Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Huggums537/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Very convenient back-and-forth stemming from a content dispute at Star Wars Holiday Special, where Huggums immediately showed up on the IP's talk page to support them, accused me wildly of anti-IP prejudice, and the IP stopped editing entirely during this time, then Huggums made exactly 3 reverts (templating me condescendingly in the process), while both IP and Huggums seem Talk page-averse, then Huggums stops editing and the IP re-appears to make the same edits and the same threats as Huggums makes, JesseRafe (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Forgot to add the diffs when first posting; one contributing reason I thought this was sockpuppetry is, in addition to convenient timeline, the content of the edit summaries, to wit: the use of an all caps adverbial numeral, cf. IP "ONCE" and Huggums "TWICE". JesseRafe (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * To reiterate: this comparison of edit summaries shows only one single coincidental example of similar usage of all caps adverbial numerals, while more detailed comparison of edit summaries will reveal that the IP user often does not begin the sentence with capitalisation and often ends it with exclamatory punctuation, where I extremely rarely do these things. Also, the IP often does not leave a summary, whereas I usually do. IP edit summaries compared to my edit summaries. Either there was an extremely negligent job of finding evidence to make this report, or it was just made out of spite and this is merely grasping at straws for the appearance of validity. Huggums537 (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * This is just a personal attack born out of resentment for the fact that I stood up for an IP user and that I had to warn the user multiple times for disruptive edit warring as can be seen here and here. It should also be noted that the party alleging these claims was was equally unwilling to use the talk page [it was over 30 min. after they opened this investigation when they finally started the discussion] and single handedly far exceeded the 3RR rule all the while accusing others of being "combative edit warriors". At any rate, this is merely a case of a user abusing their privileges to intimidate an IP user and be disruptive then try this personal attack on me as my reward for intervening. I wish to make these statements based on the guidance that "If an accusation on this page is "bad faith" (an editor making a fake case for an "attack" or to prevent their own editing being examined) then you may wish to say so briefly...". That is all I really have to say since I'm confident you will find absolutely no evidence of sock puppetry from me. (I can't speak for the other IP user). I have always edited from my own registered account (sometimes logged in on different devices, but still logged in from my own registered account). Thanks for your consideration. Huggums537 (talk) 04:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In addition, the user has made BLP violations about me on their talk page here and the article talk page here These are baseless defamatory remarks that have been unsubstantiated, therefore BLP violations. (Possibly other places I'm unaware of as well) Huggums537 (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have also recently become aware that the accusing editor has also been engaged in apparent canvassing of another editor (AdamDeanHAll) to rally support for this attack as demonstrated here by this diff. Huggums537 (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, I would like to mention CLCStudent since this user can verify that I was not the only one who noticed registered users (JesseRaffe and AdamDeanHall) were abusing their privileges to intimidate this IP user as evidenced by CLCStudent's edit here and the IP users short talk page history here. Huggums537 (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * My word you are tedious! I don't know where to begin. You are uncivil and condescending to say nothing of downright wrong and you don't even care. You aren't covered by BLP under any stretch and you are certainly not the one being "slandered" by this absurd tirade, I am. You are wantonly accusing me of intimidating an IP (which is obviously you) just for removing a bad edit. This is beyond the pale of uncivil and a flagrant assumption of bad faith. I only pinged AdamDeanHall because he was the one to add "Disney" (another obviously baseless thing you accused me of doing, pages have histories, FYI), to see if he had sources. You said there were no sources but you/IP removed the sources, you're something else! I didn't add them initially because refs don't go in the infobox. Simple as that. Per BRD you/IP should have made a case why this should be removed, not insisting we break the MOS for your whim as, again, cites don't go in infoboxes so saying it's uncited is moot. That's why I restored the content undone by you/IP's edits. And you call that intimidation? JesseRafe (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It should be noted above that my accuser continued to make reference to "you/IP" no less than 3 more times in spite of the fact that I just got through expressing my desire to not be referred to in such a defamatory way when the claim has never been substantiated (not to mention my asking to strike the comment on the article talk page). Anyone can clearly see this as intentionally attempting to provoke someone. Only, it failed just as before. (I just want investigators to see exactly what they are dealing with here.) Huggums537 (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Tedious? I'm as thorough as I possibly can be when defending myself against a blatant personal attack. "You aren't covered by BLP under any stretch" is a perfect demonstration of your own refusal to be civil and remove defamatory remarks about me (which haven't yet been substantiated) from public talk pages. "This absurd tirade" (backed up with actual evidence while you just continue to spout off at the mouth go on talking without providing any) is a result of your own choice to slander me with false accusations. "You are wantonly accusing me of intimidating an IP" After a period of 8 days Dec4-12 where nobody edited the article, you posted a frivolous vandalism warning on the IP users talk page after only 1 BRR. I'd say that qualifies as intimidation. If this or this doesn't seem like being civil about your intimidation behaviour, then I don't know what to tell you. "I only pinged AdamDeanHall" That's not all you did. You also canvassed him on his talk page as evidenced in my comment above. I didn't even address the fact that you also pinged him on the article talk page, which shows you aren't even really paying any attention to this investigation, only further strengthening my belief that you just frivolously opened this investigation out of spite that I called you out on your behaviour only hoping to cause me some kind of inconvenience and stress. I never removed any sources. That is a false statement. As far as the MOS goes, ALL information MUST be reliably sourced (including infoboxes). There are other ways to source it besides actually putting it in the box such as inline attribution and footnotes.
 * Look, I've been through your contributions, and it seems you are a valuable editor as far as contributing to vandalism goes. I've fought some vandalism myself, and I know how easy it can be to get in a hurry and make honest mistakes such as accidentally reverting good faith edits of IP users as vandalism. However, the proper way to deal with it when somebody calls you out on such mistakes is to learn from it and go on, not get offended and make it into a war about who is able to cause who the most grief. The only thing you have succeeded in doing is apparently driving off the IP user who now won't even care to appear here to defend themselves and hasn't been back (that I'm aware of) to edit Wikipedia since. Just a casualty of your war? Your behaviour is appalling and I'm now recommending that WHEN I'm found innocent of these charges you should suffer the penalty of whatever consequences there are for editors who 1) Consistently disregard multiple disruptive edit warnings as being "condescending". 2) Put frivolous vandalism warnings on user talk pages. 3) Engage in edit warring while uncivilly accusing others of the same. 4) Post defamatory remarks with uncivil refusal to remove or strike them. 5) Open frivolous sockpuppet investigations. 6) Canvass others to participate in frivolous investigation.
 * Furthermore, I propose that this investigation be immediately closed based on the evidence provided, which I feel is more than sufficient, to justify my position that this was a frivolous waste of everyone's time to satisfy a single editor's selfish desire for retribution over something they should have taken constructively to begin with. Huggums537 (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * At this point, I would like to mention User:NeilN who can also verify that CLCStudent and I are not the only one who noticed the IP user being discriminated against, as evidenced by the frivolous report made here.
 * In regard to the accusing editors comparison of coincidental capitalisation of adverbial numerals: I would like it to be also noted that a further comparison will reveal the IP user begins their edit summary sentence without any capitalisation and ends it with exclamatory punctuation, both of which are things I rarely, if ever, do myself. Huggums537 (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * This is my last-ever response, as I said before, all your facts are completely and provably wrong. I have nothing to do with that ANI, notices not to remove content can be misguided or wrongly place, but they are not intimidation, and, 1, that's only a claim of yours, an uncivil one at that, and 2, I'm the one who welcomed that IP in the first place, how is that intimidation??? And yes, it is obviously condescending to, before ever interacting in any way with me, to template an editor. And yes, it is miraculous you're very first edit in relation to this affair is on that IP's user talk page, not the article page. You bending over backwards to white knight for this IP is quite unusual behavior, unless it were also you. To say nothing of you continuing to harp on this absurd notion that I violated BLP with regards to you by opening this SPI? 1, I had substantial cause to believe you're the same (which is not "spouting off the mouth", another uncivil insult), and, 2, for the third or fourth time, BLP does not apply to you! I can't even read this whole wall of text, you do know that blocks aren't punitive, yes? One of many policies you insist on citing but don't demonstrate understanding of... You can't just make them up and claim I'm violating them. Also, for the record, to the point of you needlessly and incessantly insulting me with personal attacks and insinuations when I've done nothing but neutral and good faith reporting of what I viewed as inappropriate edits (which should have elicited the appropriate BRD response and then accusing me of slander, for the next time you gaslight someone and play the victim for something you're the one doing, the word you mean is "libel". JesseRafe (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "And yes, it is obviously condescending to, before ever interacting in any way with me, to template an editor" [emphasis added]. I made both indirect and direct contact with you 3 times before templating you. Twice on the IP's talk page (indirectly) and once directly interacted through an edit summary. The first contact occurred nearly an hour before I templated you. This causes you to lose even more credibility as it clearly demonstrates you are willing to make claims that anyone can clearly see is false. "I'm the one who welcomed that IP in the first place, how is that intimidation???" The welcome effectively becomes not much more than a Trojan horse when the end result is the recipient being ostracized by the very one who sent it. "And yes, it is miraculous you're very first edit in relation to this affair is on that IP's user talk page, not the article page." I guess miracles happen twice because AdamDeanHall also posted on the IP users talk page before posting on the article talk page, but it didn't seem that was "miraculous" enough to be worthy of mention. "You bending over backwards to white knight for this IP is quite unusual behavior, unless it were also you." I have already clearly demonstrated I'm not the only one who has been "unusually white knighting" for the IP user. So now, "unusually white knighting" for IP users is suddenly grounds for sockpuppet investigations? Shall we call the other editors who "unusually white knighted" sock puppets too? Of course not, because they aren't the ones who offended your self-righteous sense of entitlement. You wreak of guilt and fear which is evidenced by your desperate attempt to evade the consequences of your actions by claiming WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE. Only someone who knows for a fact they are guilty of offenses which are blockable (or otherwise sanctioned) would even bother to try to imply that they somehow don't have to face any music for their behaviour. It's not that hard for me to "play the victim" when I see someone is clearly attempting to victimize me with all the same disregard and disrespect they had from the beginning. However, I will offer you something you never offered me, which is an apology for my earlier comment about "spouting off at the mouth". It was not intended to be insulting, as it's just an ordinary expression used from time to time. At any rate, I can see how it might be somewhat uncivil, so I'll strike it. Huggums537 (talk) 22:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * While we are on the subject of condescending template messages, I almost forgot to mention the one the accusing editor left me here. So, it's funny how they just proved they are fully aware of Don't template the regulars, but they chose to respond to my template message with one of their own (when Don't template the regulars says: WP:DTTR) and I'm the one accused of being condescending? I also forgot to mention the message left for me on their talk page where they clearly attempted to provoke me to comment again so they would have an excuse to take me to ANI, but I didn't fall for the trap so their last resort was to take the fake sockpuppet route instead. Huggums537 (talk) 05:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * After some consideration on the matter, I think it's safe to assume my accuser intended to evade their own actions by claiming WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE. In light of this new behavioural evidence, we can now add Gaming the system to the already lengthy list of offences previously mentioned. This user consistently demonstrates a snowball effect of disregard for the Wikipedia spirit in increasingly uncivil ways shouting, "It's not me, it's them!" all the way. Don't pay any attention to the evidence and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Gaslighting indeed. Somebody please look at this evidence and close this charade for heaven's sake. This user should have been blocked a long time ago, but the powers that be saved him from himself and blocked all of Wikipedia from the article instead. The only thing in the favor of my accuser on this matter is the fact that they are a long time and very valuable contributor to Wikipedia. I don't contest that. (But, even highly valuable editors must be held accountable.) What I DO contest is the fact that I look at all these other SPI's with multiple sockpuppets which actually constitute REAL sock problems, and then I compare them to this case and it makes me laugh. Anyway, I hope the people who review these things see this stuff all the time and I trust they know the difference between a real sock problem and when they see an obvious fake report. Huggums537 (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I distinctly remember being personally invited here by my accuser to "...feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered...". [emphasis added] But, now It's being said, "I don't want to hear from this user, ever." Despite this apparent contradiction, I will respect those wishes the best I can, as I have no further evidence to add at the moment. However, I reserve the right to add evidence if need be. Thank you. Huggums537 (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The behavioral evidence is flimsy at best. It is not that unsual for a registered editor and an anonymous editor to find common cause in a dispute. The key point here is that there is no pattern extending beyond this particular article. Also, in most socking cases it is usually the case the registered editor burns up his three reverts and then continues under the cloak of anonymity, rather than the other way around. Now the IP is blocked I think this SPI can just be closed without prejudice. Betty Logan (talk) 13:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
We don't publicly disclose the IP(s) of named accounts. CU declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , Is there any appeal to this decision? I didn't even notice that the ANI thread they linked above not only had nothing to do with me, but was also not even about Huggums. It was about the IP. Isn't that further evidence they're the same individual?
 * Aside from feeling like I'm in the twilight zone with the above tirades, I'm pretty fed up with nobody else noticing the incredible amount of hostility and incivility being displayed against me, I've never done anything to this user but made a good faith/good cause SPI. I do not understand how I am still seeing this barrage of new lies and unchecked assumptions about me on my watchlist every few hours. This is harassment and I am legitimately worried about opening an ANI for this user as when I, with good reason, demanded they stop posting on my talk page that became a conclusive "fact" from them that I was trying to goad them into it. I don't want to hear from this user, ever. Why is there no response? Why is there no admin for this unchecked aggression? Why no fact-checking into this behavior? Please? I did everything by the book and I'm left alone out to drift with these unfounded accusations against me. JesseRafe (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no appeal. Running a check would be a violation of policy. I can't tell you when a clerk will evaluate the behavior. It's your choice whether to go to another forum.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the quick reply. That's a real shame. This three-day siege has really soured my entire view of Wikipedia. I've never seen vitriolic personal attacks thrown with such impunity before on any talk page be allowed to stand for days. And on an admin forum no less. JesseRafe (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I blocked the IP for three months, but this does not mean I believe that Huggums537 is editing from that IP. I blocked the IP as a webhost.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Closing without further action. Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)