and correct information that elilminates the HOGD, Inc. biased POV:

The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, outer order of the Rosicrucian Order of the Alpha et Omega, is, through its Chief Adept, David John Griffin, the sole and exclusive owner of the “Hermetic Owner of the Golden Dawn” trademark, registration number 000063295, in the European Union (making it the registered owner of the “Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn” trademark in all 27 member-states of the European Union, and “The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn International” trademark, registration no. TMA 510,385, in Canada. On November 20, 1996, David John Griffin and Patricia A. Behman, as general partners of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (H.O.G.D.), a general partnership, as owners of the “Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn” in the European Union, and Charles Cicero, as president of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. (H.O.G.D., Inc.), as owners of the same mark in the United States, entered into an Agreement to manage the “Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn” mark on a worldwide basis whilst preventing infringement of the mark by third parties. On May 8, 1998 Behman sold her partnership interest to Griffin, at which point Griffin became sole proprietor of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. Griffin, however, always differentiated his organization in trade and commerce, while primarily identifying it as the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, as the outer order of the Rosicrucian Order of the Alpha et Omega so as to differentiate it from a plethora of identically or similarly named groups in the United States relying on no more than the published Regardie materials.

On January 28, 2005, H.O.G.D., Inc. attempted to repudiate the November 20, 1996 Agreement by filing suit against Griffin for trademark infringement in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Griffin counter-sued for breach of contract. This litigation consisting of 169 documents filed in the public record, may be accessed by any interested party at https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?609863100750398-L_835_0-1 through the Pacer system of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

On January 17, 2007, the parties reached a Settlement Agreement read into the public record by U.S. Magistrate-Judge Maria Elena James as FTR 3:44-4:07 of date 1-17-2007.The Settlement Agreement provides that: 1) H.O.G.D., Inc. recognizes Griffin as the sole and exclusive owner of the “Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn” trademark in the European Union; 2) H.O.G.D., Inc. recognizes Griffin as the sole and exclusive owner of “The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn International” trademark in Canada; 3) Griffin recognizes H.O.G.D., Inc. as the sole and exclusive owner of the same mark in the United States; 4) the parties will not contest the ownership of each parties respective marks and mark: 5) H.O.G.D., Inc. will not contest the use, validity or ownership of the mark “Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Outer Order of the Rosicrucian Order of the Alpha et Omega” in the United States; 6) the January 17, 2007 Agreement supersedes the prior Agreement between the parties; 7) the parties covenanted not to interfere with the operations of each other; 8) the Agreement inures to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the parties. On February 12, 2007, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice both H.O.G.D., Inc.’s claims and Griffin’s counter-claims while retaining in perpetuity to retain enforcement of the January 17, 2007 Agreement through motion filed by either of the parties. Over a period of several months, editor IPSOS, who has acknowledged that he is an associate of H.O.G.D., Inc.’s Charles Cicero, has repeatedly (nearly 30 times) vandalized the H.O.G.D./A.O. article from the first below quotation to the deliberate misrepresentation in the second quote below. “According to their web site,[27] the Rosicrucian Order of A+O is the registered owner of the trademarks Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega® [28] and Ordo Rosae Rubeae et Aureae Crucis (R.R. et A.C.)®.[29][30] The Alpha et Omega is also the registered owner of the trademark Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn® in the European Union[31] and in Canada.[32]. The Rosicrucian Order of A+O in 2007 settled litigation with The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. guaranteeing the Alpha et Omega's right to use the name of its outer order, the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, in the United States without interference.[33]” has been repeatedly vandalized to: "According to their web site,[27] the Rosicrucian Order of A+O is the registered owner of the trademarks Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega® [28] and Ordo Rosae Rubeae et Aureae Crucis (R.R. et A.C.)®.[29][30] The Alpha et Omega is also the registered owner of the trademark Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn® in the European Union[31] and in Canada.[32]. The Rosicrucian Order of A+O in 1996 contracted with The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. a mutual "right to usage" of the trademark Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn® worldwide while acknowledging each Order's "exclusive ownership" of their respective nationally registered trademarks. A copy of this contract was filed for recordation with the United States Patent and Trademark Office." The repeated vandalism by Cicero-associate IPSOS shows a remarkable familiarity with the above-referenced litigation by the parties. Whilst Cicero’s attorney maintained that the 1996 Agreement was a “right to use” agreement in which each party accorded to the other party a “right to use” its respective mark or marks, Griffin’s attorney never characterized the 1996 Agreement but maintained that each party acquired a vested property interest in the mark or marks of the other party by virtue of the specific language of the Agreement. The matter was never settled in that the parties settled on January 17, 2007, two weeks before they were scheduled to go to trial on January 28, 2007, and the January 17, 2007 Settlement Agreement superseded the November 20, 1996 agreement. When the knowingly inaccurate and misleading defacement of the H.O.G.D../A+O article by Cicero-associate IPSOS was repeatedly corrected, IPSOS subsequently enlisted the assistance of Wikipedia editorial staff in freezing the H.O.G.D./A+O article; and unlawfully depriving the H.O.G.D./A+O of its legal name and mark by arbitrarily renaming the article describing the order to “Rosicrucian Order of the Alpha et Omega.” It is therefore requested that the H.O.G.D./A.O. article be unfrozen and returned to its appropriate legal name of “Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (Rosicrucian Order of the Alpha et Omega).” In order to avoid confusion both with the HOGD/A+O, as well as with the historical “Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn,” the H.O.G.D., Inc. article should be re-named “Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc.” or “Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (Florida corporation).”--Rondus 15:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you are simply wrong.
  1. I am not an agent of Cicero or HOGD, Inc. I met Cicero once. We didn't discuss any of these issues. I don't have his telephone number, email address, or snail mail address. We don't correspond or talk to one another. He most probably doesn't remember my name. I am not a member of his order, and have never joined any Golden Dawn order. Primarily because of people like you.
  2. I was not even implementing any particular agenda. Frater FiatLux was reverting to a months-old version of the article, losing all the intermediate edits. This was explained to him repeated as the reason the article was being reverted, by both myself and other editors: here, here, here
In short, Frater FiatLux refused to listen to advice on proper editing etiquette. Because his edits were rude and affected more of the article than he was actually concerned with, they were reverted by myself and other editors while asking him to be more focused with his edits. He chose not to do so, and instead to edit war. This got him indefinitely blocked. He made the mistake of thinking that his concerns were more important than and trumped the concerns of other editors, and simply kept repeating himself, just as you have been.
Your misunderstanding of the situation has led you to jump to conclusions: conclusions which to me seem bizarre and paranoid. But hey, if that's how you want to come off, that's your business. Your current path, however, will get you blocked, probably sooner than later. Try having a conversation with people rather than trying to lecture them on the law. Quite frankly, your organization does not meet our notability requirements and will soon be deleted. That's not the fault of your competitors.
Good day. IPSOS (talk) 00:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

←Rondus, Are you aware that the long legalistic post you entered above is exactly identical to this edit by C00483033? It doesn't make your rebuttal very strong that you show additional evidence of sockpuppetry in the text of your rebuttal. --Parsifal Hello 00:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I recently joined Wikipedia, only to be immediately persecuted by User IPSOS. My first impression at Wikipedia has been a very bad one because of him. I had not been a member here 24 hours before User IPSOS because stuck a "Suspected Sock Puppet" tag on my talk page (I have since learned that this was inappropriate behavior from him). Moreover, IPSOS has harassed me on my talk page non-stop ever since. Since the very moment that I arrived here, I have been forced to defend myself against one false accusation after the other coming from User IPSOS. He accused me of being a sock puppet after my very first contribution. He is now also accusing me of being an SPA (whatever that means). During entire time at Wikipedia I have been forced to spend hours and hours learning my way around an ocean of rules, merely to defend myself against the BULLYING tactics of user IPSOS. Along the way, I found a rule called "Be nice to newcomers." If only that rule were truly in effect, I would have had a very different experience here until now.

Upon joining Wikipedia, I immediately was given the impression that user IPSOS was using his superior knowledge of the rules here in order to manipulate discussions to fit his point of view as well as to silence any and all opposing opinions. I do not even know who user Fiat Lux or C00... are. I have never even had any contact with them. User Keph..., however, I have noticed is a frequent critic of User IPSOS tactics as well as of his biased point of view.

I would like to state clearly that I am not any of the users listed in this article. I am not a sock puppet of anyone nor do I use more than one account. I have not intended to break any other rules here either. A simple investigation of my IP address should be enough to clear me of this latest, baseless charge from User, IPSOS.

If I have broken ANY rule here, it is only due to my goofiness being new together with being forced to defend myself against bullying from the very first moment that I arrived. Unfortunately, what has happened here since I arrived has given me the distinct impression that what is really going on at Wikipedia has precious little to do with the accuracy of the Encyclopedia, but rather with the egos of the Editors and that the first and foremost rule here is: "THE BIGGEST BULLY WITH THE BEST UNDERSTANDING OF THE RULES PREVAILS." I have also unfortunately been given the distinct impression that newcomers are most unwelcome at Wikipedia. I would greatly appreciate it if an administrator would ask User IPSOS to kindly quit bullying me once and for all.--Rondus 16:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Assuming good faith and that your story above may be accurate,... this is what I don't understand, please explain: Why are the three edits listed above under your name exactly the same - word for word - as the three edits listed under the name of User: C00483033? The above examples are only a few of many that were all added around the same time that day. If you and User: C00483033 are not the same person, how did it result that you made the same long, detailed and identical edits within a short time of each other? Thank you. --Parsifal Hello 19:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response. I frankly have no idea. It is highly interesting though that this happenned right after I joined Wikipedia and that IPSOS slapped a suspected sock puppet tag on my account immediately following. I therefore suspect that C00483033 may actually IPSOS himself, using some sort of sophisticated bullying tactic trying to get me into trouble because I disagree with him. I do not want to be uncivil here, but consideriing how badly I have been bullied, the suspicion seems reasonable enough.--Rondus 00:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need. You've already shot yourself in the foot. I'm not concerned with your accusation, because checkuser would easily clear me. I am concerned at your tactics though. Is your agenda really so important that it requires you to lie about other people? IPSOS (talk) 04:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Note: This report here and at the one at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kephera975 appear to be almost identical and contain much of the same information and list of accounts. As a result, the comment above by Rhondus and my question for him have been cross-posted for clarity. It might be useful to combine the two reports, but I don't know anything about those procedures or if it should be done. --Parsifal Hello 20:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
  • Obvious. All named accounts will be indef blocked. The additional case on Kephera975 will be dealt with separately. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Frater_FiatLux_(2nd)&oldid=153002724"