Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cali11298/Archive


Cali11298

Cali11298 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
09 April 2015
Suspected sockpuppets


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

I am convinced that Jhamilton303 is Cali11298. For starters, Cali11298 was blocked by Bbb23 on April 6, 2015; the block log reads "with an expiry time of 15:24, 12 April 2015 (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (Revoking talk page access: inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked: polemics." On April 8, 2015, Jhamilton303 shows up to take Cali11298's place. For what I mean, let's look at the following:

Cali11298 wrote on his user page, "My name is Cameron, I live in New Jersey; my interests are politics, I'm a conservative Republican." Jhamilton303 similarly wrote on his user page, "My name is John, and my interests in editing are politics and public figures." As seen with that Jhamilton303 WP:Diff-link, once I accused Jhamilton303 of WP:Sockpuppetry at the talk page of the Abstinence-only sex education article, he changed his user page text to, "My name is John, I like sports. I'm from Illinois, my friends call me Jack."

Cali11298 was repeatedly reverted at the Abstinence-only sex education article, and, as seen at the Abstinence-only sex education talk page, does not understand how to apply the WP:Neutral policy. Jhamilton303 showed up to essentially make the same edit as Cali11298.

Cali11298 was repeatedly reverted at the Soon and Baliunas controversy article, including by William M. Connolley and VQuakr. Jhamilton303 showed up to essentially make the same edit as Cali11298 and was reverted by Dave souza. As seen in that revert by Dave souza, Jhamilton303 also does not understand how to apply the WP:Neutral policy.

When, at the Abstinence-only sex education talk page, I told Cali11298 that I was certain that he was not a new Wikipedia editor, he gave me the explanation that WP:Sockpuppets usually give: "I'm not new to editing Wikipedia but I previously edited with only an IP address, and decided to create an account." He then stated at my talk page, "You know, sockpuppetry is a serious accusation, and I don't like being accused of it." Similarly, at the Abstinence-only sex education talk page, Jhamilton303 stated, "I am not a sockpuppet, and I don't take kindly to being accused without hard evidence."

Also seen at the Abstinence-only sex education talk page, Cali11298 repeatedly WP:Pings me, stating "Flyer22," despite my having told him that I don't need to be WP:Pinged there since that article/talk page is on my WP:Watchlist. Jhamilton303 does the same with regard to WP:Pinging; he also did this linking instance even though (clearly unknown to him) WP:Pinging only works with a new signature.

Cali11298 calls me "pal." Jhamilton303 calls me "buddy."

Looking at their contribution links, you can see that Cali11298 and Jhamilton303 mark edits as WP:Minor even when those edits clearly are not WP:Minor; I warned Cali11298 about this at the Abstinence-only sex education talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since I clearly do not think that this is Cali11298's first time WP:Sockpuppeting, I would not be surprised if he has a sockfarm. I ask that the WP:CheckUser also check for WP:Sleepers. Flyer22 (talk) 01:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And let's not forget that they both like to preface comments with "Sorry," as seen here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 01:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

There is certainly enough evidence presented above for a duck block. but I agree with Flyer22 that a check for sleepers would be a good idea. BMK (talk) 01:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd like to get my story out here and defend myself against Flyer's gratuitous allegations. First off, Flyer22 is completely in the wrong here. I didn't change my text on my user page to hide from anything, I changed it to explain more about me. You see, the part about editing politics was deleted by accident when I went to update it, I must have highlighted it and backspaced, but forgot to undo it. Unfortunately, it seems that Flyer22 likes to jump to conclusions. Just because someone, in this case me, happened to support another editor's idea, another editor who he felt to be wrong, doesn't automatically mean that I'm a sockpupper of said editor or working in concert with him. I can assure you, I am not Cali, I've never met the guy, and I'm not some rabid Wiki vandal gone wild. Flyer's slanderous accusations are built on nothing more than innuendo and hearsay. Contrary to Flyer's claim, I don't always rate my edits as minor – not by a longshot – and whenever I do, I label them that way because they are minor, with cases such as fixing spelling errors, removing dead links, or fixing comma mistakes. The vast majority of my edits are labeled as minor because they are minor. Jhamilton303 (talk) 01:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean "the vast majority of your edits"? The last time I looked your account had 50 edits, only 27 of them to articles. There's no "vastness" there at all. BMK (talk) 01:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, the majority of my edits then. I wasn't using the word literally, I was just using it to emphasize the point that I label most of my edits as minor because most of the time the edits I make... are minor. Anyway, this doesn't change the fact that I'm not Cali11298, no matter what Flyer says. Jhamilton303 (talk) 02:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • The following accounts are  Confirmed to the master account:
Jhamilton303 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Jasongoodman909 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Jdog491k (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
I've blocked the socks and issued a 1 month block to the master account. Mike V • Talk 02:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
11 April 2015
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Account started editing when master was blocked, edits same target articles, comes to WP:ANI with spurious reports against Flyer22. Seems to match earlier blocked socks. Jayron32 03:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Based on the ANI thread's similarity to blocked sock's Jhamilton303's ANI thread, it's gotta be another sock of Cali11298. --IJBall (talk) 03:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be nice for checkuser to tie this one up. Could be a meatpuppet or some such. But this one has a very WP:DUCK feel to it. Still, the last CU found some sleepers. Maybe another checkuser is in order. --Jayron32 03:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A comparison of the two recent AN/I complaints filed against Flyer22, this one by Jhamilton303 -- who was determined to be a sock of Cali11298 -- and the current one by Cavalierman show a similarity of content, if not so much of style, although the current one appears to be "writing down" so it won't appear to be the earlier, more fluent person. However, the game is given away a little when Cavalierman seems to be simultaneously incensed, and still able to come up with colorful expressions such as "told to pound sand" and "dont give me a shit sandwich and then tell me it tastes like French Vanilla ice cream" I think the similarities and -- especially -- the circumstances are sufficient to justify a CU having a look around. BMK (talk) 04:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question: if I am the one who made the initial complaint, who do I go to? I am really starting to get irritated. I am being accused of something I didnt do now by someone else. All because of Flyer22. At this point it is the principle - I will do whatever is asked to prove my case but I want to know when it is done will he get in trouble for a false accusation? Do you realize there are a bunch of editors he keeps going to and telling on me and I am the one who noone believes. Its just irritating. Cavalierman (talk) 06:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you aren't a "sock", then you want the CheckUser, as it would definitively clear your name... You know, if you aren't a "sock"... --IJBall (talk) 06:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cavalierman - Probably the best thing you can do is to swear on your grandfather's grave that you're not a sock. That's usually effective. BMK (talk) 06:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's Cavalierman's explanation for why he seems to know more about Wikipedia than most brand-new editors:

I go to a a top tier school out East which is why I probably sound more educated than most people on here. ... A lot of people think I am older than I am from the way I carry myself but I didn't realize it also translates to online too. [1]

Very believable.

Actually, it appears that the person behind Cavalierman is having a bit of trouble keeping his character's writing skills straight. For instance, the comment just above is well structured and coherent, without the use of slang or colloquialism -- very similar to Jhamilton's comment on the last SPI [2] -- but in the back-and-forth with User:Arkon on Cavalierman's talk page, there's a lot of slang and colloquial usages (as well as the statement that "there is literally something wrong with him" about Flyer22, a WP:NPA).

Cavalierman does reveal, though, the point behind his latest AN/I posting: he wants to "go after [Flyer22] hard. To teach them a lesson. A lesson in humility." [3] That's understandable, since Flyer22 just humiliated Cali11298's previous sock, Jhamilton303. BMK (talk) 07:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine go ahead and do a Checkuser. Im game. What info do u need? Cavalierman (talk) 07:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I already mentioned at WP:ANI that I did not call Cavalierman a WP:Sockpuppet (except for stating at WP:ANI that I believe he is one). I indicated that he is not a new editor; I did this while alerting editors to recent WP:Sockpuppetry at an article and suggesting that they take a closer look at the Cavalierman account. The Cavalierman account struck me as suspicious. I also alerted the talk pages of the other three articles that Beyond My Ken (BMK) named in the previous Cali11298 WP:Sockpuppet investigation. When an editor questioned my method of suggesting that the Cavalierman account may need scrutiny, I revised the statement. I did not bother Cavalierman after stating that I was done with him. He kept pursuing me and/or fixating on me. His claims of me hounding him and that there "are a bunch of editors [I keep] going to and telling on [him]" are false. And that is all that I have to state in this WP:Sockpuppet investigation. Flyer22 (talk) 07:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I agree with Flyer. I suspect this is a related sock based on the editing and self-descriptions. Well worth a look. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I am in agreement with capitalismojo. Flyer has accused both of us so we are in the same boat.Cavalierman (talk) 03:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm thinking of a word, two syllables, rhymes with "rolling". BMK (talk) 04:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment only because of Bbb23's statement below: Bbb23, regarding Reaper Eternal's statement, he also indefinitely blocked the Cali11298 account for continued WP:Sockpuppetry. If he was stating that the technical data is unlikely, then I would like to hear why he indefinitely blocked the Cali11298 account and has not blocked the Cavalierman account. Therefore, I have removed your "close" tag. I think that it is best that he explains here in this case. Reaper Eternal, will explain why you indefinitely blocked the Cali11298 account? Is it because you found more WP:Sockpuppetry while running the WP:CheckUser tool? Did you find no evidence that Cavalierman is a WP:Sockpuppet, even if not of the Cali11298 account? Did you find no evidence of a WP:Proxy or other tool that has made blocking on technical data difficult for WP:CheckUsers? Flyer22 (talk) 02:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reaper Eternal, since Bbb23 has decided to re-close this case and issue me an absurd warning for removing his close tag, you will have to explain elsewhere. Feel free to email me. Flyer22 (talk) 02:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reaper Eternal, thanks for the timely reply below. And by "timely," I mean before this case was archived. Flyer22 (talk) 04:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and, Reaper Eternal, regarding what you stated about WP:NOTFISHING, I have been aware of the WP:NOTFISHING policy for years. But I do not believe that it would have been a fishing violation in this case, since various editors believe that the Cavalierman account is a WP:Sockpuppet. WP:NOTFISHING states in part, "For example, it is not fishing to check an account where the alleged sockmaster is unknown, but there is reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry, and a suspected sock-puppet's operator is sometimes unknown until a CheckUser investigation is concluded." These editors believe there is reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry on Cavalierman's part. That stated, I will put this case to bed unless I have "solid" evidence of WP:Sockpuppetry on Cavalierman's part. Flyer22 (talk) 05:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • Reaper Eternal stated at the ANI discussion about Flyer22 and Cavalierman that the technical connection was very  Unlikely. I am therefore closing this with no action.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to the above comments, Cali11298 had created another, different account which got him indefinitely blocked. As mentioned, Cavalierman (talk · contribs) is very  Unlikely. No, there is most likely no proxy involved. Once I had determined that a relationship between the two users was unlikely, I saw no need to continue checking the Cavalierman account. fish CheckUser is not for fishing. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
18 April 2015
Suspected sockpuppets


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

I am convinced that Thefiremanx6 is Cali11298. For starters, Thefiremanx6's very first edit was one where he showed up out of nowhere and reverted me on an obscure, recently created redirect page that I only found because I had recently looked at Jim Michael (talk · contribs)'s edit history. How would a relatively new editor know to find that redirect? What are the chances that I would be reverted by a WP:Newbie so soon after changing the redirect? Knowing mathematics and all, I would state what the chances are, but, as noted on my user page, I'm generally staying away from math on Wikipedia. I will, however, state that the chances are very low unless the editor was watching me. Cali11298 is watching me.

Thefiremanx6 then moved on and reverted Dougweller at the Linda Chavez article after Dougweller reverted another one of Cali11298's WP:Sockpuppets -- Redhood6889 (talk · contribs). I then reverted Thefiremanx6 there because of obvious WP:Sockpuppetry, and so did NeilN.

Cali11298 likes to state "goodbye" in different ways, with a comma between the goodbye variation and his signature. See here where he states, "Hasta la vista." Here where he states, "Regards." Here where he states, "Anyways, see you." And here where he states, "Adios." Thefiremanx6 has also stated "Adios," with the comma after the word and before the signature. The same as Cali11298.

I mentioned in the first Cali11298 WP:Sockpuppet investigation that Jhamilton303 (talk · contribs), another Cali11298 WP:Sockpuppet, attempted to WP:Ping me even though WP:Pinging only works with a new signature. Well, as seen with this edit, Thefiremanx6 recently did the same with a different editor. He has not learned.

With this edit, Jhamilton303 states, "I don't know who this Cali person is." With this edit, Thefiremanx6 stated, "it doesn't mean that I'm this Cali person." Well, what are the odds that these two accounts, which already have other similarities, would both state "this Cali person"? Again, the odds are not high.

With this edit, the same edit where Jhamilton303 talks about "this Cali person is," he also stated, "Blaming the victim?" With this edit, Thefiremanx6 stated, "I'm the victim."

As seen here and here, Cali11298 and Thefiremanx6 like to refer to me by male pronouns, even though they know I'm female. Yes, Thefiremanx6 knows.

As seen on my talk page, Thefiremanx6 engages in the same personal attacks style as Cali11298 and his WP:Sockpuppets.

Cali11298 continues to WP:Sockpuppet, and he's proven to be a compulsive liar. I would like one or more WP:CheckUsers to look into the WP:Sockpuppeting he's done as Thefiremanx6, and to check for WP:Sleepers. I contacted WP:CheckUsers about this via email, but since two of them have not gotten back to me on this, and one of them suggested that I start a WP:Sockpuppet investigation because he rarely uses the WP:CheckUser tool and only uses it for WP:ArbCom matters, I have clearly done what he suggested (since there is enough evidence to start one, that is). Even though this is a waste of time, it will serve to record more of Cali11298's WP:Sockpuppetry and compulsive lying. WP:Pinging the following editors who took part in the previous Cali11298 WP:Sockpuppet investigations in case they want to weigh in on this one: Beyond My Ken (BMK), Jayron32, IJBall, and Capitalismojo. Flyer22 (talk) 05:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • CheckUser requested - Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention - Based on the above mentioned similarities in editing, they might be connected. @Flyer22: Are you aware that you broke the WP:three revert rule [4]? You are not allowed to revert other user more than three times just because you believe he is a sockpuppet of blocked user. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thefiremanx6 (talk · contribs · count) is  Confirmed, blocked, and tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
27 April 2015
Suspected sockpuppets
  • Scaravich105nj (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 User talk:Scaravich105nj Tiptoety talk 15:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

So Scaravich105nj, Bleedingheartconservative and 236benderavenue make for three WP:Sockpuppets I'd identified, as noted at User talk:Scaravich105nj#April 2015, part 2. Like I stated there, "Apparently, I am this person's weakness, since his compulsive nature leads him to getting caught every time he targets/trails me." And by that, I mean that I also suspect that Scaravich105nj is Cali11298. Tiptoety, did the technical data not find a connection between Cali11298 and Scaravich105nj? I find it highly unlikely that those two are not the same person. They have the same styles, including their propensity to revert me out of the blue on a barely-watched page a little after the previous WP:Sockpuppet is indefinitely blocked. Unless someone wanted to mimic Cali11298 and toy with me, I cannot believe that these two are not the same person. Also, what of WallStreetShark (talk · contribs)? Did you not look into that account? I noted at User talk:Scaravich105nj that I am convinced that WallStreetShark is a WP:Sockpuppet. Flyer22 (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tiptoety. I mean really thank you for taking the time to look into this instead of ignoring it. Flyer22 (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and like I'd essentially promised I would do if a good chance arose to do so, I am taking the time to note here that the supposed WP:3RR violation I made regarding the Thefiremanx6 WP:Sockpuppet, which was noted in the "18 April 2015" Cali11298 WP:Sockpuppet investigation, was not a WP:3RR violation; see this link for details. Flyer22 (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • Tiptoety talk 15:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • UltraMan971 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Hardlineconservative (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Rangers3000 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • WallStreetShark (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • StormOwl (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • SigmaZeroAndX (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Additionally, these do appear to be related to Cali11298 (talk · contribs).  Clerk assistance requested: Can someone please look into merging these two SPI cases and updating the master/tags as needed? Thanks, Tiptoety talk 17:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Case merged and tags updated. Mike V • Talk 03:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
06 May 2015
Suspected sockpuppets


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

I know that WP:CheckUsers have to be cautious with the WP:CheckUser tool, but I wish that the WP:CheckUsers who watch my user page/talk page would simply run the WP:CheckUser tool on/indefinitely block any account that I accuse of being Cali11298; because let's face it: I will never be wrong when it comes to identifying an account as a new Cali11298 WP:Sockpuppet. And like I've stated countless times before (including on my user page), it's rare that I'm wrong when it comes to identifying an account as a WP:Sockpuppet. Yes, that I'm stating this is frustration and anger...and ego...talking. It's challenging not to be frustrated when it is a complete waste of time to sit at the computer and gather evidence against someone that you know is a WP:Sockpuppet when that person can simply be blocked on a WP:Duck basis and/or by a watchful WP:CheckUser. These investigations help the WP:Sockpuppets because they then learn more about what those reporting them know of their behaviors, and how those reporting them catch them. Some, like Cali11298, could be validly described as extremely lacking the intelligence needed to evade WP:Sockpuppet detection, though.

HydrocityFerocity is Cali11298. I first noticed HydrocityFerocity at Queer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on May 4, 2015‎ (Wikipedia time, not my actual time) when using WP:STiki; I saw the account in dispute with RatRat (talk · contribs). RatRat is another account that I don't think is being operated by a new Wikipedian, despite the newness of the account, but I am focused on the HydrocityFerocity account for this WP:Sockpuppet investigation. I would have noticed the HydrocityFerocity account via my WP:Watchlist, but I'd temporarily taken the Queer article off my WP:Watchlist. I didn't look at HydrocityFerocity's contributions until this edit hours ago. I immediately knew who it was upon a glance at the contributions and user page. So while Cali11298 knowing to create a blue-linked user page to avoid WP:Sockpuppet suspicion paid off as far as me not immediately looking at HydrocityFerocity's contribution history goes, it also indicated to me that he is a WP:Sockpuppet since it's one of the WP:Sockpuppet signs.

Moving on to the evidence: Tiptoety ran a check on Scaravich105nj (talk · contribs), including WP:Sleeper checks, and confirmed this at "15:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)" and again at "17:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)." Two hours later, at "19:26, 27 April 2015," HydrocityFerocity shows up to edit. His contribution history is not that of a WP:Newbie, other than the fact that he misapplies Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and especially WP:Neutral; the same behavior as Cali11298.[reply]

As seen in this link to Scaravich105nj's user page, he identifies as "an African-American male" and "a very conservative Republican." He clearly only identified as "an African-American male" to excuse his use of "my nigga." As seen with this link (the image), HydrocityFerocity also identifies as an African American male and as a Republican (see the WP:Userbox).

With this edit, HydrocityFerocity fixed a typo, but what that edit summary fails to note is that he changed "Various analyses show" to "Various analyses by experts allege" for the following sentence: "Various analyses show that abstinence-based programs have little to no effect on age of sexual initiation, number of sexual partners, or rates of abstinence, use of condoms, vaginal sex, pregnancy, or sexually transmitted diseases." This type of editing is exactly what Cali11298 repeatedly did at the Abstinence-only sex education article; see here, here and here.

As seen with this edit, Cali11298 likes to edit the Lincoln Chafee article. As seen here and here, so does HydrocityFerocity.

As seen with this edit, Cali11298 likes to edit the 2015 Nepal earthquake article. So does HydrocityFerocity.

As seen with this edit, Cali11298 likes to edit the Brian Williams article. So does HydrocityFerocity. In fact, as seen with that edit, HydrocityFerocity protested a WP:Undue weight tag that focuses on the very section that Cali11298 added to.

Cali11298 likes to edit comic book topics, as seen here and here. So does HydrocityFerocity.

And for anyone thinking that the above evidence is too little evidence, see this section for why it is not. Like I made clear there to Beeblebrox, little or flimsy data is usually all that I need when it comes knowing that I am dealing with a WP:Sockpuppet. I don't see how the above isn't enough evidence, given the extremely high probability factor (yes, the math adds up extremely well in this case). Adding on to that probability is where I indirectly confronted HydrocityFerocity about being Cali11298; as seen in that confrontation, instead of directly denying that he is Cali11298, he decided to taunt me with images. HydrocityFerocity is a very compulsive person, who is severely obsessed with me, and that is part of the psychological assessment that I mean in that discussion. Even if the WP:CheckUser evidence were to come back as "technically unrelated" in this case (because of tools used to evade the WP:CheckUser tool), it wouldn't deter me from believing that HydrocityFerocity is Cali11298.

I also request a WP:Sleeper check for this case, since Cali11298 is in the habit of creating WP:Sleepers. And, per this section, if some IPs can be validly blocked, they need blocking.

Update: While I was about to post this, I saw that Tiptoety had already blocked the account a few minutes earlier. Flyer22 (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And once again, Tiptoety, thank you. I take it that there is nothing you want to state in this particular case? How did you know to run a check on the HydrocityFerocity account? Were you already watching my talk page? Or did someone tip you off to this matter? Flyer22 (talk) 05:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

  • @Reaper Eternal: Can you please address the CU request? This sockmaster is known for creating multiple accounts at once. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
27 May 2015
Suspected sockpuppets
  • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
  • Editor interaction utility

I blocked this user as an obvious sock this morning, in part based on evidence shown at UT:Flyer22. I'd be grateful for a check of any additional socks associated with the underlying IPs so we can clear them out too. I believe Flyer will be adding additional evidence. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 21:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC) Spartaz Humbug! 21:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I am late to listing the evidence in this section because I was busy with other matters for hours off Wikipedia. One thing about listing evidence against Cali11298 is that he reluctantly adapts and changes his editing style a bit; for example, as noted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cali11298/Archive#06 May 2015, he recently has not been creating a user page because he knows that I consider instant user page creation a usual sign of WP:Sockpuppetry (though he might go back to instantly creating a user page). And in this case, he seemed to changed his IP address so that WP:CheckUser detection would hopefully fail. So while this evidence can help others recognize Cali11298, it also helps Cali11298 blend in more. Still, there seems to be nothing he can do to make it so that I do not recognize him. It's like recognizing a voice for me; he can't change his voice. The following is the latest evidence:

As noted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cali11298/Archive, Cali11298 edits political articles. Well, as seen with this edit, Cali11298 (as User:HydrocityFerocity) edited the Tom Steyer article. So did SilverSurfingSerpent (formerly known as SilverSurfingSerpant).

As seen here and here, Cali11298 (as User:Scaravich105nj) edited the Jim Inhofe article. So did SilverSurfingSerpent.

And speaking of political articles, Cali11298 favors republican matters, as is clear at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cali11298/Archive. As seen here, here and here, SilverSurfingSerpent also appears to favor republican matters.

As seen here here and here, Cali11298 (as User:Scaravich105nj) edited the Relationships with fellow lawmakers section of the Rod Blagojevich article. As seen here and here, so did SilverSurfingSerpent.

As seen here and here, Cali11298 likes to edited the Fox News article. So did SilverSurfingSerpent.

As indicated at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cali11298/Archive#06 May 2015, Cali11298 sometimes edits LGBT articles. As seen here, here and here, SilverSurfingSerpent also took an interest LGBT articles.

As noted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cali11298/Archive#06 May 2015, Cali11298 likes to edit comic book articles; as seen here, here, here and here, so did SilverSurfingSerpent. Because of how he likes to edit the Silver Surfer article, it's likely that he came up with the SilverSurfingSerpent username from that.

Cali11298 likes to use Yahoo! News as a source; this and this are examples. SilverSurfingSerpent also used Yahoo! News as a source.

As seen with this edit, Cali11298 would copy and paste template vandalism warnings. As seen with this edit, so did SilverSurfingSerpent; you can see more examples in his contributions.

As seen here in this section, Cali11298 had a problem with interacting with others appropriately. As here, here and here during interactions with Zythe, so did SilverSurfingSerpent.

Cali11298 likes to use smiley faces. Here is an example. As seen here, here and here, SilverSurfingSerpent also liked using smiley faces.

I tested the SilverSurfingSerpent account here and here; in the case of that latter edit, instead of coming to my talk page to ask why I had mentioned him, or to defend himself once the section expanded to where I called him Cali11298, which is what any editor would have most likely done (defended their good name), he ignored me; this indicates that SilverSurfingSerpent is Cali11298.

In that section, I stated, "Oh, and, SilverSurfingSerpant, if you edit near me (either as SilverSurfingSerpant or as another account), I am very likely to report you. Unlike others who know who you are and are willing to ignore that while editing alongside you, I refuse to edit alongside you as though everything is fine and dandy (except for in the cases where I am gathering more evidence). If you respected your blocks, I wouldn't have to deal with you. And so I shouldn't have to deal with you while you disrespect those blocks." As seen with this edit, I reminded SilverSurfingSerpent to not edit near me; he responded, "WP:Dummy edit My apologies to Flyer." This is clearer than anything else that SilverSurfingSerpent is Cali11298. Well, unless one wants to state that SilverSurfingSerpent blanking his user talk page instead of defending himself once blocked by Spartaz is just as clear, or clearer, evidence.

A thorough WP:Sleeper check is definitely needed in this case; depending on whether he was changing IPs to avoid WP:CheckUser detection (by using WP:Proxies, a virtual private network, or by editing from an actual different location) and how thorough the check is, this would also relay to us whether or not Cali11298 was actually trying to be a better editor while I was letting him roam free; by that, I mean, whether or not he was simultaneously socking. Even if he had unused WP:Sleepers during the time, it's good if he was not using them and was sticking to one account. Flyer22 (talk) 05:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to what Gogo Dodo stated below, see this. Flyer22 (talk) 06:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And here. Flyer22 (talk) 07:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I requested an additional WP:CheckUser check here. The reason why is clear in that post. Whether that additional check is ran before this case is archived, I couldn't care less. The additional check will either be public via that request or private via an email request, with one of the WP:CheckUsers I converse with via email reporting back to me on that. Flyer22 (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:ClaireWalzer on User:Joseph2302

User:Joseph2302 is also a sockpuppet of User:SilverSurfingSerpent. As User:Joseph2302 has previously been banned for sockpuppets operated from the same IP, it is likely that a proxy/VPN is in use in this case.

Using only diffs from the last week, a very unusual degree of coordination can be clearly seen.

Articles for deletion/United States presidential election in Georgia, 1980 On 22nd May, Edit at 0104 by SilverSurfingSerpent, Edit at 0107 by Joseph2302, Edit at 0108 by SilverSurfingSerpent

This next pair of edits is quite strange, as they "disagree" as to whether the article should be deleted, but use identical edit summaries "(Jeff Mazzola: delete)" - Articles for deletion/Jeff Mazzola on 25th May, Edit at 0145 by SilverSurfingSerpent, Edit at 0150 by Joseph2302

Articles for deletion/AngleGators on 25th May, Edit at 0146 by SilverSurfingSerpent, Edit at 0148 by Joseph2302

Articles for deletion/Eric Sullivan on 25th May, Edit at 0157 by SilverSurfingSerpent, Edit at 0200 by Joseph2302

Articles for deletion/Howard Schneider (Florida dentist) on 25th May, Edit at 1126 by SilverSurfingSerpent, Edit at 1130 by Joseph2302

Articles for deletion/Escambia County Fire Rescue on 25th May, Edit at 1132 by SilverSurfingSerpent, Edit at 1134 by Joseph2302

Articles for deletion/Bellygunner on 25th May, Edit at 1134 by SilverSurfingSerpent, Edit at 1137 by Joseph2302

Articles for deletion/Louise Baldock on 25th May, Edit at 1311 by SilverSurfingSerpent, Edit at 1314 by Joseph2302

Articles for deletion/Pink Street Cycling on 25th May, Edit at 1634 by SilverSurfingSerpent, Edit at 1636 by Joseph2302

Articles for deletion/Lane Drug Stores on 25th May, Edit at 1640 by SilverSurfingSerpent, Edit at 1642 by Joseph2302

Articles for deletion/Brett Maly on 25th May, Edit at 1938 by SilverSurfingSerpent, Edit at 1942 by Joseph2302

Articles for deletion/Rescue Air Systems, Inc. on 25th May, Edit at 1938 by SilverSurfingSerpent, Edit at 1943 by Joseph2302

Articles for deletion/One Hit Kill (game) on 26th May, Edit at 2348 by SilverSurfingSerpent, Edit at 2354 by Joseph2302

on 27th May, after User:SilverSurfingSerpent had been blocked for sockpuppetry, User:Joseph2302 struck through three of SilverSurfingSerpent's votes on pages where they had both commented: strike the sockpuppet striking sock somment (sic) striking sock somment and through three more where only User:SilverSurfingSerpent had commented striking sock somment striking sock somment striking sock somment

User:Joseph2302 did not see the need at this time to draw attention to the close synchronicity of the editing, although clearly aware of this SPI. Thanks ClaireWalzer (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this is clear evidence that Joseph2302 is the same person as SilverSurfingSerpent. Joseph2302 is a fairly active vandal fighter for the past several months, and frequently reports users at AIV, ANI, and SPI for vandalism, disruption, and socking. It's quite possible Joseph2302 was tracking a suspected problematic editor, which would explain the close proximity of edits, and the striking of the comments when he had been blocked. I've been fooled before, but I have not seen any evidence that Joseph is Cali, or this SilverSurfingSerpent. They don't edit similar topics, Joseph, for example, edits a lot of topics on British sport, such as Cricket and the like, while Cali was known for frequenting topics related to American politics, particularly conservative politics. That doesn't seem like two interest areas that have a significant crossover. --Jayron32 14:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous. The reason I comment at a similar time to new users is because I patrol new pages, and so see them commenting on AfDs, look at it myself and make decisions. Also "delete" is an entirely appropriate summary when you've voted delete. I'm certain that I haven't voted the same as the sock in every AfD, like this user is falsely accusing me of. I also struck the user's comments because it is standard procedure to strike the comments of sockpuppets after they are confirmed, as many AfDs get confused and disrupted by sockpuppetry. You can Checkuser me if you want, but we aren't the same person. Note that about an hour ago, another SPI against me was declined as ridiculous, and I think this one will me too.
Also, I'm English have have basically no knowledge of American politics- as Jayron has pointed out, my main focus areas are British sport, particularly current cricket/football events. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When previously accused of sockpuppeting, you also denied it, before later admitting it. You even placed warnings on your sockpuppets' pages. So why is it ridiculous to think that this is an example of further use of multiple accounts? ClaireWalzer (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but those ones had a 100% overlap in page content. Looking at my last 500 contributions here, you'll notice the topic areas are nothing alike. My edits fall into categories of:
  1. New user patrolling, including reverting new-user vandalism and putting pages up for CSD, and reporting users to WP:AIV and WP:UAA.
  2. Accepting/rejecting pending changes (mostly on sports articles)
  3. Working on sports articles, such as Norwich City F.C. (my favourite football team).
  4. Discussing the WP:ANI situation I was involved in, which ended with the other user blocked for Wikihounding/harassment.
  5. Creating redirects at WP:AFC/R.
  6. Commenting in some AfDs.
How is this any evidence that I'm the same person as someone who's done exactly 1 of these things (commented in some AfDs). Joseph2302 (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • Per an edit that I revdel'ed for gross incivility, editor has admitted that there is another account being used. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • SilverSurfingSerpent (talk · contribs · count) and BeastBoy3395 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) are  Confirmed. There is insufficient evidence to block Joseph2302 (talk · contribs · count), let alone run a CU. Tagging and closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Flyer22: Tiptoety can do what they wish, but there were no apparent sleepers other than BeastBoy3395.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
29 May 2015
Suspected sockpuppets
  • TimeHorse (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

User created article Regeneration Who which was AFD'd. AFD discussion received input from User:SilverSurfingSerpant, a confirmed sockpuppet of User:Cali11298. User:TimeHorse also made this [5] contribution to United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia, 2014, in line with Cali11298's behavioral pattern. --Non-Dropframe talk 01:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Edit: requesting a checkuser on the basis that this is a "'messy' and complex case where behavior alone cannot determine which accounts are socks" due to the overwhelming number of socks and lengthy pattern of abuse. --Non-Dropframe talk 02:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • I've declined the CU request. I don't think there's enough evidence to block, let alone run a CU. You do realize that TimeHorse predates the master by years?--Bbb23 (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: Closing for lack of good evidence, and also recognizing Bbb23's comment above. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 20:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
29 May 2015
Suspected sockpuppets
  • Lois Millard (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

Participated in an AFD discussion received input from User:SilverSurfingSerpant, a confirmed sockpuppet of User:Cali11298. User has made no other contributions. --Non-Dropframe talk 01:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

  • I'm not sure how to prove that I'm not a sock puppet other than to state that I'm not. (You can't prove a negative, after all) I don't believe that I ever created another Wiki account and if I did it would have been years ago and I've long forgotten my user name. To be honest, I did check that I hadn't actually set up an account prior to creating this one as I've been toying with the idea of helping out on the Wiki for years. Lois Millard is a name I frequently use online so I made sure there was no prior account with this user name. In any event, a quick IP check should show that I am not this Cali person. If I may be frank, I don't think that accusing a person of being a sock puppet when they make their first Wiki contributions is a way to win friends and make them want to stay around to help out. I understand that you have to be careful but I'm not really sure there is enough evidence to warrant a suspicion in this case simply because a couple of people agree on a topic and edit the Wiki around the same time period. I'll step down from my soapbox now. Lois talk 10:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that they are a SPA (single-purpose account) that's only commented on this AfD- historically, lots of these have been sockpuppets, and so I think it's fine, if not ideal, to be suspicious about them. I apologise in advance if you aren't a sockpuppet, but the suspicion has been raised as historically, many accounts exhibiting similar behaviour have been sockpuppets. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AfD I commented on was simply the impetus that caused me to create an account. Everyone has to start somewhere. I had heard that someone created a page for ReGeneration Who and I came here to see if I could help with the page. Then I noticed that it was up for deletion and here we are. Again, not sure what to do to prove I'm not a sock puppet other than to go on about my business for now. Lois talk 20:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • When an account's first action is to vote at AfD then suspicion is warranted. Binksternet (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As seen at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cali11298/Archive#18 April 2015, stating "this Cali person" is one of Cali11298's signature wording styles when stating that he is not Cali11298. As seen above, Lois Millard also stated, "I am not this Cali person." Really, just study Cali11298's editing style at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cali11298/Archive, and it should be fairly easy for you to identify him when you see him. I know his style, and I also use probability, my very good memory and common sense to catch him. Also take note that, as pointed out at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cali11298/Archive#27 May 2015, WP:CheckUser will not always be key to confirming that an editor is Cali11298. Clearly, it's never key in that regard for me. Flyer22 (talk) 00:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In other words: A WP:CheckUser not finding a connection, or a solid connection, between the accounts does not mean that it's not Cali11298; lately, he has been tampering with his IP addresses so as to not get caught. Flyer22 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, I appreciate this. Flyer22 (talk) 04:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
01 June 2015
Suspected sockpuppets
  • SpeedDemon520 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • 96.234.50.180 (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.
  • Editor interaction utility

Admission is here. Considering that this editor often has WP:Sleepers, I am also requesting a WP:Sleeper check. Flyer22 (talk) 06:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I stated more on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 06:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

  • Adding IP 96.234.50.180, who continued the same edit war at Jesse Helms, following blocked sock SilverSurfingSerpent.[6][7] When reverted this IP immediately made aggressive comments on several editors' talk pages, showing familiarity with WP practices. Binksternet (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For any concern about publicly tying an IP to a registered account because of what the WP:CheckUser policy states, note that the IP has stated that he is Cali11298. So besides what Binksternet stated above, the IP should also be checked per that admission. Flyer22 (talk) 07:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • The following two accounts are  Confirmed to each other and are  Likely to Cali11298:
SpeedDemon520 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
HobGoblinDragon (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Mike V • Talk 17:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
03 June 2015
Suspected sockpuppets
  • HillMountain (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

Lots of similar edits to the Cali and their socks. They've been frequenting all the important places (AIV/AN3/noticeboards) like the Cal and socks have, and created United States presidential election in Ohio, 1972- note User:SilverSurfingSerpent created lots of articles about states in 1972 elections.
AIV: [8], [9], [10], [11]. BLP/N:[12], [13], AN3: [14], [15]. Seems like it could well be the same person. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

This is ridiculous, completely ridiculous. I'm not a sockpuppet, of anybody. A lot of users frequent Wikipedia anti-vandalism areas, with the disruption that happens frequently, that doesn't make us the same person. HillMountain (talk) 00:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
08 June 2015
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Both of the new accounts were created today, and immediately began edit warring on the Jesse Helms article. It seems as if the User:Sophia340 account is editing from a mobile phone, while the User:TheWhiteKnight1 is using their PC. Since User:Cali11298 also had an affinity for the Jesse Helms article, they seem a likely link.

  • Sophia340 - 1st edit ever- Racism: rvt POV edits, c/e
  • Sophia340 - 5th edit- Undid revision 666061096 by Tarc, rvt per WP:BRD, see talk page
  • TheWhiteKnight1 - 1st edit ever - Undid revision 666081431 by Tarc (talk) No sources stating that, only one source, which is a link to the video on YouTube.
  • TheWhiteKnight1 - 3rd edit - Undid revision 666083256 by Tarc
  • TheWhiteKnight1 - 5th and 6th edits restore edits made by Sophia340 - 5th, 6th.

User:Tarc seems to believe that the editor is a sock of User:SilverSurfingSerpent. Since I am not familiar with that sock master, perhaps he can expand here. A CU would confirm some link to these accounts, and probably show who the master is. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • @DD2K: If you look at SilverSurfingSerpent's userpage, you'll note that the account is tagged as a sock of Cali11298.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
14 June 2015
Suspected sockpuppets
  • RoadWarrior445 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • BasketOfShrimp (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • 208.54.37.148 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 172.56.35.185 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 172.56.34.247 (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.
  • Editor interaction utility

I've begun this investigation so that the RoadWarrior445 and BasketOfShrimp accounts are on record as WP:Socks of Cali11298; I've started this case now instead of earlier so that any WP:Socks that Cali11298 created in the meantime will hopefully be caught up in a WP:Sleeper check; yes, I am requesting a WP:Sleeper check as well. I also do not want it so that Cali11298 can return to these accounts at some later date. Another reason that I waited was to see if any of the editors I WP:Pinged in this section would start a WP:Sock investigation regarding RoadWarrior445 and BasketOfShrimp. While the WP:CheckUser policy is clear that IPs usually should not be publicly tied to an account, I listed the above IPs so that they may help tie Cali11298 to different WP:Socks, and because the IPs are clearly Cali11298 WP:Socks; I will get to that in a moment.

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cali11298/Archive#27 May 2015, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cali11298/Archive#03 June 2015 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cali11298/Archive#08 June 2015 for the documented editing style that I am noting with this report. Like Cali11298, RoadWarrior445 liked to frequent WP:AIV; examples are here and here. Like Cali11298, RoadWarrior445 liked to copy and paste vandalism warnings or other warnings; examples are here and here. Like Cali11298, RoadWarrior445 was interested in political articles; examples are here, here, here and here. One of the political articles that Cali11298 is significantly interested in is the Dennis Hastert article; as seen here and here, Cali11298 edited that article with WP:Socks before; RoadWarrior445 also edited that article more than once, and got into a dispute with Drmies while there. Like Cali11298, RoadWarrior445 is interested in LGBT topics; examples are here and here; regarding that latter link, it's because RoadWarrior445 took up the cause of the 172.56.35.185 and 208.54.37.148 IPs that I'm certain he is also those IPs. The IPs were edit warring with Mann jess. Then RoadWarrior445 and Ian.thomson came in. There is also the fact that 172.56.35.185 is the same IP range of the latest IP who visited my talk page claiming to be Cali11298; Cali11298 sometime states "This is Cali." when posting to my talk page. Like Cali11298, RoadWarrior445 is interested in editing comic character articles; examples are here and here. Like Cali11298 was interested in editing the Caitlyn Jenner article, so was RoadWarrior445.

As for BasketOfShrimp, that account started editing Jesse Helms article soon after another and another Cali11298 WP:Sock that edited that article were blocked. Like Cali11298 and RoadWarrior445, BasketOfShrimp also issues copied and pasted warnings. And like RoadWarrior445 is interested in editing a topic about internet security, BasketOfShrimp is interested in editing the Private Internet Access article. These two interests are not a surprise to me since, like I've noted, Cali11298 tampers with his IP addresses to try to avoid WP:CheckUser detection and to continue WP:Socking.

Soon after I made it clear to Cali11298 that I know of his latest accounts, he retired two of them -- RoadWarrior445 and BasketOfShrimp. ‎ Flyer22 (talk) 01:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: Mike V, yes, I noticed that you and Bbb23 were both on this case; the more WP:CheckUsers involved the better. The IPs are Cali11298, and they are worth a check, especially the 172 IP range. 172 IP range is at least worth a WP:Duck block. Cali11298 has other accounts as well; and like I mentioned, that is partly why I listed the above IPs. If you or Bbb23 do not find other accounts from your checks, I will leave this particular case at that, but I'm certain that there are more Cali11298 WP:Socks. Flyer22 (talk) 02:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • It looks like Bbb23 and I were tackling this case at the same time. I found the following accounts to  Confirmed to Cali11298:
RoadWarrior445 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
BasketOfShrimp (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
no No comment with respect to IP address(es) Mike V • Talk 01:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My findings tally with Mike's, although he's faster than I am (or maybe he got started earlier :-) ). For Flyer22's benefit, the only thing I'll add is:  No sleepers immediately visible. As for the IPs, two haven't edited in a week, and the other edited a few days ago to taunt Flyer22, which I'm sure she's used to, but as dynamic as the master's IPs are, there's no point in blocking the IP. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

29 July 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

Added 22:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC):

  • 76.19.139.48 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Jsamen1 (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

Suspicious behaviour involving adding infoboxes on the Rod Steiger article.[16][17] There has been a consensus and an ArbCom case regarding that the use of infoboxes are not compulsory, I believe. This account has only been active for a month and I'm requesting a Checkuser to see if there are more behind this. JAGUAR  12:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See the recent RFC on Rod Steiger's talk page for more information regarding suspicious behaviour. JAGUAR  12:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Per three or four concurrent and existing ANI threads [18] (some of which are recently closed), there are some strange connections and crossovers between Spaghetti07205 and Lukeno94 and/or Jcmcc450, if anyone wants to put some time into that analysis. Softlavender (talk) 21:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're implying that I'm a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of one of those editors, that's completely false. Spaghetti07205 (talk) 03:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are some dodgy connections though as Softlavender points out. If you don't want to be accused of socking in the future I suggest you avoid trying to "force" infoboxes on articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jacob_Kemp for further suspicious behaviour. Also see edits referred to in these 2 articles. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • I've actually already run a CU on this user; the result was completely  Inconclusive. There is no technical evidence to connect this account to any others. Yunshui 雲水 15:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Putting this case on hold as there are suspicions this may be a new incarnation of Mattisse (see [19]). Further investigation may be needed. Yunshui 雲水 15:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

26 November 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


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

I found Password123 during another investigation, and since Password12 had already been blocked, I blocked 123 as a sock of 12. Password123 is slightly older, though. The deleted contributions of Password12 and the technical evidence point to Cali11298 being the master. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

  • It's scary to think that Cali has been continuing to edit under our noses this entire time. There are a number of IPs that Cali is suspected of using that we should keep an eye on. 96.234.50.180 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is one that isn't even blocked. Two others, 172.56.34.237 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 172.56.34.247 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), were used to vandalise articles in December 2015 and January 2016. However, Graham87 blocked that IP range for six months. Hopefully, Cali isn't planning on making a comeback. DarkKnight2149 03:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Per above, they are  Likely related to Cali11298, but  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation to be sure. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: Pinging Flyer22 Reborn - would really appreciate if you could take a look at the behavior, since you have experience with this master. Thanks very much, GABgab 16:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't find any behavioral evidence. But, since both are blocked, it's time to close this. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Cali11298/Archive&oldid=1138668281"