Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bill Huffman/Archive

10 May 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

An investigation into this account was originally filed in April 2010, but was deleted on 8 April 2010 for "privacy concerns". Since then, the person in question appears to have continued to use the "Bill Huffman" account as a "bad hand" account while maintaining alternate accounts for other editing. User admits to doing so here. For background on original questions surrounding socking by this editor, see current ANI thread here, and discussion on Atama's talk page. The users evasive reaction to the current questions about the accounts suggest that the person is aware of what they are doing and are not taking steps to bring their editing into compliance with policy. Cla68 (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Editor notified. Cla68 (talk) 23:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

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

I believe that I have not violated policy. I have simply tried to keep my Wikipedia article edits separate from my real name. At the same time I have simply responded to Cla68 using this account because he has already shown bad faith attacks against me in the past. So, I don't don't want him to know what my other account is so that he won't be able to attack that account as well. Also, I would appreciate it if someone could tell me why 153.64.136.150 is (was?) apparently blocked. That was an IP address that I frequently used and it was blocked very close to when Cla68 started his more recent activities against me. Thanks, Bill Huffman (talk) 00:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I've had this page on my watchlist for over a year, and was astonished to see it reappear. I don't know what's going on right now. In reply to Bill Huffman, if 153.64.136.130 is blocked, it must be a rangeblock or an autoblock against some other user. I can't see any blocks or autoblocks against Bill Huffman, nor can I see any contributions from or blocks against that IP. Hopefully the clerks here can sort it out. --Orlady (talk) 01:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Orlady, you seem to have been aware of this editor using multiple accounts for at least a year. Perhaps it might be helpful for the CU clerk if you explained, as an admin, what actions you have taken to try to correct this editor's behavior? Cla68 (talk) 03:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you are talking about. If you are referring to my comment about having this on my watchlist, the deal is that I've had this page on my watchlist because I commented here last year and I never took it off the watchlist after that. (My watchlist resembles Fibber McGee's closet.) --Orlady (talk) 04:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you know that TallMagic and Bill Huffman were the same person? And, you saw the results of the April 2010 SPI which was admin deleted? Cla68 (talk) 04:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Cla68 is not being completely forthcoming in this SPI. Back in April 2010 he outed my TallMagic account. He saw the April 2010 SPI or at least referred to it many times. He harassed me back in 2010. Asking as many admins as he could about the SPI trying to get the case reopened. Filling ANI and even going all the way to ArbCom in his pursuit of me. I documented all of this here. Bill Huffman (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I've checked into matters for Bill as well, and I can't find anything either. I'm wondering if it's a technical issue of another kind. I can't edit from my employer's systems as an IP because of the proxy servers my employer uses. Logging in as myself, I can get around that. But I wonder if it's a similar problem.


 * I don't think that Bill is editing as your typical sockmaster; trying to use evasion and deception intentionally. But I do have some concerns that he's not following WP:SOCK correctly, and offered advice on my talk page. I doubt that a clerk would approve CU in this case, since it's essentially a fishing request, but I'm hoping that someone can help Bill handle an alternate account correctly. I don't think I've gotten through how important it is not to abuse alternate accounts, even unintentionally. --  At am a  頭 03:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If the CU clerk doesn't feel that revealing the alternate accounts' names is necessary, that's fine. Based on this editor's behavior, however, I think it would be prudent to check to see how many socks they are operating, and then give the number here. Cla68 (talk) 03:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fishing is checking when you've got no justification for the check; as a justification was provided, this is not fishing. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My mistake, WP:CHECKUSER specifically states that when a sockmaster (or in this case, a sockpuppet) is unknown, it isn't fishing. I'm not sure if that's a recent change, I could swear that I've had SPI requests rejected and called fishing because of that, but it's good to know. --  At am a  頭 17:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Bill, you were editing through a proxy which has now been blocked. The block wasn't targeted at you. I see you've now resolved the issue though, so that's good. Anyway, I can see the alternative account and there doesn't look to be anything wrong with it. This is quite possibly the first time I've ran a check, found another account, and been able to "Everything looks fine". What a moment! I should take a photograph of this or something. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 15:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Closing per Deskana. T. Canens (talk) 17:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)