Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Notabilitypatrol/Archive

Report date September 21 2009, 16:11 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Back in February and March, User:Notabilitypatrol had a strange vendetta against Luke Burbank, and became increasingly weirder while trying to get his articles deleted. They changed from a young man to an old woman, "who lived through the holocaust", just to engender sympathy. They dragged along a non-death threat and tried to use it to their benefit several times, even after saying "It's too stressful to think about!" In other words, a pure troll. The log of issues is on their talk page for anyone to see, as well as their attempts to respond to them.
 * Evidence submitted by Golbez

Last week, Luke's show was cancelled, and User:Bluecanary99 tried to get it deleted. I didn't lift a finger; I figured it may well meet the criteria for deletion. But Bluecanary99 started acting odd, thinking everyone who disagreed with him was in a cabal, and even accusing one user of being Luke Burbank himself. His protestations of being targeted became louder and louder. This sounded familiar.

Then I noticed that User:Bluecanary99 was created 27 hours after User:Notabilitypatrol gave up trying to be unblocked. I blocked them for gross gaming the system, trolling, and having no benefit to the wiki. No admin chose to unblock. I realize it was out of process for me to block someone I was involved in a fight with, though, so I bring this to you, hoping for the same result.

Things in common:
 * Both claim there is a group of users targeting them, and repeat this at every conceivable point.
 * Both accuse Nathalmad of being someone's meatpuppet,
 * Notabilitypatrol said of me and others
 * Bluecanary99 said of Luke Burbank
 * Both use the same kind of language protesting how they've been targeted, how they're just this innocent user who BEGS and BEGS to be left alone - yet keeps doing things to get the 'cabal' to 'attack' them.
 * Both are from Seattle, evidenced by the articles they created
 * The best part, in my eyes: Both are the only users ever to consistently misspell my name "Golbrez".

Based on this, it seems obvious to me that Bluecanary99 was created to evade Notabilitypatrol's block, and should be blocked, if not for that, then for their activities since. If not blocked, then I would like at least a restriction against him for accusing anyone who disagrees with him of being in a 'group' or that they're attacking him, but I suppose that would have to go to RFC or RFAr, this isn't really the place. Thing is, I very much doubt this user is worth taking to higher authorities. Anyway, I would like to hear others' opinions on this. --Golbez (talk) 16:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I will not be responding directly to Bluecanary99, but to those who read below and read Notabilitypatrol's talk page, I do hope you will see the direct parallels in how they speak and respond to criticism. --Golbez (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're likely to find the reaction of all human beings fairly similar when they're pushed as hard as you, Nathalmad, et. al. have been pushing. Just a thought. Bluecanary99 (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just don't have time to defend myself against multiple, daily complaints by this group of users anymore.
 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

If multiple users are accusing someone of targeting them over the same article, maybe - I know this sounds crazy - the issue isn't with the users? If I'm a sock because my account was created within 2 days of person X are the hundreds of other accounts created in that time period socks, too? If filing a COI complaint where there is a clear COI issue makes me a sock are all the thousands of other COI filers socks, too? If make a typo spelling Golbez' name that other people have made, but I make it more than X number of times (what X is, I don't know since no logs are provided) I'm a sock? I could go on, but why bother?

If anyone is actually interested in what I'm being put through they can read my talk page, the multitude of other complaints against me or whatever. I don't care. I don't have time to - once again - compile every minutia of evidence that would defend me when I know 2 or 3 more complaints will be lodged tomorrow, and the next day, etc., and I'll have to repeat. I lose by sheer exhaustion and, as I already said in the COI complaint I made that set-off this whole thing, that's the goal; a "noise machine." Golbez told me he'll ban me if he can't get anyone else to do it so what's the point in even trying to defend myself at this point?

I have no doubt many retorts, rebuts and rationalizations for any issue I may have raised above will quickly be churned out. If someone has a specific question about any of these inevitably forthcoming expansions of this complaint you'll just have to PM me. I only have time to monitor the two other outstanding complaints against me right now. If my forthcoming failure to reply to the next round of "evidence" posted here leads to my ban, c'est la vie. I just don't have the will for this anymore.

Golbez, as I've repeatedly told you, Nathalmad and the others, I surrender. You win. What more do you want out of me? Just leave me alone, that's all I've been asking.

Bluecanary99 (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions

Blocked and tagged. I asked a checkuser to look into this, and although stale, there was a record in the checkuser log for Notabilitypatrol. Both users geolocate to the same city, and with the behavioural evidence, it looks clear that this is a sockpuppet. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 19:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I know the case has been closed, but I have a comment and suggestion to make. Bluecanary99 contacted me via email (presumably he looked through the list of admins and found me welcoming). He has made several of the arguments that he has posted on his talk page, claiming a case of mistaken identity. Now I would rather let the guilty go free than incarnate the innocent, especially because the guilty usually identify themselves rather quickly. I propose unblocking Bluecanary99 for at least a week, but banned from editing the articles in question and little tolerance for tendentious editing. If he uses that week to contribute to other articles, leave him unblocked. In my experience trolls and socks are one-issue advocates with an ax to grind. If Bluecanary99 can make substantial edits to other articles, let him be. If he goes right back to his old way, block him.


 * Also, there's another user BlueCanary9999, who seems established and legitimate. You think he ought to know about this? HereToHelp (talk to me) 23:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no strong opinions on this either way, so I will leave it up to another clerk, as I'm going to bed. I'll look into it further if it's not answered by tomorrow evening. I wasn't aware of BlueCanary9999, so it might be worth dropping a note of information. I'll do that tomorrow also if there's been no response from another clerk, but for now, sleep! Best, Peter Symonds ( talk ) 23:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed his contributions and he seems like an established, good faith editor who got caught up in bad circumstances. I understand that there is evidence of insults and tendentious editing, but everyone can get a little surprised when attacked, especially out of the blue. I'm going to unblock him later today if no one responds to this. I will monitor his edits closely, but so long as he does not engage in disputes and makes productive contributions (I'd stay away from radio shows for awhile), I'll let him be. In the mean time, I'm waiting to see if anyone else cares. HereToHelp (talk to me) 15:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If that is the case then I must require a condition that he never mention me, Nathalmad, or accuse anyone of being in any group attempting to attack him. Any martyrdom in an attempt to engender sympathy has no place here. Based on his past history, I find this nearly physically impossible for him to follow.
 * However, I must question your analysis. Notabilitypatrol started editing immediately on the subject articles, and did not get attacked 'out of the blue'. It has been indicated in multiple ways that Bluecanary99 is Notabilitypatrol. That they edited in good faith for months in between their getting involved in the subject matter that brought them here doesn't excuse the fact that they have never shown good faith in their dealings with others. I don't think we let editors continue when they make valid edits but never show good faith in their communications, right? For example, using a non-death threat as a tool 9 or so times in order to get sympathy. Or changing from being a previous user to a little old lady who is so tired of being attacked, she's just a little old lady who doesn't know computers very well :( Or finding cabals and groups arrayed against them from every side, because we all know Bluecanary99 is so important that we must band together to stop his nefarious deeds.
 * Finally, I don't really see any attacks in what Nathalmad said, and I certainly didn't attack him until he attacked me and I saw his dealings with Nathalmad and I realized that, huh, these two users seem very similar. Please tell me, where were the attacks against him? --Golbez (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Where are the attacks? I see attacks in claims of using "a non-death threat as a tool 9 or so times in order to get sympathy. ... Or finding cabals and groups arrayed against them from every side, because we all know Bluecanary99 is so important that we must band together to stop his nefarious deeds." Please, provide diffs. They are the difference between evidence and an attack.
 * That said, I have reviewed the logs further and found (what you probably knew all along) that Notabilitypatrol was blocked on March 2, and Bluecanary99's first edit was on March 4. I find this highly suspicious. Given that he had a second chance already (and if he learned to deal with other users we probably would never have known), I can only withdraw my support for an unblock. I try to be generous to blocked users, this seems just a little too coincidental. (And on the extremely small chance we're mistaken, create a new account in a few weeks and learn to work with the community. name calling gets you nowhere, or backwards.) HereToHelp (talk to me) 17:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The death threat issue is at User talk:Notabilitypatrol, search for the paragraph starting "The death threat nonsense." The finding cabals and groups from each side? You *have* read his diffs, right? Let me pick some: Calling me a part of a 'coordinated noise machine', saying I or others he disagrees with are part of a group . I also point out that he repeatedly begged for us to just leave him alone, please please please please just leave him alone, he gives up he surrenders! So I did. Fine. I'll shut up. I'll let it be. I think Nathalmad may have done the same. What are the next 5 edits he makes? Pointy edits to restart the fight. There is no good faith here. There is something disturbed in this individual and we'd do best not to encourage it. --Golbez (talk) 18:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That confirms what I have suspected. (Although the block is for sockpuppetry, not incivility. Technically.) Case re-closed, in my opinion. HereToHelp (talk to me) 18:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)