Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Belchfire

Belchfire ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
20 February 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

I believe what we have here is IP socking to circumvent a block. The standard reports provide strong evidence, showing a clear overlap. Also notice that the IP's editing history starts less than a day after Belchfire's block on January 9, 2013.

I am requesting checkuser to catch any sleeper accounts and to confirm the quacking.

Thank you - Mr X 01:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
17 March 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Belchfire is blocked, and the block was extended for block evasion back in February. This IP appears to be Belchfire continuing with further block evasion. The IP geolocates to Seattle, Washington; the US state about which Belchfire has made the most contributions. (Belchfire is a member of WikiProject Washington.) Belchfire is also interested in a lot of US political topics, being a member of WikiProject Conservatism. After a few establishing edits, including some political ones [4] [5], the IP went to Book of Leviticus where Belchfire had recently been edit warring on February 11, 16 and 18. Then the IP went to my RfA— Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Binksternet—and voted to "strong oppose". Belchfire and I have been in content disputes before, but the IP and I had never crossed paths. Your usual new IP editor does not know about these kinds of internal Wikipedia processes. I think the IP quacks like a duck, and I think Belchfire's block should be further extended for block evasion. Binksternet ( talk) 06:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Binksternet ( talk) 06:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC) reply

AFAICT, this is a "static IP" (per [6]) and the mere fact it is in Seattle does not actually make every single Seattle static IP = Belchfire. I would note this listing appears entirely to to an RfA vote where Binksternet is the nominee and the IP is an "oppose" vote, and where the vote has been struck through by two supporters of Binksternet. I am concerned that this report is not due to any mproper edits, or to real evidence of it being a specific user, but for "electoral purposes" which, AFAICT, are not a valid reason for labelling anyone as a "sock" and removing their posts. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 14:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC) reply
How rare that a (supposedly static) IP would make their 9th and 10th ever edits to an RfA? The suspicious editing pattern, edit summaries, commonality of ISP, geo location (Kent, Seattle or Olympia, WA) and timing of their first edit add up to one big incriminating quack. - Mr X 14:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC) reply
Anonymous editors are not allowed to "vote" at RfA, so whether it is Belchfire or not, the oppose vote will be disregarded by the closing bureaucrat. ​— DoRD ( talk)​ 14:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC) reply
That is absolutely correct - but the SPI case should depend on whether that Static IP is associated with Belchfire (which neither Binksternet nor I have any ability to know). If it is, then it is a "sock" and if it is not - then it is not as no real "evidence" has been given otherwise. The issue here is only that of actual evidence of being a sock - but the motive for the investigation is eminently clear, alas. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 14:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The evidence looks pretty clear to me, but someone more experienced will make that final determination. As far as the motive for the SPI being "eminently clear", I would be curious to know what that motive is, as it is not at all clear to me (unless you mean protecting the project). - Mr X 14:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The OP has an RfA ongoing. The intersection of the OP and the IP is the RfA. The IP opined negatively. The !vote by any IP is to be disregarded - whether it is a sock or not. The Static IP is in the general Washington State area - which, last I looked, is "pretty big." It may or may not be a sock - the problem is the "evidence" presented is woefully insufficient to go fishing too often. I would ask anyone opining here to indicate who the OP's nominators were, and to give due WEIGHT to their presentations here. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 15:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I have no opinion as to whether the IP is a sock of Belchfire. However, this digression into Binksternet's motive for filing this report is singularly unhelpful and comes close to being a personal attack. Moving back to the IP, it is clear to me that the IP is an experienced Wikipedian, whoever they are. All of their edit summaries indicate that. My favorite is "Revert proxy-using sockpuppet. Go away, User:Marlin1975".-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC) reply
  • There are only two options here. Either (1) the IP is Belchfire, or (2) the IP is attempting to conduct a joe job on Belchfire. The second, I would have said, is more unlikely because of its geographical location. However the diff unearthed by Bbb23/WikiWind just above this one, however, is very revealing. I agree that this block should be extended or made indef. Meanwhile, I have blocked the static IP for a month because its editing is clearly disruptive regardless. Black Kite ( talk) 17:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC) reply
Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • As someone who is familiar with Belchfire and has looked at the contribs, the evidence (including some that isn't listed here) seems abundantly clear that this is Belchfire. I have extended his block for 3 more months, and blocked the IP for 3 months. Closing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC) reply
22 March 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

This editor's first ever edit was to revert content at The Bible and homosexuality to a version created by two other new users ( User:65.189.245.24 and User: BibleFollowing - both also possible Belchfire socks) - Mr X 01:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • Blocked even before I saw this. Obvious sock, probably Belchfire, two other possibilities. Article protected. Not sure about BibleFollowing - might need a CU on that one (and sleeper socks etc.) The IP is not in the right location for Belchfire (but might, again, be one of two other blocked users). Black Kite ( talk) 02:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC) reply
  •  Clerk note: I'm not comfortable endorsing checkuser on BibleFollowing. They seem to be a SPA with questionable edits, but their editing habits are quite dissimilar from those of Eris Lover, and hence by corollary Belchfire. I'd need more convincing evidence to endorse a check on BibleFollowing. NativeForeigner Talk 20:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC) reply
  •  Clerk note: From my experience, the edits by BibleFollowing are inline with Belchfire's previous work, but they aren't uniquely identifying enough me to request a CU yet either. Without giving away anything to help someone sock, I will just say there are some traits that line up and it warrants watching. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC) reply
  • CheckUser comment: Eris Lover and Belchfire do not match technically or geographically, and neither appear to be using any sort of proxy, so they look Red X Unrelated to me. No comment with respect to the IP or BibleFollowing, who I did not check. ​— DoRD ( talk)​ 19:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Everything that needs to be done has been done. I agree that there is not enough of a contribution history for BibleFollowing right now to make a behavioral match. Someguy1221 ( talk) 22:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC) reply
29 June 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Belchfire was indefinitely blocked in March 2013 following multiple sockpuppeting episodes.

Federales' earliest contributions history in April 2013 suggest that s/he is not a new editor (e.g. [7]). Federales shares Belchfire's interest in conservative US political subjects, as well as a rather distinctive interaction between Boy Scouts, the Salvation Army, Men's Rights, Far right politics, rape, and the Family Research Council (see contributions and the Wiki stalker scan [8]). In addition, although Federales has not edited The Bible and homosexuality - a topic of considerable interest to Belchfire and socks - Federales is obviously keeping an eye on it per this page protection request [9].

Belchfire is topic banned from interaction with User:Roscelese, but Federales has been in direct conflict with this editor, including [10] making a (failed) topic ban request on ANI; see also [11] [12] etc. There are also stylistic traits that I will not go into per WP:BEANS, but can email if necessary. However, it seems highly likely that this is a return of Belchfire, and based on this post to Federales' talkpage, I am not the only one with this strong suspicion. Slp1 ( talk) 07:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
08 July 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

Walter Görlitz ( talk) 17:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
16 December 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

LyricalCat

Roccodrift seems to be a fairly obvious sock, most likely of User:Belchfire. I first spotted them abusing User:MilesMoney with multiple talk page templates [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] the way Belchfire used to abuse users [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] the primary difference being that Belchfire had thousands of edits and Roccodrift has about 200.

They seem to have significant overlap at Talk:Political activities of the Koch brothers, as well as articles related to US politics, homosexuality, conservatism, and Christianity.

Also, for behavioral, compare the edit summaries of the following diffs:

Belchfire: [29] [30] Roccodrift: [31] [32]

Because of apparent previous Belchfire socks, I'd like a CU on this. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 06:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

  • Rocco was identified as a sock almost immediately, but until recently, it wasn't clear whose. When Hyper3 called him out, Rocco didn't even bother to deny it. He just ignored it. But when Adjwilley named him, he panicked and wiped his talk page clean. After AdjWilley took this as an admission of guilt, Rocco ignored it again, until I prodded him on ANI. When he did respond, he once again didn't bother denying anything, but instead tossed out a red herring about not assuming good faith before saying "Either you have a case to make or you don't. I can't decide that for you, now can I?" I think this speaks for itself.
Belchfire was before my time, but (ironically, thanks to AdjWilley) I'd run into his edits before. After AdjWilley dropped the name, I did some digging and I have to admit that there's a strong resemblance in terms of article interests, right-wing bias, and aggressive personality. I'm on record as being skeptical about AdjWilley's ability to detect socks, but I must concede that this case not only includes an obvious sock, but a likely match for the foot. MilesMoney ( talk) 08:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • This is good sleuthing work by Adjwilley. Last night before retiring I was looking around to see if I could make a case for connecting Rocco as a sock of Belchfire but I thought it would take too much time, that I would try again today. I wake to find the work already done! Binksternet ( talk) 14:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I have to concur with this, having first become suspicious that Roccodrift was Belchfire after seeing this edit. I decided to IAR and look the other way because it seemed that he was being more reasonable than in the past, and perhaps trying to make a fresh start. I changed my mind after seeing that he dragged MilesMoney to ANI.
I'm adding Seattle IP 97.113.5.118 ( talk · contribs) who edited at Focus on the Family in a very Belchfiresque fashion, notably going head-to-head with Roscelese (with whom he is WP:IBANned) here and here. - Mr X 23:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I hope I'm wrong (and I apologize in advance if I am) but I noticed a lot of overlap with NazariyKaminski, so I'm going to add them to the list. MilesMoney ( talk) 01:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • This all makes me wonder sometimes if the Koch brothers sock farm wasn't dealt with properly, and if they are still active, but now using different usernames. They were caught redhanded and an SPI sort of dealt with them, but is anyone following up on any possible connections, like the ISPs from New Media Strategies, the ad agency the Koch brothers hired to promote their interests here? Are those ISPs still being used? For those who are unaware, or have forgotten, here are some links:
We have serious ownership issues with a number of these right wing articles. They are nearly untouchable and whitewashed. -- Brangifer ( talk) 07:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply
This is interesting, but I guess we shouldn't be surprised. Still, it's hard to tell whether someone is paid to be biased or came into that bias organically. Really, it shouldn't matter: POV-pushing should be dealt with for its own sake. Unfortunately, what you said about whitewashed articles is an understatement. In fact, I ran a little experiment today to test that claim and it worked. MilesMoney ( talk) 08:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Making Pointy edits does little more than piss people off. But that does seem to be your goal. Arzel ( talk) 15:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Major problems with this complaint: Checking "editor interaction" the lack of overlap is astounding for a claim of socking ... Belchfire has zero overlap with Kaminski, who only overlaps with Rocco on three pages total, and whose edits do not appear to me to be evidence of much at all, other than not being in accord with the complainant. Looking therefore at times of activity -- we have a complete difference in times for all three -- with Belch not editing from 9 to 15, NK not from 2 to 11, RD not from 11 to 17. Belch has enough edits that this indicates a clear sock-fishing expedition here. Nor do I find any use of similar language or summaries to be evident. SPI is not a place for fishing where even a rudimentary investigation shows it to be one. Collect ( talk) 15:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Life is full of funny coincidences. For example, we talk about paid editors with right-wing bias, and suddenly Arzel and Collect appear, full of good cheer accusations and excuses. There's no explaining it! If I wasn't assuming good faith just as hard as I can, who knows what strange ideas might come to my head?
On the other hand, editing at different times is pretty easy to explain. Read WP:SIGNS before you come to the defense of your fellow traveler. Look, it's painfully obvious that Rocco is a sock. If you were in the mood to do something good for Wikipedia instead of just good for the GOP, perhaps you could tell us all who he is if not Belchfire. Think of all the good will it would garner. MilesMoney ( talk) 15:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Could they all be Jimbo? I suppose. The question is evidence which is not here. Not editing from 9 to 15 usually indicates West Coast of US. Not editing from 11 to 17 is usually Hawaii if the person is in the US. Not editing from 2 to 11 would normally be mid-Atlantic Ocean to Brazil. Your major problems are the actual lack of overlap on articles, the lack of language similarity, and the lack of unusual edit summaries. Cheers -- SPI is again not a fishing expedition because you disagree with anyone. As for your claim that I am a "fellow traveler" of anyone -- that is a gross misuse of the purpose of the noticeboard. Collect ( talk) 16:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Could we please curtail the personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith?
I think there is sufficient evidence beyond just the edit overlap to warrant a CU on Roccodrift per WP:PRECOCIOUS and WP:DUCK. The IP is very obviously Belchfire, based on geography and telltale talk page edits. I'm not convinced that NazariyKaminski is a Belchfire sock, but evidence might change my mind. - Mr X 16:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Hello, NazariyKaminski here. I'm the editor that MilesMoney has accused of being a sock of rocco and belchfire. I want to point out that it looks like to me that rocco and belchfire could possibly be socks of each other. However, I would also like to point out that MilesMoney added to me to this list for no reason. I do not know his heart. But since I know that I am not a sock of rocco or belchfire and since I know beyond a reasonable doubt that MM is flat out wrong about his accusation then I have to ask about whether he is not using this process in bad faith. I am not saying that he is acting in bad faith, but I am only asking a valid, relevant question. So far, I have read all of the comments on this topic and no one, including MM, of actual evidence that I, NazariyKaminski, is a sock of rocco or belch. Also, based upon the nasty comment MM left on my talk page this morning I have to ask the question about his bad faith. Seriously, if you are all going to waste the time to decide if I am a sock of rocco or belch then you need to take the time to question MM's other edits. MM has a track record of getting into POV fights with many, many editors. I just happen to be one. I first ran into him on the Martin Bashir article where he was POV pushing the idea that Bashir's comments about Sarah Palin were not notable and I did not belong in the article. Well, of course, Bashir ended up losing his job over the comments and I my decision to add the controversy into the article was shown to be correct and MM POV was shown to be what I said it was all along, an incorrect minority position that he pushed with vigor and bordering on inappropriateness. Later, since he did not like me being absolutely correct about Bashir he decided to edit the Ted Cruz article. Once again, he had to have his way, which is his editing style. We came to a compromise on an edit (along with other editors) and I thought that was the end of my run-ins with his aggressive, convinced-he-knows-it-all style, but alas he decided (apparently without any evidence) to drag me into this witch hunt. I will be amused to see how this plays out since I know I am not a sock of rocco or belch. I am just asking a question. . . has anyone wondered if MM is operating in good faith? I am not sure, but I don't think he is.-- NK ( talk) 15:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Also, IP 97.113.5.118 is in Tukwila, Washington. I live in Texas. The last time I visited Seattle was six years ago. MM claim against me is a pure witch hunt.-- NK ( talk) 16:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC) reply
I have removed NazariyKaminski from the list of suspected socks at the top. If desired, a separate investigation can be opened below. (The evidence I've seen is pretty thin, and it's starting to disrupt this investigation...besides, if they are a sock the CU will pick it up anyway.) ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 20:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Take it to its own SPI if you have evidence, it doesn't belong here
"Fellow traveler"? I've heard that phrase exactly once before on Wikipedia. St Anselm ( talk) 19:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply
A couple more times than that, actually. [33] [34] It was a phrase that User:StillStanding-247 liked to use, and used specifically of User:Collect. St Anselm ( talk) 19:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Oh, the old house is STILL STANDING, though the paint is cracked and dry, and there's that old oak tree that - I used to play on . . . . Badmintonhist ( talk) 21:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply
So much for dignity and respect. How about taking these last couple of remarks to the appropriate SPI if you wish to pursue them? This is starting to cross into the realm of disruption. - Mr X 22:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Agreed. "Fellow traveler" happens to be a very common expression. One's biases determine where one notices it and whether one remembers its use. -- Brangifer ( talk) 02:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Look, it is quite obvious from the edit history of MM that he is a previously blocked user. Like others I am pretty sure it is SS, but the SPI check was unable to make the connection because of Proxy Server use. Another SPI of Miles linked to SS would likely end up the same. Arzel ( talk) 02:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC) reply
What's obvious is that you'll do or say anything to get your way. "Fellow traveler" is not only a common phrase, it's one associated with the John Birch Society, which I've been studying up on thanks to Arthur Rubin. But, hey, any desperate excuse to disrupt an SPI on an actual sock who supports your right-wing agenda. MilesMoney ( talk) 03:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Yes, while it is true that I have only ever seen the phrase used by StillStanding-247, I see we have an article on the phrase, and I wish to withdraw the insinuation. I see 62 occurrences in WP space. St Anselm ( talk) 04:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Thank you. Could we please limit discussion here to this specific sock puppet issue? MilesMoney ( talk) 05:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Action requested. A CU was requested (above). Roccodrift is still active. -- Brangifer ( talk) 19:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC) Noting different time zones apparently, different articles with minimal overlap, and no language similarity for the fishing trip. I rather think SPI requires some sort of evidence for getting a CU? Collect ( talk) 23:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Here is a more complete matrix of the overlaps [35]. I'm not sure if we have enough evidence for a duck block, but there seems to plenty of clear and credible evidence to warrant a CU.- Mr X 00:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Yep -- 9 edits overlap out of 250 non noticeboard edits is not a heck of a lot. Sorry -- that degree of evidence would have me be your sock <g> as you have 512 edits (non-noticeboard or user talk) overlap with articles I have edited. But I do not think you are my sock <g). 4% is not enough to tar anyone with -- and decidedly not using "duck" as the language differs. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 03:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Just a principle to keep in mind; A truly successful sock would have NO overlaps. This editor is obviously a very experienced user, with only 281 edits. -- Brangifer ( talk) 04:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Obviously, a truly successful sock would never arouse suspicions to the extent of being the subject of an SPI. St Anselm ( talk) 05:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Exactly. My point is that the value of using tools to make comparisons is vastly overrated. Since only people who are seriously trying to start over again stay away from their old stomping grounds completely, we are left with the POV warriors who evade blocks and return, to some degree, to old territories. Then we do have some overlaps, and the only overlaps of interest are what brings them here. It only takes a few to make people recognize a pattern, sort of like when nearly everyone recognizes a song after hearing only the first few notes. With socks we sometimes perform a CU. It all depends on the potential danger, based on the sockmaster's previous history. Whether that is the case here is what's in question. User:Adjwilley, more diffs would be nice. -- Brangifer ( talk) 05:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply
BullRangifer has some good points. Generally fresh starts are allowed, as long as problem users don't return to their old bad habits. If Belchfire went back to making noncontroversial articles about cars, I wouldn't block them even if I had CU evidence in front of me. I don't think that is the case here, as they have dived straight back into the battleground behavior (edit warring, stalking, etc.) that led to their original indefinite block. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 06:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Additional behavioral evidence
Please note: this is a table with a reduced number of diffs as requested
by the SPI clerk. A full table with 60+ diffs can be found here.
Behavioral Evidence Belchfire (4227 edits) Roccodrift (290 edits) 97.113.5.118 (77 edits)
Frequently uses CAPS for emphasis [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]
Frequently uses italics for emphasis [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47]
Uses the adjective "naked" and its variations [48] [49] [50] [51]
Uses the word "silly" [52] [53] [54]
Uses the word "dispositive" [55] [56]
Reverts edits by Roscelese [57] [58] [59] [60] [61]
Uses variations of "Really?" and "Oh Really?" [62] [63] [64] [65]
Uses the phrase "good grief" [66] [67] [68] [69]
Characterizes others' edits as trivial [70] [71] [72] [73] [74]

Feel free to add to this table.- Mr X 18:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply

And almost every one of those characteristics of single posts applies to a large number of active editors. Good grief! Wiki search shows that phrase used about 4000 times. "Silly" is found over 100m000 times outside of article space. "Dispositive" over 7,500 times per search result. Use of CAPS and italics is universal. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 23:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC) Collect ( talk) 23:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply

I think it makes sense to add:

since they are now making exactly the edits Roccodrift pushed for and another "SPA" on the talk page has been pressing for, if they aren't the same person they sure do present as an obvious front. Sportfan5000 ( talk) 08:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

That account is not a sock as CU finds sleepers and other accounts etc. Nor are the edits exactly what one editor only asked for. This report was pending close by an admin and CU had finished with it. Cheers -- but SPI is not for adding people you editorially disagree with. Collect ( talk) 14:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
I have no opinion or interest in this specific alleged sock, but you should be aware that CU is not a perfect process. For example, a sock can use a VPN, a mobile hotspot, or a proxy server to evade detection. I am able to personally change my static IP address so that it registers in a completely different county tens of kilometers away. I can also change my browser-reported user agent, screen resolution, and OS at will. If I wanted to sock, it would be very easy to evade CU detection, and then only behavioral evidence would be useful.- Mr X 20:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
@MastCell -- when no evidence is found, and the edits are not only not the same but show very little overlap, that you "know" it must be a sock of someone is pretty useless. Socks only get blocked for being alternate accounts of blocked or banned users, or where the purpose is to hide improperly who the editor is. "Knowing: it is a sock is not a valid reason to do anything here, and I seriously doubt that any improper behaviour has been shown. [75] demonstrates the real animus MM has -- and "sock" is not even suggested. By anyone. This report was solely based on "I don't like him" and not on what is generally called "evidence". Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply
It's fine to say that you disagree with the evidence, but to dismiss this investigation as having no evidence seems bizarre. As far as animus, MilesMoney is not a factor in this SPI and I certainly don't think that Adjwilley has ever shown any animus toward Roccodrift or Belchfire. I suppose that you could accuse me of animus toward Belchfire since I was involved in a few reports that resulted in him being blocked, but I am on record as not trying to get Belchfire expelled from the project. He is obviously an intelligent, capable editor who could be a very valuable contributor here. I always hoped he would come back through the front door though. Roccodrift also seems to be an intelligent and capable editor, and admittedly with a better attitude than Belchfire had when he departed. Regardless of how this SPI ends, I think Roccodrift could be an asset to the project, I bear no ill will toward him, and I would not object to re-admitting him to the project should this SPI conclude that he is a sockpuppet. - Mr X 14:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Amending my comments. I can no longer support retaining this user on the project.- Mr X 21:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
The interaction level between RD and BF (% of articles in common) is way smaller than one expects for any socks. BFs location was well known and did not comport with RDs posited location (the CU undoubtedly noted such). MM was the first "outside observer" on this page, and I suggest that such an appearance before the two hour mark, and the fact that the OP mentioned MM in the complaint does mean MM was "involved" here. And the idea of SPI is that evidence is presented. Where such evidence is not presented sufficient to show he is a sock, then the SPI should not conclude that he is a sock. I entered in because of the horrid claims against NK made by MM. And on an a priori basis BF and RD are two times zones apart in their "real time" (using a node a thousand miles away rarely changes your normal sleep time -- so the claim that they can use proxies half-way around the world makes no sense -- the UTC time the person edits would likely remain appropriate to their real home base) Cheers. Collect ( talk) 14:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply
I agree that the evidence RD is a sock of BF seems weak, and does not fall within WP:Duck. Nor do I see compelling evidence that RD is a sock of someone other than BF. I worry not just about ideological editing, but also about ideological blocking, and therefore urge caution here. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Good grief, can we just let the SPI people do their thing? All this talking isn't going to convince anybody, and in my opinion it has the effect of undermining your credibility. @Collect, the fact that you saw MM as a sock but not Roccodrift makes me wonder about your own objectivity. @Anythingyouwant, it is very clear that Roccodrift is not new. Just look at their first 50 edits. Edit number 1 was a revert. Edit number 3 cited WP:EDITCONSENSUS and WP:OWN. Edit number 48 was to report MilesMoney at AN3. Not your typical newbie. As MrX said, Rocco has the potential to be a valuable contributor, but if they're going to continue old battles and fall into the same bad habits, well... ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 22:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the reply, Adjwilley. Why was MM not banned as a sockpuppet duck? Instead, we had to go through edit wars at over a dozen articles, interminable ANI proceedings, et cetera, before he was finally banned for other reasons, right? So now Roccodrift is supposed to be a duck, but I don't see why he couldn't be an experienced IP who only recently decided to get a username. Has anyone asked Roccodrift? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 23:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Replied here. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 23:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply
No evidence was provided that MM was a sockpuppet duck and checkuser showed that he was very unlikely to be a sock of S. TFD ( talk) 00:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC) reply
It just smells kind of funny to go to all the trouble of a checkuser investigation if the guy (RD) was going to be banned anyway. I don't think he's been nearly as disruptive as MM was. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC) reply


This close is clearly an "I don't like him so he must be a sock of someone, evidence be damned". Not a good way to operate at SPI, alas. Collect ( talk) 00:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Comments by Roccodrift

An outright block based on what, precisely? Look at the evidence in the table, up above. It's risibly thin. Caps and italics? Give me a break. One of the criteria is use of the phrase "good grief", which is evidently so common that one of my accusers uses it right here in this thread. [76] Where is the evidence for a DUCK block that's based on something stronger than an over-active imagination? What evidence is there that hasn't been effectively rebutted in the course of the discussion?

And no, I'm not going to agree to a voluntary editing restriction because there are no grounds for it. If somebody wants to seek such a sanction they should do it through normal channels, not this paranoia-laden kangaroo court tucked away in an obscure corner.

I've avoided commenting on this matter because, quite frankly, it didn't deserved any of my already-over-taxed time and attention, and because I expected it to die a natural death. Ok, so now I've removed the argument from silence (which is apparently not considered a logical fallacy here) and you have my view. Roccodrift ( talk) 19:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
For non-SPI-experts, could you please translate that into English, User:DeltaQuad? Thanks. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply
"Stale" refers to the fact that the software only saves checkuser data (the IP address, etc., for each account) for a certain period of time. That period has elapsed for Belchfire's account, so we can't say with 100% certainty that a given editor is working from the same computer/IP address as he did. Therefore we have to look at the behavior of the two accounts, i.e. the WP:DUCK test, to determine if block evasion is occurring. "no sleepers" means that Roccodrift does not seem to be operating any other accounts based on the checkuser data available. Mark Arsten ( talk) 22:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • This SPI needs to be closed, one way or the other. It's clear that Roccodrift ( talk · contribs) is someone's alternate account - I don't think anyone has seriously contended otherwise. The behavioral evidence presented by Adjwilley and MrX is convincing enough for me to block Roccodrift on WP:DUCK grounds as a likely Belchfire sockpuppet. (In a best-case scenario, he's an alternate account dedicated to ideologically-driven editing, which would still warrant a block in my view). Given the length of time this report has been open, I don't see a huge rush - I'll hold it open for a few days to wait for comments from other admins before acting. MastCell  Talk 04:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply
No objections from me. Mark Arsten ( talk) 22:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply
@MastCell, I agree with your analysis, and I think that perhaps one of the reasons this SPI has stayed open for so long is that in the worst-case scenario this is block evasion since Roccodrift hasn't operated alternate accounts, and they haven't (yet) done anything themselves that merits an indef-block. They've also made helpful edits, mixed in with the battleground behavior that precipitated this SPI. I have occasionally seen SPI outcomes that involved creative sanctions being placed on the user, designed to address the disruptive behavior itself. For instance, I would appreciate a close to this SPI that involved a topic ban or 1RR restriction on articles related to politics and/or homosexuality, broadly construed, or just a general blanket 1RR restriction period. That way, if they wish to contribute constructively and collaboratively, they may do so, but if they wish to engage in disruptive and battleground behavior, they will very quickly find themselves cleanly and justifiably indef-blocked. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 20:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC) reply
I think the problem is that this editor should be using his/her main account, rather than using this account to segregate agenda-driven edits, even under a 1RR or other restriction. That said, I'm willing to try the approach you're suggesting. Do any other admins have a strong feeling about an outright block vs. global 1RR vs. a topic ban from political subjects? If not, I'll come back and close this with one of the above in the next few days. MastCell  Talk 22:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC) reply
How about notifying User:Roccodrift to see if he has any response, or if he is inclined to agree to an editing restriction? Otherwise an outright block appears justified. EdJohnston ( talk) 18:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Per the input received here, I've gone ahead and blocked Roccodrift ( talk · contribs) as an illegitimate sockpuppet. The evidence that the account is operated by Belchfire is suggestive but not conclusive. However, it is clear that Roccodrift is an alternate account being operated by an experienced Wikipedian. Using the Roccodrift account to engage in combative, controversial, or tendentious editing is a clear violation of WP:SOCK, specifically the provisions forbidding the use of alternate accounts to "segregate" controversial edits and avoid scrutiny. I've therefore blocked Roccodrift indefinitely. MastCell  Talk 23:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
22 January 2014
Suspected sockpuppets


Locus of the investigation is Duck Dynasty. Recently blocked evident sockpuppet Roccodrift ( talk · contribs) was repeatedly discussing Southern Poverty Law Center statements/claims on that article [77]. Before and especially after the block, Perusteltu has also engaged in that activity, becoming more strident and edit warring following Roccodrift's block (see [78] [79] [80] [81]. There is some contrary evidence that the SPLC inclusions are subtly different between Roccodrift and Perustetlu, however it could be good hand/bad hand behavior. Additionally, this edit warring led another admin to block another editor, and myself to full-protect the article, and an extensive ANI discussion in which multiple users stated they had a Duck Test feeling that Perusteltu behaved similarly to Roccodrift (several outright claiming it was an obvious sock). Given the long-running Belchfire multiple sockpuppetry issue, the possibility of yet another is nonzero. But it could just be an innocent third party who shared similar opinions, whose name needs clearing. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 09:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Belchfire/Archive&oldid=1142567937"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Belchfire

Belchfire ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
20 February 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

I believe what we have here is IP socking to circumvent a block. The standard reports provide strong evidence, showing a clear overlap. Also notice that the IP's editing history starts less than a day after Belchfire's block on January 9, 2013.

I am requesting checkuser to catch any sleeper accounts and to confirm the quacking.

Thank you - Mr X 01:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
17 March 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Belchfire is blocked, and the block was extended for block evasion back in February. This IP appears to be Belchfire continuing with further block evasion. The IP geolocates to Seattle, Washington; the US state about which Belchfire has made the most contributions. (Belchfire is a member of WikiProject Washington.) Belchfire is also interested in a lot of US political topics, being a member of WikiProject Conservatism. After a few establishing edits, including some political ones [4] [5], the IP went to Book of Leviticus where Belchfire had recently been edit warring on February 11, 16 and 18. Then the IP went to my RfA— Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Binksternet—and voted to "strong oppose". Belchfire and I have been in content disputes before, but the IP and I had never crossed paths. Your usual new IP editor does not know about these kinds of internal Wikipedia processes. I think the IP quacks like a duck, and I think Belchfire's block should be further extended for block evasion. Binksternet ( talk) 06:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Binksternet ( talk) 06:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC) reply

AFAICT, this is a "static IP" (per [6]) and the mere fact it is in Seattle does not actually make every single Seattle static IP = Belchfire. I would note this listing appears entirely to to an RfA vote where Binksternet is the nominee and the IP is an "oppose" vote, and where the vote has been struck through by two supporters of Binksternet. I am concerned that this report is not due to any mproper edits, or to real evidence of it being a specific user, but for "electoral purposes" which, AFAICT, are not a valid reason for labelling anyone as a "sock" and removing their posts. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 14:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC) reply
How rare that a (supposedly static) IP would make their 9th and 10th ever edits to an RfA? The suspicious editing pattern, edit summaries, commonality of ISP, geo location (Kent, Seattle or Olympia, WA) and timing of their first edit add up to one big incriminating quack. - Mr X 14:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC) reply
Anonymous editors are not allowed to "vote" at RfA, so whether it is Belchfire or not, the oppose vote will be disregarded by the closing bureaucrat. ​— DoRD ( talk)​ 14:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC) reply
That is absolutely correct - but the SPI case should depend on whether that Static IP is associated with Belchfire (which neither Binksternet nor I have any ability to know). If it is, then it is a "sock" and if it is not - then it is not as no real "evidence" has been given otherwise. The issue here is only that of actual evidence of being a sock - but the motive for the investigation is eminently clear, alas. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 14:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The evidence looks pretty clear to me, but someone more experienced will make that final determination. As far as the motive for the SPI being "eminently clear", I would be curious to know what that motive is, as it is not at all clear to me (unless you mean protecting the project). - Mr X 14:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The OP has an RfA ongoing. The intersection of the OP and the IP is the RfA. The IP opined negatively. The !vote by any IP is to be disregarded - whether it is a sock or not. The Static IP is in the general Washington State area - which, last I looked, is "pretty big." It may or may not be a sock - the problem is the "evidence" presented is woefully insufficient to go fishing too often. I would ask anyone opining here to indicate who the OP's nominators were, and to give due WEIGHT to their presentations here. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 15:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I have no opinion as to whether the IP is a sock of Belchfire. However, this digression into Binksternet's motive for filing this report is singularly unhelpful and comes close to being a personal attack. Moving back to the IP, it is clear to me that the IP is an experienced Wikipedian, whoever they are. All of their edit summaries indicate that. My favorite is "Revert proxy-using sockpuppet. Go away, User:Marlin1975".-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC) reply
  • There are only two options here. Either (1) the IP is Belchfire, or (2) the IP is attempting to conduct a joe job on Belchfire. The second, I would have said, is more unlikely because of its geographical location. However the diff unearthed by Bbb23/WikiWind just above this one, however, is very revealing. I agree that this block should be extended or made indef. Meanwhile, I have blocked the static IP for a month because its editing is clearly disruptive regardless. Black Kite ( talk) 17:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC) reply
Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • As someone who is familiar with Belchfire and has looked at the contribs, the evidence (including some that isn't listed here) seems abundantly clear that this is Belchfire. I have extended his block for 3 more months, and blocked the IP for 3 months. Closing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC) reply
22 March 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

This editor's first ever edit was to revert content at The Bible and homosexuality to a version created by two other new users ( User:65.189.245.24 and User: BibleFollowing - both also possible Belchfire socks) - Mr X 01:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • Blocked even before I saw this. Obvious sock, probably Belchfire, two other possibilities. Article protected. Not sure about BibleFollowing - might need a CU on that one (and sleeper socks etc.) The IP is not in the right location for Belchfire (but might, again, be one of two other blocked users). Black Kite ( talk) 02:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC) reply
  •  Clerk note: I'm not comfortable endorsing checkuser on BibleFollowing. They seem to be a SPA with questionable edits, but their editing habits are quite dissimilar from those of Eris Lover, and hence by corollary Belchfire. I'd need more convincing evidence to endorse a check on BibleFollowing. NativeForeigner Talk 20:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC) reply
  •  Clerk note: From my experience, the edits by BibleFollowing are inline with Belchfire's previous work, but they aren't uniquely identifying enough me to request a CU yet either. Without giving away anything to help someone sock, I will just say there are some traits that line up and it warrants watching. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC) reply
  • CheckUser comment: Eris Lover and Belchfire do not match technically or geographically, and neither appear to be using any sort of proxy, so they look Red X Unrelated to me. No comment with respect to the IP or BibleFollowing, who I did not check. ​— DoRD ( talk)​ 19:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Everything that needs to be done has been done. I agree that there is not enough of a contribution history for BibleFollowing right now to make a behavioral match. Someguy1221 ( talk) 22:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC) reply
29 June 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Belchfire was indefinitely blocked in March 2013 following multiple sockpuppeting episodes.

Federales' earliest contributions history in April 2013 suggest that s/he is not a new editor (e.g. [7]). Federales shares Belchfire's interest in conservative US political subjects, as well as a rather distinctive interaction between Boy Scouts, the Salvation Army, Men's Rights, Far right politics, rape, and the Family Research Council (see contributions and the Wiki stalker scan [8]). In addition, although Federales has not edited The Bible and homosexuality - a topic of considerable interest to Belchfire and socks - Federales is obviously keeping an eye on it per this page protection request [9].

Belchfire is topic banned from interaction with User:Roscelese, but Federales has been in direct conflict with this editor, including [10] making a (failed) topic ban request on ANI; see also [11] [12] etc. There are also stylistic traits that I will not go into per WP:BEANS, but can email if necessary. However, it seems highly likely that this is a return of Belchfire, and based on this post to Federales' talkpage, I am not the only one with this strong suspicion. Slp1 ( talk) 07:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
08 July 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

Walter Görlitz ( talk) 17:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
16 December 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

LyricalCat

Roccodrift seems to be a fairly obvious sock, most likely of User:Belchfire. I first spotted them abusing User:MilesMoney with multiple talk page templates [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] the way Belchfire used to abuse users [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] the primary difference being that Belchfire had thousands of edits and Roccodrift has about 200.

They seem to have significant overlap at Talk:Political activities of the Koch brothers, as well as articles related to US politics, homosexuality, conservatism, and Christianity.

Also, for behavioral, compare the edit summaries of the following diffs:

Belchfire: [29] [30] Roccodrift: [31] [32]

Because of apparent previous Belchfire socks, I'd like a CU on this. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 06:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

  • Rocco was identified as a sock almost immediately, but until recently, it wasn't clear whose. When Hyper3 called him out, Rocco didn't even bother to deny it. He just ignored it. But when Adjwilley named him, he panicked and wiped his talk page clean. After AdjWilley took this as an admission of guilt, Rocco ignored it again, until I prodded him on ANI. When he did respond, he once again didn't bother denying anything, but instead tossed out a red herring about not assuming good faith before saying "Either you have a case to make or you don't. I can't decide that for you, now can I?" I think this speaks for itself.
Belchfire was before my time, but (ironically, thanks to AdjWilley) I'd run into his edits before. After AdjWilley dropped the name, I did some digging and I have to admit that there's a strong resemblance in terms of article interests, right-wing bias, and aggressive personality. I'm on record as being skeptical about AdjWilley's ability to detect socks, but I must concede that this case not only includes an obvious sock, but a likely match for the foot. MilesMoney ( talk) 08:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • This is good sleuthing work by Adjwilley. Last night before retiring I was looking around to see if I could make a case for connecting Rocco as a sock of Belchfire but I thought it would take too much time, that I would try again today. I wake to find the work already done! Binksternet ( talk) 14:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I have to concur with this, having first become suspicious that Roccodrift was Belchfire after seeing this edit. I decided to IAR and look the other way because it seemed that he was being more reasonable than in the past, and perhaps trying to make a fresh start. I changed my mind after seeing that he dragged MilesMoney to ANI.
I'm adding Seattle IP 97.113.5.118 ( talk · contribs) who edited at Focus on the Family in a very Belchfiresque fashion, notably going head-to-head with Roscelese (with whom he is WP:IBANned) here and here. - Mr X 23:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I hope I'm wrong (and I apologize in advance if I am) but I noticed a lot of overlap with NazariyKaminski, so I'm going to add them to the list. MilesMoney ( talk) 01:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • This all makes me wonder sometimes if the Koch brothers sock farm wasn't dealt with properly, and if they are still active, but now using different usernames. They were caught redhanded and an SPI sort of dealt with them, but is anyone following up on any possible connections, like the ISPs from New Media Strategies, the ad agency the Koch brothers hired to promote their interests here? Are those ISPs still being used? For those who are unaware, or have forgotten, here are some links:
We have serious ownership issues with a number of these right wing articles. They are nearly untouchable and whitewashed. -- Brangifer ( talk) 07:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply
This is interesting, but I guess we shouldn't be surprised. Still, it's hard to tell whether someone is paid to be biased or came into that bias organically. Really, it shouldn't matter: POV-pushing should be dealt with for its own sake. Unfortunately, what you said about whitewashed articles is an understatement. In fact, I ran a little experiment today to test that claim and it worked. MilesMoney ( talk) 08:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Making Pointy edits does little more than piss people off. But that does seem to be your goal. Arzel ( talk) 15:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Major problems with this complaint: Checking "editor interaction" the lack of overlap is astounding for a claim of socking ... Belchfire has zero overlap with Kaminski, who only overlaps with Rocco on three pages total, and whose edits do not appear to me to be evidence of much at all, other than not being in accord with the complainant. Looking therefore at times of activity -- we have a complete difference in times for all three -- with Belch not editing from 9 to 15, NK not from 2 to 11, RD not from 11 to 17. Belch has enough edits that this indicates a clear sock-fishing expedition here. Nor do I find any use of similar language or summaries to be evident. SPI is not a place for fishing where even a rudimentary investigation shows it to be one. Collect ( talk) 15:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Life is full of funny coincidences. For example, we talk about paid editors with right-wing bias, and suddenly Arzel and Collect appear, full of good cheer accusations and excuses. There's no explaining it! If I wasn't assuming good faith just as hard as I can, who knows what strange ideas might come to my head?
On the other hand, editing at different times is pretty easy to explain. Read WP:SIGNS before you come to the defense of your fellow traveler. Look, it's painfully obvious that Rocco is a sock. If you were in the mood to do something good for Wikipedia instead of just good for the GOP, perhaps you could tell us all who he is if not Belchfire. Think of all the good will it would garner. MilesMoney ( talk) 15:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Could they all be Jimbo? I suppose. The question is evidence which is not here. Not editing from 9 to 15 usually indicates West Coast of US. Not editing from 11 to 17 is usually Hawaii if the person is in the US. Not editing from 2 to 11 would normally be mid-Atlantic Ocean to Brazil. Your major problems are the actual lack of overlap on articles, the lack of language similarity, and the lack of unusual edit summaries. Cheers -- SPI is again not a fishing expedition because you disagree with anyone. As for your claim that I am a "fellow traveler" of anyone -- that is a gross misuse of the purpose of the noticeboard. Collect ( talk) 16:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Could we please curtail the personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith?
I think there is sufficient evidence beyond just the edit overlap to warrant a CU on Roccodrift per WP:PRECOCIOUS and WP:DUCK. The IP is very obviously Belchfire, based on geography and telltale talk page edits. I'm not convinced that NazariyKaminski is a Belchfire sock, but evidence might change my mind. - Mr X 16:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Hello, NazariyKaminski here. I'm the editor that MilesMoney has accused of being a sock of rocco and belchfire. I want to point out that it looks like to me that rocco and belchfire could possibly be socks of each other. However, I would also like to point out that MilesMoney added to me to this list for no reason. I do not know his heart. But since I know that I am not a sock of rocco or belchfire and since I know beyond a reasonable doubt that MM is flat out wrong about his accusation then I have to ask about whether he is not using this process in bad faith. I am not saying that he is acting in bad faith, but I am only asking a valid, relevant question. So far, I have read all of the comments on this topic and no one, including MM, of actual evidence that I, NazariyKaminski, is a sock of rocco or belch. Also, based upon the nasty comment MM left on my talk page this morning I have to ask the question about his bad faith. Seriously, if you are all going to waste the time to decide if I am a sock of rocco or belch then you need to take the time to question MM's other edits. MM has a track record of getting into POV fights with many, many editors. I just happen to be one. I first ran into him on the Martin Bashir article where he was POV pushing the idea that Bashir's comments about Sarah Palin were not notable and I did not belong in the article. Well, of course, Bashir ended up losing his job over the comments and I my decision to add the controversy into the article was shown to be correct and MM POV was shown to be what I said it was all along, an incorrect minority position that he pushed with vigor and bordering on inappropriateness. Later, since he did not like me being absolutely correct about Bashir he decided to edit the Ted Cruz article. Once again, he had to have his way, which is his editing style. We came to a compromise on an edit (along with other editors) and I thought that was the end of my run-ins with his aggressive, convinced-he-knows-it-all style, but alas he decided (apparently without any evidence) to drag me into this witch hunt. I will be amused to see how this plays out since I know I am not a sock of rocco or belch. I am just asking a question. . . has anyone wondered if MM is operating in good faith? I am not sure, but I don't think he is.-- NK ( talk) 15:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Also, IP 97.113.5.118 is in Tukwila, Washington. I live in Texas. The last time I visited Seattle was six years ago. MM claim against me is a pure witch hunt.-- NK ( talk) 16:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC) reply
I have removed NazariyKaminski from the list of suspected socks at the top. If desired, a separate investigation can be opened below. (The evidence I've seen is pretty thin, and it's starting to disrupt this investigation...besides, if they are a sock the CU will pick it up anyway.) ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 20:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Take it to its own SPI if you have evidence, it doesn't belong here
"Fellow traveler"? I've heard that phrase exactly once before on Wikipedia. St Anselm ( talk) 19:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply
A couple more times than that, actually. [33] [34] It was a phrase that User:StillStanding-247 liked to use, and used specifically of User:Collect. St Anselm ( talk) 19:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Oh, the old house is STILL STANDING, though the paint is cracked and dry, and there's that old oak tree that - I used to play on . . . . Badmintonhist ( talk) 21:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply
So much for dignity and respect. How about taking these last couple of remarks to the appropriate SPI if you wish to pursue them? This is starting to cross into the realm of disruption. - Mr X 22:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Agreed. "Fellow traveler" happens to be a very common expression. One's biases determine where one notices it and whether one remembers its use. -- Brangifer ( talk) 02:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Look, it is quite obvious from the edit history of MM that he is a previously blocked user. Like others I am pretty sure it is SS, but the SPI check was unable to make the connection because of Proxy Server use. Another SPI of Miles linked to SS would likely end up the same. Arzel ( talk) 02:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC) reply
What's obvious is that you'll do or say anything to get your way. "Fellow traveler" is not only a common phrase, it's one associated with the John Birch Society, which I've been studying up on thanks to Arthur Rubin. But, hey, any desperate excuse to disrupt an SPI on an actual sock who supports your right-wing agenda. MilesMoney ( talk) 03:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Yes, while it is true that I have only ever seen the phrase used by StillStanding-247, I see we have an article on the phrase, and I wish to withdraw the insinuation. I see 62 occurrences in WP space. St Anselm ( talk) 04:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Thank you. Could we please limit discussion here to this specific sock puppet issue? MilesMoney ( talk) 05:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Action requested. A CU was requested (above). Roccodrift is still active. -- Brangifer ( talk) 19:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC) Noting different time zones apparently, different articles with minimal overlap, and no language similarity for the fishing trip. I rather think SPI requires some sort of evidence for getting a CU? Collect ( talk) 23:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Here is a more complete matrix of the overlaps [35]. I'm not sure if we have enough evidence for a duck block, but there seems to plenty of clear and credible evidence to warrant a CU.- Mr X 00:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Yep -- 9 edits overlap out of 250 non noticeboard edits is not a heck of a lot. Sorry -- that degree of evidence would have me be your sock <g> as you have 512 edits (non-noticeboard or user talk) overlap with articles I have edited. But I do not think you are my sock <g). 4% is not enough to tar anyone with -- and decidedly not using "duck" as the language differs. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 03:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Just a principle to keep in mind; A truly successful sock would have NO overlaps. This editor is obviously a very experienced user, with only 281 edits. -- Brangifer ( talk) 04:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Obviously, a truly successful sock would never arouse suspicions to the extent of being the subject of an SPI. St Anselm ( talk) 05:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Exactly. My point is that the value of using tools to make comparisons is vastly overrated. Since only people who are seriously trying to start over again stay away from their old stomping grounds completely, we are left with the POV warriors who evade blocks and return, to some degree, to old territories. Then we do have some overlaps, and the only overlaps of interest are what brings them here. It only takes a few to make people recognize a pattern, sort of like when nearly everyone recognizes a song after hearing only the first few notes. With socks we sometimes perform a CU. It all depends on the potential danger, based on the sockmaster's previous history. Whether that is the case here is what's in question. User:Adjwilley, more diffs would be nice. -- Brangifer ( talk) 05:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply
BullRangifer has some good points. Generally fresh starts are allowed, as long as problem users don't return to their old bad habits. If Belchfire went back to making noncontroversial articles about cars, I wouldn't block them even if I had CU evidence in front of me. I don't think that is the case here, as they have dived straight back into the battleground behavior (edit warring, stalking, etc.) that led to their original indefinite block. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 06:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Additional behavioral evidence
Please note: this is a table with a reduced number of diffs as requested
by the SPI clerk. A full table with 60+ diffs can be found here.
Behavioral Evidence Belchfire (4227 edits) Roccodrift (290 edits) 97.113.5.118 (77 edits)
Frequently uses CAPS for emphasis [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]
Frequently uses italics for emphasis [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47]
Uses the adjective "naked" and its variations [48] [49] [50] [51]
Uses the word "silly" [52] [53] [54]
Uses the word "dispositive" [55] [56]
Reverts edits by Roscelese [57] [58] [59] [60] [61]
Uses variations of "Really?" and "Oh Really?" [62] [63] [64] [65]
Uses the phrase "good grief" [66] [67] [68] [69]
Characterizes others' edits as trivial [70] [71] [72] [73] [74]

Feel free to add to this table.- Mr X 18:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply

And almost every one of those characteristics of single posts applies to a large number of active editors. Good grief! Wiki search shows that phrase used about 4000 times. "Silly" is found over 100m000 times outside of article space. "Dispositive" over 7,500 times per search result. Use of CAPS and italics is universal. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 23:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC) Collect ( talk) 23:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply

I think it makes sense to add:

since they are now making exactly the edits Roccodrift pushed for and another "SPA" on the talk page has been pressing for, if they aren't the same person they sure do present as an obvious front. Sportfan5000 ( talk) 08:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

That account is not a sock as CU finds sleepers and other accounts etc. Nor are the edits exactly what one editor only asked for. This report was pending close by an admin and CU had finished with it. Cheers -- but SPI is not for adding people you editorially disagree with. Collect ( talk) 14:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
I have no opinion or interest in this specific alleged sock, but you should be aware that CU is not a perfect process. For example, a sock can use a VPN, a mobile hotspot, or a proxy server to evade detection. I am able to personally change my static IP address so that it registers in a completely different county tens of kilometers away. I can also change my browser-reported user agent, screen resolution, and OS at will. If I wanted to sock, it would be very easy to evade CU detection, and then only behavioral evidence would be useful.- Mr X 20:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
@MastCell -- when no evidence is found, and the edits are not only not the same but show very little overlap, that you "know" it must be a sock of someone is pretty useless. Socks only get blocked for being alternate accounts of blocked or banned users, or where the purpose is to hide improperly who the editor is. "Knowing: it is a sock is not a valid reason to do anything here, and I seriously doubt that any improper behaviour has been shown. [75] demonstrates the real animus MM has -- and "sock" is not even suggested. By anyone. This report was solely based on "I don't like him" and not on what is generally called "evidence". Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply
It's fine to say that you disagree with the evidence, but to dismiss this investigation as having no evidence seems bizarre. As far as animus, MilesMoney is not a factor in this SPI and I certainly don't think that Adjwilley has ever shown any animus toward Roccodrift or Belchfire. I suppose that you could accuse me of animus toward Belchfire since I was involved in a few reports that resulted in him being blocked, but I am on record as not trying to get Belchfire expelled from the project. He is obviously an intelligent, capable editor who could be a very valuable contributor here. I always hoped he would come back through the front door though. Roccodrift also seems to be an intelligent and capable editor, and admittedly with a better attitude than Belchfire had when he departed. Regardless of how this SPI ends, I think Roccodrift could be an asset to the project, I bear no ill will toward him, and I would not object to re-admitting him to the project should this SPI conclude that he is a sockpuppet. - Mr X 14:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Amending my comments. I can no longer support retaining this user on the project.- Mr X 21:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
The interaction level between RD and BF (% of articles in common) is way smaller than one expects for any socks. BFs location was well known and did not comport with RDs posited location (the CU undoubtedly noted such). MM was the first "outside observer" on this page, and I suggest that such an appearance before the two hour mark, and the fact that the OP mentioned MM in the complaint does mean MM was "involved" here. And the idea of SPI is that evidence is presented. Where such evidence is not presented sufficient to show he is a sock, then the SPI should not conclude that he is a sock. I entered in because of the horrid claims against NK made by MM. And on an a priori basis BF and RD are two times zones apart in their "real time" (using a node a thousand miles away rarely changes your normal sleep time -- so the claim that they can use proxies half-way around the world makes no sense -- the UTC time the person edits would likely remain appropriate to their real home base) Cheers. Collect ( talk) 14:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply
I agree that the evidence RD is a sock of BF seems weak, and does not fall within WP:Duck. Nor do I see compelling evidence that RD is a sock of someone other than BF. I worry not just about ideological editing, but also about ideological blocking, and therefore urge caution here. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Good grief, can we just let the SPI people do their thing? All this talking isn't going to convince anybody, and in my opinion it has the effect of undermining your credibility. @Collect, the fact that you saw MM as a sock but not Roccodrift makes me wonder about your own objectivity. @Anythingyouwant, it is very clear that Roccodrift is not new. Just look at their first 50 edits. Edit number 1 was a revert. Edit number 3 cited WP:EDITCONSENSUS and WP:OWN. Edit number 48 was to report MilesMoney at AN3. Not your typical newbie. As MrX said, Rocco has the potential to be a valuable contributor, but if they're going to continue old battles and fall into the same bad habits, well... ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 22:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the reply, Adjwilley. Why was MM not banned as a sockpuppet duck? Instead, we had to go through edit wars at over a dozen articles, interminable ANI proceedings, et cetera, before he was finally banned for other reasons, right? So now Roccodrift is supposed to be a duck, but I don't see why he couldn't be an experienced IP who only recently decided to get a username. Has anyone asked Roccodrift? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 23:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Replied here. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 23:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply
No evidence was provided that MM was a sockpuppet duck and checkuser showed that he was very unlikely to be a sock of S. TFD ( talk) 00:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC) reply
It just smells kind of funny to go to all the trouble of a checkuser investigation if the guy (RD) was going to be banned anyway. I don't think he's been nearly as disruptive as MM was. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC) reply


This close is clearly an "I don't like him so he must be a sock of someone, evidence be damned". Not a good way to operate at SPI, alas. Collect ( talk) 00:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Comments by Roccodrift

An outright block based on what, precisely? Look at the evidence in the table, up above. It's risibly thin. Caps and italics? Give me a break. One of the criteria is use of the phrase "good grief", which is evidently so common that one of my accusers uses it right here in this thread. [76] Where is the evidence for a DUCK block that's based on something stronger than an over-active imagination? What evidence is there that hasn't been effectively rebutted in the course of the discussion?

And no, I'm not going to agree to a voluntary editing restriction because there are no grounds for it. If somebody wants to seek such a sanction they should do it through normal channels, not this paranoia-laden kangaroo court tucked away in an obscure corner.

I've avoided commenting on this matter because, quite frankly, it didn't deserved any of my already-over-taxed time and attention, and because I expected it to die a natural death. Ok, so now I've removed the argument from silence (which is apparently not considered a logical fallacy here) and you have my view. Roccodrift ( talk) 19:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
For non-SPI-experts, could you please translate that into English, User:DeltaQuad? Thanks. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply
"Stale" refers to the fact that the software only saves checkuser data (the IP address, etc., for each account) for a certain period of time. That period has elapsed for Belchfire's account, so we can't say with 100% certainty that a given editor is working from the same computer/IP address as he did. Therefore we have to look at the behavior of the two accounts, i.e. the WP:DUCK test, to determine if block evasion is occurring. "no sleepers" means that Roccodrift does not seem to be operating any other accounts based on the checkuser data available. Mark Arsten ( talk) 22:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • This SPI needs to be closed, one way or the other. It's clear that Roccodrift ( talk · contribs) is someone's alternate account - I don't think anyone has seriously contended otherwise. The behavioral evidence presented by Adjwilley and MrX is convincing enough for me to block Roccodrift on WP:DUCK grounds as a likely Belchfire sockpuppet. (In a best-case scenario, he's an alternate account dedicated to ideologically-driven editing, which would still warrant a block in my view). Given the length of time this report has been open, I don't see a huge rush - I'll hold it open for a few days to wait for comments from other admins before acting. MastCell  Talk 04:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply
No objections from me. Mark Arsten ( talk) 22:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply
@MastCell, I agree with your analysis, and I think that perhaps one of the reasons this SPI has stayed open for so long is that in the worst-case scenario this is block evasion since Roccodrift hasn't operated alternate accounts, and they haven't (yet) done anything themselves that merits an indef-block. They've also made helpful edits, mixed in with the battleground behavior that precipitated this SPI. I have occasionally seen SPI outcomes that involved creative sanctions being placed on the user, designed to address the disruptive behavior itself. For instance, I would appreciate a close to this SPI that involved a topic ban or 1RR restriction on articles related to politics and/or homosexuality, broadly construed, or just a general blanket 1RR restriction period. That way, if they wish to contribute constructively and collaboratively, they may do so, but if they wish to engage in disruptive and battleground behavior, they will very quickly find themselves cleanly and justifiably indef-blocked. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 20:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC) reply
I think the problem is that this editor should be using his/her main account, rather than using this account to segregate agenda-driven edits, even under a 1RR or other restriction. That said, I'm willing to try the approach you're suggesting. Do any other admins have a strong feeling about an outright block vs. global 1RR vs. a topic ban from political subjects? If not, I'll come back and close this with one of the above in the next few days. MastCell  Talk 22:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC) reply
How about notifying User:Roccodrift to see if he has any response, or if he is inclined to agree to an editing restriction? Otherwise an outright block appears justified. EdJohnston ( talk) 18:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Per the input received here, I've gone ahead and blocked Roccodrift ( talk · contribs) as an illegitimate sockpuppet. The evidence that the account is operated by Belchfire is suggestive but not conclusive. However, it is clear that Roccodrift is an alternate account being operated by an experienced Wikipedian. Using the Roccodrift account to engage in combative, controversial, or tendentious editing is a clear violation of WP:SOCK, specifically the provisions forbidding the use of alternate accounts to "segregate" controversial edits and avoid scrutiny. I've therefore blocked Roccodrift indefinitely. MastCell  Talk 23:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply
22 January 2014
Suspected sockpuppets


Locus of the investigation is Duck Dynasty. Recently blocked evident sockpuppet Roccodrift ( talk · contribs) was repeatedly discussing Southern Poverty Law Center statements/claims on that article [77]. Before and especially after the block, Perusteltu has also engaged in that activity, becoming more strident and edit warring following Roccodrift's block (see [78] [79] [80] [81]. There is some contrary evidence that the SPLC inclusions are subtly different between Roccodrift and Perustetlu, however it could be good hand/bad hand behavior. Additionally, this edit warring led another admin to block another editor, and myself to full-protect the article, and an extensive ANI discussion in which multiple users stated they had a Duck Test feeling that Perusteltu behaved similarly to Roccodrift (several outright claiming it was an obvious sock). Given the long-running Belchfire multiple sockpuppetry issue, the possibility of yet another is nonzero. But it could just be an innocent third party who shared similar opinions, whose name needs clearing. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 09:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Belchfire/Archive&oldid=1142567937"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE