Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cracker92

– A user has requested CheckUser. An SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse or decline the request.

Cracker92

Cracker92 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cracker92/Archive.

06 July 2012

Suspected sockpuppets

• 174.231.129.76 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 174.232.66.149 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 174.232.67.235 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

After certain users pointed out that Cracker92 had violated the "clean" part of WP:Clean start and failed WP:SOCK#NOTIFY, the above IP addresses immediately drop in, offering encouragement to Cracker92, making personal attacks against Baseball Bugs, and even encouraging Cracker92 to go after Baseball Bugs. The timing is just a bit too coincidental for me, and the friendly banter with a troll doesn't help. After these IPs are blocked and Baseball Bugs's page is locked, Cracker92 begins disrupting Tarc's userspace (the IP trolls would pass off their more outright vandalism as being within WP procedure, even trying to "block" me for 3rr for reverting their attacks). Cracker92 then filed a complaint over at . Tarc was not affected by the IP trolls because his talk page remains locked. Considering the situation over at User talk:Baseball Bugs, I cannot imagine that Cracaked92's purpose on that page was anything positive. Also, the trolls were active from 16:56 to 18:14 (EST), during which time there is a drastic decrease in Cracker92's activity. At any rate, the IPs are registered to cellphones. In short, these IP trolls followed and supported Cracker92 a little too closely, and Cracked92 picked up in some other bad-faith activities when the IPs were finally thrown off. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

free popcorn
Br'er

Bug's tried to get me blocked as a sock at ANI, he failed, then he and others wanted to know my past accounts, I wouldn't tell them, and they were ultimately told to go away or file an SPI. This outcome apparently pleased some IP who possibly wasn't so lucky before that. I of course felt affinity with him, and let Bugs know I hadn't appreciated spending a day at ANI on this issue. I won't apologise for that. And that's it as far as I'm concerned. Then this IP based SPI is filed. Why do I need to sock to mess with Bug's talk page? I said what I wanted, and he's presumably seen it. What I suspect this is, is an attempt to reveal my past accounts without having to give a good reason why they need to be known, and it likely really has nothing to do with the IPs at all, who I think might be being used as useful idiots in this case. Who knows, maybe they're socks of Bug's or Ian, and this whole thing is a set up. The issues with Tarc have nothing to do with it, I'm Mfd'ing a page of his that I came across during that ANI, that's it. Cracker92 (talk) 23:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Cracker92 has admitted to using multiple previous accounts, [1] so the only real questions are: did those accounts edit disruptively or not, and is C92 using multiple accounts to avoid accountability for his editing or otherwise violating the socking or clean start policies. I suggest that a CU run a check and take a look at any previous accounts that come up. If the accounts have been productive or otherwise edited without disruption, there's no reason the names of those accounts need to be revealed - but if any one of those accounts has a checkered history, then all the account names should be reported here, all of them should be blocked, and C92 should be put on notice that his pattern of frequently changing account names is fundamentally not in harmony with Wikipedia's policies and needs to stop.

It should also be noted that C92 brought all of this attention on himself by posting on ArbCom. If he had simply edited articles and been productive, no one would look at him twice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

In the interest of transparency, my history. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of being racist, this is just a parallel. However, your comment "It should also be noted that C92 brought all of this attention on himself by posting on ArbCom." sounds exactly like "It should also be noted that Rosa Parks brought all of this attention on herself by sitting at the front of the bus." Just want to point out again, not defending this guy, I just think we're being unfair by poking the bear and then blaming the bear when it gets mad.--v/r - TP 02:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not offended, but your analogy is seriously flawed. I'll leave it to you to figure out why. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

You mean because there was a city ordenance against Rosa Parks sitting in the 'white section' but there isn't a rule against posting in an Arbcase unless you have 3000+ edits and a blue userpage link? I think this guy is as guilty as you all say he is, but we dont have any proof and we're making ourselves look silly by blocking him because we provoked him needlessly until he did something blockable and then we said 'gotcha!'.--v/r - TP 02:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Any poking occurred after the bear started going through another editor's picnic basket, though. The Rosa Parks comparison doesn't stand because Rosa Parks didn't have the option to pretend to be white and would have had to go out of her way to comply with unfair laws, while C92 could have just continued to pretend to be a new account and went out of his way to make it plain that he was bringing in past distaste for Malleus's behavior.

It was not a matter of C92 not having enough posts, it was a complete lack of interaction with Malleus before criticizing him, and discussing how he's left the site many times because of problems he associates with Malleus. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I think I've only ever interacted with Malleus directly once and yet I've considered on multiple occasions leaving over what surrounds him. It's not a violation of WP:SOCK to dislike Malleus. Now, if he's been in a dispute with Malleus then we have a situation. But he's not admitted to it and no one else has been able to drum up evidence. So we're convicting this guy on the assumption that evidence exists but he's refusing to show us. In the United States, we have the Fifth Amendment (not that it matters here, but pointing it out). You cannot expect this guy to provide us the evidence against him or hang him if he doesn't. We have zero. Zilch.--v/r - TP 03:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Just want to point out that the purpose of this conversation is not to "convict" anyone, its purpose is to present evidence and opinions to the CUs, so that they can decide whether or not to launch the investigation that will (hopefully) either "convict" or "acquit" C92. So why don't we let them do their thing? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Since Crackers blames me for his troubles, I have a thing or two to point out also: (1) I am no fan of Malleus. I find his treatment of others who cross him ranges from crude to vulgar to obscene. I'm not intimidated by that kind of garbage, but many editors are repulsed by it - which is presumably exactly what he's got in mind. Why they didn't indef him long ago, I can't figure out. Be that as it may: (2) I don't think it's right or fair or ethical for someone to show up out of the clear blue sky and level complaints against someone, while at the same time hiding their own past from scrutiny. As BMK noted earlier, he brought this attention upon himself by going after MF on the arbcom page. And of course he's trying to refocus blame on everyone but himself - which is classic trolling and socking behavior. He's been dishonest and evasive from the get-go. (3) I am not convinced that the IP's are actually Crackers, nor am I convinced they're not. Copycat trolls are out there from time to time, trying to get other users in further trouble. A checkuser needs to sort this out. But no matter if the guy's a sock or not, he has no business confronting Malleus, nor anyone else, if he's unwilling to be open about his own past. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, I just want to point out that I think you guys are 100% right about this. I am looking out for our credibility. I think we're skipping steps because we think we're right, despite that we lack the necessary checkmarks. I also think "I don't think it's right or fair or ethical for someone to show up out of the clear blue sky and level complaints against someone, while at the same time hiding their own past from scrutiny" is a great sentiment, but not supported by policy. Do we want the guy to be clean about who he is? Yeah. Does he have to? I haven't seen compelling evidence that according to our rules he must.--v/r - TP 03:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, this is not a court of law. "Presumption of innocence" is not necessarily in play. And as someone pointed out at ANI, he doesn't "have to" own up to his past, but until he does, he's not allowed to comment in an arbcom case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Says who? The WP:SOCK policy only talks about abusive use. We havent proven that. So what policy says he cannot partake at Arbcom? What policy says "Any user that participates at Arbcom must disclose all of their previous accounts"?--v/r - TP 03:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It was discussed in detail on WP:ANI, by people who should know. If he wants to participate at arbcom, he must be honest. So far, he's not been. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It talks about legit socks, too. WP:SOCK#NOTIFY says they have to make clear their prior accounts to be considered legit. You are helping about the way a defensive attorney helps the prosecuting attorney. There is no policy requiring anyone participating at Arbcom must disclose their previous accounts, but mentioning previous accounts gets rid of the protection granted by the clean start. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:Clean start, he has to avoid bringing up the past if he wants to pass as a new account (and he'll only be held responsible for this account's edits). The second he brought up the past, he was no longer a clean start, he was a sock. Per WP:SOCK#NOTIFY, he has to notify us of past socks if he wishes to be treated as legitimate and be held accountable. This isn't a matter of "testify against us or we'll hang you," it's a matter of being either a clean start or a sock, and being accountable either way. A more apt comparison would be asking blood donors for their medical history. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

You don't know that there is a past yet. All he has admitted to is not liking Malleus. I disliked Malleus and we've hardly ever interacted. Lots of folks dislike Malleus having never interacted with him at all (I did before our one minor interaction). You don't know that there was a past to bring up. As I said, disliking Malleus isn't a problem. Until you have evidence he was in a dispute with Malleus do you have a case. And you can't expect him to prove it for you. Your going to have to dig into Malleus' past to find some evidence of where this editor had a dispute and prove it yourself. You don't have this. This user hasn't admitted that much. Again, all he has admitted to is dislike for Malleus.--v/r - TP 03:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

"He has admitted to leaving the site in the past because of problems he associates with Malleus" does not equal "He has admitted to leaving the site in the past because of a dispute with Malleus".--v/r - TP 03:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

He had no right to show up from nowhere and take shots at Malleus. And this ain't a court of law. It is not subject to the Bill of Rights. There is no constitutional right to edit wikipedia, and his behavior has been suspicious from the beginning. If someone's being dishonest and evasive, he's of no value to wikipedia. The checkuser needs to do his job and find out what the story is on this guy. That doesn't mean he has to tell us any details. But hiding behind a redlink and firing shots is thoroughly bad behavior and the brakes need to be applied. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

On what grounds though? The policies that we are claiming are being broken havent been proven to have been broken. We're saying he must be using it abusively because he isn't testifying against himself. We have zero to go on to get a CU. And I can't imagine a CU is going to run the check without evidence of abusive use. There are laws protecting people's privacy that the CUs are bound by and the AUSC ensure their compliance. So if you want a CU check, we need clear evidence to support the claim that the user is using multiple accounts...abusively. Dislike if Malleus is not evidence of a dispute with Malleus.--v/r - TP 03:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

As noted earlier, he's not allowed to comment at arbcom cases if he's unwilling to be subject to scrutiny himself. So whether he stays indef'd or not (which was for disruption, not socking), he has to stay away from the arbcom page. As regards CU, it's not true that we have 0 to go on. At the very least, the CU can determine if the three IP's are connected with the user. If it has actually been awhile since the editor edited under a previous name, the technical info may be stale. But a CU can determine that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Meh, I suppose the IPs are enough to warrant a CU. I just want to make sure we're doing it right is all.--v/r - TP 03:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

@TParis: Reading this over, I appreciate the stance that you're taking in that you are trying to assure that Wikipedia's credibility is not undermined, and that's a good thing. However, I think our credibility as a legitimate source of information, which already appears intrinsically weak because our editors work pseudonmymously and anonymously, is not helped by incidents like this which make it look like anyone who wants to can run roughshod at will over the few behavioral safeguards we have in place. No one's calling for an iron fist, but at the very least we should allow the rules we've got to be used effectively. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)(edit conflict)I'm actually kind of ashamed that I fell for arguing against your strawman argument earlier. Please point to where I mentioned Malleus in my original report here. I believe you brought it up first. It doesn't matter that it was Malleus. It could have been Buddha, Donald Duck, or the Pope for all I care. He is trying to hold another user accountable while refusing to let others hold him accountable, while displaying a grudge against the editor based on past experience (which does not necessarily mean past interaction). If someone does not want their contributions known on this site and be held accountable for them, they should not edit. If they want a clean start, that's fine, but it should be a clean, new start.

This is not the US court, the bill of rights are just an article here, his rights are not being violated by a simple CU for past accounts to verify that he isn't a returning problem editor, and he is not entitled to a defensive attorney. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Who it is doesn't matter and I never said it did. Malleus was an accurate user to use though because this entire thing revolves around his post on Malleus' Arbcom case. It wasn't a strawman argument, I dont even see how that is an appropriate use of that term. There is zero rule saying that you get to know the details of this guy before he can have his say. None. You have no rights either. Despite what we all wish it were, it isn't. I never said he has rights here, I said the Fifth Amendment protects something for a very good reason and we'd be wise to consider why it was created. Whether the law is in force on Wikipedia never came up and I even parenthesized "not that it matters here". You really just went from rational argument to...off the wall.--v/r - TP 04:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

As discussed at ANI and pointed out here,[2] the rules forbid Crackers from commenting at an arbcom case. Why? Because he is an undisclosed alternative account of someone that he refuses to identify. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I dont know how many times I have to say it: You haven't shown any reason he has to declare it. "Because he commented at Arbcom" is not listed. "Because if he is going to hold someone accountable, he should be held accountable" isn't listed. "Not liking someone" isn't listed. What then is the problem?--v/r - TP 04:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

@TParis: Ultimately, it's his own admission as to his behavioral pattern which should be sufficient to warrant a checkuser run. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I've told you the specific rule he violated. I don't how I can be clearer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• Anyone consider the idea that it's a username vio? Cracker (pejorative). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Maybe possibly, but it would be a stretch. The image that comes to mind most readily is this. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for my absence, a block for "disruption"/"battling" meant I wasn't able to respond here while things moved on without me. Suffice to say, my position is as it was in the ANI, and all that appears to be happening here is a rehash of that debate. It was closed. If people disagree with that outcome, then re-open it there, or find a more appropriate venue for review (e.g. go join the debate about it at WT:SOCK to see if you can get the wording changed to what you want - automatic disclosure of all CLEANSTARTs who ever mention something about Wikipedia that predates their registration). I will not stand for being re-tried for the same alleged crime over and over, or for these same allegations being repeated over and over. It's harassment. No matter how many times it's repeated, it's simply false to say I've violated CLEANSTART just for posting to arbcom without disclosing my past (retired) accounts, and as they are retired it's false to say I'm barred from commenting there either. The repeated attempted character assasinations are just that, if people want to know what I've actually said at any point, then read it through my own words. I have no doubt the CLEANSTART claim will be thrown out with prejudice as a complete fishing exercise, and the checkusers know the threshold required otherwise, so I leave it to them to decide if the whole phone/IP theory stands up to scrutiny. I've checked one of them and they're not even on the same continent as me. Cracker92 (talk) 05:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

---