Misplaced Pages

:Sockpuppet investigations/Bloodofox: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:23, 28 May 2015 edit85.211.108.65 (talk) →Comments by other users← Previous edit Revision as of 03:34, 28 May 2015 edit undoJytdog (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers187,951 edits →Comments by other users: rNext edit →
Line 63: Line 63:


<br>And of course there's you, who has been documented previously both on your talk and on ANI: harassed users on their talk (despite repeated requests to stop), used profanity, personal attacks, belittling, hounding users, abusing warning templates... all forms of repeated bullying behaviour. The apparent repentance is assumed, when chastised by multiple admins, only for the cycle to repeat itself, in exactly the same way, at a later date. A repetitive pattern of toxic behaviour, fuelled by the grinding of a crooked, anti-alternative medicine POV axe. ] (]) 03:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC) <br>And of course there's you, who has been documented previously both on your talk and on ANI: harassed users on their talk (despite repeated requests to stop), used profanity, personal attacks, belittling, hounding users, abusing warning templates... all forms of repeated bullying behaviour. The apparent repentance is assumed, when chastised by multiple admins, only for the cycle to repeat itself, in exactly the same way, at a later date. A repetitive pattern of toxic behaviour, fuelled by the grinding of a crooked, anti-alternative medicine POV axe. ] (]) 03:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
:Thanks. this is useful. ] (]) 03:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


:No idea if anyone is socking here, but Bloodofox did not state they made that edit. Let's begin with Bloodofox's comment: :No idea if anyone is socking here, but Bloodofox did not state they made that edit. Let's begin with Bloodofox's comment:

Revision as of 03:34, 28 May 2015

Sockpuppet investigations/Bloodofox

Bloodofox

Bloodofox (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Bloodofox/Archive.


27 May 2015

– This SPI case is open.

Suspected sockpuppets

Has to do with article High fructose corn syrup. This editor was previously editing as an IP address and was in a content dispute with Sciencewatcher over the past week or two. The IP took the case to the WP:DRN (case is archived here) There, at the request of Robert McClenon, the IP said that their user account was Nitrobutane, in this dif.

I worked over that article over the weekend, and today, "bloodofox" showed up out of the blue, and along with IP addresses 85.211.108.65 and 85.211.103.87 (which I assumed were continuous with the former IP/Nitrobutane) disputed the edits. (we got into an edit war and the page is now protected at my request.) I thought I was dealing with at least 2 editors, as I had not seen "bloodofox" active in the discussion, and if the IP used a username, I expected it would be Nitrobutane. At one point, in this dif, bloodofox wrote: "So, today I rewrote the section on the controversy regarding mercury contamination and mentioned the public controversy in the lead. However, this rewrite, which relied on a secondary sourced (The Washington Post) was removed for a brief mention that entirely relies on Web MD. You can see this edit here: ." the diff there is an edit by 85.211.108.65. I completely missed that the edit was by an IP. This went on all day.

I even referred to the IP as "Nitrobutane" in this dif and this dif and neither the IP nor bloodofox reacted until after I figured out they were socking. At the end of this dif from after I figured it out, the IP wrote: "PS: I haven't used that account on this article even once, so why talk about it, much less announce it to other editors." At no point did the IPs nor bloodofox disclose that they were same person, except by the diff above.

  • "Bloodofox"' edits to the Talk page are here. One in 2010 and then a bunch today.
  • 85.211.108.65's edits to the Talk page are here
  • 85.211.103.87's edit to the Talk page are here
  • "bloodofox" edits to the article are here
  • 85.211.108.65 edits to the article are here
  • 85.211.103.7's edits to the article are here

I am seeking a block on bloodofox and his socks, for violating WP:SOCK. I thought I was dealing with at least 2 people, and it seems clear now that it was just one person. This whole thing would have played out very differently, had that been clear. Jytdog (talk) 04:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC) Jytdog

I am sorry for naming the case wrongly Bbb23 - I opened it with lower case "bloodofox" then tried to fix it, and i think that made things worse. Thanks for sorting it out. Jytdog (talk) 04:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC) (per katewishing below, striking dif Jytdog (talk) 00:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC))
I think the story above is very clear. But here are some diffs - all these are pursuing the same issues - see how they switch off?
  • 18:24, 26 May 2015 - bloodofox edit here
  • 20:00, 26 May 2015 - IP edit here
  • 20:34, 26 May 2015 - bloodofox edit here
  • 20:39, 26 May 2015 - IP edit here (the very next one, after the one above)
  • 21:17, 26 May 2015 - Bloodofox edit here
  • 21:26, 26 May 2015 - IP edit here
and on it went both on Talk and in the article. Jytdog (talk) 04:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Note, the IP has opened an ANI against me, and in their opening statement claimed that bloodofox is someone else. Did the same in a subsequent post. This is the very heart of what the SOCK policy was created to prevent - using socks to make it seem like multiple editors agree. But Bloodfox/Nitrobutane/IPs appear to be the only person arguing their point.Jytdog (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Been involved in the article as well. If we are truly dealing with socks here, we are looking at 13 reverts by a single person in less than 24 hours. Normally we'd just protect the page when edit warring occurs, but this would be gaming the system pretty bad. It does seem like a block is needed if we are dealing with socks. For Bbb23, the key piece of evidence is Bloodofox stating they made an edit , but that edit was done by the IP in question . That's basically what triggered the opening of this case since it links what was thought to be multiple edit warring users into apparently just one person. If the IPs of the registered accounts are similar enough to be the same as the unregistered IPs, something is needed to curtain this behavior. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces, I have little doubt that checkuser will show they are all the same, but the SOCK case is clear on DUCK alone, and the dif you point out. Jytdog (talk) 05:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly as well. I just prefer to prefer not to call a duck a duck until someone qualified to formally identify a duck (i.e. here) has done so even in a solid case. Just a formality on my part I guess, so that shouldn't be taken to mean I'm showing any strong uncertainty here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Do tell us more, Kingofaces, about how so far you've agreed with every single thing Jytdog has said/done, in the article edits, on the talk page, and now here.85.211.108.65 (talk) 06:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Kingofaces is also a science-based editor who follows policies and guidelines. We do tend to agree. Not always. Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


“also a science-based editor who follows policies and guidelines”? What are you trying to imply by that claim - that you are such an editor? Let's hear more about your conduct around the HFCS article: the bullying buldozer editing, your attempts to suppress dissent (archiving active talkpage sections), accusations of SOCK as soon as you're reminded of your misconducts on the article and talkpage, and now your CANVASSING and continuous lies on ANI. There's the fact that Kingoface's talk documents his CANVASSING, as well as his disruptive edoting and misuse and twisting of MEDRES to push his anti-alternative?anti-natural remedy POV.
And don't think I'm unaware that you've been connected from the start... or that discussed me behind my back

and sure he disagrees with you... except that it's been pointed out on ANI that his actions are such that he's easy to mistake for a sock of yours, that in fact he's one of your mafia 'loyal group of followers' whose sycophancy interfered with attempts made at ANI to take you to task for bullying and intimidation of other editors. (but of course, they're only 'flaky ANI notices', after all
This group includes those who sucked up to you at ANI: Roxy the dog, who has , created a 'toxic atmosphere' by posting nastiness against other users on talkpages on talkpages; and QuackGuru, with a of personal attacks, vandalism, SEVENTEEN BLOCKS, harassment of other users, canvassing via email and making misleading accusations...


And of course there's you, who has been documented previously both on your talk and on ANI: harassed users on their talk (despite repeated requests to stop), used profanity, personal attacks, belittling, hounding users, abusing warning templates... all forms of repeated bullying behaviour. The apparent repentance is assumed, when chastised by multiple admins, only for the cycle to repeat itself, in exactly the same way, at a later date. A repetitive pattern of toxic behaviour, fuelled by the grinding of a crooked, anti-alternative medicine POV axe. 85.211.108.65 (talk) 03:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. this is useful. Jytdog (talk) 03:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
No idea if anyone is socking here, but Bloodofox did not state they made that edit. Let's begin with Bloodofox's comment:
"So, today I rewrote the section on the controversy regarding mercury contamination and mentioned the public controversy in the lead. However, this rewrite, which relied on a secondary sourced (The Washington Post) was removed for a brief mention that entirely relies on Web MD. You can see this edit here: "
This edit could refer to either the first sentence (Bloodofox's rewrite), or the second sentence (Jytdog's removal). But the diff makes it clear this edit refers to Jytdog's changes. The diff contains four separate edits. The first three, and the only substantive ones, are by Jytdog. He removes the Washington Post material and the mention of mercury from the lead, while adding WebMD. These changes are exactly what the second sentence describe, and the opposite of the first sentence. (The topmost edit, by the IP, is minor copyediting. I assume it was accidentally included by moving the left radio button but not the right.) Instead, the first sentence perfectly describes several earlier edits made under Bloodofox's own account. (Just for the record, I think Jytdog was right to replace WaPo with WebMD under WP:MEDRS, but we need to be more careful before accusing a long-term contributor of being a "DUCK.") KateWishing (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for posting here, Katewishing. I believe you are correct now, with regard to the reference for "this edit". i have struck elsewhere as well. I am still concerned about socking, as bloodofoc/Nitrobutane/IP all made similar edits and arguements. Jytdog (talk) 00:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • I can't quite follow the chain of events in the opening of this case, but somehow it was opened with the name of the master being lower case. In any event, I copied the stuff manually from the lower case SPI, so the little bit of history of the filer is not here. I deleted the lower case SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Categories: