Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pickbothmanlol/Archive

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

User:Pickbothmanlol

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

Pickbothmanlol

Pickbothmanlol (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date February 13 2009, 17:39 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Wuhwuzdat (talk)

same pattern of vandalism only activity, as user:Double Uncle Spit Roast Generator exhibited yesterday, both show quite a bit of knowledge of wikipedia procedures, especially for newbies Wuhwuzdat (talk) 17:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I checked my contributions and his contribrutions.However he never purposed a article to become a policy or guideline.Your evidence is flawed. Pickbothmanlol (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And his block log states the words "account creation blocked" with the date of 13 Febuary 2009. I am not him and memberly close this case. Pickbothmanlol (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

17:55, 13 February 2009 PhilKnight (Talk | contribs) blocked We are not perfect but we should try (Talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Vandalism)

Is this all you have on me? Just assume good faith and accpect the fact that I am not a sockpuppet.Pickbothmanlol (talk)

Comments by other users

This user behavior is consistant with accused sock behavior. Checkuser will confirm. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. 
Synergy 16:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions



Report date February 24 2009, 02:12 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


IP says all

Evidence submitted by A1a6s (talk) 02
12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)



Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request –
code letter
: CODE LETTER (Unknown code )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by A1a6s (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

talk) 02:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]


Conclusions
  •  Confirmed the following:
  1. A1a4s (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  2. A1a6s (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  3. PurposeAutoBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  4. SPCUClerksbot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  5. PlaystationBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  6. AndyCrogonka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  7. PickbothBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  8. Pickbothmanlol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  9. AndyBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  10. AndysCrogz1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  11. AndyzBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  12. A1a2s (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  13. AndyCrogonka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  14. PSPBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  15. Dsaasdasdboz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  16. AltecCrog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  17. PSNMand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  18. ClueBot XX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  19. JamesAltec12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  20. PlaystationBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  21. JamieAhoy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  22. Attguylol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  23. BobbyCro (
    talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
    )
  24. HPNMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

One IP range blocked. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 04:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Clerk note: all contribs from sock accounts checked, and vandalism reverted. Mayalld (talk) 07:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. 
Mayalld (talk) 07:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Report date February 28 2009, 01:02 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Wronkiew (talk)


SNESCDADDON has expanded on the guideline page Wikipedia:Casual, created by confirmed puppeteer Pickbothmanlol. He and NUsedBot also vandalized Template:Wikipedia ads. Creation of NUsedBot was claimed by AltecCrog (talk · contribs), a confirmed puppet of Pickbothmanlol. SNESCDADDON's first edits were to vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel Warady and Joel Warady Group, indicating he was familiar with ongoing controversy. Also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/72.54.210.49, indicating he understands sockpuppet policy. NUsedBot is already blocked for a violation of bot policy. Requesting CU because these accounts were created to evade the indefinite block on the original account. Wronkiew (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request –
code letter
: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Wronkiew (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. 
Nothing to see here folks. 
Pounce! 09:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]



Report date March 10 2009, 19:52 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by —Snigbrook

The new user AltecLansing12 (talk · contribs) has made edits to pages such as User:SPCUClerkbot/moreinfo-RFCU, which have previously been vandalised by A1a6s (talk · contribs) who is a sock of Pickbothmanlol (talk · contribs). The user has also attempted to disrupt a bot with this edit: [1], and has created User:AltecLansing12/Casual which is almost identical to User:Pickbothmanlol/Casual. Other similarities are an interest in User:Grawp[2][3], and User:Ananny[4][5], and a similar username to AltecCrog (talk · contribs) who is already blocked as a suspected sock of User:Pickbothmanlol. —Snigbrook 19:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I am a sockpuppet but the edits on this account arent all completely vandalism.I did tag some articles that had no content or were just plain nonsense that can hint good faith but yes I am afraid I have to admit I am a sock. AltecLansing12 (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions

Obvious sock -

WP:DUCK. Now blocked with an expiry time of indefinite. --Kanonkas :  Talk  20:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date March 12 2009, 15:27 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


This user's relation to Grawp can be found in the history of Dsaasdasdboz's contributions and deleted contribrutions but I doubt that account is a true sock of Grawp.

Evidence submitted by WheresDaSockAccountz11 (talk) 15
27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)



Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk note: given the history of this sockmaster disrupting SPI, I suspect that the reporter may be worth a look as a sock! Mayalld (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Closing out case with this edit. Nishkid confirmed filer as Pickbothmanlol in block log. Synergy 20:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.




Report date March 19 2009, 14:45 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Mayalld (talk)


  • WP:SPI
Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions

 Completed already blocked as a sock. Mayalld (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Mayalld (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Report date March 20 2009, 06:28 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Most of these are already blocked, some are not.


Evidence submitted by Wronkiew (talk)


Interest in

WP:UAA by posting already blocked usernames. Petunia465 is probably not the original puppeteer, but I've run out of time tonight to investigate this. Wronkiew (talk) 06:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Requests fro CheckUser
Checkuser request –
code letter
: B  + F (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism and another reason)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.Mayalld (talk) 10:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed to check for potential link to Pickbothmanlol (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), and if related to look for a potential range for hardblock. Mayalld (talk) 10:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  •  Clerk note: Behaviour looks very much like another Pickbothmanlol sock CU requested. Mayalld (talk) 10:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
  •  Confirmed - Petunia465 = Schoolblock == the IP listed above & the additional users I listed above
  •  Likely - that they are Pickbothmanlol socks, based mainly on editing behavior.. the IPs differ from the usual geolocation for Pickbothmanlol.
  •  IP blocked - I've hardblocked a /19 for a month. The IP range is fairly quiet except for this sockmaster --Versageek 13:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    All blocked. --Kanonkas :  Talk  14:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date March 27 2009, 22:18 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets

Both use similar stylesheets to vandalize multiple wikis including this one.

Evidence submitted by Golder1234 (talk) 22
18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)



Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions

 Completed the usual helpful Pickbothmanlol, vandalising SPI templates,then reporting himself. Mayalld (talk) 09:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Mayalld (talk) 09:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Report date April 8 2009, 23:10 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by PickYourLeader14


Self reporting with no questions asked -- User:PickYourLeader14 23:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
  • Seconding Moe, confession made both at AN and above. Swift closure would be ideal. —Cyclonenim | Chat  23:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.




Report date April 15 2009, 00:11 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Self-reporting because this account is going to deal with Simple Wikipedia instead of this Wikipedia.

Evidence submitted by A1a8s (talk) 00
11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)



Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Yes. A1a8s (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date May 21 2009, 20:32 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Abce2|AccessDenied

The names are extremaly similar, and Pickbothmanlol is banned for sockpuppeting Abce2|AccessDenied 20:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Blocked and tagged. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Report date April 23 2009, 06:51 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by — Dædαlus Contribs


First of all, the second sockpuppet listed has the same number as the first confirmed sockpuppet listed, secondly, the third sock lised, as seen here, makes an edit with an {{indefblockeduser}} template to the user talk page of the first sockpuppet mentioned.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request –
code letter
: B  + E (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by — Dædαlus Contribs 06:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]


Checkuser is required to make sure that these accounts are indeed that of the confirmed, abusive sock master. Since we have so far had at least two more socks in the last month, it would greatly help to see if there are any other sleepers.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed all listed accounts are blocked, but endorsed for rangeblock potential, and Collateral damage check. Mayalld (talk) 06:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note I've indef blocked the three further socks. – Toon(talk) 00:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date December 17 2009, 03:26 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Avraham

Confirmed per cross-wiki report on checkuser-l. This is for an on-EnWiki record. -- Avi (talk) 03:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
CheckUser requests
Checkuser request –
code letter
: F (Other reason )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Avi (talk) 03:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions

-- Avi (talk) 03:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add:

++Lar: t/c 23:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date January 25 2010, 01:20 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by IconicBigBen

The I.P was recently used by Pickbothmanlol, and Pickbothmanlol is banned for sockpuppetry.

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request –
code letter
: CODE LETTER (Unknown code )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by IconicBigBen (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]
  •  Clerk declined; filer blocked as a sock of Pickbothmanlol by Risker. NW (Talk) 01:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date January 26 2010, 18:29 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Mbz2

Self-admiting via request.

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request –
code letter
: CODE LETTER (Unknown code )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by Mbz2 (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk declined Pickbothmanlol is already blocked as a sock, and the IP has been blocked for a year. Regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 18:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date February 2 2010, 22:51 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Jéské Couriano

He's joe-jobbing JBsupreme this time - see his contributions. He also filed a quickly-deleted SPI at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/The Sky. Can we send this Ditto back to the Daycare? —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 22:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to withdraw this request as moot due to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AtlanticDeep's result. —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 00:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request –
code letter
: F (Other reason )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 22:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Confirmed - as part of another case - Alison ❤ 00:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date February 11 2010, 18:15 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by The Green Lombax

A unblock request from the I.P's talk page contains the name of a banned sockmaster. The Green Lombax (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
PBML has Plaxico'd himself here; see
WP:AN. Recommend rejection as moot since Alison has run the CU already and confirmed the reporter is PBML. —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 19:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request –
code letter
: CODE LETTER (Unknown code )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by The Green Lombax (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk note:  Confirmed by Alison here, also found The Green Lombax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Big Red Lobster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) SpitfireTally-ho! 21:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date February 15 2010, 03:08 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Soap

Two new accounts appeared on Wikipedia today: Main Edges (talk · contribs) and The Antifacist (talk · contribs). Antifacist only made 3 edits [6] [7] [8], all of them attacking Main Edges, whose account had been created just 1 hour before. Since Main Edges only had about 10 edits at the time and 9 of them were outside of mainspace, it would be quite a coincidence for Antifacist to appear on Wikipedia and see Main Edges' edits as the first thing unless he just happened to also be reading the Swastika train station page and saw the AfD as it was being created. Believable, but quite remarkable if true. —Soap— 03:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added Blue Eyed Zoni for the sake of casting a wider net; but it could be someone completely different. —Soap— 03:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

I can only echo what Soap said. The fact that both of these users are editing the ANI and were only a day ond strikes me as Sock-ish....--

Let's talk 03:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Main Edge also states that he does not know what a CU is or does, yet he states that nothing will show up...--
Let's talk 03:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Either way, because someone mentioned sock puppets I knew that nothing would turn up because I would have no reason to sock. 卐 The Main Edge 卐 03:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly a sock of Pickmanbothlol, as Blue Eyed Zoni admitted when he blanked this page.

talk) 03:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

It wouldn't make sense for Main Edges to be the other two users since they seemed in opposition to his signature, which was the issue at hand. Other than that, the situation seems fishy. Doc Quintana (talk) 03:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'ts not unheard of for someone to a make a sock to take up the opposite position in a debate, particularly if they make their arguments as badly as Antifacist did (see the three diffs, particularly the "Buddhists and Nazis, whats the difference?") —Soap— 03:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might be right, it just doesn't seem to make any sense. Doc Quintana (talk) 03:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's because it is just a bored teenager trying to pose as someone that has a life. 卐 The Main Edge 卐 03:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now, here is an explanation that I do find plausible. Nsk92 (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now I am going to bed expecting to see this investigation closed with no affect to my account whatsoever. 卐 The Main Edge 卐 03:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good day to you all. 卐 The Main Edge 卐 03:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You also did not know what a CU was and yet you said that they will never find anything. So how did you know that a CU "finds stuff" if you had no idea of what a CU was?--
Let's talk 03:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

We should probably add Pickbothmanlol based on Zoni's comment at ANI. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 03:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added.--
Let's talk 03:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I have added
User:Cinosaur/Themes in Avatar (2009 film). At first glance it might seem that this subpage was stolen but this edit history [9] shows Cinosaur happily editing away on the page without complaining about its theft. Sock or meat puppet something odd is going on here and I thought that it should be brought to this investigations attention. MarnetteD | Talk 03:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
This isn't all that unheard of. Personally, I think they might be a former IP editor who knows the ropes.
talk) 03:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
MernetteD, the page has indeed been stolen, but at that time I thought it had been moved by one of editors working with me on the draft, who was on the verge of moving it to mainspace, a move to which the article was almost prepared. That's why I hastily updated the published page with the most recent changes I had made to the draft before realizing that it was a case of theft, to which I strongly objected to it. Being relatively new to Wikipedia, I am yet to learn the right course of action on theft. Maybe you or others could educate me on this on my talk page. I will be more than grateful. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 04:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please move this so that it ends with "Pickbothmanlol". He is the likely owner, and would be the puppeteer of Main, not a sock of them. Thanks.

talk) 03:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Im not so sure ... PBML has a habit of getting his name mentioned at other sockpuppet investigations perhaps just to extend his glory. In fact he was on IRC earlier tonight claiming to be some other user whose name I dont remember, perhaps trying to trick someone into starting an SPI only to find out the other user was innocent. On the other hand, it wouldnt surprise me at all if this really was PBNL. —Soap— 03:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the number of established editors who have, in good faith, defended it on AN/I, it's quite difficult to see the use of the swastika (however oriented) as anything but a disruptive act. It's not impossible that it could have been unintentionally disruptive (in which case it's difficult to see why a putatively new user wouldn't be interested in getting along with the community by removing it once they learned of the offense it caused), but the much stronger possibility that it is deliberately intended as a trollish act should be sufficient to justify a CU on Main Edges. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that Pickbothmanlol may have been boasting about this investigation on IRC, claiming that Main Edges was now "in his collection" and that he was laughing at that user's misfortune when his account is blocked. Take it for what you will... The359 (Talk) 05:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to go on record as strongly objecting to

I have been working on in my user space in collaboration with a few more editors. I am outraged. Being relatively new to Wikipedia, I do not yet know what kind of sanctions are meant for such a blatant breach of editing etiquette and ethics, but whatever they are, I ask to help apply them to User:Main Edges. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 04:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request –
code letter
: F (Other reason )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by —Soap— 03:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Main Edges claims that a checkuser will not turn up any evidence of sockpuppetry (You will not find anything from a CU (whatever that means).), which means that if he really is the same person as Anti, that he must know how things work and took care to cover his tracks. But because checkusers can see more than just IP addresses, perhaps there will be some evidence after all. In essence my request for checkuser is based on Main Edge's claim that it will turn up nothing. It is also likely that there is a third account lurking somewhere since neither of these accounts looks like the typical new user. —Soap— 03:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess.
talk) 03:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
 Confirmed Main Edges, The Antifacist, and Blue Eyed Zoni are Pickbothmanlol. I haven't checked Cinosaur; let me know if there is any suspicion that is also Pickbothmanlol. Dominic·t 04:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems Dominic and I share the same opinion. Cinosaur (talk · contribs) is completely Red X Unrelated, incidentally. Risker (talk) 04:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moved.
talk) 05:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

talk) 05:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date April 9 2010, 18:04 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Tnxman307

Requesting a sweep for sleeper socks, account claims he has more socks to use. TNXMan 18:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request –
code letter
: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by TNXMan 18:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

talk · contribs)SPI archive, in either case please run a sleeper check, if possible. Thanks SpitfireTally-ho! 18:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

 Completed. Found no sleepers. --Deskana (talk) 01:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
01 July 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by  GSK (talk ● evidence)

Exact same editing pattern.  GSK (talk ● evidence) 20:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence submitted by  GSK (talk ● evidence)

Previous edits under the Rohedin account make mention of "The Order," which Sammy's edits are exclusively about. He has also violated 3RR multiple times, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Order_(AW) recreated previously deleted material (deleted via speedy).  GSK (talk ● evidence) 23:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Let me note that I was blocked for username violations, I could recreate the account if I did not wish to credit my existing edits on the blocked account. Sammy the Seeker (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that a search on Google shows Pickbothmanlol has edited ActiveWiki, a wiki about AW before, but ActiveWiki can be read by anyone. Sammy the Seeker (talk) 23:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You also have had a rivalry with him due to his edits from what it looks of it. Sammy the Seeker (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One final thing, I admit that I am in the Iceman Clan and that Iceman12 or PBML who you refer to 12 as on Wikipedia is as well, but that doesn't mean we are the same person. GSK knows that the Iceman Clan has the intention to delete creations, and PBML/Ice12 adopted that goal long ago and applied it everywhere else. The only thing that GSK has proved is that PBML is a Iceman member called Iceman12 who caused a lot of trouble of AW. Sammy the Seeker (talk) 23:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

What Sammy the Seeker says is perfectly true. The username block notice says "Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below)".

Regardless, I know who this user is, I have dealt with him on multiple occasions in the past, and I know what he's capable of. He is obsessed with promoting hacking, violence, and illegal activites through his "clan," and I will continue to take steps to prevent it from being included in Wikipedia. -- GSK (talk ● evidence) 20:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The infamous Iceman comes to Wikipedia, sound the alarms. Buddy, why would I promote a defunct clan long gone? Sammy the Seeker (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had some experience with

talk) 00:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

User has confessed to being a sock of a blocked user who was denied
talk) 00:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
See also [10] followed by [11].
talk) 01:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Appears to be back as User:Waraki. This user has just recreated The Order (AW). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Order (AW). I42 (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
alternate account abuse, I recommend this be closed. TNXMan 20:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm going to recuse myself. No sense in adding another potential layer of problems. TNXMan 23:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to Pickbothmanlol. --Bsadowski1 01:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Waraki indefinitely blocked and tagged, all creations deleted again and now salted. –MuZemike 19:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

11 July 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by
MuZemike

User is starting to show similar behaviors of banned user Pickbothmanlol, including AFD disruption, general mainspace disruption, and lack of understanding of basic English. –MuZemike 01:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

-- Avi (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note Blocked anyway. Mysteryman19 (talk · contribs) has been sufficiently disruptive to indicate a possible link and poor intent, and Thatguywiththecodes (talk · contribs) confirms that there is some form of sockpuppetry going on here. I won't tag them as socks of PBML, but I will indef them for sockpuppetry pending an explanation. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Closing case --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
13 July 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by  GSK (talk ● evidence)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Order_(cyberterrorist_gang)

All of these socks have created this page. The article needs to be deleted and protected against creation.  GSK (talk ● evidence) 07:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 07:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

19 July 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by AniMate

A brand new user arrives and manages to create a custom signature and immediately sends Active Worlds to AfD. He informs me of the AfD, pointing out that User:GSK has resigned over my criticism of the article. Aside from our discussion at Talk:Active Worlds the only think GSK and I had in common was talking with User:CrackedLeo, the latest Pickbothmanlol sock. CrackedLeo also went straight to AfD as seen here. Pickbothmanlol socks have focused on trying to create an article for an Active Worlds group at The Order (cyberterrorist gang) and The Order (AW). It seems beyond mere coincidence that a brand new user would immediately know how to customize their signature, create an AfD, and be knowledgeable enough of the discussions between myself and GSK to decide to inform me of an AfD. AniMate 03:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  •  Clerk declined - User indef blocked (by myself) as a troll. I don't think the CU is really necessary, so I'm marking this as resolved. NW (Talk) 05:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
27 January 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


I've decided to reopen a case that was previously deleted. I've investigated the claims, I've gathered evidence, and I've reached a conclusion: Fluttershy is Pickbothmanlol. Unfortunately, explaining how I reached this conclusion is going to take out time and space, and it can't be done based on on-wiki diff's alone. Due to theexplanation's complexity, I've decided to break it down into parts. I've uploaded screenshots onto encyclopediadramatica.ch in case some of the tweets linked to below disappear.

Fluttershy, u_abusebeercans, and Markus Persson

On November 25, 2011, Markus Persson (notch on twitter) made the following tweet (image):

@adambombtv of course I am a brony.

This tweet resulted in an Equestria Daily article. Fluttershy then twice attempted to use that article as reference in the Markus Persson article: [12], [13]. Both of Fluttershy's revisions were reverted: [14], [15].

This is where the twitter account u_abusebeercans comes in. u_abusebeercans made the following tweet (http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/File:UAbusebeercansTwitterNotch.png):

@notch @adambombtv could you happen to verify that by posting on a blog. you would be helping my ass with this wikipedia article.

u_abusebeercans wanted Markus Persson (aka notch) to make a blog entry about being a My Little Pony fan so that that blog entry could be used as a reference in a Wikipedia article. It should also be noted that u_abusebeercans publicly identifies as an "established Wikipedian" on his twitter profile.

I believe that u_abusebeercans's "established" Wikipedia account is Fluttershy and that the Wikipedia article referred in the tweet is Markus Persson's own Wikipedia biography. I believe that Fluttershy wanted an Markus Persson to make a blog entry so that his reverted revisions could be restored.

u_abusebeercans and Iceman1234aa

On December 18, 2011, YouTube user Iceman1234aa uploaded a video entitled "u_abusebeercans and Equestrian Citizen joint-troll True Equestria Radio." u_abusebeercans then makes two tweets about it:

On January 8, 2012, u_abusebeercans tweeted about the creation of the Iceman Republic: [16] (http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/File:UAbusebeercansTwitterIcemanRepublic.png).

On January 15, 2012, u_abusebeercans claimed tweeted the following (http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/File:UAbusebeercansTwitterIcemanRaid.png):

The Iceman Clan nor the Tinychat has NO involvement in the raid on the wiki. Most likely some fool that stumbled on the code.

It should be noted that both u_abusebeercans and Iceman1234aa identify as "Andrew" on their profile pages: [17], [18]. I believe that u_abusebeercans and Iceman1234aa are the same person.

u_abusebeercans' attacks on Wikia

Starting on December 31, 2011, u_abusebeercans began launching attacks on one of the truecapitalist.wikia.com (not to be confused with truecapitalistradio.wikia.com):

AdmiralZhao007 links u_abusebeercans to Fluttershy

AdmiralZhao007 (aka "Ray") was a sysop during most of u_abusebeercans' attacks on the True Capitalist Wikia. This made AdmiralZhao007 a target of u_abusebeercans' attacks. In fact, on January 9, 2012, u_abusebeercans demanded that AdmiralZhao007 / ray be desysopped (http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/File:UAbusebeercansTwitterTrueCapitalistWikia25.png):

@TurdBurgular1 then why the hell do you contribute to it, you fucking hypocrite. drop ray as an admin, and the raids end

On January 10, 2012, AdmiralZhao007 decided to quit and was desysopped and blocked.

During the attacks, AdmiralZhao007 attempted to ask TheNiggestCrookForce (aka NCF) for u_abusebeercans' dox. This backfired since TheNiggestCrookForce was actually a troll aligned with u_abusebeercans. u_abusebeercans then tweeted a screenshot of AdmiralZhao007's message: [19]. This screenshot (http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/File:AdmiralZhaoUAbusebeercans01.png) contains the following:

Here's what I have on him so far: http://pastebin.com/eDYSvqJW

The pastebin.com page that AdmiralZhao007 created identifies Fluttershy as u_abusebeercans' Wikipedia account.

Iceman1234aa is Pickbothmanlol

Establishing that Fluttershy (Wikipedia), u_abusebeercans (Twitter), and Iceman1234aa (YouTube) are operated by the same individual is easy; establishing their relationship to Pickbothmanlol is harder, but it can be done.

Back in 2010, when the original Encyclopedia Dramatica, an ED user discovered that the YouTube account Iceman1234aa belonged to Pickbothmanlol. This ED user decided to pickbothmanlol on YouTube. I'm not making this up. Please copy and paste the following Wayback Machine link for the original ED's Pickbothmanlol article (dated November 14, 2010) onto your address bar:

http://web.archive.org/web/20101114011948/http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Pickbothmanlol#External_links

If you view the external links listed, you'll notice the following:

Pickbothmanlol at YouTube – An impersonator; pbml needs to learn how to register and "sit on" his alternate handles.

On September 17, 2010, this impersonator uploaded "Iceman1234aa has some random bullshit to say." The summary for the video is "reuploaded in case he deletes it."

Even on Wikipedia, Pickbothmanlol's connection to Iceman12[34aa] is revealed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sammy_the_Seeker&diff=prev&oldid=371262638:

The infamous Iceman comes to Wikipedia, sound the alarms. Buddy, why would I promote a defunct clan long gone? Sammy the Seeker (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sammy_the_Seeker&diff=prev&oldid=371289089:

One final thing, I admit that I am in the Iceman Clan and that Iceman12 or PBML who you refer to 12 as on Wikipedia is as well, but that doesn't mean we are the same person. GSK knows that the Iceman Clan has the intention to delete creations, and PBML/Ice12 adopted that goal long ago and applied it everywhere else. The only thing that GSK has proved is that PBML is a Iceman member called Iceman12 who caused a lot of trouble of AW. Sammy the Seeker (talk) 23:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe that it's clear that Iceman1234aa is Pickbothmanlol.

Fluttershy is u_abusebeercans

Recent tweets by u_abusebeercans also provide evidence for Fluttershy being his Wikipedia account. On January 2, 2011, u_abusebeercans made the following tweet (http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/File:UAbusebeercansTwitterNeverSleep.png):

Gay black people never sleep Wikipedia, do not forget. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_December_31

On that same day, Fluttershy removed

Template:Delrev from the GNAA article and used "Gay black pride for life. WP:DR closed."

On January 24, 2012, u_abusebeercans made the following tweet (http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/File:UAbusebeercansTwitterDisgracing.png):

I had two people blocked from Wikipedia in one discussion. One for malware posting, and one for disgracing the GNAA.

This tweet implies that u_abusebeercans was directly involved in this WP:AN/I discussion. The "one for malware posting" is referring to Princess_Derpy, while "one for disgracing the GNAA" is referring to Selery. Fluttershy initiated the discussion that resulted in both of those blocks. I believe that Fluttershy was using the u_abusebeercans twitter account in order to boast about what he sees as an accomplishment.

On January 25, 2012, u_abusebeercans confirms that he was referring to Princess Derpy and Selery in the following tweet (http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/File:UAbusebeercansTwitterDerpy.png):

@Gary_Niger I did not realize that Derpy was GNAA. My only intention was to rid of Selery and his racist views.

The second sentence of that tweet implies that Fluttershy's sole goal with creating that AN/I was to oust Selery from the project. That would be considered disruptive.

On January 25, 2012, u_abusebeercans mentions User:Incognito in a tweet (http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/File:UAbusebeercansTwitterIncognito.png). On January 26, 2012, Fluttershy brings up how Incognito has File:Gnaa-logo.png on his or her user page.

Conclusion

In the "Iceman1234aa is Pickbothmanlol" section, I've established a solid connection between Pickbothmanlol and Iceman1234aa. In "u_abusebeercans and Iceman1234aa", I provided evidence for Iceman1234aa and u_abusebeercans being the same person. In "u_abusebeercans' attacks on Wikia", I posted evidence of u_abusebeercans' attacks on Wikia. u_abusebeercans isn't the sort of person one should want on Wikipedia. In "Fluttershy, u_abusebeercans, and Markus Persson", "AdmiralZhao007 links u_abusebeercans to Fluttershy", and "Fluttershy is u_abusebeercans", I showed that u_abusebeercans and Fluttershy are the same person. In conclusion: Pickbothmanlol = Iceman1234aa = u_abusebeercans = Fluttershy.

--Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pickbothmanlol, Fluttershy, and Kevin Morrison

Starting In late December 2006, wiki.activeworlds.com was hit by a spree of vandalism. An user named Iceman appeared and vandalized that wiki's Main Page. Early sockpuppets of Iceman included Strike Rapier, Icemanreturns, Iceman43, and Iceman4343. Eventually, Iceman returned as Pickbothmanlol Iceman. Above, I've provided evidence for Pickbothmanlol and Iceman being the same person.

In October 2010, Pickbothmanlol / Iceman returned to wiki.activeworlds.com as Kevin Morrison. On October 30, 2010, User:GSK blocked Kevin Morrison with the following summary:

Abusing multiple accounts: User has been permabanned in past. Otherwise, cute.

On October 23, 2010 (around the same time Kevin Morrison was active at wiki.activeworlds.com), Fluttershy created his account (then named SixthAtom). Fluttershy created an article that was later deleted and oversighted on November 22, 2010: [20], [21]. Jclemens recently stated that the article had "(cyberterrorist)" appended to the end. After searching around a bit, I've determined that this deleted article must've been "Kevin_Morrison_(cyberterrorist)". Although the article has been oversighted, there's still evidence of its previously existence: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive99#Kevin_Morrison_.28cyberterrorist.29. Fluttershy apparently wrote an article on one of Pickbothmanlol's / Iceman's vandal personas. Why? Most likely because Fluttershy, Pickbothmanlol, Iceman, and Kevin Morrison are the same person. Fluttershy wrote an article on himself.

--Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restored content from last case which was originally deleted. --
(ʞlɐʇ) 22:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

On A YouTube video with "Andrew Crogonk" was uploaded from an account linking to his main account (claiming him to be the one in the video). This user has repeatedly attempted to create a page on himself, to have it removed every time.

The account that uploaded the video claims "NOTE:This channel is owned by Andrew's Iceman Network and by West", Iceman1234aa is Fluttershy's main channel. The account, is clearly a sock of known vandal Pickbothmanlol.

Additionally, he has repeatedly posted about Encyclopedia Dramatica, where he attempted to promote his vandalism. Itgetsworse (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restored user response. --
(ʞlɐʇ) 22:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I would love to point out that Itgetsworse's userpage happens to have an image of the GNAA logo. Plus, I have been repeatedly trolled by these people on their website.
!xmcuvg2MH 12:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
By the way, care to explain how
!xmcuvg2MH 12:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Say what you want, but the evidence is there. Itgetsworse (talk) 13:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, im incognito. I am a GNAA member but I'm a Wikipedian first, this account is over 6 years old and I'm just trying to help the project and have not engaged in any type of trolling, flaming or page blanking. You maybe suffering from
Persecutory delusions. incog (talk) 13:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

It should be noted that this user continues to suspiciously remove {{sockpuppet}} from his userpage. Itgetsworse (talk) 14:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that you seem to be a sock yourself. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser me, do whatever is needed, I'm no sock Itgetsworse (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you are from GNAA. You would know how to proxy, so a CU would be completely inconclusive. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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

Screw this nonsense. If the GNAA wants me off the project so much, then that is what shall happen.
!xmcuvg2MH 02:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
You don't think I'm watching your little discussion on ED, Meepsheep? The answer is yes.
!xmcuvg2MH 02:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
If I wanted the discussion to be a secret, I would've used Email. Here's some links:
  • http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/index.php?title=User_talk:Meepsheep&diff=329616&oldid=329287
  • http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/index.php?title=User_talk:Meepsheep&diff=329627&oldid=329616
  • http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/index.php?title=User_talk:JuniusThaddeus&diff=329630&oldid=328616
I'm not ashamed of my activity on ED, and I haven't broke any of Wikipedia's policies with my comments there. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[22], [23] – Out of curiosity, what was Fluttershy's first article? This would help determine the original motivation behind the account's creation. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reason why that was revision deleted, and I agree with the administrator who took that action. The title has no connection as far as I can tell to the above evidence. --
(ʞlɐʇ) 10:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I've asked Jclemens to comment here, although I've specifically not asked for the page title or for anything else specific in the response. Nyttend (talk) 13:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The title was deleted because it was a plausible name with "(cyberterrorist)" appended. At the time I did that, I don't remember investigating any farther, although I have a general tendency to block accounts who do things like that--If I failed to do so and that contributed to additional problems here, my apologies. Jclemens (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive99#Kevin_Morrison_.28cyberterrorist.29, [24] – Alright. Then "Kevin_Morrison_(cyberterrorist)" must've been Fluttershy's first article. What's interesting is what happens when you google "kevin+morrison"+"pickbothmanlol". Thank you. This pastebin is the smoking gun. Fluttershy is Pickbothmanlol. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After being asked to consult on this investigation given my history with this user, and after looking at all of the evidence presented above, I believe that the user in question is a sockpuppet of Pickbothmanlol. I do not actively participate in Active Worlds content anymore nor do I have administrative abilities on the ActiveWiki, so your best bet for additional information would be User:Hyper Anthony, who also wrote the Pastebin you linked to above. I've linked him here. -- GSK (t ● c) 21:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too had this suspicion since December, although I reached it through IRC.
ArbCom and I have the relevant IRC log. →Στc. 08:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • Because I already deleted one case regarding this today, i'm not going to take any actions as a clerk on this case for now. The connections that are attempted to be drawn out above do not connect all the dots from user to user. Also there should be some onwiki behavioral evidence somewhere that you can draw on and not just drag in this offwiki evidence especially when it contains some inappropriate material. I must warn all persons reviewing this content that while investigating some of this, even though I might have been a little off the mark in investigation (I was just looking at all avenues), that there was an attempted attack on my computer via a
    (ʞlɐʇ) 10:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
That's unsurprising, given that at least a couple websites owned by GNAA host malicious javascript. Some of the sites use typos of other website names too, so be sure to check where the domain actually goes.
Personally, I wish the WMF would just allow everybody in here to be checkusered to find out who is using proxies or sockpuppets. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just confused. I don't think its terribly convincing. There are similarities, it's all entirely circumstantial. I am frankly uncomfortable endorsing CU to say the least, and there is far from being enough to block on. NativeForeigner Talk 03:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For reasons that may or may not be clear, I am absolutely satisfied that Fluttershy is Pickbothmanlol. I've removed his rollback and blocked him indefinitely. WilliamH (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Clerk endorsed - I'm going to endorse for a checkuser, then, to find any other accounts here. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

06 February 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


According to Betacommand and some others at AN/I, Fluttershy is a Pickbothmanlol sockpuppet. Fluttershy has been heavily active in My Little Pony articles.

  • On January 15, two brand new accounts, Princess Derpy (who is currently blocked for sockpuppetry) and SweetieBelleMLP appeared and showed an immediate interest in My Little Pony, as well as significant knowledge of Wikipedia that makes their being brand new editors hard to believe.
  • Badmachine is another My Little Pony editor who has actually been around since 2008. Princess Derpy randomly edited Badmachine's userpage [25], adding some line breaks, and the userpage basically contains penis pictures and a My Little Pony userbox.
  • Incognito is yet another longtime editor (since 2005) who Princess Derpy welcomed. This editor has My Little Pony userbixes, plus GNAA logos and a false talk page message (which is prohibited) that tricks people into going to the GNAA article.
  • Roambassador is another editor wrapped up in the My Little Pony stuff, along with engaging in stupid vandalism like this [26]
  • Mythpage88 is another My Little Pony, BronyCon and GNAA editor that has interacted with Princess Derpy's LoverPony sock.

So what's the connection here? My Little Pony, the GNAA, etc. There are probably other socks but I don't want to go through listing every one. Night Ranger (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I don't think that adding the factor of liking My Little Pony helps prove any points. --♣thayora♣ 02:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only when it's in connection with the other stuff. I also LOLed when Badmachine went and added a "legitimate alternate account" link to his userpage AFTER I filed this sock report. Nice backpedal. Night Ranger (talk) 03:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
wow. alternate accounts are allowed to prevent impersonation, so i took my usual name. you'll notice that i do not edit from that account. -badmachine 04:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pickbothmanlol/Archive#27_January_2012, [27], [28] – Fluttershy being a sockpuppet of Pickbothmanlol has already been conclusively established, and Fluttershy is now open about being Pickbothmanlol. Fluttershy has also released a statement. I don't believe that

Badmachine, Incognito, Roambassador, or Mythpage88 are Pickbothmanlol's sockpuppets. Also, the Checkuser tool might have already been used (probably more than once) on Princess Derpy / LoverPony: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/LoverPony/Archive, [29], [30]. If SweetieBelleMLP, Princess Derpy, Badmachine, Incognito, Roambassador, and Mythpage88 weren't caught in the previous CheckUser uses, then will they seriously be caught by CheckUser this time? I don't even believe that there's enough evidence to warrant the use of the CheckUser tool. I don't support HelloAnnyong's endorsement. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

That's ok, you don't have to. Night Ranger (talk) 03:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
i do. because i am confident that i will be exonerated. so there. :D -badmachine 04:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to what Elen of the Roads asked: I believe that the CheckUser tool has already been used more than once on Prencess Derpy. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/LoverPony/Archive, [31], [32]. All of the accounts that Night Ranger suspected made revisions during the last three months. If they were Princess Derpy's sockpuppets, then the CheckUser tool would've caught them in its previous uses. The CheckUser tool hasn't produced any evidence so far, and Night Ranger hasn't provided enough behavioral evidence to support the sockpuppetry claims. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:SweetieBelleMLP has now been indef blocked for trolling, harassment, and impersonation (takes yer pick). His edits and trolls are pretty much identical to Princess Derpy's. In addition to similarities already noted, these edits also include use of the his user page to foist sexually explicit images on others and use of other editor's images to harass them. If CheckUser failed to uncover a direct link between these two accounts, then I suggest we make the connection via DUCK. Rklawton (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Coming here from ANI.) The connection is not incredibly obvious to me. They do have in common a preference for infinitives in edit summaries and lack of abbreviations. Neither Princess Derpy nor SweetieBelleMLP have edited much, so the sample is too small for strong statements based on that. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please also consider that the nature of disruption (sexually explicit images on user page, harassment via images of or about other editors) are identical. Two random people are not at all likely to have exactly the same method of operating. Rklawton (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many vandals use inappropriate images or use images inappropriately. The trolling tactic that you're describing isn't unique to a single individual. Anyway, both Princess Derpy and SweetieBelleMLP are indefinitely blocked, and tagging them as socks of each other won't make they more banned than they are already. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't prove much itself. As Michaeldsuarez has stated above, that tactic isn't anything unique. To continue what I have stated before, having interest in My Little Pony doesn't really prove anything. A lot of people nowadays (from 4chan and other popular sites) are interested in My Little Pony. It's pointless to create assumptions based on preferences of popular children's cartoons. --♣thayora♣ 20:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why my name was brought up other than I edit MLP articles from time to time and have edited the gnaa article once or twice. Mythpage88 (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The odds that a random editor would have an interest in two such entirely unrelated articles while at the same time these articles fall under the special attentions of malicious editors is too unlikely to ignore. Rklawton (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
this smacks of bronycution. may i please request that you checkuser me? ive seen the userpages of other bronies vandalized by wp admins, with disingenuous edit summaries, and frankly i would like to be disconnected from this case. -badmachine 19:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that editing an article once or twice constitutes an "interest". They aren't unrelated, due to their relation to 4chan. Mythpage88 (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Surprise surprise, SweetiebelleMLP turns out to be a plain old troll. Princess Derpy ought to have been obvious from day one with a name like that. So I see at least one other editor here who has an interest in GNAA, My Little Pony, and pictures of male genitalia (which was removed from his userpage). Night Ranger (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
yes, it was removed from my userpage, and i am taking that to deletion review as soon as this issue is cleared up. the policy says that established editors may depict nudity on their userpages as long as its not a porn gallery (to paraphrase). now the image has been tagged with
template:badimage so your false accusation caused me lose the ability to use my favorite image on this entire project. i have interacted with the uploader of that image and consider him a friend. i want my dick back. what happened to wikipedia is not censored? should i just post my IP here? would that help exonerate me? -badmachine 23:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm guessing that those who doubt the obvious fact that these two are socks have not conducted an edit by edit review of both accounts. Their edit histories are short, and the similarities in writing, tone, tact, etc are obvious. Rklawton (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. So if checkuser is not picking it up, then there must be proxies, or someone doing something else to throw off the checkuser. And anyway, checkuser isn't perfect, even on the best of days. And what's all this stuff where they think Daniel Brandt is after them? Night Ranger (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But Alison has further stated that she is an acquaintance of Badmachine and that he is at a different location (California) whereas PBML is located elsewhere. --♣thayora♣ 23:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
furthermore, i planned to go to a WMF meetup. cmon mang. close this please so i can get my userpage back. that image is among the finest on this project and i want it back. there has been a lot of userpage sniffery and i wish it would stop. -badmachine 23:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sorry if i am posting in the wrong section, but here goes. i will take you up on that bet, Elen of the Roads. i have not abused multiple accounts. i have added template:doppelganger-other to my one doppleganger account, to prevent impersonation. per policy, i do not edit from this account, save for one or two done by accident while logged in. you may go have a look at a photograph of me at age 18 or 19 on my userpage, which now contains no male genitalia thanks to the efforts of people who do not see the hypocrisy of claiming wikipedia is not censored, yet will not permit me to have an image of a rather attractive penis on my page. i believe that to be one of the finest images on this project, and for that, i do not apologize. the user doesn't mind, why the hell do you guys care? the policy page says that nudity on userpages of established users is not strictly prohibited. -badmachine 5:48 pm, Today (UTC−8) [restored 04:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)][reply]

What may be going on is some kind of conflict between members of the GNAA. Some who wish to troll Wikipedia's MLP pages, and those who wish to contribute. User:Fluttershy made legitimate contributions for instance, and was only banned because he's trying to avoid a community wide ban. Also, it's entirely possible for there to be overlap in interest between the two groups since they're both "nerdy" interests among 20 something males.
In addition, User:Murdox has some connection to the GNAA and is a member of the MLP project. According to his user page:

Wikipedia calls me "The President of the GNAA" and thus I may have a WP:COI with anything I edit on Wikipedia. Feel free to bring it up with me!

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

no Declined for two reasons:

  1. Many of the CUs already checked Fluttershy/PBML and his known IP ranges; if any of the other accounts were socks of PBML, they would have been blocked by now.
  2. There needs to be more evidence providing justification aside from that they're all part of Wikipedia:WikiProject My Little Pony and/or the GNAA or any other Internet group.

--MuZemike 04:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Badmachine (talk · contribs) is someone I know IRL and is definitely not PBML. Completely wrong geolocation, for starters - Alison ❤ 07:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Princess Derpy is blocked, and not as a sock of PBML. Is it possible that any of the others are socks of Princess Derpy? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GNAA. My Little Pony and male genitalia on the userpage. Derpy and Sweetiebell aren't PMBL, but I'll put money on Derpy, Sweetybelle and Badmachine being the same person. If badmachine really wants to be a wikipedia contributor, I recommend they keep the willies off the userpage, becase I will regard their reinstatement as proof.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance it's
Join the DR army! 03:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I have a feeling that zalgo or Derpy would be likely sockmasters --Guerillero | My Talk 06:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My money would be on Zalgo - although I should note that Alison believes Badmachine is not connected with the rest. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to mark this for close. Yes, there are shared editing interests between the accounts, but that appears to be all, for now. I would suggest everyone continue to monitor the relevant articles/talk pages, as they tend to attract trolls anyway, regardless of whether or not they're PBML. Further disruption can be reported to ANI or (with solid supporting evidence) here. TNXMan 16:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. WilliamH (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pickbothmanlol/Archive&oldid=1091460221"