Betacommand (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Suspected sockpuppets

• Werieth (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

re Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand_3, it is my suspicion that the banned account Betacommand is editing contrary to the Remedies of that case, not having approached the ArbCom to have the 1 year minimum ban lifted and submitting a plan for their future editing, since before the lapse of the 1 year minimum term.

A review of Werieth's edit history will show parallels with that of Betacommand; a strong interest in enforcing WP:NFCC ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] examples of Werieth edits - [6] [7] [8] [9] examples of Δ/Betacommand)**Δ being an account operated by the same person as Betacommand, after abandoning the earlier account. Similarities include the sparse reference to the relevant policy, and the number of edits made in the period (if I knew how to ref blocks of edits I would), and in the case of Betacommand and Werieth the use of semi automated tools (Δ was mostly under restrictions in the use of automated tools). A review of the edit histories will also indicate a similar pattern of the times of day that both editors are active, although it may be assumed that very many editors will have similar editing patterns also simply for geographical reasons; it does suggest that the two editors are in similar time zones, perhaps precluding a negative finding based on location.

I would also draw attention to the various (I am including Δ as a successor account to Betacommand) accounts talkpages. Where there are discussions, the subject editor refers constantly to the applicable policy and does not entertain any diversion from same ([10] [11] [12] Werieth - [13] [14] [15] Δ/Betacommand). It should be noted that Werieth is most certainly more civil in their discourse, but the fundamentals remain the same.

I would point out the similarities in interests in books/covers, and cleanup (removing whitespace, standardizing the use of dashes, removal of deleted files, etc.) but the edit histories are dauntingly large and my pc alarmingly clunky (and my technical savvy rather poor). I will provide same should it be requested, but it will take time. (Anyone more able than me is welcome to provide such help as may assist, in regard to my own points as well as any they might have.)

I believe that a Checkuser might be useful, providing that data from delta/Betacommand is still available, since none of the edits by Werieth are against policy and are in fact extremely useful - and if it could be determined that these accounts are unconnected, providing there is insufficient evidence per WP:DUCK to otherwise link the accounts, then Werieth might usefully gain some instruction as to how best to NOT conduct themselves in regard to the sometimes fraught area of Non Free Content enforcement, per the example of Betacommand. If there are grounds for a positive finding, together with the noted similarities, then we have an issue to bring to the attention of the ArbCom. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The delta ones might not be, and there was a historical finding of sockpuppetry by BC which may have left some records. However, I am content to allow this to proceed per WP:DUCK. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I have noted it on the talkpage - unfortunately it did not go through these channels, so it might not be "searchable" by you. It and the ANI discussion might usefully be referenced. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  As there seems to be no response to the above, the tagged sockpuppet of Betacommand is Quercus basaseachicensis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - and should be added to the known accounts. The link to the description of the CU/investigation remains on this SPI talkpage. As for more diffs and other detailed examples of similar interests and modus operandi, I will devote more time this (UK) evening time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  resp to clerk note by Rschen7754; I will provide some "better" examples of potential similarities between accounts - once I sober up from spending my Saturday night selfishly enjoying myself in the company of people other than WP editors - and hopefully within the time limits.
  [redacted LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)] LessHeard vanU (talk) 03:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• On further review, I am not going to offer more examples - there are always going to be similarities between editors working NFCC, linking to policy etc. and where two editors use a (semi) automated tools to mass tag/remove non compliant images there will be similarities also. Since none of these actions are against policy or guideline, and indeed are very useful, simply noting further that action X by editor Y is remarkably similar to actions by editor Z is unproductive.
  As I noted when opening this request, the major cause for suspicion is the time of day when the various accounts edit, and how they both appear to "batch" the automated tool edits within a run of contributions, and the sparse edit summaries, and the manner of discourse (those civil ones, in the case of Betacommand/delta) at talk pages. You do need to look over the logs to get a feel on how these appear to be the same voice - and I can't provide that insight with a series of diffs.
  I maintain that the Wereith is Betacommand, and I am going to place my further reasons here, which are unsupported by diffs unfortunately; The Wereith account has not edited since my notification of the SPI - there is no outraged response, or any response, to the notice although the account should have been active since, according to the edit history (of course, it may be bad timing in that the editor is taking a break). Betacommand has limited himself to commenting only on a dissimilarity between editing practices, rather than accusing the reporter of witch hunts against him, and the first commentator here (someone who interacted with Wereith) makes the same point in a different example, which appears that they are interested in keeping that account free to edit rather than protect the reputation of Betacommand. I find that strange.
  I take Hammersoft's point about raising concerns over Wereith editing could be brought to various noticeboards, but would comment that there is nothing wrong with the substance of Wereith's editing - it is policy complaint and aids the construction of the project. My issue is that I think it is Betacommand, working to his own interests and in defiance of his ban. I am pleased to see that there is a moderation in the language used and previous combatative style of interactions, which was the result always desired in all the sanctions levelled against Betacommand, but I do not think that they should be editing the encyclopedia without complying with the terms of the present sanction.
  I am making no further input to this request, and am content if it is closed as "no action". Should Werieth return to editing, I hope they take on board the issues raised and ensure they conduct themselves in the best possible manner - and if it is Betacommand, as I suspect, that their next account is even more careful in how they conduct themselves, though I urge them rather to comply with the restrictions on their return to editing as provided at the ArbCom case. Peace. Gone. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I haven't had time to look at the evidence yet, but I randomly saw Wikipedia:VPT#Template:ArbitrationCommitteeChart, which strikes me as odd, Beta is an expert with the timeline extension and doesn't need help with it, and he's familiar enough with who's on arbcom given that he went through 3 cases. Legoktm (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommand asked me on IRC to post this for him:

I just saw the edits to the SPI case about me about 30 minutes ago, I took a quick look and it looks like the user they are accusing of being me has uploaded about 100 non-free files, and has plans for more, something I would never do. I actually made a point to not upload non-free files and specificly work with only free files. As you know I want the amount of non-free stuff reduced,......Not increased.

Legoktm (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This is nothing more than a fishing expedition, and one that can't proceed. Simply because someone does some edits they don't like shouldn't mean they get dragged before SPI because their edits happen to have some overlap with someone. If you feel that anything this editor is doing is actually disruptive, then take it to the appropriate noticeboards. Outside of an edit warring fest that the editor has been properly chastised for, the isn't anything disruptive. I've interacted with Beta on a number of occasions. Some have claimed I'm his friend (I'm not, nor anyone's friend) and I was once even accused of being a sockpuppet of him. Yeah, there are some similarities here but being similar to someone shouldn't be enough to have them banned from the project. One dissimilarity is Werieth appears to be a lot more talkative than Beta ever was. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Clerk declined - All known Betacommand accounts are stale by at least a year, so no checkuser is possible. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• LessHeard, I am not aware of any previous SPIs against Beta - certainly there is no old casepage. Are you aware of any previous investigations? For the record, several clerks are currently looking into this; it will not simply be swept under the rug because the master account is old. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Clerk note: - For the record, Betacommand's known accounts:
  • Δ (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Betacommand (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Δbot (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Betacommand2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Someguy1221 (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Preliminary comment: we need more diffs to make a judgment here - so far I haven't seen anything convincing by itself. Rschen7754 08:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Rschen. NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Clerk note: Unless strong evidence is posted within the next 24 hours, I'm likely going to close this request with no action. SPI is not for fishing. Rschen7754 00:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @LhVU: Socking is a serious accusation, and potentially false accusations are quite damaging. It is expected that you have the evidence for an accusation before you make it. Clerks and admins are not supposed to make your case for you. --Rschen7754 03:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If there's enough behavioral evidence, go ahead and use that. CheckUser is not particularly helpful in this case, especially without either stored records or a more recent known connection. NW (Talk) 03:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Going to go ahead and close this after consulting with some other clerks. There simply hasn't been enough evidence presented here. Rschen7754 02:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets

• Werieth (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

Please see the recent behavioural complaints of user:Werieth, in reference to their edit-warring and highly aggressive behaviour towards other editors in particular relation to WP:NFCC. This has led to a suspicion, first raised by user:Arnhem 96, that they are the return of user:Betacommand, an editor banned for just such aggressive behaviour.

See ongoing and recent discussions at:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Broader_issue
• User_talk:SlimVirgin#FYI
• User_talk:Andy_Dingley#FYI
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive229#User:Werieth_reported_by_User:Andy_Dingley_.28Result:_Blocked.29
• [16]

Please also follow the links from these.

Several issues have been noted:

• Primarily an aggressive pursuit of NFCC, even beyond a reasonable interpretation of such.
• Edit-warring over other editors to enforce this.
• Aggressive behaviour towards other editors.
• Repeated blanket assertions that NFCC supports immediate image deletion, even for aspects that are broadly agreed to require careful per-item study and have a somewhat subjective nature, such that other opinions are valid and worthy of respect.
• Utterly ignoring 3RR on the basis that NFCC over-rides it. Even though the policy is clear that it does not, and they have been regularly warned over this specific issue. How any editors reach 6RR or an amazing 18RR, yet aren't blocked for it?
• Appearing from nowhere only a couple of months after Betacommand's ban and diving immediately into the same aggressive pursuit of NFCC. Although they've been here little more than a year, they've always been ready to chew out long-established editors who disagree with them. This may not be Betacommand, but they were no from-scratch newbie.
• Single-purpose editing at a great rate, above any typical editing rate. This is very single purpose in pursuit of NFCC, although both demonstrated occasional bursts of other editing tasks, especially for Werieth making these look more like camouflage than a broader interest.
• Utter disinterest in the improvement of articles or the encyclopedia. An image with a poorly formatted (even when present) FUR is an excuse to delete it, never to fix the issue and move forwards instead. They encounter
• Overlapping their pursuit to even such obscure topics as Iranian cinema: Cinematic style of Abbas Kiarostami. Betacommand found it, Werieth removed all of the images (on such an obviously visual arts topic).
• Poor English language skills and similar sometimes bizarre choice of words. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kww has just seen fit to block the person best equipped to supply such diffs. Funny that; he unblocks Werieth, he blocks the editor complaining of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever actually owns the account remains unblocked, Andy, so there's no interference with the ability to provide diffs, just the elimination of yet another WP:ILLEGIT violation.—Kww(talk) 03:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it makes anyone feel better, in the silly terminology we apparently now use around here, I "own" the block now. The block should not be interpreted as disagreeing with whether there are grounds for this SPI; I'm agnostic on that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you have also locked the talk page of the editor most able to supply the diffs requested below. Just what are you trying to "prevent" with this preventative block? Andy Dingley (talk) 04:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm preventing an illegitimate sockpuppet from editing against policy. Assuming for the moment his actual account is not blocked, he's free to use that one to supply diffs. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Kww - Then would you care to tell me who the main account owner is, so that I can ask them? You do of course know who this dread puppeteer is, don't you? It's not as if you'd ever block an account for socking because you're just sure they've got to be someone else really.

Or at least you'd only do that if there was huge evidence they weren't a brand-new editor as they claim. Maybe by them dropping straight into a policy area where "the complexity of NFCC [is] far far more than" [17] an established editor could possibly understand. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, I had been active on other wikimedia projects for a while before coming to enwiki to edit, I had also watched stuff for quite a while before editing. When I made my first edit to enwiki I had somewhere around 9,000 edits globally. Werieth (talk) 04:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think 9,000 edits under your previous identity is more, or less, than Arnhem 96 had? Andy Dingley (talk) 04:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a previous identity. They are all under my global account. Werieth (talk) 04:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For confirmation see Special:CentralAuth/Werieth (or Meta:Special:CentralAuth/Werieth if you don't want to do it from en, either way sorting by attached date and number of edits helps to see different things). The history may be slightly confusing, for clarification, it seem that although the account was created in 2010, it wasn't used anywhere until 2012. You can see the first edits here were in June 2012 Special:Contributions/Werieth ([18]). Prior to that there were a number (I didn't check the number) of edits to commons Commons:Special:Contributions/Werieth ([19]) and simple-en Simple:Special:Contributions/Werieth ([20]) and possibly a small number (must be under 30 total if any) to other wikis. Nil Einne (talk) 14:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While obviously not conclusive either way, the timing does seem a little suspicious. The first edit to simple-en which seems to have been the first edit overall at 04:56, 6 February 2012 and the creation of the simple-en account itself at 03:46, 6 February 2012 (as shown earlier), was just after it was becoming clear at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3/Proposed decision#Betacommand banned that a ban here at en was passing, with the 9th and so majority (out of 16) support coming at 21:13, 5 February 2012 as also recognised by arbs at 21:19, 5 February 2012. Perhaps just an unfortunate coincidence but I can see why people are concerned from this alone. Nil Einne (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is getting kind of ridiculous, Andy has been upset ever since I removed a group of non-free files from one of his articles. His failure to actually look at my contributions is grating. I do contribute to articles, I have in fact uploaded about 200 non-free files to date. Given that I do non-free image patrols it is inevitable that I cross paths with a wide group of users, there are bound to be some article overlaps, especially since I have almost 35,000 edits. Andy has shown a repeated lack of understanding with regards to NFCC. There have been several users who have pointed this out to him. His assertion that NFCC enforcement isnt exempt from 3RR (which has been pointed out several times) is false see Wikipedia:EW#3RR_exemptions) Point 5. Given the recent behavior of both Andy and to a lesser degree SlimVirgin who have taken to attacking the messenger, because they disagree with the message, I think this is yet another attempt to attack the messenger. Kww made a comment that I think is quite apt [21] Once again, we get to the crux of the problem: editors that don't wish to follow WP:NFCC decrying its contents and attempting to get the people that enforce it blocked. Contrary to SlimVirgin's assertions, it's one of our clearest policies and well-suited to strict interpretation. The problem is that an extremely high percentage of our non-free content doesn't meet the criteria. The solution to that is not to relax the criteria, it's to simplify the deletion process so that these disputes do not become so protracted.—Kww(talk) 01:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Werieth (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what are, "my articles"? Tweenies? – where my major edit was to remove a bunch of (obviously unlicensed) images from Commons and to correctly relabel them as non-free: something you'd taken no previous interest in, but of course once they were NFC you perked up and deleted them. Or do you mean MAHLE Powertrain, an article I hadn't even edited? Andy Dingley (talk) 03:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from below) What's your papally infallible position on Werieth himself edit-warring to remove a section about him? 4RR now and not a mention. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was originally removed by Future Perfect at Sunrise. Werieth (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested that FPaS block you pursuant to his earlier warning for your obvious proxying violations, Andy. I'd get enough people wagging fingers at me based on WP:INVOLVED that I won't do it myself, but any other admin that still is looking at this thing should feel free to act during FPaS's absence.—Kww(talk) 20:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so scared to just look at the damned diffs and address the question of whether Betacommand is back?

These links and diffs still exist, whether they're posted you, me or some dreadful outlaw sock. As you note, you're heavily involved here already, not just because I've long expressed the view that you're a disgrace as an admin for just this sort of "Shut up or I'll block you, peasant" behaviour. Objectively and more to the point here, you're also the admin who unblocked Werieth minutes after he'd been blocked for a very clear 3RR. An issue of WP:3RRNO#5 that Werieth interprets as free rein to ignore 3RR, despite having been repeatedly warned by others (SlimVirgin's is probably the clearest explanation) that this was not the unquestionable clarity that 3RRNO demands.

You oppose my posting of straightforward diff information (that several have requested) from an editor who probably is (given their WP familiarity) a sock. Yet there is no evidence that they're the sock of a blocked, banned or CU'ed editor (all three have been claimed falsely). Yet when it comes to blocking, you're happy to ask for another admin to proxy that for you! Andy Dingley (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Clerk note: Diffs would be really helpful here. This isn't the first time this has been brought up, and I'm not convinced there is anything new from the last time this was considered (see the archive). Legoktm (talk) 02:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Clerk declined I'm declining the request for checkuser for the same reason it was declined in March: all of Betacommand's known accounts are stale, so the checkuser tool won't be of any help. That being said, a block could still be issued here if investigation into the behavior of the two accounts turns up compelling evidence. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural note: I have just blanket-reverted a massive addition of alleged evidence added by Andrew Dingley proxying for the now blocked User:Formal Appointee Number 6, previously User:Arnhem 96. Since Arnhem/Appointee is evidently an experienced user creating throwaway socks with the sole purpose of hounding Werieth, he is – at a minimum – in breach of WP:ILLEGIT (if not outright ban-evading, which is rather likely), and his activities are clearly an act of wiki-harassment. Using dirty sock tactics of this kind is unacceptable, especially where the alleged purpose is to decry somebody else's sockpuppetry. As we are dealing with wiki-harassment here, I formally warn Andrew Dingley (or anybody else) not to continue acting as the sockpuppeter's proxy by adding his arguments to this discussion on his behalf. If you feel there is a case against Werieth, you need to stand up for it yourself. Further proxying for the sockpuppeter will be met with blocks, and possibly a speedy closure of this report if the discussion here gets too much poisoned by the sock's involvement. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Clerk note: While I do see that both have a strong focus on enforcing the non-free content policy, I don't see anything like sufficient evidence to prove that Werieth is Betacommand. Furthermore Wikinger and other puppets are repeatedly disrupting this SPI, so a lot of the "evidence" is being compiled by bad-faith socks. I'm not inclined to trust such "evidence". Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Legoktm and ReaperEternal and i'm therefore closing the case. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]