Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Acetotyce/Archive

30 September 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

WikiButterfly has/had a registered alternate account called Acetotyce and/or PBASH607. The required alt account banner was removed earlier this month with the note "rmv redirect as I dont hold this account anymore." ; account shortly thereafter became active again voicing support for Acetotyce in an AfD discussion and to accuse editor nom'ing his article for deletion of "personal attacks." In fact, WikiButterfly's only (and first) off-user space edits in the month since it was "given up" by Acetotyce and assumed by someone else, was to jump into this AfD. It's possible this is not a sock, but a meatpuppet. (I normally wouldn't be too plussed about this, but since I'm the one being subject to this coordinated one-two attack, it's a little off-putting.) Note that this user has previously engaged in on- and off-WP canvassing when he's been subject of noticeboard action (please request diffs, I'm not posting them here so as to avoid dragging in other editors until requested) so there may be a rapid influx of other, tightly coordinated accounts denouncing the alerting editor (me), within the next few minutes/hours. DocumentError (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC) DocumentError (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Please note, Acetotyce - as I predicted above - has casually mentioned this SPI (see: ) in an unrelated ANI which he previously canvassed his tightly coordinated supporters to; expect to see a flood of aggressive posters with colorful block histories making accusations against me, momentarily, in an effort to obfuscate and derail this investigation with un-diffed counter-charges of False WP:BOOMERANG. This is WP:GAMING at its finest. The best I've ever seen, quite honestly. DocumentError (talk) 20:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Update - please note this does not appear to be a case of sockpuppetry, but of admitted WP:MEAT. Unfortunately, it's meatpuppetry being used to target me in a mean-spirited way and in articles currently under 1RR and other restrictions. While I appreciate the dow-eyed response from the editors involved, having got the full brunt of their very nasty aggression across WP prior to this notice, I have a hard time just brushing it off. I say this realizing that an uninvolved person happening across this may not understand what the big deal is in light of the very polite, "oopsie" explanation given below, that is very much not typical of their previous tones. DocumentError (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Update 1 - Editor has now announced his sudden retirement from WP so this case can be closed. Since his retirement comes under these dubious circumstances, I recommend his accounts be indefinitely blocked to ensure the retirement was not an evasion to avoid SPI action (without prejudice to a future unblock request). DocumentError (talk) 14:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC) Update 2 - Editor has "un-retired" and is seeking closure of SPI via AfD. DocumentError (talk) 05:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I actually am new to WP, have only had this account for a very short time. I am learning my way around wiki and reading articles and watching posts to learn. I do not at this time have access to my computer so I have not edited yet, but as I said u do read through and keep up. I only voiced my opinion earlier because there were a lot of accusatory things being said. I can say based on everything that's been discussed on the talk pages of the articles being edited it was already consensus this article would have been written by one person or another. I have no other alternate accounts. --WikiButterfly (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, of all the millions of pages on WP, how did you happen to stumble upon an AfD discussion that the former owner of your account was participating in, as your very first off-Userspace edit? Was it just a coincidence? DocumentError (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I made it clear on my userpage, WikiButterfly is not one of my accounts anymore. I don't hold access to it thus any contributions I do are not related to WikiButterfly. It was an alternate a year ago, but not anymore, I suggest read WP:SPI carefully without making such accusations on me. -- Acetotyce (talk)  20:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So, of all the millions of pages on WP, the new WikiButterfly's very first edit - out of pure coincidence - just happened to be to join an AfD discussion in which you were a participant? That's fine if that's the case, I just want to be sure I understand. I would feel terrible if I erroneously accused someone of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. DocumentError (talk) 20:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have told that user countless times to step in and edit an article, yet the first article WikiButterfly edits was the AFD I was involved in. That was not what I wanted and intended. Whether the article stays or not isn't as urgent as this matter, but the answer to that question lies with WikiButterfly. -- Acetotyce (talk)  20:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Got it, so it was a 1-in-9.8 million coincidence. I really want to AGF here, but this is simply not believable. I'm sorry, I hope you don't construe that as a WP:PA, it is only intended as a factual statement of mathematical probability. If you were the one being aggressively targeted by a sock/meatpuppet two-(at least)-fer, I'm sure you would feel your sense of WP:CIVIL restraint stretched as well. DocumentError (talk) 20:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope. No personal attacks, I will refrain from posting here as it is getting us nowhere. -- Acetotyce (talk)  21:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks (for the record, I wouldn't even have an issue with you two sock/meatpuppeting, if you weren't sock/meatpuppeting in such a Take No Prisoners, mean-spirited way over articles that are already highly inflamed and under active community sanctions). Some of us have been here contributing for years without incident and to suddenly be subject to this tightly coordinated attack by suspiciously interfaced users is not enjoyable. I've filed more admin notices in the last 3 days (four total) than I have in the preceding two years (zero total) as a result of this extremely aggressive and bullying behavior by your tightly interfaced group of editors to whom you send out these "attack" signals when your edits are questioned. DocumentError (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok personally yes I have been told to go and edit many times, not on the AFD page. I have been following the main article which is why I found the page and how i came  upon the AFD. As I stated I havent  edited due to not having my computer but have been following it all. I did not see me commenting as making an issue. There were comment previous to this and it wasnt until it was so personal that I made a comment. I can now see I guess I should have just kept the comment to myself as i had no idea that it would turn into such allegations. I guess not everyones honest and does these things I dont know I'm very new to all this. Heres what I can say i have the ability to see what the user does, have access to all the talk pages, and have been watching it for weeks. If u see on my main page i was asked to go help witht the Main article. Anyways that should answer your question as to how 1 in so many millions came upon same article or talk page and posted. --WikiButterfly (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So how was it you were following the "main article?" A coincidence can't be explained with a second coincidence. Was it purely a 1-in-4.5 million (at current article count) coincidence that you happened to be following an article created by your account's former owner? Sorry, this story just gets more unbelievable (mathematically speaking) with each new explanation. DocumentError (talk) 22:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I just explained to u i was invited to edit there look at my talk page. I do not know anything about WP and was told by someone to check it out. I have explained why I was there i was invited to help and was following it. Also for as long as you have been on here you should know you can see all talk pages and if I was asked to help then you would know thats how i followed. I honestly havent edited as I stated due to my computer being down and am trying to fix all this through my phone. I have suggested that if i had known a simple comment would have brought such serious accusations i would have kept it to myself. I think its quite obvious that I'm still learning and honestly after this past few hours am not sure I need the drama. If people are allowed to accuse and no one is allowed to voice an option then this isnt the place for me. I am rethinking taking precious time from my family and other things to deal with such pettiness. I have provided all the information i can as to why i was there. It was all in an attempt to learn more and get comfortable before editing. --WikiButterfly (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Got it. So just to confirm: Acetotyce - who you know IRL based on the fact your IRC chat with him - got you to take over his old WP account. He then "invited" you to edit the article in question for your first edit? I just want to make sure we have everything correct. I don't think you've done anything wrong, and I really apologize you've been dragged into this, I just want to clarify the preceding is accurate. DocumentError (talk) 23:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it this whole thing is a mess. Its all correct, the last time we came into contact was prior to the creation of the article. I got most my stress coming outside wiki than here so I have bigger problems, likewise I hope we can get along more and work on that new article on Iranian involvement. -- Acetotyce  (talk)  23:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Everything said u take out of context. I dont know what your implying now, but yes im sure friends do show friends fun creative thing they can do to pass time but honestly this has turned into drama. I will say one reason why i didnt dare edit til i understood what i was doing is because of people and how they treat others. This is a prime example. As i said earlier im not sure this is the place for me. --WikiButterfly (talk) 00:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what is going on with Acetotyce and WikiButterfly -- it looks like the latter was encouraged to get into Wikipedia by the former, a real-life friend or relative, and made the (probably innocent) mistake of participating on the AfD without disclosing his/her relationship to Acetotyce, who created the article nominated for deletion. But WikiButterfly is not the only editor who has observed nominator's failure to WP:AGF repeatedly throughout this content dispute. Most recently, nominator implied I (and another unrelated editor, SantiLak) am also the same person as Acetotyce (which is categorically and obviously false and seems like a lazy smear):  As I said, I don't really have a take on whether the relationship between Acetotyce and WikiButterfly amounts to an inappropriate WP:MEAT collaboration, but I think nominator's propensity for jumping to (often incorrect and offensive) conclusions about fellow editors should be taken into account by whoever ends up reviewing this case. Cheers. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter. Funny now you showed up here with "often incorrect and offensive conclusions" when this one turned out to be "absolutely correct." I'm done being hounded by you and the rest of the cartel. Laugh about it on 4Chan later or wherever you're meeting up at later. You won. I quit. DocumentError (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Im sure lawyering will get you nowhere here, I didn't commita meatpuppetry and your accusation that I did is completely untrue, me and WikiButterfly do not share the same IP and we are hundreds of miles apart, did I tell her to edit the AFD? No Did I tell her to edit an article? Yes but it was the article I was working on the most thats it. I believe this entire SPI case was just you finding every possible way to get me off the project. -- Acetotyce (talk)  01:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * DocumentError's conduct across multiple articles and the many administrative processes he has recently launched speaks for itself. I came here from a link he made alleging that a case of MEAT had been uncovered. Now he is intimidating a new editor. Legacypac (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, especially after nominator conceded that this is not an actual WP:SOCK case, this seems tantamount to WP:HOUNDing. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason it's called "Sockpuppet Investigations" instead of "Sockpuppet Knowledge" is because a process of investigation occurs here, instead of a process of absolute prior knowledge. While I filed this SPI on the reasonable assumption, based on the evidence available, these two were socks, interrogatories subsequently revealed them to be meatpuppets. Either activity is heavily discouraged. DocumentError (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That statement is completely untrue. I just so happenend to put my two cents in when I saw the appalling behavior of another editor attacking an acquaintance. I stood by and watched u badger this article from the beginning and said nothing, until u made it personal saying he was biase and even his picture on his page showed this. Talking about good faith and how he wasn't acting in good faith making this article, when in fact it was u being accusatory. Maybe it wasn't my place to step in or I should have stated who I was, I don't know, but I do know this he is a good editor who wrote a good article in good faith. Does it need changes? Absolutely as do most up to and including a possible name change. Maybe I shouldn't have stepped in but Acetotyce is a good person who has spent a lot of time showing me around, helping me understand and trying to get me to be apart of something I thought was a good fun way to pass time. I have now realized I'm not sure it's worth it. But I will stand up and say I was not brought here to be a meat puppet and there were many others who said the same things as I did. Just because I happen to be a prior acquaintance doest mean I was brought here in bad faith. Probably a mistake on my part yes speaking up, I don't know but it was just an opinion and I wasn't the only one with this opinion. I won't be working on any of these articles because to this very moment things are still hostile and very argumentative discussions go on these sister articles talk pages. Anyways hope that clears things up. --WikiButterfly (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Nominating an article for an AfD discussion is not "appalling behavior." I know you're new here (or at least the person behind your account is, even if your account has been around previously under your friend's control which he's supposedly relinquished to a different person who happens to support all his edits) -- so just a FYI. Everything is open to discussion. An AfD is not a personal attack. (P.S. I do like your username. If I ever sock or meat, I'll have to remember to name it HarmlessCaterpillar or something.)DocumentError (talk) 00:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Opening the Afd is nt what I'm speaking of. It was the personal things said about his picture and other statements that he didn't write the article in good faith. The Afd is not all I followed but if course is the only one I commented on. I've monitored talk page after talk page of the main article and sister articles. I have come to realize this isn't the place for me. I will speak out for friends and if I'm going to end up here accused of sock or meat everytime then I'll leave before I start. It's a shame that u feel the need to push people around as other editors have stated. I'm done here. Won't be back. My time is too precious to be spent arguing over such behavior with people who think it's ok... --WikiButterfly (talk) 02:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * So this is really interesting. Acetotyce has two alternate accounts (that have not been listed) that are currently within policy. WikiButterfly has two alternate accounts that were acting within policy. Because 'the owner no longer has access', I have checkuserblock-account blocked all three of WikiButterfly's accounts on the grounds that they are compromised. CU evidence has these two groups on different sides of a border, where it's indicative that they are two separate groups. However, the User-agent use matches on each account. I'm really puzzled as to the story of losing access to the account. If a reasonable explanation can be provided to a CheckUser, then the block can be overturned. As for the rest of the case, I'll leave this in the hands of our capable SPI admin clerks to untwist this craziness. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  18:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So, I’ve sifted through the details. It appears that Acetotyce originally held control of the Wikibutterfly account. Sometime later Acetotyce gave the account password to another individual and ceased using it. The new individual then created alternate accounts for the Wikibutterfly account. As account’s cannot be transferred and since it has been compromised, I would recommend leaving the indefinite blocks intact. If this second individual wants an account, he or she will have to create it on his or her own. From Acectotyce’s comments I think that this is a honest misunderstanding of our username policy. I’ve left a warning on the user’s talk page with an explanation of the account policy. Mike V  •  Talk  23:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)