Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Biker Biker/Archive

25 May 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

CU req, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DeltaQuad&diff=556839733&oldid=556831610 link to explanation of socking] -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  23:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

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

They're "confirmed" as the same editor, but the accounts are active in different areas, although in other areas account use is not defined clearly enough. The uses identified here and claimed to be inappropriate are: The outcome of this case should depend on the purpose of the multiple account use, and the editor's response to this case. Peter&#160;James (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Editing project space" - Despite the fact that this is now back in the policy page, there's no consensus that this is disallowed.
 * "Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts" - The pages identified are articles, and the edits are reverts - it's likely that these edits were accidentally made using the wrong account.
 * "Avoiding scrutiny" - if there's a legitimate use this is permitted.
 * My experience with Biker Biker is that they're a very productive and useful editor. I don't see why editing project space with a second account is a particular problem, but I would like to see BB's reason for this account and why they hadn't declared it. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 20:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I second that. Biker Biker does a very good job fighting vandalism, that is keeping this place clean, and it would be a pity if a temporary lack of judgment would be deemed serious enough to indeff him. There are far too few "productive" vandalism fighters here as it is. Thomas.W (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * According to the Blocking policy, "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users". They are now known to be alternative accounts, and maybe they were not as careful to avoid crossover in the past, but there's no evidence of disruptive editing or likely disruption in the future. The editor should probably be advised to notify checkuser or arbitration committee members if creating another account, but blocking any of these accounts for sock puppetry based on the evidence provided here would only be punitive. Peter&#160;James (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocking the alternate accounts and not the main is purely preventative, since it does not prevent the editor from editing. WP:SOCK is policy; is there some good reason here for an exception that has not been explained (User:Rschen7754 implies below that the privately-communicated explanation was inadequate)? VQuakr (talk) 04:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In the second paragraph of WP:Blocking policy, "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia". The "blocks should not be punitive" section lists situations where blocks shouldn't be used, including "where there is no current conduct issue of concern." The claimed breaches of policy consist of events in the past, with an old account and unsupported by evidence, and of recent events either accidental or not clearly inappropriate. The user has also not edited for the last few days. Is there a significant risk of "damage or disruption" if the alternative accounts are not blocked? If assumptions of bad faith and threats of blocking result in the loss of editors who maintain and improve the encyclopedia (I don't know if this is likely here, but has happened before), could blocks be used to prevent further assumptions and threats? Peter&#160;James (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅ to . -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  23:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Awaiting explanation from editor. --Rschen7754 08:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Also noting, a retired account. --Rschen7754 10:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

My preliminary thoughts are closing this with no action, on the condition that all 3 accounts are disclosed on the active userpages. Awaiting opinions from the other clerks and User:DeltaQuad however. --Rschen7754 06:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Has anyone contacted the user regarding disclosure? NativeForeigner Talk 00:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have received a private explanation as to the reasons for the separation, but otherwise no. --Rschen7754 00:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you please act on this case then? NativeForeigner Talk 07:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

After doing a bit more research, I believe that the condition regarding disclosure of all 3 accounts needs to remain in order to remain unblocked. While there may not have been much crossover between Bob Re-born and Biker Biker, there is quite a bit of crossover that is problematic between Biker Biker and Simple Bob, and because of that problematic history I think this is necessary. --Rschen7754 04:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I propose that we give Biker Biker until June 20 to agree to disclosure; if no action is taken by then, we block his alternate accounts. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

VQuakr: the explanation would have been fine if he had not previously abused multiple accounts. And yes, the idea is to leave autoblock off, so he just can't use the extra accounts. At this time, I don't see a reason to block the main account. --Rschen7754 04:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I blocked the alts, while letting him know that they can be unblocked if he agrees to userpage disclosure. Closing. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)