Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bouket/Archive

19 June 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Same writing style Both seem to be picking similar fights with User:Beyond My Ken. Guy Macon (talk) 08:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Both editors have the same writing styles, the most glaringly obvious one is not using caps when starting a sentence - Bouket random sample 1, 2, 3, 4 and JJB random sample 1, 2, 3, 4. There's a ton of other similarities but the most obvious clue is the sentiment from Bourket "i started editing because this site has such a bad reputation but has so much potential i wanted to see if i could help" is pretty much exactly the same as JJB's over 5 months later "i started editing because even though my friends said its a bad site, and always wrong, maybe i can help make it better.".
 * Bouket hasn't edited since April 9th 2012, and wasn't under a block or ban. JJB created the account on 24th April and didn't start editing until 13th May.  So there's no overlap of edits.
 * The evidence that the two accounts are operated by the same person is overwhelming and compelling. But it's not against policy to operate multiple accounts, and there's no evidence that the second JJB account will be used disruptively in the future.
 * It would be best if JJB came clean about his old account and acknowledges it, especially as he hasn't actually broken any policies in this matter. I would recommend that he either closed the old account down, and/or link the User and Talk pages from the old to the new.  --HighKing (talk) 00:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This response by JohnJeaneBartiste, which is discussing this edit, raised my suspicions that some subtle trolling was going on but I let it pass AGF. In view of the other evidence, I now think that 61.8.251.126 should be added to the investigation.  If this IP is indeed a sock of JJB then there is definitely blockable disruption here.  Spinning  Spark  00:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @DoRD: The abuse is the continuation of Bouket's subtle harrassment of myself. A glance at Bouket's talk page will show that he was warned by three admins (Drmies, Toddst1 and Dougweller) about following me around or getting involved in discussions concerning me where he was not a party, and further that continuing the behavior would result in a block. JJB continues the same behavior as Bouket, so if they are the same (as I firmly believe) this falls under the sockpuppetry rules against using a new ID to avoid scrutiny. Clearly:


 * Bouket is warned he will be sanctioned if he does X
 * Bouket=JJB
 * JJB does X
 * JJB needs to be sanctioned.


 * (Further, there is no evidence in their contributions that this person is here to build an encyclopedia.  This low-key po-faced trolling is their raison d'etre. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * hi, i don't know what to say. i never followed ken around, he followed me around. i edited the cleavage page. i had never edited a page he edited before. when he saw that, he went through my history presuming i am bouket and reverted most of my edits. even if i am bouket, i don't think this is acceptable, is it? i did NOT follow him around. if i DID - BEFORE i asked about it on the help desk, and before he reverted all of my edits, can this please be presented? here are the histories for four pages which he followed me to and had never edited on, and reverted my changes:    . this was OUR VERY FIRST interaction. does ken have a history of accusing people of being the same person with no evidence? i didn't even talk to him before he assumed he knew who i was. i don't want to bother beyond my ken. i just want to edit, but he reverted all of my edits. that is all. also those ip edits are from a long time ago editing morgan downey's page. and from singapore. i'm not from singapore. i prefer to not say where i am from. i thought wikipedia is supposed to protect privacy, but now i am being accused of being this IP person as well as this bouket person, who i assume ken knows the identity of? but this is a distraction. ken is the one who started all of this by reverting my edits. i never followed him around. that is clear from my links above. JohnJeanBartiste (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think Bouket is stale, so a CU might be useful here. (It might even dredge up someother sleepers, I dunno.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikistalk of Bouket and JJB]: Aptronym and Immigrant generations in common. Considering that Bouket has 374 edits, and JJB has 57, this is well beyond coincidence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * i see all three of us have edited those pages. those are not common pages? you and i have more in common according to your tool.  but ok, i did not realize we edited more in common. so you thought i was stalking you then? you should have said so and did something then instead of reverting all my changes with no explanation. right? JohnJeanBartiste (talk) 05:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Beyond My Ken has edits to 11,203 different pages.] Bouket has edits to 144 pages  and JJB has edits to 17 pages . This means that the overlap of 2 pages between Bouket and JJB is statistically significant, while JJB's overlap with me is not -- especially when you consider that my edits the overkapping pages were undoing your mischief, while your edits to your overlap with Bouket reflect the commonality of your interests, because you are the same person. (You may as well give up on denying that, everyone here agrees on it.  The only question at this point is whether you have been abusively using multiple accounts or not.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * can you please go over the reversions i posted above and explain how they are mischief? JohnJeanBartiste (talk) 06:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, per WP:DENY Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * those edits were not vandalism. you can't claim they were vandalism and then if someone asks you why say WP:DENY can you? then you can undo anyone's edit and claim it's vandalism. in one thing you undid you put back in someone's fake death date. in another you undid a link back to an article that linked to that article, i made it two way. i think you have to explain why you reverted the edits. JohnJeanBartiste (talk) 06:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I posted a comment at 6:33, and three minutes later, at 6:36, you post a reply, in which you know precisely what WP:DENY means. It reminds me a lot of Bouket, who wandered around Wikipedia claiming to be a clueless newbie, but suddenly knew what WP:IPAT was. . (I've been here since 2005, and I didn't know what it was!) This is the problem when veteran sockpuppeting editors try to masquerade as innocent newbies, they just aren't good enough actors to prevent themselves from inadvertantly disclosing their intimate knowledge of Wikipedia's byways.  They pride themselves on knowing how to manipulate the processes to their advantage, but they inevitably slip up and show how much they actually know behind their veneer of cluelessness. Anyway, it's been fun chatting with you, JJB, but this is my last comment here.  If there's any sanity in this crazy Wiki-world, you'll be blocked as the sockpuppeting troll you obviously are, but it doesn't matter all that much to me.  You're just an insignificant bump in the road on the way to helping to improve the encyclopedia, and while one may (temporarily) curse the bump when one is passing over it, as long as one keeps moving forward, it's no big deal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * it is not hard to read a link you provide. the summary is at the top. it doesn't apply obviously. i am replying quickly because i am really surprised at what is happening. and because when i didn't do that, a lot happened before. but i can see you are really saying all these accusations to avoid explaining why you started this fight in the first place with me. because it was you who reverted all of my edits with no explanation, and you claim they are vandalism, but they were clearly not, and you reverting them is closer to vandalism. i can't believe you think this is fun, but now i understand maybe why you pick this fight. i think i will leave wikipedia anyway. you have avoided explaining it in a very clever way. you know what i just noticed. you only edited 2 pages in common with bouket. why do you claim he was stalking you? but you won't answer that which is good, you leave a lot of unanswered questions and just say nasty things. i am very fed up. JohnJeanBartiste (talk) 07:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * wow i thought you meant when you said you would not update more, so i reply, but then i go to watchlist and i see you updated over 30 minutes later, and you just change something so that it looks like my reply is crazy . this is too much. you will probably say that is too smart a thing to notice for me, but it's easy. JohnJeanBartiste (talk) 07:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * can i ask spinningspark what he means by trolling? what does he think i wanted to do if i'm all three of those people? why would i put in a fake death date? and then remove it? JohnJeanBartiste (talk) 05:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

My thanks to DoRD for the block(s), and Guy Macon for filing this SPI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * It is fairly obvious that these accounts are operated by the same person, but apart from not linking the accounts, there doesn't appear to be any abuse. In any case, I've left a message for JohnJeanBartiste and am awaiting their comments. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * you think i am both bouket and the guy in singapore? JohnJeanBartiste (talk) 05:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Clarification: My comment above was made prior to the IP address being added to the case. Also, by "abuse", I am only referring to a violation of WP:SOCK. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * After being prompted by another admin, I have decided to block JJB for being a sock. Apologies to all involved for the long delay. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)