Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Baaarny/Archive

11 September 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

I believe that User:Baaarny [] is a sockpuppet. While Baaarny might be sockpuppet of DeFacto, the banned user who has a long history of persistent sock puppetry, I mainly want to establish that Baaarny is a sockpuppet in his own right.


 * Baaarny made his first edit at 7:17 on 4 September 2014, to Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Football/Players. His second and third edits were to create a user page at 7:26 and a talk page at 7:31. It is beyond belief that a Newbie’s first edit would be to a wiki project page but perfectly consistent with the actions of a sockpuppet. []


 * The first edit is remarkable in that it presumes a detailed knowledge of Wikikpedia policies: “Wikipedia should not be used for pushing your views…” This is not credible from a new editor, but is consistent with a sockpuppet attacking an ideological opponent.


 * The first edit is also notable for being worded as an attack on someone he knows, “We won't fall for that one,” “We know the reason you hate Soccerbase…,” The use of the first person plural is inconsistent with that of a new editor but is consistent with a sockpuppet who believes he has the support of the Wikipedia community in his attack.


 * The first edit also features an embedded link to another web page. Once again, this is remarkable for a newbie’s first edit but completely consistent with a sockpuppet with a long-standing familiarity with Wikipedia.


 * Baaarny’s second edit [] was to create a user page with a large picture file. This is remarkable for a new editor as it involves uploading a picture. It was also done remarkably promptly, just 9 minutes after the first edit.


 * Baaarny’s third edit, which was timed just 5 minutes later [], was to create a talk page. It is remarkable that a new editor should make three edits in quick succession with apparent facility. It is more credible to believe that this is the work of a sockpuppet with a long-standing familiarity with Wikipedia.


 * In between Baaarny’s third and fourth edits I expressed my belief that he was a sockpuppet []. So far, Baaarny has not replied on this forum.


 * Baaarny’s fourth edit, which happened more than a day after my edit, was to comment on the talk page of one of the editors []. This edit is notable in several ways:


 * It shows that the poster is comfortable with going to an editor’s talk page, something that is more characteristic of an experienced editor than a new editor.


 * It again demonstrates the poster’s familiarity with embedding links to other websites, remarkable for a new editor but consistent with a sockpuppet who has a great familiarity with editing on Wikipedia.


 * The first and fourth postings demonstrate Baaarny’s hostile attitude towards metrication Baaarny described the late Pat Naughton, whose monthly blog “metrication matters” dealt with many practical aspects of metrication as “a notorious metrication campaigner”)

I think it is clear that Baaarny is a sockpuppet, created to have a barney (fight) with an editor he disagrees with. It is not at all credible that this Baaarny is a genuinely new editor.

The question then arises as to whether this sockpuppet can be linked to that enthusiastic sockpuppeteer, DeFacto.


 * Choosing a sockpuppet with a name that plays on words is not out of character for DeFacto and his sockpuppets/suspected sockpuppets.


 * Eddystone Bill was exclusively used for editing articles on lighthouses and firths. []


 * “Chose Another Name was created on the day that a case was opened against a previous sockpuppet of DeFacto (though this may have been a coincidence) []


 * There is another possibility was used to defend DeFacto against a charge of having created Chose another name. []


 * Similarly, Baaarny was created to have a barney [] []. I believe that pattern is pretty obvious.

I think this shows beyond reasonable doubt that Baaarny is someone’s sockpuppet and that a likely sockmaster is DeFacto. Michael Glass (talk) 01:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Comment by Baaarny

I can confirm that this is not my only Wikipedia account. However, this is a legitimate and authorised use of an alternate account as I will explain below.

I created this account solely to protect my privacy. In real life, I, like Michael Glass (the filer of this SPI), am a member of, associate of or participant in the discussion forums of several pro-metrication advocacy groups, including the UK Metric Association, Metrication Matters and the US Metric Association. My real life identity is readily discernible from my main account name, however, unlike Michael, and at least 2 other similarly active Wikipedia editors that I am aware of, I do not use Wikipedia as a vehicle to further the agenda of these metrication organisations. In fact I deliberately only edit articles which are NOT in any way related to units of measurement, and so I am not personally recognisable from my editing work here. If I were to use my main account name in relation to units of measurement edits, I would almost certainly be identified. And, in case it isn't clear from what I write above, I am NOT the sock-master of "DeFacto", "Chose Another Name", "Eddystone Bill", "There is another possibility", or of any other account for that matter.

It goes without saying, that Michael's motives in raising this SPI are clear, he wants to save his own skin, and has chosen to try to get me blocked, by fair means or foul, so that he can continue to use Wikipedia to promote the goals of these advocacy groups unchallenged. Baaarny (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Reply by Michael Glass


 * Baaarny is now the sockpuppet who outed himself. "I created this account ... If I were to use my main account name ... I would almost certainly be identified." So Baaarny is the work of an existing editor who wishes to remain anonymous!


 * Perhaps DeFacto is a franchise that others have cashed in on. If so, and Baaarny has provided evidence that it may be the case, then this opens up the possibility that DeFacto has been blamed for the sockpuppets of others.

and the fifth have been personal attacks. (The other two were to set up a user page and a talk page.) However, there is a policy against personal attacks. .
 * It is obvious that Baaarny has been created as an attack dog. Of Baaarny's five edits, the first, the fourth

Perhaps it is time for a checkuser to find out who Baaarny is, and to ban both Baaarny and his sockmaster. Michael Glass (talk) 11:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I did what I thought was right. I didn't want to compromise my privacy by using my main account, which would have provided a link between the unit of measure issue inside Wikipedia and the unit of measure debate outside. I have deliberately avoided unit of measure articles before on Wikipedia because of my outside association with the subject. However, I was not comfortable with Michael Glass abusing Wikipedia in this way, by his use of Wikipedia as a campaigning tool for the metrication message, and by boasting about that abuse on outside metrication forums. I created what I believe to be a legitimate alternate account, NOT to push POV into articles or to try to influence the outcome of unit of measure discussions, but to draw attention to what I believe to be a serious abuse of Wikipedia by Michael Glass. Baaarny (talk) 06:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

We now know: I believe that this is an abuse. It should be stopped. Michael Glass (talk) 11:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Baaarny is a sockpupped (Baaarny stated this twice.)
 * Baaarny was created as a means of attack (stated above).
 * Baaarny was created to enable its author to remain anonymous (stated twice).


 * Comment No, what we know is:
 * That I have legitimately created an alternate account to protect my privacy. I explained how the use of my main account in the context of units of measurement would likely lead to my real life identity becoming apparent, and that I did not wish that to happen.
 * That I have not attacked you, put have revealed the way you have abused Wikipedia in a cynical attempt to use it to promote the pro-metrication agenda.
 * That this is a tendentious SPI, a desperate attempt to get me blocked and get my revelations expunged, to try to save your own skin, to continue your mission to metricate Wikipedia. Baaarny (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

A Checkuser is needed, followed by an appropriate response

Baaarny’s third confirmation that this account is a sockpuppet is noted. The following points should also be noted A checkuser on Baaarny is needed, followed by an appropriate response. Michael Glass (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * An anonymous sockpuppet claiming to be an editor has no credibility. No-one can tell if this is true or false because the person’s identity is not disclosed.
 * One has to be an editor to have an alternative account. As Baaarny’s identity is not disclosed we cannot tell if this is true or false.
 * Even if Baaarny was the sockpuppet of a real editor, nothing in this | policy justifies using an alternative account to attack another editor. Therefore the claim that it is legitimate falls to the ground.
 * Most of what Baaarny has stated or alleged is irrelevant, because this forum is about sockpuppets, not other matters.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * was renamed to . Mike V  •  Talk  16:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm looking into this report. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * If a clerk wishes to move this over to DeFacto, they can, but the appropriate stuff has already been taken care of there. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  17:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)