Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BoopBoopaDoop/Archive


BoopBoopaDoop

Report date March 30 2010, 01:15 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Beyond My Ken

These accounts all edit the same articles: Helen Kane, Mae Questel, Betty Boop, Olive Oyl, Margie Hines, Bonnie Poe and other articles related to Betty Boop. Those that have posted on article talk pages have a distinctive style of writing: one line paragraphs, infrequent use of caps, use of ampersand and other informalities, and they generally don't sign their posts. [1][2][3] Their edits are generally helpful, but their writing is weak, and their attitude on talk pages a bit confrontational with overtones of ownership.

I began to deal with this user as someone who didn't know their way around Wikipedia, and was creating a new account every time they edited, until I started to see more and more obvious socks and I looked into their edits, and I realized that they may have been creating these new accounts not because (as I first supposed) they were naive, but in order to carry on editwarring with User:Karstwater on many of these articles.

The behavioral evidence is strong enough to establish the use of multiple accounts (the stylistic cues are a dead giveaway), but I'm asking for a checkuser just in case I missed a sock or two. At least one other user, User:Amandelirious seemed like it might be related, but it wasn't nearly as clearcut, and the data is probably stale anyway. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to suggest that, because their edits appear to me to be intended to be helpful, that if these socks are confirmed, the user be asked to pick one account to edit with while the others are blocked, and told not to create more new accounts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After Tim Song's endorsement, I've added User:Missymay03, created just today to edit to Talk:Mae Questel. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed. BoopBoopaDoop (talk · contribs) is  Stale, but otherwise this is messy enough that I can use a check here to clarify things. Tim Song (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed; messy indeed.
Lovelovemarge == Hihehe == Mariahlovesyou == Missymay02, also Lovemeyes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
Missmay03 and Missymay03 are  Inconclusive to the others, but equal to each other (unsurprisingly). — Coren (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Behaviorially, there's no doubt that Mariah is Missymay02 is Missymay03, so I think it's safe to say that this is all the same person. It may be difficult to communicate with them, as they appear to create a new ID almost every time they edit, and don't seem to check their e-mail. Would it be possible to hardblock the IPs underlying their accounts, just to get their attention? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
information Administrator noteMO of BoopBoopaDoop looks somewhat different so I'm leaving that account unblocked for now, especially as there're no edits since October. All other accounts are indefinitely blocked, and the autoblock should hopefully get the IP. I'll leave a message on each of the account's talk pages asking them to request an unblock on one account and limit themselves to that single account. Tim Song (talk) 02:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On reviewing the deleted contribs, it is clear that BoopBoopaDoop == Lovemeyes. Blocked as well. Tim Song (talk) 02:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
09 July 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Beyond My Ken

User:Bayoneta is an account created several days ago, which edits exclusively the same range of articles edited by BoopBoopaDoop's numerous socks, anything to do with Betty Boop or related cartoons. The behavorial evidence is compelling, checkuser is needed to confirm overlap with previous socks and look for sleepers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Bayoneta's edits, there are other similarities to the edits of BoopBoopaDoop's various socks, such as the casual use of capital letters [4],[5],[6],[7] inter alia. The major difference that I can see is that apparently only one ID is being used, instead of new ones being continually created -- but, then again, BoopBoopaDoop appeared to be doing that to avoid being accused of edit warring, and Bayoneta has not, as yet, run into an editor who objects to their edits, so there's been no need, as of yet, to create new IDs. Still, there's really no doubting the identity here - the only real question is whether the community would like to give this editor a fresh start, since their edits are, as far as I can tell, not disruptive. Owning up to their identity might help in that respect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have read Bayoneta's second comment below, and I think we can AGF that he or she would like to settle down to one account and edit constuctively. My view as the filer is that this report can be archived and the matter closed until such time (if ever!) that it needs to be revisited. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

I am not a sockpuppet, i have only just signed up with wikipedia a few days ago. and i am here on wikipedia to help correct the articles on the fleischer Studios Cartoons. so can you please not make up false claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bayoneta (talk • contribs) 11:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

alright i will admit it,being untruthful will get me nowhere in this world and i sure have learnt that in another way. now i sure feel silly for trying to defend myself. i guessed the past would come up.

i thought i could pass this off becuse i have a special feature on this computer and i am in another area that keeps the wikipedia passwords saved, and not to mention i have only just learnt a few new things about wikipedia and how to use it.

and yes i will admit i am on a new account and reason being is becuse i have only just found out i was blocked from my last and i couldnt access anything. when i used to use wikipedia i didnt actually know i wasnt allowed to recreate accounts.


I think the main reason why i didnt get any notices that i was being blocked was becuse i didnt put my email adress in when signing up. and that is why i could never access any of my older accounts so i kept making them, from the 10th of july, when i wanted to finish up some pages on wikipedia so people could read the information on great historical animation of the 30s, the pages were empty. and i couldnt get into the last account i used.

i made an account called BoopBoopaDoop ages ago and i forgot my password and didnt use a email address and couldnt access it again, so i made another one, and made another called Lovelovelovelovemarge and then another called Hihehe. all of which i forgot the emails and passwords. but it seems they were blocked one by one and i really didnt know becuse i couldnt access anything with the information. and i didnt use a email address so i couldnt get back in.

By checking the achives of the investigations i can see that they are all lined up - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/BoopBoopaDoop/Archive

But i must let you know, Missmay03,Mariahlovesyou,Missymay02 Missymay03 was a complete diffrent person, meaning we are not the same person. myself and missmay knew each other from diffrent online websites for a while from around 2009-2010 and we decided that we were both going to fix up the articles so that they linked becuse we knew alot about the articles. missmay had all the information on Helen Kane and a bit about Betty Boop so we were both sharing information from our email adresses and trying to fix up the articles so that they made sence.

i also hold proof that myself and missmay are not the same person. we were trying to fix up the article. as can be seen in the comments section of flickr 5 months ago proving we are diffrent people, when we were discussing things. we also talked about many things in emails and tried to do some research to make sure the articles were up to scratch. ( and sometimes on wikipedia we even starting undoing each others edits.. becuse we didnt agree with one another) http://www.flickr.com/photos/missmay03/4335403263/ I no longer speak with missmay, so im unsure whenever she uses wikipedia anymore under various pseudonyms.


I really didnt know i was causing so much trouble. i thought if i stated that i was not a new account that i would be able to just start fresh like nothing ever happened, after i had read about the puppet investigations, and to tell you the truth i didnt even know that wikipedia did investigations.

well all i can say is im really sorry wikipedia, i wasnt here to ruin articles i was only here to help finish some and add some minor edits so if you really wish to block this account, well i guess i cant stop you. and the reason why i didnt reply to your emails was becuse i didnt seem to get any notices from my email becuse when creating accounts i didnt use emails and then i would forget the passwords and start making up a new account.

Last but not least, this is the last account i will ever make on wikipedia, Bayoneta, being as i know a bit more about puppets/socks since july. for this account my password and my account is linked to my email. and since July i have not made anymore accounts becuse i read the rules and i now know. so there you have it i have came clean and i doubt there is anymore i can say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bayoneta (talk • contribs) 19:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Clerk declined – BoopBoopaDoop and all other blocked socks are  Stale for CheckUser purposes. This will need to be determined by behavioral evidence. –MuZemike 18:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note It is of my opinion that Bayoneta is BoopBoopaDoop, based on the behavioral evidence and patterns. However, I will respect Beyond My Ken's comment above and the fact that I am not the community, I will leave this to others as to whether Bayoneta should be blocked as a sock puppet or that a clean start is fine here. –MuZemike 22:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a note on their talk page suggesting that they come here, come clean, and start fresh. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note Bayoneta's admission here in the SPI looks like a willingness to set the record straight. Not much doubt that this is the same person as BoopBoopaDoop. I would be OK with Bayoneta continuing to edit if they can stay out of trouble from now on. Beyond My Ken, the submitter of this report, has expressed his view that it can be closed with no further action. EdJohnston (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing with no action taken. BoopBoopaDoop has expressed regret for his actions, and the initiation has OKed the closing with no action. I would remind BoopBoopaDoop to review the socking policies, especially the policies for WP:CLEANSTART. (X! · talk)  · @969  ·  22:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/BoopBoopaDoop/Archive&oldid=375442703"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BoopBoopaDoop/Archive, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.