Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Minusjason/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
Additonal accounts/IP reported by Xenophrenic:

Evidence submitted by 82.135.29.209
The edits and edit comments by Minusjason (a very new account), by Top1Percent (a very new account), and by BS24 (a blocked sock of NYyankees51) look suspicious similar. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't follow these discussion here, and I don't know what "advanced technical magic" exactly is. But because of recent smaller interactions with User_talk:Minusjason and User_talk:Top1Percent I have at least somehow the feeling that they are no BS24 socks. So unless there is strong evidence otherwise, I suggest to give benefit of the doubt for these two accounts and apologize for the accusation. (This suggestion does not include the new accounts and IP provided by Xenophrenic.) 82.135.29.209 (talk) 11:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Xenophrenic
I am adding this because the checkuser noted the use of "proxies" and "technical magic" below, and that reminded me of a past situation. May I ask if it is similar to the use of proxies by this editor (all 3 are the same person): This user appeared out of thin air to 1) defend BS24 against a 3RR block, 2) argue on behalf of BS24 on a mediator's talk page, and 3) go on to edit articles that BS24 was editing. This user uses proxies to edit, and was previously accused of being BS24. See this weird discussion (collapsed under the hat bar). BS24 has previously claimed that his brother and "friends" also edit Wikipedia. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

This is ridiculous. If you want to know why people keep changing the estimate of the crowd size of the Restoring Honor rally, it's likely because of this: If Michele Bachmann claims 1.6 million, and someone prints that she has claimed that, it is NOT the same as a media outlet giving the 1.6 million estimate. Maybe people keep making the same change because the needed change is so glaringly obvious. That's why I changed it. Her estimate is three times anyone else's. But beside that, whether it's accurate or not... it is NOT a media outlet report that gave that number, which is what the article currently says. If I go out and say the sky is yellow, and someone prints that I said that, you can't say that the media reported that the sky was yellow.
 * Minusjason

Does it seem odd that I made the edit, being such a new user? Well, that's because I registered specifically to make that edit. I have been using Wikipedia for several years, but stopped doing edits long ago because I didn't want my IP displayed and didn't want to register. This error was so bad that I decided to register in order to fix it.

I'm not a "sock," and I didn't even know what one was before I reached this page.

If you want to turn logical, reasonable users away, you are doing a great job of it. Minusjason (talk) 01:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This is somewhat confusing. If you've been using Wikipedia for years, but stopped to avoid having your IP displayed, why did you need a proxy server to edit as MinusJason? AzureCitizen (talk) 02:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not using a proxy server. I do not know how to use a proxy server.  Also note that I didn't say I stopped using Wikipedia.  I said I stopped doing edits. Minusjason (talk) 02:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It's okay, I understand (when I said "stopped", I meant you stopped doing edits). So you felt that as a logical and reasonable user, it was very important to register an account and edit to fix the "1.6 million" edit in the lead of that article? AzureCitizen (talk) 03:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course, "very important" is relative, but yes, I thought it was ridiculous to include Bachmann's number as a media outlet estimate, and I didn't want to leave it that way. I clicked "Edit," was reminded that my IP would be displayed if I didn't register, and decided to finally go ahead and register, having considered it a few times in the past.  Also, please address why you have accused me of using a proxy server. Minusjason (talk) 03:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The Checkuser Admin, Shell  babelfish, has indicated this possibility at the bottom of the page (See: "Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments").  I wouldn't be overly concerned; if there is a problem, I'm sure the clerk will address it. Cheers, AzureCitizen (talk) 05:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Shell  babelfish stated only that there was a proxy in play, not that I was the user with a proxy.  I would appreciate you not making the jump from his/her statement to accusing me specifically. Minusjason (talk) 05:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand Shell's explanation that because of the proxy "checking for sleepers is nigh impossible" in such way that he cannot scan for further socks of BS24 because BS24 used a proxy. But I may be wrong. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 20:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Check it out, a time-wasting exercise in process wonkery on Wikipedia! Who'da thunk it, right?
 * Top1Percent


 * To User:Xenophrenic: Dude, you just don't get it. I can't tell if you're just being a WP:DICK or if you honestly have terrible judgment. Your skull is as dense as lead if you can't tell that my opinions are probably a polar 180° from User:BS24's. My username isn't a reference to "unfair taxation of the top 1%," it's a reference to the misleading portrayal of Bill Clinton as having "created a 36 percent to 39.6 income tax for individuals" as if it applied to all taxpayers rather than just the [pay close attention, here's where the nickname comes from] Top One Percent®. I chose this nickname because it's the misleading wording I first registered to correct.


 * To User:Shell Kinney: Thrown down a rangeblock on me and you'll find out pretty damned quick that I'm not on any sort of proxy. "Advanced technical magic in play," seriously? If I'd been drinking milk, it would have shot out my nose when I read that. No offense, but you need to go consult someone with more experience evaluating CU reports.

All this painfully obvious information aside, can someone explain to me why an apparently chronic conservative POV-pusher like User:BS24 would create two accounts (Minusjason and myself) who've done nothing at the Restoring Honor rally article except remove the unduly-weighted POV he's worked so hard to introduce and entrench? Because he likes talking to himself? Perhaps because he doesn't have any left-wing friends, he invented some to broaden his horizons? He's actually a schoolboy and wanted to practice against himself for his next debate tournament? Get a grip, people.

It looks like Minusjason and I both made a similar edit -- similar to each other, that is, but in no remotely conceivable way similar to NYyankees51/BS24 -- because it's so fucking obvious to passing readers that the edit needs to be made. There's no reason Michelle Bachmann should be treated as a "media report" in that article's introduction; 1.6 million is a number she pulled out of her ass, one that's been extensively dismissed and mocked, and its use in the article's intro sticks out like a sore WP:UNDUE thumb when you first load the page. Yes, it's bad enough that more than one casual editor noticed it or registered an account to correct it. That should probably tell you something. Top1Percent (talk) 04:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello, Top1Percent. You're making a forceful case for why you're not a sockpuppet of BS24, who I'm sure most editors would say had a fairly conservative point of view.  I see your account is new but you've made edits that were generally not in keeping with BS24's political perspective (I assume you would describe yourself as "left-wing" as you indicated above).  Your knowledge of Wikipedia and edits show that you have some experience.  Were you an experienced IP editor prior to creating the Top1Percent account? AzureCitizen (talk) 05:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

In behalf of NYyankees51 who is currently blocked: Defense by NYyankees51 82.135.29.209 (talk) 14:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * NYyankees51:

Comments by other users

 * IP82 should be blocked indef for this witchhunt. Arzel (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, IP82 is not behaving inappropriately in suspecting that new SPA accounts Minusjason and Top1Percent are socks of NYyankees51. IP82 may very well be wrong, but he/she has set forth their observations in a fair and neutral fashion, even going through the trouble of politely notifying and apologizing to Minusjason here and Top1Percent here in advance if their suspicions are unwarranted.  Why call for IP82 to be permanently blocked for this?  Let's just assume good faith; if an SPI clerk declines the request, that's the end of it.  Peace, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would assume good faith if there were good faith to assume. AKA and IP82 appear to be on a mission to find socks of BS24.  This kind of behavior simply not acceptable.  Arzel (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless you know of a Wiki policy that allows for summarily blocking editors for just one SPI you are just venting an emotion. Unfortunately BS24 did much to poison the waters, and will likely make a return under another guise. IP209 is acting on good faith, but I doubt the SPI subjects are socks. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Quack? Are you seriously thinking that top1percent is a sock of BS24? I suggest you take a look at this edit, which is the exact opposite position that BS24 had. Arzel (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * For the closing admin. You should be aware that Top1percent was created on 12 October.  The initial accusation against BS24 was on 15 October, and it was not until 14 October that there was any indication that BS24 had a previous account.  Additionally, Top1percent took the opposite position of BS24 and started editing an article section under mediation started by BS24.  Now I don't know what kind of logical thought process was going on by the clerks below, but it is not plausible to believe that BS24 would have created a sock in advance of being accused of being a sock and then have that sock edit an article under mediation that HE started from the opposite point of view.  Arzel (talk) 14:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Arzel, are you trying to set up a strawman argument that BS24 is accused of setting up sock accounts because the BS24 account was (or would soon be) blocked, just so you can shoot that argument down? No one made that accusation.  Try this angle: 3 of the 4 last edits by BS24 on Oct. 11 were related to unfair taxation; then a few hours later, the Top1Percent account is created (the name itself related to unfair taxation of the top 1%) and continues to edit articles related to unfair taxation. In addition, Top1percent did not take an opposite position to BS24, he took the identical position (until he noticed I was reverting his edits and BS24's edits with the identical edit summary reasoning; my little hint to him). BS24 had already filed the mediation request when Top1Percent was created, and one can always use more supportive voices in a mediation. Just sayin... Xenophrenic (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't take this the wrong way, but are you sure you actually have been following the logical sequence here? Top1percent was for adding the extended version of CBS's rally size estimate.  BS24 was against this addition.  The entire basis for the mediation was for this dispute.  It is completely illogical for BS24 to have taken this course of action.  It is far more likely that Top1 is a sock for IP82 or AKA than a sock of an ideological opposite, especially since AKA has used many many many different IP's via a proxy prior to being AKA most of the time.  Arzel (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I have, very closely. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note to checkuser: Three more accounts have been added above, with an explanation. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * Please remember to keep discussion civil. -- DQ  (t)  (e)  00:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * - I hear quack, and since a recent SPI, can we check for any that are just keeping quiet. -- DQ  (t)  (e)  01:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * for and, though the strength of the duck test makes it very likely.  There is a proxy and some other advanced technical magic in play here, so checking for sleepers is nigh impossible. Shell   babelfish 03:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Unrelated to the above, but ✅ socks of each other:
 * If the closing admin would like to discuss the checkuser results, they're welcome to contact me privately. Shell  babelfish 06:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If the closing admin would like to discuss the checkuser results, they're welcome to contact me privately. Shell  babelfish 06:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If the closing admin would like to discuss the checkuser results, they're welcome to contact me privately. Shell  babelfish 06:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If the closing admin would like to discuss the checkuser results, they're welcome to contact me privately. Shell  babelfish 06:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If the closing admin would like to discuss the checkuser results, they're welcome to contact me privately. Shell  babelfish 06:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Moved from /NYyankees51; see below. T. Canens (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I have discussed the CU evidence with Shell over email. Having reviewed all the evidence, it is my conclusion that: Accordingly, I have blocked both Minusjason and Top1Percent indefinitely. T. Canens (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) There is insufficient evidence to link these accounts to NYyankees51.
 * 2) It is more likely than not that the same person controls the Minusjason and Top1Percent accounts.
 * 3) Finally, it is possible that the group of accounts are also related, based on CU evidence; it is, however, unnecessary to make any determination in this respect.