Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barfbag666/Archive

04 December 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents —azuki (talk · contribs · email) 07:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I'd opened up my own one as well and didn't see this one. Here's my summary, collapsed below:

This one is going to be a little tricky and a little lengthy since the background to this is important.

Recently Barfbag666 started editing on Satanism related topics, most specifically edits relating to The Satanic Temple to Mass (liturgy) with this edit and Fred Phelps with this edit. You can see a more full version of what he added to the Mass article here. The edits had some obvious problems, mostly in the way they were phrased since it was far too casual for Wikipedia's purposes but also because there's a valid question as to whether or not the Pink Mass (explained here) would be appropriate to add to that article or if it'd be more appropriate in the Black Mass article, if it's posted anywhere. I can fully understand RLawton's reasons for removing the content. There were also some attempts to create an article for the Temple's founder Lucien Greaves, which was deleted via A7. The mainspace version was fairly weak, so I can understand the reason for tagging and deletion.

Now RLawton did try reaching out to Barfbag666 on the user's talk page and I do agree that Barfbag666 reacted very poorly. He got defensive very quickly and only grew more defensive when Acroterion came to help out. Ultimately Barfbag666 was blocked for a promotional username. I can mildly understand this given the casual tone of the edits, but I will say that when I interacted with Barfbag666, namely via REFUND, he responded very well to my statements and looked to be trying to do what I suggested. I wasn't actively planning to contest his block since I did think that he needed a cooling off period. I was mildly concerned with the promotional username block since the name (while a bit gross) wasn't overtly promotional or very problematic. There were some issues with it resembling a trolling name, but Barfbag666 did appear to be a practicing Satanist so I didn't really think anything of it.

I had initially planned at just taking a cursory look at the AfC drafts, but I got fairly interested in the group while looking at the sources and decided to work on the article myself, especially as Barfbag666 was blocked. While writing the article I noticed that the Temple had several fairly interesting art pieces they created as part of their protests. Since none of these items are currently on public display, I figured that it'd be reasonable for me to e-mail the Temple itself and ask if they would be willing to upload any of their images to WC. In my e-mail I made sure to specify that they should avoid making edits to the mainspace because of the potential COI and instead make suggestions on the talk page. While writing that I unfortunately forgot to tell them to be transparent about their identity, which will be of relevance in a bit.

Hours later, after I'd sent the e-mail, HAILXSATANX666 signed up and began editing. Their edit history does suggest that they are with the church, since their edits are predominantly to article talk pages. Their only mainspace edit was to add this to the page for Junípero Serra, which they added after making a post asking if it should be added on the talk page hours earlier. Shortly after this they were blocked by Ohnoitsjamie for having a promotional username.

After this second user was blocked, ILOVESATAN666 signed up for an account and posted this ANI thread, where they alleged that they were being discriminated against because they were Satanists. There's a question over whether or not their choice in usernames were appropriate, as names of this type are typically used by trolls and there were also questions about whether or not they were inherently promotional because they espoused a religious stance. There were opinions from both sides (apart from the ones listed above already, Swarm participated as did Wikimandia) as to whether or not the users should be unblocked or not. (In my opinion they should, since at least one of the accounts - HAILXSATANX666 - seemed to be trying to edit appropriately, and I'm very uncomfortable with saying that a username is automatically promotional if they contain some sort of religious phrase or symbol, given that this has never been evenly enforced with usernames and isn't currently part of the guidelines, although this is all just an aside.)

Now here's ultimately where SPI comes into play. ILOVESATAN666 was blocked by Jpgordon for abusing multiple accounts and there was question over whether or not these accounts are all run by the same person. There is some evidence to suggest that this is the case, such as this edit at REFUND by Barfbag666 where he posted my username incorrectly by cut/pasting part of my signature. HAILXSATANX666 did something somewhat similar with this edit to the Temple's talk page, but it could have just been a typo. Basically, all I want from SPI is to see if these are the same people or not. At the ANI thread I've been giving them the benefit of the doubt that they are separate people. If they are, then that needs to be addressed in the ANI thread. If they are then that makes things different and I would then need to ensure that if the person is unblocked, that they're aware that they need to be transparent given all that's going on. Technically they wouldn't be engaging in sockpuppetry because of the nature of the first two blocks, but it would've been a colossally bad decision to not be open about that, especially as the different posts give off the impression that they are separate people.

I've tagged all of the people above so they can give evidence for or against the users being the same person. This is not meant to be a spin off of the ANI thread and my above content was not meant to continue this in a new location. There does need to be a discussion over the appropriateness of religiously themed usernames, but this is not that place. The reason why I included all of the above is if we run into a situation where a CU shows that they are different people, because then we'd need to look at behavioral evidence to effectively rule out sockpuppetry. I want to be as close to 100% sure that they are or aren't the same person.

My basic theory in this is that HAILXSATANX666 and Barfbag666 are likely separate people, given that HAILXSATANX666 only began editing after I approached the Temple in a private e-mail. I'm fully willing to provide that e-mail to any CU or clerk in this process. I'm unsure about ILOVESATAN666, but it's not impossible that they're a third person. I do think that there's a good chance that they know one another, or that at least one or two of them know one another, and they may be editing from within the same area. While the Temple isn't a small organization they're so loosely organized that it's not impossible that some of the more die hard members (ie, the ones most likely to edit) would be in contact with one another when it comes to what's currently going on.

The TL;DNR of this is that I want to put to rest whether these people are the same or not, just so we can at least put that small portion of this to rest at ANI since this will greatly impact how we proceed from there, at least as it pertains to these specific people. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I do recommend reading it since it does give an overview of the whole scenario. If by some chance the CU shows that they're not the same person, I do want them to look at behavioral evidence. I want to know for sure if they're the same person since it would greatly impact how things play out at ANI. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Barfbag666 is trying to organize WikiProject Council/Proposals/Satanism and Thebookofwonderboy and Frances-Grace1994 created accounts within hours with the sole activity to support the creation of this WikiProject. Also, since the Barfbag666 and HAILXSATANX666 accounts were blocked for violations of username policy, it's important to see whether the HAILXSATANX666 and ILOVESATAN666 accounts were created sequentially with the understanding that they were a username change or whether there was an attempt to portray these accounts as different editors. Liz Read! Talk! 14:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

We should note that Barfbag666 threatened to bring in more temple members to edit in order for him to get his way. If these accounts aren't made by the same editor, then it's likely Barfbag666 made good on his threat. My beefs are as follows: Rklawton (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * the username Barfbag666 as not befitting an encyclopedia
 * the satan-related user names are promotional AND are being used for promotion (a violation of WP:Username)
 * Barfbag666's violations of WP:UNDUE leading to lack of WP:NPOV with regard to a couple of articles that aren't specifically about his temple or satanism.
 * I'm not so much concerned about Socks (the barf and satan accounts were created sequentially and obviously from the same editor) as I am about meat-puppets.
 * The one thing to keep in mind though is that it is possible that he might not have told them about this and that at least one person (the second account) may have come based on my invitation and not BB telling them to come and edit. In other words, it's possible that their presence here was due to my actions and not necessarily BB calling in the cavalry. The username stuff though, that's for a discussion on another forum. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  15:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Aww... I was hoping that they wouldn't all be the same. From what I can tell with Greaves/Mesner and Blackmore, they live in two entirely different states (Jerry likely lives around Greaves in NY) so it's unlikely that they'd be in the same area, meaning that those would probably be impersonation accounts. That does change things greatly, so I'd say that all accounts should be blocked. It's a shame that they did that since some of the accounts' actions did give off the impression that they were trying. I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that they might have been people in the same area editing from a shared location/router, but the usage of some of the names of the people involved with the Temple doesn't give off great good faith. I'm willing to take into account that they may have created some of those out of ignorance, but it's really hard to assume good faith when you have all of the evidence from others saying otherwise. This will also make it that much more harder for people to argue for the use of religious usernames, especially ones revolving around Satanism or other controversial religions. I'm very disappointed in them. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  13:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I rather think the point here is that it's not a "them" but a single person editing in bad faith (irony intended) - one we can likely classify as a troll and block on sight. Rklawton (talk) 13:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * - to determine between sock or meat situation.
 * The following accounts are ✅ to each other:




 * The following accounts are to each other and to the accounts above:
 * Note: There appears to be some proxy use with these two accounts. However, there is some technical evidence that suggests that they are all related. Mike V • Talk 02:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: There appears to be some proxy use with these two accounts. However, there is some technical evidence that suggests that they are all related. Mike V • Talk 02:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: There appears to be some proxy use with these two accounts. However, there is some technical evidence that suggests that they are all related. Mike V • Talk</b> 02:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It obvious that Thebookofwonderboy and Frances-Grace1994 are connected to the rest (see their deleted edits at WikiProject Council/Proposals/Satanism). I indeffed them too and tagged all. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  10:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)