Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barnstarbob/Archive

11 May 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Barnstarbob has been mildly problematic on issues surrounding an article about some car from General Motors. The editor used their previous account name (the user requested rename in February 2011 and intermittently edited under their previous username). That's pretty easy to explain with WP:AGF. There's a dispute about this article that has led to Barnstarbob being warned repeatedly and then blocked for personal attacks. Around the same time, a single-purpose account showed up with support of Barnstarbob. There are reasons of geography to think the IP and Barnstarbob are unrelated (Barnstarbob advertises a location on his userpage, if it's true), but given the drama generated by and surrounding Barnstarbob, it seems a quick check would be helpful to remove doubt.

I expect my summary is more helpful than diffs, but I would be happy to add diffs if requested. tedder (talk) 17:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * It sounds like tedder was asking for a CU, so I'm adding one. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * is ❌ to and neither appear to be socking at this time -  A l is o n  ❤ 06:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm, alright. Blocks have been issued for these accounts anyway, so I'm closing. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

18 December 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The above user was blocked indefinitely on 16 December for edit warring and general disruption, particularly at Chevrolet Vega (for edit-warring at which he has been blocked in the past). The next day the IP emerged and began what I believe to be a harassment campaign against the admin User:Toddst1, who made the block (see the IP's contribs for diffs). It just looks like an obvious troll to me and I'd appreciate a checkuser giving this a look. Basa lisk inspect damage ⁄berate  02:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

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

I think  (note that this is not an ip) is the same person and support an indef on Barnstar Bob. Toddst1 (talk) 07:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears all of these users have now been blocked. The point is moot although I expect more socks. Toddst1 (talk) 07:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Requesting CU to link the IP-lookalike account above to BSB and to check for sleepers. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * per privacy policy and standard CU practices on enwp.org; in addition, in this particular case the abuse is so obvious that checkuser is not necessary. Recommend the IP is blocked, but I am doubtful about the necessity of increasing Barnstarbob's block: leaving to the patrolling admin to judge. Best, SpitfireTally-ho! 02:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * , either sock or meat, and blatant harassment regardless. IP has been blocked with the same expiry time as Barnstarbob's block (one month, not indef as stated by the OP). - The Bushranger One ping only 03:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

User:99.88,1211.09O and 24.52.237.81 are clearly the same person, but it is as to their relation to Barnstarbob. However, there is a likelihood based on behavioral evidence. –MuZemike 08:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

all the involved accounts/IPs have been blocked & tagged where appropriate, so closing this. Please refile if more socks come out the woodwork. Best, SpitfireTally-ho! 09:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

05 July 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

User Barnstarbob has been blocked for a long time for his persistent disruptive behaviour in the Chevrolet Vega article. His most common edit was to remove criticism, which is exactly what this user is repeatedly doing. Given BS Bob's previous use of sock puppet accounts I think it is highly likely that this is him and therefore ask that the IP be long term blocked Biker Biker (talk) 12:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

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

No, I am not Barnstar Bob, otherwise know as vegavairbob. But, I do know who Bob is through other online sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.125.94.244 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 5 July 2012
 * Although this SPA anon geolocates to Kansas Snohomish WA, not the area from which indef'd user (abusive use of one or more accounts) Barnstarbob/Vegavairbob operated, the ISP is located in Rochester NY (the indef'd user's area) and the disruptive editing at Chevrolet Vega is very similar. Writegeist (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, I am not Barnstar Bob, otherwise known as vegavairbob. My last edit on Chevrolet Vega regarding the source of the name of the car was not at all intended to be disruptive or abusive or whatever you call it today.  But, because I deleted a sentence, I can see where you might come to that conclusion with all of the history and ill-will on both sides.  I thought I added good Wikipedia reasons for the deletions. I had another reason for the deletion, but I didn't want to be accused of abusive editing.
 * I will create a user account if you will be open for some suggestions and at least discuss some changes that I will propose. I am still learning about all of the "behind-the-scenes" tools and pages and rules, so please be patient.  I will try to figure out how to open a new discussion topic on the Chevrolet Vega talk page.  I'll first try to explain my thinking behind the latest edit/deletion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.125.94.244 (talk) 00:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * First-ever edit as this shiny new IP removed a chunk of information from the article's lead without any edit summary. After that was reverted (and the IP had been warned), the IP's second-ever edit again removed the same chunk, again without edit summary. For their third edit they removed a factoid with an ed sum referring to "no citation" and "original research". "[S]till learning about all of the "behind-the-scenes" tools and pages and rules..."? Please. Whoever this is, they're not the brand new, totally inexperienced user they're pretending to be. Hence the strong suspicion of socking.Writegeist (talk) 01:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Eh, I was wrong with those first two edits - I now know that is not the Wikipedia way of editing. OK? I was amazed that the first edit was undone by a user 3 minutes after I deleted it. So, 3 days later, I tried it a second time to see if that was just an anomaly or if there was some sort of automatic notification of edits that are sent to interested users.  Yes, sure enough, there must be some sort of "behind the scenes" instant messaging or texting to a users email or phone, because you, Writegeist undid that edit in 9 minutes.  I would think you and the other undoer have lives that don't involve sitting around a computer waiting to for someone to edit Chevrolet Vega.  but, I could be wrong.
 * As mentioned above, my 4th edit, not 3rd edit (you didn't provide the link - can you provide the link, so that I know with certainty to which edit you refer?) was not intended to be abusive. I added DETAILED REASONING in the Edit Summary - "No citation or this is original research: do we really know that the Chevrolet Vega was named after the star? Could it have been named after the Lockheed airplane? Probably the former and not the latter." I personally did not like how the text read - "The Vega derives its nameplate from the star of the same name.", but I didn't want to offend anyone here in case it was a current editors  writing.
 * As I referred to above, I had intended to open a Discussion Topic (I think that is what it is called) on the Chevrolet Vega talk page, but then I noticed that Biker Biker had undid something that another user had added using the "original research" Wikipedia rule. That made sense to me and kudos to Biker Biker for removing negative content as well.  So, after my 4th edit and explanation, you WriteGeist, edited it with far superior prose AND moved it to the History section which is a much more logical place to put it - VERY GOOD, I like how it reads.  Plus you added a citation. I do have a question about that particular source and some sources in general that I will ask in the talk page(once I figure out how to add to it).  Then Biker Biker added some more prose at the the beginning referring to the Chevrolet Vega as being named for the star name as well.  VERY GOOD. I like how that reads. So, working to together, we improved Chevrolet Vega today.
 * And we've made some progess for this investigation - you now have doubts as to who I am. Very good. I assure you that I am not who you think I am. Nor am I 'pretending' to be an inexperienced user - thank you for the compliment, but even a simpleton can understand "no citation" and "original research" with a quick read of the Chevrolet Vega history.  You and Biker Biker are good teachers.
 * There are just a LOT of rules and policies and procedures, different types of pages, like this investigation page which I am not even sure if I am supposed to edit here or some where else, such as MY user talk page. Also, what I am not familiar with yet - but getting there - is how and when to enter a discussion on the talk page, and all of the rules and tools in place.  I am trying to interpret this page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending_yourself_against_claims  - it appears that I don't need to do anything, because I am not BarnstarBob and I am not in Rochester, NY (nor am I in Kansas, but I used to live there some 30 years ago).  For the last 25 years, I am on the West Coast of the good 'ole USA.
 * Ah - "ed sum" = Edit Summary". I think I just learned something. Still don't know what "indef'd user" spells out, though. I will figure it out soon.
 * I also don't know what socking is either. But it probably is your shortend version or the British English equivalent of sockpuppery - the definition of which I had to look up on Wikipedia to understand.  I am DEFINITELY NOT "a person whose actions are controlled by another; a minion".  Wow, this whole accusation is insulting as well. I am sure this case will be closed as it is certainly without merit.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.125.94.244 (talk) 04:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Geolocation corrected above. Writegeist (talk) 06:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: Frontier Communications has 1.7 million customers acorss the country. . Using it as evidence of any sort is weak. Collect (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * One of whom, it seems to me and the editor who filed this request, is masquerading as a new user. And while I won't be surprised if/when (s)he turns out to be sufficiently experienced to elude a CU, I'm mindful of someone else who eventually received an indef sockblock despite having passed a CU, and also despite you defending him against checks with a "tenaciousness" that was "interesting", IIRC, according to another user. Writegeist (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you making any accusation of any sort about me? I have generally found that people at SPI use "IDONETLIKETHEM" as the basis for reports far too often - and where I see a "no real evidence" accusation, I have this real funny feeling that the accusation just might be errant.  If being tenacious is believing that evidence is required here, then on that I am "guilty."  If you make any other inference, then it is you who is errant.  BTW, unless you have actual evidence of sockpuppetry, the "masquerading as a new user" accusation is quite insufficient.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, please. Writegeist (talk) 07:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
From what I can see, the reactions above are not matching those from the previous block-evading accounts and IPs. No action taken. --MuZemike 23:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)