Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beautifulpeoplelikeyou/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

This is a weird one. This editor created this account just to create Template:Government misconduct accusations. He admitted this in this diff, where he wrote:

"Thanks for the insight about sockpuppetry (which I'm aware of). Yes I have another account but if I had used it I am sure some malicious users would have been in the position to use my contributions to efficiently disrupt the debate that I was sure was going to arise on this template. I'm sorry you disagree with the template. I really believed in it. I would like to have it sorted out."

This amounts to admitting that he's using multiple accounts in an effort to evade scrutiny. This is enough to block this account for sockpuppetry, but it isn't the user's main account. I believe CheckUser should be used to find the main account given the unusually strong evidence of abusing multiple accounts to evade scrutiny. This is not a normal use of CheckUser, but it has some support in the CheckUser policy and our sockpuppetry policy.

WP:SCRUTINY states "it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions." This is the admitted intention of this account, so it is in violation of our policy against sockpuppetry.

WP:NOTFISHING specifically states "it is not fishing to check an account where the alleged sockmaster is unknown, but there is reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry, and a suspected sock-puppet's operator is sometimes unknown until a CheckUser investigation is concluded." If it is ever appropriate to use CU when the alleged sockmaster is unknown, it surely must be appropriate when the sock admits to using multiple accounts to hide behind while in an active dispute with so-called "malicious users" who may want to comment on the template. An admission of sockpuppetry is as strong as evidence can possibly get. ~ RobTalk 02:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:SOCK cites real-world privacy as a legitimate usage (i.e. preventing people from connecting your contributions to your real-life identity when your main account is connected in such a way). It specifically references real-world consequences. On the other hand, this editor has stated he is using an alternate account to prevent other editors from being able to connect his past contributions with his current contributions ("use my contributions to efficiently disrupt the debate"). That's attempting to avoid scrutiny. Additionally, he noted that his past contributions would be relevant to the discussion, which indicates this can not be a clean start; one cannot have a clean start and continue editing in the same areas, as noted in our policy on sockpuppetry. ~ RobTalk 21:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If the privacy section were interpreted that broadly, actually, then one could always swap accounts or use an undisclosed second account at the same time as his or her first so long as they don't participate in the exact same discussion twice. I think that's clearly not the intent of the policy, which states "Wikipedia editors are generally expected to edit using only one (preferably registered) account. Using a single account maintains editing continuity, improves accountability, and increases community trust, which helps to build long-term stability for the encyclopedia." Is making a new account specifically to prevent editors from looking at your past contributions not against that philosophy statement? That usage certainly does undermine "accountability". ~ RobTalk 22:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR as a defense for both block and topic ban evading. Now I've seen it all! ~ RobTalk 01:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Sorry for being late here. I did not access the account since the template was deleted, nor did I access the associated email account. Yes, all those three accounts belong to myself. I'm multi-accounting (two accounts, since the other one is blocked indefinitely) according to WP:IGNORE. I know perfectly I will have to throughly explain my good reasons which I'm going to do right now, otherwise there would be no rules on WP. The reason I'm walking the WP:IGNORE street is that I believe the page we are trying to edit is subject to prolonged UNRECOGNIZED disruption. However, all-in-all, I think that according to Defending yourself against claims I'm not liable of sockpuppetry, although it's true my intent was to prevent my own editing being examined.


 * First of all, I'm the same person who edited with the IP in this recent Dispute Resolution, where you can recognize my transparency in recognizing my ISP assigns IPs dinamically. The specific comment I made was the following:

"Are you really telling me you never heard of Dynamic_Host_Configuration_Protocol? Check Electronic harassment' talk page last week's contributions and you will notice there's only one editor editing under an IP rather than under a username. Well, that's me, believe it or not. It's very simple. 82.59.58.103 (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)"


 * My IP was then blocked for a week, I believe for edit warring, but since I truly believed in suggesting that template at the DRN (although I knew it was soon going to be controversially interpreted), I opened this account and ended compiling the template and the documentation just as I wanted it to be. I had no idea about how templates are written but I sresearched and studied enough with many corrections thanks to other editors's insight though, and I believe I should take the time to propose a WP:DELREV for it. By the way, to read the latest version of the template refer to this page for template, and this page for its documentation.
 * I did also comment at the related talk page of the DRN, but this time, to avoid confusion (and accusations), I created and used the User:BroughtToYouByMolly account. I don't even remember which one I created first, but I had in mind to separate the template creation from all the rest, because I knew my contributions would have exposed my focus on the Electronic harassment page, consequentially giving the chance to those malicious wrongly POVed editors "in charge" of its consensus to focus on me and comfortably disrupt my good intention accusing all sorts of infringements, outnumbering me via well-thought chicaneries.


 * Since I'm broadly appealing to WP:IGNORE I guess I should do my best to provide good reason. I be very brief: I am confident the Electronic harassment page is subject to a caustic and twisted form of WP:Civil POV pushing. Unfortunately it is a very twisted case with seasoned editors being able to be very effective outnumbering newcomers, civilly turning the majority viewpoint in a matter of just what a few cherry-picked psychiatrists disclaimed, and labelling everything (sources, talk page discussions, article edits) which doesn't fit in their POV pushing, as profanatory, either by mentioning WP:FRINGE, accusing of WP:SPAing, lack of notability and/or reliability, veiled threats of all sorts lightly dispensed here and there, and so on (I'm surely forgetting some other policies they use with complete nonchalance). They keep on cleverly denying any change and civilly stonewalling discussions. That's what they do best, whether willingly or not. You can recognize all this by taking a good amount of time carefully consulting article and talk page edits (don't forget talk page archives of course). In my humble opinion, the editors involved are culpable of prolonged WP:PUSH according to the given definition of "civil POV pusher":

"the committee has difficulty dealing with 'civil' POV pushers—editors who repeatedly disregard or manipulate Wikipedia's content policies but are superficially civil, or not-quite-uncivil-enough to merit sanctions."


 * They keep on being very disruptive, yet they get to get away with it. The reason it is so twisted is that WP:PUSH is meant to rightfully disregard overly obscure and complex matters, and Electronic harassment falls exactly into this type. The twisting though, comes in when you realize the apparence of obscurity and complexity are actually used to inconsiderately push a specific POV out of a rabbit hat. Electronic harassment defenately is an obscure and complex matter, but does it deserve to be so fully biased? It doesn't. Can't you just have the article mention that the mainstream news agencies preferably blame it on mental illnesses and at the same time tell the other side of the story? There are tons of reliable sources indicating User:Jed Stuart is unjustifiably halted on the right course to get the article corrected into considering Electronic harassment an open question, rather than a confirmed delusion. User:Jed Stuart is just one of the many who sought a clearly needed shift of the current bias (just have a look at the talk page archives... newcomers have always been either efficiently outnumbered or civilly disregarded by seasoned editors who feel in control of the page). In conclusion, that article stinks really, and it needs to be discussed with well-minded neutral editors other than the ones who have been involved in supporting the present consensus for many months.


 * I'm going to end this comment with the invitation to carefully read the brilliantly written excerpt by Psychoanalyst Carole Smith I did quote more than once at the DRN and at the article Talk page, and which has been in turn collapsed more than once (you need to click on show to be able to read it). She mentions psychological conscious and unconscious coping techniques which I believe.. I'm actually sure, at some degree play a good role in the mindset of the seasoned editors involved in this dispute, leading them towards an almost laughable intransigent desbelief POV pushing.


 * This is why I'm multi-accounting. About a new template (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * You don't get to WP:IGNORE WP:SOCK just because you want to. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - I'm not sure about this one. Can you clarify your comments please? Is this an alt account you've declared with the CU team or with ArbCom? Would you be willing to declare to one of those bodies why you're not using your main account? I'm probably not going to endorse for a forced, public revelation of the main account by CheckUser unless some exceptionally good cause is shown (and a CheckUser, ArbCom, or some other entity that reviews non-public data should decide that). Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 21:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As per WP:SOCK, it is allowed to use undisclosed alternate account for privacy reasons. I see no evidence that this account was being used in violation of that principle.   Vanjagenije   (talk)  21:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No comment with respect to the merits of this case, but I'll point out that WP:SOCK says, "Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project." Participating at TFD, or elsewhere in WP space, is prohibited for such accounts. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Per the concerns raised above, and after going through About a new template's edits, I ran a check and turned up the following:
 * About a new template and BroughtToYouByMolly are ✅ and were making overlapping edits from the same IP. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou and BroughtToYouByMolly are interested in the same page and are also ✅. I have not been able to find an older account, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is one or more out there. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Renamed case to reflect the oldest known account. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Case closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * About a new template and BroughtToYouByMolly are ✅ and were making overlapping edits from the same IP. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou and BroughtToYouByMolly are interested in the same page and are also ✅. I have not been able to find an older account, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is one or more out there. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Renamed case to reflect the oldest known account. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Case closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Unemployed Golfer is obviously not a new user. Adding the same kinds of info to Psychotronics (disambiguation), (Beautifulpeoplelikeyou and Unemployed Golfer). All of Unemployed Golfer's edits are to topics that Beautifulpeoplelikeyou edited. All of them are very similar in content. Unemployed Golfer already block as a duck. -- GB fan 20:06, 23 June 2016 (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

 * I reviewed the technical evidence during an unblock request and it puts the accounts as . Mike V • Talk 20:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)