Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Doxelary/Archive

15 September 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

User Kaletony (talk) created his/her account on 13 September 2014.

I asked Kaletony (talk) "you are apparently brand new to Wikipedia, yet amazingly you have mastered WP policy, jargon and formatting codes -- within 24 hours. Would you be willing to clarify whether you have ever edited WP under another username, or via an IP address? Are you a sock? Memills (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)  Diff

Kaletony (talk) responded, but did not address my question. However, in the explanation field of the response Kaletony stated: "I believe the preferred term is 'alternate account.'"  This appears to be an admission that Kaletony has more than one user account. Diff

I asked again Kaletony: "...an SPI would not be needed if you simply answered the question: Do you have more than one account? Per WP:Sock: "The general rule is one editor, one account."  You state here that 'I believe the preferred term is "alternate account'" which suggests that you have two accounts.  If you are using an alternative account, per WP:SOCK you should have links to each on both your  "...main and alternative account user pages, either informally or using the userbox templates made for the purpose." Linking the two accounts would obviate the need for an SPI.  Diff

Katetony responded with a taunting "Please stop badgering me. If you think I'm breaking some rule, take it to ANI, " but again did not address the question re multiple user accounts. Diff Memills (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

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

It appears that User:Kaletony is only here to stir the drama pot. The contribs list is small enough that only his talk page, Jimbo's and ANI have been edited. . It's interesting that the teahouse bot thought he dropped a note there or something and left a note on his talk page. Not sure if that's a UID recreation effect or some other artifact. Misread it as a "thank you" for teahouse edit. --DHeyward (talk) 01:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Kaletony has been indefinetly blocked by Drmies for 'obviously using an alternative account.'   I don't know what other alternative account(s) Kaletony has used, but one possibility, based on previous reliance on Wikipediocracy as a source, is User:Sonicyouth86. Memills (talk) 04:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It appears drmies may have blocked to thwart a SPI investigation based on his comments . The block is valid but please continue the SPI to identify whatever "irony" Drmies suspects.  I would find it disturbing that ganming the system in this fashion would thwart an obvious SPI checkuser.  I find it rather disturbing that the blocking admin has sympathy for protecting an alt account from disclosure.  --DHeyward (talk) 08:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, really. What have I done? Thwarted something? By blocking the editor? And who are you accusing of "gaming the system": me or Kaletony? I think,, you owe me an apology--you're making me an accessory to a crime because I left a friendly note for an editor after I blocked the account indefinitely? You'll make a great bureaucrat. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Me too. It think it is very important that the SPI team discover and identify the 'alternative account'(s) which Kaletony has now admitted to using  (yet in the edit explanation suggests that this is just "red herring," and, appealed unsuccessfully to lift the block).  Another possible 'alternative' account to investigate might be User:Kaldari who has admitted previously to sockpuppeting. Memills (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm only afraid of publicly criticizing Eric. I'm happy to publicly criticize gamers, men's rights activists, and other misogynists :) BTW, aren't you supposed to have some sort of evidence before accusing people of being sockmasters (besides Wikipediocracy discussions)? Kaldari (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what the alternative accounts might be, as I noted. And, I don't have the knowledge/means to find out.  But, I think it's important that the SPI team does.  Sorry, in advance, to any innocents caught in a net of suspicion.  Memills (talk) 21:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The account Kaletony was registered to do harrassing and outing like tieing a Wikipedia user to a Reddit account, mentioning his area of posting there and removal of his account one week ago (diff). This is rather serious and should warrant CheckUser even without guessing the suspects, should it not? --Pudeo' 01:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, that's me! I have a fan club! Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 04:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

(response to Bbb23): I cited the quote. Read it. Your interpretation may vary but please don't give orders. Drmies blocked on the presumption it was a sockpuppet so your reasoning that a Sock Puppet Investigation is unwarranted is specious without an accompanying unblock. Drmies statement is "I can't let you continue making such points under this account..... Listen, I wouldn't be surprised if you had invited CU already with your highly-visible edits, and hope this doesn't come back to bite you in the ass." My reading is that his block was done in a fashion that would prevent future edits that would invite more evidence for a SPI even though he already made the conclusion of an alt. What is your interpretation? --DHeyward (talk) 03:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * DHeyward, laid out the rules for how SPIs typically work. They are not fishing expeditions. If an editor wishes to file an SPI, they may do so--but they should present evidence and at least a suspicion of who it might be. That's all. That my block was done "to prevent future edits blah blah" is hogwash. If I wanted to somehow shield this person I could have emailed them to adopt a lower profile. I certainly wouldn't have blocked them. And CU probably doesn't need any more evidence than they can already glean from the dozen or so edits this person made. But, for next time, what do you want admins to do? Not block so they can go on with their disruptive edits and we can find more evidence, secretly? Drmies (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * My apologies for attaching a motivation to your action. That was not warranted. I read your comment as sympathetic to an obvious (and now confirmed) sock.  My reading of your comment was that you had at least a hint of familiarity who the sock might be along with concern about how socking might affect their future editing vis a vis "hope this doesn't come back to bite you in the ass." (I've never heard an admin be that concerned :) )  If that was not the case, I again apologize.  I read your comment as being more familiar than polite. I didn't mind the block at all as it was obvious and correct.  The lack of follow-up to SPI and the quick closure here by Bbb23 was frustrating - I've been around long enough to know how SPI's work and what's required.  I am not good at identifying sockpuppets but obvious sock is obvious so the bar is lower for exactly who is socking.  It seems obvious that hitting an account with an indef block for socking would require more information/evidence then a request for checkuser if you consider the normal sequence.  I didn't like the idea that an obvious sock could come in, stir the drama pot in a doxxing case and leave without much of a look and appeared that he was gaming the system with a wink and a nod.  Again my apologies for attributing a motivation as at the end of the day your action was to uphold policy and improve the project.  --DHeyward (talk) 03:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you . Drmies (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

BTW, the problem with your reasoning is that by invoking the block, the original account or IP may already be affected. Per WP:TRIGGER a SPI should be done and the results used to determine the fate of the editor in question. A block may unfairly stop a contributor without a proper investigation even if the alternate account/IP is unknown. --DHeyward (talk) 04:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I see that User:Memills is accusing User:Kaldari and me of socking. I urge Memills to start an SPI or reopen this SPI; I will gladly support it. Any user with CheckUser permissions is welcome to check me on a daily or hourly basis. Should Memills repeat his accusations against me and others, he'll be taken to AN/I faster than he can say "sorry". --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

After the checkuser investigation (below) Kaletony now admits creating User:Doxelary II, but effectively denies creating User:Doxelary. Diff. Memills (talk) 21:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I posted the CheckUser result to Sockpuppet investigations/Tutelary user comments section as well. It seems like it was useful and revealed the good hand-bad hand socks. Unfortunately, the main Wikipedia account of the sockmaster is unlikely to be revealed. --Pudeo' 01:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * This is getting strangerer and strangerer... Memills (talk) 02:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

, Regarding "None of that explains the contentions by just about everyone that Kaletony is not a new editor", User:Memills seems to already be probing the issue here at administrator 's talk. I agree with what several people have now said that it looks quite likely that multiple people knew Kaletony was not a new editor and in particular I agree with above that the familiar tone and initial administrative reaction to Kaletony's sockpuppetry has strong overtones of conflict of interest. It now sounds like Drmies may not have actually known the identity of the master account and was just being friendly, but given WP:ADMINACCT I'm sure Shirt58 will soon explain his comment: "I'm sure you know all the rules already, so instead of blocking you straight away..." and this whole sorry chapter can be closed. Given the similarity of the name "Kaletony" to "Kaldari," I suspect this may have been an attempt to sully Kaldari's name (just as Doxelary was used to sully Tutelary's) for some reason and that's simply unacceptable no matter whose side of the argument you are championing. -Thibbs (talk) 12:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. Apparently a very experienced WP user, likely well known to others, created socks to game WP.  And a couple of editors may have soon recognized the sock(s) for who the actual editor is.  Given what is now known about this rather bizarre gaming of WP, it is incumbent per WP:ADMINACCT that  share what he/she knows, or suspects, about what alternative accounts Kaletony has, or has had. Memills (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Normally, an SPI is opened with allegations that someone is a sock puppet of someone else. In addition, evidence in support of that relationship must be presented, or the SPI will generally be closed with no action. I understand that the editor has stated that he has alternate accounts and that others suspect that based on his behavior he is not new to Wikipedia. He was blocked by for that reason, as well as others, which are fairly obvious from Kaletony's editing style. BTW,, your comment about Drmies "thwarting" this SPI is uncalled for. Don't do it again. I'm closing this report with no further action.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Clerks could you please hold off on archiving this for a day or two. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I ran a check from Kaletony's unblock request and found that these two are ✅ to one another:
 * Remembering that I had seen a similar username here, I ran a check and found that it is bordering on  that  is the same as the two above.
 * Now, as for who they really are, I don't really know, and I won't be running any checks on evidence based on what website someone uses as a source. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That is the crux of the problem. We've found two accounts, one of which has no edits, and the other one recent edit. None of that explains the contentions by just about everyone that Kaletony is not a new editor. I'm not going to tag any of these, either, as no matter how you look at it, Kaletony is not the master. Doxelary was created first on September 12. Doxelary was created on September 13 at 23:46. Kaletony was created on September 13 at 23:49.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Now, as for who they really are, I don't really know, and I won't be running any checks on evidence based on what website someone uses as a source. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That is the crux of the problem. We've found two accounts, one of which has no edits, and the other one recent edit. None of that explains the contentions by just about everyone that Kaletony is not a new editor. I'm not going to tag any of these, either, as no matter how you look at it, Kaletony is not the master. Doxelary was created first on September 12. Doxelary was created on September 13 at 23:46. Kaletony was created on September 13 at 23:49.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * All three accounts are blocked, and I don't see any point leaving this open as a forum for speculation, so I'm closing it now. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm going to archive this report but not until I thank for his lovely apology to Drmies. Kudos.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)