Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/DbelangeB

User:DbelangeB

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets#User:DbelangeB

Suspected sockpuppeteer

DbelangeB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Blocked

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

nneonneo (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Original user Dbelange was warned, then blocked, for vandalism (see User_talk:Dbelange). Soon afterwards, DbelangeA sprang up: in fact, DbelangeA pretty much picks up where the original left off; see User_talk:Ryulong/Archive_16#Belanger_is_Back for an observation of this. After being warned about multiple minor acts of vandalism against multiple pages (User_talk:DbelangeA), the user disappears for some time (possibly using another, less obvious alias). User reappears as DbelangeB (which appears to be the most active account as of the present) after a few months of inactivity, posting mostly positive minor edits. However, he also goes on to post a number of disruptive edits, including:
nonsense edit to Haggis and the related image Image:Haggiskawaii.jpg
[1], a redirect from a brand of cold medicine (?) to a Holocaust denier -- unless Nazi has something to do with Citran, I fail to see how these are connected in the least
Addition of single line "psychic"
[2] Added unsourced material to the Controversy section, which was noted by another editor on DbelangeB's talk page. DbelangeC did the same: [3]
[4] Another nonsense redirect
[5]
[6] An article that was under dispute for being a hoax; User:Stalinwasmydad removed the hoax tag.

Stalinwasmydad has exclusively edited pages which DbelangeB has started (see [7]).

Dbelange, DbelangeA and DbelangeB share an interest in the White Power Ranger, apparently:
Dbelange edits the White Ranger article
DbelangeA edits WPR article
[8] DbelangeB adds information about a White Power Ranger controversy to this page
This may constitute a link between them (in which case Dbelange[x] would be evading negative attention by creating multiple new accounts).

User pages for DbelangeB and DbelangeC are virtually identical.

Unrandomperson removed the hoax tag from Wei Xi Fan for no good reason. I suspect Unrandomperson may also be a sockpuppet, but the evidence for him is less convincing.

Heinrich Himmler IV has made just 7 edits, three of them to user talk pages (one to DbelangeA's talk page, two to DbelangeB's talk page), and the edit to 2007 appears to be nonconstructive. One of his edits to DbelangeB's talk page removed two warnings: one about Chelophilately, and one about Metrosexual (which I have now restored). While he might not necessarily be a sockpuppet of DbelangeB, merely an inexperienced editor who accidentally removed that material (AGF), I am placing him on this list for completeness.

129.97.134.34 (an anonymous IP belonging to the University of Waterloo) has made few constructive edits. [9] about the Hobo File System was identified as vandalism and soon removed. [10] was an effort to improve the incorrect information regarding Bill Gates' visit to the University of Waterloo, a section which was initially added by DbelangeB and soon removed. [11] removed DbelangeB's name from the talk message, effectively making it appear as if he did not make the comment. Most recently, this IP tried to request the hoax tag be removed from Wei Xi Fan [12], which I have again refused to do, since there is no evidence (note he also makes the same accusation as Stalinwasmydad, namely that "noone makes hoaxes about soup").

DbelangeB has now gone on to accuse me of vandalism [13]. All alleged vandalism incidences he cites are clearly meant for reverting vandalism, not promoting it. Below, this user promised to continue this discussion with me on my talk page; instead, he made baseless accusations of vandalism against me, accusing me of trying to "make a name for a vandalism-only account".

DbelangeB, C, D, and E were all created within minutes of each other ([14], [15], [16], [17]), and DbelangeE has recently become active after increasing scrutiny over DbelangeB's personal attacks, etc. DbelangeE has not yet made any unconstructive edits, but this account was clearly created to evade scrutiny, which is against the policy on multiple accounts.

Comments

I hate to add so many suspected sock puppets to this list. Since the University of Waterloo operates many computer labs, with hundreds (if not thousands!) of unique IP addresses, most of them accessible by anyone with a computing account (i.e. almost all students), it's likely that this user may use many of these IPs to evade detection. Note that some of the edits from these IPs (and indeed some of the users) have been constructive, while others are clear cases of sock puppetry. nneonneo (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Defence

Yes, I have controlled each of the accounts Dbelange, DbelangeA, DbelangeB, and DbelangeC. DbelangeA was created after the original Dbelange was banned in a pissing contest with some administrator or other. DbelangeB followed DbelangeA, and DbelangeC is standing in reserve for the same purpose. The naming scheme is completely transparent. These are not sock-puppets.

The "Stalin" and "Himmler" accounts probably belong to the same person--a secret admirer, perhaps?

As for the 192.97.* IPs, these are from the University of Waterloo. I spend time there now and then; that's most likely how I met the clowns 129.97.*, Unrandomperson, and Nneonneo who are busy trolling at Wei Xi Fan.

Please sign your edits. You do realize that DbelangeC would be considered a "bad hand" account "good hand/bad hand" accounts because 4 of its 6 edits were considered vandalism. Your main account isn't too clean either, but it looks as if you are specifically using these other accounts to add support for your (suspected hoax) articles -- see evidence. I see no reason why you need to maintain multiple accounts -- your previous account DbelangeA has not been blocked or banned, so, aside from avoiding scrutiny I don't see why you would need three separate unblocked accounts to achieve anything on Wikipedia. nneonneo (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DbelangeA was over after one of the griefers removed its user page and, I'd assumed, blocked the account; you will notice that it has been inactive since then. I'm not terribly concerned, either, about what faceless Wikipedia vandals think of DbelangeC, whose contributions were constructive, and which was only ever used because of a typo at the login page. DbelangeB (talk) 04:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you are keeping these extra accounts in case your current main account is blocked? In that case, why make edits that could be considered material for blocking you in the first place, like the Bill Gates controversy you added to the U of W page, or the Copalindrome nonsense you created? nneonneo (talk) 05:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. That sort of backward mentality is what causes blocks of legitimate editors. DbelangeB (talk) 22:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which sort of backward mentality: that users like you shouldn't make disruptive edits that could subject them to a review (like this), or that users should not hold additional accounts except under certain, very rare circumstances that do not clearly apply to you? Right now, from the evidence, it isn't clear that you are indeed a completely legitimate editor. nneonneo (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has become clear that this discussion does not belong here. See your talk page for my response. DbelangeB (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are discussing your contributions and alternate accounts here. This discussion does indeed belong here. I am not intending to be confrontational, I merely want you to explain (here) why you have made disruptive edits that could result in your account being blocked (and thus why you need additional accounts to defend against this possibility) nneonneo (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems DbelangeB has chosen to go on the offensive [18], instead; he would not be the first sockpuppet/puppetmaster to do so. The accusations made against me are wholly baseless. nneonneo (talk) 02:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[19] DbelangeB (talk) 05:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I've blocked the obvious ones and reverted their edits. I'm not sure what the reasons were for the original block, but no matter the case, you are not permitted to create new accounts to evade it— no matter how noble the cause. Consider leaving an {{unblock}} request if you believe you were blocked unfairly; or, alternatively, contact the email address listed in your block message. I'll leave checking the rest to someone else. --slakr^\ talk / 17:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks very much. I believe this is now resolved, so this case may be closed. nneonneo (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]