Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bozzio/Archive

04 June 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Both are fighting to change the same name. Bozzio was blocked temporarily for edit warring, and now Bruciekin is fighting the same fight, for the same name, on the same page. --Airplane Maniac (talk) 00:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Cyberduck icon.png It looks like a duck to me, both editors have did the same violation of MOSIDENTITY.


 * this edit appears to be an insult to the athlete, presumably relating to her identity as a trans woman while this edit shows the athlete as "Bruce" Jenner. See also this. The Snowager -is awake  04:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
. In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
 * 1) At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
 * 2) At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
 * 3) In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 7 days have passed. Evidence in the form requested by was not provided. Closing this.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  22:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Per below. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * While investigating some very inappropriate logged-out editing, I discovered several accounts. In addition to the ✅ CheckUser result for them all, the master and first account have a large amount of overlap in their editing. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Closing. GABgab 00:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

High overlap with sockpuppets, as well as similar edit summaries. For example, compare "better image" to "better image", "swap infobox image..." to "swap infobox image...". There's also the overlap: http://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=+Ivar+the+Boneful+&users=IgnorantArmies&users=Bozzio&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki. Some of these pages are more popular, some more obscure. For example, take Mark LeCras. Sockmaster, sockpuppet, and Ivar the Boneful. I think a more compelling instance would be on List of people who have opened the Olympic Games. Last year, the sockmaster removed instances of William Deane representing Elizabeth II in this list. This year, Ivar the Boneful did more or less the same thing.

I believe that all past sockpuppets have gone stale. Sro23 (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

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

I have not abused multiple accounts ... I did have an account under my real name, but I only used it briefly and haven't edited with it for awhile because I decided I didn't want to edit with my real name. I don't want my identity to be linked with this account so if an admin wishes to block it could they please contact me through email rather than on a Wikipedia public page. Just to reiterate I haven't used it for any sockpuppetry. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 09:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * What brought my attention to this SPI case is that Ivar the Boneful restored category edits made by now-confirmed and blocked sock of, (Sockpuppet investigations/JP8077).  This category (Category:Converts from Christianity to agnosticism or atheism) is considered inappropriate and is being discussed for deletion.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 13:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * This is ridiculous ... any other accounts people want to accuse me of being? You guys are focusing on like three of the hundreds of articles I've edited. (1) User talk:GoodDay explains why I edited there, (2) Mark LeCras is not "obscure", he is a famous footballer in Australia who was in the news for passing a milestone, so I updated the article, and (3) I came across Category:Converts from Christianity to agnosticism or atheism because it was added and removed to articles on my watchlist ... I thought it was an appropriate category and I didn't realise it was created by a banned user. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that it had been created by a banned user either at the time. When I noticed the category changes it was also because of my watchlist.  That it was a coincidence is credible.  As for the other suspected puppetry (this own SPI case) I have no opinion, except that I admit finding suspect when the very first edits a user makes appear to be that of an experienced editor.  On the other hand, having used previous accounts which have been completely abandoned is allowed and sometimes explains this; some also previously edited on other sites using the Wikimedia software.  While I didn't file this SPI case, I hope checkuser fails, in which case I apologize and wish you happy editing.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 17:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
As filer I'm going to withdraw this. I'm re-reading what I said and my reasoning doesn't make much sense. I think I also noticed the user restoring a banned sockpuppet's edits plus the interaction report and was quick to assume sockpuppetry; at the time it didn't seem like this was the user's first account. However, we are supposed to assume good faith, and sockpuppetry isn't the only reason for this. They may have had prior experience editing as an IP, or maybe they simply catch on how things work quickly. This SPI has gone horribly wrong and I would like to offer my apologies. Sro23 (talk) 01:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)