Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BelAirRuse/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Similar editing patterns, immediately reverted racial/ethnic breakdown box on United States that was previously made by other accounts of this sockpuppeteer. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Suspect edit here, reverting the same material as previously removed by CU-confirmed sockpuppet AmateurFilmcritique twice and by SWF88 and CU-confirmed sockpuppet BelAirRuse in a tag-team format back in October. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The edit summary by Bokmanrocks01 here is virtually identical to the start of the edit summary by AmateurFilmcritique here; in addition, so is the obsession with "hispanic/latino categories" "overloading" the infobox, as displayed by the user's reply below. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Moreover, the only user who previously reverted and removed the information was SWF88 and their sockpuppets. No other user raised an objection. Contrary to their combative claims, I was not the user to originally add it - that was User:TheBD2000. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Not sure what you're talking about. My edits tend to focus on infoboxes because those are the sections of articles I'm most interested in improving. As to the United States ethnic/racial breakdown section, I felt that the % of the categories should add to 100%. Adding too much detail isn't really required. The list could go on forever if you wanted to add every intricate detail on the ethnic background of the population. Summing up the population with 5 main categories, with percentages that add up to 100% is the most reasonable. Now you have a list that adds up to 180% with the additional hispanic/latino categories, which the viewer can look further into in the article anyway. The infobox is meant to be simple, providing quick summaries of the topic, not giving as much detail as possible, which is the purpose of the article itself. Perhaps your edits are being reverted because most people disagree with you and think the alternative is better, which is the whole point of Wikipedia; the exchange and competition of ideas, which most definitely does NOT include accusing users of being sockpuppets when they make a edit that hurts your feelings or something. Have a nice day. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
You need to provide more evidence than just the one article. Bokmanrocks01 is a very old account, much older than SWF88.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've declined the CU. Insufficient evidence to warrant a check.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Closing. Nothing more than one token similarity. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 20:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

See below. Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Yup, I knew it. Blatantly obvious. Thanks for tracking these down. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The following accounts are ✅:
 * Every one is already blocked, so I only retagged all. Sockpuppet investigations/SWF88 should be merged into this case. It’s my fault as I mistakenly thought SWF88 was the oldest account.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Done and closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  15:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Every one is already blocked, so I only retagged all. Sockpuppet investigations/SWF88 should be merged into this case. It’s my fault as I mistakenly thought SWF88 was the oldest account.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Done and closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  15:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Every one is already blocked, so I only retagged all. Sockpuppet investigations/SWF88 should be merged into this case. It’s my fault as I mistakenly thought SWF88 was the oldest account.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Done and closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  15:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Every one is already blocked, so I only retagged all. Sockpuppet investigations/SWF88 should be merged into this case. It’s my fault as I mistakenly thought SWF88 was the oldest account.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Done and closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  15:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Done and closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  15:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)