Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2025/Apparent acceptance of beneficial socking

This case is declined. If you have comments or a request to have it reopened, post a comment on the talk page.

Parties
Parties	Notifications
Jendarka (talk) 02:18, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]	Filer (no diff required)

U4C member alert: Ajraddatz, Barkeep49, BRPever, Civvì, Dbeef, Ghilt, Ibrahim.ID, Jrogers (WMF), Luke081515, Denis Barthel Jendarka (talk) 02:18, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jendarka

Description of the problem - (Jendarka)

I've noticed a curious pattern of behaviour on en.wiki. The en:User:BangJan1999 seems to currently exist largely if not soley to detect and report a particular LTA's socks. They dissappear for days and weeks on end, only to magically reappear just to report new socks, and make other associated requests (page protections, etc). Example: [1] For nearly six weeks, they have almost exclusively focused on this one LTA, but with editing gaps of at least a week long.

It raises an interesting ethical conundrum. Is it harassment, when the target is an LTA, and the actions in isolation are reasonable (i.e. if they were alongside other unrelated edits)?

If it is not harassment, is it otherwise advisable for a local community to be tolerating such obviously suspicious behaviour - an editing pattern that can only realistically be explained by BangJan1999 being a sock themselves - if their apparent purpose is to hunt down a worse sock master? I have to assume this is socking, since the alternative, this being their only real interest on Wikipedia for over a month, seems deeply unhealthy.

It is worth noting that in their efforts to pursue this LTA, BangJan1999's reports have already led to at least one user, Snosibsnob, being wrongly blocked, necessitating an appeal via UTRS [2]. I doubt that would have happened were they not engaged in what looks to be functional harassment of the LTA, stalking them. I did not see what was in this edit summary before it was redacted, but the log entry ("RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material)") suggests BangJan1999 isn't approaching this matter with a cool head.

It's not been possible to have this case handled by local sysops because, unsurprisingly, they don't want to take action against an apparent sock or stalker account, given their activity actually helps en.wiki. A complaint was filed by the LTA and no action was taken. The inaction is also evident in how reports by BangJan1999 are unquestionably acted upon. See the last few reports at en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AttackTheMoonNow.

Nobody else seems to approach tracking this particular LTA with the diligence BangJan1999 has. Which raises perhaps the most serious ethical question - might BangJan1999 even be an undeclared sock of someone with CheckUser privileges on en.wiki? Perhaps a role account used by the whole group? Is that a realistic means by which a CheckUser performing off book checks, could then make it appear as if they had just cause, for the purposes of an audit trail?

I am not asking the U4C to take a case that is rightfully for the Ombuds Commission if true, but I am just perplexed as to why the CheckUser's themselves aren't just a little curious as to what is behind BangJan1999's pattern of behaviour, if there is an innocent explanation. Their apparent tolerance of socking as a means to an end, is surely a violation of the trust based clauses of the CoC.

Previous attempts at a solution - (Jendarka)

A complaint was filed by the LTA and no action was taken. The local Arbitration Committee, in their capacity as managers of the CheckUser group, are likely already aware of the case and deemed it unworthy of their time. Direct inquiry seems pointless given the inherent conflict of interest.

Other feedback

For people who are not parties, the following rules apply:

Comments/replies may not be longer the 500 words and may not include more than 25 diffs/links. The U4C may, if asked, grant additional words or diffs/links.
Comments/replies are permitted only in your own section
Contributions that do not help clarify the matter can be removed
All accusations and claims must be supported with diffs/links

Other feedback (EDITOR NAME)

Discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members

Only the involved parties and U4C members may edit in this section.

Hi Jendarka, enwiki has all the appeal processes including an arbcom to handle your request. And you have not shown a systemic failure, so imo this is not in our jurisdiction. Please adress this locally. --Ghilt (talk) 07:11, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The systemic issue is the open tolerance on en.wiki by the local Admins and CheckUsers of a sock-puppet (BangJan1999, master:?) because their only current interest in Wikipedia is stalking other sock-puppets (several, master: AttackTheMoonNow). This is not just harassment, in this case it is leading to innocent users being wrongly blocked and the sock hunting sock making grossly inappropriate posts.

I am 100% sure that the local ArbCom will not even respond to a report of this nature, given it is beneficial to their local wiki, and the CheckUser's who are tolerating this, are managed by them. Do you have any reason to think differently? What specific local rule are these CheckUser's even violating by failing to be sufficiently curious about BangJan1999, that could be cited? It seems pointless even trying, but if you insist, I can send them a quick email, to either be ignored or receive a pro-forma rejection.

All I know is that if these CheckUsers are deliberately choosing to ignore harassment by a sock account simply because it suits their purposes, it must be an obvious violation of the "Mutual support and good citizenship" (2.2) clause, if not the "Psychological manipulation" (3.2) clause.

It's basically gaslighting. By not even speaking to the fact BangJan1999 is a deeply suspicious editor with either an illegitimate undeclared full edit history, or a deeply unhealthy approach to the project, they are making it known to all en.wiki editors through their power and position, that BangJan1999 is a legitimate account with a healthy interest in the project. Jendarka (talk) 13:09, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[3] Ghilt (talk) 07:28, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

U4C decision

Only U4C members may edit in this section.

U4C member discussion

Accept votes

Decline votes

As written above, this is in my opinion not in our jurisdiction. Please adress this in enwiki. --Ghilt (talk) 07:12, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
-BRP^ever 13:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This case request was created by a sockpuppet, likely by the master that is being referenced above as being reported. No UCoC violations here. – Ajraddatz (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
dbeef (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
--Civvì (talk) 13:08, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

U4C members may propose motions to resolve the case or as a temporary measure during the case.

Updates

This section is used only by U4C members and official designees (including WMF staff who support the U4C) to provide updates about the request.

We have seen this, on behalf of the U4C, --Ghilt (talk) 07:06, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]