Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bagworm/Archive

< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | Bagworm


Bagworm

04 August 2013
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


I am Hijiri88. I have never attempted to hide this. ArbCom has told me that EVEN THOUGH my activities have never been disruptive, and that I was only using multiple accounts to avoid being harassed by my real-world stalker, I should still refrain. I posted an official statement of retirement on my userpage, in which I asked the Wikipedia community to continue looking into User:Bagworm's hounding of me, but the page was deleted as an "attack page". I'm still leaving Wikipedia, but if I'm not going to be allowed do so as long as I still want Bagworm to stop undoing all my edits, I might as well see it through. I am NOT going to use more than one account in this.

Anyway, I have been keeping some of my knowledge of Bagworm's activities back because of the risk of accidentally outing him. I will be careful not to do this here, but I would like to ask someone to check this.

  • Rudolphs revenge has the same interest in Egypt/the Arab world.[1][2]
  • Rudolphs revenge has the same interest in early-modern Japanese poetry.[3][4]
  • Rudolphs revenge is also probably based in Ireland.[5][6]
  • Rudolphs revenge was apparently following my userpage despite having NEVER interacted with me.[7]
  • Rudolphs revenge shows the same interest in Norman Darlington's Journal of Renku & Renga, only two months after said magazine first saw publication.[8][9] Bagworm, although he was the one who added that section to the article, later agreed that the entire section, except for Darlinton's magazine, should probably be removed.[10][11]
  • Bagworm had his previous 4-month break between 20-12-2010 and 10-12-2011, and all of Rudolphs revenge's edits (except for the relatively recent one where he admitted to following me) were made during this time.[12][13][14]
  • Also: is the suggestion that I post on my old page as an anonymous IP a reference to my posting on a couple of other pages as an anonymous IP??[15]

Cheers!

Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 02:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that while the above information originally appeared in an e-mail I sent to another user, in which I did speculate on the real-world identity of Bagworm, I have removed all references to said identity. Bagworm has been accusing me since posting the above, saying that the statement that I have been keeping some of my knowledge of Bagworm's activities back because of the risk of accidentally outing him immediately followed a portion of that information constitutes an "open attempt" to out him. Obviously, if I have removed all real-world personal information from an e-mail I previously sent to another user, then posting the personal information-free version could not possibly constitute an "attempt" on my part to out anyone. If there is any doubt, the user I e-mailed (who had helped me with similar concerns before) can probably back me up that the above has been cleansed of all the personal, potentially outing information that was in the original e-mail, and that my e-mail itself openly declared that I was avoiding possible outing at all costs. My on-wiki activity is also evidence enough that I take this issue very seriously. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 05:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
edit

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

I am Bagworm. Rudolphs revenge is an account used by someone close to me, who shared some of my real-life experience and interests, and not unnaturally, possibly my IP or range. This does not make her a meatpuppet in my understanding, since I did not urge her to act in any way on my behalf or in support of me, as her contribution list will attest. If she was following Coldman/Konjakupoet this will have been either as a result of my discussing my WP experience with her, or of her interest (shared with me) in the subject areas where he edits. Sadly I can't ask her for any further explanation as she is no longer here.

I do believe that Coldman's linking me with a real-world identity above, however "careful" he has been, constitutes an outing attempt. This because he perpetrated a previous outing attempt on me here (The attacking text in the edit summary has been expunged by Oversight. He openly admits to being the IP who perpetrated it, though he now describes it as a "joke") and I believe that "I've been holding back on pointing out all the details of Bagworm's harassment because I would run the risk of outing him. But now this has gone too far." here makes his intention very clear.

The fact that the identity he is attempting to link to is one that he knows is not my real one is no defense, however much he might protest, since WP:OUTING is just as serious an offense whether the identification is correct or incorrect. His current dangerous behavior should be seen in the context of his setting up a venomous attack page targeting me yesterday. Happily that attack page was speedily deleted - see comments on his talk page by two admins here before he blanked it in shame. In short, it is apparent that I am being made the target of a concerted attack by Coldman, first at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Bagworm engaging in grave-dancing/harassment, then at the attack page he created, and now here. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 09:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think Coldman is being a little disingenuous, textually. The only "incriminating" diff here [16] says that account was watching the history of Hijiri88's user page. Which indeed does show some strange activity. Reading that statement, otherwise supportive of Hijiri88/Coldman, as a confession of harassment is a bit far fetched. The check-user says Bagworm also edited logged out in an unseemly way, but I can't comment on that because the evidence is not public. I'm going to ask though if those pages were or were not part of the general interest area(s) of Bagworm. Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
  •   Clerk note: In my opinion it's obvious that Bagworm and Rudolph's revenge are the same user, given both your evidence and the similarity in edit summaries: Bagworm, Rudolph. But what violation of the sock policy are you alleging has taken place here? Simply having an alternative account, even an undeclared account, is not a violation in and of itself. But you'll notice there are some precise things that would be considered a violation. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At ANI right now, I am having some trouble convincing people that Bagworm has been following me and undoing my edits. Rudolph's latest edit is a direct admission to following me while not actively editing Wikipedia himself. Additionally, if Bagworm chose to revive a years old sock in order to post that, it indicates that he was trying to evade scrutiny in his following of me. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 09:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, I'd say there is certainly something weird going on, here. The two accounts are   Technically indistinguishable, although the use of Rudolphs revenge (talk · contribs) doesn't seem to have been in violation of WP:SOCK – the only violation I could find was that Bagworm edited Renku with two different accounts, but that's a. stale and b. rather minor. However, this account's last edit on User talk:Konjakupoet, coupled with a few edits he made while logged out – I don't want to identify the edits precisely because I'd reveal your IP address, but I'm certain you know what I'm referring to – lend credence to Coldman's allegation that you have been following him. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have certainly been following him. That my partner also followed him is apparent (I've already referred to this above), and though I have on occasion edited while logged out, it is equally likely that said edits were Rudolph's. But no-one is going to make me admit to an untruth: that Rudolph and Bagworm were the same real-life entity. I've explained above that we were (very) close and Salvio is of course correct that the two accounts are "technically identical", so I can't offer any technical evidence one way or the other. If you choose to believe me or not, that's entirely up to you. So what do you want me to do? --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 10:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So Salvio, you're saying that if I look through my own edit history I'll find an IP that was also following my edits, and that this IP is also likely to be the same person as Bagworm? When I started my ANI I knew Bagworm was deliberately reverting a whole bunch of my edits, but I was entirely unaware that this was also being done via a sockpuppet. I wonder if that IP was reverting between early January and late April... I'll be back on ANI after some sleuthing... Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 10:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or could it have been the same IP that Rudolph was commenting on, the one that directly and maliciously outed ME ... what was it again ... Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 10:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Salvio, can you please email me a list of the IP edits in question, so I will be in a position to comment. Thanks. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Coldman, due to the privacy policy, I may not make any further comments regarding the logged-out edits I have found.

Bagworm, I have sent you an e-mail. And I'd also like to point you to WP:MEAT. Even assuming the two accounts named here are operated by two different people, if there is evidence of off-wiki coordination, sanctions may be imposed. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Salvio. For the reasons you pointed to in the email I am unable to confirm with certainty whether the editor in question was actually me or Rudolph, but I accept that it might well have been me. FWIW I would point out that the edits in question (including Rudolph's last one) were made before Coldman/Hijiri first emailed me, informing me of the stalking affair. I responded by email as follows:

Thanks for the email. Please know that I've never made any attempt to out you, nor would I even if I had the faintest idea of your real-life identity, which I don't. My question on your latest Talk page meant just what it said, and I don't think it unreasonable, on the face of it, to inquire as to whether one user id = another. I hope what I've said is clear: whatever interactions we've had on WP stay there, so I respect your privacy 100% and expect no less from you.

I only caught vague wind of the stalking episode you refer to, so if drawing a public connection between your various WP identities would be likely to effectively out you, I didn't realise that and I apologise for any damage.

Best, Bagworm

Thanks also for drawing my attention to WP:MEAT. Although I was not fully appraised of the detail there, it was not my intention to break the spirit of the guideline. However, I accept that, through ignorance of the precise boundaries involved, I may indeed have influenced Rudolph's behaviour. For this I fully apologise, and hope that no lasting damage has been done. Now that I am better appraised, I can offer an absolute guarantee that I will never indulge in any puppetry, meat, sock or any other variety. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The stalking affair was very public. I e-mailed you because you deliberately connected my Hitomaro742 account to my Konjakupoet account, the latter of which mentioned the real-life harassment on its user-page. You also admitted just above here that both you and Rudolph were following me, so you almost certainly knew that Hijiri88's user-page specifically mentioned the stalker contacting my workplace, and that resulted in this ANI thread. So claiming that you "weren't aware" of the stalker affair seems very disingenuous. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 12:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, your claiming in an e-mail to me that you never intended to out me doesn't mean anything, since not long ago you appear to have been using bogus outing accusations in order to get this SPI closed so as to hide the clear connection between you and Rudolph. Given your feeble attempt to hide this, it seems unlikely that you would admit of your own volition to attempting to out me. The Rudolph account was only previously active on Wikipedia during a time when I was not, so his/her admission to following my edits means that you (Bagworm) were following me and your immediately reverting one of my edits when you returned to editing was no accident. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 12:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is pure conjecture, Coldman, and quite untrue. I spend a great deal less time on WP than you, so would not be aware of every piece of drama unfolding. AGF, please. You have no reason to doubt my sincerity in my email, when I state "I only caught vague wind of the stalking episode" before receiving your email. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 12:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You admitted above to following me. Surely in the course of following me you noticed that I had stopped editing Wikipedia and that my userpage now stated that I had been driven off Wikipedia by a disturbed person who contacted my workplace. Your edit that prompted me to e-mail you also specifically linked the Hijiri88 and Konjakupoet accounts. There is no way you didn't know. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 12:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are simply wrong (and you're drifting off-topic). Following someone (i.e. having their user page in your watchlist) is not the same as reading every post and following every unfolding episode. Given your voluminous output at WP (something you have boasted about) under a large number of socks, I would have to spend very much more time than I have available if I were to follow your every move. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I need to get to the bottom of this, though. Since April you have been systematically reverting a significant number of my edits, and unlike when you did that between October and December I can't effectively defend these edits on-wiki. You have changed your story from "my partner, and not me, was following Hijiri" to "both my partner and I were following Hijiri". Your "partner" (I still don't see why we need to take your word here, especially given how many times you have lied here, and this just being the only place where we can't directly catch your lies, and also that the sock account was only active when the Bagworm account was not) responded within 30 minutes to a series of vandalism edits on my Hijiri88 user-page. These edits very directly referenced the stalker issue (to say much more would be directly outing myself). You are now claiming that you didn't know about the stalker-issue when you attempted to connect one of my alternate accounts to my stalked account 18 hours later. This is going to ANI (perhaps a new thread) if it's not resolved. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 14:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not change my story. I never claimed that I didn't have your user page in my watchlist. Furthermore, I have not lied here, and for you to openly accuse me of lying constitutes a gross WP:PERSONAL ATTACK and I urge you to withdraw your attack immediately. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 14:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How are we supposed to interpret "If she was following Coldman/Konjakupoet this will have been either as a result of my discussing my WP experience with her" in the context of "If Rudolph was following Hijiri, it means Bagworm was following Hijiri, and his numerous reversions of Hijiri's edits are not accidents"? It looks to me like you saying "If she was following Hijiri, it's not my fault, because I'm not the one who was following him". You have also claimed numerous times that more that two months after the stalking incident was reported on my user page you were "not aware of it" when you made this edit despite the very same edit specifically referring to the Konjakupoet user page coming out as being the same as Hijiri, even when that same coming out specifically mentioning the stalking incident. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"It looks to me like you saying..." Sharing your unfounded ponderings is a waste of everyone's time here. Please remain coherent.--gråb whåt you cån (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything that shoudl be resolved at SPI has been. I agree with Salvio that there wasn't any sort of relevant, recent violation of sock policy ,and everything SPI related has been concluded. Everything else can be discussed elsewhere. NativeForeigner Talk 23:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bagworm/Archive&oldid=567604913"