Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bmwz3hm/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Bmwz3hm

Bmwz3hm (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
26 April 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

User:Bmwz3hm is currently blocked for 48 hrs, the sole focus appears to be removing material from the article Heleen Mees. Material posted on commons and the Netherlands wiki would suggest User:Bmwz3hm has a personal connection to the subject of this BLP article. Whilst the block is in place the IP and a newly registered account makes the same edits [1],[2]. The new account made an appearance after the IP had made 3 reverts. The WP:DUCK is strong with this one, I would guess however from the IP someone is travelling. Likely this one will have to be decided on behavioural evidence. WCMemail 22:24, 26 April 2014 (UTC) WCMemail 22:24, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Situation well explained by Wee Curry Monster. By the IP address, it does appear that the person is currently traveling.

IP 113.28.12.161 made the same changes that Bmwz3hm had previously made. When IP 113.28.12.161 had reverted three times, Kinker020 was created and reverted the same material. --TheCockroach (talk) 23:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Kinker020 has been blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring and the IP stopped after I left a 3RR warning on its talk page. Coincidentally, after Bmwz3hm was blocked for a second time, a series of IPs and newly registered accounts started at the talk page and they've now continued into the article.[4][5][6][7] Whether it's meatpupptry or sockpuppetry, it's clear that somebody should be running a Punch and Judy show instead of editing Wikipedia. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User Bilbao86 was just created and just reverted the same material as the others... --TheCockroach (talk) 11:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


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

information Administrator note I've been dealing with this article in an administrative role, trying to talk Bmwz3hm into taking to the discussion page and not edit-warring. I was halfway successful; they did at least participate on the discussion page, but didn't stop edit-warring. These other editors are showing up (and being recently-created) just to support Bmwz3hm's point of view (both on the discussion page of the article and in their changes to the article page). The article currently have a full protection on it, to last until this dispute is settled. It will be much easier to settle the dispute if we know who in the discussion is just a sock of someone else, so I'd appreciate if a CheckUser can see who is technically-related. I have my own suspicions about the editors above, and I believe that at least one is a meatpuppet rather than a sockpuppet (because their account name matches the name of a friend/colleague of the article subject). The two IPs, by the way, geolocate to London, England and Shinjuku, Japan respectively. So I'm pretty sure that they aren't the same person. -- Atama頭 16:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect at least one of the IPs is a meatpuppet as well. if Bmwz3hm is who we all think she is, she has been thanking other people using Twitter for "their efforts". WP:OUTING prevents me from providing a link here. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nl-wiki admin colleague: Similar problems with us. Checkuser was performed here and was positive for those accounts active with us. The main account has confirmed on her Dutch talk page the suspicions given above by the way. I have blocked all socks with us just now. Kind regards, MoiraMoira (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. Fluffernutter has blocked the main account, indefinitely; that block was going to happen anyway, regardless of this SPI, in my opinion. I have just blocked Kinker020, Bilbao86, and Vondel65. I chose not to block RUmarAbassi and Cvdullemen, since they haven't been disruptive in the article itself and their talk page comments (while incorrect--"global footprint" and all, that's simply untrue) are not disruptive. Should they start editing the article, where I am about to change protection to semi-protection (I have no desire to block the IPs, whose previous activity is clearly disruptive but who won't be able to touch the article for a while) we'll block those as well, since they do have that meaty smell to them. Thanks to all, and User:Wee Curry Monster, I sensed some impatience in your talk page remarks, but remember that I only just started looking into the article and that in serious cases speed is not always the most important thing. Speaking of speed, I think my blocks are perfectly justified without CU; still, I welcome CU, just for the paper trail and for future reference. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Drmies: I support your block. I held off on one myself (for reasons I gave on Talk:Heleen Mees but I agree that Bmwz3hm was almost surely heading for a block either way, and I don't really have doubts about the other accounts being sockpuppets. If CU confirms other socks and nobody else blocks them first I'll be more than happy to do so. -- Atama頭 15:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional cu-check on nl-wiki just done gave various dynamic (so shortly allocated) IP-addresses underlying and some openly used. What was active with us and blocked now after continuation today can be found here. This user can now no longer participate with us. Kind regards, MoiraMoira (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
and a just performed follow up cu on nl-wiki gave Philimona as well as the previously openly used IP-address (the only static one, all others are not or log ins from public acces points so vary) 50.75.245.202.
I hope you guys can also perform the requested checkuser here now so we can combine data. Philimona was created on en-wiki. All has been added here now. MoiraMoira (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
01 June 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


New account, registered just after previous sock puppetry episode, suddenly edits Heleen Mees and is editing to flatter. Fairly obvious sock puppetry on a vanity article. WCMemail 21:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC) WCMemail 21:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Apparently Solancious has been confirmed as a sock by checkuser at nl.wiki.[8] Heleen Mees is currently semi-protected so Solancious has made a series of relatively minor edits at various pages so she could become autoconfirmed. As soon as that happened she edited Heleen Mees. This may be something to watch for. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
31 May 2015
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


One of the previous characteristics of this serial sockpuppeteer was the focus on the article Heleen Mees and the ability to proxy from several continents with their IP sock puppets. Yesterday a whole bunch of different IP appeared to edit war a number of changes into the article, described as "corrections" in the edit summary. Seems clear that since the article was no longer semi-protected the IP were back and the article has been semi-protected again. WCMemail 16:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC) WCMemail 16:56, 31 May 2015 (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]

25 July 2015

[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

New one an IP.


Bmwz3hm seemingly had a WP:COI on Heleen Mees and Willem Buiter‎. Sole focus was editing details about the litigation between the two, editing to promote Mees in a favourable light. Eventually blocked indefinitely for serial sock puppetry, recruiting meat puppets via Twitter and soliciting edits from the editors talk page.

Atlantacity has just been blocked for edit warring on Willem Buiter‎, from the editing pattern it would appear to clearly be Bmwz3hm again [9],[10]. Sammy1339 is linked via Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) as both accounts have been used for edit warring on the article [11],[12]. It would go with the pattern of this editor that there are a bunch of sleeper accounts ready to be used when accounts are blocked. WCMemail 08:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

  • Comment. I don't know who William Buiter is. Atlantacity appeared on the Mattress page a while back when things were heated, and acted a bit inappropriately, then was bullied a bit, and left. I regretted the way she was treated but I also didn't find her contributions particularly constructive. I can't comment on the other issues here, but I definitely don't have a sock account, nor do I make IP edits. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am more certain about Atlantacity and the recourse to IP editing to complain about bias toward Buiter and persecuting Mees is pretty typical. I could be wrong about the other account and apologies if I am. WCMemail 14:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • I'll check the two listed named accounts against each other, but there are no non-stale accounts that I'm awarer of to tie them technically to the master. I should also note that Sammy1339 is an older account than the current master.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Atlantacity (talk · contribs · count) and Sammy1339 (talk · contribs · count) are Red X Unrelated.
  • Atlantacity (talk · contribs · count) is  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely) to the master. In May 2014, Materialscientist ran a CU. He found that several accounts were  Confirmed. He also made the following comment: "Geolocation is complex and should not be used as an argument." (see archives). The same thing is true with Atlantacity. He clearly uses IPs that mask his true location. In checking Materialscientist's log, I also found one commonality: both the confirmed socks and Atlantacity used IPs from the same ISP and the same obviously untrustworthy location. Finally, a significant portion of Atlantacity's edits are without logging in and to bolster his claims.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only two wikis where Atlantacity has edited are en-wiki and nl-wiki. Although I cannot read Dutch (@Drmies:?), Atlantacity was involved in an edit war at the Buiter article in June and July, triggering protection (I think it's full but am not sure) to the article. Also, 114.250.104.146 was involved in the same war (one edit), supporting Atlantacity. Finally, if I understand properly, the administrator who acted mentions proxies.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Drmies sent email asking me to take a look at this case and see if a block is warranted. Based on contributions, I doubt that User:Sammy1339 is the same person as User:Atlantacity. The latter makes at least occasional slips in English, while Sammy1339 writes English very smoothly. Atlantacity seems to think that 'confuscation' is a word based on a comment above. Sammy1339 has been on Wikipedia since 2005 and seems to be a general-purpose editor, while Atlantacity so far works only on topics related to Heleen Mees and Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight). At Talk:Willem Buiter Atlantacity writes "I suggest to include the following paragraph..", a phrase unlikely to be used by a fluent English speaker. Now for the technical evidence. User:Bbb23 connects Atlantacity to the master using the term 'possilikely', a jargon word employed by checkusers to say the evidence is between possible and likely. Bbb23 also made the definite statement "a significant portion of Atlantacity's edits are without logging in and to bolster his claims". Though this doesn't prove Atlantacity and Bmwz3hm are the same person, it says that Atlantacity has used IPs to make edits to the articles in dispute, which represents evasion of WP:SCRUTINY. Because this was done on a hotly-disputed BLP article, I find this to be disruptive editing, and I recommend an indefinite block of User:Atlantacity. EdJohnston (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

16 January 2016

[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


[13] Newly registered account heads straight to Heleen Mees and immediately reverts to restore edits made by Bmwz3hm and other socks. Behavioural evidence strongly suggests this is Bmwz3hm. Editor has a WP:COI and there are WP:BLP concerns about the edits they're making. WCMemail 22:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC) WCMemail 22:12, 16 January 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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bmwz3hm/Archive&oldid=1076201231"