Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Billbowler2/Archive

29 April 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

I recently proposed that scientific surveys estimating violent deaths and body counts be distinguished at the article Casualties of the Iraq War, and implemented this proposal.

User:Billbowler2 reverted three times, and when I warned him on his talk page about the rules regarding edit warring, IP:72.225.197.159 immediately reverted a fourth time using essentially identical language to Billbowler2 in their edit summary:


 * 'restoring prior table. the attempted overhaul injects bias and disputed POV.' 00:48, 29 April 2014
 * 'your change is biased and faulty.' 01:40, 29 April 2014‎
 * 'it's simply POV pushing.' 04:08, 29 April 2014
 * (I warn Billbowler2 about edit warring) 17:05, 29 April 2014


 * 'revert pov pushing and arbitrary/disputed classifications. see talk.' 17:24, 29 April 2014‎

WP:SOC rules state that one form of sock puppetry is 'logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address.' This is very obviously happening here (and at Iraq War too, though I don't think Billbowler2 has violated 3RR there). Darouet (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Update: user states they accidentally logged out before editing at Iraq War and Casualties of the Iraq War, so I suppose this is now an edit warring issue, and not a sock puppet issue. For the sake of privacy Billbowler2 may want to investigate if logs can be changed to obscure their IP. -Darouet (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Darouet is engaged in edit warring on the referenced pages and is now engaged in Wiki-lawyering. As I've noted repeatedly on the talk pages, the edits he's making and re-making (without any benefit of consensus) are inherently biased and subjective labeling and side-taking, and are in conflict with the views of some of the sources cited on the page (but which Darouet apparently doesn't aggree with). That is why it is inappropriate POV pushing, regardless of his intent. Additionally, now Darouet is making a mockery of the 'good faith' norms of wikipedia. He asserts that sockpuppetry is "obviously happening" on my part with no basis at all for the claim. As i noted in response to him on my talk page:


 * "   You may be unaware, but browsers sometimes lose your login information, such as when a browser is closed or computer restarted, and you need to manually login again. If you don't realize that this has happened, your edits will appear with an IP instead of a user name. Way to "assume good faith" though Darouet. And you're as guilty of approaching 3RR if not more so than I am. You're trying to impose an inherently biased labeling and segregation scheme onto otherwise neutral introductory references, which conflict with disputed positions in the cited sources themselves, which is why I am well justified in reverting such inappropriate edits"


 * This has nothing to do with "sock puppetry", but rather has to do with Darouet wanting to make highly biased and subjective edits, without benefit of consensus, to otherwise neutral introductory material. And he's now trying to Wikilawyer these edits through with baseless accusations of bad faith.Billbowler2 (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, you might have accidentally logged out right after I warned you about edit warring, but in that case you're still just edit warring. As far as consensus is concerned, at Iraq War consensus is against you. It's not with you either at Casualties of the Iraq War, but there's no excuse for skipping past the 3RR bright line because you disagree with me. Are you proposing to self-revert to avoid violating 3RR? -Darouet (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. I'm sorry if you did indeed accidentally log out and edit at both Iraq War and Casualties of the Iraq War, but in that case, can you self-revert and actually convince me on the talk page, instead of breaking 3RR? -Darouet (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Checkuser will tie an IP directly to an account only in rare circumstances. This will need to be determined on a behavioural basis.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no sockpuppetry here. By the accused editor's own admission (on this page) and the reporting editor's concession this is just an issue of someone losing login information and accidentally editing while logged-out. While there was a 3RR violation, it is now stale (it happened days ago) and since then the dispute has moved into discussion on the article talk page (as it should have). I'm going to mark this for closure since there's no need for administrator action. --  At am a  頭 18:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

01 June 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Without getting into the merits of the content dispute at Iraq war, as an impartial observer who has been watching the debate unfold I feel it is time for Billbowler2 to face sanctions for his blatant abuse of multiple accounts to influence consensus. To be clear, I'm only requesting Checkuser because I would like the option to remain open; I'm far from certain it is necessary. I don't know who Billbowler2 thinks he is fooling, but new users do not inject themselves into heated political disputes after one side has used up three reverts with edit summaries like "talk and many prior edits clearly show no "consensus" for such editorializing and source blanking" or "labels are disputed by cited sources, and edit does not have consensus, per talk". These accounts have made the exact same arguments as Billbowler2 in their first and only contributions to Wikipedia, but that hasn't stopped Billbowler2 from using them to compliment his own edits. Considering his previous IP editing left him with a mere warning, and he is now on his second alternate account, I believe we cannot continue to let his behavior slide.
 * To be clear, not only are these IPs reinstating his edits, but Billbowler2's edit summaries are virtually indistinguishable ("revert same editorializing that lacks consensus and contradicts cited sources, again", "same old disputed editorializing, it does not have "consensus" from either wiki-editors or citeable sources", ect).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC) TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

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

This is after Bill logged out and IP edited to avoid breaking the 3RR, was called out on it, and without apologizing or reverting declared his action a mistake. The purported socks were created after, and have no edit history beyond supporting Bill in his effort to overcome clear consensus against him at Iraq War and Casualties of the Iraq War. -Darouet (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Blocked per WP:DUCK, closing. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)