Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brimay1976/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Brimay1976 made edits to the 60 Days In article which included "where are they now" type updates to people who participated in the show. When reverted, despite explanation as to why those types of updates are not valid and given examples of other articles which went through the same issues, user created a second account with a near identical name to an essay on my talk page in an attempt to insult. When instructed that the article's talk page is a place to reach consensus on something they disagree with, another essay followed, as well as more insults. While there hasn't been a direct editing conflict using both accounts, one account seems to be used for edits and another for arguing. NJZombie (talk) 00:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

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

brimay76 here. For context, I've never before edited for wikipedia or had a user account, and I probably never will again. I'm not even sure that replying here in the manner I am is the correct course of action; if it's not, I can live with it. This isn't my life.

Both user names are definitely mine but I didn't realize that I created two usernames. I recall trying to log in to brimay1976 and being told that the username wasn't available or the password was invalid or something that prevented me from logging in, so I created brimay76. I just don't recall the details of the creation of both accounts because it wasn't important to me. I can't imagine what nefarious activity one would use to create these two accounts, but I guess that pointing it out makes NJZombie feel smart, so congratulations to him - someone who's account was less than 24 hours old made a mistake. Great job, buddy, we're all very impressed.

I don't have time to put together references. My life is worth living and I don't do it here trolling new users on wikipedia. I'm going to explain the situation and I couldn't care less what anyone does from here.

NJZombie's account of the exchange is intentionally dishonest. I made the edits. He undid them. I redid the edits and tried to be tactful. He responded with condescension. I contacted him on his userpage to try to open a dialog. He again responded with condescension. I ended by telling him that he's him he's a lazy editor and I told him to enjoy his friendless, pointless life. He then spent probably an hour of his life trying to get me banned from a page that I never before touched and probably never will again. I do regret the comment about his friendless, pointless life because I actually do hope that he someday figures out how to find friends and purpose in his life. I don't regret telling him he's a lazy editor because it's accurate and not a personal attack against him as long as he understands that his identity as a person is not based upon the quality of his editing here on wikipedia. That said, if he doesn't want his work to be regarded as lazy, the solution is for him to stop doing lazy work.

Ultimately, I respectfully explained to NJZombie that his edits were in violation of the website policy, He didn't review all of the edits (as demonstrated by the fact that his explanation does not match the stated reason), he wouldn't discuss them, and he admits he didn't review my attempt at civil discussion with him. He's put 10 times more energy into complaining about me than he put into his edits on my work; he'll have to decide for himself if that's an indication that he needs to make changes in his personal life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brimay76 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - There is enough evidence to block for good-hand, bad-hand, for splitting activity (& contribution history) between the article & NJZombie's talk page, and for not properly declaring alternate accounts. On the other hand the choice of usernames, &, don't seem intended to deceive. Brimay[19]76, please explain your actions & intentions for the two accounts. [I'm confining this to the sockpuppetry, the personal attacks are another issue] Cabayi (talk) 09:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * - OK, it looks like I'm not going to manage to wind this up without looking at behaviour...
 * , your first edit under your second account was extremely passive-aggressive, "While I don’t get the sense that you are open minded, I am." Also, speculation about NJZombie's off-wiki life has no place on-wiki. The policies to be civil and to assume good faith are not optional. They are core (WP:5P) to maintaining a collegial atmosphere in which we can create an encyclopedia.
 * Since you've responded as Brimay76, and say you can't access Brimay1976, there's no need to take any action. If you ever rediscover the password to Brimay1976, please lose it again. Misusing two accounts may be accidental once, but only once.
 * , responding to a new user in your edit-summaries while you're deleting their postings is not part of the WP:BRD cycle. In fact, while it's allowed, deleting discussions is seldom a good move - Help:Archiving a talk page.
 * Using uw-agf-sock would have been a better, and less confrontational, way of handling this.
 * Both: m:Don't be a jerk, self-apply WP:TROUT as necessary.
 * Closing, Cabayi (talk) 11:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)