Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beyond My Ken/Archive

Evidence submitted by 2Misters
Fairly obvious. User:H Debussy-Jones appeared shortly before the release of the film Yesterday Was a Lie and immediately began editing pages associated with the film or its cast members, often introducing unsourced material that contradicted officially available sources and accusing anyone who questioned him to be a sock. When other editors began suspecting that he had a COI with the film (as is obvious from the film's official crew list on the IMDb), he appears to have created an alternate account (User:Beyond My Ken) through which he continues the same practice of making destructive edits and reversions to the film's page with no explanation. Abusive use of multiple accounts is taking place here, in that this editor is utilizing multiple usernames to avoid being caught in COI. As can be seen here, this individual has a deep preoccupation with the aforementioned film and anyone related to it. While editing as Debussy-Jones, he let slip on his talk page (though quickly deleted it) that he knows and has some type of grudge against one of the producers IRL, and he is listed as one of the film's crew. When this became obvious to the Wiki community, he immediately set up a sock account ("Beyond My Ken") to continue editing the pages in question so as to conceal his COI. His obsessive monitoring of anything related to the film, and continued alterations and introduction of COI misinformation to make certain aspects of the film look "better" (artificially increasing the budget, for example) while making other aspects look "worse" (removing the names of certain producers; changing text to incorrectly suggest that no positive reviews were published during the film's theatrical release) makes it obvious that "Ken" is the same editor as "Debussy-Jones," and that he is using multiple accounts to conceal his personal investment and interest in this particular film. 2Misters (talk) 10:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I note that "Ken" continues to avoid the direct question of whether he is a sock of Debussy-Jones. A checkuser will confirm that the community's suspicions are correct. No further evidence is necessary. 2Misters (talk) 11:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * User:H_Debussy-Jones has also been censured dozens of times by the admins for violations of WP:OUTING, as can be seen here. While this is not direct evidence of sockpuppetry, I include it here to demonstrate that the admins were "on to him," so to speak, and thus he clearly had sufficient motive to evade detection by creating an alternate username in order to continue his non-neutral editing of pages related to his film and his associates. 2Misters (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Two months ago the admins ruled that User:H_Debussy-Jones had filed a spurious COI claim; he was also criticized for making bad faith accusations, edit warring, placing a "badge of shame" on a page where it was unwarranted, etc. As a crewmember on the film in question and an acquaintance of some of the filmmakers whose articles he regularly patrols and destructively edits, he has a COI and thus should not be permitted to continue introducing non-neutral, unsourced material into the applicable articles. So he appears to have created another user account to continue doing just this. I believe that creating an alternate editor account for the purpose of avoiding Wiki rules is a violation of WP:SOCK, is it not? Is further evidence necessary? 2Misters (talk) 13:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This will be my fourth response to "Ken's" request for evidence, as he feels that I apparently have still not been clear:
 * 1.) While I do not have unlimited time to scour Wiki history for anything and everything related to his film in an attempt to further my argument, as he appears to, a fairly quick read of his edit history (as both "Debussy-Jones" and "Ken") will reveal his statistical preoccupation with this film. A check of any of his edits of the applicable articles in December here will reveal that he repeatedly altered key information (budget, producer credits, actors' names and billing order) in a manner contrary to the sources that are cited. When asked why, he gave no answers, yet continued to edit thusly. This means either that a.) he was deliberately attempting to introduce misinformation into Wikipedia, or b.) he had inside information about the film that was contrary to official publications. Either one is not acceptable.
 * 2.) He repeatedly engaged in bad faith attacks against others, accusing anyone and everyone of having a COI despite the fact that the admins ruled here that none of the users he accused had introduced COI material into the article. In fact, the matter was closed and locked here to prevent him from continuing to belabor it, despite his attempts restart it over and over again on the admin boards.
 * 3.) He disclosed (and subsequently deleted) that he had personal knowledge of one of the filmmaker's motives IRL.
 * 4.) Here he repeatedly attempted to "out" an editor in question, causing the admins to strike dozens of his edits and give him a warning. Users ThaddeusB and Daedalus point out, in that thread, that Debussy-Jones is on the verge of a ban for 3RR and Outing.
 * 5.) Within the same thread, Debussy-Jones ("Sach") admits to sockpuppetry and actually asks the admins to please not "name" his other account. He thus has a history of using multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny.
 * 6.) It is clear from this that Debussy-Jones was directly affiliated with the film as a crewmember and therefore has something at stake.
 * 7.) Shortly after these concerns were brought to light, the same articles started being edited by new User:Beyond My Ken, who has engaged in the same reversion wars, sock/COI allegations, and possessiveness of all articles related to the film as User:H_Debussy-Jones.

In short, there is plenty of evidence in place already. I suggest that User:Beyond My Ken be permabanned, and User:H_Debussy-Jones be either permabanned or at east blocked from editing any of the applicable articles in the future. 2Misters (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC) I would like to address Ken's assertion that there is no evidence of "abusive use of multiple accounts." Since he will not deny that he and Debussy-Jones are the same individual, I take this as his tacit admission that they are, in fact, the same user. His "defense" seems to be focused on the fact that he claims not to be "abusing" the use of multiple accounts -- as if to suggest that it is OK for him to have an alternate account as long as that alternate account falls within Wiki's legitimate use guidelines. Therefore, I would like to quote the legitimate use guidelines for alternate accounts: "If you decide to make a fresh start, and do not wish to be connected to a previous account, you can simply discontinue using the old account(s), and create a new one that becomes the only account you use. This is permitted . . . so long as no active deception is involved, particularly on pages that the old account used to edit [emphasis added]. That is, you should not turn up on a page you edited, as User:A, to continue the same editing pattern, but this time as User:B [emphasis added] . . . You should also not, as User:B, engage in disputes you engaged in as User:A—whether about articles, project-space issues, or other editors—without making clear that you are the same person [emphasis added]." Since Ken has violated all of the guidelines I quote above, clearly he is in violation of WP:SOCK. The only possible defense here would be for him to deny, with proof, that he is Debussy-Jones. 2Misters (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note again, in his response below, Ken's outright refusal to answer the simple quesiton of whether or not he is the same individual as Debussy-Jones. Now he is attempting to smokescreen the discussion by changing the topic to whether or not I am a sock. Ken, this is not the place for such a discussion. This is a page for you to present evidence that you are not the same user as Debussy-Jones. In addition, I note that his bad faith allegations about myself and other users inserting "promotional edits" onto pages has been roundly dismissed by the admins, who ruled that no promotional material was ever inserted into the articles in question by any of the accounts which he accuses of doing so. Simply because he has accused people of inserting "promotional material" in the past is not evidence that they have done so, especially when the admins have ruled otherwise. The fact that he continues to fall back on his manufactured accusations of people inserting "promotional" material into said pages is a clear example of how desperate he is to shift the focus away from his sockpuppetry. Besides, even if I broke every Wiki rule in the book, that is not a defense of your violations. 2Misters (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note again, in his response below, Ken's refusal to answer the simple quesiton of whether or not he is the same individual as Debussy-Jones. 2Misters (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

This appears to be retaliation for this. I note that no evidence has been provided here of abusive use of multiple accounts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There continues to be no evidence filed here to support any of the myriad charges being bandied about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Diffs? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You didn't notice a COI conflict, because there is none. I would ask the complaintaint to provide a diff that supports the allegations above concerning being "a cremember on the film ... and an acquaintaince of some of the filmmakers."  The only thing that will be found will be earlier allegations by sockpuppets connected to this editor.   Those allegations, like these, were made ex nihilo, without a scrap of evidence to support them.  They are repeated here as if they were fact, which they are not. This is my fourth request for some evidence from the complaintant, in addiiton to one from the clerk, but there have been no diffs forthcoming, merely more and more unsubstantiated allegations, none of them supported in any way. Without evidence, this is essentially a fishing expedition, based on a single editor's unspported allegations, and should be rejected by the checkuser as improper, as there's been no abuse of multiple accounts shown. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again, none of the "evidence" provided by the complantaint supports the charge of abuse of multiple accounts, as defined in WP:SOCKPUPPET. Further, the scant diffs provided above do not actually support the specific allegations made. I still believe that this complaint should be dismissed out of hand as a fishing expedition, filed in retaliation for the well-evidence SPI complaint I filed earlier against User:Sorrywrongnumber and that editor's sockpuppets, which include User:2Misters, but if a checkuser is inclined to delve further, I request that the "evidence" provided above be read in full, to ascertain that there is no actual support for the contentions of the OP. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would note that even a cursory glance at my article editing history will indicate that I am here to improve the encyclopedia. On the other hand, User:2Misters and the other sockpuppets of User:Sorrywrongnumber appear to be SPA accounts whose primary purpose is to promote the film Yesterday Was a Lie and the careers of its director and stars, since, by far, these articles are the only ones they edit, and their edits always serve to put those subjects in the best possible light.  (Indeed, User2Misters' very first edit was an AfD !vote to keep Yesterday Was a Lie, and the editor did not subsequently edit for two years, until brought out of storage to edit the article and help provide a bogus consensus for changes which downplayed negative review comments about the film.) It is not possible to understand the purpose of this complaint without understanding the purpose of those accounts, as demonstrated here, and the retaliatory nature of this complaint explains why the filer has not been able to provide even a scintilla of evidence to show abusive use of multiple accounts, despite the growing number of allegations presented here and the hand-waving that accompanies them.  The Sorrywrongnumber sock farm has proved to be particularly vehement in mounting counter-attacks when they perceive a danger to their ability to make promotional edits (see, for instance here and here, and this complaint is best seen as yet another example of their battlefield mentality. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How dare I try to "smokescreen" this discussion with facts instead of fabrications! Come on, me, get with the program!! Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I note that User:2Misters seems to fundamentally misunderstand what constitutes abusive use of multiple accounts, although he and his fellow socks obviously have no trouble doing it themselves. Someone has to stop this silly merry-go-round, so this will be my last comment here, unless I'm requested to respond by a checkuser, clerk or admin. I'm unwatching the page, and if someone wants my attention, I'd appreciate a message on my talk page. (User:2Misters, take note that you have a free pass to conjure up some more unsubtantiated allegations.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by 2Misters (talk) 09:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there any evidence of a WP:SOCK violation? Tim Song (talk) 11:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't notice the potential COI., with the code letter changed to F, given and the account creation times. I think there may be a violation of WP:SCRUTINY here. Tim Song (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ - the following accounts as being the same editor;




 * - A l is o n  ❤ 04:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Discussion remanded to the larger community; see Administrators'_noticeboard for more. NW ( Talk ) 04:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * May be worth noting the submitting user has just been confirmed as a sockpuppet at Sockpuppet investigations/Sorrywrongnumber. – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

and are blocked by NW, and the userpages redirected to BMK. taken on BMK per AN discussion. Tim Song (talk) 13:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)