Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hullaballoo Wolfowitz/Archive

Report date May 5 2009, 13:27 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Granny Bebeb (talk)

These two users both display similar patterns of relentless destructive and deceitful edits on the Clint Catalyst article (such as removing large amounts of cited information claiming that it doesn't exist on the pages cited when in fact it does, without even asking for additional/alternate citation), as well as leaving inappropriate comments in edit summaries and on the Talk page taunting editors or mocking content added by other editors. While both accounts seem to scrutinize every edit made to the page, curiously they do not edit/remove each other's content or reply to each other on the talk page of said article. Additionally, Hullabaloo Wolfowitz, who has several existing COI complaints on his user page, states that he comes online from a library, furthering the impression that it is an alternate account.

Granny Bebeb (talk) 13:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Granny Bebeb (talk) 13:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

The user(s?) has/have been continuously mangling the Clint Catalyst page, removing well-cited credits falsely claiming that they are not supported by the cited sources or that the sources (such as ISBN numbers of books, the IMDB, or established news websites) do not meet RS standards, without even requesting alternate citation. In some instances, the vandal(s) has/have made additional false claims, such as incorrectly labeling a major, cited spoken word performance as "open mic" in an effort to discredit/remove it from the page.

A large percentage of the bibliography has been removed by the vandal(s) in one fell swoop, whereas on the pages of other authors (including featured page Elizabeth Donald), ISBN numbers to even e-books of anthologies are deemed sufficient citation. Similarly, a section containing awards he has received has been removed claiming lack of notability, despite similar awards being on the pages of others in the same field, also including said featured article.

The culprit(s) has/have left blatant attacks/taunts directed at both other editors (which can be seen on the article's Talk page and its edit summary) and the subject of the article (one edit claimed that Catalyst is "most widely known" for a brief cameo in a news story that wasn't about him or any of his fields of work, when he's written multiple sold out books - personally as a big fan of the subject, I wasn't aware of said news feature). Another edit by the vandal/s referred to "his gayness" and proceeded to reword the article in a heteronormative manner.)

Any attempts to revert said acts of vandalism are refuted and falsely claimed to be "not constructive or in regards to BLP/RS". As a result, the page is now missing large amounts of significant information regarding and even defining the subject. Granny Bebeb (talk) 13:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

There would appear to be a failure to assume good faith here. It is clear that the reporter genuinely feels that his edits are appropriate, but policy does not appear to support his contention (for example, IMDB is NOT a reliable source). The fact that two established editors are apparently upholding policy does not make them sockpuppets. Mayalld (talk) 13:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Mayalld (talk) 13:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Report date September 3 2009, 21:05 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Ghosts&empties

I made a comment on Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's user page about his deletionist tendencies. He deleted my comments. Morbidthoughts sent me a notice about WP:BLANKING. So far no problem. However both have been editing some of the same articles such as Chloe Vevrier and Mandingo (pornographic actor). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has also been acting a bit trollish about edit warring over his strict interpretation of unsourced content.G&amp;E (talk)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * I consider this sockpuppet claim to be submitted in bad faith or reckless ignorance. I have Wolfowitz's page watchlisted because I once wrote him on his talk page. If you might have noticed by reading further up on his talk page, I sent him a notice that I reverted one of his edits to an article. Porn is a broad topic that many people are interested in. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have little to add to Morbidthoughts' comments. I'll note a recent AFD discussion where we disagreed .  Morbidthoughts and I are both active in cleaning up BLPs. There's overlap on our watchlists.  G&E has rather unusual ideas about what's acceptable in BLPs    that are likely to result in very similar responses from the many editors who don't share those views. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users

Requested by G&amp;E (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * . It is perfectly legitimate for two users to watchlist each other's talk pages, and it is especially likely for them to do so if they both edit the same areas. Do you have any evidence of the two accounts tag teaming in order to perform some disruptive act? NW ( Talk ) 21:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * The users clearly seem to be different individuals. Case . NW ( Talk ) 15:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

15 November 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The alleged sockpuppeteer seems to be using all three accounts to stack votes in his favor for AfDs. S/he nominated an article I created about a porn star (Kiwi Ling) for deletion, and I explained why it shouldn't be deleted by backing it up with a policy; then, the only other delete !votes came from supposedly new users who pretty much said the same thing the puppeteers said, claiming that the subject doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO when she clearly does (the article is a stub right now, but still). I then looked at both alleged socks' user pages and contributions, and they both told me that they are only here to delete articles and nothing else. I then discovered that they were !voting in the same articles and saying the same kinds of things:  I also find it highly suspect that users would even know how to correctly nominate articles for deletion after not being here for even two days; I wonder if the puppeteer is just mad over a disagreement we had here, and then a third opinion request went in my favor.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 03:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

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

This is frivolous nonsense, if not outright harassment. I deny this idiotic charge without reservation, and suggest that Erpert be warned against wasting everyone's time with complaints that fail the WP:COMPETENCE test as well as violating WP:AGF. Erpert is throwing a snit because I've removed BLP and RS violations that he's added to Wikipedia, and he needs to stop adding content to articles that's sourced from corporate PR and similarly unreliable, promotional sources. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you Erpert for your kind welcome to Wikipedia... The charge is, of course, horseshit. Since when did Hullaballoo Wolfowitz start contributing content to pharmacology and mental health treatment articles? When did he use the IPs from which I'm editing? As my userpage states, I've previously been editing as an unregistered user, with all IPs and dates of editing indicated. I specifically authorize the release of checkuser information to affirm the connection. And to state the obvious, basing a sockpuppetry charge on a coincidental alignment of positions at one afd is a house of cards. Please warn Erpert against doing this again. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 05:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * they are only here to delete articles and nothing else??? LOL. Erpert, your ingratitude for my article work is duly noted. Perhaps you can explain how you could improve tranylcypromine? Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 05:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If I'm wrong, I apologize, but I felt this was the best option for the situation. And a warning isn't necessarily needed for opening an SPI case if it was done in good faith (might to hard to believe because you are all on the receiving end, but I assure you it was). But HW, I also see no point in explaining the BLP/RS situation because it already has been explained to you multiple times (WP:IDHT, anyone?).  Erpert  Who is this guy? 06:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Madison-chan" is now threatening to vandalize Wikipedia with multiple accounts. I suggest banning them. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 05:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
– Right now, both accounts are ❌ to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and to each other; however, I am trying to communicate with Madison-chan about possible socking, in which I am awaiting a response. –MuZemike 05:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Following the threat to abuse multiple accounts, Madison-chan created, blocked as a vandalism only account. As for Mike's correspondence, let's wait for that. WilliamH (talk) 08:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Given the developments regarding Madison-chan's indef-block by User:DGG, the following accounts are ✅ and indefintely blocked:



. –MuZemike 16:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has described themselves as a grandparent who can be too busy providing childcare to their grandchildren to spend much time engaging in discussion with those who disagree with them.

Their talk page, and usual signature, strongly imply a chip on their shoulder. I have found trying to discuss policy issues with them exhausting. I get the impression they really just can't be bothered to engage in policy discussions over their concerns.

They excised a valuable and non-replaceable non-free image about twelve and a half months ago, claiming it was a mistake for it to be in the infobox. I removed it from the infobox, and restored it. They removed it, a second time, about nine days ago, this time without really offering any policy explanation.

I requested they explain this excision, and when they didn't explain themselves, after I waited six days, I restored it. This is where the sockpuppetry comes in.

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has resorted to excising non-free images, even when they were under review. They did so with an image of KSM. A Turkish firm that manufactured a depilatory cream used a public domain image of Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, added some Turkish text, and used it to market their depilatory cream. The phenomenon of KSM's extreme hairiness being used to market toiletries was covered in newspapers around the world. Those articles not only used the modified version of the public domain image, but those articles specifically discussed the meaning of the image. In short every element was present for the image to be a poster-child for an image that complied with all our rules for using non-free images. Or rather it would have been the poster child, provided the image did not remain in the public domain. I am not sure that a simple slogan in Turkish passed de minimis.

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, nevertheless, made a last minute excision of the image from the KSM article, tricking the administrator who deleted the image, and that fine image ended up being deleted.

The same thing has happened here -- out of process excision of an image, currently under discussion -- an end run around policy. I strongly suspect that, this time, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz employed sockpuppets, so they can skip making the effort to engage in an actual discussion of the issues behind inclusion or exclusion of the image.


 * the edit summary claiming this edit was reverting vandalism is inflammatory and untrue.
 * first removal, attempting an end run around policy...
 * second removal, attempting an end run around policy...
 * third removal, attempting an end run around policy...

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 01:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC) Geo Swan (talk) 01:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
This reads more like a petty I-don't-like filing, an excuse to accuse Hullaballoo of socking, than serious allegations of socking. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)