Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bettifm/Archive

Bettifm

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

20 April 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

Mister Sneeze A Lot (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

After Bettifm is blocked at 01:23, 20 April 2015 Mister Sneeze A Lot appears three minutes later (01:26, 20 April 2015) after not editing for almost two months and decides it is his job to fight for Bettifm's unblock, posting here, here, here, and here. As Lukeno94 said, "The quacking is abundantly clear". Requesting CU to check for any other possible sleepers if you guys think it is necessary. Thanks! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Whoa, steady on there. If you're suggesting that Mister Sneeze A Lot is a sockpuppet of Bettifm then that is very far fetched. Bettifm has proved abundantly over 9 months that he has very poor written English and the shakiest of grasps of WP policy, whereas Mister Sneeze A Lot shows no such limitations. I see no reason to doubt the integrity of Mister Sneeze A Lot and quite a bit to support his view that the punishment meted out to Bettifm looks very heavy handed. It's not inconceivable that Mister Sneeze A Lot knows Bettifm personally, but that surely would not disqualify him from commenting on a user ban. Guffydrawers (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That much is true, but Lukeno94 and I both agreed that it was an odd editing patern, for a dead account to pick up and start fighting for another unrelated users unblock, especially given that user was blocked for socking. However given the CU evidence, I stand corrected in this case, must just be by chance. Thanks all EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 21:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. As I said, my previous account was subjected to a lot of wikistalking, after I defended an English editor called User:The Almightey Drill. Bettifm is from New Zealand. I am in Australia. They are 3 different countries. My reason for defending Bettifm was because, like The Almightey Drill, he was banned while an AFD was going on, and he was banned in relation to that AFD. It was unfair in the case of The Almightey Drill (and that article was deleted, at least partially because TAD was unable to give evidence to support it staying) while in this case the article was not deleted. The two issues seemed similar to me, which is why I supported him. I guess it is not the same issue, though, as TAD was clearly a better editor than Bettifm, and I am thankfully not finding myself subjected to wikistalking this time. I am happy for you to do a CheckUser in order to find my now retired account (which states that it is retired too) but for privacy reasons I would prefer if there is no public link between the two accounts. Thank you. I am happy to help to mentor Bettifm, if you wish me to. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: By looking at the quality of written language by Bettifm and by Mr Sneeze a Lot, either somebody has built up an extravagant alias or these two are not the same person. I presume that Sneeze was very hurt by this episode to which he has linked me (I moved on, by the way, you don't have to be sad for me anymore) and has now made looking at block logs his personal niche. As IPs are blocked for blocked users, that's another reason not to think that this is the same person '''tAD''' (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Almightey Drill: As IPs are blocked for blocked users... Not entirely. Account creation is blocked and the IP's are temporarily auto blocked, but anyone with an account from that IP can still edit. Rarely are IP's blocked in a way that prevents good standing editors (except known proxy IP's). Also kinda wondering why you mentioned the past incident Mr.SA as it probably wouldn't be hard to find said account since you just told everyone who it was and talk page histories exist (not that I care). Also quick distinction, neither of them were Banned as far as I know, just blocked. Sounds the same but have different meanings. Thanks for your explanations though. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that comment, TAD, and explanation. Anyone who wishes to wade through it can see who it was that got wikistalked over the TAD blocking, and that is my now retired account. I won't link it here for privacy reasons. I am sure that Bettifm can have a similar attitude to TAD as far as letting it go, and, like TAD, can become a good editor. I just think that indef block is a bit harsh in this case. If it is based on behaviour, maybe 1 week block or even going out to 1 month is appropriate. Indef, as in forever, especially involving the "sister editor", who for all I know is his actual sister, is just sending the wrong message, I think. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk · contribs) is Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. We are in different countries, I am pretty sure. But thank you for the conclusion. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing with no action taken. Mike V • Talk 01:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

06 March 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

Britty192 (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

This account has multiple behavioural correlations with a user who has received over a dozen indef bans for transgressions including copyright breaches (text and images), ban avoidance and lack of competence. See Bettifm socks. He keeps coming back under different names, and despite largely meaning well with his contributions he creates work for other editors due to a lack of comprehension of WP policies in word or spirit, repeated plagiarism & copyvios, allowing access to his account for vandalism and very poor written English.

Evidence includes similar interests (New Zealand especially Masterton and area, television series, Britain), poor English, a predeliction for tokens of Wikilove and a shaky grasp of policy.

poor written English: Special:Diff/704701157

unconstructive edits: Special:Diff/704583414 Special:Diff/705399455

exceeding competence: Special:Diff/707502566 Special:Diff/707707248 Special:Diff/707814790 Special:Diff/707641563

submitting plagiarized content: User:Britty192/sandbox

Guffydrawers (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

Confirmed, blocked, and tagged, as well as:
- Zanibeee (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki).
As an aside, in my check I found many sock accounts blocked for reasons other than being a Bettifm sock. There are too many to list, but I tried to tag all of them so they are at least now in the confirmed category for the master. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]