Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/BGMNYC

User:BGMNYC

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets

Cheeser1 (talk) 03:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Report submission by


 * Evidence

These are some single-purpose accounts that have most recently stirred up a fuss at Talk:White_privilege. See the history for what would (if these are the same user) be a 3RR violation (six reverts over these unsubstantiated NPOV tags). They're primary (or only) area of contribution on Wikipedia is to topics related to whites and race, particularly things like White privilege. They've all got the same opinions on the matter - opinions that are based on "I think white privilege is racist against whites and is unfair" etc. They cite personal opinion/experience/beliefs, in contrast to the widely-accepted sociological theory to the contrary (about which this article is written). They've been basically disrupting this article by demanding that others (not them) fix the article because right now it is against white people somehow, and that is not neutral (nevermind that NPOV is about the neutral presentation of encyclopedic topics, not the neutrality or inoffensiveness of those topics). Basically it's like a drive-by-tagger who decides to stick around and run us in circles without really contributing to the construction of a better article (you know, just saying their strong opinions over and over).

They all flocked to the discussion one after another, and often follow up each others' comments with statements of support, which is making it look like there are five editors who all raise these concerns (reasonable or not), when it really seems like it is only one editor. (They've also developed a bad habit of accusing me and other well-established, long-time, very different editors of being sockpuppets, which is odd.)

Here are the details that sink it for me (especially item 5):


 * 1) Use of plurals of this form: guy(s), history(s), etc
 * 
 * 1) Constantly forgetting signature
 * 
 * 1) Fixing caps on Caucasian
 * 
 * 1) Constantly using scare quotes for "sources" "reliable" "theory" etc. (whatever s/he disagrees with)
 * 
 * 1) Spelling it privelage
 * 
 * 1) Use of caps:
 * 
 * 1) The five accounts in question are also clearly linked:
 * BGMNYC = 71.141.129.18 = Beatmakerz = 75.7.28.238 =? DATBUS
 * Editing your comments and mixing up which username you're using seems like a common way to blow your cover.
 * The small amount of editing outside of these race-related topics links DATBUS to our 71-ip through The Partridge Family.
 * 1) IP tracing confirms location:
 * They both trace back to tbr2.sffca.ip.att.net aka San José/San Francisco, CA. Try this to confirm the dnsstuff.com results and get an approximate trace location (not just dns info).

Other similarities I haven't combed through yet include the use of particular words ("humanity" "demonize" etc. in reference to whites) and overlinking the term people of color on talk pages. I could probably also find a few more examples for the item-by-item breakdown above. Finally, I kind of find this disturbing. --Cheeser1 (talk) 09:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I would point out that the editors' obsession interest in White American, White guilt, White privilege, and Whiteness studies. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Pot calls kettle BLACK.Beatmakerz (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments


 * First I need to say that there should be no personal information about me, or my location, posted publicly on this or any other page on Wikipedia just because this creepy guy has a bone to pick. It appears that Cheeser1 is mad because I actively disagreed with him, and suggested that he was using Sockpuppetry. I can only point out that Cheeser1, Murderbike, Yahel Guhan, Malik Shabbaz, among others, seem to have a uncanny nack for defending eachothers posts and attacking the same people with a similar language style and particular demeanor, as well as showing up in the same places and in the same articles. Like Seicer, who seems to keep appearing to rescue Cheeser1 from his frequent conflicts with other users. He is currently trying defend Cheeser1 in yet a different, current investigation into his sockpuppetry. [] As I attempted to have a discussion about a particular article, it seemed apparent very quickly that something was amiss. I was promptly shut down (by the names I listed), and then I was immediately accused of not "discussing". Not even 24 hours had passed before these accusations were made, it was clear that there was nothing I could say that prevent this group of "editors" from sabatoging my contributions. Even when friends stepped in to support the discussion, these guys stepped in an simply usurped total control of the article. As far as his accusation of sockpuppetry; having friends and roommates in the Bay area with shared viewpoints or even a common agenda is not proof of sockpuppetry. In addition, the comments Cheeser1 tries to associate me with, like "holocaust denial" have nothing to do with comments I've ever made or any views that I have expressed or even held. He has completely de-contextualized my discussion entries to try and paint a dark picture of my views. There is nothing remotely like a "holocaust denial" in my entries, yet he actually makes this inflammatory characterization(above). Not that it's even relevant to this issue, but the comment about 'no atrocity ever being committed by 'entire' race' refers to the idea that such atrocities throughout Human history are comprised of particular members of a race, in varying contexts and times, making it necessary to distinguish amongst members of a particular race, and not attribute the atrocity to an entire race of people.  The issues we have been contributing to in Wikepedia articles have to do with broadening perspectives on race, and creating a larger context so that Caucasians, like all races, are not demonized and marginalized as being entirely anything. In reading some of the Wikipedia articles dealing with these subjects, it remains commonplace to make such generalizations about "Blacks" or "Whites" often without specifying who they are actually referring to. We felt strongly tht this was an important issue to discuss in writing articles about Race in the U.S. His attempt to associate us as some kind of Nazi hate group was absolutley vicious - we are teachers and social workers who confront these issues every day in our work, and are concerned about the manner in which language is often used to perpuate hatred. A discussion about bringing more objectivity to the article about "White Privelage" led to posting a "neutrality tag", which is apparently what initially pissed Cheeser1 off in the first place. I still support the adding of a neutrality tag, though they pretty much bullied us off that article, which to the best of my knowledge was done within the guidelines of Wikipedia. I fully expect that dealing with some editors can be a difficult process, but this is ridiculous. I really don't have a lot of time to be writing reports on people like him, nor wasting time responding to this type of craziness. I encourage anyone with the time to do so and the patience to look more closely at Mr Cheeser's history as well as his other potential identities, which I'm guessing span further than the one's I listed. At any rate, Thanks for your time.BGMNYC (talk) 08:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously continuing to insist that I am the same as User:Yahel Guhan, User:Malik Shabazz, and unnamed others? Furthermore, recruiting your friends to post in your own support is called meatpuppetry and is just as serious (if not functionally equivalent) to sockpuppetry. It appears as though you have just admitted to at least this, as well as intentional tendentious/POV editing. Do not bother to "writ[e] reports" on me. An SSP listing me as a sockpuppeteer of Yahel and Malik would be dismissed as patently ridiculous. --Cheeser1 (talk) 09:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * PS if you are not logged in and you post, your IP is visible. Wikipedia gives you plenty of notice about this before you post as an anonymous/IP user. By posting as such, you've agreed to have your contributions come labeled with your IP. I am not a "creep" - IP traces are common practice on Wikipedia when users are suspected of sockpuppetry on multiple IPs. Notice that IP users' talk pages come with a link to a traceroute automatically. --Cheeser1 (talk) 09:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If a group of people, perusing and participating in some particular articles means that we are meatpuppets, then we are definitely guilty. I'm not so sure that we actually meet that definition, as there was certainly no "recruitment", and some of us repeatedly asked for objectivity and more outside editors to get involved. Interesting that the only "objective" editor that ever showed up was Seicer). But after this experience I'm quite sure I don't care anymore. Maybe you can spend another few hours on Wikipedia writing up a meatpuppet report Cheesey, and in the process try to further misrepresent our views and contributions, maybe associate us with some more hate groups while you're at it. I do think perhaps you're right though, "creep" is probably putting it too mildly. Good luck to you.BGMNYC (talk) 10:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But here you accuse me of being a suspected sock puppet? Assume good faith here please. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  15:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I will not respond to that "personal comment" but I will point everyone to the actual policy on meatpuppets here. I have not misrepresented that policy in any way, as everyone should know or see plainly. --Cheeser1 (talk) 10:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to comment that, to the best of my recollection, I never "met" User:Cheeser1 or User:Seicer until this month. User:Yahel Guhan and I share many common interests, belong to some of the same WikiProjects, and edit some of the same articles, but we have opposing views on several subjects (such as Zionism and criticism of Israeli policies toward the Palestinians). User:Murderbike and I both belong to the Anarchism Task Force and we've edited several articles together in the past. I thought I would get that in the open before any of it is cited as "evidence" that any of us are sockpuppets. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know why he assumed I was a sock of Malik. We do generally edit different articles. Guess he is assuming we are the same because of our shared opposition to his recent edits.  Yahel  Guhan  20:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, this is pretty crazy. BGM already acknowledged that we know eachother, so what's going on now? This guy Cheeser is a hostile editor, he actually went so far as to call us "Holocaust Deniers", with absolutely no basis in truth. Just read his history and you get the picture. And Seicer we assumed good faith until you showed otherwise. We requested objective help, and we got you, posting a demand for somebody to respond, then within a few hours accusing him of 'not responding', joining with and assisting the editors who we we asking for help from. (We dont all live on Wikipedia 24/7.) I just read your history with Cheeser, there was no good faith, you were hardly objective; Turns out you two have a history, and you simply supported your "friends" regardless of their hostile editing and uncanny mutual "agreements". Weither they are sock puppets meat puppets or whatever, what they are doing isn't too helpful and can't actually be in the interest of a good Wikipedia article. Just some bully-boy posturing.Beatmakerz (talk) 22:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And canvassing with a wholly uninvolved editor who was very vocal in opposition to my RfA. seicer &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  00:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

I have filed Requests for checkuser/Case/BGMNYC to see if a checkuser can shed light on this situation. Jehochman Talk 17:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am not familiar with the CU process and didn't want to jump into it right off the bat, especially since it doesn't fit criteria A-F and G is, of course, hard for me to know what fits and what doesn't since it's the "other" category. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Checkuser has confirmed that the usernames are all socks of BGMNYC; the IP addresses are not conclusive. I've indef. blocked the socks but have pursued no action against BGMNYC. I'll leave that to another uninvolved administrator. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  00:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked indefinitely since their history reflects multiple policy violations. Jehochman Talk 01:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)