Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:01, 9 January 2014

Belchfire

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

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

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

16 December 2013

– A checkuser has completed a check on relevant users in this case, and it is now awaiting administration and close.

Suspected sockpuppets

LyricalCat

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

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

Roccodrift seems to be a fairly obvious sock, most likely of User:Belchfire. I first spotted them abusing User:MilesMoney with multiple talk page templates the way Belchfire used to abuse users the primary difference being that Belchfire had thousands of edits and Roccodrift has about 200.

They seem to have significant overlap at Talk:Political activities of the Koch brothers, as well as articles related to US politics, homosexuality, conservatism, and Christianity.

Also, for behavioral, compare the edit summaries of the following diffs:

Belchfire: Roccodrift:

Because of apparent previous Belchfire socks, I'd like a CU on this. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

• Rocco was identified as a sock almost immediately, but until recently, it wasn't clear whose. When Hyper3 called him out, Rocco didn't even bother to deny it. He just ignored it. But when Adjwilley named him, he panicked and wiped his talk page clean. After AdjWilley took this as an admission of guilt, Rocco ignored it again, until I prodded him on ANI. When he did respond, he once again didn't bother denying anything, but instead tossed out a red herring about not assuming good faith before saying "Either you have a case to make or you don't. I can't decide that for you, now can I?" I think this speaks for itself.

Belchfire was before my time, but (ironically, thanks to AdjWilley) I'd run into his edits before. After AdjWilley dropped the name, I did some digging and I have to admit that there's a strong resemblance in terms of article interests, right-wing bias, and aggressive personality. I'm on record as being skeptical about AdjWilley's ability to detect socks, but I must concede that this case not only includes an obvious sock, but a likely match for the foot. MilesMoney (talk) 08:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• This is good sleuthing work by Adjwilley. Last night before retiring I was looking around to see if I could make a case for connecting Rocco as a sock of Belchfire but I thought it would take too much time, that I would try again today. I wake to find the work already done! Binksternet (talk) 14:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• I have to concur with this, having first become suspicious that Roccodrift was Belchfire after seeing this edit. I decided to IAR and look the other way because it seemed that he was being more reasonable than in the past, and perhaps trying to make a fresh start. I changed my mind after seeing that he dragged MilesMoney to ANI.

I'm adding Seattle IP 97.113.5.118 (talk · contribs) who edited at Focus on the Family in a very Belchfiresque fashion, notably going head-to-head with Roscelese (with whom he is WP:IBANned) here and here. - MrX 23:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• I hope I'm wrong (and I apologize in advance if I am) but I noticed a lot of overlap with NazariyKaminski, so I'm going to add them to the list. MilesMoney (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• This all makes me wonder sometimes if the Koch brothers sock farm wasn't dealt with properly, and if they are still active, but now using different usernames. They were caught redhanded and an SPI sort of dealt with them, but is anyone following up on any possible connections, like the ISPs from New Media Strategies, the ad agency the Koch brothers hired to promote their interests here? Are those ISPs still being used? For those who are unaware, or have forgotten, here are some links:

• http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/03/09/149408/koch-wikipedia-sock-puppet/

• https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MBMadmirer/Archive

• https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive679#MBMadmirer

We have serious ownership issues with a number of these right wing articles. They are nearly untouchable and whitewashed. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

This is interesting, but I guess we shouldn't be surprised. Still, it's hard to tell whether someone is paid to be biased or came into that bias organically. Really, it shouldn't matter: POV-pushing should be dealt with for its own sake. Unfortunately, what you said about whitewashed articles is an understatement. In fact, I ran a little experiment today to test that claim and it worked. MilesMoney (talk) 08:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Making Pointy edits does little more than piss people off. But that does seem to be your goal. Arzel (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Major problems with this complaint: Checking "editor interaction" the lack of overlap is astounding for a claim of socking ... Belchfire has zero overlap with Kaminski, who only overlaps with Rocco on three pages total, and whose edits do not appear to me to be evidence of much at all, other than not being in accord with the complainant. Looking therefore at times of activity -- we have a complete difference in times for all three -- with Belch not editing from 9 to 15, NK not from 2 to 11, RD not from 11 to 17. Belch has enough edits that this indicates a clear sock-fishing expedition here. Nor do I find any use of similar language or summaries to be evident. SPI is not a place for fishing where even a rudimentary investigation shows it to be one. Collect (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Life is full of funny coincidences. For example, we talk about paid editors with right-wing bias, and suddenly Arzel and Collect appear, full of good cheer accusations and excuses. There's no explaining it! If I wasn't assuming good faith just as hard as I can, who knows what strange ideas might come to my head?

On the other hand, editing at different times is pretty easy to explain. Read WP:SIGNS before you come to the defense of your fellow traveler. Look, it's painfully obvious that Rocco is a sock. If you were in the mood to do something good for Misplaced Pages instead of just good for the GOP, perhaps you could tell us all who he is if not Belchfire. Think of all the good will it would garner. MilesMoney (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Could they all be Jimbo? I suppose. The question is evidence which is not here. Not editing from 9 to 15 usually indicates West Coast of US. Not editing from 11 to 17 is usually Hawaii if the person is in the US. Not editing from 2 to 11 would normally be mid-Atlantic Ocean to Brazil. Your major problems are the actual lack of overlap on articles, the lack of language similarity, and the lack of unusual edit summaries. Cheers -- SPI is again not a fishing expedition because you disagree with anyone. As for your claim that I am a "fellow traveler" of anyone -- that is a gross misuse of the purpose of the noticeboard. Collect (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Could we please curtail the personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith?

I think there is sufficient evidence beyond just the edit overlap to warrant a CU on Roccodrift per WP:PRECOCIOUS and WP:DUCK. The IP is very obviously Belchfire, based on geography and telltale talk page edits. I'm not convinced that NazariyKaminski is a Belchfire sock, but evidence might change my mind. - MrX 16:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Hello, NazariyKaminski here. I'm the editor that MilesMoney has accused of being a sock of rocco and belchfire. I want to point out that it looks like to me that rocco and belchfire could possibly be socks of each other. However, I would also like to point out that MilesMoney added to me to this list for no reason. I do not know his heart. But since I know that I am not a sock of rocco or belchfire and since I know beyond a reasonable doubt that MM is flat out wrong about his accusation then I have to ask about whether he is not using this process in bad faith. I am not saying that he is acting in bad faith, but I am only asking a valid, relevant question. So far, I have read all of the comments on this topic and no one, including MM, of actual evidence that I, NazariyKaminski, is a sock of rocco or belch. Also, based upon the nasty comment MM left on my talk page this morning I have to ask the question about his bad faith. Seriously, if you are all going to waste the time to decide if I am a sock of rocco or belch then you need to take the time to question MM's other edits. MM has a track record of getting into POV fights with many, many editors. I just happen to be one. I first ran into him on the Martin Bashir article where he was POV pushing the idea that Bashir's comments about Sarah Palin were not notable and I did not belong in the article. Well, of course, Bashir ended up losing his job over the comments and I my decision to add the controversy into the article was shown to be correct and MM POV was shown to be what I said it was all along, an incorrect minority position that he pushed with vigor and bordering on inappropriateness. Later, since he did not like me being absolutely correct about Bashir he decided to edit the Ted Cruz article. Once again, he had to have his way, which is his editing style. We came to a compromise on an edit (along with other editors) and I thought that was the end of my run-ins with his aggressive, convinced-he-knows-it-all style, but alas he decided (apparently without any evidence) to drag me into this witch hunt. I will be amused to see how this plays out since I know I am not a sock of rocco or belch. I am just asking a question. . . has anyone wondered if MM is operating in good faith? I am not sure, but I don't think he is.--NK (talk) 15:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, IP 97.113.5.118 is in Tukwila, Washington. I live in Texas. The last time I visited Seattle was six years ago. MM claim against me is a pure witch hunt.--NK (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I have removed NazariyKaminski from the list of suspected socks at the top. If desired, a separate investigation can be opened below. (The evidence I've seen is pretty thin, and it's starting to disrupt this investigation...besides, if they are a sock the CU will pick it up anyway.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Action requested. A CU was requested (above). Roccodrift is still active. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC) Noting different time zones apparently, different articles with minimal overlap, and no language similarity for the fishing trip. I rather think SPI requires some sort of evidence for getting a CU? Collect (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• Here is a more complete matrix of the overlaps . I'm not sure if we have enough evidence for a duck block, but there seems to plenty of clear and credible evidence to warrant a CU.- MrX 00:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Yep -- 9 edits overlap out of 250 non noticeboard edits is not a heck of a lot. Sorry -- that degree of evidence would have me be your sock <g> as you have 512 edits (non-noticeboard or user talk) overlap with articles I have edited. But I do not think you are my sock <g). 4% is not enough to tar anyone with -- and decidedly not using "duck" as the language differs. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Just a principle to keep in mind; A truly successful sock would have NO overlaps. This editor is obviously a very experienced user, with only 281 edits. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, a truly successful sock would never arouse suspicions to the extent of being the subject of an SPI. StAnselm (talk) 05:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. My point is that the value of using tools to make comparisons is vastly overrated. Since only people who are seriously trying to start over again stay away from their old stomping grounds completely, we are left with the POV warriors who evade blocks and return, to some degree, to old territories. Then we do have some overlaps, and the only overlaps of interest are what brings them here. It only takes a few to make people recognize a pattern, sort of like when nearly everyone recognizes a song after hearing only the first few notes. With socks we sometimes perform a CU. It all depends on the potential danger, based on the sockmaster's previous history. Whether that is the case here is what's in question. User:Adjwilley, more diffs would be nice. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

BullRangifer has some good points. Generally fresh starts are allowed, as long as problem users don't return to their old bad habits. If Belchfire went back to making noncontroversial articles about cars, I wouldn't block them even if I had CU evidence in front of me. I don't think that is the case here, as they have dived straight back into the battleground behavior (edit warring, stalking, etc.) that led to their original indefinite block. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Additional behavioral evidence

Feel free to add to this table.- MrX 18:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

And almost every one of those characteristics of single posts applies to a large number of active editors. Good grief! Wiki search shows that phrase used about 4000 times. "Silly" is found over 100m000 times outside of article space. "Dispositive" over 7,500 times per search result. Use of CAPS and italics is universal. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC) Collect (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to add:

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

since they are now making exactly the edits Roccodrift pushed for and another "SPA" on the talk page has been pressing for, if they aren't the same person they sure do present as an obvious front. Sportfan5000 (talk) 08:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

That account is not a sock as CU finds sleepers and other accounts etc. Nor are the edits exactly what one editor only asked for. This report was pending close by an admin and CU had finished with it. Cheers -- but SPI is not for adding people you editorially disagree with. Collect (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no opinion or interest in this specific alleged sock, but you should be aware that CU is not a perfect process. For example, a sock can use a VPN, a mobile hotspot, or a proxy server to evade detection. I am able to personally change my static IP address so that it registers in a completely different county tens of kilometers away. I can also change my browser-reported user agent, screen resolution, and OS at will. If I wanted to sock, it would be very easy to evade CU detection, and then only behavioral evidence would be useful.- MrX 20:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

@MastCell -- when no evidence is found, and the edits are not only not the same but show very little overlap, that you "know" it must be a sock of someone is pretty useless. Socks only get blocked for being alternate accounts of blocked or banned users, or where the purpose is to hide improperly who the editor is. "Knowing: it is a sock is not a valid reason to do anything here, and I seriously doubt that any improper behaviour has been shown. demonstrates the real animus MM has -- and "sock" is not even suggested. By anyone. This report was solely based on "I don't like him" and not on what is generally called "evidence". Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

It's fine to say that you disagree with the evidence, but to dismiss this investigation as having no evidence seems bizarre. As far as animus, MilesMoney is not a factor in this SPI and I certainly don't think that Adjwilley has ever shown any animus toward Roccodrift or Belchfire. I suppose that you could accuse me of animus toward Belchfire since I was involved in a few reports that resulted in him being blocked, but I am on record as not trying to get Belchfire expelled from the project. He is obviously an intelligent, capable editor who could be a very valuable contributor here. I always hoped he would come back through the front door though. Roccodrift also seems to be an intelligent and capable editor, and admittedly with a better attitude than Belchfire had when he departed. Regardless of how this SPI ends, I think Roccodrift could be an asset to the project, I bear no ill will toward him, and I would not object to re-admitting him to the project should this SPI conclude that he is a sockpuppet. - MrX 14:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The interaction level between RD and BF (% of articles in common) is way smaller than one expects for any socks. BFs location was well known and did not comport with RDs posited location (the CU undoubtedly noted such). MM was the first "outside observer" on this page, and I suggest that such an appearance before the two hour mark, and the fact that the OP mentioned MM in the complaint does mean MM was "involved" here. And the idea of SPI is that evidence is presented. Where such evidence is not presented sufficient to show he is a sock, then the SPI should not conclude that he is a sock. I entered in because of the horrid claims against NK made by MM. And on an a priori basis BF and RD are two times zones apart in their "real time" (using a node a thousand miles away rarely changes your normal sleep time -- so the claim that they can use proxies half-way around the world makes no sense -- the UTC time the person edits would likely remain appropriate to their real home base) Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the evidence RD is a sock of BF seems weak, and does not fall within WP:Duck. Nor do I see compelling evidence that RD is a sock of someone other than BF. I worry not just about ideological editing, but also about ideological blocking, and therefore urge caution here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Good grief, can we just let the SPI people do their thing? All this talking isn't going to convince anybody, and in my opinion it has the effect of undermining your credibility. @Collect, the fact that you saw MM as a sock but not Roccodrift makes me wonder about your own objectivity. @Anythingyouwant, it is very clear that Roccodrift is not new. Just look at their first 50 edits. Edit number 1 was a revert. Edit number 3 cited WP:EDITCONSENSUS and WP:OWN. Edit number 48 was to report MilesMoney at AN3. Not your typical newbie. As MrX said, Rocco has the potential to be a valuable contributor, but if they're going to continue old battles and fall into the same bad habits, well... ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Adjwilley. Why was MM not banned as a sockpuppet duck? Instead, we had to go through edit wars at over a dozen articles, interminable ANI proceedings, et cetera, before he was finally banned for other reasons, right? So now Roccodrift is supposed to be a duck, but I don't see why he couldn't be an experienced IP who only recently decided to get a username. Has anyone asked Roccodrift?Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

• Everything except for the one account is stale, no sleepers. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

For non-SPI-experts, could you please translate that into English, User:DeltaQuad? Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

"Stale" refers to the fact that the software only saves checkuser data (the IP address, etc., for each account) for a certain period of time. That period has elapsed for Belchfire's account, so we can't say with 100% certainty that a given editor is working from the same computer/IP address as he did. Therefore we have to look at the behavior of the two accounts, i.e. the WP:DUCK test, to determine if block evasion is occurring. "no sleepers" means that Roccodrift does not seem to be operating any other accounts based on the checkuser data available. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• This SPI needs to be closed, one way or the other. It's clear that Roccodrift (talk · contribs) is someone's alternate account - I don't think anyone has seriously contended otherwise. The behavioral evidence presented by Adjwilley and MrX is convincing enough for me to block Roccodrift on WP:DUCK grounds as a likely Belchfire sockpuppet. (In a best-case scenario, he's an alternate account dedicated to ideologically-driven editing, which would still warrant a block in my view). Given the length of time this report has been open, I don't see a huge rush - I'll hold it open for a few days to wait for comments from other admins before acting. MastCell  04:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

No objections from me. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Open SPI cases
• SPI cases awaiting administration
• SPI cases CU complete