Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Astbam

Astbam

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

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Astbam/Archive.

29 December 2014

– A user has requested CheckUser. An SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse or decline the request.

Suspected sockpuppets

• Notforlackofeffort (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

The User:Notforlackofeffort account has been been created on Aug 19, 2014, made 4 edits, and then re-emerged in mid-December, almost immediately engaging in acrimonious dispute with User:Davey2010. There is currently an ANI thread about this, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Notforlackofeffort, where the emerging consensus seems to be that Notforlackofeffort has been engaged in inappropriate hounding of Davey2010. Notforlackofeffort did receive a 31 hours block for personal attacks on Dec 24 for this. The Astbam account had not edited since Oct 21, until re-emerging today to make a single edit[1] in the above mentioned ANI thread to complain about Davey2010. Both Astbam and Notforlackofeffort edits mainly concern buses, bus routes and bus companies. In July-August 2014 Astbam received several edit warring warnings from Davey2010, at User talk:Astbam. On Aug 8, 2014 Astbam had edited[2] the Nu-Venture article. The very first edit of User:Notforlackofeffort was an edit[3] on Aug 19, 2014 to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nu-Venture, an article that Davey2010 had nominated for deletion. Overall, all this seems to indicate that Astbam and Notforlackofeffort are the same person, although Checkuser would be needed to make a conclusive determination here. Nsk92 (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

There is nothing to this at all. I was writing a whole bunch of stuff to explain why, when I found the smoking gun, which is as follows:

• Astbam's interest in Nu-Venture, if you look at the talk page, was that he was the one who actually put the seed in Davey's mind to propose it for deletion (Astbam suggested in on 8 Aug, Davey proposed it on 9 Aug)
• My interest in Nu-Venture was because Davey was trying to get it deleted, which I though was an insane proposition (I didn't get involved until 19 Aug, my first ever edit to Wikipedia)

I'm sorry, but given that, if anyone thinks we must be the same person, is frankly insane. Why would I fight to keep the Nu-Venture article, if I had just ten days earlier been the reason why it was being proposed for deletion?

For completeness, I'll still include the rest of the stuff that I was writing here, before I noticed the above smoking gun:

I already gave the more plausible explanation at ANI. I will copy it here in full, for convenience:

Seriously? Pay close attention. In scenario A, an editor trying to improve a bus related article, gets the NOTthis/NOTthat/ignore treatment from Davey and Charles, despite trying to have an actual policy based conversation with them in a way where both parties leave satisfied they have been heard and understood. In scenario B, an editor trying to stop bus related articles from being deleted, gets the NOTthis/NOTthat/ignore treatment from Davey and Charles, despite trying to have an actual policy based conversation with them in a way where both parties leave satisfied they have been heard and understood. Which is the more likely explanation? That both editors are the same person, or that the way that Davey and Charles attempt to brush off people who know about bus topics is consistently poor, and therefore has the exact same ability to piss off different editors interested in buses? Notforlackofeffort (talk) 03:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I really don't know why it surprises this person that two people interested in the same thing on Wikipedia would get pissed off by the same people for the same reason in two different places, when the things they were doing in those places were exactly the same.

As for the timing - I obviously can't speak for the other guy, but anyone assuming that me not editing Wikipedia means I wasn't reading it, is quite wrong. I occasionally check it (although why I don't know, I never fail to be amazed at how shit it is at covering this topic). I only got involved in editing when I noticed Davey making a huge mistake by trying to delete a notable bus operator, Nu-Venture, and I only re-engaged when I noticed Davey yet again trying to delete an operator (yes, the big red notices telling you THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT TO BE DELETE really do work). I can speculate why the other guy is only getting involved now - perhaps his previous experience, being totally fucked over by Charles/Davey dissuaded him from participating, but maybe like me, he's still been reading, and perhaps that's how he noticed this at ANI.

I suppose it might look suspicious that were both interested in Nu-Venture, but if we are both interested in UK buses, as it appears we are, then this is about as significant as noticing two editors interested in Sci-Fi films were looking at the Terminator article at around the same time. As I have said elsewhere, Nu-Venture is actually more notable in the field than operators of similar size, so naturally people are going to check out its page to see if they can find specific information on that (which of course, they can't, because Wikipedia is shit in this topic)

In fact, now that I have just looked closely at what the other guy actually did to the Nu-Venture article - (this was when I noticed the smoking gun...) Notforlackofeffort (talk) 04:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm absolutely certain that all the clerks and CU's are well aware of it, but for the record I'll mention WP:BADHAND. It's far from unusual for a trolling editor to create two identities with apparently opposite views, since the trolling sockpuppeteer's goal is disruption and amusement. Given that, the "smoking gun" is really not much to speak of. More discussion concerning this editor can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Notforlackofeffort BMK (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

This theory is total bollocks. BADHAND (or at least what BMK apparently meant by it) would have you believe that I control both these accounts, and I opposed myself at the Nu-Venture Afd for shits and giggles. The only problem being, you have to be a very boring person indeed to see any entertainment value from that particular AFD. Maybe if it had erupted into an almighty row, I guess there are some screwed up people who would find that amusing, but it didn't happen there. There's no logic to it at all. BMK is frankly just trying to wind me up I think. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 08:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Bbb23's claim, I do not know Astbam in any way, shape or form. I sympathise with what he has had to go through, being given the run around by Davey and Charles with all their NOTthis/NOtthat/ignore the bus fan nonsense, but I appear to be the only person here with that kind of empathy. If there has been any case of us colluding together for mutual benefit though, I would like to know what it was, as I am aware of no such collaboration. If the single instance of two people saying broadly the same thing at ANI about Davey is the basis of that conclusion, then words fail me. If you really are interested in who knows each other on Wikipedia, and who have been working together for mutual benefit, voting on each other's AFDs and editing the same articles for the same common goals, you need look no further than Davey and Charles. They definitely know each other in real life, if the comment Davey left on Charles's talk page about breaking his door is anything to go by. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 08:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Clerk note: I'm neither going to endorse nor decline the CU request. I have two comments. First, I see no behavioral similarities between the two editors, and although sometimes those are intentionally obfuscated, my feeling is it would be tough for that to be the case here. Second, I think it's likely that the two editors know each other, which would, of course, constitute meat puppetry and be blockable, but I wouldn't want to reach that conclusion unilaterally and block on that basis.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

---