Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Biscuittin/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Biscuittin

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

18 April 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

These socks were originally listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Renameduser024 but that case has turned out to have what appears to be two separate Masters, so I am splitting this out into this case, and striking or hatting discussion of this sock-nest at that SPI. Sorry if I have done this incorrectly. Please note that all of the socks listed above, with the exception of the last (Tedsmobilepulpit), have been blocked already. The last is the subject of Sock #6 ANI filing. Other ANI filings have been: Socks #4 and #5, Sock #3, Sock #2, and the first ANI filing i made. I keep bringing these to ANI as they are creating acute disruption in discussions I am having with conflicted or possibly conflicted editors, and they keep being blocked; don't know if it is possible to stem the tide. The sock calls itself WURT.

This is a self-acknowledged SOCK that has apparently been indeffed and has declared it it out to "get" me, in the name of some notion they have of reform, per this and this and this and this and many others. See also this now-deleted page, where they logged their socks as they created them: User:MagneticMarcella/sandbox.

User:QuackGuru wrote here that based on writing style and what they are saying, the actual Master worked on this essay: User:QuackGuru/Reform of Wikipedia. I reviewed the history of that, and the most likely seems to me, to be User:Biscuittin (the essay actually started out as one of their Userpages, see User:Biscuittin/Reform of Wikipedia) If that turns out to be accurate, I suggest we consider adding Biscuittin to the list at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse. Jytdog (talk) 19:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • "MagneticMarcella is a member of WURT, the Wikipedia Urgent Reform Team. Wikipedia is in crisis because there is so much bullying and abuse that new editors are being frightened away. Wikipedia's internal complaints procedures are useless because they always favour the bullies. WURT is a sockfarm (a group of sockpuppets) and we are proud to break Wikipedia's rules because we are doing it in a good cause. We are not the villains - the villains are the bullies. We are happy to disclose which accounts are members of WURT - see User:MagneticMarcella/sandbox."[1]
  • Wikipedia Urgent Reform Team is somewhat of a synonym for User:QuackGuru/Reform of Wikipedia. It is someone who is familiar with the essay I accidently created. The writing style is from someone who lived in the UK.
  • The original page was not an essay. It was a discussion.
  • Earthisnearlyflat was blocked as a sock of Renameduser024. Me thinks that could be the wrong sock master. QuackGuru (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by WURT

Could be Biscuittin, could be Scibaby, could be anyone. You can't expect WURT to reveal all its secrets. You have missed one of our socks, Sictransitvan. Ingloriousmonday (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added the two new ones to CU Jytdog (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

  •  Clerk endorsed - Most of them are blocked (except the last) for block evasion and such. Recommend sleeper check. QEDK (T ☕ C) 19:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like a sweeper check has been performed already. As for being related to Biscuittin, I'd put it as  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely). I've updated the block log to reflect this. I'd recommend just RBI-ing with all future accounts. There's no "organization" here, just someone who hops IPs. Mike V • Talk 23:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

22 April 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets


Same pattern as others. Disruptiing articles I am working on, interfering with COI discussions. Please CU as they are prolific. Jytdog (talk) 06:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

both are blocked via AIV. recording here b/c it seems that i should do. Jytdog (talk) 11:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • Any evidence that these were connected to Biscuittin, or were you just trawling again? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

  •  Additional information needed - Any diffs? Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've grown familiar with this user's behavior and ran a check. I found the following accounts to be  Confirmed:
Mygearboxbroke (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Gravityisgoodforyou` (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Elvesmakeshelves (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Mike V • Talk 17:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@L235: Could you archive this case when you have the chance? I need to merge it to the Biscuittin case. Mike V • Talk 17:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: It looks like SOP with this master is to not tag socks. Archiving. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

25 April 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

Typical Biscuittin-sock name, and typical jumping into a conversation I am having, disruptively here. I've reported it at AIV here. I want to note that the "advice" that Biscuittin gave to that user was very very destructive; whatever mantle of "reform" or being some kind of presence for good that the person operating these socks was claiming, is shredded now even more than it already was.

Btw there is matter related to this in another SPI here that awaits integration to this case. Jytdog (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Back with their 2nd sock; same pattern as the others. First is unblocked still. Jytdog (talk) 08:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
back with their 3rd sock of this batch, now interfering at AE. Jytdog (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

SPI cases are for discussing evidence in a constructive manner. Disputes amongst users are not permitted. Mike V • Talk 22:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should read this and this, and then see this. Jytdog (talk) 11:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Henry Mazzer group of sockpuppets look similar to the accounts in the Evlekis SPI - both groups appear to have made logged out edits using IP addresses belonging to Three UK. The accounts here look similar to those moved to the Henry Mazzer SPI so it could be that accounts in both groups used the same mobile or Wi-fi IP address - these can make unrelated accounts appear to be the same user. I don't know what connects any of this to Biscuittin - it could be anyone who saw the Reform of Wikipedia page and either supported Biscuittin in the dispute or decided to use it as the basis for disruption. Peter James (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • The following accounts are  Confirmed directly to Biscuittin:
SweetPollyOliver (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
LadyofScoonthorpe (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Sheeptostarboard (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
MaidofLlanrwst (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Lejardindematante (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Mygearboxbroke (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Elvesmakeshelves (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Mike V • Talk 22:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

27 April 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets


As with others, just writes disruptive things in discussions I am having. Their others socks and sleepers were just blocked this morning in the case that was just closed (see archive). Jytdog (talk) 00:02, 27 April 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]

17 May 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets


Clarawood123 is an SPA for the article Clarawood and has displayed major WP:OWN and edit-warring issues there (history: [2] talk: [3]) but their last edit was on 7 May. Heavyplantcrossing registered on 11 May and has engaged in exactly the same editing, twice reverting against consensus to Clarawood123's preferred version.[4][5]. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 10:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • Transcluded comment from simultaneously lodged SPI request:
This is a rather obvious case of blatant quacking. On the article Clarawood, the editor Clarawood123 had a rather energetic edit history, most of which led to their edits being undone and a new, reduxed article made stable. Clarawood123 attempted to defend her edits (after being told by that they were nonconstructive and against consensus) by taking User:Davey2010 to AN/I; this led to a broader number of editors advising them against their actions and attitude. Clarawood stopped editing on 7 May 2016. On 11 May User:Heavyplantcrossing was registered. This account has now made two edits- including their very first one- which do nothing but restore the page back to the version which Clarawood123 had created prior to it getting filleted. This has also been noted by at least one other editor so far; who also notes the similarity in both users' editorial behaviour (WP:OWN, WP:BATTLEGROUND, etc). Of course,to a suspicious mind, just the fact that a new user of FIVE edits even knows about SPIs would flag something up. Cheers,

(previous comment added by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi at 11:57, 17 May 2016‎)

  • Not to mention that in Clarawood123's last few edits they said here and here that they would be coming back to revert and rewrite the article and this new user does what Clarawood said they were going to do. Of course this could also be Biscuittin who has been tracking the Clarawood article on Wikipediocracy, and has done "pranks" like this before with socks, making it look like someone else was socking. Either way the new account is hinky. Jytdog (talk) 13:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just done an SPI myself ...., It was pretty much the above in one I guess ..... Anyone not sure if they're socks or meats but either way IMHO something's dodgy & so this should probably be investigated, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both editors have now been notified and then "unnotifed" - I had no idea about this whole case until now and never thought to check their TP so I apologize if I've accidentally fucked up ..... –Davey2010Talk 15:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I did that too; so that means that three separate cases have been filed. I think it's WP:SNOWing :) Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 15:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hahahaha oh my god! , I'm in tears here , Haha I think soon it'll be a blizzard, I wonder who the fourth filer will be , –Davey2010Talk 15:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh the CU is interesting. Thanks BBB. So both accounts may be Biscuittin, which makes sense now. Such elaborate "pranking" and disruption, and such a waste of the community's time. Time that people could have spent doing useful things. Pinging User:Mike V here as he has been deep in the weeds of Biscuittin case. Jytdog (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Biscuittin was opened on April 18, 2016, with a long list of accounts blocked for various reasons. There was no explicit finding by a CheckUser that the accounts were related to each other, but Mike V implied that the accounts were related to each when he stated that they were  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely) to Biscuittin. Subsequent to that first SPI, Mike was able to confirm various accounts directly to the master.
  • Clarawood123 is  Likely to at least some of the accounts in the April 18 list. Technically speaking, Clarawood123 is most similar to MagneticMarcella and Milligansuncle. Clarawood123 is also behaviorally similar to MagneticMarcella as MagneticMarcella left messages on Clarawood123’s Talk page expressing "sympathy" and at a discussion held at ANI about Clarawood123. I believe there is at least one other sock in that list who did the same thing.
  • Technically speaking, Heavyplantcrossing is just  Possible to Clarawood123, but Heavyplantcrossing too has technical similarities to some of the accounts blocked at the Biscuittin case.
  • None of this is neat and tidy. However, there is strong enough technical/behavioral connection to block Clarawood123 and Heavyplantcrossing, which I have done.
  • I would appreciate it if a clerk would merge this with the other case as it fits far better there than as a standalone case. I prefer that Clarawood123 and Heavyplantcrossing be left untagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

08 September 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


I believe that the proposed sock may be a return of Biscuittin, who created many socks and edited disruptively in pursuit of some strange grudge against me, as you can see in the archives. The username is similar to other SOCK usernames, telling a little story often with some rhyming or alliteration, like Elvesmakeshelves or LadyofScoonthorpe or Monkonaskateboard. The sock also appears to be from the UK as Biscuittin was (see this SOCK comment: You obviously don't appreciate my sense of humour.)

I first crossed paths with the sock at Vaxxed where they wanted to change the article to reflect their belief that Andrew Wakefield is not an anti-vaccine activist per their comments here and here. The master and prior socks have made their pro-Wakefield views here and elsewhere (can provide off-wiki stuff via email if requested)

Like Biscuittin, they have followed me around and interjected themselves (incompetently at that) into several situations. I've been ignoring it but more recently, an inexperienced user had shown up and created an article about a proposed new medical condition they are advocating for, Power abuse disorder, which is now up for AfD and getting SNOWed. I was trying to help that new user understand the problems at their talk page, when Roberttherambler popped up there are wrote this and made this !vote at the AfD. The master and prior socks did this same kind of thing - see the history of them interjecting at a new user's talk page.

They just did the same thing again, jumping from a discussion at my talk page here and then interjecting themselves incompetently into the subject article talk page here, and into the article with this. This is exactly the kind of thing that Biscuittin did.

Behaviorally this is a no-brainer now that I see it. Might be wise to do a CU since in the past Biscuittin was prolific in deploying socks. As they are obviously following my edits we can expect them to show up here and protest. Jytdog (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I predicted, they are aware of this filing, per this comment. Jytdog (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Roberttherambler, are you back? Is it you, Biscuittin? QuackGuru (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

  •  Clerk endorsed - Very familiar, almost too close to call, I'd say. QEDK (愛 • 海) 16:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Possible to the master based on the CU log. I don't see obvious sleepers. Katietalk 20:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Second opinion requested Half a mind to close this but let's see what a fellow clerk has to say. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 16:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pink clock Awaiting administrative action - I feel that there's sufficient evidence here, this account was created right after the last of Biscuittin's socks were blocked, the intersection on railways and instigating other editors, coupled with the Possible CU result, I believe we can call it a day. QEDK (愛 • 海) 19:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that's him. Indeffed with tag and closing.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Biscuittin/Archive&oldid=1145953970"