Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hop on Bananas/Archive

13 October 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

The vicious personal attacks removed by diff were added with this edit by the user (diff). The passion of this apparently new user (517 edits) about and familiarity with process, templates and protection thereof make it clear this is not a new user, but rather a user who is so vested in content organization and deletion that they can't help but sock. Elvey(t•c) 15:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Bbb23: Please explain your evaluation and dissatisfaction with the evidence of sock puppetry presented. "Fishing" is to check an account where there is no credible evidence to suspect sock puppetry. Checks are inappropriate unless there is evidence suggesting abusive sock-puppetry. For example, it is not fishing to check an account where the alleged sockmaster is unknown, but there is reasonable suspicion of sock puppetry, and a suspected sock-puppet's operator is sometimes unknown until a CheckUser investigation is concluded. (Note: It breaks the flow of conversation, but apparently, even replies go here?) --Elvey(t•c) 17:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Bbb23: Please more fully explain your evaluation and dissatisfaction with the evidence of sock puppetry presented. Again (with new emphasis added to show the contradiction more clearly) policy states : "Fishing" is to check an account where there is no credible evidence to suspect sock puppetry. Checks are inappropriate unless there is evidence suggesting abusive sock-puppetry. For example, it is not fishing to check an account where the alleged sockmaster is unknown, but there is reasonable suspicion of sock puppetry, and a suspected sock-puppet's operator is sometimes unknown until a CheckUser investigation is concluded.


 * How do you see your decline as being in accord with that policy? Or don't you care?--Elvey(t•c) 19:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

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

I'd like to know why I was suspected. The RV of attacks was a mistake (there was an edit conflict with the bot, so I just copypasted my edits, including the attacks). If another user reverted them, that would be suspicious, but in this case the reverter and original editor were the same. Is reverting bad edits typical of puppets (and if so, why)? As mentioned in the OP, a check of my edit history (here and on Commons) reveals that I know more about image use, templates, deletion nominations, copyright/fair use policies, etc. than you'd expect. Hop on Bananas (talk) 20:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I find this request strange. First, why was the request advertised at Templates for discussion/Log/2015 October 12? Whenever I create an SPI request, I try to avoid advertising it too much as others knowing of the request may be detrimental to the accused user's reputation, should the user turn out to be innocent. By advertising the request at TFD, the request draws the attention of users who would otherwise not have discovered the request. I, for example, would not have found out about the request unless it had been advertised there. Secondly, the nominator fails to specify why he thinks that the user is abusing multiple accounts. The user may or may not be using multiple accounts (I have no idea), but is there any abuse involved? The provided diffs do not suggest any abuse, not to me at least. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
. .--Bbb23 (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't check an account just because someone suspects they are a sock puppet. Unless you have a master and evidence, there's nothing to do here.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * First, keep your comments civil. If you don't, I'll revert any further posts you make to this SPI. Second, it's rare for us to check an account just because someone suspects them of socking, particularly when their reasons have to do with familiarity with various things at Wikipedia that the filer claims means they must be a sock. So, that said, if you prefer me to phrase my decline differently tracking the CheckUser policy language, your suspicion that this user is a sock is not reasonable. And that's an end to it.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)