Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bluedogtn/Archive

March 23 2009

 * Suspected sockpuppets

He made a edit in the admin noticeboard and this brought my attention here No one would need this many "legit alts" unless ment for vandalism.

And I added Alonsornunez because the user made edits to tennis related articles which adds another possable sock to the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenChiefLion1 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Evidence submitted by GoldenChiefLion1 (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC) — GoldenChiefLion1 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
This is a convoluted mess, but at a glance it seems unlikely that Tennis expert and Bluedogtn are the same user, as they have been edit-warring on Tennis expert's talk page, and Bluedogtn reported Tennis expert at WP:WQA. I suppose it could be an elaborate ploy to make them appear to be two different users, but without checkuser evidence that would be difficult to establish. Bluedog has quite a stack of acknowledged alternate accounts, and I think some clarification of why one user needs 11 accounts is in order, especially when at least one of them, User:TennisAuthority, could be reasonably assumed to have been created specifically to try and counteract User: Tennis expert. Also, Bluedogs report to WQA was about a sockpuppet report on him by Tennis expert, anyone have any idea where that is? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * After looking a little closer, I think this entire case is highly suspicious. The user filing this report is a brand-new account. The person to be "investigated" certainly has an unusual number of accounts, but admits it, so there is not really any socking going on there. How did a supposed new user even know to come here and report this? How did it come to their attention just a few hours after creating an account? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Replying to your first comment,I think he was trolling on the noticeboard. GoldenChiefLion1 (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you would care to reply to my second remark? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm bluedogtn, and the reason I created the account of TennisAuthority and all other Experts and Authority accounts is because I want to utilize them to edit topical specific pages on wikipedia with those accounts. I have not had much time to do this since for the past ten day I've been looking for a job because I am currently unemployed, which sucks!  I am not tennis expert nor that Alon account and I have only used one IP address that starts with a six, and you all need to do some research on IP address locations before you all attribute them to me!  I wish that you all will put a message on my talk page when this is update!  Further, I have acknologed that I am the one that created these accounts, which makes me no sockpuppet! Thanks!BLuE DOg  Tn  21:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No way is Bluedogtn a sockpuppet; it seems very evident that he has not hidden his multiple accounts. This accusation does seems very suspicious, especially coming so soon after I was just cleared of being a sockpuppet of a different user by Tennis Expert. Bluedogtn and I have been accused of being connected before (see [Talk:WikiProject_Tennis], in the "Suggestions Anyone? section near the bottom) by Tennis Expert. I suggest looking there first. Alonsornunez (talk) 12:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no sufficient evidence that the listed accounts have engaged in sockpuppetry. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 12:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Peter Symonds ( talk ) 12:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

30 June 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

The editor in question willingly admitted to using multiple accounts. Looking through the contribution history of the user names listed, it appears that they started editing as Bluedogtn, then adopted the name SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow?, then The Gypsy Vagabond Man, then Agape101, then HotHat. However, looking through the history, they overlapped at some points. I do not know why this user operated more than one account, but I suspect that some deception was intended here. They admitted to paid editing, but stipulated that everything was done according to policy, and that because of the recent policy changes regarding paid editing, they are now leaving Wikipedia. I have actually worked with this editor for at least two years, probably three, and they gave no indication of the nature of their activities until today, when after a dispute with they became frustrated and revealed the multiple accounts. I'm not sure if this is actual socking activity, as I don't see a history of any blocks, and they tended to use the accounts one after the other chronologically and thus did not use them to bolster arguments and the like. But there does seem to be an intent to hide their contributions. &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 22:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

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

I first started editing Wikipedia in 2007 with IP addresses, then I started Bluedogtn to start to legitimate my activities on here, but I was not a nice person back in that day. So, I had a scorched earth policy to all of Wikipedia’s guidelines and policies, with the lone exception of being bold. This happened with regard to editor Thumperward and adding flagicons to governmental boxes, which the policy sited to me back then, was other stuff exists, and I hated it profusely. I was trying to match-up the United States ones to the Canadian ones for governmental officials’ offices. Then, it got worse with respect to other things associated to golf (with Tewapack and Wjemather) and tennis (with TennisExpert) because I was rather uncivil with them with regard to policies and procedures. So, I created a vast array of accounts with the word of Authority and TW-RF and TN-IS attached to piss them off at that time, which I did not understand was against policies, but remember that I had a scorched earth attitude towards Wikipedia at that time. Also, I used my ip addresses, which have changed over the years, to evade detection. This was also against policies. Then, I started other accounts after the Bluedogtn to evade detection, which was SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? and The Gypsy Vagabond Man to get onto a new start, but I still was that same bloody heathen bastard, who had an utter disregard for policies, so it did not work, and I was still a jackass. Something happened to me after attending church with a friend in November of 2011, which is why I started HotHat to do Christian music editing on here, and trying to follow policies and guidelines with Walter Gorlitz’s help and more recently 3family6. All this time being paid and sometimes unpaid editing, but that was no bother until just recently with respect to my job. So, I had to find a way to exit by July 1 in order to not report this to my boss about my account. I am in a high level security clearance position, so I cannot do any outside work without approval. Wikipedia recently changed their policy that was going to require me to disclose my identity, since I was paid, which I simply cannot do because the other job is the one that pays most of my bills. I realized this and became agitated and took it out on The Rambling Man. I am truly sorry to The Rambling Man for my recent misbehavior and accusations, which he had helped me oh so much on tennis and golf list nominations years ago. Fyunck(click) is correct that he is an exemplary editor. I really wanted to continue my pursuance of making more Christian music articles and following policies and guidelines like I did for Charmaine that Walter Gorlitz and 3family6 were helpful on the article and in the discussion. This is why it kills me to have to go, whenever I could not be paid and remain anonymous anymore. If I do come back it will be after a bunch of years because of the paid editing with regard to my current job. I cannot do any unpaid work right now that is the reason I terminated HotHat because I won’t remember the password in five to ten years. To show you that I care about your policies and guidelines and notability of stuff, I just recently nominated three Matt Maher albums for deletion that got deleted. I created them at the start of HotHat, but I did not understand NALBUMS, which is based on MUSICBIO, so I created them back in the day. I just wanted to follow the policies and guidelines spelled out by your encyclopedia, but then paid editing disclosures cropped up, so I became uncivil to The Rambling Man. By the way, I understand why Wikipedia did what it did, so I am gone now, peace at last to all.HotHat (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC) BLUE DOG TN 19:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Here are the accounts that I used in the timeframes,

I was a sock some four years ago, but I have been on the up-and-up ever since then, and I have been an above board Wikipedian, since I started my HotHat days, which if this old crap is enough to block all my accounts then so-be-it. In the long run, I think that I have done more help than harm to this encyclopedia with my creations with regards to tennis and season articles to reduce the size growths on the biographical articles and worked on numerous lists, and golf with the numerous tournament pages and lists particularly the women. I helped to codify the way tennis scores were presented, which is still in use today. I tried and failed on the Lindsey Vonn season article, but that got deleted. I should have titled Lindsey Vonn in 2010 to the 2010 Lindsey Vonn skiing season, but I was dumb at the time and did not understand scope, but I remedied it with 2010 Rafael Nadal tennis season. I started most of the early Roger Federer ones, and converted them to the new methodologies. Now lets get to HotHat and Cloverton that shows and proves that I changed my ways discussion, which it got deleted. Furthermore, I researched and created the RS list of Christian music, and did so with community assistance. I understood with HotHat to put the encyclopedia first before myself, which I did. Hard ass editors like my former self can change their ways, when they look at the person in the mirror. I am telling 100-percent of the truth, so I can be made whole again. LOVE! BLUE DOG TN 05:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)HotHat (talk) 05:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * October 17, 2007 - January 22, 2011 as Bluedogtn, while I was with this account TW-RF June 23, 2009 - May 21, 2010, also TN-IS September 21, 2009 - January 31, 2010
 * January 29, 2011 - September 1, 2011 as SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow?
 * September 7, 2011 - November 1, 2011 as The Gypsy Vagabond Man
 * November 6, 2011 - November 24, 2011 as Agape101
 * November 14, 2011 - June 30, 2014 as HotHat

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Although admission may be good for the soul and it's certainly possible the user has reformed, I don't think Wikipedia should tolerate the previous abuse. In addition, the user states he's leaving for good, so if that's true - and only time will tell - there's no harm, and if not, then the blocks assist if there's any future evidence of socking. I've blocked all the named accounts except TW-RF and TN-IS. Those are only two puppets that have not been used for any purpose, even to facilitate the admissions, since 2010. I've tagged all the blocked accounts but in a slightly schizoid fashion. The master is tagged as suspected as I see only that choice or the false representation that there's been a CU. The puppets, though, are tagged as "is" (confirmed parameter) not "suspected" because of the admissions. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

06 December 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

One of Bluedogtn's confirmed sock, User:HotHat liked to use a non-standard way of formatting genres, particularly in the lede. The editor would pipe long genre names into a shorter name and then hyphenate them such as Christian-folk. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Running_to_Follow&oldid=612318156 (shows the hyphenation) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crowder_%28musician%29&oldid=589584282 (merging genres) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Art_of_Celebration&oldid=602818135 (hyphenation again) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=City_Harbor&oldid=593723339 (both)

This editor made such an edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I_Will_Follow_%28album%29&oldid=636828106

I do not like blocking currently productive editors for past mistakes, but also recognize that there are rules. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely sure what "stale" means in this case. The edit by the suspected sock is from a short while ago and I gave you evidence to show the similarity. Is the case closed or not? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

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

This could be a repeat of, but the behavior doesn't look similar enough for me to suspect a connection. If they are that user, they've changed their editing habits significantly. I do want to make it clear that I did ask to monitor new accounts editing or creating music articles, particularly Christian music, after now-retired user  demonstrated remarkably similar editing habits to HotHat (focused on Christian music and tennis articles, created album articles consisting primarily of a critical reception section, which contain awkward prose and large amounts of quotes from reviews). The edits by The Hyphen are different, though.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 16:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The technical evidence for the past accounts is . Any findings will need to be decided on behavioral evidence. Mike V  •  Talk  06:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * When determining if an account is related to another through checkuser, the technical data needs to be compared. Technical data is only stored for a limited time, and in this case the past accounts have not made an edit or logged action recent enough for checkusers to compare against The Hyphen. This is what we refer to when calling the technical data "stale". The case is not closed, it's just that checkuser won't be of assistance. In regards to the behavioral evidence, I would encourage you to provide more diffs to support your argument. I don't feel that the evidence presented is strong enough to block the account right now. Mike V  •  Talk  07:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * After reviewing the edits, I have to agree with 3family6. I don't see enough behavioral evidence to make the connection. I'm closing this case with no action taken. Mike V  •  Talk  06:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)