Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cactusjackbangbang/Archive

14 January 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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


 * 1) There appears to be a sockfarm going after, possible purposes of trolling involved here.
 * 2) Compare very similar edits removing large chunks of material from exact same page by above accounts: Yaktaur, The The Fool on the Hill, IP address noted above, and also account Cactusjackbangbang.
 * 3) account first edited 7 January 2015 -- yet somehow knows how to start AFDs on two (2) quality articles worked on by, at at Articles for deletion/2012 tour of She Has a Name and Articles for deletion/Critical response to She Has a Name.
 * "somehow knows how"? The directions are fairly straightforward and easily accessible, publicly, on one of the most well-trafficked sites on the internet. Also, I do not understand how a recent account somehow precludes familiarity with Wikipedia. The articles I nominated for deletion deserve nomination for deletion, hence my doing so (note also that I am far from alone in sharing this view, as evidenced by the deletion request discussion for both). I might just as well accuse you of "sockpuppeting" for this neelix editor. Cactusjackbangbang (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) According to there are about 15-20 accounts involved in the sockfarm diff.
 * 2) Please investigate this harassment of a quality contributor and WP:FA writer, thank you. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: Wow, there's possibly a lot more going on here, please see Sockpuppet investigations/Johnnydowns/Archive. at that case page Sockpuppet investigations/Johnnydowns/Archive had previously asked for diffs. I've not yet looked into that other case but I've given diffs above linking the users named above. Checkusers, please also have a look at the accounts named at Sockpuppet investigations/Johnnydowns/Archive in addition to above. They may possibly be all involved in an organized harassment campaign against . Thank you. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: The article that all those above-named accounts were removing large chunks of material from -- was brought to WP:GA quality, by . DIFF, DIFF, DIFF, DIFF. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Account -- first edit 6 January 2015. Creates one-line-long-userpage which turns userpage from redlink to blue, DIFF. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Compare with, which was listed at Sockpuppet investigations/Johnnydowns/Archive. Both geolocate to similar location, both have history of pursuing edits following quality contributions made by . &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Added one, Johnnydowns, to above list of suspected socks. Same exact article, same pattern of targeting article previously improved in quality to WP:GA by, please see DIFF. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Johnnydowns, zero edits for three (3) years LINK. Returns on 2 January 2015 to an article being edited by . Same day, creates his userpage with one-line-long-userpage, turning userpage link from red to blue, see DIFF. Compare with one-line-long-userpage creation by, as noted, above. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * = one-line-user-page-creation.
 * = one-line-user-page-creation. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Compare action of nomination of Ron Wear article for deletion DIFF, with  action at that deletion discussion DIFF. This was the fourth (4th) total edit by that account, ever. LINK. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * = edits article page with same phrase "bang bang" as user has in username, see DIFF and DIFF. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Quick recap of account : Fourth (4th) edit ever to Wikipedia: Comments on a deletion discussion on article contributed by Ron Wear DIFF (AFD previously started by ). 6th edit to Wikipedia: arrives at another deletion discussion on article contributed by  2012 tour of She Has a Name DIFF. 12th edit to Wikipedia: account creates one-line-long-userpage: DIFF. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * This is a clear coordinated attack on Neelix for some reason, either a sock or meat farm. The accounts are focused around disrupting Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant, Tara Teng, She Has a Name, and related articles. These articles are not related at all other than Neelix being a primary editor. -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "These articles are not related at all other than Neelix being a primary editor." I can't speak for the restaurant article, which I don't believe I have edited, but the articles I flagged for deletion, along with the Tara Teng page, are absolutely related to each other by way of the topic of abolitionism in Canada. Cactusjackbangbang (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The disruption has also extended to Ron Wear, another Neelix article nominated for deletion by one of the above-listed IPs. The Jdh9 account was created on 1/5, and voted on the Neelix-related AfDs within their first few edits., -- Laser brain   (talk)  17:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It is very hard to believe that a new user would start editing by creating an AfD. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not "start editing" by creating a deletion request. While I did not register for an account until recently, I am not a "new user" to Wikipedia, 14 years old today and one of the most popular sites in the world.Cactusjackbangbang (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Likewise, I find it strange that a presumably experienced editor would revert all edits I made to the Tara Teng page, which were supervised and approved by another, more experienced editor, without indicating any reason for doing so other than "suspected sockpuppetry." These edits were made in good faith, and your failure to indicate what was problematic about any of them at all is dictatorial and insulting. If pages curated by longstanding editors are exempt from critique or editing by newer editors, than there isn't much of a place for new editors on such a supposedly collaborative platform.Cactusjackbangbang (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If that is a reference to my involvement, I approve of most of your edits, they seemed a good start to a discussion of what should be in the article. That is not the same as approving them, or approving of all of them.  It was remiss of me to not quickly revert the ones I opposed.  I did suspect Yaktaur may be a sockpuppet, but did not report as edits appeared clumsy but not malicious.  Millionmice (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, I am not a sockpoppet and do not know what a meat farm is, I just thought the Tara Teng page was terrible and was a stain on wikipedia. Feel free to change it all back, but I think it's much better now and am a real human being not a sock puppet Yaktaur (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, just to be clear, I am not associated with any other username listed on this page. Please back up your claims before accusing me of harassment. What edits have I made on Wikipedia that are unacceptable and why? What articles nominated for deletion have been met with broad hostility? Cactusjackbangbang (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Good to see that this activity is being looked into. I would like to see that the AfDs related to this SPI be put on hold pending the investigation; specifically 2012 tour of She Has a Name, Critical response to She Has a Name and Ron Wear. Can this be done? --Wolbo (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Can someone maybe head to my talk page and explain what a sock puppet investigation is and why I'm being included in this? I've read this page a few times and am still incredibly confused. As pointed out, I am new to Wikipedia and have no clue what's going on. I haven't even touched any of the articles in question beyond participating in talk pages (mostly to learn how that whole process works; maybe I got overzealous since I like to argue?) and have mostly stuck to low-stakes Wiki pages to get used to editing. Apologies if anything I did seemed suspicious but I really don't understand what's going on or why I am included in this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdh9 (talk • contribs)
 * Okay, I just checked back in and saw one of the pieces of evidence was that I edited the Comedy Bang Bang page and the sockpuppet guy has the words "bang bang" in his username. Guys, Comedy Bang Bang is an incredibly popular comedy podcast (and television show) and if that's what's being used to toss me into this, that might be the most insane thing I've ever seen. Also add to this two of the other pages I've worked on are directly related (You Made it Weird with Pete Holmes and Scott Aukerman). And the fact that not one person who keeps adding my name to this has had the decency to actually, you know, address me directly or answer questions I've posed. This is ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdh9 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been mulling this over for the last couple of days, but I'm going to say this, then hush. I have to say that all article edits I looked at were good faith that could be backed up with policies such as WP:BLP and WP:DUE. They might not all be quality edits, but I can't see anything wrong for them being made. An 18K biography is obviously smaller than a 70K one but that doesn't mean it violates the GA criteria, particularly the "focused" part. There has obviously been motivation for this flurry of editing, maybe Tara Teng has complained somewhere about the excess detail in her article (and it wouldn't be the first time the subject of a BLP complained, would it?), but ultimately the editors tackled the material with civility and following policy as best they could given their inexperience. The AfDs have been handled by experienced editors in good faith and discussed on their own merits, as they should. Rather than hitting these newcomers with a large banhammer, shouldn't we encourage them to go and tackle the many other BLPs that are nowhere near GA standard and have serious problems? It sounds like a great way to recruit new editors. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * All good comments at face value, sure. All not reasons to excuse sockpuppetry. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that one editor making these changes is fine, and Neelix should be expected to handle it like any other content dispute. But a sock farm designed to create the appearance that a dozen people want these changes is not fine. -- Laser brain  (talk)  17:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I don't have time at the moment to look at the evidence. I will note only in passing, in particular if a CU is done, that Cactusjackbangbang is not even close to being the oldest account. Johnnydowns is much older (2010 v. 2015), but the oldest listed account is The The Fool on the Hill (2007). I'm not going to do anything procedurally about that, though, until it's sorted out.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Checkusers will sometimes use the newest most-recently-active account as the sockmaster name, for that one might have the most recent Checkuser technical information. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have never seen such an argument. Obviously, CUs can only use non-stale accounts, but the naming of the master is always based on the age of the account. Although it's not relevant to the issue, as I recall from looking at the accounts yesterday, none of the accounts is stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Understood,, no worries. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

. I'm taking the easy way out and endorsing a CU based on the original report, which had very little evidence, this report, which has more, and 's comments. , you really should go to bed before you pass out. Not good for your health. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hawkeye asked me to take a look at this, so take a look I have. Precisely what the hell is going on here I have no idea, but something is rotten in the state of Denmark. There is considerable overlap between the editing interests of all the accounts. What it boils down to is that all have removed the same content or reverted the same edits across three or four different articles, and the connection between the articles seems to be their primary contributor. It's possible that there's more than one person behind all this, but my gut instinct, like Hawkeye's, Cirt's Laser brain's, tells me that there are not as many people as accounts involved here. I've blocked one account that was clearly created with the sole purpose of making these edits and another was blocked before I got to this. While I'm well aware of the limitations of the checkuser tool, I think we need a technical investigation to help us get to the bottom of this. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Pinging a couple of clerks: and some CUs I've worked with in the past:  Any assistance nay of you could offer would be appreciated. I'm not a clerk, but I do believe there is enough similarity between the accounts to justify a check. Even "magic 8-ball says you're on your own" or a finding that the accounts are technically unrelated would be something to work from. Thanks,  HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Shit, I did tell you yesterday that I'd look at it, but I ended up passing out in bed earlier than expected. I will, once again, plan on looking at this tonight if no other clerk has by then. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  22:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * After skimming it, I was leaning to endorse also, but didn't feel it was responsible for me to do so until I had actually read everything. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  23:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm closing the report based on the CU finding. That doesn't prevent administrators from blocking users based on other reasons. Because I didn't record it before, for cross-reference see Sockpuppet investigations/Johnnydowns. I'm not going to merge them because of my comments above about the ages of the accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've completed the check, and technically the accounts are ❌. PhilKnight (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And what about the non-technical evidence, ? Also, what about this latest IP disruptive edit? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The latest IP geolocates to Denver, Colorado, and the other IPs geolocate to various locations in North America. PhilKnight (talk) 23:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I see PhilKnight has already reviewed this, so I'll just add that I trust his analysis. The article in question has definitely been the subject of discussion elsewhere, but that does not mean that the edits are co-ordinated; the analysis of them above seems pretty thorough. Risker (talk) 04:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks everyone. whatever's going on here, it's not socking, so it might be best to ask for outside input at ANI. There's not much moe that can be done at SPI.  HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, per your recommendation I've started an ANI thread at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Per my experience sometimes it seems like nothing concrete happens from ANI threads, , so I'd most appreciate it if you could have a look there, investigate further, and see if something can be done about this meatpuppetry that's unfortunately driven a Featured Article writer off this website. Thank you, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , I've added more to the above list DIFF, that might give you some more technical information to go on. If you were up for doing another re-check, it'd be most appreciated. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * One of the new IPs is from the Netherlands, the rest are scattered accross North America. PhilKnight (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, as evidence shows, above, we have some new users creating one-line-long userpages, others with zero edits for three (3) years cropping up, all to wikihound and unfortunately this drove him off Wikipedia entirely. There is a clear pattern here. These edits are seemingly coordinated. Any additional help with this would be appreciated. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The only reason I haven't archived this case is because technically the clerk who closes shouldn't archive it, and I closed it. That said, you were told to go to ANI. You went to ANI. You got some assistance. You've been told to give up on the SPI part, and yet you keep posting to this SPI. Please stop (not to mention that you're not even supposed to edit in this section). Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Understood. Will do. I'm done here. Thank you for your assistance. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)