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 05:56, 27 May 2015 editKoA (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers26,865 edits →Comments by other users: ce← Previous edit Revision as of 06:57, 27 May 2015 edit undo85.211.108.65 (talk) →Comments by other usersNext edit →
Line 51: Line 51:
: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. ] (]) 05:32, 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 05:54, 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. ] (]) 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.] (]) 06:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


======<span style="font-size:150%">Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</span>====== ======<span style="font-size:150%">Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</span>======

Revision as of 06:57, 27 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)
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)
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)
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: