Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bloodofox/Archive

05 October 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.


 * Editor Six words from nowhere came with a passionate and vehement defense of Bloodofox, whose some arguments and advices also seemed to instigate the bypass of some guidelines.
 * Both editors apparent to have no common interests thus seeming very unlikely the interaction between them as happened in that space and time.
 * User Bloodofox owns historical cases showing him in disruption and hostile conduct which strengthen the suspicion of sockpuppet.
 * The edits by suspects usually don’t overlap.

comment: by reason of an investigation to determine why article Troll has shrank, came out that the article has been historically war-edited by the editor Bloodofox which, in turn, led to this request for further and formal investigation. Pepper Salad (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * How weird. Sure, check. The IP address was me, but it was just because I guess my sign on timed out. I corrected it thereafter, as you can see on the talk page. That's not exactly "evidence". In addition, Troll wasn't "shrunk", it was rewritten from scratch. It had all sorts of sourcing problems prior to the rewrite and had no foundation in scholarship. The rewrite was produced to bring the article up to Wikipedia standards, namely WP:GA standards. Finally, the "historical cases showing him in disruption and hostile conduct" mentioned above (actually just one case link, so maybe that should be changed to case, singular), resulted in both revocation and apologies from those involved in the block. I was temporarily blocked as the result of an error on the part of an administrator that, admittedly, probably should have lost his administrator abilities over it. I have never been blocked otherwise and I've been here for around several years. I have no idea who either Pepper Salad or Six words is. Pepper Salad, whatever their real account is, seems to have an axe to grind with me. Maybe related to that terrible ethereal beings article being deleted some time ago? Whoever they are, I await their apology. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Observation: User:Pepper Salad has made no other edits to  Wikipedia except filing  this case. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And I'd like to know why this report has been filed now when it is being linked to something that happened in February 2012? De728631 (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This sudden appearance of Pepper Salad looks strange to me and I've now notified Bloodofox and Six words of this investigation. De728631 (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment by Six words: I do remember that one because I'd had interacted with before. She was a new, enthusiastic editor, already disappointed that some of her contributions weren't appreciated, and looking through her other contributions I could see that other interactions also weren't going well. I'm not super active on Wikipedia but I think I know my way around here, so I tried to give some advice (we do need new, enthusiastic Wikipedians), and I think Bema Self took it that way. If you decide a CU is necessary (I don't think it is given that bloodofox and I never edited the same articles before, nor since that time), I'm OK with that, but you're wasting your time. --Six words (talk) 07:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * In relation to the two named, suspected socks, I see no compelling evidence that there is a common operator. For example, the " passionate and vehement defense of Bloodofox" appears to, in fact, be a defence of another editor entirely. Unless there is some piece of sound evidence in support of a connection, I cannot see how we could reasonably conclude the two named editors are socks. In relation to the filing party, I agree that he or she is an obvious sock (given that the account's first and only edit was to open this investigation); I have therefore indefinitely blocked Pepper Salad until he or she can give a credible account of their current or past accounts. There is nothing else we really need to do here, so I'm marking this investigation for closure. AGK  [•] 18:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

27 May 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Has to do with article High fructose corn syrup. This editor was previously editing as an IP address and was in a content dispute with over the past week or two. The IP took the case to the WP:DRN (case is archived here) There, at the request of, the IP said that their user account was Nitrobutane, in this dif.

I worked over that article over the weekend, and today, "bloodofox" showed up out of the blue, and along with IP addresses 85.211.108.65 and 85.211.103.87 (which I assumed were continuous with the former IP/Nitrobutane) disputed the edits. (we got into an edit war and the page is now protected at my request.) I thought I was dealing with at least 2 editors, as I had not seen "bloodofox" active in the discussion, and if the IP used a username, I expected it would be Nitrobutane. At one point, in this dif, bloodofox wrote: "So, today I rewrote the section on the controversy regarding mercury contamination and mentioned the public controversy in the lead. However, this rewrite, which relied on a secondary sourced (The Washington Post) was removed for a brief mention that entirely relies on Web MD. You can see this edit here: ." the diff there is an edit by 85.211.108.65. I completely missed that the edit was by an IP. This went on all day.

I even referred to the IP as "Nitrobutane" in this dif and this dif and neither the IP nor bloodofox reacted until after I figured out they were socking. At the end of this dif from after I figured it out, the IP wrote: "PS: I haven't used that account on this article even once, so why talk about it, much less announce it to other editors." At no point did the IPs nor bloodofox disclose that they were same person, except by the diff above.


 * "Bloodofox"' edits to the Talk page are here. One in 2010 and then a bunch today.
 * 85.211.108.65's edits to the Talk page are here
 * 85.211.103.87's edit to the Talk page are here


 * "bloodofox" edits to the article are here
 * 85.211.108.65 edits to the article are here
 * 85.211.103.7's edits to the article are here

I am seeking a block on bloodofox and his socks, for violating WP:SOCK. I thought I was dealing with at least 2 people, and it seems clear now that it was just one person. This whole thing would have played out very differently, had that been clear. Jytdog (talk) 04:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC) Jytdog
 * I am sorry for naming the case wrongly - I opened it with lower case "bloodofox" then tried to fix it, and i think that made things worse.  Thanks for sorting it out. Jytdog (talk) 04:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC) (per katewishing below, striking dif Jytdog (talk) 00:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC))


 * I think the story above is very clear. But here are some diffs - all these are pursuing the same issues - see how they switch off?
 * 18:24, 26 May 2015 - bloodofox edit here
 * 20:00, 26 May 2015 - IP edit here
 * 20:34, 26 May 2015 - bloodofox edit here
 * 20:39, 26 May 2015 - IP edit here (the very next one, after the one above)
 * 21:17, 26 May 2015 - Bloodofox edit here
 * 21:26, 26 May 2015 - IP edit here
 * and on it went both on Talk and in the article. Jytdog (talk) 04:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Note, the IP has opened an ANI against me, and in their opening statement claimed that bloodofox is someone else. Did the same in a subsequent post.  This is the very heart of what the SOCK policy was created to prevent - using socks to make it seem like multiple editors agree. But Bloodfox/Nitrobutane/IPs appear to be the only person arguing their point.Jytdog (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Been involved in the article as well. If we are truly dealing with socks here, we are looking at 13 reverts by a single person in less than 24 hours. Normally we'd just protect the page when edit warring occurs, but this would be gaming the system pretty bad. It does seem like a block is needed if we are dealing with socks. For Bbb23, the key piece of evidence is Bloodofox stating they made an edit, but that edit was done by the IP in question. That's basically what triggered the opening of this case since it links what was thought to be multiple edit warring users into apparently just one person. If the IPs of the registered accounts are similar enough to be the same as the unregistered IPs, something is needed to curtain this behavior. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Kingofaces, I have little doubt that checkuser will show they are all the same, but the SOCK case is clear on DUCK alone, and the dif you point out. Jytdog (talk) 05:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree wholeheartedly as well. I just prefer to prefer not to call a duck a duck until someone qualified to formally identify a duck (i.e. here) has done so even in a solid case. Just a formality on my part I guess, so that shouldn't be taken to mean I'm showing any strong uncertainty here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Do tell us more, Kingofaces, about how so far you've agreed with every single thing Jytdog has said/done, in the article edits, on the talk page, and now here.85.211.108.65 (talk) 06:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Kingofaces is also a science-based editor who follows policies and guidelines. We do tend to agree. Not always. Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note the IP seems to be accusing Kingofaces of MEAT PUPPETRY but has provided no evidence.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Serialjoepsycho: connected from the start, | collusion ; other users think so too: [here]

“also a science-based editor who follows policies and guidelines”? What are you trying to imply by that claim - that you are such an editor? Let's hear more about your conduct around the HFCS article: the bullying buldozer editing, your attempts to suppress dissent (archiving active talkpage sections), accusations of SOCK as soon as you're reminded of your misconducts on the article and talkpage, and now your CANVASSING and continuous lies on ANI. There's the fact that Kingoface's talk documents his CANVASSING, as well as his disruptive edoting and misuse and twisting of MEDRES to push his anti-alternative?anti-natural remedy POV. And don't think I'm unaware that you've been connected from the start... or that |you discussed me behind my back and sure he disagrees with you... except that it's been pointed out on ANI that his actions are such that he's easy to mistake for a sock of yours, that in fact he's one of your mafia 'loyal group of followers' whose sycophancy interfered with attempts made at ANI to take you to task for bullying and intimidation of other editors. (but of course, they're only 'flaky ANI notices', after all This group includes those who sucked up to you at ANI:, who has [|been blocked for personal attacks], created a 'toxic atmosphere' by posting nastiness against other users on talkpages on talkpages; and QuackGuru, with a [|truly odious record] of personal attacks, vandalism, SEVENTEEN BLOCKS, harassment of other users, canvassing via email and making misleading accusations...

And of course there's you, who has been documented previously both on your talk and on ANI: harassed users on their talk (despite repeated requests to stop), used profanity, personal attacks, belittling, hounding users, abusing warning templates... all forms of repeated bullying behaviour. The apparent repentance is assumed, when chastised by multiple admins, only for the cycle to repeat itself, in exactly the same way, at a later date. A repetitive pattern of toxic behaviour, fuelled by the grinding of a crooked, anti-alternative medicine POV axe. 85.211.108.65 (talk) 03:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. this is useful. Jytdog (talk) 03:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * No idea if anyone is socking here, but Bloodofox did not state they made that edit. Let's begin with Bloodofox's comment:
 * "So, today I rewrote the section on the controversy regarding mercury contamination and mentioned the public controversy in the lead. However, this rewrite, which relied on a secondary sourced (The Washington Post) was removed for a brief mention that entirely relies on Web MD. You can see this edit here: "
 * This edit could refer to either the first sentence (Bloodofox's rewrite), or the second sentence (Jytdog's removal). But the diff makes it clear this edit refers to Jytdog's changes. The diff contains four separate edits. The first three, and the only substantive ones, are by Jytdog. He removes the Washington Post material and the mention of mercury from the lead, while adding WebMD. These changes are exactly what the second sentence describe, and the opposite of the first sentence. (The topmost edit, by the IP, is minor copyediting. I assume it was accidentally included by moving the left radio button but not the right.) Instead, the first sentence perfectly describes several earlier edits made under Bloodofox's own account. (Just for the record, I think Jytdog was right to replace WaPo with WebMD under WP:MEDRS, but we need to be more careful before accusing a long-term contributor of being a "DUCK.") KateWishing (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting here, . I believe you are correct now, with regard to the reference for "this edit".  i have struck elsewhere as well. I am still concerned about socking, as bloodofoc/Nitrobutane/IP all made similar edits and arguements.  Jytdog (talk) 00:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Despite your being repeatedly criticised on ANI about your personal attacks towards other editors, it's still so hard to believe that more than one person could oppose you? Every time you seem to apologise after an incident, the repentance lasts only until the next round of attacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.108.65 (talk) 03:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * invective harms no one but the person who posts it. and your description of my behavior is not accurate.

Jytdog (talk) 04:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * After your prolonged campaign of personal attacks and harassment against DrChrissy, including wikistalking, belittling, effing and blinding on her talkpage, calling her edits 'slimey varmint behaviour'... you, the perpetrator, still have the gall to claim 'it harms noone'?


 * first, drchrissy is a guy. 2nd, my episode of incivility toward him was just that - an episode, addressed at ANI during which I apologized, promised to continue, and was warned. and it was closed. so irrelevant to today.  third, all of this is all off-topic and I am hatting it. if you have questions about past events we can discuss those elsewhere. Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I can't quite follow the chain of events in the opening of this case, but somehow it was opened with the name of the master being lower case. In any event, I copied the stuff manually from the lower case SPI, so the little bit of history of the filer is not here. I deleted the lower case SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It is clear that Nitrobutane is the same person as the listed IP addresses, and also at least two other IP addresses, namely 85.211.108.179 and 85.211.109.208. However, there has been no abusive use of the conjunction of account and IP edits: the editor has made no secret of being the same person, and has not used the account to edit the article where the dispute has taken place. There is no convincing evidence that Bloodofox is the same person. In fact, there is good evidence that Bloodofox is not likely to be the same person, both in differences in editing habits and also in the fact that Bloodofox has in the past been known to edit from an IP address from a different continent from those listed. The most recent IP address is blocked for reasons unrelated to sockpuppetry, and I see nothing else that needs to be done here at present. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)