Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SmashTheState/Archive

08 August 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

User:SmashTheState:


 * Uses the term "neckbeard"


 * Deletes "in popular culture" sections whole in articles he has otherwise not edited:


 * Supports TurtleMelody in ANI case:

User:TurtleMelody:


 * Uses the term "neckbeard"


 * Deletes "in popular culture" sections whole in articles he has otherwise not edited:

Guy Macon (talk) 00:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Supports SmashTheState in Village pump (policy) proposal:

Also see: Also see: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents --Guy Macon (talk) 00:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Every person who thinks references to comic books in serious biographical articles is a stupid idea must be one person, *especially* if they use the term "neckbeard," since we all know that no one on Wikipedia has one. Good call, Sherlock. - SmashTheState (talk) 00:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The WikiStalk report on these two editors is very telling. What is chance that two editors, one with only 626 edits, and one with only 685 edits would randomly overlap on this very odd assemblage of articles?
 * Cassandra
 * Georges Bédard
 * Michael Myers (character)
 * Missing white woman syndrome
 * Shoop
 * William M. Tweed
 * I see no connecting thread between these subjects, and no reasonable explanationfor the overlap except that they are the same person. Surely the totality of the evidence presented here is sufficient to run a CheckUser, especially considering TurtleMelody's current pointy and disruptive personal campaign to remove popcult sections from articles without consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * For Wikipedians, you aren't very bright. We're not the same person. We know of each other. That is all I'm going to say.TurtleMelody (talk) 01:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Bright"? Maybe not - I'm sure my wife doesn't think so at times, or my kids. But, then again, I'm not making a personal attack while admitting to meatpuppetry on a report that is likely to be read by multiple administrators, every one of which has the power and authority to block you from editing for an indefinite period. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * @Guy Macon: In your list of similarities, you forgot to mention that both editors tend towards insults and are, generally, aggresively dismissive of both Wikipedia itself and the community of editors who contribute to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * They also talk about Family Guy and The Simpsons a lot, and the both talk about South Park, but not as often. --:Guy Macon (talk) 02:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I know him. He knows me. How is that meat puppetry? The only puppetry I see here is the waving of the Wikipedia admins' tiny penises. I follow SmashTheState on StumbleUpon, a blog. So I'm aware of his edits. That has nothing to do with "meatpuppetry". And why do you think blocking me would stop me? 02:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * @Reviewing admins: please note the above statement by TurtleMelody: "And why do you think blocking me would stop me?" Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And why do you think I call Wikipedia a cult? Because it displays all the trademarks of a cult including snitching. You get off on this, don't you?TurtleMelody (talk) 02:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

A checkuser will reveal fuck-all since we are not, in fact, the same person, so I really don't care if you have one done. I am, however, morbidly curious at the audacity displayed here. It seems to me that I am being aggressively "outed." Since in order for TurtleMelody here not to be me, I am required to somehow explain why we have edited the same article some six times out of 300 or so articles, I am apparently being forced - under threat of permanent ban from Wikipedia - to divulge the nature of my relationship to TurtleMelody. What if we're lovers? What if he and I whisper dirty Wikipedia secrets to each other beneath the covers at night? Should I be obliged to inform you of that? What if I'm his father, and we discuss his editing over the dinner table? Perhaps we once shared a cell in prison and whiled away the endless hours by sharing our innermost thoughts. What the FLYING FUCK makes you think you're entitled to know what - if any - relationship I might have with this editor? This is a sham, a disgrace, and I am feeling extremely aggrieved by this entire situation. Which makes it par for the fucking Wikipedia course, and explains why I have precious little interest left in this place. - SmashTheState (talk) 02:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, none of the scenarios you conjure up are defense against meatpuppetry (and, BTW, see this essay). Since none of the admins have, to my knowledge, a magic crystal ball to look into your life and activities, if their examination of the edits of two different usernames shows them to be indistinguishable, they will be treated as sockpuppets whether they are, in real life, two separate people or not.  And if they think that two separate people are tag-teaming, they will treat them as meatpuppets. So if the evidence presented is persuasive... well, that's it. Actually, your best bet is if a CheckUser does take a look and determines that the two accounts are editing from different continents, but even that won't make the bad behavior exhibited here and elsewhere go away. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Funny how the very same people who have temper tantrums over edits I've made turn up like a bad penny at the first opportunity to join an ongoing wolfpack. A more cynical man than I might believe this is a vindictive display of bad faith. - SmashTheState (talk) 04:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You think it is a coincidence that one editor removing popcult sections without consensus (TM) would get the same response as a previous editor doing precisely the same thing, and to some of the very same articles (STS)? I'd say it's a very reasonable equivalent response to an equivalent situation.  The socking thing is new, but it makes perfect sense, and the evidence is convincing, at least to me. Two people with very low edit counts do not edit 6 very disparate articles unless they have a connection in some way, and whether that's because you're the same person, or one person is following directions from the other, or whatever, is irrelevant.  You're disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, you're overall a net negative to the project, and we'd be better off without that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "In the clearing stands a boxer, and a fighter by his trade;


 * And he carries the reminders, of every glove that laid him down,


 * or cut him till he cried out, in his anger and his shame;


 * 'I am leaving, I am leaving', But the fighter still remains..."


 * --The Boxer by Simon & Garfunkel


 * --Guy Macon (talk) 02:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OMG PERSONAL ATTACK!!@!@!!11 Oh administrator, administrator, over here, *points at Guy Macon*. Him, yes him. Take him away to the Wikipedia Re-education Camp.TurtleMelody (talk) 02:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * @TurtleMelody, can you point specifically at the personal attack that Guy Macon made because I do not see it? GB fan 03:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * User:TurtleMelody has been blocked but  is claiming  it  isn't  him. Please execute the CU. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
 * CU can't be used to prove a negative, however in this case I'd say it is unlikely they are socks. That said - if they wish to be unblocked & remain that way, they should both keep in mind that the project holds a dim view of meatpuppetry, incivility & disruptive editing practices. -- Versa geek  05:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether or not they are socks, they both exhibit flagrant WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA violations to the point of indef anyway. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ...and now StS has been unblocked... - The Bushranger One ping only 08:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ...and the unblocking admin, User:WereSpielChequers has refused to reconsider on the basis of the totality of the evidence available about STS's behavior, as opposed to the CU result alone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * At the risk of becoming an example of "when the elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers", in my opinion, just as WereSpielChequers should have talked with JzG before unblocking, Beyond My Ken should have talked with WereSpielChequers before saying he "refused to reconsider". The block log says:


 * (Block log); WereSpielChequers blocked SmashTheState (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎(Apologies for overcomplicating the block record - my previous unblock was based on the Check User clearing the sockpuppetry charge, but others have pointed out that the editor needs to agree to be civil before an unblock would be appropriate.)


 * That looks like reconsidering to me. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * At the time I posted that, I had had a discussion with WSC, and there was no indication that he was reconsidering, quite the opposite. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Both users are again blocked, so I can see no reason to leave this open. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)