Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Archive/May 2008

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Kbtequila

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Wrisleyae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
Kbtequila (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Kbhickman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

—BradV 20:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Repeatedly creating article Markus Klinko & Indrani.

Comments
  • User Wrisleyae was blocked for repeated creating the same spam page, and now it has been created by another user. —BradV 20:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And another user. —BradV 01:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first two accounts are blocked. Kbhickman is not. The correct response would be to block him and protect the article to prevent recreation if that hasn't been done. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or not. I see only one item in the deletion log for that article, so let's hold off on protecting that title. There must be something in deleted contribs that I can't see. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Deleted contribs confirm this. Blocked all indef. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Erwin Morland (3rd)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Erwin Morland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Siderate2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

RolandR (talk) 01:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Self-confessed [1] sock of multiply-banned disruptive editor.

Comments
While block evasion is bad, and, this user is obviously a returning puppet, if they're willing to do good this time, it's been a year, maybe it's time for a second chance? SQLQuery me! 02:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are returning only one day after a previous block[2]. Both puppeteer and puppet accounts were marked by abusive racism and holocaust denial. There is absolutely no scope for a twelfth chance. RolandR (talk) 10:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I had 3 cases open, and, I confused the contribs when it came to this one. I'd thought they had come back this time, to do good, but, edits like this are not appropriate. My sincerest apologies for the mix-up. I should also note, that I just received an e-mail from User:K9dog, regarding what I believe is this case, I believe from the tone of the note that it is the same person. I would reccomend moving this to a checkuser, as I bet more are out there. SQLQuery me! 01:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RolandR, are you really that stupid? That link does NOT confess me as a sockpuppet of Erwin Morland. If you actually looked at it, then you would see that I was saying that I wanted to revert vandalism to User:Erwin Morland and that I was a bit annoyed that doing this caused me to be accused of vandalism and sockpuppetry. Siderate3 (talk) 04:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Siderate2 still needs to be blocked. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Siderate2 blocked and tagged. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Spinoza1111

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Spinoza1111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Lilith2396 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
116.48.169.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Hans Adler (talk) 11:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

Lilith2396 restored an abusive comment by blocked user Spinoza1111 (who signs as Edward G. Nilges) that had been removed by others from Talk:Herbert Schildt. [3] When reverted, Lilith2396 started to use the same kind of grandiloquent rhetorics that Nilges did previously, demonstrating a shared obsession about some of Spinoza1111's favourite topics (Adorno, Germans) [4], and then explained why Spinoza1111 is right and everybody else is wrong. [5]. In an edit war about the latter comment, Lilith2396 is immediately supported by User:116.48.169.246, an IP address from Hong Kong (typical for Nilges). Lilith2396's later edit comment "You therefore cannot remove my comments based on 'block evasion'" can be read to suggest that 116.48.169.246 is actually Lilith2396's IP.

Lilith2396 also shares with Spinoza1111 the shape of the user name, interest in Ayn Rand (see Lilith2396's first edit), and a habit of inserting talk page comments in strange and confusing positions. [6] See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lilith2396 for further examples of the ineffective rhetorical overkill that is so typical for Nilges.--Hans Adler (talk) 11:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Futher evidence:
See:
Based on these threads, I blocked 202.82.33.202 (talk · contribs) for six months on April 29. It appears to be Nilges' home IP and is static. Whois shows that the IP to be based in Hong Kong. Nilges also uses dynamic IPs to evade his block. See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Spinoza1111.
Lilith2396 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) began editing on May 12, 2008. She has edited the checkuser request on Nilges. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lilith2396. She has a florid writing style similar to that of Nilges and she indignantly defends positions that Nilges has taken. Her first edit on May 12 was at Talk:Ayn Rand. She clearly was an experienced WP editor. For comparison here is the data on Nilges: Spinoza1111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).
See additional data at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Spinoza1111, though the checkuser (so far) just says that Spinoza1111 is too stale to get information from. Nilges, due to his use of IPs, has steadily evaded his indefinite block of October, 2006 over a long period of time. EdJohnston (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Lilith2396 (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC): this case has no standing. Edward and I write in a similar fashion because we are educated and literate people whose written style converges based on shared affects: it's the demotic that's idiomatic. Our styles seem alike, and yes indeedy, "grandiloquent" because we both refuse moronization.[reply]

Furthermore, this bastard Adler is a vandal and an ethnic cleanser who removes discussion from talk pages based on his personal likes and dislikes. Anyone with actual experience in publishing in the real world, as opposed to little convenience store clerks.

Finally, even if I and Edward were the same person, I question the motivation behind these little Kangaroo courts. As it happens, in writing the Federalist papers, some contributors used pseudonyms which were in intent and in effect sock puppets to get around British censorship and overall tyranny. Today, anyone using an internet handle and concealing his identity, as Edward does not, is engaged in sock puppetry as regards his identity.

You hound, you harass, and you endanger meatspace reputations. When people, their good name ruined by creeps like amerindianarts and Adler, become sock puppets, they have in most cases every right to do so.

Edward is a contributor. Search for his earlier contributions by searching for Nilges with user checked. You are out of control creeps who spend more time harassing people than contributing, and you creeps have ruined wikipedia.

Well, you are certainly as obnoxious and ill-tempered as Edward Nilges. I suppose if the IP Lilith edits from resolves to Hong Kong, the account belongs to Edward. It's unlikely another editor from Hong Kong, unrelated to Edward, would edit the exact same articles and staunchly defend Edward.--Atlan (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, Edward could have a friend. Judging by his behavior, however, I doubt it. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is revealing. It's your own fear of isolation that causes you to engage in psychological transfer and projection.
You're a bunch of thugs who use the rules to get the results you want, and you deserve not the slightest respect from me nor Edward. You are the people who sit on your ass behind terminals and jerk yourselves off, endangering Kathy Sierra's physical safety, and the hard-earned reputations of people like Edward and Herb who actually accomplished something you could not, and for this reason attract your jealousy and rage.
You're nasty little men who are playing games with toys. The only problem I, or any decent person, has with your conduct is that you endanger not only the physical safety of women but the hard earned good name of men in the real world, and you do this because you are anonymous corporate drones unable to separate a good name from a fat paycheck.
You talk big about free speech, but as soon as someone like Edward presents a carefully written case, you, who are sloppy and ignorant writers who can't publish except here in moron heaven, use his literacy against him, appealing to the lowest common denominators in yourselves and others, the sort of people who cannot read and who have no attention span.
If I was your father, I'd kick your ass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilith2396 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Father? Don't you mean mother? Oops! Oh wait you're Edward, not really Lilith the woman anyways. What a surprise! Ethan a dawe (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Conclusions
The RFCU on Spinoza1111 has now been closed, since the data is stale. Based on the behavioral evidence supplied by Hans Adler when he opened this report, I'm blocking Lilith2396 as a sock of Spinoza1111 for 2 months. EdJohnston (talk) 01:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Eios1234

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Eios1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

68.110.238.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 11:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

1, 2,

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

1, 2.

[7].


Comments

I strongly beleive that User:Eios1234 has stopped logging in and is using anonymous login deleberately, in order to escape Wikipedia rules. User:68.110.238.158 started editing Urdu and Talk:Fritzl case immediately after User:Eios1234 stopped. User:Eios1234 has recied several warnings on his talk page. The edits to the Urdu article by both are the same, basically User:68.110.238.158 is "protecting" Eios1234's edits. See article history. The edits to Talk:Fritzl case are specifically focused on Fritzl's religion and are anti-semetic in nature.

See the cotributions list for both of them . They are working on the same articles: Special:Contributions/Eios1234 Special:Contributions/68.110.238.158

User:68.110.238.158 has admitted to being an old user on my talk page:[8]

No doubt in my mind that User:Eios1234 is sockpuppeteering as an anon in order to circumvent rules.

Conclusions
Response

I believe that these accusations are heavy. Unfortunately in our dorm room, there is a single computer which is used by many people. While I do not know what the other users do while I am not here, I can only attest to the edits that I login and do with my username Eios1234. Beyond that I do not know what the computer is used for. Is there a way to possibly find out the IP address of my computer so I can verify my IP address is not the one that Deepak D'Souza is accusing me of having? Eios1234 (talk) 06:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Eios1234[reply]

Comment Isn't it funny that you report me for a 3RR violation[9] (btw, you havent read the rule properly) whereas I had warned annon user User:68.110.238.158 about it: [10], not you!!!!!! Thats one more coincidence on your part!!!--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 10:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response to response

I am glad that you have warned that user Deepak D'Souza but what I am more concerned about is your use of editing and reverting. I have noticed too when leaving comments on your page that that user also warned you about the reverts, it is probably because it is a problem that is taking a lot of time and patience from users trying to make constructive edits. I will admit your efforts to chase other users like this is very frustrating because my time can better be spent doing research.....

I would also like to mention that User:Deepak D'Souza has a history of making these type of accusations. Please see the case involving Enigmatic1986 [11] under section heading Situation, below is the cited case.

Hi Deepak D'Souza. :) I'm not an administrator, but I could try to help and talk with the user if you'd like. At this point, it seems that another person in the mix, such as myself, might not help the situation, but if clarity is ever needed, I wouldn't mind trying to explain and straighten out any confusion Enigmatic1986 may have. Cheers! --JamieS93 11:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I personally see nothing innately wrong with him creating a new account if he wants to, or getting the current one deleted, as long as this is done appropriately. Once a new username is created, the previous one should not be used any longer, and the new account ought not to be used for any sort of abusive or remotely sock-puppetry purposes, of course. However, I am assuming that he has good intentions, especially if he suggested to start over or get a new username for the purpose of simply "starting fresh" or forgetting history. I don't think there would be any policy violation if he wanted to create a new account, or get his previous contributions removed. I'd suggest that he ask an administrator about the situation regarding getting his user account deleted, and also creating a new one if he wants to a new name to contribute under. --JamieS93 16:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked Deepak D'Souza to use his time here on Wikipedia more constructively, I have also noted that another user has attempted to warn Deepak before about his constant reverts on the "Urdu" page. Again I am still very concerned about how Deepak D'Souza is using Wikipedia to chase other users. Eios1234 (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Eios1234[reply]

 Confirmed per Checkuser. Also MichaelMK (talk · contribs)Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP three months, master 1 week, new sock indef. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Zippycup

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Zippycup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Yoshi525 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Kalinindrag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Colopso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.141.15.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Gladys J Cortez 18:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

The sockmaster outs himself here [12] and threatens a pissing contest with anyone who dares try to stop him, blah blah blah. It looks, from the talk-pg welcome message, that some of his "seven hundred sock puppets" were created around Feb 8th, 2008...just a thought for further investigation? I know nothing about how, exactly, you do that. :)

I'll throw that point into the CU request and see if it helps. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added IP per this. Gee, anyone wonder who his "source" is? (Adding him to the RFCU, as well. Nevermind, someone got there before me.) This guy is rapidly approaching Jamesinc14 on the list of Users Who Really Frost My Mini-Wheats. Gladys J Cortez 01:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Checkuser filed. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Zippycup With a declared 700 socks out there, we might as well nip them in the bud, hm? Tony Fox (arf!) 18:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An ANI thread is here, opened 4 February 2008, about identification of the following four accounts as socks:
Thatcher confirmed (in a comment in that ANI discussion) that these accounts were the same person. EdJohnston (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Conclusions

All already blocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:RajivLal

Suspected sockpuppeteer

RajivLal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Rajput94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Mar de Sin Speak up! 17:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

These two users became at the same time, within a few days, and edited with the same bias about the same subject matter, the Bhavishya Purana, a religious text. (The edits on Jesus are about references to Jesus in the Bhavishya Purana.) They posted on my talk page one after the other, all criticizing me for including a paragraph on the dating of parts of the religious text. After I asked RajivLal whether he was using more than one account, s/he ignored my comments. The timing of the two accounts, and the exclusive type of edits made, and the fact that both users criticized me like they were one person, make it very hard to believe they could be two independent users. (There is another IP address that I suspect to be a sockpuppet, I will add it later.

Comments

The interest in a specific article on a subject I never heard of is strong evidence to link these two accounts. In addition, they edited on May 22 within three minutes of each other.

  • Rajput94 at 02:08
  • RajivLal at 02:11

It's pretty clear that this user has violated the sockpuppet policy. Assuming this is really a new user, and not a reincarnation of someone else, I think the correct response would be to block Rajput94 indefinitely as a sockpuppet, and issue a warning to RajivLal that he must limit himself to one account or risk being blocked. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Blocked sock indef, master 48 hours. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

842U (2nd)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

842U (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Amarapura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Vbclerate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Walltowallcarpeting (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Garrigus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Scheinwerfermann (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Please refer to 842U's first batch of confirmed sockpuppets. The two suspected puppets in this present case were created ( Amarapura, Vbclerate) within very short time of 842U's being informed of the initial sockpuppet investigation. Both suspected puppets have contributed exclusively (or almost exclusively) to the consensus-building process manipulated and stacked by 842U's other known socks, and in the same manner — supporting 842U's unpopular position to create the illusion of lack of consensus.

Update 19 May 2008: Added Walltowallcarpeting (talk · contribs) and Garrigus (talk · contribs) to list of 842U's suspected new(er) sockpuppets. These users' only contributions have been comments 1 2 on the talk page of the only dissenting disputant not actively suspected of being a sock in the puppet-riddled WikiProject:Automobiles debate. The (unsigned) comments were written in highly similar style to 842U's copious contribution to the dispute, and with many of the same idiosyncratic phrases. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

I haven't checked the diffs, but if they say anything similar to 842U (as Scheinwerfmann alleges), block the accounts. It's unheard-of for a new user to begin editing on a WikiProject talk page, especially WikiProject Automobiles which is not among the most well-publicized WikiProjects, and especially in an active, ongoing debate. I would recommend a block on the three accounts that edited the WikiProject Automobiles talk page. Walltowallcarpeting edited a user talk page, so I'm not sure if that links him. If the recipient of that message is involved in the discussion, block the account who left the message.

Note that I reviewed the first SSP for 842U. This is considerably easier than the previous case. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 01:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

3 obvious socks indef'd. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Alicia Sotto

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Alicia Sotto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Jemarth Lalic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
90.194.215.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
90.199.161.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

--Tombomp (talk) 11:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

User has added a load of articles about supposed Phillipines actors/dancers. See Imelda Salvador, Vanessa Sotto and Jaypee Sotto. When AFD and PROD templates have been added, the users have reverted them. All accounts have edits only to these and similar articles. All articles appear to be hoaxes, with IMDB links added linking to different people.

Comments

Administrator assitance requested to view deleted contribs. Based on userpages, these may be sockpuppets or real-life friends. I'm not sure it really matters. I'll prod the userpages for being pseudo-articles. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

A definite close connection. Not sure if socks or meats, either, so I'm blocking one week on both accounts for that rather than indef on one. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:ElboMisery1993

Suspected sockpuppeteer
ElboMisery1993 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
TheBlues2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence
  • Addition of unsourced singles to said tables without reliable sources (diff)
  • Use of "2008" in username (like another sock)
  • Will often make six or seven edits in a row to the same table
  • Unnecessarily changing widths and/or headers in tables (diff, diff, diff)
  • No edits unrelated to country discographies/songs
  • Blatant ignorance of image policies
  • Almost never uses edit summary
Comments

The evidence, taken as a whole, is very strong. I would support an indefinite block. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 01:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Blocked indef and tagged. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Jamesinc14

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Jamesinc14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Webkinz Mania (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Gladys J Cortez 22:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Has created article List of PBS KIDS Channel Identifications which I have put up for AfD. This is a recreation of content which has been deleted oh-too-many times from PBS Kids and which is one of Jamesinc14's favorite targets and MO's. Particularly compare the diff-text of [13] to the List of PBS KIDS Channel Identifications article--in many places the phrasing is EXACTLY the same. Consider just a tidbit:

From PBS Kids (diff: [14], from 16 April--this is authored by User:4.226.63.88 a "suspected" James sock)

The 1st set has a green background. The 1st ident of this set has a boy named "Dash",[2] which begins with a closeup of his blinking eye. The shot is zoomed out to see Dash say "Doink!", and he thinks about "PBS" in a thought bubble. In the background, dark pink stripes are shaking slightly. The 2nd ident of this set is of a girl named "Dot",[1] who runs from the distance towards the screen and into it. "Doink" is also heard, and the thought bubble with "PBS" appears as well. Stripes are moving left to right in the background. They are different colors and sizes.

The 2nd set has a background that changes colors. Within these 2 idents, a smaller version of the opposite ident is in the upper right hand corner. The 1st ident of the set is Dash, the boy, who is at first a caveman, then a scuba diver, and then a robot. He grabs the letters "PBS", and the circular PBS Kids logo is shown. There is no "doink" or similar sound in this ident. Blue bubbles are shaking in this background. The 2nd one is Dot, the girl, who is at first a cat, than an octopus, and finally an astronaut. Something that suspiciously sounds like "doy!" is heard instead of "doink!", and the circular PBS Kids logo is shown. There are stars in this background.

From List of PBS KIDS Channel Identifications(today, by Webkinz Mania):

The 1st set has a green background. The 1st ident of this set has a boy named "Dash",[1] which begins with a closeup of his blinking eye. The shot is zoomed out to see Dash say "Doink!", and he thinks about "PBS" in a thought bubble. In the background, dark pink stripes are shaking slightly. The 2nd ident of this set is of a girl named "Dot",[2] who runs from the distance towards the screen and into it. "Doink" is also heard, and the thought bubble with "PBS" appears as well. Stripes are moving left to right in the background. They are different colors and sizes.

The 2nd set has a background that changes colors. Within these 2 idents, a smaller version of the opposite ident is in the upper right hand corner. The 1st ident of the set is Dash, the boy, who is at first a caveman, then a scuba diver, and then a robot. He grabs the letters "PBS", and the circular PBS Kids logo is shown. There is no "doink" or similar sound in this ident. Blue bubbles are shaking in this background. The 2nd one is Dot, the girl, who is at first a cat, than an octopus, and finally an astronaut. Something that suspiciously sounds like "doy!" is heard instead of "doink!", and the circular PBS Kids logo is shown. There are stars in this background.

In these two examples, even the original FORMATTING was exactly the same (before I blockquoted it). Anyone attempting to cast this as a coincidence will thus be personally responsible for the violent detonation of my entire skull.

Seriously, though: Enough is enough of this guy. There will be more of him, I'm sure, but let's banninate this incarnation before someone buys into his "I'm new here" schtick--as in User talk:Webkinz Mania#Sorry.

Comments

I thank you for your time and effort in looking at this case. Gladys J Cortez 01:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no particular reason to doubt the allegation here, other than the fact that Webkinz Mania's edits are all from the last week, and Jamesinc14's edits are from November 2006. I assume Jamesinc14 has deleted edits that are relevant. Not being an administrator, I can't see deleted edits. Administrator review is needed. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 01:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Already blocked and tagged. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:TheMathPeople

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
Suspected sockpuppeteer

TheMathPeople (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

65.46.253.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

diff

Comments
  • Account name is a direct quote from one on my posts. The name implies some kind of self appointed representative of that group.
  • Created account, and the first thing user does is harass me.
  • User account created today, yet is using phrases and continuing a discussion from a long time ago.
  • This account is an attempt to harass me anonymously, to accompany non-anonymous recent harassment.

TheMathPeople looks like somebody's sockpuppet, but I don't know who. The first edit, cited in the evidence section, seems to be an attack against Gregbard as he explains. The second and third edit are to add a period (.) to his userpage and talk page in order to make it appear that this is an older account. This is a typical sockpuppet's trick, one which I used for one of my own sockpuppets last year before I returned to moral integrity.

I will ask Gregbard if he has any more information. I don't know if we have enough evidence to justify a block or a checkuser. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably someone who contributed to bullying me from the discussion at Template talk:Logic, Talk:Interpretation (logic), Talk:Formal interpretation, and/or Talk:Descriptive interpretation. This person is also probably a member of WP:MATH. My bet is User:Jok2000 or User talk:Cokaban if I had to bet. Although Hans has been pretty moody lately too. Hmm.
  • The account creation is a day and a half before the first edit; that might eliminate some folks who hadn't been involved before this account was created, if there are any. GRBerry 04:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
  • Very unlikely. Please see the results of the UserCompare tool. βcommand 2 16:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree IP is probably not TheMathPeople, but TMP is a sock of someone, so I indef'd him. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jvolkblum (8th)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
Suspected sockpuppeteer

Jvolkblum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

LordsOFAcid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
LittlePoloska (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
MeekerAvenueGirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
HelloDollies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
EarthCleaner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
PLATOLAWS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Sweetiedarling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Nina Van Horn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

BlueAzure (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

LordsOFAcid was marked as likely and blocked in the conclusion of Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Jvolkblum_(7th), but was not actually blocked. LittlePoloska, MeekerAvenueGirl, and HelloDollies were confirmed to be the same user as LordsOFAcid, L'espinassse, and Relaxitaxi (L'espinassse and Relaxitaxi were previously blocked as Jvolkblum socks) in the last checkuser.

EarthCleaner was mentioned in the last sock puppetry case, but no comment was made about the account in the conclusion. EarthCleaner was created at 13:27 on May 21, PLATOLAWS was created two minutes later. PLATOLAWS first two edits were at 8:57 and 8:58 on May 24, the first was 17 minutes after Earthcleaner had made the last edit of their first editing session. PLATOLAWS first edit was to make a user page with only a link the manual of style, as CedricRobinson (a blocked Jvolkblum sock) had previously done. PLATOLAWS second edit created a talk page that appears to be more appropriate as a user page. The page is a copy of WP:CHEAT, as mentioned in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (7th) two socks of Jovlkblum (Dr.Sobelioni and Wingsolid) had previously created user page with the contents WP:HELP. EarthCleaner also created a talk page that appears to be more appropriate as a user page. Like prevouis Jvolkblum socks, EarthCleaner insterted copyvio text into an article (Trinity-St. Paul's Episcopal Church (New Rochelle, New York)). All of EarthCleaners edits have to been to Jvolkblum's set of articles. PLATOLAWS edits have to been to Jvolkblum's set of articles. PLATOLAWS has uploaded a number of scans postcards, as a number Jvolkblum sock's have previously done.

Sweetiedarling is an older account that edited for 54 minutes on April 26 and then was inactive until May 25. Like many Jvolkblum sock's their first edit was to create a user page. One of there others edits was to create Sheldrake Lake. On May 2, KatieGrinn (talk · contribs) (a confirmed Jvolkblum sock) added a wikilink to the article on two articles [15] [16]. PLATOLAWS recently made an edit to the article. The edit summary for Sweetiedarling's May 25 edit matches Jvolblum's writing, using the + sign and referring to structure (as mentioned in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (7th)). On May 27 they made an edit to Westchester County, New York inserting a copyvio of [17], then 22 minutes later the reverted the insertion of the copyvio.


Comments

A checkuser has been requested at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jvolkblum. BlueAzure (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

personal defense - EarthCleaner

I made the article for St.Johns church because A)I had helpful knowledge to share on the church B)it was not mentioned on wikipedia beforhand C)it has encyclopedic value and C)it is of significance in historical terms. The church has connections to another church in the same town, and that church was already listed on the website which is Trinity-St.Pauls Church (New Rochelle). I added to this existing article because A)I had helpful knowledge to add + improve the article and B)I had a helpful image for the infobox. I uploaded it to the wikicommons photo area from my user name there and saved it under its full name because i was not sure how exactly to make it most easily searchable. It seems that some of the information I added to the Trinity church article was not cited to the source like I intended. That was a clear mistake on my part. Otherwise, I have personally taken images of important areas areound the New Rochelle area, many of which are improvements over existing images. Some are also of subject material that has been debated and argued in the history of the articles. I have taken photos of other mentioned areas like Sheldrake lake, schools, important sites and area signage which I would like to add to benefit the articles. This is the second time said user BlueAzure is making his/her claims of inappropriate behavior against myself. These claims arent fair and arent warranted. Regards- --EarthCleaner (talk) 03:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The photos Earthcleaner uploaded (including Image:PaineHistoricalSocietyMuseum2.jpg, Image:ThomasPaineFarmhouse1.jpg, and Image:ThomasPaineFarmhouse2.jpg ) contains metadata from the same camera as photos from confirmed Jvolkblum socks FlanneryFamily (talk · contribs) (Image:Quaker Ridge 2007.jpg and Image:NY WB crest.jpg), No1Manhattanite (talk · contribs) (Image:CityHallSpring.jpg and Image:CityHallSpring 2.jpg), and Nyjockboy2 (talk · contribs) (Image:15 Park Row.JPG, Image:15 Park Row 2.JPG, and Image:15 Park Row 3.JPG). BlueAzure (talk) 05:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly stated in the photo uploads that they were taken with a Sony cybershot digital camera. The Cybershot camera model (and the Sony brand) are known for their popularity and to be widely used. Thank You.--EarthCleaner (talk) 05:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC) (( This user BlueAzure is attempting to use extremely subjective 'metadata' to support his /her claims against me. Thank You --EarthCleaner (talk) 06:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)))[reply]
EarthCleaner uploaded Image:WykagylCCCourse.JPG which is a stretched and slightly cropped version of Image:WykagylCC course.JPG that was uploaded by Jvolkblum sock Dr.Sobelioni (talk · contribs). BlueAzure (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The photo of one of the holes at Wykagyl Country Club was taken by me a year ago for use in a community watershed renewal project. If it was uploaded before it was not fairly used. Thank You.--EarthCleaner (talk) 07:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added another suspected sockpuppet to the list. Nina Van Horn was created 01:11 on 17 May 2008, two minutes before Point Place 1970 was created (Point Place 1970 was listed as being a possible sock in the conclusion of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (7th)). On May 29, EarthCleaner edited from 2:32 to 5:37. Then, Nina Van Horn edited from 5:42 to 5:50. Then, EarthCleaner edited from 6:03 to 6:16. Finally, Nina Van Horn edited from 6:37 to 7:31. Nina Van Horn's first edit was to create a user page, that say "I am mainly interested in contributing to New Rochelle, New York related articles and ensuring it is represented fairly and accurately. Thats all so far. Cheers". Jvolkblum socks have on a number of occasions claimed that there is a bias against the New Rochelle, New York related articles (one example). All of Nina Van Horn's edits to articles have been to remove ref tags. This activity started the day before with apparent open proxies 82.239.126.68 (talk · contribs) (the whois indicates the IP address is from France) ([18] [19]) and 212.107.116.234 (talk · contribs) (the whois indicates the IP address is from Saudi Arabia) ([20] [21]). BlueAzure (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

All confirmed by one of two CU's. Blocked and tagged. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Grant.Alpaugh

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
Suspected sockpuppeteer

Grant.Alpaugh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

75.172.195.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Richard Rundle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Chandler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Tangerines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Che84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
CWY2190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Kingjeff (talk) 01:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence
  • 3RR violation for user:Grant.Alpaugh/75.172.195.115 on the 3 templates.
    • Reverts from Template:2008 MLS standings - Overall
      • 1st Revert: 15:14, May 12, 2008
      • 2nd Revert: 16:36, May 12, 2008
      • 3rd Revert: 18:14, May 12, 2008
      • 4th Revert: 19:15, May 12, 2008
    • Template:2008 MLS standings - Western
      • Revert 1: 15:13, May 12, 2008
      • Revert 2: 16:34, May 12, 2008
      • Revert 3: 18:15, May 12, 2008
      • Revert 4: 19:14, May 12, 2008
    • Template:2008 MLS standings - Eastern
      • Revert 1: 15:13, May 12, 2008
      • Revert 2: 16:33, May 12, 2008
      • Revert 3: 18:15, May 12, 2008
      • Revert 4: 19:14, May 12, 2008
 Confirmed - per checkuser that User:Grant.Alpaugh is the IP sock. However, all the other editors named here are Red X Unrelated, either to User:Grant.Alpaugh or to each other - Alison ❤ 16:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

Th problem started is about this edit when the standings went from Wins - Losses - Ties to Wins - Draws - Losses. There has been a lively discussion between myself, user:Grant.Alpaugh and User:Otav347 at 2008 Major League Soccer season Talk page The IP Address listed above just happened to come and did a 4th revert which just happened after user:Grant.Alpaugh 3rd revert. With Grant.Alpaugh being a suspected Sockpuppeteer, I am also suppecting him of voting fraud with at least one of the above mentioned users. Kingjeff (talk) 01:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3 out of the 4 edits done for the IP Address were the 4th revert for the 3 templates with the other edit being on another template being used in the same article as the 3 templates with 4 reverts. Kingjeff (talk) 01:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because people don't agree with you but with Grant.Alpaugh don't call them sock puppets... If you'd done your home work, you'd have seen he and I disagreed quite a bit on the MLS Infoboxes... why would he argue with himself? ← chandler 10:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the various events that resulted in the above, I cannot help but come to the conclusion that much of the above report is frivolous. A heated exchange between Kingjeff and Grant.Alpaugh (and others) has taken place at Talk:2008 Major League Soccer season, followed by an evenly split vote, vindicating WP:POLLS by the looks of things. Kingjeff has listed everybody who voted for the option he opposed as sockpuppets, yet at least three of the accounts listed belong to users based on the opposite side of the Atlantic to Grant.Alpaugh. The accusation that the IP is Grant or a meatpuppet of Grant used to circumvent 3RR may have substance, but listing the other users is entirely frivolous. In any case, it takes two to tango. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly could I be a sockpuppet of Grant.Alpaugh? From their profile they are 22 years old, live in the USA and attend Arizona university. I live in England, in Bispham, Blackpool and am nearly twice their age, and from my edit history it should be perfectly clear that I am English not American. All I did was add my name to the vote and for that I am listed as a suspected sockpuppet? Quite outstanding. I should point out that the only reason I even bothered to vote was because the issue was raised at the WP:FOOTY project which I have been a member of for some time, asking for input. So on that basis anyone who has voted as a result of it being mentioned on that project is a possible sockpuppet? Or is it just anyone who voted the way Kingjeff didn't like is suspected of being a sockpuppet? Sorry but that is ridiculous. And this whole thing is frivilous in the extreme as well as being lazy in that it only takes a minute to check users profiles. Kingjeff only needed to check profiles to see how ridiculous this. "Voting fraud" because the topic was brought up at the Footy project, quite rightly, asking for input? Going round making accusations of suspected sockpuppetry based solely (in my case at least) on the basis of a vote, and a vote because it was brought up on a project, asking for users to vote??? And just to add for any Admins reading this page, this is exactly the sort of thing that could very easily put off users from getting involved in debates such as this, if by doing so then someone comes along and starts making accusations of suspected sockpupettry based solely on a vote in a poll that they don't happen to agree with or like. In addition it any members of the Footy project who were aware of this would be wary of adding their vote to that poll now.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 14:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a lighter note, I'm more than willing to put up with allegations of being sockpuppet, or a meatpuppet, or whatever, but allegations of being a Wildcat is something I am not prepared to tolerate! I'm a Sun Devil. :P -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies :) I do admit though to following Houston Dynamo simply based on the fact they play in the same kit colour as Blackpool F.C.! It seems though that Kingjeff still believes this sockpuppetry given the "Voting Fraud" message left on my userpage. And I'm afraid I don't take things like this so lightly. I just hope that an Admin will soon resolve by presumably checking IP's@ And if so then we can all get back to editing wikipedia.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 19:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both User:Kingjeff and User:Grant.Alpaugh are still continuing their edit wars today (15th) - three reversions each on each of the Template:2008 MLS standings - Overall, Template:2008 MLS standings - Eastern and Template:2008 MLS standings - Western articles. - fchd (talk) 04:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which just begs the question as to why we have all been dragged into all of this. All because of voting in a poll. It hardly bodes well for voting in polls in the future on wikipedia if someone can accuse other users of "Voting Fraud" and of being sockpuppets based solely on their voting in a way that one user dislikes and because that user is clearly in a long term dispute with another user. I will say this though, that I am also sure that this whole thing could very well put off other members of the WP:FOOTY project from voting on that poll in the same way I did and the others accused of being sockpuppets which is a bit sad really. The whole thing is a bit sad and pointless. There are far more important things to be concerned about than whether to put WTL or WDL or whatever it is. Surely though an Admin could please come along and check the IP addresses to resolve this so we can get back to editing wikipedia and leave the two of them to continue their dispute. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 14:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a personal plea to a Checkuser who will hopefully be able to resolve this relatively quickly... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Rambling Man.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 14:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not entirely sure how to refute claims that I'm a "sockpuppet," but...I'm not. I just personally prefer the W-D-L format. I guess my only real evidence that I'm not a sockpuppet is that I've made a truckload of edits over the past year or so, and sockpuppets are usually used for votes, as far as I know. And I'm not sure where Grant.Alpaugh is from, but I can't see him caring enough about my high school (Elmira Free Academy) to edit anything regarding it. Che84 (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Alison for the results. My appologies to the innocent users I had to bring into this. Kingjeff (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence shows a 4th revert on all 3 templates. Not an opinion on which style to use. Kingjeff (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think since we have the checkuser results for everyone in question and since it looks like everyone has given their comment, this case could be closed. Kingjeff (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Kingjeff of course it should be closed. However you did not have to bring myself nor the other users such as Richrd Rundle and so on into this at all. You chose to, you did not have to. There was no "had to" about it at all. You could easily have taken the time to check edit histories and look for yourself into whether you thought there was any suspected sockpuppetry instead of just doing so based only on each of us having simply voted in a way you didn't like on a poll and absolutely nothing else.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree about that. The checkuser result says that Grant is a sockpuppeteer. Which is a good reason to bring other names into it. As I said this was more about Grant then anyone else. Kingjeff (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a good reason to bring others into the discussion is if you have substantive evidence that they are involved, not just because they disagreed with you once. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Actually, as checkuser I can say quite clearly that it's not. Furthermore, you brought the others into the SSP case before the CU result was released. I didn't have to run a c/u on the other editors here at all, but did it for completeness sake and per the circumstances - Alison ❤ 17:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As has been mentioned by the above two you had no substantive evidence at all and you therefore had no good reason to include me or the other registered users. All you had in my case was my vote on a poll. A vote that you didn't agree with. That is not a valid reason to include me in this and I had hoped that you would accept that now. I fully realise that this is about your dispute with Grant, but that has nothing to do with me nor any of the other registered users. Of course you were right (presumably) to open this with regard to Grant and the IP, but you are wrong to claim that you were also right to then include the rest of us based on no evidence whatsoever, other than as pointed out, just disagreeing with you once. That is not a valid reason to include us in all of this. I would have thought that you would have the good grace to admit you were wrong and accept that you should not have brought us into this rather than continuing to try and justify yourself for doing so in the face of two Admins disagreeing with you.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 18:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have been 100% upfront about the fact that the IP was my roommate who is on the same IP as me because we share a connection. I asked him to make the change, and he did. So at worst I'm guilty of meatpuppetry, but I didn't know about that policy, and for the record so is Kingjeff. The fact that he brought all of these other users in shows that this was nothing more than a petty, frivilous personal attack on me and the people who disagree with Jeff. Either way, I'm now up to speed on policy, I regret this whole thing, and would like nothing more than to move on to more important matters. -- Grant.Alpaugh 17:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what happens now? I think it's pretty clear that there was no sockpuppetry involved, but meatpuppetry, and unintentional at that. The other users were brought in unnecessarily, which is now more than obvious, even to Kingjeff. So what happens now? Do I get blocked for meatpuppetry? Does Kingjeff get blocked for making frivilous accusations and personal attacks ("little games," "evil people like [me]," etc.)? Both blocked? What now? -- Grant.Alpaugh 20:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Grant, I don't remember using the word evil. Can you please provide a reference. I really don't like being misquoted. 21:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
As I'm involved, it's not for me to decide. That will be up to an uninvolved administrator. However, per the blocking policy, blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive and the fact that you are unlikely to re-offend and have claimed ignorance of the rule should mean that you may be formally warned and not be blocked at this time, even though you were clearly in error. Time will tell. Same with Kingjeff. I've already formally warned him for his personal attacks and gross assumptions of bad faith. I personally don't see that as warranting a block at this time - Alison ❤ 20:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I realise that as I am not an Admin my comments carry little weight, but surely the best way forward would not be to block either and that as both have been informed about their actions that this is now just left to rest? All I hope is that Kingjeff will start to accept repsonsibility for his actions in starting this suspected sockpuppetry case instead of placing the blame for him doing so on Grant. IMO it would be best for both of them to take a step back and do other things on wikipedia maybe even take a wikibreak because the issue that has created all this over the format of a league table is not going to get resolved straightaway with the templates now being protected to stop them edit warring with each other. Either that or agree to discuss the issue in a reasonable manner without resorting (either of tnem) to personal attacks and little digs at each other.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 21:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

I think a lesson has been learned here. Certainly no one can claim ignorance of the law next time. I also think the parties are being honest here in their statements about this--their tone is diffeent from that of socks who falsely claim they're innocent. PLUS the CU evidence would only support the IP as a possible sock. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mantanmoreland

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
Suspected sockpuppeteer

Mantanmoreland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Bassettcat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Stetsonharry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Huldra (talk) 09:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Stetsonharry started 2 March 2008, mostly edits popular culture
Bassettcat started 29 March 2008, mostly edits finance
Both: started during or just after the recent Matanmoreland arb.case., and both edits Patrick M. Byrne‎ ..in perfect agreement, to remove positive information on Byrne,[22], [23] and to add more negative inf. instead.

And William Ortiz noted on AN/I that "Bassettcat has edits like the accounts named in the Mantantmoreland arbitration such as [24] [25] those two make the article more negative to Byrne."[26]

Also: John Nevard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is probably not the same as any of the above, but s/he is editing the same articles on probation, with the same POV. This might be a problem, since s/he stated on his/her userpage 21 October 2007: "I have another account..[]" [27] and the articles on probation should be edited "from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account",

Comments

I am most concerned with the articles on probation that these editors edit; Patrick M. Byrne‎, Naked short selling, Overstock.com, and that all editors comply with the General sanctions Imposed by the Committee for these articles (which includes not editing through any form of proxy configuration.)

Note also that some anon has noted this on AN/I: Articles on "probation" problems and on WP:AE: "Probation" violations?


  • I haven't had a chance to review all of the evidence, but I know from experience that John Nevard participates appropriately in a variety of difficult topics. His engagement in the Naked short selling matter may be better evidence of his courage/foolhardiness than of sockpuppetry. If there's no evidence of inappropriate behavior by this user then perhaps we should leave that account off of the list. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had thought of leaving John Nevard out, I just included him since he was mentioned in the AN/I report. Fell free to remove him if you like. Will Beback is right: it does seem as if Nevard "dives" into different hotspots. My concern was mainly that he stated that this was not his only account. (Psst: Nevard could do with some improvement regarding civility, though)
Also: I did not intend to file both a CU and a SSP...: I filed this SSP first, then decided I really needed a CU and filed that, and tried then to "defile" (see talk-page) this SSP, but that obviously didn´t work. Ah, well. Regards, Huldra (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bassettcat is certainly a single purpose account, but I don't know who it might be. Stetsonharry looks to me like somebody's sockpuppet, but it could be from either side of the dispute, so far as I can tell. GRBerry 20:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I don't expect to get a medal for doing this, but I have made only constructive contributions to these articles. I have mainly been working on Securities fraud, almost alone and with no assistance despite my requests for help. I have no axe to grind or conflict of interest. I added to Securities Fraud a section on short-selling abuses not previousl in the article. My recent contributions to naked short selling corrected a significant error in the introductory Lead, namely that NSS is always illegal. User:PatrickByrne recently rewrote the entire naked short selling article unilaterally and without discussion, was warned for vandalism by Nakon and yet reinstated his changes without discussion. In so doing, he and an IP editor, neither of whom has contributed to any other article, have reinstated that error. These are technical issues and I have some knowledge of them that I would like to share, but this process is discouraging.--Bassettcat (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
  • I see no reason to conclude that Nevard is related to any of these three. I think we've reached conclusion with regard to that account. (The other two remaining open at this timestamp.) GRBerry 20:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on subsequent editing, checkuser data now reveals that Bassettcat is a sockpuppet of Mantanmoreland. (Stetsonharry remaining open at this time stamp.) GRBerry 15:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to go on the record as saying Stetsonharry is probably not Mantanmoreland, but he might be. I think the threshold of proving that he is Mantanmoreland has not been met. Also, I observe that Bassettcat edited his userpage at 14:03 on May 17, 2008 between two edits by Stetsonharry at 14:01 and 14:07. [28] It's possible that Mantanmoreland would have done that just to throw me off, but it's more likely that these are two different people. If it really is Mantanmoreland, eventually he'll do something stupid, and then we'll know it's him. Until then, I think the operative assumption is that this is someone else who happens to agree with Mantanmoreland on the Patrick Byrne article dispute. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Closing, while Bassettcat is for sure Mantanmoreland, I am not convinced Stetsonharry is. We'll wait as Shalom suggests. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Yankees10

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Yankees10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Bucs10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Star QB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by


Evidence

The first sockpuppet is pretty cut and dry. Yankees10 even says on the very beginning of his user page that he used to be Bucs10. This alone wouldn't be a problem but Yankees10 was blocked a couple of weeks ago for edit warring (something he was blocked for under Bucs10 also in the past.) During this time Yankees10 was blocked he did not stop editing, he just edited with Bucs10 instead. Altogether he made 88 edits while blocked. This, of course, violates Wikipedia rules on circumventing policy with sockpuppets. A day after his block was over, he stopped using Bucs10. Aday after that he redirected his Bucs10 user page and talk page to Yankees10's user page and talk page.

Not only that, but Wikipedia policy is for a block of 24hrs on the first 3RR violation and longer for subsequent violations. Yankees10 was only blocked for 24hrs because the admins didn't know he'd been blocked twice before. If they had known this he would've been blocked for longer. In addition to this, when he was being reported for violating 3RR he claimed he didn't know about the 3RR rule when in fact he had been blocked before for violating 3RR on his Bucs10 account. Because he claimed he didn't know any better they were a lot more leniant and it took another incident to finally incurr the block. Bucs10 last post was 2007 not 2008Fromos (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 2nd sockpuppet keeps coming in to side with Yankees10 during his disputes (when often it is only him and Yankees10 on his side.) This can be seen here and here. If he is indeed an additional sockpuppet, this would violate Wikipedia policy on using sockpuppets for the purpose of deception, distraction, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists. He also has a similar writing style and posts on all the same topics.


Comments

What the hell is this, I dont use the name Bucs10 anymore because I forgot the password, and secondly I dont know who the hell this Star QB guy is--Yankees10 19:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not Yankees10 remembers the password for Bucs10 anymore, Bucs10's last edit was in that time frame in 2007, so there's no way that Bucs10 could've possibly been used to circumvent a block. Ksy92003 (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ksy, you were another one I was thinking maybe was a sockpuppet of Yankees10 because I notice you in on a lot of his discussions and a lot of similar habits. I didn't have enough evidence to list you so I didn't. But now that you post here within 5 mins of this page being created (and just two minutes after Yankees10 first posted) it makes me think again about it. Fromos (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can say with 100% certainty that I am not a sockpuppet of Yankees10. I have encountered Yankees10 in the past, and his talk page is on my watchlist. I saw a post made to his talk page and was directed to this link from that location. Ksy92003 (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that encounter with him in the past is what changed my mind in not grouping you with StarQB, and looking back you're right about his last post as Bucs10- it was 2007 not 2008 Fromos (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also looking at this Star QB guys page, there are so many differences its not even funny, hes black, I am white, he creates a bunch of football players articles that I would never think about creating, hes a Broncos fan, Im a Packers, the only similarity I see is we both are Yankee fans, which millions of other people like--Yankees10 19:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see what the admins say when they check into it. I have a feeling StarQB is used by you to build a little more consensus toward your side. If not, then that's cool, it just appears like he's a sockpuppet account is all. Fromos (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can tell you right now its not--Yankees10 19:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is this--Star QB (talk) 03:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha wow, Fromos sure does seem to be starting up some shit. He has to be a sock of a somebody.►Chris NelsonHolla! 21:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

I've spent about 15 minutes reviewing this case including a look at the contribution logs in May 2008. It's extremely unlikely that these two user accounts could be the same person. If I absolutely must run a statistical analysis going back to 2007, because both accounts have been editing for a year, I can do it. In order to make me do that, though, you'll have to come up with diffs showing collusion (e.g. double voting) among these accounts. You haven't even done that. So basically, there is nothing to discuss. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: the two diffs above are insufficient to prove that these are the same person. Based on the essence of those statements, as well as the statistical evidence, it's likely that these are two different people, and I don't think any wrongdoing has occurred. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Zero g

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Zero g (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Nyuba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Rubidium37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
217.236.211.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Jagz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 23:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

My initial involvement with this case was in reverting this edit by Nyuba, along with this edit by an anon IP. Shortly after doing so my revert was in turn reverted by Nyuba, restoring both removed sections. (A fact I failed to notice initially) This quickly devolved into a slow-speed edit war, notably with Nyuba continuing to re-add and defend the inclusion of both sections of removed text, which I believe directly ties Nyuba to this anon IP. (Though to be fair this specific instance could easily just be a matter of "oops I forgot to log in") What is most interesting about Nyuba's behavior, however, is his apparent familiarity with the use of <ref> tags and Wikipedia policy, despite the entirety of his edits consisting of the initial addition of statistics just a few weeks ago, followed by the defense of their inclusion; a single-purpose account, it would seem.

However, the possibility of sockpuppetry only really came to my attention when earlier today my latest removal of the information was undone by Zero g, who has never edited this article before and curiously used the same reasoning ("don't remove sourced content") that has been the lynchpin of Nyuba's arguments. Examining Zero g's contributions revealed an interest in similar topics (such as Race and intelligence and Race, Evolution, and Behavior), often defending the inclusion of similar statistics.

Curiously, some of the articles Zero g has edited also seem to be affected by a near-single-purpose account with behavior similar to Nyuba's and a focus or stance similar to Zero g's; Rubidium37 has made edits solely to Race and intelligence and Dysgenics (biology), using the same "it's sourced so it's in" argument and also promoting a very similar stance to that of Zero g.

Finally, note that there is no direct overlap in edit times between the three users in question.

Comments

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Zero g. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added User:Jagz to the list, as the behaviour is the same as described above for the rest of the group. Revert if addition is inappropriate.--Ramdrake (talk) 09:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I object to the addition of my username as it is a breach of protocol by User:Ramdrake and the primary motive may be a POV vendetta. My username was added to the list by Ramdrake after the report submission by Y|yukichigai.[29] I request that appropriate punitive action be taken against Ramdrake. --Jagz (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a "POV vendetta"; rather, User:Jagz has been acting in concert with Rubidium37 and Zero g on a number of articles (mentioned above) and within the same timeframe. If the RFCU has merits, it just stands to reason that this user should be included too. If any protocol has been breached, I will be grateful to whomever can point me to the relevant policy to show me the breach.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May I remind the regulars that there is no punitive action in wikipedia! 72.221.65.80 (talk) 00:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Thatcher closed the checkuser case. The accounts are unrelated. Note that Ramdrake followed the rules with regard to adding Jagz to the checkuser request. We weren't sure, so we asked someone to check. Now we know Jagz is someone else. Let's all calm down and move on. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:90.196.3.244

Suspected sockpuppeteer

90.196.3.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

90.192.59.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
90.196.3.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
90.196.3.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
90.192.59.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Mahaakaal (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence
  • [30]
  • [31]
  • [32]
  • [33]
  • [34]
  • [35]
  • [36]
  • [37]
  • [38]
  • [39]
  • [40]
  • [41]
  • [42]
  • [43]
  • [44]
  • [45]
  • [46]

Same type of disruptive edits, possibly to avoid identification and a harsh ban.Mahaakaal (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments


Conclusions
  • These are all IP addresses registered to Easynet Ltd, BSkyB Broadband. The user is probably not even aware that they are changing their IP address. Unless there is a reason to assume these IPs are associated with an account, then this report will be closed. Woody (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm closing this per Woody. Let me know if it needs to be reopened. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is back —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.135.123 (talk) 08:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Greenday21

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Greenday21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
American idiot plot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

— Insanity Incarnate 22:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Judging by User:American idiot plot and User talk:Greenday21, the account User:American idiot plot was created as an attempt at userfication of a page that had been created by Greenday21, and then deleted. I suggest we assume good faith and only block the sock puppet account.

Comments


Conclusions

There's no policy violation here. American idiot plot admitted he is Greenday21. There's no reason to block the legitimate alternate account. Let me know if there's double voting or any other violation. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Grawp

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Grawp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

E. Morland II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

--Boss Big (talk) 23:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Probably sock of Grawp instead of Morland. E. Morlasd II's page redirects to the main sockpuppeter (Erwin Morland)'s userpage instead of having a sock tag.


None of Morland's other sockpuppets have commited page move vandalism. The sock possibly named himself after Erwin Morland to hide his real identity. Grawp has moved pages about soccer and current events before. The articles about Manchester United FC and Steven Curtis Chapman (who was in the news recently for a tragedy in his family) were moved to titles similar to those Grawp has used in the past.


Comments

Morland/Grawp's Manchester United page move

Morland/Grawp's Steven Curtis Chapman page move


Conclusions

Please don't bother me with academic questions such as "Is page-move vandal 1 the same person as page-move vandal 2?" I really don't care. I'm sorry to say it this way, but it makes no difference. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:70.108.119.24

Suspected sockpuppeteer

70.108.119.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

70.108.118.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
70.108.71.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Luke4545 (talk) 02:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

I've attempted to have discussions with 70.108.119.24 on why its full-scale edits were unconstructive/unnecessary, and yet, it has seemingly ignored my pleads for discussion to take place BEFORE any actual full-scale edits are made. This whole situation began with 70.108.71.151. I reverted the initial edit.[47]

Then, 70.108.118.4 made another similar edit that was reverted by Smartissexy (talk).[48]

After that, 70.108.119.24 came in and made another identical edit, which was again reverted.[49]

Comments

These types of back and forth edits have been going on for about a week. As I said previously, I've attempted to have discussions with 70.108.119.24 on why its full-scale edits were unconstructive/unnecessary, but it keeps making these edits before a conclusion has been reached in any form of discussion. I also requested page protection for the article, since it had a history of edit wars, and it seemed like another one was about to start again.

Anyway, I appreciate your time and effort in looking into this case. -- Luke4545 (talk) 02:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How do we know that it is not a dynamic IP; i.e., one individual whose ISP assigns the IP from a pool each time they reboot their modem/router/computer? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 05:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You must find it frustrating that this editor shows up with a different IP address each time. Nonetheless he does participate at Talk:Catherine Deneuve, in a manner which is at least somewhat coherent. I find your contribution to Talk not easy to quickly understand. Maybe you could make a brief summary of all the issues on Talk, in less than four sentences? Conceivably you might be able to persuade an admin to semi-protect the page, if you can show the situation is out of control. But this is not a classic sock puppet situation. You can search around for film-related WikiProjects and make a posting on their Talk page, to try to bring in some knowledgable editors to help with this. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if my discussion on the article's talk page seems rather long, but I want to be as clear as possible, so there are no misunderstandings. Plus, the talk page may possibly be used for a future request for comment case if no resolution can be reached; thus, I want my points to be clear.
Also, as far as semi-protection is concerned, there was a historical context that I tried to convey to admins as to why the page should have been semi-protected, or even fully-protected, in my opinion. However, they decided not to protect the page. There was a dispute a couple of months ago between me and another user, in the same Catherine Deneuve article, that was almost identical to this most recent situation. Just like in the current ordeal, there were back and forth reversions, as I urged the user to please fully discuss the matter before attempting any full-scale edits. The user may have also been engaging in sockpuppetry as well - a case was filed by an admin, but the results came back "inconclusive." The administrators subsequently semi-protected, and for a short time fully-protected, the article, and thus, the user was finally forced to fully discuss the situation. The user and I came to a quick and constructive resolution. That's what I was hoping would happen in this particular situation, which is why I said a historical context should have been factored in to deciding whether or not to protect the article.
Anyway, I'm not trying to imply that the possible sockpuppets in this case may have been highly-abusive or anything, but I just thought I'd present the case anyway to see if any action needed to be taken. -- Luke4545 (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

It's plainly obvious that these IP addresses are all the same person. I know from experience that my own IP address where I edit changes once every couple of weeks, and once the new IP address arrives, the old one does not return. This user has the same situation: when his contribs from one IP address end, contribs from another IP address. I think this is unintentional on his part: he just doesn't care to register an account, and his IP address changes without him noticing or caring. The edit summaries, in both style and content, leave little doubt that (1) this is the same person, and (2) he or she is making no effort to conceal this fact.

I haven't read the discussion on this page to see if there's been any violation. My first impression is that semi-protection, which would be a de facto block on this user, should not be done. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 01:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Shalom has indicated, there is no evidence of abuse of multiple accounts, so I am closing the sockpuppet report. EdJohnston (talk) 01:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Editor652 (6th)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Editor652 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Loving10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Kww (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Back changing the number of black Hondurans to 350K, without sources, the pet obsession of Editor652. This is the sixth sockpuppeting case: previous socks include

Specific diffs include this and this.

Comments


Conclusions
  • Blocked as obvious sock. - auburnpilot talk 23:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User: JCC Friends

Suspected sockpuppeteer

JCC Friends (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Bermudatriangle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Dhirrosses (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - Added by User:Shalom as recommended by Sennen goroshi

Report submission by

Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

This user registered just over a month ago, and has a single purpose account. They are very keen for a certain section relating to a non-notable organisation to remain on a prominent article (Princess Diana article) in a very prominent manner.

When the section was removed/reduced/given its own (non prominent) article, they entered into an edit-war.

The user seems very aware of wikipedia protocol, creating links, formatting talk pages etc.

When I searched around a little online I found an old talk page of the user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rajkumar_Kanagasingam he had previously worked on an article relating to the exact organisation that Bermudatriange is trying to make prominent.

On Rajkumar_Kanagasingam's user page he states he is working on his book title "German Memories in Asia" which struck me as a little odd, as that book is referenced on the Princess Diana page.

Upon looking for that book online I found this http://books.google.lk/books?id=MrBi0ghiZN0C&pg=PR10&dq=%22Princess+Diana+Institute+of+Peace%22+Sri+Lankan&lr=&sig=8rFcVCp-35tJnXLVfXfrupnX2r0#PPR10,M1 which states that he actually founded the Institute that Bermudatriangle is trying to keep in a prominent place on wikipedia.

Also when reading a little more about this author, I came across the following. (add http here as this site is on wikipedias spamsite blacklist)ezinearticles.com/?German-Memories---Ancient-Germans-Migration&id=560308 which has one interesting line "Going further back, most of the current territory of Germany was occupied by Celtic and Nordwestblock tribes who were eventually linguistically assimilated into the Germanic peoples."

This was of interest because Bermudatriange has claimed that he was from Nordwestblock http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Diana%2C_Princess_of_Wales&diff=cur&oldid=209247329

When I mentioned the user Rajkumar_Kanagasingam to Bermudatriangle, he reacted by saying that my use of that name proved I was politically motivated. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bermudatriangle&diff=cur&oldid=209736961

If he has only been here for a month, and has only edited one article, then how would he know that editor?

I have asked him straight if he has edited with another account, but he refuses to answer the question.

I had always wondered why he was so keen on promoting that particular organisation, it is not highly political, it does not support anything other than peace. But the user was hell bent on making it prominent, now it seems obvious, he founded the organisation and wrote a book about it!!! slight COI. well not slight at all. about as blatant as is possible.

Add to the suspicion of being a sockpuppet the fact that he has already been blocked for 3RR, has today been warned for racially motivated comments, abusing edit summaries[50] and is a blatant single purpose account, I think there are more than enough reasons to request a permanent block from editing for this account


note - excuse my attempt to bypass the spamsite blacklist, i consider this information to be of great importance and relevance to this case.

oh...I nearly forgot. I made a 3RR report against Bermudatriangle, while he was blocked a mysterious account http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Dhirrosses was created and attacked me, this account accused me of being another user, a particular user that was previously in conflict with Rajkumar Kanagasingam. When I complained to an admin about this account and explained my suspicions regarding Bermudatriangle's use of sockpuppets, this account was immediately blocked.

sorry, there is more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rajkumar_Kanagasingam

AFD regarding Rajkumar_Kanagasingam using sockpuppets for self promotion regarding his book and his organisation Princess Diana Institute of Peace


One more item. The sock puppet who was recently blocked for attacking me, accused me of being user Iwazaki, in this very report Bermudatriangle makes the same accusations, and user Iwazaki was in dispute with Rajkumar_Kanagasingam.

There are no diffs or IPs to support my claim, however there are so many small details all pointing to the same thing. Sennen goroshi (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another item. Please note that none of Bermudatriangle's responses actually dispute the evidence I have submitted or the accusations that I have made against him. When asked directly, he does not confirm nor deny the accusations. Every comment he has made here has been either regarding the legitimacy of this report, the motives behind it or making accusations against me.Sennen goroshi (talk) 08:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

new evidence

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wackymacs&diff=prev&oldid=103133732

the above is a talk page diff made by User:Rajsingam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rajsingam which is the aknowledged previous acct of Rajkumar Kanagasingam

I would like you to compare the two following statements.


I couldn't understand why this user User:Netmonger is raising the above problem which totally irrelevant to Talk:Rajkumar Kanagasingam Page

and

I couldn't understand why this sockpuppet case is relevant at this juncture where we are in th middle of the content dispute of Diana Institute where others also have shown interest[2][3][4] and critisized its removal is politically motivated.[5].Bermudatriangle (talk) 06:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

the first statement is that of user Rajsingam (aka Rajkumar Kanagasingam) who has already admitted the use of sockpuppets. This statement was made over a year ago.

the second statement was made in this very report, by Bermudatriangle.

same style of language, same argument. same damn user !!

Sennen goroshi (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comments
First, I want to know the rational how that vanished account could be taken into sockpuppetry violation case.Bermudatriangle (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That account has not vanished. So here is a simple question, which accounts have you edited with before? Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, you are not a Policeman here, you have just filed a sockpuppetry case, just wait, my questions are here to the administrator who might be handling this case.Bermudatriangle (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, perhaps if you want to ask a question specifically an admin, you should make it clear that it is them that you are addressing.
And now I am curious, why won't you answer my question regarding what accounts you have used in the past?
While I was reading a few of the Sri Lanka conflict articles, I also found your edit patterns are very simillar to User:Iwazaki. Are you User:Iwazaki?. First clear my doubt, other things, we will discuss later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bermudatriangle (talk • contribs) 19:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are not here to discuss any IDs that I may or may not have. But for the record, no, I am not Iwazaki, we both live in Japan, which has a population of about 135 million people. Please stay on topic, anything else can go to my talk page. Sennen goroshi (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't understand what do you mean by "We are not here to discuss any IDs that I may or may not have..." Can you please explain that a bit more? Are you sure you are 100 Percent not Iwazaki? Bermudatriangle (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All replies to non relevant questions will be answered on your talk page. Sennen goroshi (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


You are asking me questions like policeman and finally threatning me you be permanently banned.
Which harm I have done to wikipedia?
Until the article (Sri_Lanka)_Princess_Diana_Institute_of_Peace which was created by you, was deleted speedily, I never edited or included any thing on the article Diana, Princess of Wales as the consensus was reached at ANI by the facilitation of User:Jasynnash2.
As the article was created by you, after it had been nominated for "Speedy Deletion", User:Jasynnash2 informed you but you never attempted anything. You just left it be deleted. You questioned in a politically motivated tone towards User:Jasynnash2 and in turn User:Jasynnash2 advised you Please don't bring any political opinions for or against this article (or its contents) to me. If you really couldn't care I ask that you not behave like what many people term a troll. Personally, I'm beginning to have trouble Assuming Good Faith with yourself or the other main user involved.
Now you have dragged me to this sockpuuppetry case which is irrelevant to the consensus we reached at ANI or before we reached by the actions which caused the article being deleted by your silent consent.Bermudatriangle (talk) 21:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I have previously stated both here and on your talk page, I will not respond to questions/statements that are not relevant to this case on this page. Sennen goroshi (talk) 05:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the closing Admin:
I could n't inderstand why this sockpuppet case is relevant at this juncture where we are in th middle of the content dispute of Diana Institute where others also have shown interest[51][52][53] and critisized its removal is politically motivated.[54].Bermudatriangle (talk) 06:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is relevant, relevance does not depend on when you break the rules or what is happening at the same time. Please don't try to cloud the issue, or distract people from this case, this cases concerns the accusations made by me, against you. If you want to discuss another issue, take it to the relevant talk page, where I and others will be more than happy to discuss it with you.Sennen goroshi (talk) 06:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can be the complaint but that doesn't mean the defendant can't question the intention of the case concerned. Especially the timing, some times complaint use to distract things from the original issue to avoid they become the defendant somewhere else.Bermudatriangle (talk) 07:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, seeing as you have refused to answer me when I asked you which other accounts you have used, while I answered you when you asked me if I was user Iwazaki (even when you asked me here, on the page dedicated to the accusations against you) I have no desire to answer any further questions. I have drawn my own conclusions regarding the reasons for your unwillingness to answer my question. Sennen goroshi (talk) 07:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]



Your answer to my question is somewhat unclear. You started with "We are not here to discuss any IDs that I may or may not have." and then only you conferred, "But for the record, no, I am not Iwazaki, we both live in Japan,.." But when I asked further about the ID, you accused me it is my Suspected sock puppet case and not yours. If I want to answer who might be the account which accussed you initially, "I am not XXX account you refered, but we might be from the same country or else where."


Though you said you are not Iwazaki, but a "White English". But I did a small research and found you are also taking the same interest like Iwazaki to defame Rajkumar Kanagasingam. You have shown a lot of spam links where he has published his articles. But I also read almost all his articles, but I found in better places like North Dakota State University Library and other.
You related me with Rajkumar Kanagasingam and saying I was hell bent on making the organization prominent, because I founded the organisation and wrote a book about it, but I have checked the Press Release in Reuters, it has not mentioned anything about the "Princess Diana Institute of Peace", but only the Google Book Search only carrying a few content about "Princess Diana Institute of Peace". So how you could say, why he is promoting the Institute is because he wrote a book about it.
You have accussed Rajkumar Kanagasingam using sockpuppets for self promotion regarding his book and his organisation Princess Diana Institute of Peace and shown the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajkumar Kanagasingam, there I found User:Iwazaki, User:Lahiru k and User:Snowolfd4 are heavily debated to delete his article from wikipedia. I tracked the previous debate also from your given link and found this and this. There was a War unsuall to normal afd and found people are accussing User:Iwazaki too critically It doesn't really matter. AfD isn't a vote anyway, so additional voting will only be considered by the closing admin on the basis of what new facts or observations are brought to light. Frankly (and I don't know anything about you, so please don't take it personally) I find the flailing-of-arms and the "crying foul" attitude to suggest that you have something deeply at stake regarding the removal of this individual from Wikipedia. Even if that isn't the case, that's the appearance that you put forth. Surely there are a lot less-borderline cases on WP worthy of your attention?.
I also found some evidence to answer your sockpuppetry of Rajkumar Kanagasingam non other than from User:Sebastian here, Maybe I could propose that all votes by accounts who have in the last 20 edits been POV pushing should be discounted? Of course, that would leave the question open who decides that ...
But for my surprise, removal of the Institute's details from the Diana, Princess of Wales started with User:Lahiru k[55]and then by you [56]and the "Speedy Deletion" of the(Sri_Lanka)_Princess_Diana_Institute_of_Peace by User:Snowolfd4. He came to the scene after many months of interval. So don't you think all this shows there is more likely the chance of you be the User:Iwazaki and you all are working with team sprite.


The above answers are for the most accussations you charged and make me to claim this Sockpuppetry case is also politically motivated and irrelevant one.Bermudatriangle (talk) 09:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


My answer was 100% clear. I clearly stated that I was not Iwazaki. If you have trouble understanding that, then that is your problem not mine.
I don't mean to be rude, but if English is not your first language and you can't understand when I make statements in basic English, then why don't you ask someone to help you with translation? I don't mind using basic English, but it is a little frustrating when I make a simple statement and someone does not understand.
As for all the continued accusations that I am a sockpuppet, why don't you make a sockpuppet report, and catalog it all there. This is not the place for it.
And yet again, you type more bullshit in here, but you still have not answered the question. Which accounts did you previously use?Sennen goroshi (talk) 10:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Don't you think it is so stupid to ask, Which accounts did you previously use? while you are denying something which is used by you.
I don't type bullshit here all are actual. If the closing Admin wants let him use the Checkuser to prove, you are Iwazaki. That is it. I don't want to waste my time any more here.Bermudatriangle (talk) 10:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Final Note to the Closing Admin
As I have spent a lot time with Princess Diana Institute of Peace related issues in the last couple of days, I am tired of things here. Kindly exuse me I might not be in a position to answer any of your queries in the coming days. Regards.Bermudatriangle (talk) 11:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Realistically you knew I wasnt Iwakazi, you just accused me because I made this report. Enjoy your wikibreak.Sennen goroshi (talk) 11:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When the above user says he needs a break and may not be able to answer questions, it seems they are trying to avoid this case, and are hoping that it is abandoned due to them no longer editing, even if this editer does not use this account again for a while, it is important to get to the bottom of this, so any further cases can be refered to this one. Sennen goroshi (talk) 06:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe it is highly probable that Bermudatriangle is a sockpuppet of someone. I also believe that is quite possible that Sennen goroshi is also a sock/secondary account. For the record the shear number of places that the two users have had dispute over the article(s) is beyond belief and they both seem to be displaying very disruptive behaviour along with various issues of Civility and such. I went into things in an effort to be of help to the project not to support "one side or the other" and my opinion on the matter is that action of somesort (to be determined by a consensus of administrators) should be taken to prevent future disruption by both parties. And please "gentlemen" don't bring this to my talk page again. I would prefer to have nothing further to do with either of you until such time that I feel I'm able to AGF again. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think I am a sockpuppet, then please ask for checkuser on my account, and then make a sockpuppet report, otherwise don't offend me by making such absurd, unfounded accusations. I have a static IP, it should be easy to confirm. Sennen goroshi (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sgt. bender (talk)Clearly not a sockpuppeteer. Everyone should back off. Sgt. bender (talk) 01:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think, this is enough to determine who am I. Rajkumar Kanagasingam already revealed he shared his passwords while he was writing the book.[57][58] I am one of them. I can't reveal other facts for personal reasons. But this checkuser drama is only to distract the major issue in discussion.Bermudatriangle (talk) 10:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that proves nothing - although are you trying to admit that rather than being a sockpuppet, you are a meatpuppet?
On another note, this "drama" is for one reason only, the fact that I think you are a sockpuppet/meatpuppet - I consider the Institute of Peace to be over and done with, due to the current state of the article. Sennen goroshi (talk) 04:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will be in a position to respond to your above comment once this Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Iwazaki is resolved.Bermudatriangle (talk) 06:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am eagerly awaiting your response, the sockpuppet case you mentioned has been resolved. Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then be happy, the Princess Diana Institute of Peace will be there where it should be when time comes.Bermudatriangle (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

It's clear that there are issues here and at the counter-accusation Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Iwazaki that go far, far beyond whether Rajkumar is (again) using sockpuppets or not. My first impression is to recommend a short-term block on Bermudatriangle because I interpret his accusation against Sennen as WP:POINT, where the accusation on this page, especially connecting Bermudatriangle with Dhirroses, is based on reasonable evidence. This dispute has already gone to WP:ANI once (I'll look for the link), and I think it may be headed back there. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • ANI link from May 5: [59]
  • ANI link from May 2: [60]


Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Additional note: Hoping to close this case soon, I have filed Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Rajkumar Kanagasingam to find out if Bermudatriangle can be shown to be a sock by technical data. EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awaiting RFCU. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rajkumar Kanagasingam's account is blocked indef. He sent me an email where he said " I shared my passwords with some more my friends.", which is expressly forbidden by Wikipedia:Username_policy#Sharing_accounts. I will forward the email to any admin that asks. Awaiting RFCU results as to disposition of other two accounts. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I too received an email. He agrees to the block, but asked (since it's his real name) to remove the blocked tag in case someone Googles him. This is reasonable, and all info is duplicated on the talk page, so I have granted his request. --Haemo (talk) 05:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a compromised account and indef blocked, that's no privacy vio. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not sockpuppetry to change accounts, as long as the accounts are not used at the same time in an attempt to influence consensus, etc. Mr. Kanagasingam essentially abandoned his first account, now renamed to JCC Friends (talk · contribs), in 2007, only using it briefly in 2008 to post some facts under his own name that he believed would help his cause. This is not really abusive, at least under the usual meaning of the sockpuppet policy. As Mr. K is concerned about his privacy, and given the geopolitical situation, I recommended a user name change for the old account, hence the renaming of this page. This does not, of course, excuse Mr. K's other failures to understand and adapt to our way of doing things, but those can be dealt with under his current user name without having to reference his real name. Thatcher 10:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since he's editing with the new account, he's still in vio if he didn't change the pwd. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to continue this SSP. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Vyaghradhataki

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Vyaghradhataki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets
193.113.37.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

RavichandarMy coffee shop 14:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iyer&diff=213958787&oldid=206413130

Comments


Conclusions

Already handled; IP's been blocked by another admin. Named account is inactive. MastCell Talk 22:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:ACM2

Suspected sockpuppeteer
ACM2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
58.170.132.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
58.170.180.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
121.221.99.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
121.221.103.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

Mannafredo (talk) 10:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

I believe User:ACM2 who uses Australian English is a puppeteer for 58.170.132.134 +/or 58.170.180.249 +/or 121.221.99.204, all of whom Geolocate to the same place.

Comments


Conclusions

I am closing this request as no Declined, on the basis that no action is warranted here, and ergo no investigation is required. This editor has retired, and no edits made by any of the suspected accounts (with the possible exception of this single edit, which is a blocked message blanking) are of a disruptive nature; this essentially means no disruptive sock puppetry has taken place here.

ACM2 (talk · contribs) has retired; the most prudent move here is to leave things be.

Anthøny 18:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Scencelevel

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Scencelevel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets


Report submission by

Tresiden (talk) 11:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Repeatedly doing the same edit as another user immediately after a block was placed. See Ghost.

Comments

Can you list out the suspected sockpuppets? OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Not an issued for WP:SSP, account already blocked for vandalism. Next time try WP:AIV. Tiptoety talk 05:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Erwin Morland (2nd)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Erwin Morland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (2nd)

Suspected sockpuppets

Siderate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

RolandR (talk) 00:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

Identical vandalistic edits [61], [62]; similar offensive racism.


Comments
  • I was trying to revert vandalism by another Wikipedia user to User:Erwin Morland....and I get blocked, and accused of vandalism and sockpuppetry simply for trying to do good for Wikipedia? Siderate2 (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Conclusions
  • Obvious, account blocked indef. Tiptoety talk 04:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Brian Boru is awesome

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Brian Boru is awesome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

70.172.219.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

69.182.79.163 (talk) 23:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

For some reason User:Brian Boru is awesome‎ decided to WP:Stalk my edits and remove my comments from editors whose cut/paste moves I've had corrected in the past few months. These were legit notices and I'm curious as to why a random editor is deleting my comments. After repeated notices to stop deleting comments in edit summaries and on the users talk page the IP began removing the comments. The IP has only been used in instances where the same user was involved in edit disputes. It also looks as if this editor has also removed many disrutived editing notices from their own talk page as well.

Comments

Brian Boru is awesome and IP 70.172 were each blocked 24 hours as the result of a 3RR report. No decision has yet been made on a long block for 70.172 as a sock. EdJohnston (talk) 22:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

EdJohnston has blocked the user account for one week for continuing disruption. The IP has not edited since being blocked a week ago, so it can be left alone. No further action is needed. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 01:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Ejanev

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Ejanev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Damemk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
70.54.14.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
76.64.34.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
76.66.76.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Laveol T 20:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

At least three of the users have made similiar edits on the article Ohrid: Damemk [63] and [64]; Ejanev[65]; 76.64.34.230 - [66]. Damemk have made exact reverts on Gotse Delchev - [67][68] Looking at the revision history I see even more socks. Another evidence from my talkpage - I got a message from [69] and immediately after one from 70.54.14.226 (twice) [70] [71]. Oh, and all IPs come from Canada as did the one from Ejanev's first file here - 207.219.45.62. --Laveol T 20:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments


Conclusions

Continued disruptive activities. Damemk indef-blocked as an apparent sock- or meatpuppet under WP:DUCK; User:Ejanev sanctioned under WP:ARBMAC (perhaps rather mildly, for the moment, but suggest rapid escalation of sanctions if misbehaviour resumes.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Jvolkblum (7th)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Jvolkblum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets
Report submission by

BlueAzure (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Dr.Sobelioni was created at 9:19 on 26 April 2008, three minutes after confirmed Jvolkblum sockpuppet BronxBEAT was created and five minutes before confirmed Jvolkblum sockpuppet Wingsolid was created . Both Dr.Sobelioni and Wingsolid created user pages that are copies of WP:HELP [72] [73]. Dr.Sobelioni uploaded a picture of Wykagyl Golf Club, that article is one of the articles that Jvolkblum's and their socks have edited. Dr.Sobelioni also uploaded a picture another golf course in Westchester County, Image:WingedFootGC.JPG. That image is a copyvio, though there was attempt to cover it up by flipping, croping, and strectching the image. Several hours after the second image was uploaded, it was added to the relevant article by what appears to be an open proxy (the whois indicates the IP address is from Germany).

In the past few days Jvolkblum has been editing logged out from from quite a few IP addresses that appear to be open proxies. In one case, Jvolkblum again removed mention that Sarah Lawrence College is in Yonkers from the lead of that article (the whois indicates the IP address is from Algeria).

Jvolkblum also appears to be using this IP, which is indicated to be in Italy. --Orlady (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just now added Relaxitaxi to this case. This user registered on 10 May 2008, created a user page one minute after registering, and made a few edits 4-1/2 days later. Three of the edits were minor cleanup edits to articles about towns in Westchester County (Jvolkblum's turf), including one previously edited by puppet 15ParkRow. Consistent with other Jvolkblum socks, a major feature of these edits was adding {{CN}} to articles (see this diff). The most recent contribution was to request full protection of New Rochelle, New York, citing vandalism to that article. About an hour earlier an IP user that had made two Jvolkblum-like edits[74][75] to the New Rochelle and New Rochelle High School articles had submitted the same protection request (diff). I believe that Jvolkblum was editing logged out from the IP, submitted the full-protection request as part of his/her campaign to disrupt Wikipedia, saw that the request had been deleted, activated the sleeper Relaxitaxi account, made a few edits to gain credibility, then re-submitted the protection request. --Orlady (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I have no doubt that this is Jvolkblum's latest sock. --Orlady (talk) 04:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's hard to read the evidence any other way. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite ridiculous. I am an entirely separate user. I joined as a user because this is a free site open to anyone. I first heard of the site through word of mouth. I also read about article issues + wikipedia problems posted on a blog online. I familiarized myself with the sites policies and I have made a protection request for the page. I requested 'full protection' that way the page could have protection from beginner users, alleged "socks" and from more experienced users who might have some bias towards the article.
That request aside, since I want to build a user history I have already made edits to some other articles. My edits do not have any connection to any other users or to history of other users. My edits so far have also been productive. --Relaxitaxi (talk) 14:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relaxitaxi is clearly another Jvolkblum sock. Relaxitaxi is not a new user as seen in the request for page protection and they have been editing the same set of articles as the previous socks. Relaxitaxi has used the edit summary "improved article structure" multiple times, confirmed socks Fronkenstein [76] and BronxBEAT [77] have both used the same edit summary. The message preceding mine matches Jvolkblum's previous messages. In this thread on EdJohnston's talk page, a Jvolkblum sock makes references to bias by other users, refers to productivity of edits, and uses the + sign in their writing. BlueAzure (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added another suspect sockpuppet to the list. L'espinassse was created two minutes after Relaxitaxi was created . Relaxitaxi edited during three periods on May 15, the second was from 14:23 to 15:19. At 15:24 L'espinassse made their first edit (creating a user page). Their user page is based on this subpage of Orlady's user page, as mentioned in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (6th) Jvolkblum's previous socks have used the same page. Their first edit to an article was to New Rochelle, New York. BlueAzure (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm blocking all three of the accounts named above for three months, and I'm semi-protecting New Rochelle, New York, due to what seems to me the high level of random changes by IPs who must be in many cases Jvolkblum socks. I encourage editors who work on articles in this group to participate more on the article Talk pages. It is easier to detect sock-like behavior when you notice insincere and quarrelsome Talk page messages, as well as failure to actually negotiate. EdJohnston (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh! I just added a new name to this case. User:LordsOFAcid registered on 10 May, just 2 minutes after User:L'espinassse. This user's first edit was about 10 hours ago, to create a userpage from a generic list of Wikipedia resources (similar to several of the Jvolkblum puppets identified earlier). A little while after that there were 3 edits to Seagram Building (not an article that Jvolkblum has touched earlier, AFAICT, but a building near others that 15ParkRow, in particular, paid attention to); the edits appeared innocuous at first, but on closer examination I decided that they had subtly diminished the article's quality. The next edit from this account was to New Rochelle, New York where this user inserted the complete contents of another article by Jvolkblum socks that I had nominated at AfD less than 2 hours earlier. (Meanwhile, that AfD has attracted comments from a couple of anonymous IPs with no previous editing history; I think they are also Jvolkblum editing logged out.) If anyone believes that this newly registered user "LordsOFAcid" is a genuine newbie and not a new alter ego of Jvolkblum, I know a bridge in Brooklyn (conveniently located about 45 minutes from New Rochelle) that's for sale. --Orlady (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two more likely socks (possible sleepers):

  • User:LittlePoloska, who registered during the same minute as LordsOFAcid, uploaded several images of New Rochelle yesterday, most of which were signs and maps (Jvolkblum has uploaded many images of signs and maps of New Rochelle). None of the images seem to have been added to articles yet. All of the images are sourced to websites and are stated to be Creative Commons licensed. I am pleased to see that for some of the images (from this site) this license information is accurate.
  • User:LeJuniorTIGRE registered two minutes after LordsOFAcid and LittlePoloska. Only edit so far is creation of a Jvolkblum-like user page earlier today, 4 minutes after the creation of the user page for User:LordsOFAcid.

I notice that Orlady has left an SSP notice for User talk:LordsOFAcid. Evidence is suggestive so far. I'd wait to see if this editor can coherently respond to the notice. The flat-out removal of material from 7 World Trade Center looks like it deserves a {{uw-delete1}} warning. EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed a request for checkuser at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jvolkblum. BlueAzure (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The checkuser results have been reported. --Orlady (talk) 02:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Jvolkblum has been editing logged out from a diverse variety of IPs registered in various parts of the world (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive420#Flurry of apparently related anonymous (possible open proxy) edits; Special:Contributions/84.223.28.10 is another IP that may be Jvolkblum) and I think that User:April24th1992 is also part of this sockpuppet group, based on (1) time lag between registering, creating user page, and editing (2) types of edits, and (3) choice of articles to edit that overlaps with articles edited by Special:Contributions/84.223.28.10. --Orlady (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two more IPs that I have reported as possible open proxies: Special:Contributions/87.6.106.112 and Special:Contributions/81.74.236.38. Both are registered in Italy, but both show a strong focus on Westchester County, particularly on the issue of whether Sarah Lawrence College is in Yonkers or Bronxville. --Orlady (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What was the purpose for Bluazurs "flurry" of edits to pages on SLC linked individuals that specifically focused on changing whether SLC was in Yonkers or Bronxville?? their timing & focus make his actions seem retaliatory, and might even be percieved as an intent to intimidate others?--72.27.197.178 (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jvolkblum is continuing to edit logged out via User:210.2.128.106, which appears to be an open proxy (see listing at WP:OP). One of the two IPs that I identified in my previous comment also appears to have been confirmed at WP:OP as an open proxy. --Orlady (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added three more suspected sockpuppets to the list: CedricRobinson, Point Place 1970,and EarthCleaner. CedricRobinson was created on May 18 and their first edit was to create a user page. On May 18 203.68.222.188 (talk · contribs) (the whois indicates the IP address is from Taiwan) made two edits two edits to Beverly Hills, California at at 16:35 and 16:39. Eleven minutes later CedricRobinson edited the article and made their last edit of they day at 19:37. At 21:12, 203.68.222.188 added and AfD tag to Gold Coast (Connecticut) At 22:07, Point Place 1970 made their first edit creating the AfD page for Gold Coast (Connecticut). Nominating Gold Coast (Connecticut} appears to in response to the AfD of New Rochelle (Zip-Code Areas), New York that was created by Jvolkblum. CedricRobinson edits have been similar to previous Jvolkblum sock's including mostly adding fact tags to articles, moving images from inside the text of the article to under the infobox, and adding copyvio text into the wikipedia (Earl C. Sams which was speedy deleted as a copyvio). EarthCleaner's first edit was create the article St. Joh's Wilmot Church (New Rochelle, New York). Besides being in New Rochelle, a Jvolkblum sock had previously uploaded an image of the church on the commons [78]. Earthcleaner also added an image from a commons account the same name, that picture had previously been uploaded to the commons by a Jvolkblum sock. Below is a chart showing the periods edtting by the three accounts on May 24:

  • 03:09- 03:51 CedricRobinson
  • 06:09- 10:52 EarthCleaner
  • 12:05 Point Place 1970
  • 14:27 EarthCleaner
  • 17:48- 17:59 CedricRobinson
  • 19:38- 19:45 EarthCleaner
  • 20:09- 22:29 CedricRobinson BlueAzure (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • I made the article for St.Johns church because A)I had helpful knowledge to share on the church B)it was not mentioned on wikipedia beforhand C)it has encyclopedic value and C)it is of significance in historical terms. The church has connections to another church in the same town, and that church was already listed on the website which is Trinity-St.Pauls Church (New Rochelle). I added to this existing article because A)I had helpful knowledge to add + improve the article and B)I had a helpful image for the infobox. I uploaded it to the wikicommons photo area from my user name there and saved it under its full name because i was not sure how exactly to make it most easily searchable. Im not certain which part of the process i followed was wrong. Earthcleaner —Preceding unsigned comment added by EarthCleaner (talk • contribs) 02:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
 Likely and Blocked,
Not so obvious, but evidence shows the link is  Likely; Blocked,
 Inconclusive behavioural evidence,
 Possible, but scarce evidence, so no block,
Accounts marked † were blocked in this checkuser case. That seems to be them all.
Anthøny 19:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:86.175.64.136

Suspected sockpuppeteer
86.175.64.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets


Report submission by

Traditional unionist (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

First edit under this dynamic IP was to revert my removal of weaslry, which this user had added. Revert two more times. Next edit is reportme for 3RR. Edit showing knowledge of WP:NPA and harrasment. I strongly suspect this is a SPA sock account designed to push me over the 3RR limit to obtain a block. Very little evidence to demonstrate who the sockpuppeteer is, save for this personal attack regarding my username would be similar to the edit summary here.

Comments


Conclusions

I don't feel sorry for you, Traditional unionist. You were blocked for violating 3RR. [79] The opposing anonymous editor got off on a technicality, viz. he happened to use two different IP addresses during the revert war, so it may have appeared like two different users. That doesn't excuse what you did, and at this point, there's nothing to gain by blocking the IP because blocks are meant to be preventative, not solely punitive. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Xgmx

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Xgmx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
Xgmx_dontworry_imgoodnow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
4.244.33.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
4.244.36.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
4.245.72.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
4.245.73.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
4.245.73.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
4.245.74.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
4.245.78.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
4.245.79.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Ssfreefan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (indef. blocked)
4.244.42.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

Cenarium (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Contributions, disruptive actions at WP:AFD, same IP range, see also the post at ANI below. Cenarium (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

ANI discussion at WP:ANI#User talk:Xgmx. More sockpuppets listed there. Hut 8.5 16:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link to archive: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive416#User talk:Xgmx. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 01:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

This was answered thoroughly at ANI (click on the hanging archive box with User:A. B.'s list of IP addresses for more details). If more action is needed, please let me know. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 01:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Exegete49 (3rd)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Exegete49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Theology49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Theology101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Theology08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Bonadea (talk) 06:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Identical pattern of abuse, changing existing links in articles including Safe, Fire safety, Gun safety and Safe sex to spam links. Edit by Exegete49 (puppet master): [80] Edits by the three sockpuppets reported: [81], [82], [83]. Note that advancesafes.com is a doorway URL to centurionsafes.com. Furthermore, the usernames follow a pattern used before by Exegete49, see his previous sockpuppetry cases here and here.

Comments


Conclusions

All accounts were blocked on their own merits. The sockpuppetry is obvious. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 01:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Pete K

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Pete K (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

75.19.10.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.19.11.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.19.13.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.28.138.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.28.155.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.28.97.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.28.98.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.31.65.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.31.69.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.31.78.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.32.188.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.35.21.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Professor marginalia (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

User Pete_K is under indefinite ban from arb com and is prohibited from any editing to articles PLANS, Waldorf education, Anthroposophy or any article related to them. [Clarification: Pete K is indefinitely topic banned from those articles but is free to edit other unrelated articles. Shalom (Hello • Peace)] Editor is currently IP editing in two of the articles to circumvent his user ban.

Identifying himself as IP before indefinite article ban:

  • editing his talk page while under 3RR ban::: [84]
  • signing posts after login::: [85] [86]
  • signing IP post as Pete_K while still logged as IP::: [87]

Current editing in banned articles: [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93]

Comments

WP:Arb's article ban was result of several findings of fact against user, including violations of WP:BIO, WP:NOR, misuse of WP:RS, WP:EDITWAR, WP:CIVIL and more: WP:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education/Review#Editors_who_violated_WP:BIO RFAR - Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education/Review#Pete_K_banned

After editor continued the crusade on his talk page, arbitrator Fred Bauder posted banned notice there as well: User page

Current edits by these IPs continue the very same pattern as he did in the past: [94]

This is going to require some research to sort through. If it turns out to be correct, semi-protection of the affected articles would be a reasonable step, and a rangeblock on the IP addresses, though probably not needed, might become necessary if semi-protection doesn't solve the problem.
I will post to WP:AE because an arbitration ruling is at the root of this issue. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at most of the links. The connection between the IP addresses and Pete K is highly credible. Not all of them signed as Pete K, but those that didn't showed the same interest in Pete K's pet articles as those that did. I suggest semiprotecting all articles under ArbCom restriction (probably something that should be done regardless) and blocking Pete K for at least two weeks for repeated violations of the ArbCom ruling. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While not commenting directly on the hosiery allegations, I do find it a bit odd that the user in question hasn't posted (under the PeteK username) since the final appeal of the anthroposophy/stiener/waldorf topic ban was rejected, and that as an ip has taken a full year to reach back into the disruption that caused the topic ban (though not seemingly at the same level). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 03:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um - I am not really familiar with this process so I suppose it is remotely possible I am missing something. Isn't the idea here to show that any of the addresses, um - MATCH? Is the idea really to speculate that maybe this person (or persons) sound like someone else you once knew?

What a horror this place is. Wikipedia is like a huge matrix that has swallowed people whole, brains and all.DianaW (talk) 02:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Not all of them signed as Pete K, but those that didn't showed the same interest in Pete K's pet articles as those that did." Boy, this is brilliant reasoning. Um, yeah, they show the same interest in these articles - they were posted TO these articles.DianaW (talk) 02:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
Well so is there going to be one?DianaW (talk) 02:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jossi blocked Pete K and semi-protected the articles in accordance with my recommendation. [95] If further action is needed, please let me know. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 01:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further Questions

I am afraid I don't understand. Would someone please explain if it was determined whether the suspected sock was really Pete K, and what the evidence was?DianaW (talk) 01:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I would really appreciate it if someone would answer the question I posed. Is the point not to determine whether the IPs match?DianaW (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that a more complete answer will not be forthcoming. While as a group those interested in the steiner articles have limited other interests in wikipedia editing and processes, the 'evidence' and conclusion (by Jossi) in this situation is fairly representative of the level of actionable activity. It really I think came down to starting to call people names on the anthroposophy discussion page. The regulars let him slide for a whole year of occasional pointed questions on the various articles, it was only when he slipped back into name calling that action was requested. I know that you find this situation frustratingly difficult, but I suggest spending some time on middle east articles, US politics articles, or the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard for a flavor of the fuller madness that is en.wikipedia. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, thank you Rocksanddirt for the friendly reply. I've figured out no reply is forthcoming, don't worry, and I have a good sense of the "fuller madness." Every topic that is controversial is just like this, and even quite a few that *aren't* controversial really. No evidence was ever posted anywhere that the so-called "banned user" was PeteK, and I'm fairly sure that the correct procedures were not followed on the part of professor marginalia, but obviously, she has a pass and can behave improperly and uncivilly without consequences, a position that is not hard to obtain here if you play the right games. I think the place is a looney bin! and can't believe people waste so much time here. I did at one point, too, and now can't believe I couldn't see the folly. Again thanks for replying politely, I appreciate it very much.DianaW (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I think 'procedures' were followed close enough. Maybe a bit more snarky commentary from the prof than required, but nothing out of line compared to most commentary of this sort. Hope you have a great day. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Davkal

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Davkal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
74.208.16.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

ScienceApologist (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

See contributions. It's obvious to anyone familiar with the case.

Comments


Conclusions

Yeah, fairly obvious it's Davkal. More to the point, this appears to be a proxy, and I've blocked the IP on that basis. MastCell Talk 16:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Chadf b

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Chadf b (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

LN greatest fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Aboutmovies (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Blocked user ChadF b was blocked for violating WP:BLP on articles related to a Jack Keefer, who I guess is/was the basketball coach at Lawrence North High School. S/he was making edits defaming the coach and the school for recruiting mainly Greg Oden a few times [96] [97], and also Mike Conley, Jr. a few times with the basic jist being that the school and that coach recruits players to the school, and thus are cheaters. Now that that user was blocked, LN greatest fan has picked up with defaming the school, hitting on the recruitment of Conley again, and the recruitment of Oden again, plus their very first edit was all about recruiting at the school. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I reviewed all of the diffs, and I am duly impressed by the thoroughness with which Aboutmovies presented his evidence. There is no reasonable doubt that these two accounts are the same person as alleged, or are behaving in the same way. Consequently, LN greatest fan must be indef-blocked as a ban-evading sockpuppet.

Note to this editor, if he ever reads this: please grow up. That's not a personal attack: I'm just saying that defaming other schools, and especially defaming basketball players and coaches, is not helpful. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Very obvious. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Fnagaton

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Fnagaton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

DavidPaulHamilton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Omegatron (talk) 16:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User:Fnagaton is an account used predominantly to argue about a single section of the Manual of Style guidelines on units,[98][99]. This section is heavily disputed, but he uses his own interpretation of it as justification to engage in tendentious editing across many articles, changing all units to his preferred style. [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] Other users have been banned for similar behavior.

He has been caught using sockpuppets in the past, and I believe he is continuing to abuse them, both to circumvent WP:3RR and to give the impression of more support for a viewpoint than actually exists. I alluded to this in a previous discussion, but since this user is familiar with the use of Tor and open proxies to evade detection, I doubt there will be any IP evidence, so I have tried to gather a significant amount of circumstantial evidence before bringing this up.

Specifically, I believe User:DavidPaulHamilton is a sock of Fnagaton for the following reasons:

  • After registering, DavidPaulHamilton immediately jumped into the Talk page of the disputed policy, with his first edits backing up Fnagaton's position.[115]
  • DavidPaulHamilton has all the hallmarks of a single-purpose account. He has only been active since March, but at least 75% of his edits are related to this dispute.[116] The rest of his contributions, to unrelated articles, are trivial edits like adding links, likely in an attempt to "cover his tracks".[117][118][119][120][121][122][123][124]
  • DavidPaulHamilton consistently backs Fnagaton up in edit disputes and makes the same sweeping edits and reverts
    • MOSNUM talk page
    • Template:Quantities of bytes
    • Physical Address Extension[125]
    • Bondwell[126]
  • Mannerisms - Fnagaton has an odd propensity for repetitious statements that other users are "wrong" or "incorrect", as if assertion alone will convince others. David follows the same pattern:
    • F 'You are wrong, I am not the one who is edit warring, you are.'
    • D 'you are wrong there is consensus'
    • F 'You are wrong and do not attempt to misrepresent other editors with your incorrect anonymous rants' ... 'You are wrong because the units are de facto standards.'
    • D 'You are being uncivil because you have no valid counter and that means your post is wrong.'
    • F 'This neatly proves you are wrong.'
    • D 'JEDEC memory standards proves they set computer memory standards.'
    • F 'You are incorrect because you are at fault here ... You are utterly wrong to try to misrepresent what you think are my motives. You are also wrong when'
    • D 'Your statement is incorrect.'
    • D 'it is incorrect for anyone to say they are deprecated'
    • F 'you are incorrect'
    • D 'jeh is not correct'
    • D 'That is inaccurate. The chips...'
    • ...
  • Timestamps of edits
    • Both accounts edit during the same time of day, neither has edited during the hours of 2:00 and 6:00 UTC. If you look through their edits you'll often see a string of edits by one account followed by a string of edits by the other, never editing at the same time.
  • I'm not sure if this is significant, but DavidPaulHamilton was also autoblocked by an IP block.[127], which lists the same IP as this anonymous edit and the same 212.183 IP range as [128][129], apparently from Vodafone UK 3G? (Omegatron 01:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I am not the first to make this accusation.[130][131][132]

Comments
  • I was curious why Omegatron had been inactive on a particular MOSNUM issue and see that he seems to have focused his attentions on one of the lead proponents of an issue that had been extensively discussed on Talk:MOSNUM and which was later adopted as a MOSNUM guideline against Omegatron’s wishes. I will grant Omegatron that, indeed, the vernacular of the two writers appears similar. But it shouldn’t come as any surprise that since statements like “you’re a liar” are considered as personal attacks, that rather limits available options to generic pabulum like “that is incorrect”. It also should come as no surprise that two editors live in similar time zones. I suggest that this issue of sockpuppetry should be very simple to resolve: can’t administrators simply perform a ‘check user’ on Fnagaton and DavidPaulHamilton.

    I’d also like to point out that Omegatron’s above charge (“He [Fnagaton] has been caught using sockpuppets in the past”), doesn’t strike me as being the least bit fair to Fnagaton. I’m not an expert on digging up past history on this sort of stuff and can not prove a negative. But the linked text Omegatron provided is to a post by a user, NotSarenne, who was complaining about treatment from Fnagaton. In fact though, the end result of that linked thread was not a conclusion that Fnagaton had been caught using sockpuppets (though it was suspected), but that the complainant (NotSarenne) was himself proven to be sockpuppet, who was blocked indefinitely during that discussion thread.

    I have no interest in engaging in a running battle on this, particularly since the evidence is sketchy and proof is even harder to come by. Further, I am at a disadvantage since I am not an administrator. Seeing though, that there is a “comments” section here, I saw no reason to remain silent on what I thought were slanted charges. Greg L (talk) 02:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't see how my inactivity on WT:MOSNUM is relevant to Fnagaton's sockpuppetry.
    • Checkuser User:Dmcdevit found that User:QuinellaAlethea was a sockpuppet of User:Fnagaton. Of course Fnagaton's going to deny it, just like Sarenne denies ever using socks. Doesn't mean they're telling the truth. — Omegatron (talk) 22:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Help:CheckUser works on IP addresses. An individual using Tor or another proxy system can defeat checkuser. As Fnagaton himself noted, Dmcdevit apparently indicated to Kwsn that QuinellaAlethea was a sock of Fnagaton. As Kwsn said, "QuinellaAlethea has been blocked indefinitely for being a sock of User:Fnagaton". That is consistent with QuinellaAlethea's edit history, which consists largely of reverting edits by NotSarenne (who was identified as a sock of Sarenne, a long-time enemy of Fnagaton). Most of these reverted edits were replies to comments by Fnagaton. Apparently QuinellaAlethea decided that NotSarenne was "not allowed to reply to" Fnagaton. That sort of thing also seems to be something of a Fnagaton-ism. Additionally, I should note that HyperColony was engaged in essentially identical edits over the same period of time, but (as noted on the linked ANI page) was on Tor. And while I'm here, I should also note that starting a large number of replies with "you are wrong" (and simple permutations thereof) is actually pretty uncommon. It is a factual statement that Fnagaton does so much more frequently than your average editor. You may judge the significance of that as you like. — Aluvus t/c 05:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three facts: HyperColony is blocked as a sock of NotSarenne. QuinellaAlethea is blocked but the puppet master is not identified. Nothing appears in my block log or log regarding QuinellaAlethea. Or do you care to refute those facts? Then we have this statement: "...is actually pretty uncommon" - Not that uncommon as you might have thought. Fnagaton 10:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's pretty much your trademark, as several others have pointed out. And if you want to talk about Google searches: http://www.google.com/search?q=fnagaton+%22you+are+wrong%22 — Omegatron (talk) 01:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The evidence that HyperColony was a sock of NotSarenne was that they had edited the same articles, and literally nothing else. That's no surprise, since the only thing HyperColony was doing was reverting edits by NotSarenne. That is spectacularly weak evidence that HyperColony was a sock of NotSarenne (but good evidence that HyperColony was being disruptive). That same test indicated that QuinellaAlethea was also a sock of NotSarenne, but QuinellaAlethea was blocked for being your sock based (apparently) on a checkuser. Kwsn was pretty specific: "QuinellaAlethea has been blocked indefinitely for being a sock of User:Fnagaton". And lastly, 15k instances out of (at a guess) probably 500k or more Talk pages and probably millions (or tens of millions) of edits... is not a high frequency. — Aluvus t/c 01:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to add a few facts to this case. Calling edits "tendentious" shows a lack of good faith since reading my edit history you'll see comments such as "Making units consistent within the article and with those used by the article sources" which demonstrates the edits are made to improve Wikipedia. Omegatron is correct I am familiar with Tor but that is because Tor has so often been used by a user to make personal attacks against me and to insert my personal infromation into Wikipedia, for which I've had to repeatedly request Oversight. I am also active in trying to discuss about getting Tor blocked from editing [133] [134] this is because of the personal attacks made against me and I see little benefit in it being allowed on Wikipedia. The user accounts Omegatron cites as "not the first to make this accusation" are themselves blocked for being sock puppets of a user NotSarenne/Sarenne Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/NotSarenne (2nd) and the IP belongs to the ISP that has a history og being disruptive on this subject Wikipedia:Abuse reports/217.87.x.x and is also linked to the many socks of NotSarenne/Sarenne [135]. So I don't see what Omegatron would have to gain from trying to cite edits made by the same blocked and banned users who make these accusations. Also when a new user joins a talk page I've been very active in (WT:MOSNUM) and makes this edit then of course their edit history is going to be checked by myself and I will check the articles the editor recently edited and perhaps lend my help. Please note the edit comment "In the interests of trying to stop the numerous reverts this adds extra disambiguation for 1 GB = 1024 MB and for the other values". Omegatron's claim "with his first edits backing up Fnagaton's position" is incorrect because the first edit by DPH is to reply to something I've not even replied to at that revision [136] and doesn't include a signature. I don't see Omegatron complaining that these edits by a different user [137] are a "single purpose account" (using Omegatrons' definition) but then again the user did write supprot for Omegatrong ("I support the changes just made by Omegatron. Tom94022 (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC) ") in [138]. Omegatron's claim "neither has edited during the hours of 2:00 and 6:00 UTC" is also refuted simply by looking at the edit history. Looking at the very early edits I came to the conclusion that DPH is someone who is interested in the subject but who has branched out to general Wikipedia tidying after a period of time. Looking at [139] and the comment "Greg L is wrong to claim that it is always easy to determine what units " by Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC) does this mean, for example, that Omegatron can try to claim DPH is a sock of Gerry just because Gerry used the phrase "xxx is wrong"? No of course not, the same applies here too, I mean looking at DPH's edits the editor doesn't always agree with what I do either, for example this complete revert of my change. The edit comment style is also different to mine and so is the spelling. Lastly, I'm on holiday, as my last talk page edit shows and to make a sock puppet report whilst I'm obviously away and also not putting notification of this report on my talk page or on the talk page of DPH who he is accusing is not following correct procedure for reporting potential sock puppet activity. Fnagaton 08:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I welcome Greg's suggestion of running a "check user" and of course I agree to abide by whatever findings it will show, it will clear up this matter once and for all and remove any potential for the "slanted charges" (Greg's words). Fnagaton 08:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fnagaton's behavior is exactly like that of User:Bobblewik and User:Sarenne before they were blocked; a sweeping campaign of edits to change units to his preferred style. He knows very well that his edits are controversial and that there is no consensus for them, but he continues to make them, and even revert war over them, despite being told not to. I honestly don't know how he's lasted this long, considering his editing pattern and attitude.
I've never assumed bad faith on the part of Fnagaton. Assuming good faith is all about motives, and I know that he thinks he's improving the encyclopedia with his edit campaign. But this isn't about motives; it's about actions, and Fnagaton's actions are disruptive and harmful to the project.
I'd also like to see a checkuser, though again, I suspect it won't find anything, which is why I spent a lot of time digging up other forms of evidence. Also, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser says "Checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases. Whenever possible, use other methods first." So I think we're supposed to try it this way first, anyway. — Omegatron (talk) 22:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attacking Omegatron's motivations does not do anything to indicate you are not operating a sockpuppet. I have privately expressed to Omegatron my concerns that DavidPaulHamilton might be your sockpuppet. The account showed up when you had indicated you were away (but continued to make edits). The account's edits (including that first one) have consistently supported your position. While the account's first edit preceded your first direct comment on that matter, your first comment agreed with his. Even the incident you cite when the account reverted one of your edits, the reverted version of the text agrees with what you had argued on the Talk page and had previously argued for months. The account has edited a number of pages related to binary prefixes but made only trivial changes to articles on other topics (generally linking single words; sometimes linking bare years despite, ironically, what MOSNUM says about that), which sockpuppets sometimes do. There were also IP edits [140] [141] made when you stated you were away that I believe you made (the first calls up obscure details you had previously used to attack Omegatron, the second makes the same nebulous "does not have consensus" claim that you have used repeatedly). In short, the evidence Omegatron has provided is certainly not airtight, but little if anything that you have provided actually suggests that he is wrong. — Aluvus t/c 06:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you say the evidence Omegatron as provided is not airtight, that's why a check user is needed. The first edit you claim was an IP edit is an edit by you and does not "calls up obscure details you had previously used to attack Omegatron" and the second edit doesn't look like my home or work IP address. As for Omegatron's accusations of disruptive editing and "Fnagaton's behavior is exactly like that of User:Bobblewik" this is not the first time he has made bad faith accusations (as can be seen just above the quote I will make below) and in reply I will quote the comments from an uninvolved unbiased editor (SMcCandlish) and someone who attempted to mediate the situation. "The fact that Fnagaton is passionate about this issue, as others have been before (on both sides) has nothing to do with the validity of their arguments either way. Having been accused of WP:DE simply for being passionate and steadfast myself in the past, I sympathize in a Voltaire way - I defend Fnagaton's right to express what he is thinking (civilly), but if I disagree with his logic I'll certainly say so, since that's where the reason in argument is. Debate by flamethrowing is unproductive pen...sword-waving. I.e., everybody please chill"[142]. Since SMcCandish is uninvolved and has pointed out that I am not being disruptive yet Omegatron who disagrees with my work on MOSNUM makes accusations of being disruptive and threats about blocking then on balance who is most likely to be correct? SMcCandish of course, which means Omegatron is demonstrating bad faith bias by continuing with his accusations of disruption and obviously means that my behaviour is not like BobbleWik of Sarenne. Checking Omegatron's edit history, I also note this recent edit by Omegatron to someone elses talk page but Omegatron has still not followed procedure to place accusation warnings on the reported user's talk pages. This means DPH is most likely still unaware of these accusations and that is not following procedure. Not following procedure and placing a comment on an uninvolved editor's talk can be seen as attempts to garner support to unfairly alter the outcome of this report. I feel that the accusations here are nothing more than bad faith personal opinion and what Omegatron cites has been shown to be false, for example the editing times and the banned sock puppet user's accusations. That's why a check user should be used, to avoid the potential for Omegatron's personal feelings to cloud the issue. Fnagaton 08:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I linked to my response to the first IP edit that you presumably made. The original edit was here. The IP editor never responded to my calling him Fnagaton, but you responded in a way that suggests you were that IP editor. I must say that your repeated attacks on Omegatron have utterly no relevance here. The question here is whether you have been operating a sockpuppet. No matter how much you may accuse Omegatron of failing to assume good faith, that does not in any way contradict the evidence that he has presented. You cannot prove yourself innocent by trying to prove someone else guilty. Additionally, you cannot prove yourself innocent through checkuser. Checkuser may prove (or at least very strongly suggest) that one account is tied to another, but it cannot prove that the accounts are unrelated. — Aluvus t/c 02:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, following on from accusations of being disruptive, I'll quote Septentrionalis from here "And yes, Fnagaton is often aggressive; but not as much as you are. Still, you are both more constructive than Omegatron " because the editor is relatively uninvolved and chose to comment, just like Greg did, when he saw an injustice. Fnagaton 09:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The evidence may not be airtight, but I think it's more conclusive than most.

And it's not just one phrase. His incessant repetition of "you are wrong" is just the most obvious example for someone who hasn't interacted with him regularly (and these examples only scrape the surface). It's very apparent to me from the writing style of everything he says that these two accounts are controlled by the same person. Please read through their talk page contribs and decide for yourself.


  • I’m not particularly invested in this issue, but I had to point out this little jewel as I found it rather amusing: The Talk:MOSNUM page is frequented by a semi-disruptive IP user known as “217.87…” who is widely assumed to be NotSarenne and Sarenne. Both are blocked for life due to disruptive editing. IP User “217.87…” has consistently been a proponent of using the IEC prefixes; that is to say, is on the same side of a contentious dispute as Omegatron. In fact, “217.87…” has repeatedly vandalized Fnagaton’s pages on numerous occasions and been extraordinarily uncivil to Fnagaton. My point in mentioning this is not to demonize “217.87…” but to point out that he is not an ally of Fnagaton and is certainly not a sock. With that point established…

    As I mentioned above, Wikipedia rules of “no personal attacks” and civility greatly limits the choice of verbiage when one is writing that they oppose the position of another editor. And here is a post from “217.87…” that begins with Omegatron’s hot-button three words that are a central part of his charges that “prove” this sock issue: “You are wrong.” Greg L (talk) 07:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. I am not Sarenne. I never was Sarenne. That was just a tactical rumour spread by Fnagaton to destroy my reputation. I'm pleased to hear you're amused about my comments. You know just as well as I do that I've used "You are wrong." and "There is consensus" to make fun of certain people's habits. You recently claimed yourself that it's perfectly fine to ridicule other's positions. I doubt that's the spirit of Wikipedia but if you, as one of the most uncivil editors around, has this right, then everyone is allowed the same including my very self. I also find something "amusing". That is, I am blocked due to false accusations under as much evidence as there is against Fnagaton that is none of any worth. In my case, hearsay and obvious laid out false evidence by Tor-driven sockpuppets lead to an indefinite ban of my previous account - and many other's who were never under my control or anyone person I know. Fnagaton and a few other seem to be immune against any honest accusation like frequent edit warring, uncivil behavior and treating any opposing individual as someone's sockpuppets acting with bad faith - if the circumstances permit. That Fnagaton attracts all these Tor accounts is certainly odd. Even when Fnagaton was caught red-handed using a sockpuppet, there was no block, no follow-up, no nothing whereas the other party (NotSarenne) was banned despite the fact that both of these puppets were actually acting NotSarenne obviously after Fnagaton and his friends had run out of measures and arguments. No matter what side anyone is really on, it is quite clear that some cabals are quite busy and effective. There is consensus. I am not Fnagaton because Fnagaton is ON HOLIDAY! Duh! --217.87.125.197 (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very well. This is all getting a bit off the topic Omegatron is complaining about, except that the two of you don’t like Fnagaton one single bit. I accept your most strident point above (Sarenne and NotSarenne are not the same) as being true. As a matter of fact, I received an e-mail on May 2, 2008, 12:53:01 PM PDT, from a dot-France e-mail address from someone identifying himself as the real Sarenne. In part, he wrote as follows:

Please stop mentioning me on Wikipedia. I have not edited en-wikipedia since may 26th 2006 and I've never edited Wikipedia anonymously. The IP "217.87.66.230" (from a german ISP) is the user that was using the account "NotSarenne" and, again, he is not me and i don't know who he is. I don't care if you accuse *him* of being disruptive but stop mentionning me ! I have *nothing* to do with what is going on since may 26th 2007.

So, it appears that Sarenne is from France and was the individual responsible for changing hundreds of Wikipedia articles to Omegatron’s IEC prefixes. It appears also that NotSarenne is “217.87…”, (and his very many socks) is from Hamburg Germany. It is also clear that “217.87…” doesn’t like Fnagaton and bitterly complains of imbalanced treatment. I will remind the IP user from Hamburg that so long as you resort to anonymous, disruptive editing, and continue to flout the rules of Wikipedia, it will always apear—from your perspective—that you are getting the short end of the stick in your battles with registered editors like Fnagaton. Every single time you registered under a new name, you didn’t edit with it for six days to season it so it was no longer a “new” account. And the very first thing you would then do is edit disruptively, get reverted 4+ times, and then go slyly complain on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR about “3RR violations”. You repeatedly made those registered users who reverted you have to jump through administrative hoops to defend themselves. It appears you believe this to be sport. I recently deleted an utterly meaningless and disruptive post from you, and your response was to vandalize Talk:MOSNUM by deleting a perfectly valid post from me. Omegatron needs allies the likes of editors such as yourself like he needs a hole in his head. If you want to have some influence here on Wikipedia and be treated “fairly”, please register and behave yourself. Greg L (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greg, it speaks for you that you believe that I'm not Sarenne. I would have been satisfied with respect to these accusations if the involved people had at least accepted that there was never sufficient evidence to come such a conclusion. It also speaks for you that you consider the mail you apparently received from the real Sarenne as authentic. Last time this was assumed to be a sick joke. It's not true though that I had created sleeper accounts. If I created an account, I made edits right away whether related to MOSNUM or not. I don't accept the accusation of using sockpuppets though because I never used multiple accounts at a time. Any reverts or edit were no more blunt than those of still unblocked editors who frequently reverted my edits just because it was me. Likewise these people have the right to accuse me of whatever they want and then revert my responses to these accusations over and over again as "vandalism" and like-wise incorrect as well as deceptive edit summaries. The sleeper accounts weren't mine and I have nothing to do with them. Neither do I know who controls them. If Sarenne is really as tired of this as the mail implies, I doubt that these accounts were his. Maybe there's some invicible third making fun of both sides by stirring things up or someone's mind is severely twisted. It is also not true that I slyly complained 3RR violations on ANI. I might have complained about 3RR violations once but only have Fnagaton and others had used this policy against me numerous times - usually by teaming up so that every individual reverted only once or twice but I undid their reverts or reverted thrice. Nobody ever cared that they weren't giving reasons at all for their reverts or making invalid accusations of vandalism. Fnagaton frequently uses "rvv" as short for "revert vandalism" where no vandalism is involved in any way whatsoever. It's also funny what you call "utterly meaningless and disruptive". If you didn't understand the meaning, you're free to ask. If someone suggests one thing, everyone may very well suggest the opposite. There's no requirement to log-in or create an account to edit Wikipedia and Tony

provided no arguments for such an requirement for MOSNUM. The toxicity has been severe there ever since mostly due to editors with accounts. Seeing one's IP address might even make it easier to detect sockpuppets, so accounts are rather counter-productive, especially if you consider the existing sleep account. "check user" is apparently mostly IP address based too, so I don't see any point in his suggestion. Last but not least, there have been far more disruptive and uncivil comments from others including you and yes me too. So that's a really poor example. I doubt I'm going to register any account again. I registered NotSarenne on demand by Fnagaton and as you can see it didn't help at all - and no a more neutral username wouldn't have made much of a difference. --217.87.58.139 (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Shalom: Omegatron has asked me twice to look at this. I've been busy, but I managed to find an hour on a Sunday afternoon to answer his request.

Unfortunately, I can't firmly determine this case one way or the other. I ran an offdays analysis to see on which days each of the two accounts edited, starting on March 23, 2008, when DavidPaulHamilton first edited. The curious result was that, if the same person is operating both accounts, that person has edited every single day since then. Such consistency is not unheard-of, but it is cause for reasonable doubt. Also, Fnagaton has not edited in the last two weeks since May 12, when he was answering this case. I have no idea why he suddenly took a two-week break (maybe longer if it continues). No doubt his detractors will interpret it as an admission of guilt. The last time Fnagaton took a break of significant length was from March 7 to March 14 (he placed a "wikibreak" template on March 7). The last time before that was between February 22 and March 1, this time unannounced. There was a five-day break in late January and an extended period of light activity in November-December 2007. I won't go back in time further than that. Fnagaton has established, over a long period of time, that he has no interest in editing Wikipedia every single day. I would be surprised if he suddenly changed his habits.

Yet, stranger things have happened. Fnagaton's obsession with the Manual of Style on dates and numbers goes back to November 2007 and possibly earlier. Certainly he had a motive to bring a sockpuppet into the discussion, and he has done so in the past according to Kwsn. That doesn't mean DavidPaulHamilton is a sockpuppet: if we get this wrong, it's unfair to DavidPaulHamilton and to Fnagaton. I looked for instances where both users participated in the same discussion in a close proximity of time. I found these edits on 4 May 2008:

  • DavidPaulHamilton at 22:53
  • Three edits by DavidPaulHamilton to other pages, ending at 23:24.
  • Fnagaton at 23:39
  • Thirteen more edits by Fnagaton, ending at 01:01 on 5 May.

I've never trusted linguistic analysis as a tool for determining sockpuppets, but for whatever it's worth, the congruences of opinion and style might be from the same person. Moreover, it's true that DavidPaulHamilton has devoted a large chunk of his edits, including his first edits from 23 March to 7 April, and all of his edits between 14 May and 25 May (today), to this talk page. I don't lightly say that any pattern of editing by a newbie screams sockpuppet, but this is really odd.

Bottom line: I don't feel there's quite enough evidence to block DavidPaulHamilton as a sockpuppet, but if an administrator who reviews this case thinks there is enough evidence, I will support his or her decision. I'll ask User talk:Rlevse to make a final decision. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Shalom, I appreciate your taking the time to spend an hour investigating this. I can not pretend to be unbiased in this matter because what Fnagaton and DavidPaulHamilton (and SWTPC6800 and others) want, editorial-wise, is precisely what I want. Further, the two are willing to invest more of their energies than I am on this matter. Your summary of the evidence seems fair and reasoned. Per my points above, I couldn’t agree more that a linguistic analysis is sketchy evidence.

    But your four bullet points above citing coincidental timing of edits baffles me. There have been occasions on Talk:MOSNUM in the heat of the discussion when people were walking all over each other with edit conflicts, let alone posts that came in at around the same time. Greg L (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for taking the time to look at this Shalom. I'm sure you noticed I placed my holiday tag about 24 hours before this report was created. I'm unable to edit regularly at the moment or even read the web sites I usually like to frequent, but I've been kept up to date with what has been happening with wiki-emails so I felt the need to login and say thanks, once again. Fnagaton 19:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty surprised at this, when Fnagaton can get other accounts blocked just by pointing out that they edit certain articles in a certain way. The major evidence to me is the behaviors and mannerisms of the account. The fact that the two accounts never edit at the same time and come from the same time zone is just additional circumstantial evidence. But I guess the behavior evidence isn't as obvious to someone who hasn't interacted with Fnagaton on a daily basis? — Omegatron (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions of DavidPaulHamilton and Fnagaton:

  • Pages: all multiple edits for D are also multiple edits for F
  • Page talk: all-but-one multiple edits for D are also multiple edits for F
  • Template: all multiple edits for D are also multiple edits for F
  • Template talk: all multiple edits for D are also multiple edits for F
  • User talk: F once wrote to D but D did not reply. Another user followed up with a complaint about their joint actions.

Unfortunately the standard of debate about sockpuppets has not been very high recently:

  • 217.87.63.197 "So there is consensus that DavidPaulHamilton is no sockpuppet."
  • 217.87.63.197 "There is consensus. I am not Fnagaton because Fnagaton is ON HOLIDAY! Duh!"
  • 217.87.125.197 "I haven't read any sockpuppetry accusation for some time in here. Fnagaton is on holiday."
  • 217.87.126.99 "Fnagaton is on holiday and not editing but DavidPaulHamilton is still contributing. I think that proves that DavidPaulHamilton is clearly not a sockpuppet."

I was active on MOSNUM but I am now staying away. Debate and policy change is now dominated by accounts that are:

  • are active in the binary prefix war
  • are anonymous
  • are accused of sockpuppetry
  • are seeking policy change without much of a history

If F has now become D, then that is fine but simultaneous lobbying from two accounts is not. Lightmouse (talk) 10:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Just looking at DPH's contribs alone is very convincing that he's a sock/SPA. Coupled with the other evidence, I've indef blocked him. That leaves us with the question: Is Fnagaton his master? I think it highly probable. People have been indef blocked with less evidence and had it stick. Here, the solid evidence (I'm ignoring the massive amount of hyperbole herein) is rather convincing, yet there is enough evidence on the "not sock" side to just strongly warn Fnagaton. What happens now could be quite informative. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:AdamTensta

Suspected sockpuppeteer
AdamTensta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Suspected sockpuppets
Adam Tensta93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

WikiZorrosign 09:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Created new user at the new user log, within 24 hours of the other.

Comments

Uh ... we need to see what the suspected sockpuppets are. Daniel Case (talk) 13:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Tensta (talk · contribs) is a new user who created another account, Adam Tensta93 (talk · contribs) immediately after registering the first account. The second account has not edited yet, although the user has been editing the Adam Tensta article with the first account. I don't think two accounts is excessive, and due to the similar usernames and the fact that they are linked through the user logs, it would be easily noticeable if they are being used abusively. If there is a violation it is the usernames, as the user has edited an article about a person with that name (see Wikipedia:Username policy#Real names), and has not made it clear that he is not the same person as the subject of the article. --Snigbrook (talk) 14:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so sorry, I had been to quick to suspect Sock puppetry and it seems as if there is nothing wrong for now. WikiZorrosign 23:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Withdrawn as a mistaken nom. Daniel Case (talk) 04:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Brunodam

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Brunodam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Pannonicus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
BurtReed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Marygiove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
ItaliaIrredenta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Dionix (talk) 00:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence
  • Brunodam has a sockpuppetry history, see [143]
  • Same interests, all at the same time: They all go through "dry spells" and then "reappear" simultaneously.
  • Always related to propogation of Italian irredentism and its facets. Promotion of colonialism as a grand representation of Italian people is a common thread.
  • Same tone and language. They all write English in an "Italian" style. For example, BurtReed says "you want to critic only the italian template" and "Remember that fascism and irredentism are dead since WWII". Brunodam also starts phrases with "Remember that..." and says things like "Why we did the arbitration on Dalmatia?". They all write "italian"- a common English mistake by Italians.
  • All have interests in the same topics, almost exclusively dealing with Italian irredentism: Fourth Shore, Greater Italia, Italian Dalmatians, Italian Tunisian, Nizzardo Italians, Italian cultural and historic presence in Dalmatia, etc. as well as the specific, unrelated topics of Salerno and the very obscure Pompeo D'Ambrosio (coincidence? I don't think so!)
  • BurtReed was created when Pannonicus and Brunodam were losing ground on Italian cultural and historic presence in Dalmatia (see [144]
  • Both Brunodam and BurtReed say "ask for a check up of our IP" as a threat. See [145] and [146]


Comments

There are also various anon IP numbers (too many to list), mostly from Broomfield, Colorado but sometimes New Jersey, that are likely Brunodam (work-related travel might explain New Jersey?).(for example [147] [148] [149]) Dionix (talk) 00:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • To add to the story, there was also User:Marygiove, blocked as a sock of User:Giovanni Giove (See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive398#Insulting_and_etiquetting), when I think she was very likely another of Bruno's, judging by the 4.231 IP address - see [150] [151]. Regards, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also noticed the striking similarity in grammar errors. Not only are the mistakes and phrases virtually the same, but the "level" of proficiency in the English language is identical. We're talking about the same pattern of expression here. Incredible. Brunodam also used excuses such as "hospitalization" to switch between alter-egos. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added one more, User:ItaliaIrredenta, who is "new" but is promoting the same nonsense. The name alone is telling. I think this user is a previously blocked user. Dionix (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Brunodam blocked a week socks indef. In addition to the above, notice the sequential start/stop dates of their edits. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Iwazaki

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by:Bermudatriangle (talk) 06:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence:

Dhirrosses has pointed out[152] the following evidence that User:Sennen goroshi is possible User:Iwazaki by these Edit Summary and the diff, where the phrases "...care to explain" and "...care to answer" are proceeded by "..." .

When I asked "Are you Iwazaki?", the answer was somewhat suspicious and startered with "We are not here to discuss any IDs that I may or may not have." and then only the user conferred, "But for the record, no, I am not Iwazaki, we both live in Japan.."

User:Iwazaki, User:Lahiru k and User:Snowolfd4 were heavily debated to delete Rajkumar Kanagasingam article from wikipedia.

There are more evidences on this and this.

The removal of the Institute's details from the Diana, Princess of Wales started with User:Lahiru k[153]and then by User:Sennen goroshi [154]and the "Speedy Deletion" of the(Sri_Lanka)_Princess_Diana_Institute_of_Peace by User:Snowolfd4 [155]. He came to the scene after many months of interval.

An uninvolved editor who facilitated the removal/addition of the "Princess Diana Institute of Peace" on Diana, Princess of Wales also pointed out[156], "I believe it is highly probable that Bermudatriangle is a sockpuppet of someone. I also believe that is quite possible that User:Sennen goroshi is also a sock/secondary account."

But the User responded that is a personal attack and demanded for checkuser on his/her account[157].

Comments:

Iwazaki has been gone since December 2007. He was given two temporary blocks but no permanent block, and he left voluntarily. Sennen goroshi, as an account with 8+ months experience, is unlikely to be anybody's sock, and even if this allegation is true, there is no violation of policy in the last 5+ months. I see no reason to intervene. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 07:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the intention of edits shows the current dispute on the article Diana, Princess of wales is the extension of the previous conflicts in the Sri Lanka related issues.Bermudatriangle (talk) 07:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion: Okay, I see what happened. Somebody alleged, without evidence, that Sennen goroshi is a sockpuppet. Sennen goroshi says, don't make baseless allegations: if you really think I'm a sockpuppet, go file a report. Bermudatriangle calls his bluff and files a report.

As I already said, I see no evidence that Sennen goroshi is a sockpuppet, and I think it's highly unlikely. There's a dispute here, but I'm not equipped to resolve it. Sorry. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: This request appears to be in retaliation for Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rajkumar Kanagasingam, where Bermudatriangle is accused by Sennen. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, where to begin with this sad little report?
1. Dhirrosses said I was a sockpuppet? one small detail that has been left out of this report regarding Dhirrosses is that the account was made, shortly after Bermudatriangle got blocked, and was used solely to accuse me of sockpuppetry, when I reported this account to an admin, it was indef blocked. So you have a indef blocked sockpuppet account, accusing me of sockpuppetry.
2. When I was asked if I was Iwazaki, my response was to be expected, I made it abundantly clear that I was not Iwazaki, and I said that despite me answering, this was neither the time, nor the place. That is because Bermudatriangle had attempted to turn my sockpuppet report against himself, into his Q and A session, I was not about to have my report filled with such BS, and asked him to talk about on my talkpage.
3. Which brings us to the person who filed the report - Bermudatriange. He was been warned for his racist comments, he has been blocked due to my 3RR report, and he is currently the subject of an ongoing sockpuppet investigation, started by me. Seems strange he didn't mention those details in this report. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Rajkumar_Kanagasingam
4. Iwazaki, What do I have in common with this dude? We both reside in Japan. Along with another aprox 135 million people. We certainly don't share a similar editing history. From checking his contribs, he seems to like editing pretty much only articles that have something to do with Sri Lanka, and more specifically terrorism in Sri Lanka. Before I chanced upon the Institute of Peace article, I had never touched a Sri Lanka article. What was I doing? making a sockpuppet, making 1500 edits on unrelated topics, just in the hope that I could mess with a Sri Lanka article, once I had given myself some credibility?
5. This report is a waste of time, not backed up with any evidence, and an obvious (poor) attempt at retaliating against myself, for the 3RR report, the sockpuppet report and the edits relating to the Institute of Peace. I suggest sanctions against Bermudatriangle, in the form of an indef block, for abusing wikipedia procedures in order to make such an unfounded and malicous report.
6. After reading the above, I am trying to understand what evidence has been shown? the fact that I say "care to explain" ??? is that it? If any admin wishes to use checkuser, I encourage them to do so, to bring this mess to a close as soon as possible.

Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the archive tags for now until I decide how to address the larger dispute. Basically, I agree with Sennen goroshi. Bermudatriangle's filing of this report violated WP:POINT. An indef-block may be too much: I need to review this case before I make a recommendation on how to respond to him. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion (not that it means much, considering I am just an editor) is that, you are right, an indef block for making a malicious report would be over the top. However, when I look at the whole picture and see a single purpose account, which is a pretty good candidate for being either a sockpuppet or meatpuppet, making disrputive edits with no respect for consensus, a block for 3RR, a warning for racism, a warning for abusing edit summaries. There might be editors who cause lots of problems, and don't receive indef blocks, because the trouble they cause is balanced with the good edits they make, that does not apply to this user. Single purpose, contributes nothing, detracts from wikipedia - all of the above from an account that is about 5 weeks old. Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't try to have too many roles here on wikipedia. Who are you to suggest an indef block? What is the authority have you got? 3RR is not a big violation. I never meant my comment should be directed towards racism, but that was interpreted as such a away. Don't bully others here. You have corrupted edit history. You are using widely the words "fucking" and "asshole" and if one question you are telling wikipedia is not censored. Even your UserSpace carries the agony of other affected Users. Put your home in order first.Bermudatriangle (talk) 16:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bermuda, for the benefit of the other people who have to read this, I don't think I will reply unless there is new evidence or something interesting happens. Please talk to me on my talkpage, if you would like a discussion, although I am going to sleep soon, I will reply as and when I can. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From another User's experince with you, I also feel, "Talking with you is not productive but exhausting myself, so I've chosen not to talk with you.REGARDS"Bermudatriangle (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing. Inconclusive and probably a bad faith filing. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User: South Philly

Suspected sockpuppeteer

South Philly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppet

151.197.116.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by


Evidence

South Philly has been indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Recently, new (confirmed and now-banned) South Philly sock puppets showed up for a contentious AfD [158]].

The interests and edits of 151.197.116.67 very closely reflect those of other now-banned recent South Philly sockpuppets.

Now-banned SP Sur de Filadelfia entered an AfD debate on May 13, coupling criticism of the process with accusations that I (Betsy Devine) had abused process by filing it. [159]. After Sur de Filadelfia was blocked on May 15, a second South Philly sockpuppet began editing the AfD May 16 from a computer in the Philadelphia Public Library, with more attacks on editors who had supported it. [160]. The library SP later registered as Amnesia Grrl. [161].

All three of these AfD partisans have now been blocked as sockpuppets of South Philly. See Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/South_Philly_(2nd) and Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/South_Philly_(3rd).

On May 17, Philadelphia-area IP 151.197.116.67 began editing, posting insults to the talk pages of some AfD opponents of earlier South Philly socks, calling one an "idiot", while saying to several others "(Insult of choice) Stop spreading your lies." The insult of choice varies from rude to obscene: [162], [163], [164], [165].

This IP also shares with other South Philly sockpuppets a particular hostility toward me, expressed in hostile comments on my talk page and various edits to the biography Betsy Devine. [166], [167], and [168].

This IP was flagged earlier by Dori Smith, with a request for an admin to block it. [169] betsythedevine (talk) 13:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments


Conclusions

Blocked 3 months, South Philly sock and incivility. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Merzbow

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Merzbow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Supergreenred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

I Write Stuff (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Extremely uncommon linguistic characteristics:

  1. Supergreenred:

[170] - “muhahahaa now you know my IP”

  1. Merzbow:

[171] - “muhahaha now everyone knows my IP”

  1. Merbow:

[172] - “Sheesh, both sides are off-track here.”

  1. Supergreenred:

[173] - “Sheesh. This is a big waste of time. Wikipedia is seriously getting off-track…”

  1. Supergreenred:

[174] - “At least until there are new FACTS.”

  1. Merbow:

[175] -“…should be allowed to quote FACTS about what

Though the two users are extremely close in proximity, they have no shared edit period:

  • April 13th
    • Merzbow
      • 5:35 -> 6:04 (6)
    • Supergreenred
      • 08:05 -> 9:21 (6)
    • Merzbow
      • 18:05 (1)
    • Supergreenred
      • 21:07 -> 22:01 (15)
  • April 14th
    • Supergreenred
      • 00:04 -> 00:17 (7)
    • Merzbow
      • 00:29 -> 00:47 (6)
      • 08:04 (1)
    • Supergreenred
      • 09:44 -> 11:22 (14)
    • Merzbow
      • 18:09 -> 23:54 (5)
  • April 15th
    • Merzbow:
      • 1:15 -> 1:28
    • Supergreenred
      • 4:56 -> 11:31
    • Merzbow
      • 17:39 -> 22:51
  • April 29th
    • Merzbow
      • 3:15 -> 3:19 (3)
    • Supergreenred
      • 5:56 -> 6:02 (2)
    • Merzbow
      • 7:51 -> 22:16 (16)
  • April 30th
    • Merzbow
      • 00:01 -> 3:13 (12)
    • Supergreenred
      • 7:00 -> 8:00 (7)
    • Merzbow
      • 18:09 -> 23:47 (17)

Merzbow's IP, 24.6.226.115, was revealed here and when cross referenced is:

  • General Information
    • Hostname c-24-6-226-115.hsd1.ca.comcast.net
    • ISP Comcast Cable
    • Organization Comcast Cable
  • Geo-Location Information
    • Country United States
    • State/Region CA
    • City Union City
    • Latitude 37.5963
    • Longitude -122.0658
    • Area Code 510

Supergreenred accordingly is: 66.248.83.157 [176]

  • General Information
    • Hostname 14-157.143.popsite.net
    • ISP PaeTec Communications
    • Organization PaeTec Communications
  • Geo-Location Information
    • Country United States
    • State/Region CA
    • City San Jose
    • Latitude 37.3073
    • Longitude -121.8569
    • Area Code 408

Placing both in very close geographic range. Combined with Merzbow's apparent knowledge of how to circumvent a checkuser through a work PC, it all adds up to be a bit troubling.

Both users also use {{user|USERNAME}} when referencing other users on talk pages:

Habit of using "its" instead of "it's"

  • Merzbow - [177] [178] [179] [180] [181] [182]
  • Supergreenred - [183] [184] [185]
Comments

This evidence was derived from a recent case involving Giovanni33. They were accused by Merzbow of being a sockpuppet master of Supergreenred. After examining the contribution history, it appears that Merzbow is more likely to be a sockpuppet master then Giovanni33. Merzbow and Giovanni both live in the same geographical region. This makes Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Giovanni33, damning to both cases. Giovanni33 and Merzbow have had extended conflicts and Merzbow is apparently familiar with how to use "remote desktop" to circumvent Checkuser.[186]

This seems very close to a previous incident I just seen unfold on WP:ANI a short period ago: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive414#User:ScienceApologist_blocked_indefinitely in which one editors was attempting to have another editor banned by creating fake evidence of sockpuppetry.

I think that you need more evidence than that. I think that if Merzbow wanted to make a fake account as you say, he could have done a better job of pretending to be Giovanni. Or he could have pretended to be a meatpuppet and "confessed". I think that for such severe allegations, especially as AFAIK Merzbow hasn't been caught using puppets in the past, you need more. A few coincidences isn't evidence of much. John Smith's (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except that a meatpuppet wouldn't confess, and such a confession would obviously be suspicious. This is also more convincing evidence then that linking Giovanni33 to the account. I think it is only fair to have a 3rd party examine the evidence, which is extremely convincing. You supported that "its" instead of "it's" was proof that Supergreenred was a sockpuppet of Giovanni, not linguistic characteristics like "Sheesh" and capitalizing words when they are attempting to drive a point. Merzbow actually has a history of this that can be presented if necessary. Further an ISP that Giovanni would have access to, Merzbow would as well. As to if he has been caught previously, that is not a determining factor in if he is currently using a sockpuppet. The fact that they live 20 miles from each other, and never have edited at the same time is quite telling as well. Finally, while the case is pending and it is most damning for it to continue, the sockpuppet continues to post from the same ISP, but now as an IP, only hurting Giovanni33 more. --I Write Stuff (talk) 19:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually a meatpuppet may well confess if he/she didn't want to be indef blocked and wanted to keep editing on topics they were interested in. Not everyone is an ISP-whore - some people stick with IPs. So they say they made a mistake and were tricked into helping someone who said it would never be traced back to them. The worst that would happen is that they'd still be blocked.
By the way, you haven't addressed those other suspected sockpuppet accounts. All you've done is suggest both Merzbow and Giovanni need to be sanctioned. John Smith's (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a page to check a sockpuppet, I noticed extreme similarities, and feel they warrant a check. This is not a place for you to continue your personal issue with Giovanni after your last Arbcom situation, nor is it a place to sanction editors over article content. If you do not mind, perhaps you can be patient and let the admin look at the evidence. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As explained here, the three examples above all come from one SGR post (his only one after the case opened) that is an obvious headfake by G33's sock (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giovanni33/Evidence#Reponse_to_Giovanni33). - Merzbow (talk) 00:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do you account for "lets" which you yourself say is proof that Supergreenred is Giovanni33. Yet you share the same common misspelling. Also you seem to not discount anything else. --I Write Stuff (talk) 00:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, this again (the 3rd place you've posted this)? Again, your understanding of grammar is flawed. - Merzbow (talk) 00:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is frivolous abuse of process in an attempt to disrupt an ongoing Arbcom case involving G33. I advise any checkuser admins to take this into account. Jtrainor (talk) 00:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why you are trying so hard, the whole Merzbow supporting cast, if its sure to come back false. --I Write Stuff (talk) 00:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes if one throws enough mud at a wall, some of it will stick. Even if it is 99.9% likely that nothing will come of this, the 0.1% chance of someone being tricked is not acceptable. That's why people have commented here. John Smith's (talk) 07:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I am accusing you of bad-faith btw - just indicating how even unlikely eventualities need to be protected against. John Smith's (talk) 08:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

FYI: I Write Stuff (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user. 'Nuff said. Now can somebody remove this joke? - Merzbow (talk) 04:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a sockpuppet said something doesn't automatically make it untrue. Ziggy Sawdust 18:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He was shown the door to the project specifically because he had a prior history of following around and harassing contributors - exactly what he did here. But if you find accusations by such sockpuppets against editors with empty block logs and multiple featured articles to be useful, by all means... - Merzbow (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser Thatcher has stated that Merzbow and Supergreenred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) are Red X Unrelated. at ANI and also at the Merzow checkuser case. So, yes, it is time to close this. Cardamon (talk) 05:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Enough

Groundless report submitted by block-evading sockpuppet. Archived. MastCell Talk 22:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Happyone2

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Happyone2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Kittymitty999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 03:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

MO is very similar to Happyone2's: listing of fake English and Japanese cast lists and credits. Mermaid Melody Pichi Pichi Pitch has no official English version, and both of Happyone2 and Kittymitty999 do not provide sources to back these edits up. Evidence of these are in the following:

  • Happyone2's first seven edits, Happyone2's second edit, and this edit by Kittymitty999 in Lucia Nanami‎
  • Happyone2's first five edits, Happyone2's second edit, and Kittymitty999's edit in Hanon Hōshō‎
  • Happyone2's first six edits, Happyone2's second edit, and Kittymitty999's edit in Rina Tōin‎
  • Happyone2's four edits and Kittymitty999's edit in Caren.

I think this is a blocked user creating a sockpuppet to evade a block. Happyone2 had been warned, but never responded nor change his/her actions; this can be the same here with Kittymitty999.

Comments
  • Kittymitty999 has been blocked soon after edit on Kōji Yusa was discovered.
Conclusions

Both accounts already indef-blocked. MastCell Talk 22:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Dan689 (3rd)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Dan689 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Seee35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 20:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Helpme template set out in the same way, says admins will sleep with Britney spears, as did this user's other socks. Similar name formatting to all this user's other suspected socks

Comments


Conclusions

Both accounts already indef-blocked as vandalism-only; nothing more to do here. MastCell Talk 22:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:CPawx4

Suspected sockpuppeteer
CPawx4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets


Report submission by

CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Edits of X

Comments


Conclusions

Already indef-blocked as vandalism-only account. MastCell Talk 22:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Xp54321 2nd case

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Xp54321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Sman.grimtuesday‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Metros (talk) 02:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Xp54321 The only support for Xp54321 in his RFA was with this new user. If it is not sockpuppetry, then it is quite likely meat puppetry. Also, there's this edit where Xp54321 signed and edited as the IP address that Sman.grimtuesday said he was using. Metros (talk) 02:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Please run checkuser. Not socks. Don't even know where they came from. Also one alternate account. User:Mr.Xp. It's used for public user logins. Though I have yet to log in on a potentially compromised computer.Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 02:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A checkuser may not reveal sockpuppetry, but meatpuppetry is still viable. Can you explain how a new user with no other contributions found your RfA and supported? Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He doesnt have to explain anything, if he is innocent how can he explain it, it is up to admins to prove these allegations. --Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 02:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, he doesn't have to explain anything - However, I am concerned with the harsh repercussions facing the user if he/she does not admit it. In fact, there is precedence for such a request. Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See above. new user stumbles upon RFA,Decides to vote,votes,me accused of sock/meat.:)Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 03:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll WP:AGF and take your word for it. Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, i tend to believe that people are innocent until proven otherwise on these issues, he maintains the account doesnt belong to him, he understands the consequences, hes been there before. Lets ashume he cant answer the question and try to avoid isolating him unnessarily. --Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 03:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, taking a look at the evidence, Sman.grimtuesday creates an account at 02:07 and then supports an RFA at 02:08. He then proceeds to express his condolences at Xp54321's talk page. And then never edits again. Sure seems to me that if Xp54321 didn't sockpuppet the account, he had someone else create it and told him exactly where to go and what to type. Useight (talk) 03:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It DOES look suspicious, i agree, but please AGF, i know it can be hard at times. Also dont make accusations in the latter part of your message that are impossible to prove or disprove. Can we just get on with a checkuser and move on. If hes guilty hes blocked otherwise your treating him like a punchbag. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 03:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I sound like I'm "treating him like a punching bag", but my "accusation" that you speak of is actually an opinion, which is why I started with "Sure seems to me." Why am I using so many quote marks? I feel like a moron. And a meanie for sounding so accusing. I hope it's not a sockpuppet case and I'd like to believe him. I hope the checkuser comes up negative. Useight (talk) 03:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Opinions are not helpful, if thats what it really was, ill ashume it was, good faith and all. We need facts and evidence otherwise let this editer be and stop muddying his name. Sock puppet cases are not a free for all, a right to let out incivility. --Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 03:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the user creates an account and then !votes in an RfA a minute later, how did the user come across WP:RFA? -- RyRy5 (talk ♠ copy-edit) 03:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A checkuser may be appropriate at this time. There seems to be some positives about the user being a sockpuppet (per !voting on RfA a minute after account creation) and some negatives (per Xp54321 not able to answer question). -- RyRy5 (talk ♠ copy-edit) 03:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line of this. WP:AGF is pivotal. All users should be given the benefit of the doubt and I'll do that here, but we should also manifest common sense. With that said, I urge the suspected user that if he/she knows anything about this at all, it behooves them to confess rather than continue on with a charade. The consequences can be severe, and I don't want to see a user driven away. Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wisdom you ARE wise, but you should know that common sense never prevails on wikipedia. I think it is unfair though that things are being said about him that cannot be proven. If it is proven that hes done no wrong, there will still be some who believed he got someone else in on it because of what "Useight" said. That is not right, infact i think it should be removed from this page. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 03:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'm sorry I sounded negative. I do not wish to sound libelous. I do not want to sound like I'm assuming bad faith. I agree with Wisdom89 that all users should be given the benefit of the doubt. If he maintains that wasn't involved, then that's fine with me, I'll believe him. I won't hold anything against him and I don't think anyone else will because of the opinion I voiced previously. Useight (talk) 03:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lets hope not, ill view it as a lapse in judgement. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 03:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I also agree with Wisdom at this time. assuming good faith is appropriate. I just looked through Special:Contributions/Xp54321 and he seems honest about this, that he is not the sockpuppeteer, that he didn't create his sock account. In my opinion, I don't think that the user is a sockpuppet of Xp54321. -- RyRy5 (talk ♠ copy-edit) 03:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, what happens now? I'm getting tired of fellow editors fighting like my parents when I get in trouble. You know one wants to punish me. The other protects and comforts. The principal(think of an a really mean admin,not anyone here,just imaginary) couldn't care less and suspends me. Note this has never happened but my parents have argued over not so good grades. That's anhything below a B as I'm in honors, top of my classes. Please I don't want to be the reason for World War III. But yes I'm fine but I'm still irritated over rollback.Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 21:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can this just be closed now, this delay is pointless.Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 22:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. I think checkuser should still be run though. It'll turn up mr.xp but no socks.Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 22:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I'm going to recommend that an administrator close this, or Metros retracts/withdraws the case. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Sman.grimtuesday‎ (talk · contribs) has been indef-blocked as a throwaway sock/meatpuppet account. I'll go ahead and give XP the benefit of the doubt, though his previous checkuser-confirmed socking makes me a bit hesitant to do so. MastCell Talk 22:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Foxhunt99

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Foxhunt99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Guox0032 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Xbox999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Easymem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Foxhunt99 for the preliminary evidence. Foxhunt99 and Xbox999 are both on the same network and are listed as likely. Guox0032 is listed as possible since the IP is from the same city. However, because of the timing of Foxhunt99's ban and Guox0032's subsequent registration and identical edit pattern, these are certainly the same user. I suspect one is a school or work account and the other is used only from home or vice versa. The edit histories reveal that all three accounts are pursuing the exact same position on a very closely related set of pages. These include both Joseph Smith, Jr. & Mormonism and Tibet and Slavery in Tibet. Again, because of how unique the POV is in both these cases it makes it very unlikely that they are unrelated. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've readded Easymem who, although the checkuser came back as unrelated, is engaging in exactly the same edits as Xbox999 and holds the exact same views (with same edit summary and registration dates) as Foxhunt99 and Guox0032. Here Xbox999 is complaining at ANI about the unfair treatment he's recieving, but quotes three diffs, two from himself and one for Easymem. The edits here are especially troublesome, since the both respond as though they are the same person. Again, their POVs are identical and the pattern of editing American TV shows to hide diversify their edits is identical. This user is the same person as all the other three. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xbox999 posted this notice at ANI about the edits he had been making to the talk pages of American television shows. Easymem joined the conversation less than 40 minutes later claiming that he found it (in that short span of time) by searching my user history. All four accounts have been busy responding to and reverting the edits I had made to articles they had been active on. At Xbox 360 (note the irony here), Foxhunt99 inserted random information about special events, which I undid since it wasn't sourced and he immediately replaced it. At 30 Rock, Xbox999 had inserted the phrase (without laugh track) to the top of the article without explaining why. As a matter of editorial discretion (that isn't the place for that comment), I removed it. That edit was later reverted by Xbox999 as vandalism and when that was reverted, it was changed again by Easymem with the same explanation. None of the four accounts have any overlap time and today they have all exhibited the exact same pattern and editing style as each other. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found it less than 40min because I looked at your history, you have accused me sockpuppet immediately after I saw your discussion under Serfdom in Tibet, and opposed your idea. I found out about the case you opened as earlier as yesterday, however you didn't add me to the case back then, so I didn't bother to comment. However since you have added me, I started to watch all history of yours. So far none of your evidence can conclude anything. You have been vandalizing my and other's that you are accusing of sock puppet's edits all over wikipedia. I rv the 30 Rock you made for obvious reason that you are doing this without proper reason, it is an act of revenge that more than 1 people disagreed with you on Tibet article. I have sent notice to foxhunt99 and guox0032. You have turned this into an edit war. Easymem (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have posted those notices because I pointed out how bad it looks that you four seem so coordinated with your on-wiki activities. This makes me deeply suspicious of User:Chenyangw as well, since he shares your POV and had a similar notice posted on his talk page by Foxhunt99 this morning.
  • You will have trouble convincing anybody that you were able to figure out how to track my edit history and to understand the processes at ANI, SPP and RFCU after being registered for just 24 hours. All of the evidence taken together is indicative of a puppetmaster controlling all four accounts. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a clickable text called "contribution" by your name. Can wait for the admin to find out about your lies. Easymem (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments


Conclusions

This looks pretty open-and-shut. The checkuser results and contribs are enough to block the first 3 accounts; Easymem looks like a pretty clear match on contribs. In particular, stalking Cumulus Clouds to 30 Rock to revert to one of these socks' preferred versions ([187]) is odd for a day-one account. All are indefinitely blocked. MastCell Talk 22:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Socppt13

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Karmaisking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
Socppt13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

DigitalC (talk) 06:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Username is Socppt13, or "Sock Puppet 13"

This is a sockpuppet of User:Karmaisking (numerous aliases), as well as User:Socppt11. Edit history at Talk:Criticism of fractional-reserve banking is clear that this is the same indefinitely blocked editor.--Gregalton (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note the rotation through numbered sockpuppets.--Gregalton (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.

Comments

You need to mention another account to compare to. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See additional evidence provided above.--Gregalton (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Thanks for the evidence. I have blocked this individual indef. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Greg Jungwirth

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Greg Jungwirth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Gregory E. Miller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
158.123.179.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
72.200.176.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
70.181.24.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
72.200.177.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
72.200.176.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
24.250.38.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
65.29.169.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
70.181.26.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

treelo talk 23:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

First signs of connected accounts came with a warning from one of Greg Jungwirth's (hereafter GJ) frequently used IP adresses to warn me that "the new friends I make may turn on me" [188]. According to the logs for User:Gregory E. Miller (hereafter GEM), this sockpuppet account was created one minute after this warning was made. Later that day, GEM begins to talk to User:Rlevse who had been the administrator who had dealt with his most recent sockpuppetry case asking for adoption in order to try and convince Rlvese that he was a newbie and also cement a trust between him and Rlevese due to him being likely to check on future sockpuppetry cases such as this. On April 29th, he added his name to WP:WikiProject Scouting/Members mentioning his location and interest area, both of which GJ happen to share.

The account has not yet been used for vandalism but GJ has shown in the past the use of "good hand, bad hand" tactics to use one account for constructive purposes and using another anon account to vandalise the "good" account's pages and make them seem unconnected and as such cannot assume good faith to an account which seem closely related to GJ. On May 14, an anon "Colective" vandal (has previously blanked my talkpage twice) blanked GEM's talkpage [189] and also left uncivil comments on Talk:Star Wars regarding him [190] though GJ has no reason to go after GEM besides that of tactical vandalism. In addition, GEM's username is similar to GJ's username which is one of GJ's more recent MOs after User:Crips r us, see User:The Legend of G. On May 17, continuously vandalised my talkpage using both IP address 72.200.176.36 and the account User:Colective killer (hereafter referred to as CK) in another attempt at good hand, bad hand tactics. During the period of what he/they termed an "edit war", it seems CK (the assumed good hand) was trying to invoke the three revert rule in regards to me trying to remove the vandalism[191] left on my talkpage[192]. The IP address was more akin to previous personalities that GJ has used in the past with User:Jungwirthwillkillallrocks and User:Rhode Island Hero and could be attributed to be CJ's actual or most prevalent personality.

Also listing IP addresses which have been known to be used by GJ since the last SSP case against him. See also Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Greg Jungwirth and Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Crips_r_us for RFCU cases, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rhode Island Hero and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Colective follower for previous SSP cases.

RFCU case has reported that the GEM account is linked to GJ, check Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Greg Jungwirth. treelo talk 09:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Treelo. I admit that you do seem to have evidence against me, but I assure you. I am not a sock puppet. The reason I left the smile on your page is because I saw you talking to Rlevse about me. So I thought you and I could get to know each other. Also, I am not sure why that guy vandalized my talk page, but I was arguing with him over the Tatooine image used on Star Wars. If I have done anything wrong then I am sorry, but I am trying to get the hang of editing wiki and be as good of an editor as Rlevse and I have no relations to the sockpuppet. For now, I need to go and try to staighten out Freddy vs. Jason so I wont be able to talk. Gregory E. Miller (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Doesn't make sense, you never were arguing with the user in question but two well-known and trusted users. treelo talk 16:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about the Star Wars page? Who are the "two well-known and trusted users"? Evaluate. Gregory E. Miller (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Yes, the Star Wars talkpage. Both User:Stealth500 and User:TheHYPO with whom with you were discussing the image are of fairly good standing and neither seem to live near or within Rhode Island where the IP address originates. User:Jason Palpatine with whom you discussed with also about images is also of good standing and not capable of using that IP address. What I'm "evaluating" here is that you and the vandal which attacked your talkpage must be the same person as nothing connects them to you besides only that and the history of the vandal indicates they have no reason to attack you. treelo talk 20:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, but why would I attack my own page? If I were a vandal, what would I accomplish from damaging my own space? Gregory E. Miller (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
At a look at your vandal's page I see he has such a temper. Such as this [193]. Now does that look like me? Gregory E. Miller (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
That's why I've had a request for checkuser also, if I've got the wrong Greg then you won't get tagged as a sockpuppet and allowed to carry on your happy ways. GJ vandalises other people's talkpages, usually his own sockpuppets, in order to create doubt and paranoia in my mind as to who he really is. Also, he gets to play the nice guy too to create reasonable doubt so I'm not convinced abut your innocence until the checkuser request states otherwise. treelo talk 21:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Except for the 65x IP, these were all confirmed and blocked at RFCU. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:SimpsonsFan08

Suspected sockpuppeteer

SimpsonsFan08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Doughnuts...Mmm! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

EJF (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence
  • SimpsonsFan08 is a continual sockpuppeteer who likes The Simpsons (for previous cases see here and here). The most recent sockpuppet, User:King Monty IV, was blocked on 00:14, 21 May. He then logged in and posted an unblock request at 14:52, 21 May. This was swiftly declined by User:Jpgordon at 15:05, 21 May.
  • The account User:Doughnuts...Mmm! was created at 16:12, 21 May 2008. Like SimsFan and King Monty IV, Doughnuts...Mmm! also edited at the help desk on his second edit, claiming he didn't know how to join The Simpsons Wikiproject, another project which SimpsonsFan 08 was part of. I find the writing in this edit by Doughnuts...Mmm! to be very similar to that employed by User:MrWP here, another SimpsonsFan08 sockpuppet, who pretended not to know how to edit pages; this is a common trait in SimpsonsFan08 sockpuppets, as also found on the blocked SimsFan's user page "I didn't even known you could edit. That just shows how stupid I am."
  • Doughnuts...Mmm! claims on his user page that his new IP is 92.4.168.190 and says that this IP is only used by his family. However, this IP is in the same range as User:92.5.36.7, a sockpuppet IP used by SimsFan and King Monty IV, and also in the same range as 92.0.34.53, the IP SimpsonsFan08 claimed to use. SimpsonsFan08 and his socks claimed that the two latter IPs were in a shared network with his friends; clearly the "shared network" or "just my family" story is incorrect.
  • Finally, Doughnuts...Mmm! effectively asked another user for a barnstar, saying he liked it and that he did some good editing.[194] SimpsonsFan08 has shown his penchant for barnstars in the past here and here. EJF (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • I'd say this is pretty conclusive. The socks keep coming. I like how he mentions on his userpage the "2 or 3 computers on the network" this time. Enigma message 22:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the pages in userspace should probably be deleted. here, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AAllPages&from=SimpsonsFan2008&namespace=2 and here] Enigma message 23:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SimpsonsFan08‎ Enigma message 00:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
  • Blocked per RFCU results. Rudget (Help?) 16:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Knowhands enjoykeep

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Knowhands enjoykeep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Fdgdf3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Kjngjkn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Erj4ll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
45oht3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
4oujh56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Style oh! style oh! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

EdJohnston (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Kjngjkn and associated information added by AussieLegend (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

User:Knowhands enjoykeep was edit-warring to insert a 'Lack of language provision' section in the Mac OS X article. The claim that this was a disadvantage of Mac OS X had no appropriate source and seemed to reflect only his personal opinion. He was blocked for 3RR on both May 7 and May 9 by two different admins. Later, on 17 May, an edit war developed in which both Knowhands and a new editor called Fdgdf3 were cooperating. Fdgdf3 tried to re-insert the information that had been previously disputed, and was blocked by User:AlistairMcMillan for 3RR. A code letter 'E' case (to take note of the 3RR proxying) was opened by User:AussieLegend at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Knowhands_enjoykeep.

User:AlistairMcMillan has issued an indefinite block to Knowhands for disruption and repeated edit-warring, but Fdgdf3 has so far been given only given a 24-hour block. I suggest that an indef block for Fdgdf3 might be considered if Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Knowhands enjoykeep comes back positive.

In the checkuser case, User:AussieLegend notes that Knowhands was hit by the autoblock when Fdgdf3 was given *his* 24-hour block. This suggests that the two editors use the same IP. Note this comment that the editor sent email to Alistair that both of his accounts had been blocked. If in the future there is continued edit warring on Mac OS X while both users are blocked, I suggest that a block of the underlying IP be considered, but I don't know the rules for setting that up.

User:Kjngjkn has now replaced both Knowhands enjoykeep and Fdgdf3 as the active editor, edit warring on Mac OS X, List of sexual slurs and Battlestar Galactica: The Second Coming. He has also placed several random and unjustified warnings on User:AussieLegend's talk page.[195] Based on this edit summary at List of sexual slurs and the limited edit history which targets pages edited by the administrator who blocked Knowhands enjoykeep the editor is most likely another sockpuppet of Knowhands enjoykeep.

And an hour after the Kjngjkn account was blocked, User:Erj4ll was created and made the same reverts to the same articles and user talk pages.

Comments

Is this another sockpuppet of User:Primetime? The Knowhands account was created it seems to re-created the deleted article List of sexual slurs, which was worked on heavily by User:Primetime (most of those edits are now deleted under the article's previous name Glossary of sexual slurs) and some of his sockpuppets (for example User:List Expert). —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlistairMcMillan (talk • contribs)

Hello AlistairMcMillan. I don't see any sockpuppet tags on User:List Expert. The latter doesn't seem to be as nasty as Knowhands, so I wonder if they are really the same person. List Expert appeared to be a slang enthusiast, but the worst he ever did (that I can see) was he did some canvassing, he created some unnecessary redirects, and he had strong feelings about some AfD discussions. He was blocked once, but it was then undone as a mistake. He is not currently blocked; he's not been active since August 2006. EdJohnston (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Will BeBack seemed to think List Expert might be a sockpuppet of Primetime.[196] If look at List Expert's earliest edits,[197] he seems to be more than a little familiar with Wikipedia editing. Aside from that I don't have anything else except they have edits to a number of the same articles and the List Expert account was created with a couple of months of Jimbo blocking Primetime. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Primetime case does look to be very large and messy. My guess is that we don't have to understand Primetime just to answer the question about Fdgdf3. If you are comfortable using behavioral evidence to issue an indef block of Fdgdf3, then we are done, and checkuser might not even bother. It's up to you. If it were me I would wait for checkuser, since there could be future misbehavior and CU could collect some data before it goes stale. CU could also compare Knowhands' IP address against whatever they still have from Primetime. EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's doubtful that its Primetime; he just seems to be going after the blocking administrator/opposed user's last edits.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I changed the block on Fdgdf3 before reading this. Also this morning I've received 197 emails saying simply "Fuck you" from an account called User:45oht3 that was created this morning and has no edits, so I may be going out on a limb, but I believe this is the same guy. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4oujh56 is now active with a similar MO to one of the others. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked indef 4oujh56 due to the pattern, after I noticed he appeared to be systematically reverting small edits on unrelated articles by User:AussieLegend and User:Blueboy96, besides ClueBot. EdJohnston (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked indef User:Style oh! style oh! because his entire edit history consisted of reverts of my own edits, due to the analogy of the attack on AussieLegend and Blueboy96. EdJohnston (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

All blocked as socks of long term vandal Primetime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), per this Checkuser request. Blueboy96 19:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Nealante

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Nealante (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Spartin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

WebHamster 21:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Repeated attempts by Nealante (talk · contribs) to create a promotional and autobiographical article (both in article space and in user space) have resulted in multiple deletions by CSD. It seems that he has either got sick of the CSD notices on his talk page or he has roped someone else in to do the job for him as Spartin (talk · contribs) has now created a new article identical to the one created by Nealante (additionally copying the full article into the article's talk page). Both users show a similar misunderstanding on how to edit, create articles and deal with CSD notices.

Comments


Conclusions
  • Both were blocked on the 17th of May indef. ScarianCall me Pat! 22:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Codyfinke

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Codyfinke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

CodySupermarketSweep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 19:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

The evidence based upon his behavior and pattern of edits:

  • Creating duplicate articles, often with different titles;
  • Creation of nonsense articles or articles with little or no citation of fact;
  • Changing fact in established articles, often those that have been fully cited;
  • Current name is almost identical to another sock of Cody's, CodyFinkeSupermarketSweep
Comments

This person is particularly nettlesome in his behavior, and cannot resist "returning to the scene of the crime", going back to articles that he has modified in the past and slipping deleted edits back in, and leaving his "signature", specifically the inclusion of the name "Cody" in his account.

Conclusions

I have seen this behavior from Cody for over two years or so and have become familiar with his behavior patterns. This new account is classic Cody, right down to the naming convention. Particularly indicative is his failure to respond to posts on the account talk page.

already blocked and tagged. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Linesnewly username

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Linesnewly username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets


Report submission by

Chafford (talk) 11:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Per admission: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Linesnewly_username

Comments

I also suggest running a checkuser to determine who is opperating this account.

Checkuser is only for extraordinary circumstances. Also, SSP was not necessary in this case, IMO. Enigma message 22:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Blocked as a sockpuppet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chafford (talk • contribs) 11:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already blocked, but who's the sock supposed to be? — Rlevse • Talk • 00:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Sumerophile

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Sumerophile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Validboats (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Twinkeltwinklelittlestar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Yearssixty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
144.92.152.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
144.92.95.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

See discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sumerophile.

Sumerophile is already banned for block evasion, original block was for persistent edit warring and disruptions.

Comments

I left sock suspect notices for Twinkeltwinklelittlestar and 144.92.95.110. These two editors were chosen as a result of various bits of evidence already added by people in the checkuser case. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bunch of new blocks were just issued due to a positive checkuser finding. Let's keep this report open a day or two longer. EdJohnston (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Valid and Twinkle blocked over at RFCU. Yearsixty is not blocked. Closing. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:SimpsonsFan08

Suspected sockpuppeteer

SimpsonsFan08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

SimsFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Enigma message 22:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

As you can see by the title, this user has abusively used sockpuppets in the past. SimpsonsFan08 was blocked indefinitely on April 27. Soon after the last unblock request was denied on April 27, the account SimsFan was created. The two users have edited similar pages, and have similar editing styles, not to mention the obvious name similarity. Both edited Doctor Who articles and templates. See also their involvement in Wikiproject Sims. Note how many of the members are indefinitely blocked. Both users liked to welcome users. There's a ton more evidence, too, if necessary.

Additional evidence from EJF (talk · contribs)

To expand upon what Enigmaman said above, firstly both SimsFan and SimpsonsFan08 have edit-warred at Template:Doctor_Who_(series_4). These are the edits by SimsFan/SimpsonsFan08 at the template:

  • At 19:25, 11 May 2008 SimsFan (removed Voyage of the Damned. Check at http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/episodes/2007/index.shtml. It is listed as a series 3 episodes. See Hidden Comment)
  • At 14:18, 10 April 2008 SimpsonsFan08 (removed voyage of the damned, series 1: xmas inv. series 2: runaway bride series 3:VotD It's Not Series 4)
  • At 16:24, 7 April 2008 SimpsonsFan08 took out Voyage of the Damned, 1. it's a xmas special. 2. it's series 3)

These edits involved exactly the same content, and were reverted by more knowledgeable users. Another page edited by both users is User talk:Dendodge:

  • At 19:53, 24 April 2008, SimpsonsFan08 awarded Dendodge a barnstar for his work at the help desk. [198]
  • An 12:41, 18 May 2008 SimsFan awarded Dendodge a barnstar for his work at the help desk. [199]

With regards to behaviour, SimsFan appeared very advanced as a "new" user. After less than 24 hours, he volunteers at the help desk.[200] Indeed he has worked at the help desk several times since joining; an editing venue which SimpsonsFan08 regularly used before his indefinite block. Enigmaman has mentioned the similarity in name and writing style - also SimsFan's user page[201] design is almost exactly the same as SimpsonsFan08's user page[202]. Both user pages have the notice and link "(For [SimpsonsFan08/SimsFan] only: Change Status Here)". On SimpsonsFan08's user page he has a userbox saying: "This user owns one or more dogs." On SimsFan's user page there is an image of a dog that he claims to own. The writing style of SimsFan and SimpsonsFan08 is very similar, over the course of reading the communications that each editor has sent, a link can be made - both use similar speech and grammar. Also, both SimsFan and the SimpsonsFan08 sockpuppet, User:MrWP, have both pretended to be clueless newbies when they joined. MrWP's first edit was:I'm new. I don't even know what this page is. Anyway, how do you do anything. How do I create an article? Really, I don't understand. On SimsFan's user page he says about Wikipedia: "I didn't even known you could edit." which was merely a façade, as he has edited templates, mainspace and Wikipedia space since joining. SimsFan also created a template within a day of joining,[203] very rare for a new user. Also, SimpsonsFan08 requested an editor review at WP:ER which was deleted at 19:21, 27 April 2008. Just over a week later, while still a newcomer, SimsFan created an editor review. Ironically, SimsFan also edited Wikipedia:Sock puppetry on 15:32, 4 May [204] and seems well acquainted with the policy on sockpuppets and alternate accounts for a new editor. And call me bad-faith assuming, but I find that SimsFan is trying to ingratiate himself with the admin who blocked his suspected sockpuppeteer.[205] I also note the comment below on this page by SimsFan: "Doctor Who and the Sims are popular things in my shared network". The same shared network which SimpsonsFan08 uses? EJF (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • If more evidence is needed to be added to the above I can provide some from about 1300 UTC onward tomorrow. Here is just one example of the alleged sockmaster and puppet edit-warring at a template [206] EJF (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evidence added. EJF (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notified the blocking admin. Enigma message 22:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doctor Who and the Sims are popular things in my shared network. The Sims 2 is preinstalled on them for users, like me. I am not a WP:SOCK. The reason I came to Wikipedia is because some of my friends are coming. For example, Karate-master is one of my friends, and I welcomed him. SimsFanTalk • Centre of Ops • Sign and Get Award 06:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you see this page, there are many "fan" users. SimsFanTalk • Centre of Ops • Sign and Get Award 07:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can blatently see SimpsonsFan08 was operating SimpsonsFan2008. Just because I have fan in my name, like many others do, doesn't mean i'm a sock. SimsFanTalk • Centre of Ops • Sign and Get Award 07:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that this sock was outed, I suppose we sit back and wait for the next sock... Enigma message 17:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Indef'd. Very convincing. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Uktefl

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Uktefl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Tinytim3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Jamesdeacon1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Orlady (talk) 23:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

This new user's contributions have had the sole purpose of creating negative information about an organization called ACTDEC, the Accreditation Council for TESOL Distance Education Courses (see this diff and this diff. This is the same behavior (including references to "daveseslcafe") that characterized blocked user User:Uktefl and previous sockpuppet User:Pauldavid2.

Adding Jamesdeacon1 to the case. This user's contributions have been (1) addition of negative information about ACTDEC (sourced to daveseslcafe) to College of Teachers and (2) creation of at least one article (subsequently deleted) about ACTDEC. This is the same behavior that characterized blocked user User:Uktefl and previous sockpuppet User:Pauldavid2.

Comments


Conclusions

All blocked (along with a couple of others I picked up along the way). GBT/C 18:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:WazzaMan

Suspected sockpuppeteer

WazzaMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Wazzupman29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Keylock191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Mikeholbrook11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Liverpool4ever9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

TerriersFan (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

London_Oratory_School_Schola

Following content removal by User:Wazzupman29 here The almost identically named User:WazzaMan put the page up for deletion here. Next, content removal was carried out by User:Keylock191here. This user also !voted twice on the AfD here and here.

London_Oratory_School

User:WazzaMan has edited this page several times. Though most of the content removal was carried out by the suspected socks, some edits are here and here. Edits by the suspected socks are User:Keylock191 here, User:Mikeholbrook11 here, and User:Liverpool4ever9 here

Other features of the suspected sockpuppets

  • Only edited these articles
  • Use of edit summary
  • Edits are radical content removal
Comments

It should be noted that I am not commenting on the merit of the content removal rather than on the use of single purpose accounts to make it appear that such removal was supported by multiple editors and to comment at the AfD. TerriersFan (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really dont know what to do here? You could request CheckUser because I can assure you that I have nothing at all to do with these accounts. I am sorry if editing an article multiple times makes me a puppeteer. I have never 'radically' removed content from London Oratory School. Most have just been spelling, removing vandalism etc. I put the Schola article for deletion for what I thought were good reasons. I have been an editor for over a year now and I have never vandalised in any way at all and I thought that I was fairly reputable. You might have to move this because I have no idea where I'm supposed to put my reply to your incorrect accusations. WazzaMan (talk) 10:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not a sock puppet. Just like I'm not. Sgt. bender (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to a reference to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Sgt. bender. TerriersFan (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

The four suspected socks are all obvious SPAs/SOCKs of someone. This makes this different from the Sgt. bender case. I'm blocking the four accounts and warning Wazzaman, whose third edit was to London Oratory School. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Sgt. bender

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Sgt. bender (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Dr.orfannkyl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
JoeC2004 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Holybarbarian125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Squeeblz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

--SmashvilleBONK! 16:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan Pisano (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Hayes and the DRV for Gary Hayes at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 18. Pretty clearly passes the duck test. --SmashvilleBONK! 16:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Give Me a Break Give me a break, I am not a sockpuppet. Look at all of my contributions. I have created four articles, all of which are still on Wikipedia, I have contributed to Wikipedia over fifty times, and I have edited many articles. The only two things that Sgt. Bender and I have in common is indeed the Bryan Pisano page and the Gary Hayes page. Nothing else, no other association. It seems to me that someone got angry that they were disagreed with and is accusing users of frivolous assumptions. Dr.orfannkyl (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your very first four edits on Wikipedia were for an AfD for a non-notable article created by Sgt. Bender. One of your of your next 3 were adding information on the non-notable person to other articles. The next 4 were the DRV. So of your first 11 edits, 8 of them were related to the deletion of an article created by Sgt. bender. You have also both edited Schoharie County, New York. In addition, you both edited Middleburgh (village), New York. Do you just coincidentally have an interest in the same AfDs and the same village of 1,200 people? --SmashvilleBONK! 21:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So all of my other articles and edits have no merit? How many times did Sgt. Bender edit Araxi Hubbard Dutton Palmer, the Times Journal of Cobleskill, Elata, or Ashley Bowen? The answer is never. In regards to editing similar things, is it not possible that we come from the same area, or is that not allowed? Dr.orfannkyl (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't have to edit ALL of the same articles. So you are arguing that the three of you come from the same 1,200 person town, yet the 3 of you are all interested in the same obscure political candidate and the same non-notable web actor? And you just happened to make your random sojourn to Wikipedia on the exact same day to the exact same AfD/DRV as the other two twice? --SmashvilleBONK! 21:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The vast majority of my edits have nothing to do with the Sgt. Bender's and vice versa. Also, three? I'm talking about Sgt. Bender and myself, who's the third? Also, since we come from the same area, isn't it obvious that we would have the same interests? Dr.orfannkyl (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • JoeC2004 has participated in the AfD and the DRV. The vast majority of your edits consist of fewer than 125 edits in over 6 months, over 40 of which are made to articles that Sgt. bender has edited. --SmashvilleBONK! 21:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, you're agreeing with my previous statement, then? Dr.orfannkyl (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I'm saying your statement is misleading. That you have only made 80 edits in the last 6 months 14 days that were to articles not related to Sgt. Bender. In addition, Holy Barbarian has made 21 edits since joining Wikipedia. 8 of the 21 are to articles/talk pages involving you and Sgt. Bender. Squeeblz has made 100 percent of his edits to said articles. JoeC2004 has made 17 of his 24 posts to articles involving the two of you. So, you have two people with 1/3 of their edits to the same articles, one with one hundred percent and one with 75 percent. Plus, you have Sgt. bender's admission below that he knows most of you personally, that passes WP:DUCK with flying colors. --SmashvilleBONK! 22:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My statement is true; it's as misleading as the statements you're making. I don't really know/care about Squeeblz, JoeC2004, or whoever else, I'm just trying to show that I am a specific user that is not sock-puppeted. So what if I know another user? What, you don't know anyone else who uses Wikipedia? Dr.orfannkyl (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added Squeeblz to the list. May not be a direct sock and hasn't edited in months, but pretty clearly familiar with Sgt. Bender. --SmashvilleBONK! 21:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a sock puppeteer Well, I guess it won't matter in the end, but I haven't been a puppeteer. We went through this with Gary Hayes. I do have another account that I do not use for anything but could theoretically be used for puppetry. Of course these users are cooperating with me. And yes, one is from the same area as me...Schoharie County is pretty remote. For the most part I know them personally. However, check that they are for separate people under separate emails that cannot be faked.

Make the case against me. I really don't think that there's any case I can make to convince anyone. It would be much easier for me to create 5 accounts by myself than try to ask others for help. Still, I haven't. I like my Wiki account, and no, I don't have an SPA.Sgt. bender (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply: Separate e-mails can easily be faked. I have my primary e-mail, an e-mail address from a game I play, an e-mail address at work, an e-mail address from having a Yahoo account, an e-mail address from being an alum of my university ...  RGTraynor  00:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point well taken. I'm still not a puppeteer. In fact, I can name every one of my "Puppets" and have them email you (or be emailed) or be certified as actual people through a university under separate (but equal) names. Still, I don't believe that this will prove anything anyway. Someone get me more string and a ventriloquism lesson. Stat! Sgt. bender (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you are all together at the same university? --SmashvilleBONK! 01:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of us. But four of us (me included). Separate people leading separate and very uninteresting lives. I will provide (privately to an arbitrator) all the necessary and unnecessary proof of this and allow you to sort it out through the Registrar's Office if it's that important. Sgt. bender (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. As it happens, the rules against and the sanctions for practicing meatpuppetry are not particularly different from sockpuppetry, if an admin determines it to have taken place.  RGTraynor  05:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be willing to admit to some form of meatpuppetry except in the case of Dr. Orfannkyl. That's my brother. He does what he wants. The other accounts are real and shouldn't be punished, though. Sgt. bender (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
* Besides, I might as well make all of your jobs a little easier. Sgt. bender (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS By the way, I'm kind of flattered to believe that I am accused of this. It's not something I've done, but it's something I could see myself doing. Say hello to my hangman! Sgt. bender (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment According to this IP's edits, this may have been coordinated using a fan page at Facebook. That would absolve any sockpuppetry claims, but would still fall afoul of WP:TEAMWORK, based on the common activities of the users in question. --Dhartung | Talk 06:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'm not that coordinated to pull off a Facebook coup. All of our 14 members.... If you'll look, the fan page was created after most of the hubbub. So, like, I admitted to some sort of meatpuppetry. Isn't that good enough? Just because you people hate the next Sidney Poitier named Bryan Pisano doesn't mean he's not awesome. Sgt. bender (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also if you're going to lurk around the Pisano fan page, you might as well join. Help the guy out, he works as a busboy. Sgt. bender (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a Facebook account, but thanks for the invitation. --Dhartung | Talk 07:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reasonable tone of this discussion. At some point an admin is going to fill in the 'Conclusions' section below, and decide what to do. My proposal is that the people named in this report should stop showing up in the same AfDs together, since it violates WP:MEAT. If any of you do so again, a block should be considered. I see that two of you are working as normal editors and some articles have been created. So please keep on with doing that. In my opinion this case could be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 12:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
EdJohnston thanks for being reasonable. It's edits like this that show that Wikipedia can be a reasonable place for the sharing of ideas. I just have one issue, though... you seem to be nice to me and my buddies. You wouldn't happen to be a meatpuppet of mine, would you? It's okay if you are. Sgt. bender (talk) 14:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be a good bit happier with a voluntary, admin-hands-off approach if the puppets hadn't been involved in multiple AfDs backing wildly unnotable articles, and if their approach didn't involve insults and heated denials.  RGTraynor  12:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wasn't I the one to, like, admit to all of this? Besides, for the Pisano page I didn't insult once. (Not even through meatpuppetry.) Anything my buddies have said have been through cooperation was after someone else smacked them with sarcasm. Sgt. bender (talk) 14:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, you were quite uncivil in the Pisano AfD...moreso in the Gary Hayes DRV, but that was months ago. --SmashvilleBONK! 15:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sgt. bender, if you will agree to not participate in any future AfDs at the same time as any of your friends, that could make it quicker to close this report. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree not to use meat puppetry on Wikipedia anymore. I have just one caveat, however, if me and and my brother are working on the same articles, I cannot promise that he will not edit or be involved with any potential deletion process. Thanks. Sgt. bender (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He can still place a comment in the AfD, he should just not vote either Keep or Delete, just 'Comment.' And he should state in his comment that he is your brother. Is that acceptable? EdJohnston (talk)
That is acceptable. 00:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC) Sgt. bender (talk) 00:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully this will now be resolved without taking the process further than it needs to be. If future behavior is agreed to conform with WP:CIVIL and general article and AFD etiquette I will be satisfied. That said, it was personally stressful to me to make a good faith nomination and then be accused of attacks and wanting to start arguments. You and your friends should avoid not just showing up in the same AFDs, but behaviors including attacking the nominator, pretending not to know one another, playing good cop/bad cop games, empty threats of administrative intervention, and deleting comments. These could all be labeled tells, which many of us have seen before, and really don't improve your chances of keeping an article. For your friends, until they build up a broad history of editing, they will still be likely to be given an WP:SPA notation in AFDs. (The template says "few or no edits outside this topic", which was correct, regardless of whether the users in question had been registered since 2007 or 2006.) Also, I strongly advise you and your friends, when writing articles, to choose topics that have easily shown notability based on reliable sources. In other words, don't write stuff that begs to be brought up for AFD, and you won't have to gang up to defend it. --Dhartung | Talk 07:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CIVIL went out the window in his second AfD edit. --SmashvilleBONK! 13:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to Dhartung's terms. Sgt. bender (talk) 06:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

I am glad that we obtained some promises of good behavior regarding future AfD debates and civility. It seems to me that no sanctions are needed at this time. Some of the editors who joined the discussion don't yet appear satisfied, but I think we are ready to close. Any further issues that occur can be reported at WP:AN. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Grawp

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Grawp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Elfangor-Sirinial-Shamtul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Rollright (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
GROOP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Gandareva (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Fódla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
I-Five HQ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Lorn Pavan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Pierius Magnus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
VeryImportantC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Classic Trash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
R.H.H.L.B. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Hot Red Piping Chill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

--Boss Big (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

All the above accounts have either moved pages to "HAGGER"-like titles or other disruptive names similar to those Grawp has used in the past, or have made disruptive, Grawp-style page edits

Comments


Conclusions

All these accounts are indefblocked as vandalism-only accounts. Report is now superfluous. - Revolving Bugbear 13:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Editor652

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Editor652 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Music14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Kww (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Contribution pattern. South American airports, and changing the number of blacks in Honduras to 350K the moment his new account was old enough to do so. See:

Comments


Conclusions

Blocked as obvious sock. - auburnpilot talk 14:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Vyaghradhataki (3rd)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Vyaghradhataki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

122.162.103.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Shovon (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

This is clear from the editing history of the user, his puppet master and other socks. Please refer to Special:Contributions/122.162.103.193, Special:Contributions/Vyaghradhataki, Special:Contributions/Kaadavarkon, Special:Contributions/122.161.145.31. Same wordings and phrases are used by all and all of them are disrupting the same articles with racial overtones.

Comments

Use of the word "changes" as a whole edit summary is consistent in both accounts, as is the occasional CAPITALIZED edit summary. I can track down diffs if you need them. Interest in specific Southeast Asian topics is also shared.

All edits by the IP address have been reverted before I looked at this. This amounts to Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore not including the "block." If someone wants to block, go ahead, but only if the IP address is stable.

It's likely that the editor was evading a block using this IP address. Since it is blocked for 3 months from the last time it evaded a ban using a sockpuppet, it may be time to reset the ban once more. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I'm not blocking the IP. I don't think there's a huge amount of point in resetting the block (it'd only add a couple of days onto the block, which isn't huge in relation to the length of it). GBT/C 07:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:119.30.72.104

Suspected sockpuppeteer
NisarKand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
119.30.72.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
119.30.74.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

Vinh1313 (talk) 18:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

repeated vandalism of the Silvia Lancome article His idea of a discussion in the talk page: [207]

Comments

The reporter has not provided sufficient evidence to link the IP addresses to the banned user. However, the second IP's edit was extremely inappropriate, and I issued a stern warning. I recommend to close this case unless further evidence linking the account to the IP addresses is provided. Also, if they are dynamic IP addresses, blocking them might be counterproductive. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Per my comment above, I am closing this case. If you have more evidence or the the IP addresses resume editing, please notify me. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Koov

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Koov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

70.23.72.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
74.56.78.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
149.4.108.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
149.4.108.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
149.4.108.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Skalskal (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

[208]

[209]

[210]

[211]

[212]

Used comments almost identical to those used by Koov in the past.

Comments

We just finished with Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Koov. I'll ping EdJohnston to see what he thinks. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the two IPs for one month (same duration as Koov's block) based solely on the traditional Koov-like edit warring to remove the coats of arms of Kosovo and other places that he does not believe to be countries. I'll let the closer of the SSP decide if the issue is completely addressed and if these blocks are justified. EdJohnston (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to block something like 149.4.108.xxx? His IP keeps changing. 155.188.183.6 (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That range is part of (149.4.0.0/16) and so will be used by people other than Koov that are also at Queens College, City University of New York. It's easy enough to just revert any bad faith edits he makes, he's not hard to spot Ha! (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking of semiprotecting Gallery of sovereign-state flags and Gallery of country coats of arms for about a month each. Koov socks (and the reverts) now account for a majority of all the edits on those two articles. Semiprotection might take away Koov's incentive to edit. There were about 12-20 vandalistic edits altogether. Admins are surely supposed to control these things if they can.
I'm thinking of extending Koov's block to indefinite. Does anyone have a comment on this plan? The block could be undone if he promised to respect WP policy. EdJohnston (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do. As per policy, he deserves to be indefinitely blocked for breaching the sock puppetry policy. He's consistently evading his block by editing the same articles in the same way he was before (the evidence is obvious enough in the above-listed IP contribs that I'm not going to list it here). I've just added 149.4.108.153 to the list and undone yet more of his block evasions. [213] [214] [215] Ha! (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Koov's block has been extended to indefinite. If he agrees to abide by Wikipedia policy, I have promised to immediately lift the block. EdJohnston (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

No further action necessary at this time. GBT/C 07:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:CyberAnth

;Suspected sockpuppeteer

CyberAnth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Ewenss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Cryptographic hash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
C.m.jones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Happyme22 (talk) 05:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence
CyberAnth and I met at the article Jeremiah Wright controversy. The user has repeatedly disagreed with myself and other page editors, going against concensus (see Talk:Jeremiah Wright controversy). He began a section at Talk:Jeremiah Wright controversy entitled POV pushing, where he accused myself and two other editors of being uncivil and partisan. I was upset, and responded, justifying my actions. In that message, I told the user that I was an experienced editor and pointed to two articles which I greatly aided in becoming featured: Ronald Reagan and Nancy Reagan. CyberAnth then began stalking me and followed me over to the Ronald Reagan page, tagging the article for POV and unbalance. He also went to the Nancy Reagan page, and added in a claim that Mrs. Reagan was addicted to prescription medication. He then began a discussion at the Talk:Ronald Reagan page called Hero worship, calling the article "sanitized" and that he will be "working to introduce such critical material in a scholarly manner."
After an edit war, User:Cryptographic hash came to the page and restored the POV and unbalanced tags. I reverted it, and then CyberAnth added them back again. It was later undone as well. Cryptographic hash then added in a very critical piece of President Reagan, which I reverted for WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV concerns. That edit was deduced at the talk page to also be in violation of WP:RELIABLE.
Prior to all this, all three, led by User:Ewenss, repeatedly went against concensus at the Jeremiah Wright controversy page. I reported CyberAnth at WP:WQA (see the page here) where specualtion of the three all being sockpuppets was brought up. So I put in a request at WP:RFCU, where the most damning piece of evidence was brought up: after an IP check, it was confirmed that they are indeed all the same person — see the results here.
While I was filing this report, User:Tiptoety dropped me a line and informed me that he, an admin, blocked User:CyberAnth citing the WP:RFCU results. I am now requesting that blocks are issued on the sockpuppets User:Ewenss, User:Cryptographic hash, and User:C.m.jones, because CyberAnth can simply go to his other three accounts and use them to complete his dirty work and disrupt concensus at multiple pages. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 05:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments


Conclusions

All socks blocked. GBT/C 07:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:South Philly

Suspected sockpuppeteer

South Philly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

English Subtitle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Stonewall Revisited (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Amnesia grrl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
216.185.29.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by English Subtitle (talk) 19
21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Stonewall Revisited (talk) 19
26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Evidence
  • I'm turning myself in at the request of some other users. English Subtitle (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Me too. I was only trying to have some fun. Stonewall Revisited (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

I would like to add this IP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/216.185.29.69 who is clearly editing on behalf of banned user South Philly, e.g. [216] "I can't log into my account; but I wanted my comments to be heard." betsythedevine (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Those were mine. Ban me too if you must. Amnesia grrl (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Three are self-admitted socks, = indef. The IP is pretty obvious too, 3 month block. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:El peno

Suspected sockpuppeteer
El peno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
Report submission by

— Insanity Incarnate 03:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Similar usernames; both made similar edits to Sonnenbühl (history)

Comments


Conclusions

Quack quack. Both have been blocked. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:South Philly

Suspected sockpuppeteer

South Philly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Sur de Filadelfia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Deor (talk) 02:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Aside from the obvious relationship of usernames, my evidence is a bit thin, but please bear with me. South Philly was indefinitely blocked last October for abusing multiple accounts. Since then he has thrice, most recently at the end of March, requested unblocking; all were declined and his talk page was protected. In April, Sur de Filadelfia shows up, making edits that are obviously not those of a new user, such as adding WikiProject Philadelphia (a project that South Philly had been involved with) tags to talk pages. Recently, he suddenly showed up at AfD to support, in a rather uncivil fashion, an article that had been created by User:Evrik, who lists South Philly as an acquaintance on his user page. Since then Sur de Filadelfia has been engaged in various disruptive activities related to that AfD, such as AfDing an article about the person who AfDed Evrik's article and repeatedly tagging the article Schadenfreude (which is involved in the AfD as a potential redirect target) for nonexistent copyright violations. If it hadn't been for the similarity of usernames, I probably wouldn't have associated these accounts, but the behavior of Sur is close enough to that of South that block evasion seems very likely to me here.

Comments

Actually, the evidence is a bit stronger than that. South Philly first showed up to support Evrik and engage in tag-team reversions [217]. The checkuser admin noted there are strong meatpuppetry concerns. So it is quite a coincidence indeed that when Evrik is yet again needing support, another similarly named user shows up behaving in yet again disruptive fashion. --C S (talk) 03:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

This is painfully obvious. Just for the record, I agree that South Philly is not Evrik, but maybe knows him or something along that line. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:PIO (2nd)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

PIO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Luigi 28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

User:PIO has a history of multiple accounts - see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PIO and this edit, claiming he has others [218]. Luigi 28 is a newbie though, about which I've already entered an WP:RFCU at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Luigi 28 after these diffs [219] [220]. PIO's rotating IP is in the 151.67 to 70 range - evidence: PIO editing from his IP address arguing to be unblocked [221] [222] and this discussion User_talk:DIREKTOR#IP_151.67... during which 'Luigi' gets confused about whether he's 151.67 or 151.70 [223].

Comments

Are there deleted edits? Luigi has exactly one insignificant edit in his contrib log. Without further information there is no way I can reach a conclusion. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope...no deleted edits. GBT/C 21:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, there are no other edits. This is one of the rare WP:SSP cases that have been caught early. The WP:RFCU report will tell all. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Checkuser returned "unlikely" - closing with no further action. The public face of GBT/C 16:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Societyfinalclubs

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Societyfinalclubs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Tiki-two (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (actually, this is the oldest account, but they are no longer active. Sorry if this breaks with normal process
65.150.33.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Jonesbig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Frienlifer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Schooldoc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

barneca (talk) 18:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overview

It appears Collegiate secret societies in North America is infested with sock accounts of one person. But they seem to be creating socks that argue with each other, so it's hard figuring out who is who. There are plenty of good faith users at that page, too, and since a fishing expedition is out of the question, I'm hoping that by reporting the most obvious socks here, I can convince a Checkuser to look at these accounts, and hopefully smoke out any other socks. I'm not currently listing all the accounts I think might possibly be socks; I'm leaving off the borderline ones to be fair to other editors of that page. If this discretion is unhelpful, please let me know.

I'm trying to find a balance between an airtight case that takes way too long to write, and a bare-bones case that risks being ignored. Please let me know if I've cut too many corners and you'd like more info on something.

Last year, it appears a "nest" of socks, led by User:Tiki-two, was creating what many people deemed hoax articles:

A year later, User:Societyfinalclubs has recreated one of the articles as Sacred_Order_of_Skull_and_Crescent (currently deleted, admins only), based on a page at nationmaster.com that is just a mirror of the old, deleted-at-AFD Wikipedia article. Last night, I and another couple of editors tried to extend good faith to this new user, but he was blocked for 12 hours for edit warring, and immediately used a self-admitted IP sock to angrily delete portions of their additions to Collegiate secret societies in North America. Immediately afterward, a newly-created account, User:Frienlifer, continued in this manner, making snippy comments about how Societyfinalclubs was obviously a hoaxer, but couldn't help also saying the reference seemed OK: [224]. Right after this, what appears to be a month-old alternate account, User:Jonesbig, came to his defense. Today, Societyfinalclubs recreated the article again, a word-for-word copy of the old article that AFD'd last year, which in turn is a word for word copy of the nationmaster article.

When I deleted this as a recreation of an article deleted at AFD, Societyfinal clubs "quit", but a newly created account, User:Schooldoc, has now appeared, once again claiming everything must go.

All in all, very disruptive.

Evidence

I'm praying that an RFCU is conclusive, but quick additional evidence that these are socks (I can go into more detail if someone insists):

  • Asking everyone to "just leave it" while their changes are being discussed on the talk page
    • Tiki-two (many more in deleted contribs)
    • Societyfinalclubs (many more along this line in deleted contribs)
    • Schooldoc (note this is one of the "opposing" accounts)
  • Insisting this is some plot by a Theta Nu Epsilon fraternity at another college
    • Jonesbig
    • Societyfinalclubs
  • Odd insistence that nationmaster.com, an obvious mirror site and content aggregator, has its content "checked by the CIA"
    • Societyfinalclubs
    • Jonesbig
  • Launching into profanities when challenged
  • Natural inclination to edit war, see very recent contrib history of:
Comments

I'll be filing an RFCU as soon as I can. Thanks for looking into this for me. --barneca (talk) 18:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Conclusions

At the same time I filed this, Justinm1978 filed Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Societyfinalclubs. Checkuser Sam Korn confirmed all above (except Tiki-two, who was not included in the Checkuser request), plus many more, are all sockpuppets of User:Mctrain. Sam Korn blocked all of them indef.

I am going to go ahead and also block Tiki-two as well; a Checkuser couldn't have helped, as Tiki-two hasn't edited in 9 months, but it's quite obvious now that the Purdue secret society is a hoax, and so Tiki-two is pretty obviously the same person. Probably one could actually call Tiki-two the puppet master, but that probably isn't critical.

Since Sam Korn did all the heavy lifting, I don't think there's a problem or COI or anything with me (the initiator) also being the one to close and archive this. --barneca (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:842U

Suspected sockpuppeteer

842U (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

BMWR1200C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Scheinwerfermann (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

puppetmaster creates puppet's account page (apparently forgot which name he'd logged in) followed immediately by blatant sockpuppet tampering with consensus-building processs (puppet supports & agrees with puppetmaster's unpopular position): [225] [226] [227] [228]

Furthermore, this user's sockpuppetry is not confined to the one discussion, as it seems; here is another instance of the puppet supporting & agreeing with the puppetmaster, and this diff shows the puppet deleting text critical of the puppetmaster from a talk page.

Comments

Puppetmaster 842U's general behaviour lately has been problematic (WP:EW, WP:UGH, WP:3RR, WP:NPA); see and follow 3RR warning and this and subsequent diffs

The evidence in support of this allegation is very strong. On every day that BMWR1200C edited, 842U also edited, and in some cases they edited within five or 20 minutes of one another. If proof of this is needed, I will post the diffs. They both edited Honda Pacific Coast and its talk page on the same day in February 2008, and they've been hacking away at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles over the last few days. I can't point to a single "gotcha" violation such as bypassing 3RR, but overall, this sort of behavior is totally unacceptable. Let's do an indef-block on BMWR1200C and a one-month block on 842U, to be reduced to one week if 842U apologizes and shows remorse. I'll request a checkuser to make sure, but I'll be honestly surprised if these are two different people. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser filed: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/842U. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Both accounts blocked indef per CU. Tiptoety talk 19:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Panda9874

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Panda9874 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

211.30.227.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by


Evidence

User Panda9874 created nonsense article Allan leng at 22:14. This was then tagged for deletion by a user, IP address then came on the scene and removed the CSD tags a number of times at 22:19 and 22:31 to avoid deleting tags on article created himself.

History is below: 

   * (cur) (last)  22:32, May 12, 2008 DeadlyAssassin (Talk | contribs) m (137 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by 211.30.227.91 identified as vandalism to last revision by Metropolitan90. (TW)) (undo)
   * (cur) (last) 22:31, May 12, 2008 211.30.227.91 (Talk) (10 bytes) (←Replaced content with '{{db-bio}}') (undo)
   * (cur) (last) 22:27, May 12, 2008 Metropolitan90 (Talk | contribs) (137 bytes) (change to db-bio) (undo)
   * (cur) (last) 22:20, May 12, 2008 211.30.227.91 (Talk) (142 bytes) (undo)
   * (cur) (last) 22:19, May 12, 2008 211.30.227.91 (Talk) (135 bytes) (undo)
   * (cur) (last) 22:18, May 12, 2008 Panda9874 (Talk | contribs) (114 bytes) (undo)
   * (cur) (last) 22:16, May 12, 2008 FCSundae (Talk | contribs) (59 bytes) (added speedy delete tag) (undo)
   * (cur) (last) 22:14, May 12, 2008 Panda9874 (Talk | contribs) (43 bytes) (←Created page with 'allan is very ownage and likes to own noobs')


Comments

Probably the same user. At the same time, it's probably a newer user, whom may not understand how things work here. Additionally, I do not see the CSD tag removed even once in the deleted history of this article. SQLQuery me! 11:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SQL. No need to block; just explain to the newbie how things work around here and that will be fine. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I left a message on user talk. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree! Dont bite the newbies :) --EivindJ (talk) 16:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

I'm closing this case. Wikipedia:Assume good faith and let's move on to other cases. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Contest1

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Contest1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
Contest2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Spcspcspcbowden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

Soxred93 (u t) 00:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Seems to be obvious, both vandalized Andrew within a few minutes, with similar usernames.

Comments
Edit: Add another user. Soxred93 (u t) 01:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you forgot one. I added User:Contest2, which I think is what you meant to do. SQLQuery me! 05:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
Contest1 and Contest2 are obvious. Blocked both as vandalism-only, with a note about socks in the block log. Not sure about User:Spcspcspcbowden yet, but, they're headed down the same path. SQLQuery me! 06:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may as well block Spc... also. He vandalized the same article in the same ten-minute span as the other two users, and he has no other edits. The strong likelihood is that this is a throwaway vandalism-only account. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Jvolkblum

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Jvolkblum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Oy'Peanuts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Orlady (talk) 01:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

Behavior is extremely similar to other confirmed Jvolkblum socks, and timing of activity is contemporaneous with activity by other confirmed socks.

User:Oy'Peanuts account was created on 24 April 2008 less than an hour before the accounts for sockpuppets KatieGrinn, PaoloCarlo, and BingBingBingNBing (listed in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (5th)). User page was created almost immediately. It resembles user pages for other Jvolkblum socks (such as EddieMonsoon's and JParkRow's); the first version of the page was a near-copy of a user page of mine that has been copied by other Jvolkblum socks. Subsequent edits to that page were made on 26 April, shortly after some edits by newly created sockpuppet User:BingBingBingNBing and a couple of hours before the creation of sockpuppets User:BronxBEAT and User:Wingsolid, and during a few-hour period in which sockpuppet User:KatieGrinn also edited.

Today (about 20 hours after the most recent set of Jvolkblum sockpuppets was blocked) Oy'Peanuts appeared to defend an image-for-deletion that had been uploaded by FlanneryFamily, another Jvolkblum sockpuppet.

Comments

This is strong evidence. All evidence points to an abusive sockpuppet, and there is no mitigating evidence. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I've been following Jvolkblum since the first SSP case, over at RFCU etc. It's pretty apparent this is another sock, and so blocked indefinitely. I'll be considering requesting a ban soon. Rudget (Help?) 19:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Uktefl

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Uktefl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Pauldavid2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Orlady (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

User:Uktefl was blocked after an editing history that focused on creating negative information about an organization called ACTDEC, the Accreditation Council for TESOL Distance Education Courses. (Example: this diff.) User:Pauldavid2 started editing a few hours after Uktefl was blocked, and also has focused exclusively on adding unsourced negative information about ACTDEC, for example in this diff and this diff and [229].

Comments


Conclusions

Quack. Blocked. GBT/C 15:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Mehwtf3

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Mehwtf3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets


Report submission by

CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence


Comments


Conclusions

Dealt with as vandalism. GBT/C 11:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Mehwtf

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Mehwtf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets


Report submission by

CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 11:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence


Comments


Conclusions

Being dealt with as vandalism, rather than sockpuppetry. User's blocked. GBT/C 11:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:MarkBA

Suspected sockpuppeteer

MarkBA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

78.99.161.255 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Hobartimus (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Main evidence, CheckUser confirmation [230] from User:Thatcher. The IP editing as MarkBA [231] and attempting to hide the evidence a few minutes later when he realizes he demanded apology as “MarkBA” but signed the post as the IP [232].

Supporting evidence, general description. MarkBA (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) was recently blocked for mass puppetry as established per checkuser (see list of previous puppets) (see previous checkuser case [233]) and now it turns out that he continued where he left off the new sock is 78.99.161.255 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) confirmed by checkuser [234] [235], now the new sock and the master account need blocking. The good faith of administrators was completely abused here. MarkBA has 4 blocks, but only one shows up in the block log of the main account and they treated him like a new user every time. See these talk pages for example [236] [237] [238] where he is constantly welcomed, invited to discussion, advised to create an account all the same steps taken over and over, with incredibly short blocks “not to bite” for example the 4th block is only for 3 hours [239] for “Disruptive editing: Multiple reverts with uncivil edit summaries”. The socks were generally used for mass incivility, personal attacks among other things like [240] often using edit summaries [241] [242] to abuse fellow editors. The latest sock 78.99.161.255 is no less disruptive with every single edit is a revert of a user. I think it’s safe to say that if all the edits were made with the main account it would be blocked already but by avoiding scrutiny and abusing good faith and being treated like a new user every time, the accounts got away with a slap on the wrist. The sockmaster account, MarkBA was already under restrictions per the Digwuren arbcom case [243]. Only the Checkuser confirmed socks are listed in the category there can be many more currently undetected. Admin action is needed against the main account so it can be properly tagged as sockmaster and the socks can be collected and their contributions can be followed from there. Administrator Ricky81682 suggested [244] a block of the main account "If a checkuser has determined they are his" (it did).

The latest puppet last active a few days ago 78.99.161.255 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) still remain unblocked untagged and the main account needs to be dealt with. The community should decide wheter checkuser confirmed repeat abusive sockpuppetry is something to endorse and reward or sanction. Another "slap on the wrist" type block could be taken as open encouragement of this type of abuse since getting CheckUser confirmed proof is not always an easy task even in this case there can be much more abuse and disruption, only unconfirmed by CheckUser. As per admin Ricky81682 comments, blocking dynamic IP-s is not an effective way to deal with this, I endorse an indefinite or substantial block of the main pupeteer account, MarkBA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Apart from the conclusive checkuser evidence several administrators already reviewed some of the case when a previous block for abusive sockpuppetry was applied but MarkBA repeatedly blanked these discussions from his talk page in an attempt to hide the evidence. MarkBA moved most of his editing abuse, harassment, edit warring, personal attacks to the sockpuppets but returned "within hours" when the main account was blocked to ask for unblock [245]. See some of the old discussions here, [246] [247], and a consensus of several admins that MarkBA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indeed the pupeteer for example [248] [249], the talk page even had to be protected by administrator Yamla a little later due to constant blanking by MarkBA [250]. In the face of overwhelming evidence these continued denials by MarkBA (latest denial “I’m not responsible for the IPs” can only be seen as a weak attempt to confuse administrators, hide past actions from scrutiny, so the next puppet can get the same "red carpet treatment" as the previous ones. Starting with level 1(!!) warnings [251] more warnings without action [252] invitations to discussion of the same user invited multiple times before [253] advice to create an account given to a long time abuser [254] and even when the block comes (4th block of the user, under restriction already), who already had an 1 week block before it's only for 3 hours [255], all the diffs come from the talk page of a single puppet confirmed by checkuser only later [256] as it takes time to get confirmation. Time of good faith users is wasted this way constantly with no progress other than warnings or miniblocks for a dynamic IP and no consequence to the main pupeteer account with all the blocks not following him and not showing up in his block log. If something is not done admins will have to start giving out level 1 warnings again, when dealing with a multiple times blocked, under restriction, checkuser confirmed abusive sockmaster, who has no intention of giving up socking, instead denies that the whole thing ever happened. The main account should be blocked and identified as a repeat confirmed sockmaster so future users and admins at least know what they are dealing with. Hopefully this is the right place where admins experienced in dealing with sockpuppets can handle this (there was a previous ANI thread that drew comment only from a single administrator).


Comments

I'll be forwarding this case to WP:AE (arbitration enforcement) in a moment. That's where MarkBA can be dealt with. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 07:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

The Digwuren case remedies do not mention socking, which is what this case is. So I'm handling it as a normal SSP case, remedy-wise, and logging at AE, SSP, Digwuren case log, and MarkBA's talk page. There is no doubt that MarkBA has repeatedly used socks and he/his socks have been blocked at least 4 times. This is highly disruptive. I'm blocking the IP in the SSP case one month, blocking MarkBA for three months, and giving MarkBA an topic ban for six months. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Lookingheart

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Lookingheart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

68.89.78.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
66.139.107.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.88.111.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
70.243.111.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
66.139.99.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
69.152.71.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
170.20.109.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
207.118.26.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
70.20.109.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Bstone (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Please see the results of the UserCompare tool.


Comments

Lookingheart has made identical edits as the IPs have. The edits being made are to the External Link section of Rainbow Gathering and Rainbow Family. These edits are used to promote his non-notable camping trip and hitchhiking site. Per previous lengthy discussion, consensus and policy (WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS) it was decided his personal sites would not be included on the EL section. This, however, has not stopped him from repeatedly adding them. He even lists those ELs on his userpage- the very same ones which are being added to the articles.

  • Would not RFCU be a better venue for this? Going by the UserCompare tool gives us a good idea, but since the IPs are in different ranges and of different ages it might be better to check. If you were to list, I'd list under Code G.Rudget (Help?) 17:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the best way to handle this is semi-protect the article Rainbow Family for two weeks and notify the user that consensus has developed not to add this links, and he will be blocked if he adds them again. I'll check the page history to see how many legitimate anon edits it tends to get before I report to WP:RFPP. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RFCU addedhere. Bstone (talk) 04:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Conclusions

Remind the user that adding spam links, whether when logged in or out, is unacceptable. At present there haven't been contributions, whether under the account or an IP, since the warnings were issued. No action will be taken at this stage, but if the user comes back and continues (under this or any other account or IP) then deal with it accordingly (warnings, and report to WP:AIV). Maybe consider adding the link to the spam blacklist. GBT/C 11:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:87.194.4.21

Suspected sockpuppeteer

87.194.4.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

217.41.51.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.150.99.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.138.235.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
81.158.197.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
81.158.207.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.145.11.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
92.11.226.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
81.153.175.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
81.149.223.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

--Keithpickering (talk) 05:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

87.194.4.21 claims to use 20 IP addresses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Galileo#Effort

... one of which must be (from context in link cited above) 217.41.51.240

From the talk page of 87.194.4.21 we can see his interests include History of Science (Newton, Galileo, Pythagoras, Aristarchus, Richard Dawkins, Dennis Rawlins, Karl Friedrich Gauss, Discovery of Neptune), linguistics, Phillip R. Bennett, Warren Buffett, Meredith Hunter, and motorcycle gangs.

Also intersted in Richard Dawkins, Meredith Hunter, motorcycle gangs, and history of science are:
217.41.51.240 (previously mentioned); and:
86.145.11.103
81.149.223.218

217.41.51.240 removed all references to Dennis Rawlins from the article on Aristarchos of Samos. Note that the results of Rawlins' work remained in the article, only the references by which one can verify the content were removed.

Also interested in editing Phillip R. Bennett and motorcycle gangs is: 86.150.99.135 who, in late February 2008, tried to get sysop Cutler to delete Dennis Rawlins' biography.

When sysop Cutler showed no interest in removing Rawlins' biography, 217.41.51.240 edited the talk page of the bio on Cutler J. Cleveland -- a physicist with interests substantially similar to sysop Cutler -- complaining of suspected sockpuppetry by CJC. (NOTE: Cutler J. Cleveland may or may not be the same person as sysop Cutler. CJC may not even be a WP editor. It seems improbable that either one is a sockpuppeteer.) Also editing the talk page of Cutler J. Cleveland, complaining of sockpuppetry were:

86.138.235.117 (who also complained that Rawlins' bio seemed autobio.)
81.158.197.91
81.158.207.204
Note that all these edits to the Cleveland article's talk page occured during 4 days, March 7-11 2008, less than 2 weeks after the attempt to get sysop Cutler to delete the Rawlins bio.

On March 7, 2008, user 12.77.38.72 added a polite request to the user talk page of 87.194.4.21: "Please refrain from disturbing the pages of Charlie Munger and Warren Buffett. Thank you." Four days later, user 81.158.207.204 responded on the user page of 12.77.38.72: "Go to Hell."

On the user:talk page of Eppyie, 217.41.51.240 complained that Cutler Cleveland had a number of sockpuppets, supporting similar suggestions in the same paragraph by:
92.11.226.135
81.153.175.88
This also complained that user KonaScout was a sockpuppet of Cutler J. Cleveland.

On the user:talk page of Keithpickering, 87.194.4.21 makes impolite remarks (including "GTH"), while implying that he is the same person as 86.145.11.103

81.149.223.218 has also edited Aristarchus of Samos, Dennis Rawlins, and Meredith Hunter, as well as eliminating critical comments made to the talk page of 87.194.4.21


Comments

In addition to being a sockpuppeteer, this person is also a vandal. Victims so far include (but are not limited to) biographies of Warren Buffett, Richard Dawkins, Dennis Rawlins, Charlie Munger, and Aristarchus of Samos.

There are very likely other sockpuppets for this person, and I will be updating this when I can. Rawlins believes he knows who this person is, and may at some time go public.

Conclusions

All the IPs are stale (haven't edited for two months or so, bar one). It's probably much easier to just monitor the contributions of the main IP, and list at WP:AIV if its disruptive behaviour continues. I don't plan on blocking a whole load of IPs without knowing how stable they are. GBT/C 11:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Dionix

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Dionix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Mariokempes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

"--BurtReed (talk) 03:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)""[reply]

Evidence

In the Template Italian people Dionix appears exactly when sockpuppet Mariokempes stops posting. Maintains exactly the same arguments. Changes the content of the template exactly as suggested by Mariokempes. Accuses exactly the same wikipedians (Brunodam and Pannonicus) as Mariokempes does in his own talkpage.

Comments

Dionix does 3 reverts on 5/7/08 and repeats the same accusations of supposed italian nationalism, without accepting possible agreement. He even uses offensive words in the discussion page of the template: "piss me off".

  • While reviewing admins should and have to consider this case in isolation on its merits, please be aware that this case is a retaliatory strike against Dionix for the entry below Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Brunodam. Many thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the accused, I'd like to state that this accusation is strictly retaliatory for my listing of Brunodam below. Brunodam (as "Burt Reed") is trying to use my arguments on Template talk:Italian people to make a case, but let me point out that there is NO case: NO overlap, NO colusion, NO ganging up. In short, no case of any kind. Dionix (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is totally identical the POV of Dionix and Mariokempes in the template.

  • Only because I read the history and mostly agree. Dionix (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Whilst possible, I think it is improbable - I tend more to the view that this is a retaliatory report. As it is not impossible, however, an RFCU could clear this up. GBT/C 11:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:SirIsaacBrock

Suspected sockpuppeteer

SirIsaacBrock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Chessy999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Darkspots (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Chessy999 has edited Monkey-baiting to defend the article in the form written by SirIsaacBrock: [257] [258]

Both users have edited the following (partial) list of articles:

They have both moved Bait (dogs), from some other article name to that article name. Chessy999: [259] SirIsaacBrock: [260]

Chessy999, SirIsaacBrock, and User:WritersCramp (a confirmed sock of SirIsaacBrock) have all edited Nazi architecture.

Chessy999 and SirIsaacBrock have both edited articles about accounting, infantry weapons, War of 1812 battles, fighting dogs (obviously), chess and specifically chess pieces (many for Chessy, [261] for SirIsaacBrook), Nazism, and Canadian military history. The majority of the edits of each user fall into one of these categories of articles.

This is all too close for coincidence. SirIsaacBrock is banned by the community for disruptive behavior and rampant sockpuppetry (Wikipedia:List of banned users#SirIsaacBrock). Chessy999 has a lot of civility/tendentious editing complaints on his user talk page. This user should be indef blocked as the sockpuppet of a banned user.

Comments

After looking a little more at the edits of the two accounts, I would have to agree.

Chessy seems to have taken over the work that SirIsaac was doing on the monkey-baiting article, defending the same sections in the same manner. They both have made edits on articles relating to terrorism in Canada, Nazi books, Nazi architecture, Hunting/Fighting dog breeds, articles relating to firearms, articles relating to finance/accounting and they both refer to users who they have content disputes as vandals.

I have no details regarding IPs etc, however apart from a few slight differences, both users edit the same or very closely related articles - I would agree with the above, baiting dogs/fighting dogs, Nazi books, Nazi architecture, Canadian conflicts/terrorism and military firearms.

I would not care so much if Chessy was a sockpuppet of a banned user, if Chessy had been blocked, decided on a new start, and kept a low profile - acting in a way that is helpful. He does not, it is still the same aggressive editor, with a total arrogant lack of respect for others, their edits and consensus. Sennen goroshi (talk) 03:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chessy999, SirIsaacBrock, and User:WritersCramp have all edited the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conflicts_in_Canada&limit=500&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Old_English_Bulldog&limit=500&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Adolf_Hitler_books&limit=500&action=history


I could go back further and check every single edit, but doing it manually is a pain in the ass.

It seems very suspect that you would have 3 editors with such shared interests, I would understand if they shared one category, but to share an interest in Nazi architecture and books, monkeys fighting dogs, accountancy, chess and 1812 seems to be too much to put down to coincedence. Sennen goroshi (talk) 07:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks obvious to me; also quite a few coincidences with PianoKeys (talk · contribs), who was active between May and July 2007. --Snigbrook (talk) 12:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the edits of Pianokeys match up with those of the above editors, then it would all make sense. There was a small gap between writercramp/sirisaac and chessy..but who knows there could well be another 5 or 6 accounts out there.
Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at the history of some of the articles, and could not find any other recent accounts; I have found Octopus-Hands (talk · contribs) which looks likely, but no edits from that user since February 2007. --Snigbrook (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Quack. Blocked. GBT/C 09:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Berzon

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Berzon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

207.171.195.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
74.127.101.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
67.101.103.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Netsumdisc (talk) 01:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User: Berzon was blocked[262] for posting links to a web site he owns and operates and has a commercial interest. (He has claimed this isn't his web site[263], but a "who is" shows the site registered to him.) He also authored the link he posts most often. He primarily posts to Kenneth Fisher against whom he appears to have a personal grievance based on his edits, which is fine but Wikipedia is probably not the best medium to sort that out.

May be using sock puppets to continued adding links to his web site and make other edits that appear to be about a personal grievance. These sock puppets only post to Kenneth L. Fisher and The Only Three Questions That Count with generally the same links.

These postings all contain links to Berzon's web site OdessaPage.

User: Berzon[264][265][266][267] [268]

User: 207.171.195.28[269][270][271][272][273] [274]

These edits are identical for User: 207.171.195.28[275] and User: 67.101.103.125[276]

Similar justification for inclusion of links by [User: Berzon] [277] [278] [279], User: 207.171.195.28[280], and User: 74.127.101.213[281]

Further, User: 74.127.101.213 [282] seems to be making justification not for edits they made, but for edits made by User: 207.171.195.28[283]

And here are similar edits re: CXO rankings by User: Berzon [284] and User: 74.127.101.213[285]

User: Berzon may be using annonymous IP addresses to make edits he was previously blocked for, for using Wikipedia to promote his own web site and an article he wrote as a product review. Netsumdisc (talk) 01:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comments


Conclusions

Almost certainly linked. There's no block evasion, though, as the original block was only for a short period of time. Report to WP:AIV if necessary. GBT/C 09:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Korea4one

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Korea4one (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Bostonkp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Bostonprofessor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Americanprofessor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Less sure about the following three, as they have no edits yet
Bostonceltictiger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Bostonceltic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Bostonbagle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

cab (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

The new accounts named above were all created on April 13, a little more than a day after the last sockpuppetry case was closed; Bostonkp at around 10 AM (UTC), and the Americanprofessor, Bostonprofessor, Bostonbagle, Bostontiger, and Bostonceltictiger all in 5 minutes between 10:15 and 10:20. Here's the the account creation log from around that time [286].

All the accounts above which have made edits show the same characteristics as the bunch of socks blocked due to the first case Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Korea4one

  1. Makes inflated claims for the number of Koreans, number of speakers of Korean language, etc. without sources
  2. Tries to downplay the influence of China or Japan and claim everything has a Korean origin
  3. Never signs talk page posts, and always adds at the top of sections instead of the bottom

Americanprofessor has five edits. On April 10, someone using the nickname "Americanprofessor" also started posting at the Korea Times message board (where you'll also find the nicknames "Korea4one", "Bostonliberal" and "Bostonasia") [287].

  1. Complaining about another editor's opinion that Chinese immigration had more influence on Japan than Korean immigration at Talk:Kofun period [288]
  2. Claiming that the Hata clan are of Korean origin and discounting Chinese or Jewish origin theories at Talk:Hata clan [289]
  3. Twice posting on Talk:List of languages by number of native speakers claiming that the number of speakers of Korean should be 88 million [290][291]
  4. Increasing the population figure on the Koreans article without citing any source [292]

Bostonkp only has one edit to date, but given what it was (an unsigned post on Talk:Korean language claiming that the number of speakers of Korean needs to be updated [293]) combined with his user name and time of account creation, it seems to me that he's also the same guy.

Bostonprofessor also only has one edit (an unsigned post on Talk:Japanese language claiming that the number of speakers of Japanese was too high [294]); unsurprisingly, this nickname also shows up at the Korea Times message board [295], and seems to be using the same ISP as Americanprofessor.

Comments


Conclusions

The three socks with edits have been indefinitely blocked. The others - well, can't say until they edit. GBT/C 09:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Comraderedoctober

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Comraderedoctober (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

76.122.45.99 (talk · contribs)
74.239.34.219 (talk · contribs)
4.171.120.134 (talk · contribs)


Report submission by

T L Miles (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence
  • User:76.122.45.99
c-76-122-45-99.hsd1.fl.comcast.net
Comcast Cable Communications, Inc. JACKSONVILLE-15 (NET-76-122-0-0-1)
Jacksonville Florida

Adding autobiographical content to his old user page

  • User:74.239.34.219
adsl-074-239-034-219.sip.jax.bellsouth.net
Jacksonville Florida

Adding autobiographical content to his old user page

  • User:4.171.120.134
dialup-4.171.120.134.Dial1.Orlando1.Level3.net
Orlando, Florida

Continuing argument with another editor begun by the IPs above

User:Comraderedoctober who has an indef ban, appears to be back in these numeric IPs, two of which he used regularly before his ban, but were not blocked. Since he seems focused on editing his political organizations' pages, perhaps these IPs could be prevented from editing Social Democrats USA‎, Social democracy, Fist and Rose Tendency, Socialist Party of Florida, Social Democratic Party (United States)? T L Miles (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this edit at the Talk for "Notes_for_the_suspect" further suggests this banned user is continuing to edit the same articles.

It appears that since I have access to many computer service by having a laptop that I have been wrongly accused of this unknown action. If Wikipedia is able to know this than why arn't these IP address automatically added to my user name? I also consider this a personal attack as the three persons who are using "friends" are from a rival political Socialist grouping and placing false information about a party they have no information from firsthand. I'll create the "Official" wikipage and have it placed on our website so others know if false information has been attacked or edited. Having access to many IP's because of travel is not a crime.


T L Miles (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions


Comments
76.122.45.59 is indeed one of CRO's IP addresses; in fact, his account was blocked because he used the IP to issue a legal threat. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 03:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
76... blocked one month, 74... blocked one week. The other IP I'll leave at the moment. GBT/C 09:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Justice all the way

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Justice all the way (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Ralicia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Pampita (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
151.202.105.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
96.232.221.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
141.155.134.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

201.219.66.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
96.224.14.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
151.202.72.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.252.49.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.237.19.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.237.82.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Rodoval (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Pigman☿ 02:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

This started on Dennis Oliver when I mistakenly Speedy Deleted it with a G4 rationale when it hadn't gone through AfD. (It had been speedied once before). User:Thatcher restored it due to my mistake. Examining the article, I decided to AfD it Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Oliver. User:Justice all the way voiced a keep opinion which led me to the intersection between the contribs of Justice... and User:Ralicia. Here I noted that User:Aarktica expressed an opinion that Ralicia was a surrogate of Justice. Since the Ralicia account coincidentally showed up first directly after this discussion on the Editorial Assistance board. User:Pampita also shows a remarkable similarity to Ralicia's userpage in choice of wording for her Userpage.

Now most of this is old news from Spring 2007 centering mostly around the Rodolfo Valentin article and a bit to related articles. Technically, so far, there has been no egregious violation of sock policy; multiple !voting in AfDs for example. The use of various socks to make it appear that a more diverse group of people are acting independently though, that is a problem. A little web sleuthing did turn up Rodolfo Valentine and Dennis Oliver together on the same site here and here. Both articles were submitted to the site by "JMP Productions" and contain text which has been in the WP articles at one time or another. Here Justice apparently signs with a real world name with the initials JMP. There have definitely been concerns around the positive spin inserted into both these articles by this group of users [296] as well as WP:OWN issues.

These diffs showing similarities between Justice and Ralicia include the same particular form of signature [297] [298]

Most of the IPs above have participated around the Valentin article.

Comments

Answer to pigman Pigman, this is justice all the way. All the users that you named are from spanish families. We like to edit articles from spanish people like other users like to edit articles about history or fashion ( what is wrong on that?). More than that, sometimes we consult each other about relevant information to be added in the articles. I am sorry if what really bothers you is that I have added a positive comment about Dennis Oliver deletion requested ONLY BY YOU. But also your comment about that "no every actor can have an article in wikipedia" is not fair. I think every actor having acting records can be in wikipedia!, no everyone need to be a superstar to be in wikipedia! Also, this is not a printed book with a limited space, the capacity of wikipedia of having files is unlimited!justice all the way (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)justice all the way[reply]

There are a couple of problems. Since this group of editors doesn't appear to be communicating with each other on-Wikipedia about these changes and additions, this qualifies as a form of sockpuppetry. Also this edit indicates that it is possible you may be Jorge Maria Perez and would have a conflict of interest in writing about your business partner Rodolfo Valentin. Pigman☿ 18:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say, that's the most un-evenhanded reasoning I've seen in a very long time. By the same token, 99.9% of voting on American Idol is sockpuppetry.
In the REAL world, people talk.
You can see their mouths move and everything.
Their on-line representations are only a subset of a much larger social context, especially so for people in a culture of very strong person-to-person social context.
To suggest otherwise, read in context of other posts here, suggests personal bias.
Saltation (talk) 03:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
response

No, that is not my name...it seems that you are playing fbi. Also I search about JMP productions and it is a company that does videos. I understand that JMP is the acting manager for Dennis Oliver according to the actors database and it is not related to the video company. Also, what is the problem?.justice all the way (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)justice all the way[reply]

Also: it is very funny!, I hope I could be the cuban millionare named Jorge Maria Perez!. There are to much fantasy around you!!! sorry, I wish I am that person!justice all the way (talk) 23:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)justice all the way[reply]

Since you apparently posted a message purporting to be from Mr. Perez, I don't think it's unreasonable to think you might be either him or an authorized representative for him. Unless the content of that message was false and you don't actually have any contact with Mr Perez? A search does not show any results for JMP and Dennis Oliver together except on Oliver's IMDb page. Pigman☿ 19:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Searching on "JMP Productions" and "Dennis Oliver" only came up with the site found connecting Rodolfo Valentine and Dennis Oliver above. "JMP Produtions" gets almost 2000 hits but the results are quite varied. Another option is that you are an employee of "JMP Producti

ons", here to promote these two people. Pigman☿ 20:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no pigman, I am a make up artist that works with many people from the show business and a very good person that likes to help others, that is all, sorry to desapoint you.justice all the way (talk) 23:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)justice all the way[reply]


Conclusions

Justice blocked 31 hours for abuse of multiple accounts. Ralicia and Pampita indef blocked as socks. Rodoval not blocked, as stale and not enough to go on. IPs not blocked as they're all stale. GBT/C 08:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Instantnood

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Instantnood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Testaa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence
  • Move warring over the same stupid articles the last three socks of Instantnood had a boner for.
  • Mucking with articles in my userspace, cuz he lurvs me *soooo* much.
Comments
  • I'm really short for time and haven't been online much the last two weeks. Sorry this evidence has no diffs but the contrib history of this user and previous confirmed socks is so similar, browse the archives of User:Burgerist as one example. Just cut the sock off so the move wars aren't more disruptive on the next visit. Instantnood LOVES to move war.
Comments by User:EdJohnston
I'll send this to checkuser. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Instantnood is on a dynamic IP, and generally has several weeks between their appearances. Checkuser will come back inconclusive. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Conclusions

Quack. Blocked. GBT/C 08:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Youngjoon Shin

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Youngjoon Shin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Yjshin123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
92.233.108.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Chelseafanandlover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

All three are editing Yjzone.net; there's a COI as well, as Youngjoon Shin is (according to the article) the founder of the website. In particular, the IP has been disruptive following the article's AfD, note this edit as well as the history at the AfD. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

While the IP was certainly guilty of removing the AfD from the log, I should point out that the discussion itself hasn't been disrupted; in fact, the only contentious edit I can see there is this revert by User:AVand, where the IP had only been editing his or her own comments.

Having said that, I do think there is sufficient reason for concern here. I recently raised concerns about User:Youngjoon Shin at the Administrator's noticeboard (here) regarding talk page comments that were blanked. I was also concerned by this edit the IP made to South Korea, restoring changes made by Youngjoon Shin that were reverted for POV and poor grammer.

Also note that the IP admits to being associated with Youngjoon Shin here. PC78 (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I have another opinion here. Aside from the matter related to the AFD, Youngjoon has been a generally good contributor to Korean related articles. Well, the conflicts with PC78 are not disruptive enough to accuse him being blocked or blamed for the further charge and that is a conflict of interest, I think. Also, I believe User;Avand gave a wrong or belated warning because the anon already got my warning for his removal of the AFD listing and the anon did only give his opinion and Avand falsely reverted. I don't think that this SSP file is fully warranted here.--Appletrees (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but my good faith with Youngjoon Shin is all used up. And now he's been reported here by another user for vandalism.

There also appears to be a new sockpuppet, which I have added above. I twice restored sourced information to Korea under Japanese rule (here and here) which was removed by Youngjoon Shin. This coincided with the creation of a new account, User:Chelseafanandlover, who has been editing the same article since and has twice removed the exact same content (here and here). PC78 (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not a sock puppet just like I'm not. Sgt. bender (talk) 01:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your dazzling insight. Perhaps you should be more concerned with your own sockpuppeting case. PC78 (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

I'm going to close this one as stale. The alleged puppetmaster appears to have retired. The IP is shared, and the other two accounts haven't edited for at least a week. GBT/C 08:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Bloobu

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Bloobu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Jamiepat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
212.183.134.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Bumpa3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

--Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 10:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

User:Jamiepat's only contribution consists of recreating an article that has been deleted four times within the last 48 hours. The article created by Jamiepat is a word-for-word copy of the articles created by User:Bloobu. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/COIReports/2008, May 8, entry #616.

User:212.183.134.65 added links to competitors' articles right after the Bloobu article was recreated.

User:Bumpa3's only contribution (the Jamiepat and Bumpa3 accounts were created within minutes of each other) consists of a minor edit on Bloobu. Although in this case I suspect meatpuppetry.

Comments


Conclusions

Accounts indef blocked as socks. IP left alone as it looks pretty dynamic from a quick glance. GBT/C 07:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Crytpo137

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Crytpo137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Crypto139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Crypto137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Save The HumansTalk :) 22:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

The username and they each take one part of the destroy all human pages.

Comments

It's unclear to me from contribs whether any of these users is the same person as any other user. Certainly there is no violation of WP:SOCK. If Crytpo137 is the same person as Crypto137, he should disclose this; if not, he should change his username to prevent confusion. I suppose we could block him if he refuses to cooperate, but I hope it won't be necessary. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

No violation, no action taken. GBT/C 06:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Jvolkblum (5th)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Jvolkblum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Wingsolid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
BingBingBingNBing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
KatieGrinn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
BronxBEAT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
PaoloCarlo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

BlueAzure (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

The first four accounts (Wingsolid, BingBingBingNBing, KatieGrinn, and BronxBEAT) were confirmed as socks in the latest checkuser. PaoloCarlo was created at 13:41 on 24 April 2008. KatieGrinn was created eleven minutes before and BingBingBingNBing was created five minutes afterword. On May 9, Wingsolid made their last edited at 21:34 and PaoloCarlo made their first edit of the day eight minutes later. PaoloCarlo's edit reuploaded Image:Wykagyl Dutch Map 2.JPG, which had previously been uploaded by another Jvolkblum sock 15ParkRow (talk · contribs).

Comments

At Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jvolkblum, Thatcher confirmed the first four suspected sockpuppets. I will ask him to block those users. PaoloCarlo is also almost certainly the same person based on evidence presented above, and if Thatcher wishes to checkuser PaoloCarlo just to be certain, that would be a good idea.

One of the users offered a long response at the checkuser page to explain how the edits were within policy. He did not specifically deny the allegation of sockpuppetry or give a reasonable explanation to establish that he is a different person from Jvolkblum. Therefore, I believe they are the same person. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

All socks blocked and tagged. GBT/C 06:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Fadeintoyou

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Fadeintoyou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Ricky6546549 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Possible block-evading sockpuppet. Fadeintoyou account was created yesterday, apparently for the purpose of disparaging Sportsbook.com using the source sportsbookreview.com even after he was advised several times that sportsbookreview.com isn't a reliable source:

edit

edit

edit

and so forth, then engaged in edit/revert warring.

Fadeintoyou also posted numerous disparaging/attack comments at Talk:Sportsbook.com and on various user talk pages:

edit

edit

edit

edit

edit

Account was blocked by User:Ricky81682. This morning someone created a new account User:Ricky6546549, an obvious rip-off of the username of the administrator who blocked User:Fadeintoyou.

User:Ricky6546549's first action was to nominate Sportsbook.com for deletion.

Fairly obvious case of block-evading sockpuppetry.

Comments
  1. Sockpuppet- Fairly obvious sockpuppetry here. Mww113 (talk) (Report a mistake!) 20:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Conclusions

Sock blocked, master account block reset. GBT/C 07:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Jmccarthy96

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Jmccarthy96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

gavinwims (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Mww113 (talk) (Report a mistake!) 18:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

gavinwims was first brought to my attention when he removed a discussion from my talk page regarding the speedily deletion of Gavin Wims. ([[299]]) Needless to say, I reverted the edit and left a note on there talk page explaining that all work on wikipedia is licensed under GFDL and that the edit was unnecessary. The user then informed me that he was Gavin Wims and that he wanted "his" name removed from my talk page. ([[300]]) I was then informed by the user that by having "his" name on my talk page I was in violation of wikipedia policy. ([[301]]) I began to suspect misconduct when he left me [[302]] edit on my talk page. But what disturbed me the most was that the user has only one other contribution to wikipedia apart from the ones on my talk page. [[303]] This is what lead me to believe that I was dealing with a sockpuppet. So I decided to make an attempt to figure out who the puppet master was (assuming that there was sockpuppetry) I left a note on the administrators notice board asking who created Gavin Wims. An administrator informed me that "The article was created by, and all significant edits came from, User:Jmccarthy96. Happy‑melon 16:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)" [[304]] This is suspicious to say the least. Thank you. Mww113 (talk) (Report a mistake!) 18:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Note how in [3] and [4] user:gavinwims says that he wanted it removed for "personal" reasons that he would only explain in email. Mww113 (talk) (Report a mistake!) 18:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Not enough to prove that the two are the same - it's quite conceivable that one created the page and the other (the subject) didn't want to have a page about them. No breach of policy, no action taken. GBT/C 07:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:122.161.145.31

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Vyaghradhataki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
122.161.145.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

RavichandarMy coffee shop 16:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Sock puppet of User:Vyaghradhataki who has been currently blocked for vandalism. See Special:Contributions/122.161.145.31. Same pattern of edits made to the same page.

Comments


Conclusions

IP blocked one month already. GBT/C 07:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Dwyerj

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Dwyerj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Usangel16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
AmyEnever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Kokoshaggy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
195.54.243.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Ac3bf1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

David Eppstein (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Dwyerj (talk · contribs) is a professor of computer science who has created a few self-promoting articles that have recently been nominated for deletion, in particular John Dwyer (professor) (AfD) and Dwyer function (AfD). He has also contributed to the John Dwyer AfD discussion using the IP address 195.54.243.250 (talk · contribs) (but leaving a proper signature). More recently, the three accounts Usangel16 (talk · contribs), AmyEnever (talk · contribs) and Kokoshaggy (talk · contribs) have all appeared at the John Dwyer afd, all leaving similarly formatted unsigned comments in which they request a strong keep and claim to be a colleague of Dwyer who has some personal reason to believe him notable. None have edited anything else previously. I suppose it's possible that they're all meatpuppets instead of sockpuppets, but the similarities make me think otherwise. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ac3bf1 (talk · contribs) is a separate nomination, but also very likely to be Dwyer. This user created D function as a fork of Dwyer function, most likely in order to evade the ongoing AfD of Dwyer function, has been a significant contributer to Dwyer function, and has made few other edits. The link on User:Ac3bf1 goes to the blog of someone named "John" whose most recent blog post is about the release of a preprint authored by Dwyer. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response

you can check my account has been created far before Dr Dwyer's Account. And I have created the D function not evade whatever regulations, but to remove the name of the Dwyer function and simply call it a D function If this is all a problem I don't need to be accused of this. I sign my posts with the quadruple tilda, and I have no idea who the other accounts are. I have my onwn website (ac3bf1.org, and if you run a whois on it it won;t take a genious to find my real name! Please look into matters before accusing people! Ac3bf1 (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

Agree with David Eppstein. There is a veritable meatpuppet/sockpuppet attack on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Dwyer (professor) (more of them have popped up since David Eppstein's post here, including User:Auggla and User:212.85.7.14. Now there is a content fork D function for Dwyer function as well. This is getting out of hand. Nsk92 (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This is ludicrous. Admittedly, my first post (and only one before this) was in protest to the Dwyer deletion that I encountered, but that that amounts to sock puppetry...? I made a legitimate argument against the deletion based on Wikipedia's own set of rules, and against the notion that an individual should be discounted as not notable because he lectures/headed a department in a school that is not as reputable as Harvard. I cannot speak for the other users accused here but the fact that I disagreed with David Eppenstein and kept my comments to a minimum is not sufficient evidence that I spoke with Dwyers voice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kokoshaggy (talk • contribs) 07:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Concur that the user page clearly indicates that Ac3bf1 is one of the other members of Dwyer's group. If they are the same person, the he was a coauthor of one of the papers twice. They still (all) may be colleagues. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that they are not the same person but they do operate as meatpuppets. Nsk92 (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have emailed Mo Adda (whose name is signed to the 212.85.7.14 comment on the John Dwyer AfD) asking to confirm that it really is him. I haven't yet received a response, but if/when I do that should at least clear up some of this question. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Given the closure of the AfD, which was decided as "no consensus" based on the contributions of the listed users, is it time for a code D request for checkuser? Or should we wait until the deletion review closes? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, just what I was thinking. It seemes that a code D checkuser request is justified, since the AfD outcome has been effected. It seems to me that the results of a checkuser would be relevant for the deletion review discussion, so I think it is appropriate to place a checkuser request now. Nsk92 (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not (nor ever purported to be) these individuals; Usangel16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
AmyEnever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Kokoshaggy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
195.54.243.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Ac3bf1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
One can only assume therefore that they had their own supporting views. Professor John Dwyer Dwyerj (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • ACCUSATION IS FALSE. The accusation that I [usangel16] and the others represent an "influx" of sockpuppets or meatpuppets is false. I am a degree student ready to express opinions on issues that I feel strongly about and this is one of those issues. I am not pretending to be, nor controlled as a puppet of, Dr Dwyer. Further, since I know the identities of others accused of being sockpuppets, I can categorically confirm that none of them are pretending to be Dr Dwyer or Dr Dwyer's puppets. When the wiki editor who has thus far made so many errors of fact, receives the results of his requested IP trace, he will then know that he has made six further mistakes about the identities those of us who genuinely expressed clear views. Now we all know wiki is a great resource but please try to discourage rogue editors, especially when they make so many mistakes of fact and judgement. [user:usangel16] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.54.243.250 (talk • contribs) 09:15, April 29, 2008
Conclusions

Closing as inconclusive. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Trialing

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Trialing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

24.91.60.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Gtompkins48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Wooprez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

24.91.60.195: [305] (Refer to first case, user frequently adds "+" to sales figures.) Gtompkins=24.91.60.195: new user adds content to talk page defending 24.91.60.195's edits. Signature is immediately removed (and content slightly tweeked) by 24.91.60.195. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[306] (Refer to earlier case.) - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
Try send this report to checkuser. It seems like Trialing has a lot of hibernating socks. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I am Gtompkins48. My IP adress is 24.91.60.195. When I switched from Firefox to AOL, I was changed to my IP address. However, me and this "Trialing" are different people, as an IP check will quickly show. The reason why so many people have been doing the same things on the Jordin Sparks Album page is because this page was brought up in a forum topic on americanidol.com a little while ago, which led to many people flocking over here to enter in correct sales numbers. The album issue has now been resolved, so I expect the whole editing war to stop. I don't know if "Trialing" is using sock puppets, but I am not one of them. And a simple IP check will show this. Gtompkins48 (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your prompt reply. The article is now semi-protected. Would you mind pointing the link to the specific forum topic? OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was mentioned on two topics. The one with most of the hoopla was the "Official Jordin Sparks Page" , where a user complained about Wikipedia always reducing her sales numbers. http://www.americanidol.com/myidol/forums/topic/?tid=802477. The post has 343 pages so I can't point out the exact page without reading the last 30 pages (As it was posted a while ago, which is why this editing war has been going on for weeks). However, I will use my account on that website to point out that no one should edit it unless they cite it. Even though they were correct about her numbers, no one could find a proper source until today. Now that the whole issue seems to have settled down, I don't think it will be THAT much of a problem anymore, as long as it keeps getting cited among the next few weeks.Gtompkins48 (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Wooperez is not me either. Check the IPs for proof. For the other evidence, the "+" sign is only used because that's the format that was used monthsago (for example, the first week was written like "119,000+"). Since many fans are used to seeing the "+" because it's been used so much on the page, editors including me use it out of habit. It in no way has to do with sockpuppetry. Looking at the history, I can point out plenty of different IP addresses who used the "+" after a sales total.
I was also referred to as a "new user" by the accuser. If you check my history, you see that I've been editing Jordin Sparks information for months now. I am in no way a "new user". However, out of habit, the accuser seems to deem everyone who edits a Jordin Sparks page to be a sock puppet of some guy. However, those accusations do not live long when you bring IP addresses into account. Gtompkins48 (talk) 20:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to request a checkuser to see if Wooprez is evading a block. It's pretty clear that Gtompkins is someone else and got caught up in this by mistake. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

CU results:

Blocked by Tiptoety. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Dmurawski

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Dmurawski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

71.193.87.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Jorotayahbl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Artichoke2020 (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Disruption to WP:AfD/DMurawski, pattern of editing to DMurawski, and this edit

Location

You know, 71.193.87.216 probably isn't DM in disguise, but I recommend they should meet up, seen as they come from the same town! Camillus 11:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • I do not know Jorotayahbl... but I have been communicating to dmurawski, just to ask him about stuff to improve the article. He hasn't told me anything to do... I'm NOT a puppet and the other person likely isn't 71.193.87.216 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I logged a RFCU case on this Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dmurawski. Unfortuantely it was declined due to privacy issues, and because the link between the people is "obvious". I believe that the IP user is DMurawski and have strong suspicions of Jorotayahbl. --Deadly∀ssassin 06:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from User:Shalom: It's pretty obvious that Dmurawski and the IP address are the same person. Aside from their shared interest in a single topic, they edited that topic on May 6 within five minutes of each other:

  • Anon edits the article at 03:24
  • Dmurawski edits the AFD at 03:29

Jorotayahbl has one edit to create the article in question. Absent other evidence, he should be blocked as a probable sock or meat puppet. If he makes a reasonable unblock request saying he's not the same person, I would be inclined to consider it, but the default assumption is that he's the same person. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

One week for master, indef for sock name, one month for sock IP. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:NotSarenne

Suspected sockpuppeteer

NotSarenne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

TimTomTom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Fnagaton 22:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Recently, 24th April, an IP hopping anonymous user appeared and made multiple reverts to Bondwell [307] [308] [309] [310] [311] [312] [313].

When this IP was blocked another bunch of IP in the ISP IP range made vandalism edits on various talk pages, including the talk page of the admin who blocked the IP, and the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard incidents page. Special:Contributions/217.87.112.155 Special:Contributions/217.87.58.59 Special:Contributions/217.87.115.105 Special:Contributions/217.87.123.75 Special:Contributions/217.87.75.168.

This resulted in an anon only range block of the 217.87 range being requested by the admin [314] which was actioned.

At 10:24, 26 April 2008 a new user was created, TimTomTom. At 10:47, 26 April 2008 the user then then started to make the same edits, edit warring, as the range blocked IP user did to the same Bondwell article. [315] [316] [317].

The user TimTomTom then started adding comments, some abusive, to Thunderbird2's talk page [318] [319]. The anonymous IP user who was range blocked also made similar comments to the same talk page which were also abusive, especially the edit summaries. [320] [321]. For example calling editors "liars" is a very common occurence with this user.

The user NotSarenne and all the sock puppet activity is documented here.

The vandalism from the ISP IP range specifically on this topic of binary prefixes is also under investigation here: Wikipedia:Abuse reports/217.87.x.x

The anonymous IP user made these edits [322] [323], note the edit comments about "original authors" and "unambiguous units to ambiguous units". The user TimTomTom then made this edits [324] note the change comment "restored originally used units; added missing hyphens". Note the similar use of "orginally" or "orignal" related to these edits.

Comments

As can be seen from the longer sock puppet report the IP address range and ISP is the same as NotSarenne and the other sock puppets. There is also a history of using Tor to hide the source machine of disruptive edits.

Considering that the ISP IP being anon only range blocked for a period of six days. And considering the same edits are being made only a day later by the new user account TimTomTom. Also considering the account appears to be a single purpose account (very few edits outside of the Bondwell article or on talk pages regarding the article). Therefore the user account was most likely created by this range blocked and banned sock puppet user as another attempt to evade their editing ban.

Given the history of IP address hopping and Tor use then if a check of edit IP addresses is made then the IP address range of the ISP should be considered. Also the user may be using Tor to hide their source IP address.

Conclusions

Wow. I've reviewed all of the evidence, and it's extremely troubling. If this person never returns to Wikipedia, it won't be too soon. I don't rule out the possibility of returning to morality, but based on the repeated violations of basic norms of civility and 3RR, there's nothing to discuss. I'll ask the first available administrator to block TimTomTom. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty blatant and obvious to me. Both indef'd. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:FOVD

Suspected sockpuppeteer

FOVD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

James Diggle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
66.117.147.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.187.169.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
74.73.110.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
64.106.131.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

They keep coming...

71.162.31.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
79.70.35.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

// Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 15:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Talk page history Article on a band (written by suspected puppetmaster, who has no edits on any other topic) includes a subsection claiming extensive academic achievements by the lead singer. None of these achievements are supported by sources. When I requested hot gay sex, the listed suspected sockpuppets supported the claims in the article. None of the IPs or the one named account have edits to any other article, however. Further, I suspect that the article author is in fact the lead singer. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 15:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It appears that the IPs are being recruited on this thread. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 20:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that these are all the same person, but that person has made no effort to hide this fact; he just doesn't feel like logging in and happens to have a dynamic IP address system. I'll ask on Talk:Fury of Five if anything should be done; right now my instinct is to suck dicks. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Not much to be done about this one. Not really a breach of policy - the IPs can't really be blocked anyway, as they're dynamic. There's not enough disruption on the article concerned to merit protection, so it's a bit of a shoulder-shrugger. I'm gay. GBT/C 17:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Akgt

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Akgt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

ZijaInternational (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Bobpee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

All three have edited Zija. Bobpee and Akgt engaged in linkspamming on other articles with links. ZijaInternational has only made one edit; I included them because of the obvious tie from the username. Might not be enough to go on, but it would warrant an inappropriate username block in any event. Akgt hasn't edited in a while, but Bobpee has been very agressive on the article (removing the tags), making me think a block of all of them is a good idea. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'm going to disagree and treat the accounts separately, even though they probably are the same person. ZijaInternational is a username violation, so I'll report it to WP:UAA. Akgt is inactive and unlikely to return. That leaves Bobpee, who perhaps has been unhelpful but not enough to justify a block. I'll ask Jeremy if this solves the problem. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would probably be fine; I just wanted to bring it to administrator attention from the spam concerns, but their article got deleted, so that might be enough to get them to stop. Thanks, JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

One stale, one blocked, one left. GBT/C 16:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:D.A.V.I.D. (2nd.)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

D.A.V.I.D. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

AULINE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Andreve (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
193.252.50.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

GSTQ (talk) 01:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

1. 193.252.50.118's, D.A.V.I.D.'s, AULINE's and Andreve's contributions are limited to Baron de Longueuil and Michael Grant, 12th Baron de Longueuil.

2. 193.252.50.118's, D.A.V.I.D.'s and AULINE's edits have altered the text so as to present the point of view that there is a dispute as to the rightful holder of the title. Specifically, the edits suggest that once Canada was ceded to Britain, the French branch of the family (assuming there is one) succeeded to the title in preference to the Canadian branch. The motivation for Andreve's edits borders on incomprehensible, but he seems to be trying to call into question the French descent of the current holders of the title. None of the edits has been substantiated by citations, on the contrary the edits fly in the face of the citations already present on the article pages. All the signed-in users have been invited to provide citations and engage in discussion, both on their own talk pages and on the article talk page. Only D.A.V.I.D. has responded, and only twice. The first oblique post by D.A.V.I.D. simply makes an unsourced assertion along the same lines, and voices agreement (whatever that means) with Souht, who has been blocked as a sockpuppet of D.A.V.I.D. The second has similarly failed to engage with the issues.

3. All three users appear from the grammar of their edits and edit summaries and posts to be non-native speakers of English. 193.252.50.118, D.A.V.I.D. and Andreve all use "Thank you!" with the exclamation mark: see here, here and here. Both 193.252.50.118 and Andreve have used the phrase "Please show me..." in their edit summaries and posts, see here and here.

4. D.A.V.I.D. has been accused of sockpuppetry before, and has not denied the allegation or provided any evidence to suggest that it was unfounded.

5. None of the users has contemporaneous edits with any of the others, suggesting one user logging in at different times under different accounts. 193.252.50.118 ceased making edits some time before D.A.V.I.D. began to make the same edits. There was only a short gap of about two days between the time when Souht was blocked, and AULINE appeared. Similarly, since Andreve began editing, no further edits have been made by D.A.V.I.D. or AULINE. Andreve's use of the "citation needed" template as only his second edit suggests a familiarity with Wikipedia which his edit history does not.

Comments

Andreve has now removed any ambiguity about the purpose of his edits, which is to portray the point of view that only the French descendants of Charles Lemoyne are entitled to bear the title, and thus, implicitly, not the Canadian branch of the family (a POV identical with the edits of the other accused sockpuppets and puppetmaster).GSTQ (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Looks pretty evident to me. D.A.V.I.D. has a history of sockpuppetry with the same article and the same POV, and this seems consistent with that trend. The lack of contemporaneous edits also supports this conclusion. Unless any of the editors involved have any comments to the contrary, I think this is a pretty clear case of sockpuppetry. --Nsevs • Talk 03:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Do I really have to request a checkuser? I'm not sure it'd do any good in this case; I could have included 82.255.91.126 as a sockpuppet too, which suggests the checkuser may not be conclusive anyway.GSTQ (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have enough to go on without doing a checkuser. Let's block all accounts except for D.A.V.I.D. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Andreve blocked inde. Not enough to go on to block AULINE. Could the IP be any older or staler? David temporarily blocked for continuing to abuse multiple accounts to push his POV. GBT/C 16:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Kristy22

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Kristy22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
Lovato45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
76.118.87.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
SDLexington (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
DemiLovato15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Lovato45 copypasted American Idol webpages to their talk page, just as Kristy22 did. Lovato45 made this edit to Kristy22's talk page. They also helpfully made this edit on their talk page, pointing to an assumed autoblock of IP 76.118.87.126. Lovato45 (talk · contribs) and 76.118.87.126 (talk · contribs) share an interest in Miley Cyrus, but who doesn't? Add to that their shared habit of making "mistakes" and pleading for forgiveness endlessly and trollishly on admin talk pages.

I've added new arrival SDLexington (talk · contribs), whose very first edit was leaving nonsense about Michael Jackson on my talk page. Their unblock request and other contributions share that familiar pleading Kristy22 style. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
At the time of writing, I believe all three are blocked from editing, for various reasons.
I've waded through all of the non-deleted contribs of all three parties, and I have to say that the similarities are very strong: there's a lot of starting sections on User Talk pages called "Hey!" or similar, and a great deal of removal of warning/block/unblock requested/denied messages from Talk. All the unblock requests made by any of these parties follow the same patterns ("please unblock me, i am very sorry" or "IT WAS A MISTAKE"). Kristy and the IP are surely one and the same; they both posted unblock-granted templates signed by themselves (yep, even the IP). Lovato doesn't immediately seem so similar (the modus operandi there seems to be, find any article or Talk section, scroll down, and delete everything up to the end of the section) - but as noted in Evidence, Lovato did provide confirmation of using the same IP. Hoping this helps, non-admin SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick clarification - only User:Kristy22 is currently blocked. Blocks on the other two accounts have expired. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend indef-blocking all of the accounts. The evidence of sockpuppetry is sufficient to justify such an action. The users, taken as a whole, have provided virtually no useful contributions to the encyclopedia, and have spent dozens of edits bothering admins on their talk pages and posting copyvios in their userspace. We're dealing with an immature child, or someone acting like a child, who really doesn't understand what we do. Let's block the accounts and hope the person grows up and returns to make a new start. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a new one: DemiLovato15 (talk · contribs). I'm not even going to bother citing evidence - just look at the contribs. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

If this is a child, or childlike person, they need firm discipline. Lets start with a request for checkuser citing this report as the evidence, code G. A Checkuser will probably eliminate all doubt and may reveal addition socks, and help get the underlying IPs blocked. Jehochman Talk 02:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Kristy22 for confirmations. All confirmed except SDLexington. --NrDg 02:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All blocked and tagged accordingly. GBT/C 16:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Mrs Flora Fiona Kriesha Mckay

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Mrs Flora Fiona Kriesha Mckay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
86.29.240.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Peiet B.V. Janssen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

--Snigbrook (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

86.29.240.123 added a sockpuppet tag to User talk:Truth222: [325].

Mrs Flora Fiona Kriesha Mckay's first edit, a few minutes later, was to create a sockpuppet category, and the user then edited Talk:Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

A few minutes after that, Peiet B.V. Janssen's first edit was on Talk:Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo; the user then mentioned the "sockpuppetry" on Talk:Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo: [326].


Comments

The editing times (all within one hour for the entire contribution history) and similarity in topic and agenda make this a very clear case. These are sockpuppets. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 19:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly sockpuppets of Elspeth Monro (talk · contribs), the IP address is in the same range as those associated with Elspeth Monro, and a confirmed sock, Pine oak (talk · contribs), has edited the same talk page. --Snigbrook (talk) 00:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Socks blocked and tagged. IP left alone for the time being - only a few contributions, but a little while ago now. GBT/C 07:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Fai-S&M

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Fai-S&M (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
TLHHK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
116.48.54.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
MUST-COM-G2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Little Fai Fai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 16:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Mutual editing of, linking to, and removal of WP:CSD templates to brand new article The Langham, Hong Kong

Comments
  • added possible suspect who was adding hotel articles like these users - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added new sock that re-created identical article today. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 16:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MUST-COM-G2 cannot be determined as a sockpuppet based on contributions, and should be judged as an independent users. The others are all blatant socks and will be blocked as soon as I can find someone to do it. I reverted every single edit by Fai-S&M and the first two suspected socks. Every edit added unhelpful links or references to the Langham Hotel in Hong Kong, so I rolled back everything and tagged the redirects for deletion. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

TLHHK, Little Fai Fai and Fair-S&M indef blocked as all being one and the same. Not enough to go on to block Must-com at this stage. No point blocking the IP as it doesn't appear to be static and it's been two days since it last edited. GBT/C 07:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Qiongeramber

Suspected sockpuppeteer
EASEUS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
Qiongeramber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

Elsendero (talk) 02:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/EASEUS

This account and the following IPs repeatedly spam Data recovery with links to this product, whose article was deleted as per: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/EASEUS_Data_Recovery_Wizard_Professinal

216.40.204.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
222.212.98.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
125.66.97.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
125.69.27.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.154.13.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
222.212.104.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Comments

Qiongeramber should be indef-blocked until he explains his actions. There is no benefit to blocking the IPs, but semi-protecting the Data recovery article for two weeks would accomplish the same purpose, if it hasn't been done already. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Sock blocked. IPs not blocked at this stage, nor is the article semi-protected, as there in insufficient activity at this time to justify protection. GBT/C 07:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.===User:Mileycyruseminem===
Suspected sockpuppeteer

Mileycyruseminem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Johncenafaneminem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

BlueAzure (talk) 03:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Mileycyruseminem was indef blocked on April 16 [327]. The similarly named Johncenafaneminem was created on April 25 [328]. Both accounts created articles about the film Touch and Go, Mileycyruseminem created Touch And Go [329] and Johncenafaneminem created Touch and Go (1986 film) [330]. In both cases they ended the article with their signature and the word WWEfan. Both accounts have only edited film related articles, including the creation articles about John Travolta movies [331] [332].

Comments

This looks pretty obvious; I would say a checkuser is not needed. I'll ask Can't sleep if the new account looks like a block-evading sock, and he can decide. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't sleep is inactive, so I'll ask an active admin. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Johncenafaneminem indef blocked. - KrakatoaKatie 04:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Koov

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Koov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

149.4.108.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
149.4.108.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
149.4.207.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

EdJohnston (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 149.4.207.114 added by Ha! (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

User:Koov was blocked at 3RR for aggressive edit-warring on a range of articles. The article named in the report was Gallery of country coats of arms, where he insists on removing the insignia of places like Kosovo which he does not consider to be countries. Nearly all of Koov's edits wind up being reverted by other editors, one exception being his work on Template:Presidents of the Russian Federation. The IP 149.4.108.31 has done work there as well, besides of course edit-warring to remove country coats of arms. 149.4.108.148 edit-wars on coats of arms also.

Comments
  • See this diff [333] for additional info (evidence?) on the IP range he edits with. I wrote it when he was blocked the first time - it was a bit pedantic perhaps as he'd possibly not logged in since he'd been blocked and might not have know he'd been blocked yet. Essentially if it's a City University of New York IP (149.4.x.x), it's editing on the few pages he edits on and it has the same style of edit summaries that he uses (very distinctive, see the exclamation marks) or is reverting the same (again very limited scope of) reverts, it's him - in my opinion. He's not really attempting to hide his identity when editing with the IP's. Ha! (talk) 00:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added 149.4.207.114 to the list. Reasons: The edits are by a CUNY IP. They are to the small selection of articles Koov edited. They make the same changes Koov has made in the past (e.g. removing {{Presidents of the Russian Federation}} [334]. At least one of the 6 edit summaries made by that IP in the half hour it edtied (18:58, 7 May 2008) uses the same language, editing style and reasoning Koov does. Not sure this is sock puppeteering though - maybe more just Koov wanting to edit those articles even though he's blocked (bypassing his block). Ha! (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have not reviewed the evidence carefully. At first glance it looks like the admins who see sockpuppetry and block evasion are correct. Based on policy for block evasion, Koov's block should be reset for one month from now. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reset Koov's block to one month starting today. Since 149.4.207.114 (talk · contribs) has been active in May, I suggest that a block for that account be considered if he resumes editing after this moment. Of the two other IPs, one is blocked for a month and the other is inactive. Agreeing with User:Ha! above, we are not seeing abuse of multiple accounts as in AfD votes or 3RR proxying, we are seeing garden-variety block evasion. EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Blocks handed out - no further action at this stage. GBT/C 07:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Affinity12

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Affinity12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Brm456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Reminisce9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Fairandjust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Aleta Sing 01:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Brm456's sole contributions have been to add slanderous material to the article Dawn Yang. See [335].

Affinity12 was indefinitely blocked for contributions which were solely adding BLP violations to the same article, such as [336], [337], and [338], among others.

Reminisce9's only two contributions have been in the same vein: [339] and to delete content.

Fairandjust's sole edit added unflattering comments identical to some of what Reminisce9 added.

Comments

The edits of all of these contributors seem to focus on two primary issues: Yang's possibly mixed heritage and her alleged plastic surgery.

This is a very serious issue because of BLP violations. I'm taking it directly to checkuser. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very good. Thanks. Aleta Sing 02:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

All accounts indef blocked either by myself or others. GBT/C 06:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:M.V.E.i.

Suspected sockpuppeteer

M.V.E.i. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Shpakovich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

LyrlTalk C 00:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User:Shpakovich uploaded an image 4 April 2008, attributing authorship to blocked User:M.V.E.i. (diff), then the next day admits to being a sockpuppet (diff), saying "Clue: You could find it in the works i did in the last few days."

M.V.E.i.'s last sockpuppet was blocked 22 December 2007; the account Shpakovich was created 11 January 2008.

Comments
Conclusions

Sock blocked indef. Master account block counter reset to 1 year. GBT/C 06:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:124.217.41.50

Suspected sockpuppeteer
San anjelo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
124.217.41.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Tiggerjay (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

removing csd notice from Atlag United Methodist Church as per User:San anjelo which has ceased editing since his warning.

Comments

Unless there's a 3RR violation, I don't see a problem here. It's okay to edit without logging in. I'll ask Tiggerjay about it. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Main account blocked 31 for logging out to evade 3RR (and general disruption). Leaving the IP alone for the moment as I don't know how static it is. GBT/C 20:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Stillsingle17

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Stillsingle17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Stillsingle18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Eve Hall (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Stillsingle17 was indefinitely blocked in April for continuing vandalism of Bishop McLaughlin Catholic High School. Obvious name connection, left a talk page message admitting to being the same user on the talk page here, identical content added to the article (As 17 here, and as 18 here, for example).

Comments


Conclusions

Quack. Blocked. GBT/C 20:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:24.0.21.173

Suspected sockpuppeteer

24.0.21.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

69.142.202.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Macspaunday (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

The suspected sockpuppet has made exactly the same vandalism edits made earlier by the sockpuppeteer; the sockpuppeteer is currently blocked for a month from editing. Here are some diffs by the suspected sockpuppet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Columbia_University&diff=prev&oldid=209821033 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oxford_English_Dictionary&diff=prev&oldid=209820705 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=W._H._Auden&diff=prev&oldid=209819895 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Mendelson&diff=prev&oldid=209818045 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Academic_dishonesty&diff=prev&oldid=200691656

(and a number of others listed on the user page)

And here are diffs made by the suspected sockpuppeteer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Columbia_University&diff=prev&oldid=205463662 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plagiarism&diff=prev&oldid=205461556 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Mendelson&diff=prev&oldid=205460697 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lionel_Trilling&diff=prev&oldid=201720851 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Columbia_University&diff=prev&oldid=201720495 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intellectual_dishonesty&diff=prev&oldid=201719715

(and a number of others listed on the user page)

EDIT: Both IP addresses belong to Comcast Cable, at the same Mount Laurel NJ office. The Geolocaion data for each is exactly identical. Macspaunday (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Could the sockpuppet be blocked for at least the same period as the sockpuppeteer? Macspaunday (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This diff [340] leads me to believe that they are the same. Please see the results of the UserCompare tool. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 04:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Sock blocked for two weeks. GBT/C 13:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Qui1che

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Qui1che (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

66.91.107.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
77.12.227.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.140.107.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

CleanUpX (talk) 09:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

I have good reasons to suspect that user papageno aka Qui1che has resorted to using multiple anonymous IPs to make edits to Unproven health risks repeatedly using one of those free Multiple-Proxy softwares. Persistent reverts to the current version of "Unproven Health Risks" were made by the following user(s)

17:05, 26 April 2008 66.91.107.145 (Talk) (37,458 bytes) (Removing and fixing un-encyclopaedic content. Do not revert. Discuss changes first (I do not work for "teh industry"))
22:10, 27 April 2008 77.12.227.249 (Talk) (37,458 bytes) (Undid revision 208396860 by 88.76.51.168 (talk) Reverting HR to a good version. Please AGF, do not make wild accusations.) (undo)
18:52, 28 April 2008 86.140.107.212 (Talk) (37,455 bytes) (Undid revision 208792279 by 88.77.210.113 (talk) Undoing vandalism and attack edit by sock of banned user) (undo)

A Whois check on these IPs reveal the following:

IP Location: United States Honolulu Road Runner Holdco Llc

Resolve Host: cpe-66-91-107-145.hawaii.res.rr.com IP Address: 66.91.107.145

IP Location: Germany Telefonica Deutschland Gmbh

Resolve Host: brln-4d0ce3f9.pool.mediaWays.net IP Address: 77.12.227.249

IP Location: United Kingdom Leicester Bt-central-plus

Resolve Host: host86-140-107-212.range86-140.btcentralplus.com IP Address: 86.140.107.212


1. As can be seen, these IPs originated from United States, Germany and United Kingdom. It is highly likely that an 'Anonymous Proxy software' has been used to generate these different proxies to make it appear as though many different users from around the globe support the same argument. It is well-known that such a software can easily generate multiple IPs from different parts of the world and hide the real IP.

2. These three numeric IPs were unanimous in their assertion of the current version. However they were all new users who have made only edits to this section and have not engaged in other edits in Wikipedia. In other words, these three IPs were expressly created for the purpose of supporting the same POV.

3. They have avoided any discussion in the talk page of Wi-Fi. Only user papageno (talk) has openly advocated the same version in the talk page and has denied any association with these numeric IPs. In other words, he has the intention of sock puppetry and deceiving other WP editors into thinking that many users from around the world support his POV. In the talk page of Wi-Fi. papageno (talk) wrote:

I did not change the section header to “Unproven health risks”; I am not related to any users with only numeric IPs who have made edits recently or in the past; I am not related to any of the cited sockpuppets; I only edit under my account, and have been editing only on my account since 2004-06-05. Please stop accusing me of vandalism in the edit summaries when you make changes to or revert edits made by users with numeric addresses or accounts other than papageno: it’s not me.

4. If these numeric IPs have no association with user papageno, IP 77.12.227.249 wouldn't have been so outraged (as evident from his edit summary "Please AGF, do not make wild accusations." after the following revert to his edit was made by another user

21:24, 26 April 2008 88.76.51.168 (Talk) (39,595 bytes) (reverted vandalism by .papageno (talk See Discussion.)

In other words, if these people are not the same user, why should IP 77.12.227.249 bother whether papageno (talk has been wrongly accused?

5. papageno has written volumes to support his POV in the Wi-Fi talk page. Why did he not make any reverts or edits on the section Unproven health risks himself?? Why should the reverts supporting his POV be done instead by these three numeric IPs (whom papageno has denied he has any association with)?? The editing patterns and idiosyncrasies of these three numeric IPs and papageno (talk) are very similar. The evidence is simply too overwhelming. It is a clear-cut case of abusive editing, wilful deception and sockpuppetry.



Comments

I would like to respond to the points made by the honorable accuser in order.

Re Point 1

I presume user CleanUpX has traced these IPs correctly. Actually, I see now that this is a WP template that checks IP addresses, so I presume they are correct. There is no response possible to this point.

Re Point 2

This is an assertion. I would agree with user CleanUpX that the IPs he cites as having made changes to the article do all appear to be engaging in reverts that support one POV.

Re Point 3

“They have avoided any discussion in the talk page of Wi-Fi.” I agree, the IP address users who made revert changes to the article have not made any contributions to the article Talk page.
“Only user papageno (talk) has openly advocated the same version in the talk page and has denied any association with these numeric IPs.” Firstly, this is incorrect; I made one full revert of the changes made by an IP address changer 88.7X etc, who I think may be the person who is my accuser; this was a mistake on my part, which I regret. I should have engaged the editor from the start on the discussion page, instead of blindly making a revert. Since recognizing my error, I have written on the Discussion page extensively about content changes I think should be made to the new version promulgated by user 88.7X (and about my error in making a blind revert). I would say the POV of view represented by the content changes I have suggested is similar to that of the version over which an edit-war seems to be underway. However, I am not tied to the old version, and have not advocated for its return and do not now advocate for its return. I would be glad to work with any and all users to work from the new version promulgated by 88.7X etc. I have said so in the Discussion. I have asked the user 88.7X etc who may be my accuser here to move past and to focus on the content changes I would like to see added.
Secondly, yes, I agree: I would appear to be the only user who has denied being associated with the numeric IP address users who were making revert changes. I did this because I saw the back and forth reverts, and wanted user 88.7X etc to understand that I was not making the changes; I truly wanted to and still would like to engage him on the Discussion page about the content. In addition, user 88.7X was claiming in his edit summaries that reverts were being made to changes undertaken by me. Since I was not making the changes, I wanted to point this out on the discussion page.
“In other words, he has the intention of sock puppetry and deceiving other WP editors into thinking that many users from around the world support his POV.” Because I have denied being IP address users, who happen to be from around the world, I must be be a sockpuppet. I'm sorry, but I don't follow this logic. Because I have claimed I am innocent, I must be guilty?
“quotation from Wifi talk page” This is an authentic excerpt from the talk page.

Re Point 4

I have no idea why IP user 77.12.227.249 made the comments he or she did in the edit summary in question.

Re Point 5

“papageno has written volumes to support his POV in the Wi-Fi talk page.” This is correct. It is my understanding that this is what one is supposed to do when one is treating a subject that may be controversial. I have invited all users to comment on my comments about content on the Talk page, but as of yet, no one, not even user 88.7X etc, has done so.
“Why did he not make any reverts or edits on the section Unproven health risks himself??” Reverts are not the answer; taking the matter up in the Talk page is, as a way to finding consensus. I have attempted to start a discussion as a start to that process, but, as mentioned, at this point to no avail.
“Why should the reverts supporting his POV be done instead by these three numeric IPs (whom papageno has denied he has any association with)??” I have no idea why the IP address users chose to make the edits they made.
“The editing patterns and idiosyncrasies of these three numeric IPs and papageno (talk) are very similar.” This is simply untrue. The numeric IP addresses engaged in multiple reverts. I, on the other hand, have attempted to follow WP prescripts: taking controversial matters to the Talk page; being civil, for example, thanking user 88.7X etc for his/her comments; and focusing on content, not the editors, for example, writing extensive comments about content changes that I wanted to see, then inviting users to comment. There is extensive evidence on the talk page of another controversial health and technology page Talk:Mobile phone radiation and health, of my having taken a similar reasoned, calm and polite approach many times — and in so doing having avoided edits wars and excessive editing conflict. I have a long history of edits on countless other pages over many years, none of which is in keeping with style of which I am here accused. The IP address users' edits are more in keeping with the style of other users accused or guilty of sockpuppetry, reported by user CleanUpX or others, who have been active in health and technology pages like WiFi, Mobile phone radiation and health and Electrical sensitivity. I have no evidence to support or refute this assertion; I merely offer it as a possible alternative.

Summary

The case presented is completely underwhelming. The edits in question to the WiFi page do not correspond at all to my style. I have followed WP guidelines in regards to trying address the matter that have caused this complaint. I have no association with any IP address users, active on WiFi or not. This case should be dismissed. papageno (talk) 06:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments added subsequent to the initial report by my honorable accuser, repeated from my talk page:

Hi Qui1che, I see that you do have a point here. Do not worry, if I have wrongly accused you, I will make a formal apology on your talk page and on Wi-Fi talk page. In the meantime, we should work toward finding out the real culprit who may have potentially tried to frame you. If you refer to the Wi-Fi talk page, another open proxy is creating havoc there. CleanUpX (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

The IPs have only got edits to these articles (bar a bit of vandalism from 66.91.107.145, and a bit of historic vandalism from 86.140.107.212), which would imply that they're dynamic, not static. The possibility that they are three separate individuals in three separate locations is as, if not much more, plausible as the possibility that they are one person operating through open proxies. That, within a short period of time, they have reverted to a version supported by another user is nowhere near enough to draw a link between them. No action taken. GBT/C 12:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Yorkshirian

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Yorkshirian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

CalcioSalvo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
SalvoCalcio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Harkey Lodger (talk) 08:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Record as CalcioSalvo [341]

Record as SalvoCalcio [342]

Rude and patronising to User:Mattythewhite here to the point of bullying see User talk:CalcioSalvo for block. He made these remarks on Talk:Scarborough Athletic F.C.here

Note the use of the word vertified. and the rudeness.Note also the lack of edit summaries.

His first use of the Yorkshire talk page is here

He has just archiveed the page as of 07:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC).

User:Yorkshirian's first contributions were on 24th October 2007.

His habit of not using edit summaries or using then for terse and rude or threatening messages continued.He started to edit the Yorkshire article then he went back to editing articles he had worked on previously e.g.Robin Hood Yorkshire. He was abrasive with User:Arcayne to whom he sent this message [343] then continued his threats here and edit summaries or lack thereof here

This behaviour has escalated to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Yorkshirian and this [344]

He is using his new identity to repeat his former behavior.

Note the use of the word vertified.


Comments

Not sockpuppets, names I used before I got this account due to losing the passwords. The last edit on it is 9 September 2007[345], the first edit on this is 24 October 2007.[346] With a period of IP use since in between loosing the password and making a new account. Though Harkey's presentation here is terse, advisary and strongly leanging on personal attacks. She could have just asked me first and I'll gladly have said this and just redirected the accounts with lost passwords to this one. In fact I'll do it now. No use for a check user since it is my orginial account name, which can't be used now thanks to lost passwords. - Yorkshirian (talk) 08:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you comment on your relationship to Yorkshire Phoenix (talk · contribs)? The userpage and contribution history are somewhat comparable to your own. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replied here. No YP is not my account. He/she seems to be still editing, as recent as 11 March[347]. The only reason I made this new name last year, was because I lost my old pass word. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

No overlapping edits. No good hand / bad hand editing. No using of accounts to circumvent blocks. In short, no breach of policy. GBT/C 12:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Aaron-Brandon

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Aaron-Brandon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
Mymom77788869 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

Collectonian (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Both are using exact same edit summaries while vandalizing Neopets, and other articles of "I have found many errors and changed them." and referencing vandalism warnings received by the other account. Both appear to be vandalism only as well.

Comments

I agree with Collectonian 100%. The first available administrator should indef-block these two accounts. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Both blocked indef. Hopefully the autoblock will catch the real master. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Zimbian

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Zimbian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
Zimbian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

- Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 12:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

total of 4 contributions, obviously created because of the current animosity at WT:MOSNUM, in order to be able to point fingers and strike comments.

Dan

Comments

Where's the sockpuppet here? A sockpuppet means a second account is being used by the same user (puppetmaster). I only see one user name in this report. User Dœ αTΩC 22:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Zimbian is blocked, and no further action is needed. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Zimbian. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Dan689 (2nd)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Dan689 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Cat7843 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Dan123456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
James265 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Shake2221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

...... Dendodge.TalkHelp 18:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

Similar names, attacks on same editors for seemingly no reason, repeated mentions of Twinkle, edits radio station articles, personal attacks on their own talk page, uses {{helpme}} in the same way all the time.

Comments


Conclusions

All accounts have been blocked (not by me). Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:James-van-blaricum-oil

Suspected sockpuppeteer

James-van-blaricum-oil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Signaloilandgas1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
James-van-blaricum-signal-oil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

User Dœ αTΩC 16:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Both user names are advertising for a company called James Van Blaricum oil on their user page. User:James-van-blaricum-oil's user page was deleted for g11. He promoted a company called James Van Blaricum oil. User:Signaloilandgas1 is now doing the same on his user page for the same company. He's (like User:James-van-blaricum-oil did it) linking to one of the company's websites. Both user's only edits were to their user page with promotional content. I won't tag the puppet's user page for g11 as long as the sock case is open.

Comments

Ain't there a way to prevent him from recreating another account over and over again? (how about blocking his e-mail in addition to his IP and the ACB?) I doubt that he'll give up. The third sock has already been blocked; and I think there are a few more to come :-/ User Dœ αTΩC 14:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Apparent spammer with multiple accounts. Both accounts indef blocked and spam pages deleted; we can leave this report open for a few days in case he is able to evade the account creation block or IP autoblock. --MCB (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update Blocked (again) by another admin User Dœ αTΩC 14:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Catacalisma

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Catacalisma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
Report submission by

[LukeTheSpook] | [t c r] 18:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence
  • [348]
  • [349]
  • [350]
  • [351]
Comments


Conclusions

I think this is likely, but there's really nothing I can do about it. Catacalisma has been warned and has not edited since then. If he adds vandalism again, especially if it's insulting to real people, then he should be blocked without further warning. Otherwise, let it be. Edits by the anonymous IP addresses are too old for preventative blocks to do any good. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Davkal

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Davkal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
Queue Pea Are (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

ScienceApologist (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Typical Davkal stuff, really. Responding to policy questions to POV-push once again. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I thought the same thing about a week ago based on the account's behavior. Antelantalk 18:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not familiar enough with Davkal to say whether this user is him/her or not, but this is undoubtedly a sock account. R. Baley (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to agree. Or at least some new account helmed by someone with immediate familiarity with some Wikipedia complexities and internal politics. Anyone want to guess at the significance of the user name: Q P R ? If I had to guess it may have something to do with the British football team: QPR. Many of the confirmed Davkal sockpuppets which are IPs are British. Curious evidence at the very least. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Almost certainly a sockpuppet of Dakval, and regardless a sock intended to stir the psuedoscience pot. Indefinitely blocked. Vassyana (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:San anjelo

Suspected sockpuppeteer
San anjelo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets


Report submission by

Tiggerjay (talk) 23:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Removing afd/csd tags as per puppeter

Comments


Conclusions

Malformed report. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/124.217.41.50. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Editor652

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Editor652 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Lacoste2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Kww (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Same obsession with changing the number of Afro-Latin Americans to 350K. Fourth sockpuppeting case against Editor652 for this, not including MTA254 who was blamed on Honduran72, who turned out to be another sock.

Conclusions

Blocked and tagged as obvious sock. - auburnpilot talk 21:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:James265

Suspected sockpuppeteer
James265 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
Shake2221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

Soxred93 (u t) 21:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

James was blocked due to incivility, posting a personal attack against a few editors (myself included). Next, he created another account, and posted the exact same message. I have a feeling this will continue.

Comments

Seems clear; Shake2221 is already blocked indef, so nothing left to do here apart from noting the loud sound of quacking. BencherliteTalk 21:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both are already blocked, and it looks like the sockpuppeteer is Dan689 (talk · contribs); compare their contributions with others in the sockpuppet category. --Snigbrook (talk) 11:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Both accounts already indefinitely blocked before this report was filed...? No wonder WP:SSP is permanently backlogged. GBT/C 21:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:JRS-SEC

Suspected sockpuppeteer

JRS-SEC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Chopped Lamb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Orange Mike | Talk 17:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

This single-purpose account is on a vendetta against a former boiler-room broker named Ronald Bongo who's now in the software industry. In order to circumvent the deletions(see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ronald_Bongo) of Ronald Bongo, the puppeteer created the sock puppet (Chopped Lamb = Lamb Chop; get it?) and the sockpuppet created US SEC Boiler Room Prosecutions. The links, the edit style, the accusations and wikilawyering; all are identical between puppeteer and puppet.

Comments

This should be a relatively quick one for an uninvolved admin to review.

I am familiar with the previous incarnation of this user, as JRS-SEC. This is most definitely the same person, for exactly the reasons laid out by Orange Mike above. I love WP:IAR as much as the next person, but really feel I was so involved with the previous account's contributions (and as I said in the AfD, about 2 seconds from blocking them myself), that I think I qualify as "involved admin", and won't block this time. But I do advocate blocking. This user has demonstrated a lack of desire to conform to our policies; stern warnings have been done to death. --barneca (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see deleted contribs, but based on what I can see, this looks like a disruptive sockpuppet. You could justify blocking for either disruption or sockpuppetry alone; the combination makes it an easy decision. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 19:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Quack. Blocked. GBT/C 21:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:TylawisntagoodDBkk

Suspected sockpuppeteer

TylawisntagoodDBkk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

So12menatepieonthe5th (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
A1337kidnamednoname12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
John1235isagoodguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Mike Doughney (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Vandalism to Montessori School of Westfield (history) within a 10 minute period from these 4 accounts (1 instance from each)

Comments


Conclusions

All blocked indefinitely. GBT/C 20:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Bolly Nickers

Suspected sock puppeteer

Bolly Nickers (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by
  • Qqqqqq (talk) 02:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Evidence
  • Previous discussion was at [352]. I'm not even sure which one was the original account. I'll go with Bolly Nickers because it was one that was caught and banned. Over several weeks in April and May of this year, this individual's dozens of sockpuppets were caught and banned. A number of them had made threatening and harrassing statements to me and other users, and most of that abuse had to be removed by Wikipedia's oversight process. I don't have much specific evidence of the connection here, but these sockpuppets mostly edit articles related to license plates in the United States, often creating graphically manipulated images of historical license plates that never actually existed, then inserting them into articles in some elaborate campaign of misinformation against Wikipedia (why, I have no idea). Some of these socks that have not yet been banned include User:Battersea Bosco, User:Campbell Showing, User:Mr. License Plate, and User:Yuck Flu By Road for a comparison of their user contributions with these new sockpuppets. User:NJ Plates, specifically, added the same unsourced content as these most recent sockpuppets have been re-adding recently. I can try to be more specific if necessary, but, unfortunately, I'd venture that more of this puppetmaster's contributions have been oversighted than not. Qqqqqq (talk) 02:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Conclusions

Tigerdude Plates and Issuenews are almost certainly sockpuppets of each other and probably of Bolly Nickers, though I'm not 100% sure of that. Afcx... does not have enough edits to conclusively prove sockpuppetry. However, none of these accounts have edited since December 3. If they come back, you will need to file a fresh report. Hermione1980 16:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:I Hate CAPTCHAS

Suspected sockpuppeteer

I Hate CAPTCHAS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Nom Vert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Wooly Musher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Libro0 (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Identical revision to 1980 Topps, 1981 Topps, 1982 Topps, 1983 Topps, 1984 Topps, 1970s Topps et.al.

Comments

I have tried to engage in dialog with this user. Yet their only action is to remain stubborn and unwilling to comply with wikipedia standards. Insists on reverting to bad grammar and diction in articles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Libro0 (talk • contribs)

One of the suspected sockpuppets, Wooly Musher (talk · contribs) is also one of the names mentioned in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bolly Nickers. --Snigbrook (talk) 02:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also like to submit this anonymous id as having been used by the above: 213.220.223.171. Libro0 (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That IP address has now been blocked as a Tor node. --Snigbrook (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lies. This is all lies as part of Libro0's campaign of harassment and intimidation. Just look at his work as it speaks for itself. --I Hate CAPTCHAS (talk) 14:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect that User:Libro0 may be a sockpuppet of banned user User:Tecmobowl. The editing pattern is similar. --Baseball Card Guy (talk) 11:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your (Baseball Card Guy) edits start May 08 while Tecmobowl was banned in July 07. How exactly do you know about this user if you are new? Libro0 (talk) 12:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A connection with Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bolly Nickers

One thing mentioned in that case is the "delete" !votes in the following AFD discussions:

The users with "delete" !votes on both articles all named in the Bolly Nickers sockpuppetry case, with two exceptions: one is Souvigny (talk · contribs) who also used "we" instead of "I" in the discussions: [353] [354] a similarity with other users mentioned in that case; the other "delete" in both AFDs was from I Hate CAPTCHAS (talk · contribs): note that Wooly Musher (talk · contribs) is listed in both SSP cases, and the only previous edit by I Hate CAPTCHAS in the Wikipedia: namespace is on "Images and media for deletion": [355] is similar to an edit by Also We Brief (talk · contribs) (in the same discussion): [356] (again the use of the word "we" instead of "I", and that Also We Brief is another user listed in the Bolly Nickers case). Also this edit on WP:ANI: [357]. If Wooly Musher and Also We Brief are socks (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bolly Nickers), it is likely that I Hate CAPTCHAS is another. --Snigbrook (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I believe this user has reverted to sock puppetry to avoid the standard discussion methods for arriving at consensus for article content.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Libro0 (talk • contribs)

Please see the results of the UserCompare tool.. This provides rather conclusive evidence. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 04:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe Libro0 has reverted to sock puppetry as part of his scheme of lies and dirty tricks to avoid the standard discussion methods for arriving at consensus for article content. --I Hate CAPTCHAS (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All blocked indefinitely. GBT/C 19:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Avineshjose

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Avineshjose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Harjk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Crazyguy2050 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

vi5in[talk] 18:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

Avineshjose has been confirmed as the puppet master at this RFCU.

Diffs from RFCU:

    • [358]
    • [359]
    • [360]
    • [361]
    • [362]
    • [363]

Also, I had stated my opinion in this AfD. I realized that I had posted my comment as a reply to the wrong post, and so, I moved it to the right place. Harjk appeared and moved it back, asking me "not to move other's comments". I moved my comment back stating that it was my comment. Avineshjose then reverts me with a similar summary, and then leaves this message on my talk page. I thought it was a bit odd seeing as he had never involved himself in that particular AfD before. I also thought it odd that an editor's first action in an AfD would be to "move" a comment.

This is Avineshjose's second case regarding sockpuppetry. He was reported and blocked earlier. He seems to be using his alternate accounts to revert other editors, and generally behave in a very uncivil manner. He makes uncivil edit summaries and had made a minor edit on a page simply to leave an uncivil edit summary. He has also reverted me without rationale and generally out of spite. He consistently accuses those who do not agree with him of being "vandals" and "sockpuppets", and of "misleading" others. Examples of these actions:

    • [364]
    • [365]
    • [366]
    • [367]
    • [368]
    • [369]
    • [370]
    • [371]
    • [372]
Comments
Conclusions

Master account blocked 48 hours. Socks blocked indef. GBT/C 19:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:81.155.231.208

Suspected sockpuppeteer
81.155.231.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
86.163.86.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 10:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Identical edits on my userpage and on The Priory Lincolnshire School of Science and Technology and admitting he is a previous blocked vandal [373]

Comments

Obviously the same user, another IP is 86.145.150.144 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which was used only six minutes after 86.163.86.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was blocked. The user is evading the blocks by changing IP addresses. --Snigbrook (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I dug up a few other ones. So far, 86.163.86.150 is the earliest known sock and the rest have been blocked. Feel free to open up another case if this continues. Spellcast (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page is dead, lolzzzz!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.65.226 (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Isaac235

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Isaac235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Greancy1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Rnb (talk) 00:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Isaac235 attempted to create a page named "Greancys" a day or two ago; I AfD'd the page as being about non-notable characters (it's hard to find Google info on these characters at all.) Isaac235 removed the AfD tag on the page several times until they were banned for vandalism after a final warning. Just now I noticed Greancy1 attempting to create this same page ("Greancys") with very similar text. I'm honestly confused about how that happened because the original Greancys AfD is still open--the AfD page now points to this new page that was created. At any rate, I strongly suspect both of these accounts are the same person attempting to create the same page based on the page topic, the similarity of the wording and how I just noticed the habit of Greancy1 to remove the speedy deletion notice from his own page. Thanks.

Comments

Admin assistance is needed. All of the evidence is in deleted revisions. If the evidence as stated is true, then that would be sufficient to block both accounts indefinitely, since they don't have much other history. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 19:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
  • I'd agree. In the deleted versions the initial text is somewhat similar and considering this alleged sockpuppet was only created very recently, I'd block indefinitely as a suspected sock. Rudget (Help?) 17:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Already blocked. Rudget (Help?) 17:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:88.172.132.94

Suspected sockpuppeteer

88.172.132.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

80.229.27.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

CleanUpX (talk) 07:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

See [374]. 88.172.132.94 and 80.229.27.251 are obviously one and the same person. Also, both share the same interests in pages Electrical sensitivity, Mobile phone radiation and health, Wireless electronic devices and health and Wi-Fi. Edit attempts were made to these pages during the same time frame.

Second, after a long period of inactivity (from 9 March onwards), both users 88.172.132.94 and 80.229.27.251 suddenly logged on again on 22 April (at 21:10 & 18:43 respectively) to make edit attempts. This is too much of a coincidence.

Finally, user 88.172.132.94 made an edit attempt to Health hazards of base stations at 11:11 on 20 Dec 2007. See [375]. This is followed immediately by another edit attempt to the same page (same section) at 12:25 by user 80.229.27.251. See [376]. Moreover, both seem to be on the same side of the argument. Evidence for sockpuppetry is simply too overwhelming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CleanUpX (talk • contribs) 17:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments


Conclusions

Neither IP is regionally close to the other one. One is on a French ISP, the other on a British ISP. Neither IP is an open proxy or a Tor node. Neither IP has a crossover in editting patterns. No action taken.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Fredmontoyez2

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Fredmontoyez2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
Fredmontoyez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

Prashanthns (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Has started similar vandal edits such as soon as the previous account was blocked.

Comments


Conclusions

Sock blocked. The public face of GBT/C 16:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:1wikiwarrior1

Suspected sockpuppeteer

1wikiwarrior1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

2wikiwarrior2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
3wikiwarrior3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
4wikiwarrior4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
5wikiwarrior5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

These usernames were all created on the same day within the same hour and are very similar. I do not see any legitimate reason for the person to have all of these accounts.

Comments


Conclusions

Due to repeated creation of the attack page Neil Gibeaut, Luna Santin blocked User:1wikiking1. User:5wikiwarrior5 then recreated the page. All 5 accounts were created within 3 minutes of each other, so it's obvious all of these are vandal accounts. I'm blocking the lot per WP:DUCK. --barneca (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All blocked. The public face of GBT/C 16:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:67.204.198.235

Suspected sockpuppeteer
67.204.198.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets


Report submission by

Staffwaterboy Talk Guestbook 01:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nakon&action=history

Comments
  • Where's the sockpuppet you're trying to report. And what do you want us to see in the above link to Nakon's talk history? Just curious. User Dœ αTΩC 21:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Incomplete report. Closed. The public face of GBT/C 16:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:PBsam

Suspected sockpuppeteer
PBsam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets


Report submission by

PeterSymonds | talk 18:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Tagged as a sockpuppet but the block was never carried out.

Comments
  • Sorry, I seem to have missed something. Is PBsam the puppet? or the puppeteer? Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Blocked now, so a bit of a moot point. The public face of GBT/C 16:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Custerwest

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Custerwest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

134.21.9.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Spiesr (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Essentialy identical edits. Example: [377][378]

Comments


Conclusions

Main account's been blocked, and the IP wasn't being used to circumvent the block. The public face of GBT/C 16:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:StealBoy

Suspected sockpuppeteer
StealBoy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
Junglebpook555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Creation of Disney hoaxes, numbers in username -- likely a sock.

Comments


Conclusions

Yep, indef'd. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Iamandrewrice (2nd)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Iamandrewrice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Gozitancrabz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
78.146.208.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
78.149.135.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
78.146.75.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
89.241.12.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

BencherliteTalk 21:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Iamandrewrice ("IAAR") was community-banned in December 2007 for his disruption of WP using mulitple accounts - see here for the ban discussion. Subsequently, he was caught socking in February 2008: see the checkuser report. One of the accounts found to be a sockpuppet was Crystalclearchanges (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ("CCC"), blocked on 29 February 2008.

The account Gozitancrabz was created on 16 March 2008. (Full disclosure - I am involved in a discussion he has generated at Talk:Constituent country which has spilled over into Talk:Wales.)

There are a number of striking similarities that make me think that Gozitancrabz is Iamandrewrice back once again:

  • It was noted here and here during previous discussions of IAAR and CCC that IAAR's pet areas included Malta and Latin Europe.
  • Gozitancrabz's very first edit was to write an article on Maltese surnames. He then added a link to that article to Family name and reworded the section on Maltese surnames in that article [379].
    • Family name was also one of the articles that CCC edited, particularly (you've guessed it) the section on Maltese surnames: 8 edits, another one, two more.
  • Gozitancrabz has also used 78.149.135.145 and 78.146.208.33 (admitting this one here) when logged out. Both are from the same IP provider as IPs that were noted during the IAAR checkuser enquiry.
  • Gozitan is the adjective for people from Gozo, an island off the coast of Malta.
  • IAAR claims on Talk:Maltese language that his mother is from Malta. In this edit, Gozitancrabz says that he is of Latin extraction, which would fit with IAAR's interests.
  • A minor point, but both CCC and Gozitancrabz have edited Internet slang.

Other people more familiar with forensic investigations may have a different opinion, but my view is that there are too many overlaps between IAAR/CCC and Gozitancrabz for them not to be the same person, breaking their ban. BencherliteTalk 21:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The IP address 78.146.75.142 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made one edit (to the Gauci article, on 16 March), which reinstated edits originally made by Crystalclearchanges, a few minutes before Gozitancrabz registered as a user and created a page which contained a link to that article. There are few coincidences here but nothing conclusive, and I think a checkuser will probably be needed. --Snigbrook (talk) 12:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to have a oddly-similar way of mangling the English language (although they each claim/claimed on their user pages that their mother tongue/only language is English, it is obvious in each case that this is not so). One of IAAR's edits read "its quoted by the bbc... surely thats reliable enough. Urgh... like basically everything I have done today has been reverted..." (here). Gozitancrabz too has repeatedly asserted that anything that is 'quoted by the BBC' must be accepted unthinkingly (one example); they both use three full stops as an ellipsis unusually frequently; and both troll on the user pages of those who cross or contradict them. ariwara (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser request filed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Iamandrewrice. BencherliteTalk 16:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

The evidence presented here supporting the statement that Gozitancrabz = Iamandrewrice is very robust. Primarily, the timing of account creation/account blocking (suggesting a throwaway pattern), and the concerningly similar editing habits–both inside and outside of the topic area in which the filing editor operates, and in areas completely unrelated to the relevant topic area–throw up some major red lights to me. The side evidence–similarities in contribution tone, edit summaries–reinforces the suggestions of sock puppetry.

With regards to the IP addresses, there is some evidence washing around, but insofar as the behavioural angle of suspected sock puppets (SSP) can function, it is circumstantial and insufficient. I would hope that the suggestions of sock puppetry against the IP addresses made on this page will be addressed at this report's sister, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Iamandrewrice.

Further to this, I have indefinitely blocked Gozitancrabz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and taken no action for the time being against the IP addresses. Anthøny 18:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Melissagoethe

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Melissagoethe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Linlikai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
LoneWolfSHYBOY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

TheMile (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

These accounts are all brand new and have only contributed to Eiiris, K. Kagami and its AFD Discussion. TheMile (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Linlikai has removed others comments saying that the article should be deleted and Melissagoethe has added {{spa}} tags to the comments of a user who clearly isn't a single purpose account, but who happens to disagree with him. They have all edited the AFD and nothing else, and all want it kept. They all seem to back each other up.--Phoenix-wiki 13:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Support TheMile's nomination. A read through AFD Discussion and a look at the contributions of Melissagoethe, User:LoneWolfSHYBOY and Linlikai make the case. They are either sockpuppets or meatpuppets. Nsk92 (talk) 14:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I disagree. My account has been created for awhile now, it's just that I've never used it much. So I'm afraid that your evidence is invalid.LoneWolfSHYBOY (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Mykungfu (6th)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Mykungfu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

RobertOgleFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
QueDog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
69.114.61.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
69.86.255.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
157.130.11.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
64.131.204.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
130.245.222.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
SexyNupe2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Restrictedarea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Marvelmanne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
GomabWork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
RealOldSchool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
JustTookNotice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

RoBoTamice 15:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

Editor uses same citation and editing style as banned user Mykungfu, specifically to circumvent ban in order to place NNPOV edits within, or create NNPOV articles related to Alpha Phi Alpha.[380]

Banned editor Mykungfu often attempts to create several "stealth accounts" for both vandalism and seemingly innocuous edits,[381] for purposes of bolstering arguments and possibly in pursuit of adminship.

Suspected sock follows Mykungfu's MO of retaliatory sockpuppet accusations of editors placing warnings on his/her pages, [382] as well as MKF's penchant for goading/wikilawyering w/ same targets.[383][384]

Suspected sock follows Mykungfu's MO of using several accounts to create articles written in a POV favorable to edits he/she wishes to insert into Alpha Phi Alpha, often with citations that either do not support or clearly contradict the proffered POV. [385] [386]. Editor makes heavy usage of same cite sources and links to Google books as MKF puppetmaster.

Comparison: Edits of MKF sock User:NinjaNubian [387] vs. User:RobertOgleFan[388]

there is other proof that would likely be apparent to an administrator that it would probably not be prudent to disclose to the sock.-RoBoTamice 15:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I don't believe that showing the results of a checkuser case is goading as stated above. Especially since I was accused not once [389] but twice [390] in a day. RobertOgleFan (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This revert in by an IP (the first revert) that the IP has made and ROF bringing my sandbox up earlier in ANI looks suspicious. MKF is notorious for stalking me and other users who he doesn't agree with. miranda 03:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

That diff about the sandbox sealed it--the chances of a new user knowing about that are slim to none. All accounts blocked. Blueboy96 18:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Coolest Kid20

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Coolest Kid20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Coolest Kid 10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
90.199.49.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
90.201.150.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
90.201.150.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
90.201.150.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

MightyHamster (talk) 02:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

The three six users have all added identical, previously reverted information to several pages, included Catchphrase (game show), Bullseye (UK game show), and Take It Or Leave It (game show). Contributions show additional instances, and a general pattern of similar edits and adding content in violation of copyright.

Comments


Conclusions
Obvious sockpuppetry case. Coolest Kid20 indefinitely blocked. Coolest Kid 10 blocked for 1 week. Gwernol 13:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Nighttemptation

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Nighttemptation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
Tarja Lawless (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

Collectonian (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

I believe this is another sock of Tarja Lawless (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tarja Lawless). User has immediately picked up where Tarja left on creating individual Xena episode articles, uploading the exact same low quality image of a book cover Image:The Official Guide to the Xenaverse.gif, and uploading many of the exact same non-free images.

Comments
It's all coincidence, I am creating and editing pages about Xena: Warrior Princess, because I am fan of the series and I think your articles deserve better quality. There can delete all those who want to contribute to the articles of Xena.(Nighttemptation (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Performing nearly identical edits to Xena to add the EXACT same non-free images is more than coincidence. Using the same language structure is not a coincidence. Trying to flood the encyclopedia with the exact same content as Tarja and the other blocked socks is not coincidence. Collectonian (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
  • Yup, their deleted contribs match up exactly. Thanks for submitting. Indef blocked. ScarianCall me Pat! 20:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Ryannx211

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Ryannx211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

64.179.45.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

new first edit readded problematic (BLP, talk material, blog as source, possible COI) edit of suspected puppeteer (contrib history obvious, but e.g., [391], [392], [393])

Comments

Suspected puppeteer is SPA, thrice warned for such additions. First block admin comments suggests user has also used other IPs to do same type of editing, but I cannot verify that.

Is it possible that this editor forgot to login or the session expired while leaving the computer on without activity for an extended period of time? OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is possible. The anon's same behavior soon after the main account being warned did seem very suspicious, but it could be a coincidence. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 13:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

It's been three weeks, and we're wondering whether one edit by an anonymous user was made by Ryannx211. There's really nothing to be done even if it's true, and I don't know that it is. Ryannx211 was blocked a second time on 27 April for continuing disruption (see block log). Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Garhauer (2nd)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Garhauer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (2nd)

Suspected sockpuppets

124.197.37.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Anchoring (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
124.197.16.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Rewih (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

bad·monkey talk to the {:() :: 14:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

Edits to Anchor relating to promotion of "Anchor Buddy" anchoring accessory.

First IP placed first promo spam a few weeks ago:

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anchor&diff=prev&oldid=199474985

Then once more:

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anchor&diff=199475429&oldid=199469196

User Garhauer and Anchorbuddy then made attempts to keep it against reverts - these accounts now both permanently banned after 1st incident report (for promotional user names).

First IP then went through and re-added some of the promo material plus defaced some elements of other article relating to product they appear to have a problem with:

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anchor&diff=205444955&oldid=205013316

New user Anchoring appeared and re-did above.

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anchor&diff=205975220&oldid=205447359

Second IP reverting as above again.

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anchor&diff=206154197&oldid=205997368

New user Rewih single purpose and appearing to take a more subtle approach. Nonetheless likely a sockpuppet.

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anchor&diff=208468789&oldid=206886026 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Badmonkey (talk • contribs) 09:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

IP is callplus.net.nz, a common New Zealand ISP.

  • Addition: Added User:Anchoring as additional sockpuppet. bad·monkey talk to the {:() :: 11:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addition: Added User:124.197.16.33 as additional sockpuppet. bad·monkey talk to the {:() :: 05:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addition: Added User:Rewih as additional sockpuppet. bad·monkey talk to the {:() :: 09:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

I'm confident that these are all the same person. I didn't check the diffs, so I'm not certain, but the editing pattern is shared by all accounts and IPs listed here.

Rewih is the only account that's not currently blocked. I'm going to leave a note on his talk page advising him to be careful, and that should be sufficient. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:USEDfan

Suspected sockpuppeteer

USEDfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Booowooo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
66.195.30.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Nouse4aname (talk) 08:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

These accounts are reverting edits to The Used and The Used discography without discussion. They are currently on a 24-hour ban, due to expire today. They have similar editing patterns and even go as far as talking to each other [394], and agreeing with each other [395]. They never edit similuatenously, but intermittently, switching from one account back to the other. For extensive diffs, see [396] and [397].

Essentially, for The Used discography, they are reverting these changes [398] and for The Used, these changes [399]

User:Pwnage8 also suspects sockpuppetry [400].

It is suspected that User:Usedfan1989 was also used.

I understand that these are only content disputes, however, they refuse to enter discussion, and are using multiple accounts to provide support for their position.

Comments
  • First of all, apologies if I have filled any of this out incorrectly, it's the first time! Unfortunately, I got caught up in edit warring these user(s), so now I am trying to get things sorted out properly...
  • I've blocked 66.195.30.2 for edit warring. The edit history of the IP address is closely correlated with the above users, which has led me to block the IP for 48 hours, to be extended indefinitely on the various user accounts if it persists. seicer | talk | contribs 16:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

USEDfan has been indef-blocked as a "vandalism-only account" because of recent edits. Booowooo has not edited since 14 April. No further action is required here. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Poyoyloar

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Poyoyloar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Tromatical (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Fearedhallmonitor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

--Nsevs • Talk 00:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

This sockpuppetry has come to light as I have been involved with these two editors and their pursuit of the WP:SSP case below: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/ArchieHall. These are two accounts created within a week of each other whose single purpose has been promoting the deletion of Mike Watt (writer) and Amy Lynn Best, pursuing the authors of said articles via the sockpuppet case referenced above, and making a few trivial edits to other film-related articles.

Similar editing patterns:

  • First edits: [401] [402] vs. [403] [404]
  • "Requesting speedy deletion" at User talk pages instead of placing db templates: [405] [406] [407] [408] [409] [410] [411] [412] vs. [413]

They have backed each other up on AfDs in connection with the alleged sockpuppets below:

And at the referenced sockpuppet case below (forgive me for not including the diffs since it's right there).

As far as their comments go on the sockpuppet issue, they sound very similar in parts:

  • "You are new around here, that's why you can't figure out why you were caught." vs. "You are obviously new to these parts."
  • "While he blames friendship with other account holder as cause, still implies form of sockpuppetry" "suggesting that you ARE close friends to Mike Watt. Even then, if you cared to read Wiki policy, this is called Meatpuppetry."

This last bit is especially strange since both brand-new users seem to have an uncanny grip of Wikipedia policy. (See [418] for one explanation.)

Additional evidence

I have added Fearedhallmonitor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) to the list of suspected sockpuppets. This is an account that was previously accused of sockpuppetry about a year ago, but never followed up with (as far as I can tell). The account was dormant until today when he deleted the comment, calling it "blantant vandal" (which is OK since it is his talk page), but consistent with Poyoyloar and Tromatical deleting my warnings that this case is active. (addition: Fearedhallmonitor did the same thing Nsevs • Talk 17:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

He also added a comment to User talk:MikeWatt out of the blue. In the process, he deleted a good-faith comment I had made, which is consistent with behavior by Poyoyloar: [419] [420]. --Nsevs • Talk 16:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Mates, this is rubbish.

joining in a consensus against a troublesome editor is hardly sockpuppetry.

if you examine my contributions history u will discover that my contributions does not match with the other

the only connection between I and the other editor is that we both seemingly read the same myspace blog whereby a mike Watt complains that his wikipedia article is about to be erased.

The sole reason i joined this debate is because I am a member of the mike Watt happy cloud pictures myspace group. he sent out a blog asking his friends if we would help him prevent his article from being erased. I did not feel comfortable doing this since it is against wiki policy to join up against other editors. so I joined the consensus started by poyoyloar to report his actions.

I do confess outta laziness it was easier to cut & paste poyoloar's original complaint instead of rewriting my own when helping report the user in question. if this causes problems, my humble apology.

my intent was to warn the troublesome editor about the problems he was causing where the other editor poyoyloar was not doing this as a courtesy. if it helps to clear up this confusion please investigate my internet provider address so u can rule me out as a dual user.

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tromatical (talk • contribs) 02:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:Shalom: I think Poyoyloar and Traumatical are sockpuppets of each other and, lacking any significant positive contribution history, should be indef-blocked. I do not see sufficient evidence to connect either of these two accounts with Fearedhallmonitor. As recent events have made me only too aware, suspicions of sockpuppetry against editors with more than three months of experience must be treated with the utmost caution. Basically it's alleged that FHM made one or two edits in agreement with the aforementioned two users, and hadn't edited for a few months before that. It's just not enough evidence. You can ask for checkuser if you want, but I would drop it.

In addition to the evidence already presented to linke Poyoyloar and Traumatical, I have more. Both added the word "Sup" to userpages:

  • Tromatical's second edit
  • Poyoyloar's first edit.

Both removed warnings about suspected sockpuppetry on April 15, one at 1:05 and the other at 1:09, just four minutes later:

  • Poyoyloar at 01:05
  • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tromatical&diff=prev&oldid=205688477

The correlation on which days these two accounts edited on is nonrandom. Both edited on April 13, April 14, April 15, April 20, and April 22. Tromatical edited on only six days in April; on five of those days, Poyoyloar also edited, and the sixth was a difference of one day (April 6 for Poyoyloar; April 7 for Traumatical).

Taken as a whole, the evidence is sufficient to justify a block on these two accounts. I reiterate that I don't see a connection between them and Fearedhallmonitor. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Conclusions

Fearedhallmonitor is the oldest account and should have been listed as the master. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have, but he didn't come out of the woodwork until a day later... --Nsevs • Talk 12:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am convinced by the evidence that this is a case of sockpuppetry (with Fearedhallmonitor being the puppetmaster). Tromatical's protestations are unconvincing, for the reason that those few of his edits which are unrelated to the contentious subject, such as this edit, are insubstantial, and seem calculated to make it appear as if he has other interests.GSTQ (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFCU filed to sort this and the ArchieHall SSP out. They're quite intertwined. 21:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Poyoyloar, All socks, plus a new one. Poyoyuloar blocked one week, socks indef. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:ArchieHall

Suspected sockpuppeteer

ArchieHall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

MikeWatt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Dwaltzwriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Poyoyloar (talk) 01:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Simply examining the edit history/contributions of these three editors speak for themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ArchieHall

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dwaltzwriter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MikeWatt

Notice their similar obsessions. Also notice the timing of when those new account were created. Also notice how when both Dwaltzwriter and ArchieHall chat with the same other editors.

Basically what started this was desperation of the puppetmaster born out of the following episode:

A request was made to speedy delete 2 unsourced articles: one about an non-notable blogger/arm-chair movie critic writer(MikeWatt) and the other wiki article about his amateur actress wife (Amy Lynn Best), both act in their own self-produced amateur movie productions. Writer Mike Watt writes for a magazine, a few online fanzines and blogs. He is also an amateur actor who stars in their own home movies. Immediately, the author and contributor to both articles user:"ArchieHall" jumps in to defend the articles. This leads to a huge edit war as, coincidentally, another NEW account is created called "user:MikeWatt" and yet another NEW account named Dwaltzwriter is created to jump in to contribute to and defend the article. The timing is clearly suspicious since these accounts only appear when there was a real threat to existence of these articles. The fact that a NEW "Dwaltzwriter" account was created the day of this edit war to argue against editors who want the article deleted is highly suspicious. "Dwaltzwriter" simply jumps in this argument, ready to debate against the other editors. The timing of "Dwaltzwriter's" creation and the fact that he/she is ready to jump into this argument can not be a coincidence. Add to that that Dwaltzwriter has not attempted to edit any other article other than the articles that ArchieHall created/contributed to.
"Dwaltzwriter" and "ArchieHall" both pretend to be different people defending the article. Notice how ArchieHall quickly jumps in to defend Dwaltzwriter almost mere hours after user:Dwaltzwriter created his account. Clearly they are the same person since their contribution history is the same. He even "agrees" with his phony meatpuppet/sockpuppet account in a way meant to sound like they are 2 different people. If not the same person, then still friends agreeing to defend each other's agenda in a way to make their argument look legitimate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amy_Lynn_Best
The MikeWatt account also quickly jumps back and forth between both the Amy Lynn Best article and the MikeWatt article much like ArchieHall does.
The MikeWatt account is almost an omission that ArchieHall is probably Mike Watt himself, which means that ArchieHall (aka MikeWatt) created his own Wiki fanpage to promote his own film/writing career. In either case, ArchieHall is clearly pretending to NOT be MikeWatt since he speaks of MikeWatt in the 3rd person. But even if this were true, then the creation of MikeWatt account at the same time of the edit war suggests that friends of MikeWatt are being asked to jump in to defend the article which is still a meatpuppet violation. The "ArchieHall" account also accuses me of being a personal enemy of MikeWatt which is odd since if this were true, then how would ArchieHall know this unless he were MikeWatt or unless he was a close friend of MikeWatt??? His personal interest in attacking me so quickly, without evidence to back up this claim, seems to suggest that I threatened his agenda of Meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry since he couldn't resist but to make this a personal conflict about the person he is supposed to writing about objectively. In other words, if "ArchieHall" really is just a random fan of writer MikeWatt, and not MikeWatt himself, nor MikeWatt's close friend, then he shouldn't be so knowledgable/obsessed about MikeWatt's personal vendettas/enemies since he seems to endlessly complain about them with other editors while still claiming not to be MikeWatt or a close friend.Poyoyloar (talk) 01:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Personally, I hope that I am wrong. I really hope that a Wiki user would not abuse wikipedia this way. Personally, I'd like to see if the process clears this user. But if not, then I'm in support of the system created against this sort of thing.Poyoyloar (talk) 01:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious sock puppets, working together, accounts created at same time when dispute flares up, contribution history shared.Tromatical (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination was incomplete; I have listed it on the main page at WP:SSP and fixed the broken headers. --Nsevs • Talk 11:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

So since all three accounts share (a) timing and (b) the same obsessions and (c) the same agenda: seems to clearly imply that sockpuppetry is being used to promote an non-notable article which was already deleted once because of non-notability.Poyoyloar (talk) 01:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal

I refuse to listen to my name be dragged through the mud in this fashion. I have been a film critic for over ten years and am allowed my opinion on whomever I choose. To say that I am involved in this sockpuppetry, a term that I am unfamiliar with, is juvenile at best. The evidence you give is nothing more than circumstantial with no hard facts to prove otherwise. I eagerly await this process that will show conclusively that I am Dwaltzwriter and nothing more. Dwaltzwriter (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I highly doubt that for an article this trivial that you just happened to create your account without being prompted. And your behavior/obsessions seem to suggest, in conjunction with the other sockpuppets created, that there is an attempt to dupe wiki for the purpose of POV agenda. As an amusing side note: Even Mike Watt himself, on his homepage, is calling on his friends to create accounts to defend the existence of the Mike Watt homepage, where all the meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry is taking place. Yes, the timing of when you created the account is suspicious indeed.Poyoyloar (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a link/diff to support that? Nsevs • Talk 22:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course,

http:// b l o g. m y s p a c e.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=12633280&blogID=377911809

Of course he still wants us to think he's 2 different people, so he lays it on thick. But he's just covering his tracks.

But of particular interest is the following quote from MikeWatt/ArchieHall's blog, whereby he all but confirms that he is soliciting meatpuppetry from this friends.

The title of the blog is: HELP NEEDED

"This week, [an editor] has been lobbying to get my and Amy's Wikipedia entries removed... As of five minutes ago, it's still up there. However, if everyone could do me the favor and check in on it every now and then and make sure MK isn't vandalizing it or destroying it further. If you want to, feel free to re-edit, add, subtract, I don't care..."

Clearly, an intent to game wiki.

Poyoyloar (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response

My name is Douglas Alan Waltz. I have been a film critic for years. Google it and you'll see. I live in Michigan, have for all of my life. I can't understand why these entries would be removed for perfromers who have appeared in films that are carried on sites like Amazon as well as brick and mortar stores like Best Buy where you can buy their product. These are legitimate actresses and actors that have as deserving a place on the wiki as any other performer. I believe taht Poyoyloar has an agenda that he is keeping from wikipedia that goes beyond a normal request for deletion into something more personal. Especially when he paraphrases the blog above without posting the entire blog? Why do that? Are there things further down on the blog that will reveal Poyoyloar's agenda? I think so having gone and read the blog that was linked here. This entire situation is a sham and needs to be negated immediately. And Poyoyloar? NEVER accuse me of being a sockpuppet again. Are we clear?Dwaltzwriter (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Dwaltzwriter, you really ought to tone down the aggression in your posts. Poyoyloar has every right to make substantiated accusations even if they turn out to be false. Poyoyloar, is there any reason you haven't actually provided a link to the blog? I've tried cut-and-pasting the address to my server but I can't find the blog you're referring to. By the way, Dwaltzwriter, nobody has an obligation to google you or provide anything other than circumstantial evidence. These cases are decided on the basis of behaviour, it says so on Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry.GSTQ (talk) 05:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already informed Dwaltzwriter of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL [421] [422]. As for the URL, you need to remove the spaces that have been inserted: http://blog.m yspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=12633280&blogID=377911809 --Nsevs • Talk 18:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response to comment

Tell you what, since Poyoyloar has given nothing substantial in any of his arguements I think I'll go ahead and keep my current level of aggression. When it's all over and the smoke has cleared then I'll think about lowering my aggression. Until then, I'm who I am. Oh, and that's Douglas Waltz, not Mike Watt as Poyoyloar has insisted on calling me for this entire thing.Dwaltzwriter (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Mike, so now you are threatening me with aggression. Do you think that will help your case around here? But I will happily report this NEW violation. Your intent to use aggression to get your own way certainly IS substantial. You are making your own case against yourself.Have a nice day.Poyoyloar (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

O.K., I've read the blog, and Poyoyloar's extract has quite a different impact from reading the whole blog, which ought to be read in its entirety. Reading the whole blog suggests that there is someone who is apparently not aware of Wikipedia policies about soliciting support from friends and associates to support a particular proposition, instead of someone who calculatedly defies the policy. And it shows the solicitation is incidental to a situation occurring principally outside Wikipedia. I think the evidence shows pretty clearly that Dwaltzwriter and MikeWatt are meatpuppets. Dwaltzwriter, your inability or refusal to educate yourself about the difference between sockpuppets and meatpuppets and then understand that Wikipedia policy treats them in exactly the same way does not buy you an exemption from the rule. And nothing buys you an exemption from the rule about being civil (yes, even if Poyoyloar is not being civil).GSTQ (talk) 23:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final Weigh-in

At the risk of attracting Poyoylar's further attention, I'm going to respond here. First, to GSTQ and Nsevs I'd like to extend my sincere thanks for your attention and consideration in this matter. And my apologies as well. As GSTQ pointed out, I absolutely did not realize that my call for assistance with my personal blog was a violation of Wikipedia policies. I was responding to an attack against myself and my wife that has been leveled against us in the past by the same individual calling himself Poyoylar, Tromatical and Fearedhallmonitor. My apologies further if my actions caused needless headaches for the Wikipedia staff and moderators. Douglas Waltz and Archie Hall are both associates of mine. I cannot take responsibilities for their actions, but I do thank them, regardless, for trying to assist friends and colleagues in what was seen as an external attack. If Poyoylar's goal is to have these entries deleted, and the deletion will end this nonsense, then by all means delete them as I'm sure everyone -- well, perhaps not everyone -- has better things to do with their time. Whether or not Amy and I have done enough in our careers to be 'notable' is certainly up for debate, and I doubt that's a debate that will be settled here or to Poyoylar's liking [423].(If his assertations that Fangoria and Film Threat are also not notable, it might be considered that those entries be removed as well, to further placate him. Oh, and please don't mistake that possibly facetious remark as a personal attack, despite how personal this entire thing has become.) Finally, just to repeat, thank you both, GSTQ and Nsevs for your time and assistance. MikeWatt (talk) 11:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that constitutes a confession to meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry. That pretty much settles that.
As for the other speculative nonsense that I am the one attacking him and his wife elsewhere, that is completely UNTRUE. Unless he has some hard proof otherwise, then it's circumstantial speculation and paranoia.Poyoyloar (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

As it says in WP:MEAT, the term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used only with care. It seems that MikeWatt may have acted in a way that can be seen as recruiting meatpuppets, inadvertantly including Dwaltzwriter and ArchieHall in this. However, we should all remember WP:AGF. There doesn't seem to have been a deliberate attempt to subvert Wikipedia policies and processes in the way that normally justifies the use of the term meatpuppetry. MikeWatt's attention has been drawn to WP:MEAT, and he has explained his actions. Future action, if any, should be based on future behavior. If these users stay around for a while and make good edits, their records from now on will speak for themselves.

If there are pages that should be deleted, or which people think should be deleted, the proper processes should be followed to obtain concensus on that. Criteria for notability are reasonably objective, and it should be possible to resolve disputes in the normal AfD way. The best way to defend an article from suggestions of lack of notability is to expand it with good references to reliable secondary sources that clearly establish notability according to the set criteria in WP:NOTE. Mooncow (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mooncow, thanks very much. I appreciate your time and input in this matter. MikeWatt (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx Mooncow. And to be clear. Nobody wants to see Mike Watt's account, or his other "meatpuppet" accounts banned if they are indeed unintentional. We just want him to stop using this method of editing to support his auto-biographic wiki article that is already sorely lacking in so many other areas, specifically in the area of notability. Thx for your time.Poyoyloar (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFCU filed to sort this and the Poyoyloar SSP case out. They're quite intertwined. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Poyoyloar, ArchieHall and Mikewatz are socks, Dwaltzwriter isn't, sock indef'd, ArchieHall blocked one week. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Fdaonline

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Fdaonline (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Fdaonline1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

User Dœ αTΩC 15:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

Apart from their user names (Fdaonline and Fdaonline1) the user creation log says, that Fdaonline created Fdaonline1 today on May 2 2008 at 03:59 see here. Example diff here similar to this and check out the puppetmaster's contribs and now check out the puppet's contribs. Both are promoting the same company with the same links.

Comments

Puppetmaster has been user name blocked on March 28. The puppet is still up and running. User Dœ αTΩC 18:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Yeah, Fdaonline1 is probably a block-evading sockpuppet, and if it isn't, it still justifies a username block for the same reason as Fdaonline. I'll post to WP:UAA, and someone will take care of it. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 19:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:M4m4li

Suspected sockpuppeteer

M4m4li (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

MW3C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

User Dœ αTΩC 18:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Both are promoting "Middle East World Wide WebCommunity" on their user page. The puppetmaster's user page has already been deleted for g11. Now the puppet is doing the exact same thing see here (although an admin has meanwhile blanked the puppet's user page).

Comments

I just figured, that the puppet has been user name blocked. Now what about the puppetmaster? User Dœ αTΩC 18:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

One account is username-blocked; the other has no edits except for deleted edits. There's nothing to do here. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 19:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Red4tribe

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Red4tribe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

SaudiArabia44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Sockpuppeteer, User:Red4tribe has been engaged in a week-long quarrel with me over additions to the Dutch Empire article that I asked him to provide reliable sources for - his additions were mostly unsourced or backed up by self-published websites that he googled for. Whilst this was going on, his sockpuppet account, User:SaudiArabia44, was being used simultaneously [424] [425] though I did not realise it at the time. After I reported his sockpuppeteer account for 3RR violations (which we can see he noticed at at 19:39, 4 May 2008) he then proceeded to use his sockpuppet account to make yet another reversion at 20:07, 4 May 2008.

I also note that he has used both accounts at the discussion page Talk:Battle of Harlem Heights and also to edit the article [426] where he has also been involved in a disagreement.

Conclusion

Rlevse has blocked Saudiarabia44 indef as a sock confirmed by checkuser. EdJohnston has blocked the main account for 1 week for the same reason and for 3RR violation. Case closed. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 19:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Dreamafter

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Dreamafter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

CD-MD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§ 04:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

Rolling around MilHist coordinator elections, and Dreamafter decides to run. A little while later, User:CD-MD is created, and Dreamafter makes his first RANDOM welcome to him. (He welcomed 13 users since October, but they all had edit affiliations with him before the welcome.) CD-MD makes a total of 3 edits in his WikiLife, and they are placed below.

Edit #1:After Dreamafter happens to Welcome CD, isn't it very convenient that CD places this there- Edit #1

Edit #2:CD signs up at MilHist.

Edit #3:No more exchange is had between them, and CD votes for Dreamafter in the elections. The Vote

This comment is quite odd, wouldn't you say? How would he have found all that out in 9 minutes? (Especially the Heuschrecke 10 comment)

Timeline:

  1. CD-MD is created at 02:56
  2. Dreamafter welcomes CD-MD (02:57)
  3. CD-MD votes in the election (03:04)
  4. CD-MD is never seen or heard from again.

I close my case. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§ 04:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comments
  1. Alright, CD-MD is a member of my family, not me though. I didn't ask him to edit that page though, and I just wanted him to feel welcome so I welcomed him. Block the account if you have to, but I am going to assure you that he will be told about this... With a Checkuser, you'd find that it was done here, at my house, but not who did it. Dreamafter (talk) 01:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, you are stating that in the 8 minutes you had in the course of time that you welcomed him, you and he switched on and off the computer at the same time? Also, if you were in the same house, why did he ask you all those questions on your talk page, and you responded to them there? Don't you think you could just talk to him? And even if you didn't talk to him, that seemed awfully fast for him to find out all that information, especially the part about you not talking much. If you ask me, this all seems a little suspicious, and I still think you are the same user, and there is plenty of evidence to back it up. And if your next excuse is that he was on a different computer, that computer should have a SIMILAR IP address, but not the same one. It is the same way in my school. The computers next to each other are 1 or 2 numbers off. I'm sorry, but all the evidence points to that you created this user and used him to vote for you. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§ 02:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to remind Redmarkviolinist to assume good faith. LegoKontribsTalkM 21:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About the same IP, in my family we have about 3 computers, but they all edit through the same IP. Schools have different IPs for each computer so if a student goes to an inappropriate website, the school knows which exact computer the student was on. LegoKontribsTalkM 21:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still, all the edits and evidence point to that they are the same user, and Dreamafter was just using it to gain an advantage in the voting. I am sorry about the good faith. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§ 02:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
 Confirmed Dreamafter and CD-MD are the only ones on that IP. For disclosure, I was one of hte people that CD-MD voted for in the MILHIST diff. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dreamafter admits above that he and User:CD-MD were in the same house but denies collusion. Assuming good faith, this explanation on this one occasion is within the realms of possibility. I also see that CD-MD has not made any edits since February and this is therefore stale. I have warned Dreamafter about policy on roommates and meatpuppets, and advised him that in any future instances he is unlikely to get a second chance. (Disclosure: User:CD-MD also voted for me in the Milhist diff.)--ROGER DAVIES talk 04:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the data was live. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't doubt it for a minute. I was using stale in its sense of "stale news", "yesterday's news", "old hat", "past its sell-by date", "dormant" etc. --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Doppleganger

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Doppleganger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Cadden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

User Dœ αTΩC 16:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

The puppetmaster (name of band) has no contribs. Registered his account on may 8 2006. User:Cadden created the following on his user page (13:44, May 6, 2008): [427]. On 15:11, May 6, 2008 he put the same/similar text like [428] on User:Doppleganger's user page [429]. I therefor highly suspect that both accounts are owned by the same person. Cadden's contribs. Puppet is writing in his own user space and in the puppetmaster's user space about a band which has the exact name as the puppetmaster account.

Comments

A simpler explanation is that the accounts belong to two different people, and User:Cadden has hijacked User:Doppleganger's userpage. Rather than a sockpuppetry case, this appears to me to be a simple case of someone spaming their band's info on an old, unused userpage. Either that, or User:Doppleganger has been very, very, very patient. --barneca (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I went ahead, assumed I was correct, deleted User:Doppleganger and User talk:Doppleganger, and left a note on User talk:Cadden. I don't frequent WP:SSP often enough to remember how to archive a report, but if someone sees this, it can be archived I think. --barneca (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I know this is already closed - but as additional info. - The contribution of User:Doppleganger have been oversighted and have a totally different subject than the adverts by User:Cadden. Agathoclea (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Chris19910

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Chris19910 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Bridwater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Carol Sutton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Their MOs seem to be the same, reverting edits of users randomly, claiming vandalism, or calling for speedy deletion when not warranted. See here and here. See here and here. Bridwater also seems to have a strange interest in awarding Chris19910 barnstars and Chris doesn't have a problem with Bridwater blanking his page. Although I have seen some legitimate editing, I see a lot of vandalism and edits that just don't make a lot of sense. I can't see how the use of both of these accounts is legitimate.

I don't have very much evidence that Carol Sutton is the same person besides the fact that they all started editiing around the same time the end of March 2008 and Chris19910 has adopted Carol Sutton here

Please see the results of the UserCompare tool. Lara❤Love 13:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check user has determined that Chris19910 has been operating multiple accounts and a category has been set up at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Chris19910. So far, User:Cookingexpert, User:Computermadgeek, User:Electricdancer and User:Topgearmad have been found to be his sockpuppets. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

don't have a problem with Bridwater clearing my page because I gave this user permission to do it in order to test their Twinkle see my usertalk page for conformation of this from the admin that blocked Bridwater for doing it. As for the user bridwater being a sockpuppet of 'mine'then that is absolute rubbish because I have no reason to create another account because my editing is going perfectly well. As for putting the speedy delete tags on the pages I believe that the pages needed it. Chris19910 (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that Chris19910 noted that they permitted Bridwater to blank and revert the formers userpage (and by reverting Bridwater was reblanking as other editors had already performed that action, which lead to the AIV report and my block) which, I suggest, is a pretty useless way of hiding a sock from view. My review, and re-review, of the two editors contributions indicate very different ways of dealing with criticism and personal interaction (although I am aware that blanking pages is sometimes a method of not allowing similarities to be noted...) Lastly, I don't see any abuse within article space; no false consensus, to team tag editing, etc. The awarding of Barnstars...? My personal opinion is that while I believe that the two editors are not the same, there is no abuse to warrent CU in any place.
I have had no previous interaction with Carol Sutton, and my comments are from a review of their contribution history only. Firstly, this was the first of the three accounts to be created - my understanding is that the puppetmaster usually creates their "own" account first and then socks to support that account. Carol Sutton also appears to be a limited interest account, one specific sculptor and a few edits to that artistic genre. This is different to both other accounts, who seem to be vandal fighters and wikignomes (although not so succesful in Bridwaters case). The one aspect that Carol Sutton shares with Bridwater is a certain lack of clue in some areas, whereas Chris19910 appears quite knowledgeable.
My concluding opinion is that all three are sufficiently different in different ways (one will share a similarity with one, but not the other, in some cases) to be different individuals. I am also aware that it is very rare that puppetmasters and socks portray themselves as different genders, as the facade of the "wrong sex" is difficult to maintain, yet while Carol Sutton appears to identify as female and Bridwater and Chris19910 appear to be male. Other than the matter of Barnstars and adoption, I see no abuse that would justify a CU.
While I have advised Chris19910 that a checkuser can clear as well as condemn I have yet to have a reply, and I am aware that the editor has intimated elsewhere that they have a previous account which may give them reason for their ip identity not to be known.
Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second the "fishy" nature of Chris19910 and Bridwater.

  • A simple stub article I created was tagged for Speedy Deletion (Andrea Parhamovich). He incorrectly tagged it as an attack page as it had nothing but legit edits ([430]) I challenged Chris19910 on it, and the user was evasive about answering. ([431])
    • It was aimed at a page that had been created by you not personally at you. Chris19910 (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I cant remember what exactly was on the page because it has already been deleted Chris19910 (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Under the terms of an attack page the content falls into that catagory im not going to argue about it. Chris19910 (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I noticed the 28th edit ever by Bridwater was giving Chris19910 two barnstars? ([432]) Extremely unusual behavior for a new user. Bridwater account was created March 31, and that 28th edit was on April 11.
  • He is supposedly a "former admin" according to this edit on April 1 ([433]) and is asking someone to reinstate his admin status. Seems particularly strange to me. The "right to vanish" is exactly that. You can't vanish but save your admin status, if he ever was an admin in the first place.

-- Fuzheado | Talk 00:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do have a previous identity on wikipedia which if needed will be disclosed for the case. This is why I am so familiar with the layout of wikipedia and how i know my way around. I had twinkle previously with no problems at all and over 10,000 successful edits without any queston of vandalism or of any objections to my speedy deletion tags. Chris19910 (talk) 08:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit to my talk page Computermadgeek revealed that hot20024, 200345, Rattus nonnus and Dmits are all also operated by Chris19901. As we know that Computermadgeek is Chris19901 I would expect that these are genuine socks. nancy (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Cult free world

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Cult free world (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Shashwat_pandey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Rushmi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Duty2love (talk) 06:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence

New User Cult_free_world (CFW) appears to be the sock puppet of users Shashwat Pandey(SP) and Rushmi(RU). This appears to be a somewhat sophisticated case as perhaps SP is reusing another pre-existing user CFW's account for the same purpose users SP and RU had tried to achieve. May be an IP check can confirm this. Both of these users have been permanently blocked from WP because of abusing WP [434]. Following are the evidences, please bear with me.

Important Note: To see things crystal clear, you will have to take a little bit of inconvenience. You will need to see some links at Orkut.com and since because of spams from Orkut, WP has blacklisted it hence you would have to replace ORKUT with "www(dot)orkut(dot)com" in the all the orkut links mentioned below. Also you will need a Google account to login into Orkut's pages (which I am pretty sure you have one ;)):

  1. Using CFW's account: Because SP has been caught and blocked from WP twice before, he appears to be attempting a very clever solution to get back in and repost the same deleted material. Here are some evidences in support of this:
    1. There is a distinct change in pattern in the contributions of CFW from prior to March 3rd 2007 to the ones later to March 19th 2007. Prior to March 3rd, CFW's contibs were intermixed between all together different subjects like - Meher Baba, Rick Ross, Marga, Bramha Kumaris, Sahaj Yoga etc.[435], then some activity started on subject Sahaj Marg subject and after after March 19th it has been fully changed to Sahaj Marg and SRCM, the same exact subjects of SP and RU.
    2. March 19th @ Orkut SP says this: Following comment from SP's blog page in Orkut (read the Imp Note above before clicking on this link) [436] says exactly this, responding to another user how it is possible to recreate deleted pages in WP: "BTW what makes you feel that it is difficult ? you are not someone who is new or is unaware of wiki, now that you have come here, kindly give us your space location on wikipedia, so that if there is anyone who wish to get involved may move in. ..."
    3. March 19th @ WP CFW creates this: "18:14, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User:Cult free world/Proposed page‎ (←Created page with 'Le Sahaj Marg est un système de méditation de raja yoga hindouiste fondé en 1945. À ne pas confondre avec le classique Raja Yoga ...')". [437]. And as mentioned before from now on SP takes over this account.
    4. CHKUSER warning: While writing this, I noticed that CFW gets a comment for CHECKUSER and SUSPSOCK from an old timer acquaintance [438] ... what a coincidence or may be there is no coincidence at all as it is becoming so obvious to those who know CFW.
  2. CFW - Not a New User CFW's account has been opened on Dec 29th 2007. CFW started started the proposed page on Sahaj Marg on March 19th. Seeing the history you will notice how expertly he has been adding references, quoting WP policies and starting an RfC process [439]. Doesn't all this seems too much for a new user?
  3. SP's Blog Page: SP's blog page has a lot of evidence about what CFW has been doing at WP since March 19th. Shashwat Pandey is a long time blogger, well known for holding extremely negative POV about the non profit organization SRCM ... nothing wrong with that. He holds several blog pages at Orkut and Geocities. Note: All Orkut links pasted here will require a valid Orkut account to view. Pages posted by him has been deleted from Geocities as well [440]. Following are some relevant posts from his blog on Orkut (will need an orkut account to view), which shows his sophisticated plan of action to start the same deleted pages again at WP, having learnt a great deal after being blocked several times from so many reputed websites. Following are the posts (italicized) done by SP about the things he has been doing at WP under disguise of other account. Orkut Page: [441]
    1. Feb 25 @ Orkut: SP's comment at above Orkut page (typos intact) about Jossi's deletions of the pages created by him as CFW. "Finally Jossi was sussessful in deleating the wiki page about Sahaj marg, and got my account blocked as well !!".
    2. Mar 3rd @ Orkut: '"Jossi deleted the article once again.. 02:48, 3 March 2008 Jossi (Talk | contribs) deleted "Sahaj Marg India" ‎ (G4: Recreation of deleted material) ..... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sahaj_Marg_India&action=edit"'.
    3. Mar 3rd @ WP: CFW had created those pages [442] and Jossi had deleted them [443]
    4. Mar 19 @ Orkut: Discussion about using a pre-existing account at WP - [444]
    5. April 8 @ Orkut: Copying all my exchanges with 4d-don [445]
  4. High Degree of Similarity: Since March 19th the contributions by CFW has a high degree of similarity with the posts done by Rushmi and SP at WP before [446], [447], [448]
  5. Reposting Deleted Content: Both SP and RU were involved with same contentious subject (Sahaj Marg, SRCM) and several pages related to this subject were removed from WP last September after a long review process [449], [450], [451]. But in spite of numerous suggestions to CFW about the recent history of this subject, it persists on posting same deleted content. My big concern is not about the content, that we can resolve in the talk pages, as we had been doing [452], [453], but if the user CFW itself is not reliable and is intentionally misusing WP to propagate its POV then isn't it a huge waste of time and resources?
  6. Previously Suspected: Other people have suspected the same in the past [454] during the same time when this user turned its attention towards this subject (Sahaj Marg) .... potentially the time the account was transferred to from original CFW to SP.
  7. Against Consensus: CFW (since March 19th) has not been too much in favor of consensus. In its proposed page, more users have not agreed with the content CFW has been adding than those agreeing with it resulting in edit wars [455]. On multiple occasions, users have warned CFW but to not much avail [456], [457], [458], [459], [460], [461], [462], [463]
  8. Personal Attack on known users: CFW has had clashes with users (namely Renee and Sethie - [464], [465], [466]) he has clashed before as Rushmi and SP - [467]. Also it holds a fairly decisive opinion about these users as if he knew them before. He even tried to launch a vandalism report on User Sethie on one of these users which was declined [468]
  9. Known for using sly techniques: As the new user Rushmi, SP had seeked adoption and was adopted by Sarcasticidealist [469], later only to be relinquished by Sarcasticidealist [470], who felt abused by Rushmi.


Additional Evidence of Sockpuppetry.

Note. As noted by Duty2Love above, the orkut site is blacklisted, hence, in the orkut listings below (#2 and #8) I have removed the periods between the "www" "orkut" "com." To view the sites, you'll need to add the periods back in manually.

1. User:Shashwat pandey posts the link to his Orkut blog here on Wikipedia. (publically outing himself)
2. Under User:Shashwat pandey's Orkut "profile" (near the end) it says, "May you be granted 20 times of that what you have wished for me!!"
(remember to add periods manually between www orkut com to read #2 above)
3. At the top of User:Cult free world's talk page, it says, "May you be granted 20 times of that what you have wished for me!".
4. The phrase on User:Shashwat pandey's blog and User:Cult free world's talk page is identical.
5. The phrase appears in both French and English on Shashwat pandey's Orkut blog, indicating Shashwat pandey's fluency in French.
6. User:Cult Free World posts a French version of the article and proceeds to translate here.
7. The editing styles of both users are identical in tone, single-purpose, and text (see this RFC on User:Shashwat pandey and then compare to User:Cult Free World's recent discussions on the ANI here, here, and here).
8. This morning I just checked to verify this was all still there and this sock report was posted under the header, "Scared zombies," here.
(remember to add periods manually between www orkut com to read #8 above)
9. User:Cult Free World made a strange comment about the newspaper article from the Pioneer being OR, see this. Then, I realized it was because he had been told that in his identity as Rushmi, here. (Read the last line where the responding editor says he it looks like some OR...) There is no way Cult free world would have known this was OR since this was a long archived post unless he read it as Rushmi. Also, note the same phrasing and tendentiousness regarding this source across both users.
This user has and is engaged in serious gaming of Wikipedia (gloating and strategizing about it on his Orkut blog). His edits are almost uniformally disruptive and tendentious. He is not here to contribute in good faith to Wikipedia, but to promote a POV in line with his user name and in support of his blog.
As a precaution, I have saved a copy of Shashwat Pandey's Orkut profile page containing the evidence outlined above on my computer (in case he changes his profile). I can email it as proof to any interested admin. Renee (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the results of the UserCompare tool. Lara❤Love 13:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC) (here is the correct link for that [[471]])[reply]

Comments
Duty2Love Comments. While I am not contending about the relevance of the content CFW/SP/RU has been posting, my big question & concern is the user's validity, its behavior and possible sophistications used to misuse WP. I trust admin's judgement in this case and I will be happy to work with him/her as I have done in the past. However, above strong reasons suggest me that this is the same user who have not once but twice caused a lot of trouble for WP and its users in the past. Hence my request is that this user should be removed from WP immediately. Your serious considerations will be much appreciated. Thanks and ... wooof! Duty2love (talk) 06:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Cult Free World/talk-to-me Comments. Lol... so according to you my account has been compromised ? well that is not the case, about orkut, those who are interested in the subject will defiantly look at what is happening about the subject elsewhere what is the problem with that ? if someone having interest in a topic is discussing about that topic in forum other then wikipedia, what can i do for that ? I took up this topic after I noticed Jossi deleting the article, after declaring that he will not do that, more details here [472]. Moreover the article i am trying to write is taken from french wikipedia [473], and content that i am adding is based on my experience with Brahma_Kumari and Sahaja Yoga articles, and there also members of the group came out with exactly the same thing,[474], about finding references... is it that difficult to find references ? all you need to do is to search google with proper words, you will find tons of information.
This is yet another attempt by the group to prevent any information leaking out to world. Degraded attempts like these only motivate me to continue and finish the article, and publish it [475], interested users may wish to have a look at hallucination.--talk-to-me! (talk) 08:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
user:Duty2love you should come prepared, you have noted that there is a Checkuser warning at my talk page, you should have seen the talk page of the person commenting that, it was in response to my request [476], to inform me as how to file for check user, as i am sure that User:Innerself is someone from you three only.--talk-to-me! (talk) 09:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Sethie's Comments. Initially I was unsure. CFW's syntax, word-choice etc. were a bit different. However, overtime, it is EXACTLY the same as Sashwat (guess he was consciously trying to talk differently, till old habits kicked in).
Shashwat is easily recognizable by certain tell-tale signs. I will not post them here, and if the admin investigating this case does not see the above as enough evidence, I will be happy to email them. He has even engaged in some of the same behaviors here in his response!
Here I ask him if he is Shashwat [[477]].
And here he says he is "not new to the article." (reff coming) Well, there was me, Renee, Duty2love and.... Shashwat. Case closed.
The whole problem is he comes in as Shashwat causes a lot of problems and disapears. Then returns as Rushmi, causes a bunch of problems then disapears. Then he returns as CFW, causes the same problems... It makes him unaccountable for his past behavior, because only 3 or 4 of us are aware of the full history. I propose he pick ONE username, link to the other socks on that page and if he does this again, bam then all. Sethie (talk) 14:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Reneeholle's Comments. While this user is not using his different socks at this time, he is using this identity to avoid scrutiny, in order to continue tendentious and disruptive editing on topics related to Sahaj Marg. I was concerned about "outing" the user and then I realized he outed himself with this post, that links exactly to the blog Duty2Love points out above. As an aside, User:4d-don, a meatpuppet of User:Shashwat pandey/Cult Free World, outs himself here regarding his blog. You'll see that these two users spend a great deal of time off line coordinating their attack of Sahaj Marg on Wikipedia. These types of point-of-view single-purpose-accounts disrupt Wiki, are an abuse of the Wiki consensus process, and show that there is no intention to abide by Wiki policies of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:R and WP:V. Renee (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is kind of interesting. When Duty2love filed the checkuser case, User:Cult free world immediately worried that his account might have been "compromised" and that " I will file for disabling my account if i feel it is compromised". Pretty fishy huh? Shashwat and Rushmi may have used his computer without his knowing and he might have to disable his account if they compromised it... Renee (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Indeed, this is very interesting, you misread my statement yet again, as you did here [478] here is the preceeding statement from the same link If my account is compromised or not, how does that concerns you by the way--talk-to-me! (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Even my profile[479] also says May you be granted 20 times of that what you have wished for me.lol --talk-to-me! (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for proving it Shashwat! It was pretty easy to confirm that you just created a new profile on name of "cult free world" in Orkut [480]. There are absolutely no posts by this user as of yet and it has 0 scraps, videos, photos, fans and testimonials. It has only 1 friend which is you and look at the communities that you made this guy part of ... exactly same as the ones CFW was active in WP before March 3rd 2008. The most compelling evidence I found on Orkut proving this is a new user created over night is - search results for users for username "cult free world" does not even find this user. Most likely because Orkut's cache has not yet picked it up. I have saved all the pages and search results. Admin: Either check at Orkut immediately or please request me if you need to see the print out of these evidences as overtime we will lose these in Orkut as cache updates and SP posts more material as CFW at Orkut .... doing sockuppettry even at Orkut. Duty2love (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to teach you how to operate orkut, check out your privacy option, just FYI check out my communication in the same site, you are uselessly waisting everyone's time here, no-one on wikipedia is bothered about what is anyone doing outside wikipedia, and also there is no point guessing my identity, moreover you should also consider the security concerns that Shashwat might have, he has been receiving threats from this cult, which he has posted on the same site. In any case, I am least concerned about this nonsense.--talk-to-me! (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doubly fishy. I just went through every single post on the Orkut Sahaj Marg forum User:Cult free world belongs to (from its inception until today) and there's not a single post from Cult free world, which supports the view that this was a hurredly-made account in response to this sock case. Renee (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Renee, you are pron to making mistakes check out communication "Zombie Reaction (Abhinav alwys for luv)"--talk-to-me! (talk) 05:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


And his only friend in the entire Orkut world is *TA-DA* Shashwat Pandey! Dude - Your crimes against my intelligence just keep piling up! Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you are soo afried of him, try talking to him, I could not see any communication from you either, if i am more intelligent than you, try to learn more :)--talk-to-me! (talk) 05:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is an all-time low.... creating a sock on another board to avoid sock accusations. Sethie (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


What you are posting here is blocked by spam filter, you are spamming wikipedia. If it is so easy to create multiple accounts on orkut, do you think you are giving valid reference for SSP case on wikipedia ? you are waisting every bodies time here, in your yet another fruitless attempt to block article. In any case we cannot demonstrate anything other than what we are.--talk-to-me! (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unmistakably, the same toxicity

After two interactions I knew right away that Cult Free World was User:Shashwat Pandey. I had many interactions with him when he was a true new user on the Sahaj Marg pages over a year ago under my old user name. User:Marathi mulga It was a frustrating and unproductive exercise and I left. (I recently came back on and having forgotten my password, created a new user name nearly identical to my old).
I can recognize Mr. Shashwat Pandey from a mile away - User Cult uses the same abrasive style, tone, dismissiveness, belittlement and stubborn refusal to collaborate as he did as Shashwat Pandey (See response above - This is classic Shashwat). He does not care if he's accurate or not, he only cares to continue his blog POV type rant. For example, User Renee has pointed out at least three times I think that he has the external links wrong, and he won't even collaborate on that (and that's binary ... It's either right or wrong!! All he does is accuse her of POV when she does care about getting it right). For the amount of sheer needless toxicity he introduces, this user needs to be banned permanently from wikipedia in particular, but also from all contact with humans in general.Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you dream about him also ? --talk-to-me! (talk) 05:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

The person you are so scared of, is well known for his fearlessness, and is/was a role model for many youngsters, (he is just 27 !!!) Can we have a wikipedia page about him ? I found some newspaper reports about Shashwat in India.--talk-to-me! (talk) 09:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • I have a new identity!!, user:Duty2love has comeup with a new name for me. [481]--talk-to-me! (talk) 08:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Request to all

Can we please refrain from the attitude and language of personal attacks? This case is against the actions of CFW / SP and not the individual(s). In all sincerity, I appreciate many qualities in Shashwat (for whatever little I have observed him here at WP), namely - his persistence, tenacity, determination and will to go against so many singlehandedly. Duty2love (talk) 04:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

<Note to reviewing admin: The following comments in this section were snipped as they were soapboxing and did not relate to the sockpuppetry case. To view them please look through the edit history.>¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 20:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Attention

Kindly have a look at this policy [482], it states, Posting another person's personal information (legal name, date of birth, social security number, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment. This report appears to me a clear case of WP:HA.--talk-to-me! (talk) 10:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear CFW, The only one who has posted personal information has been you here. All other information above is based on user names and what users have posted themselves, like this one. If you are SP as this report suggests, then obviously no problem but if you are NOT as you suggest, then please refrain from posting personal details about others, it can cause WP:HA. Duty2love (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Who has given link of a profile with picture and associated that with my work ? You are linking a person's profile with photograph, with a controversial subject, that I am dealing, this is risky business as i understand, i am behind internet on wikipedia, all you know about me is my IP address (thanks to stalking by Reneeholla), and i changed that too. This whole report appears to me a clear case of personal attack on me, by linking me with one of your old rival, I do not see any other reason for giving reference of a social networking site for SSP, given its volatile setup, I have not communicated much with you (other then your personal attack on me at MfD discussion), but what i can make out after carefully reading this report is, you want to settle some of your old revenge with some of your off wiki rivals. To me this report appears to be motivated by two factors:-
  • Attempt to block me from publishing the article
  • Blaming Shashwat Pandey for all the exposure done by me here on wikipedia about your cult.
linking a person's photograph with a dangerous subject such as cult on wikipedia is not a good faith attempt link you have given is link of a community not profile of that person, here you have given link of public profile of a person on a social networking site, which is blocked by wikipedia as spam, this indicates something. Wikipedia is not the place for your personal revenge, if you have any problem with him, you should contact him where he is available, do not link my work (which is risky and controversial) with someone's off-wiki profile with pictures. --talk-to-me! (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And i am surprised as why all the link to orkut are not working here ?? I have a google account, but clicking your links returns error ? why ? --talk-to-me! (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is because you have not read the Important Note above - replace orkut with www(dot)orkut(dot)com. And all this is to save us some time going through the same exercise we went through last sept. because of Shashwat and Rushmi's actions which were trying to use Wikipedia to spread a POV, submitting content not meeting WP standards. Duty2love (talk) 00:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you make life so complex ? [483] --talk-to-me! (talk) 09:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • A must see for everyone involved [484], phew.. so hard to understand what’s going on... lol, why is my identity so important ?, in any case, Thatcher has refused the original concern about my REAL WORLD IDENTITY by stating that there is no change in IP. Now don't expect me to tell you my postal address.--talk-to-me! (talk) 11:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The identity is important because it reveals a conflict of interest, a single-minded purpose antagonistic to the interests of a neutral encyclopedia, and above all, an intent to vandalize or mis-use WikiPedia. The user in question has attacked anyone who comments unfavorably on himself, see [485], and basically punk'd me after I commented favorably on a XfD (I can't find the diff right now). One messed with, but no longer. This user is abusing and mis-using the process. He must be banned outright for what he is: a sockpuppet master. I understand the irony that I am using a legal sock account right now. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only if we were able to implement our fantasies and imaginations. :), alas it doesn't work that way, did you missed the summary in the link you provided ? --talk-to-me! (talk) 16:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One's man fun is another man's vandalism. I urge a ban on this puppet master and all of his puppets. Bearian (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you are making a claim[486] , you must support it with some evidence--talk-to-me! (talk) 07:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Embhee's Comment: I agree about disruptive editing. As an example, User:Cult free world edited my edit (!!!) [487] to request evidence. This is really not a nice way to request for evidence. Also, the tone with which the response was made by User:Cult free world [488] is not good, I had only made a simple observation [489]. Embhee (talk) 13:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Conclusions

User:Cult free world has been temporarily blocked for disruptive editing. Either they are disruptive, or they are not, and can be responded to accordingly. As for the hypothesis of sock puppetry, there is suggestive evidence, but not enough to convince me to issue a block. Jehochman Talk 19:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Vyaghradhataki

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Vyaghradhataki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Kaadavarkon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Shovon (talk) 10:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence New User Kaadavarkon appears to be the sock puppet of user Vyaghradhataki. This comes as a logical and simple deduction as both the users have been making the same changes to the article Bharatiya Janata Party. Please follow the links below to understand the case.

  1. The editing by Vyaghradhataki on BJP. Please see the Ideology portion specially. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bharatiya_Janata_Party&oldid=208940938
  2. No please have a look at the editing by user Kaadavarkon. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bharatiya_Janata_Party&oldid=209658882.

It seems after User Vyaghradhataki was blocked for 72 hours from editing, he/she assumed a new identity and has continued defacing articles. Therefore request Admins to take necessary actions in this regard. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 10:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusive evidence is available here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iyer&diff=prev&oldid=208516557--Edit by Vyaghradhataki http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iyer&diff=209656357&oldid=209645404- Edit by Kaadavarkon-RavichandarMy coffee shop 15:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Please see the results of the UserCompare tool. for further evidence. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 06:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see the latest edit on BJP by Kaadavarkon http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bharatiya_Janata_Party&oldid=210306253. This is exactly the same words as used by Vyaghradhataki. This has come after User:Vyaghradhataki has been blocked. This only reinforces the notion. Admins please look in to this urgently. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 12:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Sock blocked, sockmaster's block extended to 3 months. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 13:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:User:Denenrs2

Suspected sockpuppeteer
User:Denenrs2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets


Report submission by

Doug Weller (talk) 14:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User:Denenrs was blocked a short while ago, he has now reappeared anc recreated his nonsense page AJ Foster

Comments
  • Huh? Where's the sockpuppet? As far as I understand it, you're not concerned about him running a sock; but are concerned about him recreating nonsense pages. If true, it doesn't belong here. User Dœ αTΩC 21:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

No sockpuppets, SSP is not the right venue for this. Rudget (Help?) 10:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:24.255.204.98

Suspected sockpuppeteer
24.255.204.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets


Report submission by

[LukeTheSpook] | [t c r] 05:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Removed sourced info, here , here, and here

Comments


Conclusions

There is no stated sockpuppeteer. No case in hand. Rudget (Help?) 10:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • whoops, i messed up on the listing, i'll relist it properly here in a minute, i found another one linking to it too..
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:69.91.82.163

Suspected sockpuppeteer
69.91.82.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets
Tel3caster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

Milk’s Favorite Cookie (Talk) 21:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Obvious sock. S/he vandalized User talk:Jmlk17 with both the IP and account, once yelling at him for deleting his/her article. This was done with his IP. On User talk:Tel3caster there is a CSD notice of the article Jmlk17 deleted.

Comments


Conclusions

The IP is an obvious sock but it isn't really that necessary to block it. The autoblock of the user account will also block the IP from editing for 24 hours.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Archive/May_2008&oldid=216218474"