Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cactusjackbangbang/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Cactusjackbangbang

Cactusjackbangbang (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
14 January 2015
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
  1. There appears to be a sockfarm going after Neelix (talk · contribs), possible purposes of trolling involved here.
  2. Compare very similar edits removing large chunks of material from exact same page by above accounts: Yaktaur, The The Fool on the Hill, IP address noted above, and also account Cactusjackbangbang.
  3. Cactusjackbangbang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) account first edited 7 January 2015 -- yet somehow knows how to start AFDs on two (2) quality articles worked on by Neelix (talk · contribs), at at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 tour of She Has a Name and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critical response to She Has a Name.
    • "somehow knows how"? The directions are fairly straightforward and easily accessible, publicly, on one of the most well-trafficked sites on the internet. Also, I do not understand how a recent account somehow precludes familiarity with Wikipedia. The articles I nominated for deletion deserve nomination for deletion, hence my doing so (note also that I am far from alone in sharing this view, as evidenced by the deletion request discussion for both). I might just as well accuse you of "sockpuppeting" for this neelix editor. Cactusjackbangbang (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. According to Laser brain (talk · contribs) there are about 15-20 accounts involved in the sockfarm diff.
  2. Please investigate this harassment of a quality contributor and WP:FA writer Neelix (talk · contribs), thank you. — Cirt (talk) 01:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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

  • It is very hard to believe that a new user would start editing by creating an AfD. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not "start editing" by creating a deletion request. While I did not register for an account until recently, I am not a "new user" to Wikipedia, 14 years old today and one of the most popular sites in the world.Cactusjackbangbang (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Likewise, I find it strange that a presumably experienced editor would revert all edits I made to the Tara Teng page, which were supervised and approved by another, more experienced editor, without indicating any reason for doing so other than "suspected sockpuppetry." These edits were made in good faith, and your failure to indicate what was problematic about any of them at all is dictatorial and insulting. If pages curated by longstanding editors are exempt from critique or editing by newer editors, than there isn't much of a place for new editors on such a supposedly collaborative platform.Cactusjackbangbang (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • If that is a reference to my involvement, I approve of most of your edits, they seemed a good start to a discussion of what should be in the article. That is not the same as approving them, or approving of all of them. It was remiss of me to not quickly revert the ones I opposed. I did suspect Yaktaur may be a sockpuppet, but did not report as edits appeared clumsy but not malicious. Millionmice (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, I am not a sockpoppet and do not know what a meat farm is, I just thought the Tara Teng page was terrible and was a stain on wikipedia. Feel free to change it all back, but I think it's much better now and am a real human being not a sock puppet Yaktaur (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, just to be clear, I am not associated with any other username listed on this page. Please back up your claims before accusing me of harassment. What edits have I made on Wikipedia that are unacceptable and why? What articles nominated for deletion have been met with broad hostility? Cactusjackbangbang (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good to see that this activity is being looked into. I would like to see that the AfDs related to this SPI be put on hold pending the investigation; specifically 2012 tour of She Has a Name, Critical response to She Has a Name and Ron Wear. Can this be done? --Wolbo (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can someone maybe head to my talk page and explain what a sock puppet investigation is and why I'm being included in this? I've read this page a few times and am still incredibly confused. As pointed out, I am new to Wikipedia and have no clue what's going on. I haven't even touched any of the articles in question beyond participating in talk pages (mostly to learn how that whole process works; maybe I got overzealous since I like to argue?) and have mostly stuck to low-stakes Wiki pages to get used to editing. Apologies if anything I did seemed suspicious but I really don't understand what's going on or why I am included in this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdh9 (talk • contribs)
  • Okay, I just checked back in and saw one of the pieces of evidence was that I edited the Comedy Bang Bang page and the sockpuppet guy has the words "bang bang" in his username. Guys, Comedy Bang Bang is an incredibly popular comedy podcast (and television show) and if that's what's being used to toss me into this, that might be the most insane thing I've ever seen. Also add to this two of the other pages I've worked on are directly related (You Made it Weird with Pete Holmes and Scott Aukerman). And the fact that not one person who keeps adding my name to this has had the decency to actually, you know, address me directly or answer questions I've posed. This is ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdh9 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been mulling this over for the last couple of days, but I'm going to say this, then hush. I have to say that all article edits I looked at were good faith that could be backed up with policies such as WP:BLP and WP:DUE. They might not all be quality edits, but I can't see anything wrong for them being made. An 18K biography is obviously smaller than a 70K one but that doesn't mean it violates the GA criteria, particularly the "focused" part. There has obviously been motivation for this flurry of editing, maybe Tara Teng has complained somewhere about the excess detail in her article (and it wouldn't be the first time the subject of a BLP complained, would it?), but ultimately the editors tackled the material with civility and following policy as best they could given their inexperience. The AfDs have been handled by experienced editors in good faith and discussed on their own merits, as they should. Rather than hitting these newcomers with a large banhammer, shouldn't we encourage them to go and tackle the many other BLPs that are nowhere near GA standard and have serious problems? It sounds like a great way to recruit new editors. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

 Clerk note: I don't have time at the moment to look at the evidence. I will note only in passing, in particular if a CU is done, that Cactusjackbangbang is not even close to being the oldest account. Johnnydowns is much older (2010 v. 2015), but the oldest listed account is The The Fool on the Hill (2007). I'm not going to do anything procedurally about that, though, until it's sorted out.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Checkusers will sometimes use the newest most-recently-active account as the sockmaster name, for that one might have the most recent Checkuser technical information. — Cirt (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cirt: I have never seen such an argument. Obviously, CUs can only use non-stale accounts, but the naming of the master is always based on the age of the account. Although it's not relevant to the issue, as I recall from looking at the accounts yesterday, none of the accounts is stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hawkeye asked me to take a look at this, so take a look I have. Precisely what the hell is going on here I have no idea, but something is rotten in the state of Denmark. There is considerable overlap between the editing interests of all the accounts. What it boils down to is that all have removed the same content or reverted the same edits across three or four different articles, and the connection between the articles seems to be their primary contributor. It's possible that there's more than one person behind all this, but my gut instinct, like Hawkeye's, Cirt's Laser brain's, tells me that there are not as many people as accounts involved here. I've blocked one account that was clearly created with the sole purpose of making these edits and another was blocked before I got to this. While I'm well aware of the limitations of the checkuser tool, I think we need a technical investigation to help us get to the bottom of this. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed. I'm taking the easy way out and endorsing a CU based on the original report, which had very little evidence, this report, which has more, and HJ Mitchell's comments. Salvidrim!, you really should go to bed before you pass out. Not good for your health. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After skimming it, I was leaning to endorse also, but didn't feel it was responsible for me to do so until I had actually read everything. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: I'm closing the report based on the CU finding. That doesn't prevent administrators from blocking users based on other reasons. Because I didn't record it before, for cross-reference see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnnydowns. I'm not going to merge them because of my comments above about the ages of the accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Cactusjackbangbang/Archive&oldid=1088816406"