Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bigbadbass/Archive

29 November 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

The day after User:Bigbadbass is blocked for removing sourced content from the Lord Toby Jug article (including Jug's birth name and the fact he was expelled from a political party) with misleading edit summaries of "fixed typo", User:ConstpationBlues appears and does the exact same thing. McGeddon (talk) 08:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

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


 * was quacking too loudly, so I blocked them. § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * See below. Mike V  •  Talk  06:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

30 November 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Yet more quacking, removing sourced content with misleading edit summaries. McGeddon (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Blocked and tagged as well. I also semi'd the article. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I've blocked the master account for 1 week for block evasion and abusing multiple accounts. Mike V  •  Talk  06:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

13 February 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Resuming the claim that Lord Toby Jug resigned from his party rather than being expelled and the general WP:OWNership that User:Bigbadbass was blocked twice for, all with the same misleading default edit summaries.

After being blocked twice for these problems last year, Bigbadbass was told to respect COI guidelines and request future changes on the talk page. This sounds a lot like the same user ignoring that request and choosing to edit under an IP instead. McGeddon (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The IP is now claiming to have been personally editing the Lord Toby Jug article for "nearly over two years", suggesting that they are User:Bigbadbass. If they've been editing the article since its creation, then earlier editors User:Floradoragirl and User:Floristrybookshop may have been the same person's accounts (Floradoragirl started the article in June 2013 and attempted to delete it a few weeks later, apparently in response to another editor adding Jug's birthname and criminal record; Floristrybookshop made yet another "he wasn't expelled he chose to leave" edit in 2014, two days before Bigbadbass joined Wikipedia). --McGeddon (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2015 (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 blocked the IP for one month. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

18 February 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

More apparent COI autobiography socking to add the POV that Jug may actually have voluntarily left a political party rather than being forced to. Same edit as the last IP to be blocked as a sock (1, 2), same canned edit summary, and the IP signed a recent comment as Flingel Bunt. McGeddon (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

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


 * Blocked on second edit to Lord Toby Jug, just to make sure it wasn't a coincidence. § FreeRangeFrog croak 00:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The following are ✅:
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks DoRD. All socks tagged (or re-tagged) and indef'ed, master blocked for 6 months. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Fixed missing tags, closing. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  19:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

15 June 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Yet another WP:SPA removing the birthname from the Lord Toby Jug article and claiming that he "left" a political party rather than being expelled from it. All edits made with canned "fixed typo" edit summaries again. McGeddon (talk) 13:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure:
 * SaffieDoodlebug changes "expelled from" to "left" (edit summary "added links") and blanks Borthwick's name ("fixed grammar")
 * BigBadBass changes "expelled from" to "expelled/left" ("added links"), and blanks Borthwick's name ("added links").
 * SPI history shows a series of sockpuppets making these same kinds of edits since late last year. --McGeddon (talk) 14:34, 15 June 2015 (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

 * In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
 * 1) At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
 * 2) At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
 * 3) In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  14:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * - - Endorse CU per evidence ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  20:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅, blocked and tagged.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Resuming the assertion of past socks that Mr Jug "left" a political party rather than (per the strongest source) being "expelled" from it, within a week of the article's year-long protection expiring. (Comparison diffs: 1, 2) McGeddon (talk) 17:02, 9 August 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

 * Blocked based upon behavior. Mike V • Talk 18:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Per all past socks, it's an WP:SPA editing the Lord Toby Jug article to remove the verb "expelled" from the description of how he parted ways with his previous political party. (eg. 1, 2) McGeddon (talk) 11:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The editor has since said that they "personally interviewed and photographed the subject recently", which may make this a WP:MEAT issue if the article subject (and sockmaster) urged them to edit on his behalf ("A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose..."). Robbowolf101 opening discussion by apologising for being "new" mirrors the same opening comments from the previous two confirmed Bigbadbass socks. --McGeddon (talk) 12:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Apologies - again new to this! I can confirm I am not Brian Borthwick, AKA Lord Toby Jug, and I am merely editing his page. Having now viewed your archive I was not aware of the history of changes, I am merely attempting to correct what I believed was an error. Am happy to prove I am not him if possible? Robbowolf101 (talk) 11:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

In addition, my further research into the claim suggests very much a "he said, she said" as to who 'left' and who was 'asked to leave' from a single verifiable news source I therefore believe my edit, using the word split, is justifiable under Wikipedia guidelines and is more appropriate - I note other contributors attempted to change the word to left e.c.t and the word split is far more appropriate, given the media coverage Robbowolf101 (talk) 12:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

With regard to the statements made regarding WP:Meat - I am happy to stand by that statement, during a recent interview LTJ's background in the OMRLP was touched upon, and I noted what I then thought was an irregularity on the page that I could correct - I thus signed up this account and attempted to correct, not knowing the history. I also thought it odd that the page seemed a little out of date, having not been updated for some time, but I now know this was due to the aforementioned history... honestly, I was just trying something new out and didn't expect it to be a hassle, I believe my edit is accurate but if it is deemed otherwise lets just revert to the original and be done with this? Robbowolf101 (talk) 12:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

(Note that the checkuser request here was added by Robbowolf101 with no explanation at this point, rather than being part of the original SPI.) --McGeddon (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Clerk note: Robbowolf101's CU request was reverted; I subsequently requested and self-endorsed a check based on my own evaluation. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I note the line in question has reverted. My references/evidence/argument was not sufficient? I still believe the wording is misleading as to events, but am happy to accept the editors decision. Am asking for future reference. Robbowolf101 (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Have just caught up on statements made below. Truly, and I cannot stress this enough, I am a new user. I may be able to explain why the link no longer works as Cambs News recently changed their website and now most of my old links (used in research prior to this) now redirect to their home page. I'm not at all conversant with web design or URLs so I have no idea if this is due to changes, deletions or anything else! As you will see from my talk page this investigation has left me unsure of how to proceed elsewhere - in fact I am thoroughly put off Wikipedia by this, despite having read several times about assuming good faith. I still love the idea of Wikipedia, and appreciate all the good work you do, but I was entirely unaware this sort of thing took place. An amazing resource, but perhaps not for me. Robbowolf101 (talk) 08:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

In addition, I have removed the rest of my edits from this clearly suspect page. I would advise someone completely neutral look into the nature of the split/expelled issue because I truly do believe that is not correct, but as perviously stated I am happy to accept the communities decision if it ends all this!! Robbowolf101 (talk) 08:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I was about to close this with no action, there are enough behavioural differences that I was ready to assume this is a genuine new user. However, I noticed that Robbowolf101 is referencing a link that previous socks have used to back up this same POV. But trying to load it, I got bumped to the server's main page. According to archive.org, that link has been 404'd since at least March 2016. So how did Robbowolf101, supposedly a new user, come across it independently in September 2016? I have an idea how. Please check against, a sock blocked in August, and incidentally by far the oldest account in the archive. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * - Katietalk 16:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Robbowolf101 is to MsAngry. .  Katietalk 17:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * the behaviour and technical evidence leave me with significant doubts. Previous socks have been clearly disruptive in approach, but I find Robbowolf101's account of his activities plausible considering the differences in style and contributions. Regarding the erroneous reference, it was not added by Robbowolf101 but has been sitting un-archived in the article for some time. Closed with no action. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)