John Nevard (and to some extent, Janeyryan), Sockpuppets or wannabe cabalists? Options

[tarantino]

Nevard first appeared during Jayjg's absence and created his user page with the summary "I have another account- however, I'm not going to edit under my real name with a bunch of terrorists running around." He originally edited New Zeland-related articles and once "accidentally" edited from a dynamic NZ IP address.

His interests have since expanded to include animal rights, Overstock, LaRouche, PIR, the Brown Dog Affair, the Middle East, Patrick Haseldine‎ and many other pages frequented by the axis of weasels.

I suppose a third possibility is he's a double agent attempting to infiltrate their fortress.

[jorge]

Weird edit here.

[guy]

Weird edit here.

So he's interested in Canadian articles?

[jorge]

I suppose a third possibility is he's a double agent attempting to infiltrate their fortress.

Looking through the edits I doubt that. He seems to have an interest in the military/weapons and takes a general right wing stand on issues, i.e. anti animal rights, hostile to muslims and apparently thinks the Guardian is almost always distorting the truth ..

EDIT: Possibly interesting edit here where he mentions the Mohammad painting in a discussion with Will Beback about the photo on the Lyndon LaRouche article in Nov 2007.

[tarantino]

I suppose a third possibility is he's a double agent attempting to infiltrate their fortress.

Looking through the edits I doubt that. He seems to have an interest in the military/weapons and takes a general right wing stand on issues, i.e. anti animal rights, hostile to muslims and apparently thinks the Guardian is almost always distorting the truth ..

Ah, yes, I hadn't looked at many of his contribs very closely. His edits on the subjects relating to Brandt* and Overstock wouldn't much bother the cabal, but on several other articles he's knocking heads with them.

*See "Nevard is POV pushing for Berlet".

[guy]

apparently thinks the Guardian is almost always distorting the truth ..

Lese majeste! Heresy!

[Yehudi]

the Guardian is almost always distorting the truth

Only on subjects it has views about.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Ah, yes, I hadn't looked at many of his contribs very closely. His edits on the subjects relating to Brandt* and Overstock wouldn't much bother the cabal, but on several other articles he's knocking heads with them.

*See "Nevard is POV pushing for Berlet".

A recent look at Nevard's user page indicates that he is puppy-dog-eager to rack up a few Cabal Points. He makes the obligatory plea for more attacks on Patrick Byrne and Daniel Brandt, before appealing to the BADSITErs by denouncing the WR and reminding the reader of his affinity for Virginia Slim. It would be very interesting to learn what his other username is.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I am toying with the hypothesis that Nevard could be the second coming of Adam Carr. He spells "labor' with a u and edits a lot of Australia/New Zealand-related articles, in addition to being all over the pedophilia disputes. He does seem more circumspect than Adam about flouting the rules, but that could just be Adam after learning a few hard lessons.

the axis of weasels

I've been meaning to complement you on this particularly elegant formulation. I hope it becomes part of the standard lexicon.

[tarantino]

I am toying with the hypothesis that Nevard could be the second coming of Adam Carr. He spells "labor' with a u and edits a lot of Australia/New Zealand-related articles, in addition to being all over the pedophilia disputes. He does seem more circumspect than Adam about flouting the rules, but that could just be Adam after learning a few hard lessons.

Hmm, that appears to be a good possibility. Here's a list of eclectic pages Carr and Nevard have both edited.
Albert_Einstein
Bob_Katter
Brendan_Nelson
Dave_Weldon
David_Hicks
Farm_Security_Administration
Finlandization
Francis_Townsend
Franz_Halder
Freedom_Socialist_Party
George_II_of_Great_Britain
George_Pell
Guatemala
Jesus
John_Howard
José_María_Aznar
National_Caucus_of_Labor_Committees
Nelson_Mandela
North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association
Reptilian_humanoid
Sukarno
The_Holocaust
Treaty_of_Sèvres
Turkish_War_of_Independence
Winter_War
Talk:George_Pell
Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche
Talk:Reptilian_humanoid
Talk:Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche
Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents
Wikipedia:Requested_moves
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration
Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)

the axis of weasels

I've been meaning to complement you on this particularly elegant formulation. I hope it becomes part of the standard lexicon.

I don't remember when I first saw the phrase, but it seems it was coined in the blog ScrappleFace.

[Kato]

I am toying with the hypothesis that Nevard could be the second coming of Adam Carr. He spells "labor' with a u and edits a lot of Australia/New Zealand-related articles, in addition to being all over the pedophilia disputes. He does seem more circumspect than Adam about flouting the rules, but that could just be Adam after learning a few hard lessons.

the axis of weasels

I've been meaning to complement you on this particularly elegant formulation. I hope it becomes part of the standard lexicon.

Nevard isn't Adam Carr. Nevard is in New Zealand for one thing. And pretty much everyone spells Labour with a "u" - with the exception of those in the United States.

Axis of Weasels goes back to 2003 when France, Germany and Russia openly opposed the invasion of Iraq.

[Piperdown]

Patrick Byrne on Nevard, again. Hilarious.

Mr. Nevard weirdly dismisses an attempt to get the page on me to report my position accurately by saying, "This article isn't here to promote your conspiracy theories", apparently hoping the reader will take it as received truth that what I believe is a conspiracy theory. Now I point at the current issue of Vanity Fair precisely echoes my claims, and Nevard dismisses those as more conspiracy theories. So, if I have him right, the page on me is not supposed to report what I believe because it is a conspiracy theory, and the fact that Vanity Fair now takes precisely the same position is something that should not be mentioned because it is a conspiracy theory, etc. etc. As far as I can tell, Mr. Nevard is using the term "conspiracy theory" to mean precisely and only "Something with which I, John Nevard, disagree." The upshot of this is, if a person holds a position with which John Nevard disagrees that position is not allowed to be stated, not even on the page about that person, because it must be a "conspiracy theory". And if a major publication comes out and reports the same thing then that must not be mentioned either, because it must be a "conspiracy theory", because John Nevard disagrees with it. Did I miss anything? Note that by that logic, if John Nevard disagrees with quantum mechanics, then mustn't the page on Niels Bohr refrain from describing quantum mechanics, because it is a "conspiracy theory"? PatrickByrne (talk) 02:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=225319690

This post has been edited by Piperdown:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=225319690

This is a standard technique at Wikipedia. It helps to explain why the Cabal is anxious to protect the activities of the Chipster and the MONGOloids -- they help to generate an environment of paranoia, where everyone is in a constant state of alarm of over the vast conspiracy of conspiracy theorists.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I note that a "How's it going, Gary" message, left on the talk page of Sockpuppet Janeyryan, has been indignantly removed by sockpuppet John Nevard.

[One]

Who is John Nevard a sock of?

Gotta agree with Kohs here. Banning all shorts is insane. They just needed to level the field by prohibiting naked shorts. As it was, hedge funds had a free short card without much oversight, while everyone else actually had to borrow shares. That was a recipe for disaster, but this is a recipe for another disaster.

This opinion piece by a smug free market Canadian (WTF?) puts it well.

[CharlotteWebb]

Classic. This is either a Mantanmoreland sock or a great impersonator trying to rack up fake MM socks to get him even more deeply banned.

Whoever it is they have a surprisingly clean block log considering their very odd areas of interest.

Could be negligence or conspiracy, neither would surprise me.

[Rootology]

I asked nicely. It could just be a clean alternate account, but I think those are banned on the NSS stuff...

[One]

I asked nicely. It could just be a clean alternate account, but I think those are banned on the NSS stuff...

Rootology, I like your article space research, but you're not going to find anything that way. He's a new account. That's his story, he's sticking to it:

[to admin Risker, drawing his attention to the fact that all socks are banned from NSS]
Double negative time: I meant to say 'no' to 'not' meaning that this is my primary and only account, now and ever since the dawn of Time.--Janeyryan (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

[to admin Cool Hand Luke yelling at him for reinserting Mantanmoreland's prose]
I've affirmed that I am not a returning user on at least one occasion, and your request presupposes that. But that is not the case. I have no idea what material I am reinserting or who has been banned from what. What I reinserted had been in the article for quite a bit of time, apparently. --Janeyryan (talk) 12:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

He's exclusively interested in these topics:
1. Naked short selling
2. LaRouche
3. Wikipedia Review

According to him, He has never had an account on Wikipedia before. Who believes him? You don't? AGF!

We discussed him before. It was though that John Navard was a good fit, but I said the timezones didn't fit. now that Navard has returned, it's most clear they are not on the same sleeping schedule. I think it's Manny.

This post has been edited by One:

[CharlotteWebb]

I've affirmed that I am not a returning user on at least one occasion, and your request presupposes that. But that is not the case. I have no idea what material I am reinserting or who has been banned from what. What I reinserted had been in the article for quite a bit of time, apparently. --Janeyryan (talk) 12:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Janey may be affirming that there was at least one occasion in which she was not a "returned user".

That's always good to know.

[Milton Roe]

Who is John Nevard a sock of?

Gotta agree with Kohs here. Banning all shorts is insane. They just needed to level the field by prohibiting naked shorts. As it was, hedge funds had a free short card without much oversight, while everyone else actually had to borrow shares. That was a recipe for disaster, but this is a recipe for another disaster.

This opinion piece by a smug free market Canadian (WTF?) puts it well.

Nevard is interesting. He admits to being an alternate account of somebody (Oct 21, 2007), but says he's not saying who, due to "terrorists running around."

Hmmm. His interests are Judaica and antisemitism (which all gives him a decent Kabal score of 14, about like Berlet's), but if you look at "his" interests WRT each of the Kabal, it's clear that he shares by far the most with SlimVirgin. Brown Dog affair, Keith Mann. The whole bit. There's a LOT of environmental and animal rights extremism. In fact, they've edited 103 mainspace articles together (more than Slim and Crum have!), but have only interacted on article TALK pages 21 times, which is an unusually low number for editors with the same interests.

They've both posted to these two odd user pages (the user, not the user:talk):
#1 User:SirFozzie/Investigation/Sandbox - edited by 2 of 2 users
#2 User:Mantanmoreland - edited by 2 of 2 users

They've posted to 20 user:talks, and 10 Wikipedia project pages.

Here's the project space talk:
#1 Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history - edited by 2 of 2 users
#2 Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Gracenotes - edited by 2 of 2 users
#3 Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research - edited by 2 of 2 users

Odd, also. Military history? Cla68? RfA for Gracenotes? Wups!

The total is 159 articles total.

I'll post the main articles to give you a feel, at the end.

That said, there are odd correlations between Nevard and Cberlet, who've edited 26 articles together. And finally, they all share a lot of article with banned sockpuppet team Arkalochori and Zurishaddai, who both, when added to any of these people, make the common article counts go up shockingly.

Anyway, here's the Nevard/SV list. Reads like a SV/Jayjg hitlist, except Nevard has edited with SlimVirgin even more than Jayjg has. Go figure. I smell socks. And if they both messed with Gracenotes, dirty socks.

In that blighted RfA, you can grin as SlimVirgin and Mantanmoreland lecture Gracenotes about empathy and morality (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

The admins of that site [this is WR, I think] have been sent two takedown notices and yet the material in question remains on it, so it's clearly not against their rules. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

75.144.57.73 (talk · contribs) recently wrote that "The admins of that site have offered, in public, to remove any material that you warrant is both malicious and false." I will make no claims as to the validity of that statement, and only indicate that it was made. GracenotesT § 16:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I repeat that I have sent them two takedown notices, and yet the material in question remains on the site, and it now seems I'm going to have to proceed legally, with all the time, money, and effort that entails. How utterly bizarre that you'd repeat the opinion of an anon IP and an attack site when I've already told you what I've done. There, in a nutshell, is why I oppose your promotion. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification about the comment. GracenotesT § 18:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
What's your opinion of that site? --Mantanmoreland 16:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a mixed bag. Some comments are constructive; others bitter. GracenotesT § 17:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Is that all you have to say? I felt your position on this issue was cold and lacking in empathy, and your response confirms that belief.--Mantanmoreland 18:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

← Do you disagree with what I wrote? You asked me for my opinion on the site in general, not my opinion on the site in terms of privacy violations. GracenotesT § 18:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

What an amazingly evasive way of responding to a simple question. I am deeply concerned about your being promoted, now more so.--Mantanmoreland 19:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

But strangely, I do not see "John Nevard's" comments on this page, although the Python tool says they should be there, along with Slim's and Mantanmoreland's. Hmmm. One more mystery.

Anyway, here's the total mainspace Nevard/SlimVirgin list. Note topics. Enjoy. My off the cuff guess is Nevard is her.

#1 Your_Mommy_Kills_Animals_(film) - edited by 2 of 2 users
#2 Worldwide_LaRouche_Youth_Movement - edited by 2 of 2 users
#3 Wikipedia_Watch - edited by 2 of 2 users
#4 Waco_Siege - edited by 2 of 2 users
#5 University_of_Minnesota_primate_research - edited by 2 of 2 users
#6 Tom_Regan - edited by 2 of 2 users
#7 Tipu_Aziz - edited by 2 of 2 users
#8 The_People's_Petition - edited by 2 of 2 users
#9 The_Holocaust - edited by 2 of 2 users
#10 The_David_Project_Center_for_Jewish_Leadership - edited by 2 of 2 users
#11 Stormfront_(website) - edited by 2 of 2 users
#12 Stop_Huntingdon_Animal_Cruelty - edited by 2 of 2 users
#13 Steven_M._Wise - edited by 2 of 2 users
#14 Steven_Emerson - edited by 2 of 2 users
#15 Stephen_R._L._Clark - edited by 2 of 2 users
#16 Stanley_Hilton - edited by 2 of 2 users
#17 Silver_Spring_monkeys - edited by 2 of 2 users
#18 Sea_Shepherd_Conservation_Society - edited by 2 of 2 users
#19 Schutzstaffel - edited by 2 of 2 users
#20 Ruhollah_Khomeini - edited by 2 of 2 users
#21 Ronnie_Lee - edited by 2 of 2 users
#22 Robin_Webb - edited by 2 of 2 users
#23 Rihab_Taha - edited by 2 of 2 users
#24 Richard_Warman - edited by 2 of 2 users
#25 Richard_D._Ryder - edited by 2 of 2 users
#26 Rat_Park - edited by 2 of 2 users
#27 Peter_Singer - edited by 2 of 2 users
#28 Peter_Camejo - edited by 2 of 2 users
#29 Perverted-Justice - edited by 2 of 2 users
#30 Persian_Jews - edited by 2 of 2 users
#31 People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals - edited by 2 of 2 users
#32 Patriotic_Youth_League - edited by 2 of 2 users
#33 Operation_Backfire_(FBI) - edited by 2 of 2 users
#34 October_surprise_conspiracy_theory - edited by 2 of 2 users
#35 Nuclear_program_of_Iran - edited by 2 of 2 users
#36 New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory) - edited by 2 of 2 users
#37 National_Extremism_Tactical_Co-ordination_Unit - edited by 2 of 2 users
#38 National_Caucus_of_Labor_Committees - edited by 2 of 2 users
#39 Nation_of_Islam_and_antisemitism - edited by 2 of 2 users
#40 Monsanto - edited by 2 of 2 users
#41 Michelle_Malkin - edited by 2 of 2 users
#42 Michael_Danby - edited by 2 of 2 users
#43 Mary_Midgley - edited by 2 of 2 users
#44 Lyndon_LaRouche - edited by 2 of 2 users
#45 Louise_Lind-af-Hageby - edited by 2 of 2 users
#46 List_of_designated_terrorist_organizations - edited by 2 of 2 users
#47 List_of_animal_rights_groups - edited by 2 of 2 users
#48 List_of_Israeli_civilian_casualties_in_the_Second_Intifada - edited by 2 of 2 users
#49 Kevin_Alfred_Strom - edited by 2 of 2 users
#50 Keith_Mann - edited by 2 of 2 users
#51 Justice_Department_(animal_rights) - edited by 2 of 2 users
#52 Jon_Ronson - edited by 2 of 2 users
#53 John_Train - edited by 2 of 2 users
#54 John_Mark_Karr - edited by 2 of 2 users
#55 Jizya - edited by 2 of 2 users
#56 Jimmy_Wales - edited by 2 of 2 users
#57 Jill_Phipps - edited by 2 of 2 users
#58 Jesus - edited by 2 of 2 users
#59 Jeremiah_Duggan - edited by 2 of 2 users
#60 Islamism - edited by 2 of 2 users
#61 Ingrid_Newkirk - edited by 2 of 2 users
#62 Imageboard - edited by 2 of 2 users
#63 Huntingdon_Life_Sciences - edited by 2 of 2 users
#64 Humane_Society_of_the_United_States - edited by 2 of 2 users
#65 HonestReporting - edited by 2 of 2 users
#66 Homeopathy - edited by 2 of 2 users
#67 Henry_Spira - edited by 2 of 2 users
#68 Heinrich_Himmler - edited by 2 of 2 users
#69 Heather_Mills - edited by 2 of 2 users
#70 Greg_Avery - edited by 2 of 2 users
#71 Green_Scare - edited by 2 of 2 users
#72 Google_Watch - edited by 2 of 2 users
#73 Golden_plates - edited by 2 of 2 users
#74 Gilad_Atzmon - edited by 2 of 2 users
#75 Gary_L._Francione - edited by 2 of 2 users
#76 Fred_Newman - edited by 2 of 2 users
#77 Female_genital_cutting - edited by 2 of 2 users
#78 Dushanbe_synagogue - edited by 2 of 2 users
#79 Dick_Morris - edited by 2 of 2 users
#80 Dennis_King - edited by 2 of 2 users
#81 Denis_Diderot - edited by 2 of 2 users
#82 David_Icke - edited by 2 of 2 users
#83 Criticism_of_Wikipedia - edited by 2 of 2 users
#84 Criticism_of_Hugo_Chávez - edited by 2 of 2 users
#85 Colin_Blakemore - edited by 2 of 2 users
#86 Chip_Berlet - edited by 2 of 2 users
#87 Che_Guevara - edited by 2 of 2 users
#88 Center_for_Consumer_Freedom - edited by 2 of 2 users
#89 Carlos_Latuff - edited by 2 of 2 users
#90 Brown_Dog_affair - edited by 2 of 2 users
#91 Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II - edited by 2 of 2 users
#92 Biobreeding_rat - edited by 2 of 2 users
#93 Bill_White_(neo-Nazi) - edited by 2 of 2 users
#94 Barry_Horne - edited by 2 of 2 users
#95 Anti-Defamation_League - edited by 2 of 2 users
#96 Anne_Frank - edited by 2 of 2 users
#97 Animal_Enterprise_Terrorism_Act - edited by 2 of 2 users
#98 Andrew_Tyler - edited by 2 of 2 users
#99 American_School_(economics) - edited by 2 of 2 users
#100 Alex_Pacheco_(activist) - edited by 2 of 2 users
#101 Alex_Jones_(radio) - edited by 2 of 2 users
#102 Abdel_Basset_Ali_al-Megrahi - edited by 2 of 2 users
#103 9/11_conspiracy_theories - edited by 2 of 2 users