Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NYyankees51/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


NYyankees51

NYyankees51 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date December 24 2009, 04:23 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by AgnosticPreachersKid [edit]

NYyankees51 was recently blocked for sockpuppetry; CheckUser verified Ronpaulfan83 and 68.50.210.194 as being alternate accounts (see here). ProudAmerican93's user page admitted being an alternate account of NYyankees51. That account was blocked along with CG.XLII.

During the AfD of Bobby Schilling, 70.21.119.84 left comments that were later signed by NYyankees51. The IP addresses are still being used to make problematic edits since NYyankees51's block. Both IP addresses and NYyankees51 have an interest in Alexandria Aces (Cal Ripken Collegiate Baseball), Bobby Schilling, and Susan B. Anthony List (note: 70.21.119.84 is registered to Susan B. Anthony List). APK whisper in my ear 04:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

Hello, this is NYyankees51/ProudAmerican93. This is all a big misunderstanding and I hope I can explain.

  • Ronpaulfan83 was made as a joke by User:BaseballFanVA94 and I. I made several disruptive edits (as a joke), but stopped. BBFVA94 made the rest without my knowledge. Evidence of his role in the username is found here.
  • I created ProudAmerican93 after discovering that NYyankees51 was blocked without solid reasons.
  • CG.XLII was me as well, but only saw three edits and I stopped before I was blocked.
  • 70.21.119.84 is a shared computer at a non-profit. However, the edits to Alexandria Aces and CRCBL were made by my brother who works there. Please note that the edits from this IP to the Susan B. Anthony List were made a few months ago before I was aware of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines.
  • 68.50.210.194 is another shared IP address at a school that I have no recollection of using. It was most likely BBFVA94. I don't really care whether this stays blocked or not because I don't use it (or know which one it is for that matter).

I have been using the name NYyankees51 since May 2006 with only a few problems. I recognize that making the edits I made were a bad idea. If I am unblocked, rest assured it won't happen again, at least from me.

I am requesting the following be unblocked:

  • NYyankees51
  • 70.21.119.84

Sorry for the lateness in my appeal, I was unaware that this page existed since I couldn't access my account. As such, I will go ahead and remove the case closed tag while you review my case. I hope this is okay.

Thank you and I hope to hear back from you. Merry Christmas and God bless.

Why are you evading your block again? Please go to your main account (User:NYyankees51) and request unblock there. –MuZemike 00:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
 Confirmed yeah, both of those IPs are him. I found some more socks today. --jpgordon::==( o ) 17:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions [edit]
  • information Administrator note All accounts blocked and tagged. IPs haven't been blocked, as they haven't edited in about 18 hours at a minimum. NW (Talk) 17:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note 71.178.26.97 blocked for block evasion. If you wish to request unblock, then do so on User talk:NYyankees51 through the normal fashion. –MuZemike 00:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It will be archived after its final review by a Clerk or Checkuser.


Report date January 14 2010, 19:48 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by AgnosticPreachersKid [edit]

ArchConservative93 is clearly NYyankees51 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) aka 71.178.26.97 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) aka 68.50.210.194 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) evading his block. The new account's interest in Bobby Schilling, Alexandria Aces (Cal Ripken Collegiate Baseball), and Susan B. Anthony List are all topics that NYyankees51 likes to edit. 68.50.210.194 created ArchConservative93's user talk page. APK whisper in my ear 19:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

information Administrator note Honestly, seems to fall under WP:DUCK. Blocked and tagged. NJA (t/c) 10:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
15 October 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]



Evidence submitted by The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous [edit]

Here's a list of articles both wiki accts have edited. [1] The BS24 account was created in January, 2010, right after the NYyankees51 sockpuppet case was closed that same month. After BS24 said " I was involved in a rather heated dispute over the Taxpayer March on Washington crowd size section"[2], I looked for it there but could not find any relevant discussion involving BS24. I asked BS24 what was the user name, BS24 did not recall it to me, and claimed to have quit using it due to a lost password.[3] I have been advised that it is best to let Wiki admins have a look at the record, and I agree. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Additional evidence in response to BS24's statement.)
First, the Admins know this, but for anyone else: fresh start accts are not the prerogative of editors immediately after being blocked for multiple counts of sockpuppetry. Since it is also important to establish that the sockpuppet has been disruptive, voluminous example are proffered below.
BS24's invites us to look at his/her conduct as BS24 to see that "you will find no disruption in those articles." His/her record is not as flattering as he/she may wish it to seem. Whatever periods he/she may have had of exemplary conduct, they are punctuated with periodic frequency by the admonishments of Wiki admins who advised better approaches. Not only has the editor been blocked for reverting 4 times in 24 hours,[4] BS24 has also been disruptive in other ways. BS24 drastically changed a section on crowd size for the Restoring Honor Rally without seeking consensus on the talk page and while claiming that consensus exists. [5], [6]. Here is another example of a drastic and disruptive edit.[7] BS24 has also used edit summaries to argue with, disparage or make other personal comments about editors [8][9][10]. Many of these antagonistic edit summary comments were subsequent to an editor on Aug. 30[11] asking BS24 to cease the practice.[12][13][14][15][16]. This is a sampling,and it seemed necessary to list more than a few to prevent anyone else from viewing them as not typical. This is extensive warring via edit summaries post. Though on Oct BS24 has apologized for making attacks. But because the apology is so recent, and was so hard to extract, apprehension remains on my part.[17]
Updated Oct 22: The apprehension has been proven prudent. On Oct 22 BS24 continued to show no regard for WP:ES which instructs editors to"avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved." and resumed edit warring via an edit summary saying "at least pretend to work with me" The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki admins have corrected BS24 and have characterized or suggested that his/her edits had been 'unconstructive', "offensive" and "atagonistic", and in at least one case, "vandalism." See [18], [19], [20], [21]. Finally, as to whether BS24 has indeed gained a new maturity, this recent posting left for me and Xenographic suggests otherwise: "Whoa whoa whoa. I thought we were moving away from personal attacks against editors. Guess I was wrong." BS24 (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC) [22]The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence submitted by other users [edit]
Short version for the busy Admin/Checkuser
We just need two simple answers from Admins & Checkusers here:
1) Is this editor legally editing right now on the BS24 account (and several IPs) after having been blocked for vandalism and abusive use of sockpuppets? The editor claims he was only blocked for vandalism, and started this BS24 as a clean start and hasn't returned to vandalizing. However, the records show he was only blocked for 24 hours for vandalism, but was actually later indef-blocked for "abusive use of multiple accounts". He appears to have created BS24 to continue vandalizing, and did so with his earliest edits.
2) Is a checkuser warranted, based on past abuse, to find possible sleepers and socks presently in use.
The below accounts were involved. Some were blocked but do not appear on any SPI case page. There were many blocks issued over a period of three weeks, not on just the NYyankees51 account:
Socks More socks Even more socks
71.178.26.97 (talk · contribs) 70.21.119.84 (talk · contribs) 75.103.237.18 (talk · contribs)
173.13.237.237 (talk · contribs) 68.50.210.194 (talk · contribs) 69.143.38.77 (talk · contribs)
66.160.108.190 (talk · contribs) 72.255.52.146 (talk · contribs) PatrickJMalone (talk · contribs)
AAces1 (talk · contribs) AcesFan (talk · contribs) Huhnad (talk · contribs)
NYyankees51 (talk · contribs) ProudAmerican93 (talk · contribs) CG.XLII (talk · contribs)
ArchConservative93 (talk · contribs) BBT2005 (talk · contribs) Jos67 (talk · contribs)
MLKrause (talk · contribs) Ronpaulfan83 (talk · contribs) BaseballFanVA94 (talk · contribs)

There are also further incidents supporting the view that the new account is no "fresh start", but a continuation of disruptive behavior.

For example, I made a change and explained it in the change comment and on talk[23], and then BS24 reverted it by just claiming that it is "vandalism"[24]. He/she also tried to remove me from a mediation by using some obviously untrue claim, see the comment of change [25], about which BS24 later said was a "honest mistake"[26].

After these incidents I was still ready to assume WP:AGF for the future. But now I saw that he/she is continuing such actions. For example, an IP made a valid change which was well substantiated by a new source[27]. But then just yesterday BS24 reverted that change and gave the user a dressing-down "Please [...] read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia."[28]. Treating other editors in such a way makes it harder to gain and retain motivated and constructive Wikipedia contributors.

So, after the actions I was directly affected by, plus then learning about the long history of the actions of BS24 under many different names and IPs, plus now seeing that he/she just continues in the same way, I don't think that this is a "fresh start". I really see a problem which should be addressed somehow.

(Yes, he has initiated and is participating a moderation. But I think a moderation should not automatically mean immunity again sockpuppet investigations. And as long as this case is unresolved, the moderation may continue as planned without hard feelings.) 82.135.29.209 (talk) 12:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Yes, I am NYyankees51. NYyankees51, was blocked in December 2009 due to some stupid jokes I was trying to pull on a friend. I put three and a half years (perhaps not always the best editor at first, since I was significantly younger and just learning Wikipedia, but three and a half years nonetheless) into that account and blew it for a couple of laughs. I fully recognize that I was in violation of Wikipedia rules and I fully accept that block; I deserved it. When the block was made my IP was banned from new account creation as well. However, the ban was lifted soon thereafter. I took that as a way to make a fresh start with a new account, BS24.

As you can see from my edit history, I have never made any more vandalistic edits, or at least edits that are undoubtedly vandalism, and all my edits have been made in good faith. User:BS24 shows a list of articles I have created or contributed significantly to, and you will find no disruption in those articles. I have also taken a lot of time to clean up various articles. Had I not mentioned my previous involvement in an article under NYyankees51 here, you would never know I was NYyankees51 by my lack of vandalism or disruption.

So yes, I guess BS24 is arguably a sockpuppetry violation. However, I hope others will take a hard look at my edit history and decide whether BS24 is a simple vandal or legitimate contributor, and whether I have learned from my mistakes and made up for them. Thank you and God bless. BS24 (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: for the record, I was mistaken when I told The Artist that I stopped using the account I used for the Taxpayer March on Washington article. I was confusing NYyankees51 with another account I did forget the password to. BS24 (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to new comments made below -- Yes, my history has been "punctuated with periodic frequency by the admonishments of Wiki admins who advised better approaches". What does this not happen to? Everybody gets "admonished" all the time. Look at your own edit history and talk page. This SPI is clearly vindictive. We are on opposite sides of a dispute. It should be noted that I brought up The Artist's own SPI here, something which greatly offended he and IP82, even though I was asking a simple question about who to include in mediation, not out of trying to get him in trouble. The Artist called me "the worst offender" against civility here, even though his conduct has been absolutely horrendous (examples 1 2). I was going to post a WP:ANI on him, and I even typed it up, but decided not to press submit in the interest of a fresh start on the mediation. Now I find multiple users, all of whom have accused me of incivility, are digging for dirt on me.
The point is that I am not guilty of any of the bad conduct that got NYyankees51 banned. WP:SOCK#LEGIT states that "Clean-start accounts should not return to...behavior previously identified as problematic." NYyankees51 and socks were banned for deliberate vandalism on Alexandria Aces (Cal Ripken Collegiate Baseball) and related pages, which I have not touched under BS24 except for one edit in March where I undid myself for some reason. The only reason anyone knows that I am NYyankees51 is because I said here I had edited Taxpayer March on Washington, which I edited under NYyankees51. No one would ever know if I hadn't said that. That proves that I made BS24 as a fresh start account. If I was prohibited from doing so, my IP would have been blocked indefinitely. BS24 (talk) 18:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
About the edit summaries -- Link 8 was out of frustration and did not refer to any particular editor. Link 9 was referring to the wording. The Artist is advised to look at the statement instead of just adding it because it says "you". Link 10 also did not refer to any particular editor. My edit summaries are along the lines of these two examples from The Artist, 1 2. And what do edit summaries have to do with an SPI anyway? If you have a problem with it then add it to WP:ANI. BS24 (talk) 02:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is an SPI. Take the edit summaries to WP:ANI if you're so concerned about it. BS24 (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case is getting more and more ridiculous. All three users (User:The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous, User:82.135.29.209, and User:Xenophrenic involved in trying to get me blocked are on the opposite side of an ongoing dispute. They have no legitimate concerns about sockpuppetry. This whole case is vindictive to the highest degree. BS24 (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users [edit]
This submissions appears to be in response to the current Mediation regarding Restoring Honor Rally and nothing to do with any supposed violations of sockpuppetry. This appears to be an attempt by The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous to remove someone whom his disagrees with from the mediation process. It is clear that BS24 is not using multiple accounts in order to manipulate discussion on the Restoring Honor Rally article. This submission should be closed as vindictive. Arzel (talk) 23:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect, Arzel. This SPI case was filed at my suggestion, in order to avoid the inevitable war of words that was about to break out, as the two editors were already discussing this issue. Other editors were already warning these two to curb their discussions, so I merely suggested that it should be left in the hands of uninvolved admins here at SPI. No "vindictiveness" and no "attempts to remove" anyone here, and no one has accused BS24 of "using multiple accounts in order to manipulate discussion on the Restoring Honor Rally article". I do, however, find it interesting that BS24 didn't recall the account name he used for over 3.5 years, or didn't recall that it was blocked (and he didn't just lose the password to it) until after this SPI case was filed. If there are any violations here, it is up to the Admins to decide:
Two of those IPs appear to be shared because I don't know what half of the edits are. The other two are my laptop and desktop, and that was just forgetting to log in, as all of us have done before. Might I also note that I have brought up The Artist's SPI in previous discussions, which he took as an attempt to discredit him when I was just wondering about which parties to list in the mediation request, so vindictiveness is at least a possibility. And as I stated above, I was confusing NYyankees51 with another account that I did forget the password to. BS24 (talk) 02:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Two of those IPs appear to be shared because I don't know what half of the edits are."
Then obviously I was referring to the half that you did make. As for everyone forgetting to log in, I never have in almost 4 years (although I have caught Wikipedia logging me out inexplicably once or twice in that time). You, on the other hand, "forgot" to log in at least 39 times (yes, I counted) during the week of March 31 to April 6 for example, while remembering to log in only once during that week -- so you'll forgive my skepticism. As for you claiming to have even more accounts (forgotten passwords or not), you aren't helping your case. BS24, I am not the person with whom you should be arguing; I'm not your enemy here. If you'll accept a bit of advice, I would recommend you cite this edit by the very checkuser that blocked you, and claim you understood it to mean you could start over if you kept your nose clean and didn't "out" yourself. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Artist admits to intentionally not logging in on his SPI, so I don't see your point. Forgetfulness is not a crime. And I was not blocked for sockpuppeting on the articles I edit most, i.e. Bobby Schilling, Susan B. Anthony List, etc. I was blocked for sockpuppeting as a joke on a friend on a completely different article. BS24 (talk) 04:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neato. I'm not an admin. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that The Artist himself appears to be a WP:SPA. The only reason this editor even has an account is because I told him to create an account less he appear to be avoiding ip id. Given the knowledge this person has of WP procedures it is likely that they have been here before in some other arena. I suggest that editors that live in glass houses not throw bricks at other editors. I will restate, this appears to be nothing more than a vindictive effort to remove an editor from a discusion. There is absolutely no evidence that BS24 has been manipulating accounts in order to gain an advantage. BS24 has been trying to work with all parties in the Restoring Honor Rally mediation and now this comes forward by the one primary editor most against the mediation process. I call bs to the highest degree. Arzel (talk) 07:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arzel, what are you talking about? It was Xenophrenic's and not the Artist idea to start this investigation. Artist did not suggest or request to remove BS24 from discussion or mediation process. BS24 has admitted using many accounts, he gave explanations why he did. And now lets decide neutral Wikipedia admins how to handle at. I think this is the only valid procedure. And if you really claim something fishy with someone else account, then file a request for an investigation and provide hard evidence instead of some vague "glass house" accusation. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 08:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarrify a little bit. TAAKAMA came into the discussion using IP69.224.150.70 and appeared to be a single purpose user. You came into the discussion at the same time it appeared that you were both the same person. It appeared that TAAKAMA was trying to use multiple IP's to strengthen his position. I told him he should create an account so that there was no confusion regarding IP addresses (you should do the same as well). I thought he created a new account as his talk page pretty much started at that point. I didn't go back and look into his history, but apparently he did create it earlier, why he didn't use it right away, I don't know. It was this initial IP use which caused the original checkuser against you because he clearly made an edit that gave the impression that he and you were the same person.

Are you debating yourself Mr. Anon? IP82, IP69, and "The Artist AKA Mr. Anonymous" all seem to be the same person. Arzel (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Since I usually agree with myself, what are you referring to besides different ID's I have used? BTW, since this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, could you offline it to my talk page at "The Artist AKA Mr. Anonymous"69.224.150.70 (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Mr Anon
Arzel (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arzel ... I don't understand what you want to proof and what all this has to do with this SPI. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 14:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The statement, "BS24 also likes to use edit summaries to attack other editors, e.g. [29], [30]." by The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk · contribs) is either a mistake or meant to be misleading. The IP address appears to be that of The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous. Note that the person editing from that IP signed the edit summary as "Mr Anon", something that The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous has done in the past 1 2. The IP also geolocates to California, where IPs used by BS24 generally geolocate to Maryland/Virigina. So, the wrong diff was provided, or this is some attempt at providing misleading information. I have no comment on anything else in this sockpuppet investigation. Akerans (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Akerans is right and I did direct comments to other editors in edit summaries, which I should not have done and will not make any excuses for. I will remove them and note in edit summary for the removal as to why. I have found many citations that make the overwhelming point that BS24 has been consistently disruptive via edit summaries, and they have been added. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Requested brief summary [edit]

Most of the above discuss whether BS24 has been a disruptive editor; if I have been just as disruptive, or what motivated me to open the SPI. I'll forgo addressing those issues (some of which Xenphrenic addressed above[31] in summary while pointing out other possible sock puppet accounts to be looked at.) Instead I'll establish that BS24 is a sock puppet account opened with no other intention but to evade scrutiny.

BS24 commenced editing on January 23, 2010[32] and after this SPI was opened on Oct. 15 confessed that BS24 and NYyankees51 were the same.[33]. BS24 presumed, without discussing the matter with an admin, that since a block on the IP attached to NYankees51 was lifted, a fresh start account could be opened. And BS2 returned to editing many of the same pages as before,[34] though the editor was cautioned that doing so was a good way get outed. [35] The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is within the scope of SPI. BS24 was opened as a sockpuppet under false pretenses of a clean start. According to policy regarding contentious and scrutinized topics
The principle is that clean start is not a license to resume editing in areas the community might need scrutiny or where scrutiny has happened in the past. It is intended for users who wish to move on new areas having learned from the past, or who wish to set aside old disputes and poor conduct.
Futhermore, no timely disclosure was made, contrary to protocol:[36]
You are generally advised not to resume editing such areas without disclosure. However some users try to do so. You may want to check (in confidence) with a Checkuser or other member of the functionaries team if you want to resume editing patterns or wiki areas under a new account, where concealment of the old account may be seen negatively. Failure to disclose can be seen negatively if it does come out later.
In many cases BS24 did not "move on to new areas" but has returned to many old playgrounds, though the Sock puppetry article states:
Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors cannot detect patterns in your contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances (see legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions. (Misusing a clean start by switching accounts or concealing a clean start in a way that avoids scrutiny may also be considered a breach of this policy.)
The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"not a license to resume editing in areas the community might need scrutiny or where scrutiny has happened in the past." I was banned for vandalism on Alexandria Aces (Cal Ripken Collegiate Baseball). My ban had nothing to do with the articles I have continued to edit regularly under BS24. "It is intended for users who wish to...set aside old disputes and poor conduct." BS24 (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BS24 did in fact did edit the Aces page as BS24 while evading scrutiny. [37] BS24 has also not been truthful. The indefinite block of Ronpaulfan93/NYyankees/et al. was not due to rambunctious and misguided joking around that got called out as vandalism, and no other disruptive conduct was involved. The block log doesn't support this; in fact, the vandalism block was for only 24 hours, and the block in place and was for mulitiple counts counts of vandalism - not singular. The indefinite block, still in place, was actually for "abusing multiple accounts." [38] [39] The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, BS24 as recently as Oct. 14 tried evading scrutiny. This is when BS24 could not "remember" which account he used to edit Taxpayer March on Washington, saying it was "account that I stopped using because I forgot my password." But he said he would "see if I can find it." (Keep in mind, the main account blocked NYyankees51 was used for 3 1/2 years.) When directly asked about the account, BS24 said "Yes, it was NYyankees51." [40] BS24 still attempted to evade scrutiny by not bothering to mention that in truth an indefinite block for sockpuppetry was what prevented his access to the account.[41]
(BS24 later said " I was confusing NYyankees51 with another account that I did forget the password to", but he hasn't yet named that account.)The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would be hard pressed to imagine a more clear, relevant documentation of BS24's evasion of scrutiny, mendacity, and egregious bad faith. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stale account [edit]

NYyankees51 as not a stale account: it is on active indefinite block. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk)`

Stale means that it has not edited in ~4 months. It has nothing to do with blocks. Tiptoety talk 19:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. One point of fact: when BS24 commenced NYyankees51 was not stale. Also, is there a policy that allows clean starts after a indefinitely blocked account has gone "stale"? If so, there would seem to be a license available where you can create havoc, then simply wait 4 months in order to create even more havoc, ad infinitum. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Stale" is purely a technical term - the information for the account (IP address, useragent, etc.) is only kept for a limited time. Once a few months have elapsed from an account's last edit, connections using this technical data can no longer be made. TNXMan 19:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming this is relevant for checkuser purposes, which of course, does not apply to my summation. But since NYyankees51 has admitted to being a sockpuppet multiple times, it would not be hard to provide a list of sockpuppet accounts NYyankees51, et.al. did not dispute as such. Let me know if this or anything else would be of help to you. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As to whether there is any basis for an admin being prevented from blocking, an earlier example suggests otherwise. When NYyankees51 admitted to being Ronpaulfan83, the admin did not negate the SPI, or refer it to another WP:ANI forum, but instead "blocked for block evasion" Ronpaulfan83.[42] Creating a precedent by which a user admits to being a sockpuppet is immune from blocking should be considered carefully. Regardless of what happens to BS24, that editor could cease with the habit of making evasive maneuvers ask for the unblocking of NYyankees51. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is vindictiveness 101. The Artist is basically demanding that I be blocked, when we are on opposite sides of an ongoing mediation. BS24 (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is beyond vindictiveness. AKA is now apparently wiki-stalking BS24 and reverting edits with very inappropriate edit summaries like this and this again. It should be noted that AKA reverted an editor that agreed with the tags BS24 had put into that article. Arzel (talk) 05:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And The Artist has been stalking my edit history and updates his argument based on my latest "abuses" of edit summaries (1). BS24 (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Arzel (and BS24), here we are again... I don't think that ad hominem abuses are helpful ... It seems that all facts are presented, so everybody should just relax and wait for the admin ruling. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 01:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to "just relax" when I am under constant personal attack on a daily basis. And it's extremely frustrating that what looked to be a resolution of the Restoring Honor dispute has been completely derailed because of this. BS24 (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

I'm not reading all of this. Brief summary please? TNXMan 15:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the summary. Firstly, I cannot compare BS24 to any of the accounts listed in the summary, as they are  Stale (and I'm not going to fish for sockpuppets unless there is evidence they are being used). Secondly, checkuser will not connect IPs to accounts. And finally, BS24 has admitted to being NYyankees51, which pretty much negates the need for this investigation. Whether this is a legitimate clean start or if a proper unblock request needs to be filed is probably outside the scope of SPI. Unless there is more, I'll mark this for close soon. TNXMan 17:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BS24 blocked as admitted sock, no editors remain, closing. Nakon 07:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NYyankees51/Archive&oldid=1142566776"