Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Archive/June 2007

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:Kemet59

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Kemet59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Thecopticflag dot com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Yaweeka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
TheFreeCopt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
TheBigPharaoh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by IPSOS (talk) 21: 31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

On June 27th, the sockpuppeteer made this edit. Each time this was reverted by one of the regular editors of the article, a brand-new user appeared to reinsert the website link, with "one" of them claiming ownership of the website being linked. Here are the reinsertions:

Note the escalating edit comments which only make sense if it is the same user. At the very least, the puppeteer is organizing meatpuppetry through an external forum or website.

Conclusions

All users, including the suspected sockmaster, are sockpuppets of Serenesoulnyc and have been blocked accordingly. - auburnpilot talk 00:01, 29 June 2007 (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:Charlie.somerville

Suspected sockpuppeteer

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log

)

Suspected sockpuppets

Bradlow idiot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
58.107.252.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

AAA! (AAAA) 03:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Bradlow Idiot's

meatpuppets

.

Comments

Looks like a match. Charlie last edited under his own name more than a week ago, and he left an apology note, so blocking his account would be pointless IMO. Bradlow idiot should be indef-blocked as a sock/vandal-only account. The IP has been firmly warned by Fram, and that should be sufficient. Yechiel Man 08:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't me. Must be one of my cronies who were around me while I was vandalising your page.
Go ahead and block Bradlow idiot but don't mark it against my account. Charlie.somerville 03:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I took a closer look, and I believe that Charlie is innocent. A friendly word of advice to Charlie: it's not a good idea to edit other people's userpages without their permission to write dirty jokes. Even though you reverted it without a fuss, you should not have done it in the first place.

I checked Charlie's editing pattern in the contribution log. He tends to make a few edits in a day, then disappear for two or three weeks, then return for a few more edits. His last edit had been on June 12. Then he returns on June 26, makes three ordinary edits as if nothing happened, and comes to defend himself in this case.

Bradlow idiot came along on June 22 and made a throwaway edit to revert to the last vandalism version by Charlie. In order to do that, he needed to be a sockpuppet of someone - newbies don't know how to navigate page history and revert on their first edit - but that doesn't establish whom he is impersonating. It could be someone else.

It just doesn't make sense to me that Charlie would vandalize as a joke, revert his own vandalism, apologize to User:AAA! on his talk page, and come back ten days later to revert to the vandalism version. It's totally irrational on many levels.

Charlie, I'm willing to give you a free pass on this as long as you behave yourself and avoid vandalizing pages, even if it's just a joke (unless you wish to fool around in the

WP:SANDBOX

. I suppose we could do a checkuser, but I don't think it's necessary.

{Disclosure: I am YechielMan above. I changed my usernaeme.) Shalom ^Hello 03:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The friend explanation actually makes sense here, so I'll give the benefit of the doubt this time around, given that Charlie.somerville has been editing constructively. Charlie, if you just want a page to screw around with, you can create a subpage in your userspace (such as User:Charlie.somerville/sandbox) and do whatever test edits you like to it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This can make sense actually. You might not know, but me and Charlie know each other in person, and we also go to the same school. I saw Charlie on Wikipedia, and he had the vandalised diff on a separate notepad document (this was before he apologized to me, by the way). It is possible that he may have given that to his friends, and they created accounts, edited the page, and replaced it with the vandalised edit that was on the doc. So it's possible that they could be

meatpuppets or even just single-purpose accounts

. Hope that shined some light on that.

And Charlie, I'd like to let you know that I'm not doing this for revenge; I'm doing it because you broke some of Wikipedia's rules, such as

this; and it alerted my suspicions since those edits on my page were practically the same ones you made. Heck, if it was someone in Canada who did the exact same thing on my user page, I'd still have taken the same measures that I took against you. If I wanted revenge, I would've talked to you in person or something similar, and not get Wikipedia involved (because there's no point to do it on Wikipedia when we can simply do it in person). Hope there are no hard feelings between us. --AAA! (AAAA) 00:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

That's ok... I understand what you're doing AAA!
This whole sockpuppetry case has almost blown over anyway
BTW, After I reverted the changes originally, I did create a sub page of my userspace to screw around in... It got deleted.

Charlie.somerville 03:36, 27 June 2007 (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:AngeliqueGarneau

Suspected sockpuppeteer

unknown

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Godefroy 17:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

There is currently a debate (or rather a controversy, given the level of agressivity from some editors) as to what flag should be used for the

Andalucia

.

Then in the middle of this suddenly comes User:AngeliqueGarneau who claims to be a Guadeloupean person living in the US who attended one of the Guadeloupe games in the 2007 CONCACAF Gold Cup. This user claims that "we are not France", that Guadeloupean supporters use the "local flag" (AngeliqueGarneau doesn't go as far as explaining what version of the local flag they supposedly use; there are many different versions of that local flag). I am extremely suspicious of this user because he/she just registered for the very purpose of writing this message and has no editing history on Wikipedia. You can check the editing history of this user here: [1]. I wonder if an administror could check if this is the sock puppet of another user. I have no idea who the sock puppeteer could be, and I'm not 100% sure it's a case of sock-puppetry (I could be wrong in which case I will readily admit I was wrong), but given the circumstances and the strange coincidence of a newly created account supposedly from a Guadeloupean person certain that the French flag is not used (sounds too good to be true for those who want to delete the French flag), I think it would be good if an admin could do a quick check. Thanks.

PS: Also note that Garneau is not a surname from Guadeloupe. Checking on the French white pages online, I see there is not a single Mr. or Mrs. Garneau listed in the phone directory of Guadeloupe. The closest they have is one Mr. Garnaud, but that's a completely different surname: [2]. Garneau is a surname found in metropolitan France, see for example in Paris ([3]), but apparently it does not exist in Guadeloupe, so again I'm suspicious that this AngeliqueGarneau is really from Guadeloupe.

Comments

Conclusions

Nothing really to be done here, and this seems a lot like fishing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:25, 27 June 2007 (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:Vox Humana 8'

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Vox Humana 8' (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Vox AntiVandal 1.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - Already blocked
AntiVandal001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - Already blocked

EccentricRichard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log

)

Report submission by

Tagishsimon (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

The name of the first suspected sock puppet; the singular interest in Andy Mabbett's page [4], [5]; and to note that Vox Humana 8' seems to have been a puppetmaster for EccentricRichard, who is supporting the retention of a link to a webpage written by Vox Humana 8' - see [6] Assuming Vox Humana 8' is getting into the habit of using sockpuppets, I think it best to wean him off it.

Comments

User:EccentricRichard redirects to User:Vox Humana 8'; the latter was previously blocked as a sock of the former. Vox AntiVandal 1.0 is now blocked (as I've noted above). Note also 3RR ([7], [8], [9])by combined accounts on César Franck (history) on 20 June, describing removal of a link to his own "MySpace" page as vandalism. Andy Mabbett 22:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

See also [10]: I have been using socks to fight vandalism - I realise I shouldn't have used my old account to revert the removal of the MySpace link from the Franck page, though. I shan't be going about socking, but hopefully, if - in the process of fighting blatant (i. e. Pelican s***-standard) vandalism - I have to violate the 3RR rule, I won't get into too much trouble.--Vox Humana 8' 23:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and

[11]: You have used socks to evade 3RR to support a link to your own website, and in furtherance of your opinion as to what a user may or may not put on their user page. Neither of those things has anything to do with vandalism, and in any event use use of socks fatally undermines your argument, even were vandalism an issue. You are using socks to circumvent policy (the link to your website) and, I presume, to avoid scrutiny from other editors. Those are clearly against [Wikipedia:Sock puppetry|policy]. Per that policy, I see no legitimate uses of multiple accounts in your actions. I think you should reconsider your approach. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Conclusions

Clear use of a sock to violate 3RR. Socks have already been blocked, puppetmaster blocked for 48 hours. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User has been unblocked. Andy Mabbett 14:36, 27 June 2007 (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:05hepburn3

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

Suspected sockpuppets: 05hepburn3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Anonymous Dissident ^Talk -- (dated 17:34, 21 June 2007 UTC)

Evidence

User with a nearly indentical name - user:05hepburn2 - has been blocked under the same conditions of sockpuppetry. Also, both accounts have been used for almost the sole purpose of editing the Hepburn (surname) article, edits which have been reverted and re-applied. -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk -- (dated 18:10, 21 June 2007 UTC)

Comments

This is a big mess. The page Hepburn (surname) was recently protected, and now that protection has been lifted it's been attacked again by sockpuppets. I'm going to request that protection be put back in place, and User:05hepburn3 and User:Billibob49 should be indef-blocked as socks - no comment on the other alleged users involved. Yechiel Man 21:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sound comments and sound reasoning. -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk -- (dated 21:49, 21 June 2007 UTC)

» 22:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The fact that his name and purpose are very similar to the user pointed out are already constitutional to the evidence in the sockpuppetry case. Thanks for blocking him though :) -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk -- (dated 22:09, 21 June 2007 UTC)

Note: I have actually unblocked 05hepburn3 (talk · contribs) per their unblock request. I was involved in detangling the mess on that article earlier today and noted that their single article edit was actually a vandalism revert. It's not immediately apparent, though, because of the mess of sock-puppets. I shall monitor the article and this user for a while just to be on the safe side. I suspect that some of the other sock-names may indeed be impostors of this user as their edits are quite different and more in-line with the OhFive editor - Alison ☺ 09:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever my opnion counts for, I have to disagree. I think that there is more to be seen from this user now it is unblocked, and that it is yet another sock. Check out all of the socks for User:OhFive to see what I mean. -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk -- (dated 10:07, 22 June 2007 UTC)

Conclusions

While the username similarity is...striking, to say the least, I don't see any abusive edits from 05hepburn3, in stark contrast to OhFive, who was blatantly vandalizing. Given that, I don't believe they're socks, though perhaps friends or acquaintances who used similar usernames. Regardless, it doesn't appear that a block would serve to prevent any harm here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:08, 27 June 2007 (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:Willie Peter

Suspected sockpuppet

Willie Peter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppet master

Crockspot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Bellowed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by: Chaser - T 05:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

This case stems from an edit war at George Soros about the inclusion of some material that allegedly violates

the Biographies of Living Persons policy

. Willie Peter (who I suspect of being someone's meatpuppet rather than a sockpuppet master) joined the edit-warring over the inclusion of that material.

Willie Peter's account was created less than 24 hours ago [12] and his first few edits indicate he is not a newbie, but is familiar with Wikipedia, our policies, and this content dispute two to userpage, user talk page, Soros article with edit summary "have been watching the arguments..., and removing an alleged personal attack in a section header. While it's not clear who Willie Peter is, this evidence suggests he is someone's meatpuppet.

this 3rr report

, the three of them argued at AN/3RR, and I protected the page. I blocked WilliePeter and Eleemosynary when the conflict spilled onto the former's talk page.

In any case, the real evidence here is that Willie Peter attempted to insert [13] [14] the same material that Crockspot and Bellowed had been edit-warring over the last few days [15] [16] (more examples in the page history). I don't see any other plausible suspects in the history. Either Crockspot or Bellowed could be using a meatpuppet account to evade BLP and 3RR restrictions, or they may have been on the wrong side of a content dispute with a suspicious meatpuppet account. I think only checkuser will resolve this.

The article is now protected in a version without the material that allegedly violates BLP.

Correction Crockspot's only reversions were June 13 and 16. I was sloppy in describing them as "edit warring over the last few days".

Comments

Checkuser pending.--Chaser - T 06:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not edited the article in question since 16 June, which can hardly be characterized as "edit warring over the last few days". I backed off of editing when Jayjg warned me. This is a prime example of an editor repeating a lie, claiming there is evidence but failing to provide it, and having their lie end up in an official WP report (this one). And who got blocked for edit warring? That editor, not me. My block log is pristine. I have been enduring weekly attacks from different editors ever since there was open discussion of the possibility of me filing a request for Admin. There appears to be a coordinated attempt to damage my reputation in an effort to sabotage any RfA I may be considering. My edit history has been characterized as troublesome, when it is full of vandal fighting, blp patrolling, and improving sources in articles. I do get into the occasional dispute, because I am not easily intimidated by agenda pushers who know how to game the system. But my edit history and block log are enviable. I hope some attempt will be made to clear my name when this is all straightened out. - Crockspot 12:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Frankly, the only reason I include you is that you are the only obvious choices. It's a matter of being very suspicious about Willie Peter and only seeing two possibilities of whose meatpuppet he could be.--Chaser - T 14:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, Goethean intimated to me that he was positive that it was a sock of JoeHazelton, who I am not familiar with, so I cannot judge if he's right or not. If it is a sock, it very likely is related to a history with Goethean on Peter Roskam and Tammy Duckworth, at least according to Goethean. - Crockspot 15:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Willie Peter's only edits were to George Soros. Is there some evidence I'm missing?--Chaser - T 16:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Your guess is as good as mine. I decided last week that it was imprudent for me to continue editing the article. I saw a new user jump into the fray, so I went to welcome him, and provide him with some tools to keep himself out of trouble. He didn't seem like a NEW new user to me, but I figured it could be a longtime IP editor who finally registered. Until another editor started slapping my name into a sockpuppet template, that was pretty much the limit of my involvement with this user. Goethean could be right, and I don't know for a fact that it isn't a sock of Bellowed, but I do know for a fact that it isn't a sock or meatpuppet of mine. I don't operate that way, and I have openly discussed the possibility of requesting admin status. Anyone who follows RfA knows that checkusers will probably be run on future candidates (if they aren't already), so I would have to be a complete moron to engage in such behavior right before making an RfA, particularly when I have never engaged, nor been accused of engaging in puppetry in the 13 months that I have been a registered editor. Honestly, do I appear to be a complete moron to you? - Crockspot 18:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        No, and I don't really know you. Why don't we just wait for the checkuser to come back? I understand it's not a very comfortable thing to be accused of something you didn't do, but the checkuser should resolve things.--Chaser - T 20:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It will clear up the sock allegation, but I don't see how it can disprove the meat accusation, and I fully expect when Eleesomnary's block expires, the meatpuppet accusations will continue. That's the problem with meatpuppetry accusations. They're difficult to prove or disprove, and the suspicion always remains. That's why they are such an effective weapon that some like to use against those they disagree with. It keeps them from having to address valid points in discussion, and gives them a quasi-acceptable avenue of addressing the contributor, and not the content. - Crockspot 20:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I totally agree with Crockspots comment. I'm glad the sockpuppet report is out now, but like he said, we have this meatpuppet thing looming over us, which is unprovable either way. I hope that something could be done about it, like if he was asked not to throw accusations around recklessly so that we're not further smeared here with this baseless stuff. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 01:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've left a message on his talk page [17]. I will be monitoring the situation. Please contact me if there is another accusation.--Chaser - T 02:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

The checkuser came back unrelated.--Chaser - T 01:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Peter has been blocked as a Joe Hazelton sock. Checkuser came back unrelated on the other two users, and I don't find that there's nearly enough evidence here to conclude that they're socks, especially in light of that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Blaaake

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:VladimirGotShot

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

Suspected sockpuppets: BruinBlitz07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 64.209.128.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (either or both may be from that IP); 64.140.196.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (also); 68.30.94.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (only one edit from that IP, but also entrepreneur.com)

Report submission by

Coren 02:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Same set of basic edits, spamming (and tweaking) the 'entrepreneur.com' website (for instance 1 2 as 3 4) and repeatedly recreates CSD material (5 to 6 (page log)).

All or almost all of the edits are related to Franchise 500, either to promote or disseminate into many other franchise articles (although the creator of that article seems unrelated).

Both IPs are assigned to SAVIIS.net and 64.209.128.195 especially is assigned to entrepreneur.com arin.net. Definite

conflict of interrest

if nothing else.

Comments

Question, actually. Is it kosher to preemptively despam the entrepreneur.com that's been peppered over about 50 articles or would it be better to wait for a result here?

Answer: Yes, it's kosher. I took a careful look at these contributions by all the users, and it's worthwhile to roll back every single one of them. I don't think I've yet seen any edits that have improved any of the articles.

We could use an administrator with the rollback function to speedily revert all the edits because they contain linkspam. I checked a representative sample, and the case is clear. I could do it myself, but maybe the rollback tool makes it easier for an admin to do it. Needless to say, the active users in this case should be blocked - I'd say a full week for the puppeteer is about right. We can't worry about

WP:NOOB

when the integrity of the project is at stake.

I will notify

WP:ANI in order to speed up the response time. Shalom ^Hello 03:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Phew! I think I got all of 'em. At least those from those users. We were lucky, most of his edits were the last in the articles. Coren 03:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Socks. VladimirGotShot blocked for 72 hours as the puppeteer, BruinBlitz07 indefinitely blocked, first 2 IP's both blocked for 24 hours apiece. The third IP has not edited since June 15th, so a block would be pointless there. MastCell ^Talk 03:49, 27 June 2007 (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:Miopl

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

D) 15:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Evidence

All of these users' edits consist of spamming external links to quotaless.com.
Diffs to Bleach (manga):
IP 89.20.117.108: [18] Miopl: [19] Lokdog: [20] [21] Sandrakop: [22] Gunnerson: [23] [24] Miltonn: [25] Kiplos2: [26]

New puppet: Cooliop: Edit to Hubbert peak theory: [27]

Other new puppets noticed since this morning:
IP 90.150.113.206: [28] IP 90.150.127.218: [29] IP 89.20.110.183: [30] Bingo45: [31] Kolon3442: [32] Beasty34: [33] IP 89.20.109.234: [34] Dudududu23: [35] Balancer34: [36]

Many more diffs exist simply by looking in their contribs.
Miopl has been blocked, so this may involve multiple IPs. This is the first account, however (after ip 89.20.117.108), that I've noticed making these changes to the pages.

Kiplos2 has just been temporarily blocked while I was typing this up, so I suspect a new one will crop up.

New 27-June-07:
It appears the attacked article base is expanding. Now posting links to 00freehost.com with the exact same 10" span tag covering the page. This domain is actually linked in a few articles as a source, being a webhost.
Konniret3: [37] Bulverisation34: [38] 89.20.120.53: [39] Pupa23: [40]

Comments

It appears

D) 23:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Conclusions

Obvious, spamming socks. All named accounts have been indefinitely blocked, as has the sockmaster. The most active IP's have been blocked for 24 hours. I've temporarily semi-protected

WP:RFPP and request semi-protection of the target pages. MastCell ^Talk 18:02, 27 June 2007 (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:Komodo lover (2nd)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Komodo lover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Chocolate Rhino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

CBFan 14:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Can be constantly seen either editing the

Zoo Tycoon 2: Extinct Animals page by continually insisting that a Mammoth is in the game when no direct proof of such has been posted. Furthermore, in his user talk page, User talk: Chocolate Rhino

, he actively admits to creating new topics, purely for the reason of being blocked before. Another comment, where he claimed he wouldn't stop until he'd created his 20th account, shows how much of a vandal he is.

Comments

Not only an apparant vandal, but doesn't show any signs of stopping.

Conclusions

Self-proclaimed block-evading sockpuppet ([41]). Blocked indefinitely. MastCell ^Talk 19:08, 28 June 2007 (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:Daniel575 (6th)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Daniel575 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

--Meshulam 19:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Exact same POV as Daniel575. Exact same insistence on promoting that POV. Like Daniel575, speaks Dutch as a first language. Claims to be a Baal Teshuva (newly observant Jew) living in Jerusaelm (Givat Shaul) affiliated with the Edah Chareidis. Speaks Dutch as a first language. Editing same articels as Daniel575. Has the exact same list of books as Daniel575's Dutch Wikipedia account. Is the 6th such sockpuppet of Daniel575. Similarly beligerant. etc. Note that both Daniel575 and Rabbeinu, when not writing/editing articles about Judaism/Chassidism/Zionism etc., edit articles about the Egged Bus routes in Israel.

Also, his recent deletion of the "Sockpuppet" box in his user page, and in his iser talk page (with the explanation "what is this nonsense" or some such statement) is entirely keeping with Daniel575's MO: contempt for Wikipedia rules.

Here is an example of their almost identical language/POV: The following comment comes from "Rabbeinu's" User Page:

Regarding Zionism: I awaiten the moment that the cursed Zionist state will be dismantled, in any possible way as long as there is no overt danger to Yidden. The cursed sect of the Zionists will be defeated and Chareidim and Arabs will live together in peace. Other troublemaking Jews will be shipped back to where they came from. Further, I support peace talks with all governments, including Arab governments and including Iran and movements such as Hamas.

The following is from the puppet-master, Daniel575:

By the way, let me just confirm that yes, I am also affiliated with Neturei Karta. I daven at the beis midrash Ohel Soroh regularly and speak to Rav Moshe Hirsch shlita every now and then. While I think that their vision of the future is unrealistic, I agree that it would be most ideal if we could cancel the existence of the Zionist state and return to the way things were in, say, 1880. However, it is obvious that such a solution is now impossible. The Palestinians hate us so much that they want us all dead. And even if the Palestinian leadership accepts Neturei Karta, will the average Gaza and Nablus Palestinian agree? I doubt it.

One thing I positively detest are secular Jews in Eretz Yisroel. Eretz Yisroel is a place of KEDUSHAH (holiness), which is not meant for those who eat pork, dress like whores and commit chillul shabbos (desecration of the Shabbat) to be. They should choose: either they become Jews and perhaps they can stay, or they become goyim (which they already are when it comes to behavior and dress) and LEAVE. It is them who caused all of these tzoros (troubles).

Same POV. Same contempt. Same language. They are the same person.

Comments

Daniel575 is back in order to continue forcing his POV on the articles that bothered him the most before he was banned (for threatening users). --Meshulam 19:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to prove from the contribs, and checkuser is not possible, but I think it's a likely match. The violation of 3RR in editing of

Edah Chareidis and related articles supports the allegation of extreme and persistent POV. Yechiel Man 21:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Look at his user page and then look at this. The Seforim list on User:Rabbeinu's user page and here match up pretty well even if its hard to tell based on the templating on the dutch one (I can read dutch, and can match the seforim, only difference here is that Rabbeinu has added gemoroh, and on Doniel's dutch wiki subpage it lacks the gemoroh list and lacks chovos halevovos. --Shuliavrumi 16:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is this nonsense? I am deleting those templates from my userpage and I am not responding to this any further. I have not done anything wrong on Wikipedia and I so no reason for this. Goodbye. --Rabbeinu 17:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did plenty wrong as Daniel575, and you're showing some of the same tendencies here. The issue of your current behavior is moot since your participation on this forum is a violation of your permanant ban.

--Meshulam 00:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My favorite part is how everyone concerned with it seems to have Jewish names. Wow. could this just be an attempt by Jews to silence anyone who is not using wikipedia for hasbara? That would be unheard of. Maybe you should take this up with an administrator. Is there one named Avraham, Irving, Shmelky, Reuven, or Zev that you can find? Newsflash people - You're going to find lots of Dutch Jews with anti-Zionist feelings. Europe isn't as pro-Israel as the US, and Holland has a large enough Muslim population that they come into contact with them a lot. That causes cognitive discidence between the hasbarah perspective on things and the reality. Just out of curiosity, how many random Dutch Jews have you banned because they were anti-Zionist? Shia1 06:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shia, that was uncalled for. Please

assume good faith. The question at hand is, is Rabbeinu a banned user? His political beliefs are only being used to help determine the answer to that specific question. Yechiel Man 18:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Uhuh. It was SOOO uncalled for. I did assume good faith. Then I noticed that a user with anti-Zionist beliefs was going to be banned by three gentleman: Yechiel, Shmuel Avrumi, and Meshulam. Hmmm. What do those people have in common? Why is it Ahmad, Bob, and Fritz aren't complaining? Then I followed the suspected sockpuppet link and wow, what did I find? Anyone who disagrees with the perspective someone named Yechiel would be expected to have and happens to be from Holland (or not) gets banned after a pile on by Lokshonkugel, Shmeikl, Gebrokhts, Khuklessen, BarZev or any other user who has a name fitting the pattern. Wikipedia is not yours to purge as you see fit. YOu could always start Jewpedia. Shia1 05:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Similar POV & interests are not evidence for sock, the language is different (no-where near as abusive as Daniel) & there are some very big differences even in what's quoted above: "Further, I support peace talks with all governments, including Arab governments and including Iran and movements such as Hamas" versus D's "The Palestinians hate us so much that they want us all dead". Wake up guys, even if this accusation is made in good faith, it's still groundless. ⇒ bsnowball 12:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously just harrassment. I just had my account for also being a sockpupeteer, though I didn't get a trial like this, they just up and blocked my accuunt anc cancelled my roomates. I'm sure this is all good faith and has nothing to do with this mass email by AishHaTorah's Hasbarah Fellowships, "Everyone knows about Wikipedia, a place to go to get the ‘real’ scoop. How often do you use Wikipedia to look up subjects you know little about? Now imagine how often other people use Wikipedia to look up subjects related to Israel. Wikipedia is not an objective resource but rather an online encyclopedia that any one can edit. The result is a website that is in large part is controlled by ‘intellectuals’ who seek re-write the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. These authors have systematically yet subtly rewritten key passages of thousands of Wikipedia entries to portray Israel in a negative light. You have the opportunity to stop this dangerous trend!" Shia1 23:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

While I'm singularly unimpressed by the conduct of quite a few people here, upon looking, I can't come to any other conclusion than that Rabbeinu is indeed a sockpuppet of Daniel575. Accordingly, Rabbeinu has been blocked indefinitely as the sock of a banned user. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:39, 25 June 2007 (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:143.58.160.62

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

Suspected sockpuppets: 143.58.160.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 143.58.161.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Rellis0415 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Dhaut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Trusilver 17:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Repeated harassment and vandalism after previous IP was blocked.

Comments

I would say the IP relationships exist as far as the two IP's are concerned. The contributions are related for all concerned. However, are there any

differential edits that can be provided to lead us to believe that these are sockpuppets and not editors who have forgotten to log in? Thanks, Navou 19:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually, I see the suspected puppetmaster is blocked indef. The contribution patterns for all three seem related. Navou 19:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dhaut is the one that I'm not certain of, however his edit pattern does seem suggestive. His account started and he made his first edits not long after the last sock puppet was blocked. His pattern of edits centers around the same topics as the rest of the sock puppets as well. Trusilver 22:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Dhaut blocked as a clear sock, the rest already were blocked. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:46, 25 June 2007 (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:84.13.254.137

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

Suspected sockpuppets: 84.13.254.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 84.13.254.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 89.241.238.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Poindexter Propellerhead 08:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

They seem to be claiming to be 4 other IPs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.13.254.137

These accounts got into trouble for spamming, then blocked for making legal threats. As a mere antivandalism editor, I'm not sure what to do with this situation, but thought it might use some admin attention.

Comments

Additional IP addresses found - correct sockpuppeteer is User:ickie_rich. --Sigma 7 10:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:A. B. has done the grunt work to unearth the other sockpuppets and IPs involved in the spam scheme (see any of the user talk pages). The question is not whether we have sock puppets - that's clearly affirmative. The question is what to do about it, since we can't indef-block IPs. Maybe block A. B.'s list for a week and see if the spammer returns to oblivion. Of course it depends on considerations of collateral damage. Yechiel Man 12:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Ah, don't I ever remember Rickie rich. IPs blocked for 48 hours as obvious socks, though as Rickie seems to have a highly-dynamic IP, I doubt that will be tremendously effective. If you catch obvious socks like this in the future, please let me know directly and I can deal with them more quickly. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:54, 25 June 2007 (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:DiabloSE30

Suspected sockpuppeteer: DiabloSE30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Rockinar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 68.192.37.255 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 74.68.46.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 66.25.159.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 70.232.40.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); CamDaMan08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Karrmann 05:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User has trolled the Lamborghini Diablo page claiming that I am adding "False information and poor quality images" [42] because I rved his edits of taking off an image of a Diable GT and putting a fair use image in the infobox, replacing a free one (Of reasonable quality). Since then, this user and these IPs have all vandalised my userpage, and I believe that they are controlled by this guy.

Comments

THe first sock and some of the IPs have already been blocked for vandalizing my userpage. I have listed them because I suspect that they are controlled by the guy above.

These are definitely all sockpuppets. There is no other way to explain what has happened here.

Riana has protected Karrmann's user page through June 26. I would recommend semi-protecting it for longer than that. Karrmann, you

know where to ask

if you need that. :)

CamDaMan08 and Diablo should be blocked forever as socks; Rockinar already is indef blocked; the IPs have been dealt with as necessary. Yechiel Man 01:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

CamDaMan08 and Rockinar indef-blocked as obvious socks. Diablo has been blocked for 31 hours, which is a little short given the circumstances but generally appropriate; he hasn't resumed his behavior, so I'll leave it at that, with a zero-tolerance policy in the future. The IP's are obvious socks but can be dealt with as needed, since they appear to be dynamic and have not edited recently. MastCell ^Talk 19:35, 26 June 2007 (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:76.6.1.151

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

Cheers, JetLover (Talk) (Sandbox) 01:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

As I was on the recent changes page, I noticed an edit to WWE Vengeance. I checked it out and it was vandalism. I undid it and looked on the history page. Recently a string of people had vandalized the page. I looked and the history page and list you see now did vandalism today on that page in a similar way. I gotta say, it looked like a pretty slick way to beat the rap and keep vandalizing, if I'm right.

Comments

The IPs are definitely socks of one another; not sure about the registered user. One has been blocked 31h independently, but the others left once the target article got s-protected, and they won't need to be blocked.

Looking at the recent article history even after the s-protection, we may still have to worry about sleeper socks. Please keep your eyes open. Shalom ^Hello 06:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Semi-protection should handle the IP's. As to the registered user, he's received an appropriate vandalism warning - anything further can be reported to

WP:AIV for a block. There are some modestly useful edits in the history, so I'm not going to block him as vandalism-only at this point. MastCell ^Talk 19:31, 26 June 2007 (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:74.226.4.119

Suspected sockpuppeteer: 74.226.4.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: 74.226.4.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 72.147.123.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 74.226.8.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 74.226.3.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 72.155.156.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Talk 02:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Evidence

Redirecting Reggie Slack to Vaginal flatulence

Comments

Confirmed. The Reggie Slack page is already semiprotected. Some of the IPs have been blocked in their own right, but those blocks have already expired. Given that there have been no other edits from those IPs ever at any time, and given the severity of the vandalism and the block evasion, I would have no hesitation to block them all for a full week - but someone else will have to do it because I don't have a mop. Shalom ^Hello 06:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Yes, they're socks, but as they focus only on the Reggie Slack article and this is now semi-protected, I don't think blocking them will serve any further preventive purpose. MastCell ^Talk 19:27, 26 June 2007 (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:WindieGoatBrewery

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

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

Report submission by

Octane 01:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Fairly obvious sock of User:WindieGoat.

Comments

I'm not at all sure that it's obvious, and neither user has any edits in the contribution log. I suggest closing this case as moot. If the users cause any trouble, we'll worry about it then. Shalom ^Hello 03:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

It is an obvious sockpuppet (see the account creation log), but as neither account has been used abusively I don't see a rationale for blocking them at this point. MastCell ^Talk 19:25, 26 June 2007 (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:Mike tyson11

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Mike tyson11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Mike "iron" tyson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Cheers, Je tL ov er 02:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Usernames almost identical. And here's definitive proof. [43]

Comments

Conclusions

Mike Tyson11 has been blocked indefinitely for vandalism, and Mike "iron" Tyson has no edits in the contribution log. Any admin should feel free to block the newer account preemptively, since Jetlover's proof is incontrovertible. Shalom ^Hello 02:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, pre-emptively. I'm archiving this case. MastCell ^Talk 19:22, 26 June 2007 (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:NASTYCOOCH

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

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

Report submission by

Dust Filter 02:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

02:52, 26 June 2007 NASTYCOOCH (Talk | contribs) created new account User:BIGBLACKBUCK (Talk | contribs)
02:51, 26 June 2007 Varchaswi (Talk | contribs) New user account
02:51, 26 June 2007 Xkhumpx (Talk | contribs) New user account
02:51, 26 June 2007 Raptress (Talk | contribs) New user account
02:51, 26 June 2007 Edward333 (Talk | contribs) New user account
02:51, 26 June 2007 ArtEful (Talk | contribs) New user account
02:51, 26 June 2007 Landline1945 (Talk | contribs) New user account
02:50, 26 June 2007 Adamdude31 (Talk | contribs) New user account
02:50, 26 June 2007 DrunkInVogue (Talk | contribs) New user account
02:50, 26 June 2007 Docpolash (Talk | contribs) New user account
02:50, 26 June 2007 Imgnjoe (Talk | contribs) New user account
02:50, 26 June 2007 Pink dildo (Talk | contribs) New user account
02:50, 26 June 2007 Upaprabath (Talk | contribs) New user account
02:50, 26 June 2007 NASTYCOOCH (Talk | contribs) New user account
02:49, 26 June 2007 Sis j (Talk | contribs) New user account
02:49, 26 June 2007 Neqquah (Talk | contribs) New user account
02:48, 26 June 2007 Sa doa (Talk | contribs) New user account
02:48, 26 June 2007 Joel10002 (Talk | contribs) New user account

Comments

I've never cared much about "sleeper" accounts. If they ever wake up, we'll worry about it then. Neither of the two users has a single edit in the contribution log. Shalom ^Hello 03:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

It's not against policy to have multiple accounts, only to abuse them in certain ways. Please see

WP:SOCK for what uses of sockpuppets are prohibited. Absent any evidence here of abuse, the accounts cannot be blocked. (However, Pink dildo and NASTYCOOCH have been blocked for inappropriate usernames.) If you see any evidence that the accounts are being used abusively, please file another case here or let someone know. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:14, 26 June 2007 (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:220.226.51.199

Suspected sockpuppeteer: 220.226.51.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: 220.226.71.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 220.226.38.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Talk 08:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Evidence

Various IPs blanking sections of Infrared

Comments

Conclusions

Confirmed by the "duck test". Luna Santin and Fram have already blocked the IPs and protected the infrared page. No further action is needed. Shalom ^Hello 14:34, 26 June 2007 (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:Bubble bum

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Bubble bum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Green boogers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Dust Filter 03:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

03:21, 26 June 2007 Bubble bum (Talk | contribs) created new account User:Green boogers (Talk | contribs)
03:21, 26 June 2007 Shades of Light (Talk | contribs) New user account
03:20, 26 June 2007 Bocciballs (Talk | contribs) New user account
03:20, 26 June 2007 Ncarraway (Talk | contribs) New user account
03:20, 26 June 2007 Mrflora1 (Talk | contribs) New user account
03:20, 26 June 2007 Egbsystem (Talk | contribs) created new account User:Seoegb123 (Talk | contribs)
03:20, 26 June 2007 Madisonpeach (Talk | contribs) New user account
03:19, 26 June 2007 Wct420 (Talk | contribs) New user account
03:19, 26 June 2007 Bubble bum (Talk | contribs) New user account

Comments

- I would like to remove this case due to my misunderstanding of Wikipedia's policy on multiple user names. I have consulted the documentation and will no longer make improper sockpuppet accusations. However, the user name Green boogers (talk · contribs) is mildly offensive and should be considered for deletion. Dust Filter 03:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Conclusions

I'm withdrawing this case, as requested. I'll list the "boogers" username at

WP:RFCN. Shalom ^Hello 03:45, 26 June 2007 (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:AVA24

Suspected sockpuppeteer: AVA24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: AVA241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Octane 02:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User:AVA241 is a fairly obvious sockpuppet of AVA24.

Comments

Conclusions

This case is moot. AVA24 last edited in May, about a month ago, and AVA241 has not edited at all. I'm kinda curious how Octane could have connected them without looking in Special:Listusers. It's true that AVA24 was warned for vandalism, but she was never blocked, and if she wishes to start over with a new account (assuming it's the same person) I'm willing to allow that. Shalom ^Hello 02:34, 26 June 2007 (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:Bcsoftware

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

Suspected sockpuppets: Necro44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 69.70.72.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Wildthing61476 20:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Evidence

Both users have created article SiteSpaces with the same identical text. Puppeter received Level 3 warning before sock account was created.

Comments

I added the IP address because it's making the same edits. Cheers, JetLover (Talk) (Sandbox) 22:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is about as obvious as it gets. Try blocking the user accounts for a week. If they're pure spammers, as it would seem to me, they probably won't return, and if they have a chance at learning the ropes, it won't kill them. Don't block the IP; I've given it a warning, and I ask whoever closes this to check its contribution log to see if anything has changed. Yechiel Man 08:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Obvious socks. The parent account, Bcsoftware, was indef-blocked by another admin for spamming. I've indef-blocked Necro44 as a sockpuppet. I've not blocked the IP, though I've tagged it, as there have no been no contribs from it in the last couple of days. MastCell ^Talk 23:22, 25 June 2007 (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:Eye wrish

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Eye wrish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Cheers, Je tL ov er 22:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Look at contributions. Obvious match. Identical vandalism.

Comments

Of course. Shalom ^Hello 23:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Eye wrish blocked indefinitely; IP address blocked for 24 hours by User:Nick. Shalom ^Hello 23:05, 25 June 2007 (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:Sonicrules2

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Sonicrules2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Lurker 16:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

New account Mariorules seems to be a sock of Sonicrules2, blocked for a threatening comment on my user page.

here we see Mariorules editing a page and signing his comment as Sonicrules2, making his sockpuppetry more than a little obvious.

Though not as obvious as this edit- I am Sonicrules...'. Also threatening in tone.

Mariorules also posted on my talk page, referring to the threat made by Sonicrules.

Comments

Conclusions

The evidence of sockpuppetry is incontrovertible, and the second user should be indef-blocked for inappropriate edits in his own right. Since I cannot block him myself, I will report him at

WP:AIV. Shalom ^Hello 21:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Indefinitely blocked by "Can't sleep, clown will eat me." Shalom ^Hello 23:03, 25 June 2007 (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:Khalidmn

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Khalidmn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Mariam83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Bouha 18:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Newly created account, after Mariam83 was blocked for both 3RR and harrassing other editors. Has revisited 3 pages edited by Mariam 83:

Berber people, and complained of locking of Maghreb. Seems rather familiar with how wikipedia works. Bouha 18:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comments

Conclusions

User was indefinitely blocked by User:FayssalF 20:07 20 June 2007

I'm willing to let this be archived. Mariam83's main account can earn a second chance after her 24h block expires. Yechiel Man 23:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Already taken care of. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2007 (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:Spartakk

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

213.85.141.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
74.128.159.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

east .718 22:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

From Spartakk: see history, too many to list
From 213.85.141.122: [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49]
From 74.128.159.220: [50]

Comments

Looks like a match. He's already been blocked on his main account for 3RR, so I'm not sure if the fact of his using an IP to evade 3RR merit further sanction. Yechiel Man 15:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Too much time has passed since the violation to make blocking useful. The named account has vandalized recently, but hasn't been warned--why don't people take the trouble to at least use the warning templates? Spartakk is warned that any further use of IP socks will result in a block. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2007 (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:Verdict

Suspected sockpuppeteer

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log

)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Sancho 06:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User:Wikiboykid is identical to this version of Wikikidboy's user page.
Wikikidboy (talk · contribs) is blocked for being a sockpuppet of Verdict
The user names... seriously.

Comments

Conclusions

Quack, quack. Wish all the reports here were that easy. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:50, 25 June 2007 (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:Tony X Liu

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Tony X Liu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Emperor Tony X. Liu IV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Loisel 14:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

"Emperor" Moved

Sturm-Liouville theory to "Tony Liu"ville theory and replaced all instances of Sturm-Liouville by "Tony Liu"ville. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Emperor_Tony_X._Liu_IV

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sturm-Liouville_theory&diff=prev&oldid=139653286

Puppetmaster does the exact same thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sturm-Liouville_theory&diff=prev&oldid=93193861

Comments

Puppetmaster is already banned, but puppet is not yet banned.

This is not something that can wait five days. I'm taking it directly to

WP:AIV. Yechiel Man 08:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Conclusions

Both accounts are blocked indefinitely. Yechiel Man 01:40, 25 June 2007 (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:Samuel Luo

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Samuel Luo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Free141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 00:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User contributions and matching username with other socks.

Comments

My apologies, seems like I have to learn how to use Twinkle properly. Samuel Luo is the sockpuppeteer, Free141 is yet another sockpuppet. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 00:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is bureaucracy, just get Husond and block Samuel. Lets start... Free111, Free222, Free333, Free667, how obvious can it get, Olaf? Evilclown93_(talk) 00:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Husond has already blocked them all except Free141 (maybe that was the point). I'll file a code A checkuser to see if there are any more socks. Yechiel Man 05:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's useful. How many sleepers are there? Evilclown93_(talk) 15:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully we'll find out soon. Yechiel Man 16:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Samuel has no intention to stop this ridiculous show. I don't understand why the IP addresses he uses are not blocked permanently. Would that be against some essential Wikipedia policies? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 17:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Obvious. Blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:03, 24 June 2007 (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:68.221.255.121

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Brandonmcleod01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
(Blocked indefinatley)

Report submission by

Cheers, JetLover (Talk) (Sandbox) 02:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Identical vandalism to Brandon Mcleod. The IP was blanking the page and deleting portions of it, then less than 10 minutes after the IP stopped editing here comes the account. It blanks the page, but then the IP starts up again. It stops and the account starts up again. It's pretty obvious the two are the same.

Comments

Conclusions

Named account is already indef blocked, IP was blocked for 24 hours. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:09, 24 June 2007 (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:Dwrules

Suspected sockpuppeteer

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log

)

Suspected sockpuppets

MrClaxson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Claxson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (indef blocked)
France a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (indef blocked)
Secisalive! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (indef blocked)
Secfrance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (indef blocked)

Report submission by

Rambutan (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Aside from Secisalive! and Secfrance, who were both self-confessed puppets and mainly concentrated on not being blocked for sockpuppetry, there are very similar editing patterns, including huge overuse of userboxes and few material edits to articles - those that existed were all to Doctor Who-related articles.

This diff suggests that Dwrules had a great knowledge of my past activities with France a, and MrClaxson then replaced the diff's comments (which I had removed) here, half an hour later. MrClaxson has been blanking his talkpage ([51], [52], [53], [54]) characteristically, and also been engaging in long and pointless arguments with me.

I recently noticed Claxson, whose username suggests a relationship.

Comments

Conclusions

Dwrules is likely a sockpuppet of User:France a; MrClaxson is clearly a sockpuppet of Claxson, who's probably also a sockpuppet of France a. In any case, all of the accounts named here are indef blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further post-block evidence: [55].--Rambutan (talk) 16:19, 11 July 2007 (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.

There is something unethical about this page

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:69.157.117.117

Suspected sockpuppeteer: 69.157.117.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Eoganan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - indef-blocked already; Pan-ethnic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - indef-blocked already; Not eoganan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - indef-blocked already; Epf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets: 69.157.114.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 69.157.105.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 69.157.101.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 69.157.113.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 69.157.101.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 65.92.94.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 65.92.92.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 65.92.92.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 69.156.88.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 69.156.89.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 69.156.91.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 69.157.114.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 69.157.113.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 69.157.126.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 69.157.107.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 69.157.100.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 69.157.122.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 69.157.117.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 69.157.105.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 69.157.100.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 69.157.108.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 69.157.100.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

Postoak 23:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Recent single-origin hypothesis extensive history of vandalism to User:Wobble page diff. see also evidence User:Wobble/sandbox/2

.

Comments

Definitely a match. They're all in the same IP range, they edit the same articles, and the edit summaries show the same disruptive pattern and usage of language. I recommend blocking all these IPs for a week. Regarding concerns of collateral damage, I have not seen any unrelated edits from these IPs in the contribution log. Yechiel Man 16:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "gangsta" style language is a big clue. In fact 69.157.101.107 and 69.157.117.117 both used the term "pffft in an edit summary. They use the term "dat" and "yo" and "da" as well and make rude comments (such as "read yo own talk page biatch" and "rite back atcha yo, u didn't give a reason or anythin. U know how I do, hahahah", and "3RR yourself boii, and yo, read what i sputtin on yo talk page and this one, hahaha".) as well as poor spelling and grammar. It is quite obvious that these are all one in the same. Cheers, JetLover (Talk) (Sandbox) 03:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a very long history of conflict with this user. He is a very aggressive POV-pusher and has vandalised my user page on many many occasions. I suspect these users to be socks of User:Epf but have been reluctant to pursue this because Epf has made some good contributions, but they display an identical POV, they edit each other's posts and seem to have identical IP addresses and be from the same location. This is St Catherines in Ontario and is registered to Bell Canada evidence. Alun 05:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The IP's are probably best dealt with by

requests for page protection. You may find an admin willing to range-block them, but I don't know that we've exhausted all other methods of dealing with this. MastCell ^Talk 21:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Conclusions

I'm not seeing any recent vandalism from the unblocked accounts, so I don't think there's anything more to do here. As MastCell says, if the vandalism flares up again, semi-protection will probably be a better move than a range block. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2007 (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:86.130.238.154

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

86.130.220.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
SOCKPUPPET2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Bsroiaadn^Talk 00:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

This diff shows they changed their IP to get around the block.

Comments

Not much is left for us to do. Both IPs were blocked independently for vandalism, so the fact that they represent the same person doesn't mean much. The SOCKPUPPET2 should be blocked as an inappropriate username. Yechiel Man 18:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

The named user doesn't exist, so there's nothing left to do. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:57, 21 June 2007 (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:Peterbean8

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Peterbean8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Peterbean6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Peterbean7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Peterbean8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Talk 10:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Evidence

Similar usernames, vandalism from all

Comments

Conclusions

All have been indef-blocked by Fram and Mysid. Yechiel Man 14:58, 21 June 2007 (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:Pam55

Suspected sockpuppeteers: Hajji Piruz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Behmod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Mardavich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppet: Pam55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Atabek 23:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Please, take a look at the entire editing history [56] of User:Pam55. Since the first registration of this account in February and up to now, the user had 10-15 edits and have been doing nothing but making reverts for User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani - [57], and voting for his proposals [58], and serving as revert mechanism for User:Behmod - [59], rving admin [60] to [61], [62] and User:Mardavich - [63] or inserting fact tags.

And block log [64] already shows one 4-day block for being a suspected sockpuppet of User:Behmod.

Comments

I recommend that this be taken to checkuser. The evidence is meaningful but far from conclusive, and I don't see how a block would be justified without technical proof. Note that these editors were involved in a recent arbitration case. Yechiel Man 03:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Dealt with through checkuser--WP:RFCU page on "Pam55". --Akhilleus (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2007 (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:Rogerfgay

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by -N 12: 45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Kviki is a single-purpose account used to argue that

reviewedfairuse}} to the image in three minutes of each other [65] [66] which I find highly suspicious. I also note that most of Rogerfgay's edits are to the Peter Nordin

article of which this is a picture.

Comments

Nadav1 has been recruiting editors against use of PN Chalmers 300.JPG (N now being one of them). If you had more information, you would know that Kviki is actually someone physically near me, willing to support my position. It's fair isn't it? I can recruit people on my side as well, can't I? I don't understand N's argument re: most of my edits being to the Peter Nordin page. I have only recently started editing at Wikipedia, and the Peter Nordin page has been my big project. Is that suspicious? I don't understand. Quite frankly, by now I had hoped to have done more on more pages - but the politics of the Peter Nordin page have been taking up an enormous amount of my time; thus, not much else is being accomplished. I think for some, the argument has become personal. Rogerfgay 13:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N makes a strong argument based on his pair of diffs and the contribution log. Kviki should be indef-blocked as a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. Regardless of whether he is the same person as Rogerfgay or a close friend, he has functioned as the same character for Wikipedia purposes, and that violates policy. Regarding the dispute over that one fair use image, let me direct you all to

WP:LAME. You've wasted too much time on it - just find a resolution and move on. Rogerfgay should be warned to avoid such behavior in the future, but no formal sanction is called for. Yechiel Man 17:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I am disappointed that Rogerfgay has attempted to vilify me here. I told him when the image was put up that if the copyright owner doesn't release the image, I would have to consult with others. Afterwards I asked about the image in the usual channels,

Template:Replaceable fair use, I naturally asked the person who created the template, Quadell. I never attempted to "recruit" anybody. I have nothing against Rogerfgay, but it seems that as more and more people weighed in on the issue, his defenses have reached a fever pitch. His statements that "I can recruit people on my side as well, can't I?" and "that Kviki is actually someone physically near me, willing to support my position" seem to be admissions of guilt that he used a meatpuppet. nadav (talk) 04:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Conclusions

"Recruiting" people to participate in deletion discussions is
meatpuppetry. Rogerfgay is warned, Kviki indef blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2007 (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:Cstanfie

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Cstanfie2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Lurker 12:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Cstanfie2 seems like a very obvious sock of Cstanfie, blocked for issuing legal threats. For further evidence, here are their contribs pages:

Cstanfie Cstanfie2

Comments

This is absurdly obvious. Please give Cstanfie2 an indefinite block. Yechiel Man 16:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Cstanfie2 is indef blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2007 (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:Afon-wen llyn glydid xt6

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Afon-wen llyn glydid xt6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Llay bradle wrexham meicor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Wirral north wales wrexham medical man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Llynafonwen north wales (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Wrexham ball (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Wirral thorn beta 5 streetlight wallasey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

≈

Mystytopia 20:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Evidence

Afon-wen llyn glydid xt6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added an inappropriate external link to Krypto_the_Superdog (diff) to something to do with penis enlargement. After being reverted, Llay bradle wrexham meicor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) did the same thing (diff) and was reverted and warned. After being reverted and warned, Wirral north wales wrexham medical man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) came and did the same thing (diff). Then Llynafonwen north wales (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) did the same thing (diff). And let's throw Wrexham ball (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) into the mix with this gem: {[67]} And Wirral thorn beta 5 streetlight wallasey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (diff).

Comments

Conclusions

Blocked all; you may have gotten a faster response at

WP:ANI. - Mike Rosoft 21:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The underlying IP address has been blocked as an open proxy. [68]. - Mike Rosoft 06:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vintagekits

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

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Coeur-sang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Maplecelt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
TamB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Sligobhoy67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (see: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Vintagekits)

Report submission by

^Talk 23:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Rockpocket 05:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

This was prompted by a revert war on this

WP:ANI, but then looked a little closer at the edit history and had to agree that they did indeed suggest something dubious. The alarm bells really went off, though, when I looked at another user - User:Maplecelt

who commented on the same AfD, and had a very similar pattern of editing - very few edits, then a burst of commenting on AfDs. Of the four AfDs that Maplecelt commented on, three of them were the same one as Coeur-sang. Now, of course, there is the possibility that Coeur-sang and Maplecelt are sock/meat puppets of each other, and nothing to do with Vintagekits, but there are further links...

User:Maplecelt was registered in December 2006 and made only 6 edits up until 26 Apr 2007. Between then and today, they then commented on 5 AfDs, 4 of which were started by Vintagekits and agreeing with his delete !vote [69] [70] [71] [72], and one agreeing with his Keep vote in the AfD mentioned above. [73]. They also made an edit [74] to Talk:Falklands War, another pet favourite of Vintagekits, and again agreeing with his POV [75].

Bhoys from Seville AfD mentioned above [79]

.

Further evidence

Some further evidence has been brought to my attention by a concerned editor that appears to explain what is going on here. Therefore I'm going to reproduce it below to allow the community to decide.

VintageKits is SligoBhoy67 at www.celticminded.com. Celticminded.com is a web forum about Celtic F.C., the subject of the AfD that sparked this report. Sligobhoy67 (hereafter abbreviated to SB67) edits there regularly. Over a period of time, SB67 has made threads at Celticminded asking if other members of the board use Wikipedia. Examples of the thread titles include Any wikipedia users on?, has anyone got an account on wikipedia and Anyone have a history of editing on wiki? The forum itself requires registration so I provide screen dumps for convenience [80] [81] (The red dots indicate the Wikipedia specific threads). Now, I don't know for sure but I strongly suspect Vintagekits is from Sligo (see
here and here). Moreover, he and SB67 share a number of interests including boxing, Irish republicanism and, of course, Celtic. In fact, there appears to be a Sligobhoy67 (talk · contribs) who edits here at Wikipedia, a look at his contributions shows an almost complete crossover in editing space with Vintagekits. As interesting as all of this is, it is mere conjecture except they are the same individual. Except SB67, in response to a question on Celticminded about Martin Savage, replied it is indeed a chara - infact i wrote an article about him on wikipedia. [82] The creator and major editor of that article is, of course, Vintagekits. [83]

SligoBhoy67/Vintagekits admits intent to vote stack with meatpuppets. In the thread entitled Any wikipedia users on?, SB67 notes, If you have used wiki then let my [sic] know or just reply here and I will contact you. I need help with a bit of voterigging! [84]
Coeur-sang responds to SligoBhoy67/Vintagekits request to votestack. A member of Celticminded responds to SB67's request for meatpuppets. This member is called Coeur-sang. [85]. Note that this request was posted on Celticminded on 26-04-07. Coeur-sang's first contribution to Wikipedia was a delete vote on that day, in an AfD proposed by Vintagekits. [86] Note also the date of another of SB67's requests on that forum: 12-06-7 [87], this date is co-incident with Coeur-sang's fifth [88] and sixth [89] edits, again to an AfD of Vintagekit's. When asked (below) if he had received communications from another Wikipedians about votestacking, Coeur-sang is explicit in his denial. I would ask him to consider whether he may like to reconsider that answer in light of this evidence.
Are Maplecelt and TamB also meatpuppets? I could find no direct evidence linking TamB and Maplecelt to requests for assistance in votestacking. However, Maplecelt certainly contributes to a number of Celtic fora, including Huddlehound and Kerrydale St, therefore considering the strong evidence of using such fora for vote stacking purposes, it is not unreasonable to expect he was recruited in the same manner. I have no evidence for TamB, except the co-incidental posting on the same Kerrydale thread as Maplecelt, a member by the name of Tam Ball... [90]
a thread asking for help on this site would be deleted instantly on KDS, as it would be against the rules. They are extremely strict on what can and cannot be posted.65.95.129.159 14:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Meatpuppetry is in violation of policy.
WP:SOCK states It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles in order to attract users with known views in an attempt to strengthen one side of a debate. It is also considered inappropriate to ask friends or family members to create accounts for the purpose of giving additional support. Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia. I propose Vintagekits is clearly in violation of this. While this behaviour is unacceptable, it should also be noted that there appears to be a similar meatpuppetry going on by editors who are in perpetual conflict with Vintagekits. This does not excuse his behaviour, but it perhaps explains it. I would endorse a similar report into the behaviour of those editors also. Finally, while Coeur-sang's denials (below) now appear to be highly suspect, those who were asked to be meatpuppets are not usually sanctioned. I would suggest this is a good opportunity for all those individuals listed above to consider being honest about the circumstances in which they found themselves !voting at Vintagekits AfD's, and use it to make a fresh start and put the meatpuppetry behind them. Rockpocket 05:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

One more thing to wrap up any dispute that SB67 is Vintagekits:
A SB67 post at Celticminded [91] To follow on for from the Antoine MacGiolla Bhrighde that a bunch of huns tried to get deleted off wiki, they are now trying to get the article for Martin McCaughey deleted. Can I ask you to do two things. 1. Go and vote to keep the article 2. if you have any more info on Martin please add it to the article or tell me where it is and I will do it. As usual REMEMBER - BEFORE you edit you have to register a name, NOT TOO FENIAN OR PROVO EITHER, I am called "VINTAGEKITS" on the site, Once registered THEN EDIT a number of pages such as your local town, GAA club anything JUST MAKE A NUMBER OF EDITS, THEN AFTER A NUMBER OF DAYS PLOUGH INTO THE FENIAN STUFF - BE SUBTLE - THE KEY IS BE COOL, BE SUBTLE! If you need ANY help just ask. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_McCaughey
Rockpocket 07:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That ties in Maplecelt quite well, whose editing pattern shows exactly that - a few edits on random and local items, before ploughing into the AfDs.
^Talk 07:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
except that I've never been on Celticminded in my life.Maplecelt 13:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that on those threads at celticminded, at least two other members indicated that they had contributed to the AfDs a manner that SB67 has requested. There are no obvious link between those individuals names at Celticminded and the individuals names listed here, but it would suggest that there were at least three meatpuppets recruited from celticminded... Rockpocket 17:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One slight problem with that argument, where are the sock/meatpuppets on the Martin McCaughey AfD? That's actually a rhetorical question, as I already know the answer. Checkuser says El chulito, Jill Teed, Inthegloaming and Conrad Falk were all from the same person, who voted "delete". That plus the usual suspects who vote delete on any AfD about Irish republicans.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is that a problem? I don't think there is much doubt that there was votestacking to delete the article also, are you suggesting that validates VK's votestacking as a measure of response? Rockpocket 17:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the slightest. Someone mentioned the McCaughey AfD as evidence of sockpuppetry, I was happy to provide evidence that was indeed the case. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser finds it is "likely" that Vintagekits is Sligobhoy67. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Vintagekits. Rockpocket 01:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

TamB (talk · contribs) should probably be considered too per his/her history of AfD comments, I've added this user to the list of suspects. Rockpocket 00:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough TamB appears exclusively at the same AfD's as those mentioned above, but occasionally !votes against the other three. Strange. Perhaps this is simply coincidence, or else there is a meatpuppet who is a not quite towing the party line, or there is some seriously sophisticated sockpuppetry going on. Rockpocket 01:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Frankly I'm insulted the EliminatorJR accused me of being a sock puppet i'm a real person currently living in Sarnia, Ontario, Canada. I have a degree in History and Political Science from the UNiversity of Western Ontario so I think my opinions are as valid as anyone elses. I was born in Scotland of Irish Catholic background why would I not have an interest in these topics. Also since between December and April 30th I was in school its a little hard to have the time take part in this site. Maplecelt 03:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you mean the Falklands war as for me it was your edit there that smacks of sockpup[petry just because Vintage's belief is so unusual and so obviously politically motivated in an anti Brit way,

SqueakBox 03:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I fail to see what the issue is with what I wrote about the name of the falklands war. I don't think its anti british I think to call it just the falklands is a pro-british view. I think you may be talking it to hard because you are a british. Maplecelt 03:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say any of these are sockpuppets, especially not Maplecelt. This is only looking at one half of the AfDs in question anyway. A group of British editors interested in the monarchy and peerage (that information needs updating with additional editors, AfDs and canvassing also) have been votestacking and attempting to subvert consensus in AfDs for months now including the use of glaringly obvious sock/meatpuppets such as Alastair Noble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), it stands to reason that accounts from "the other side" will appear to vote on the AfDs in question. I suggested a proposed solution to allow any contentious AfDs to be discussed by neutral parties which didn't happen for one reason or another, and have stayed almost totally clear of any such AfDs since because it's practically a waste of time trying to get any articles deleted with the votestacking and canvassing that goes on. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately concluding that Vintage's opponents use socks doesnt help his case one bit, indeed it could explain his motivations,
SqueakBox 03:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

No, but considering you're one of the meatpuppets it explains your motivations for shouting "sockpuppet" without any evidence. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meatpuppet? If you are being serious please stop making silly accusations, I have been on wikipedia longer than pretty much anyone else involved in this issue,
SqueakBox 03:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

And your point is? It doesn't stop you being a meatpuppet in the AfDs in question. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How so. You mean just expressing similar opinions to someonme else makes someone a meatpuppet? Like you and Vintage? Codex and I? Those who oppose thew Brandt article and those who support it (2 massive armies of meatpuppets). As I say please stop making silly suggestions,

SqueakBox 03:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

To be fair I'm being accused of being a sockpuppet for having an opinion Maplecelt 04:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For having several opinions that concur with Vintage's and expressed in a way that would help Vintage push his POV in afds and other disputes, its all quite convincing,

SqueakBox 04:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

so two people can't share the same view on an issue if you don't their position? I'm tired of this some of us have a job to get up for.Maplecelt 04:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that you had very few edits and the ones you did tended to help Vintage's POV in a number of cases, and its not as simple as just having agreed with him,

SqueakBox 04:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

how is it not that simple? its amazing this site has as many people if when the want to start making contributions they are attacked because people don't like others points of view. sort of defeats the purpose. I'm going to bed before I say something I shouldn't Maplecelt 04:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More comments from nom A clarification - you don't get suspected as a sock/meatpuppet just for agreeing with someone's opinions, and I definitely try to

assume good faith

at all times. However, there is definitely an odd pattern here.

Example: this AfD was opened by VK at 15:43, and Coeur-sang, who'd made 1 edit in the previous month, commented at 16.26, followed by Maplecelt, who hadn't edited for two weeks, an hour later. They then both immediately commented on this AfD.

However, to be fair, I did note this; Coeur-sang was welcomed to Wikipedia by Vintagekits [92]. However, looking more closely, this was well after Coeur-sang registered, but only 10 minutes after s/he had commented on an AfD Vintagekits was watching [93]. I would be tempted to look at that as vindication that Vintagekits did not know Coeur-sang before that, although I suppose you could argue it could be an extremely clever ruse. In the end, I see it like this, either

a) none of the accounts have anything to do with each other (unlikely given the diffs)
b) they are sock/meatpuppets of VK
c) They are sock/meatpuppets of someone else
d) the suspected sockpuppets are linked to each other with no puppetmaster, or
e) they are different people but there is off-wiki communication, which means this is votestacking rather than meatpuppetry.

^Talk 08:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

If its not a vote how can it be vote stacking?. Second question I understand what a sockpuppet is now, but can I get a meatpuppet definition? Maplecelt 13:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you're quite right, it isn't a vote, but it's the phrase used for 'fixing' an AfD by getting a number of editors to !vote whose opinions on a subject are known - see
  ^Talk 13:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

As a relatively new member I have no idea what you are talking about re sockpuppets and meat puppets but not so dumb that I can't work out for myself the intended insult. I was not pre warned that I was only allowed to work in areas where there was no prior interest by other members! I DO NOT know these people to whom you refer. I also understand now that your attitude towards new members is designed to keep your numbers low and therefore your power high. Is it any wonder you are not increasing your membership? So when will you let me know the results of this witch hunt. After all thats exactly what it is. If I edit I'm a witch and if I don't... well burn her anywayCoeur-sang 13:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Coeur-sang, can you confirm therefore, that you have not received a communication, on or off wiki, from another editor asking you to !vote in one of the AfD's you have commented on? Rockpocket 17:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The first communication I recieved from a wiki person was this accusation. I don't know anyone who has any involvement here. I have no interest in getting into this as I feel it is a complete waste of my time to answer charges that I'm not even sure I know the meaning of!Coeur-sang 19:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - With respect, ~~sir~~ madam (my apologies), I propose to you that is not entirely true. I would ask you to digest the further evidence above and consider if it might not the the time to reconsider your answer. Rockpocket 06:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir??? - I would advise caution as to gender - consider the phrase above "If I edit I'm a witch and if I don't... well burn her anyway" - people are jumping to too many conclusions here - I suspect that their style of writing is not the only diference between Vintagekits style and Coeur-sang.
Giano 06:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Then I suggest you too read the further evidence. The difference between them is no longer in question. Rockpocket 06:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are rather missing the point - half of Wikipedia's business is conducted off wiki on IRC. Mailing another editor is not a wiki-crime. Why do you think the email facility is there, and for what reason - for editors to discuss the weather with each other? I think you need to be realistic. Coeur-sang like any other editor is to be credited with an independent brain, and also to be believed. If Coeur-sang says she had not been emailed that is fine - if she has been emailed that is equally fine. You are trying to build a case that you will never manage to prove. In fact you risk damaging the reputation of valuable editors without the grounds for doing so.
Giano 08:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

No one is suggestion mailing another editor is a crime. However, recruiting meatpuppets for the purposes of votestacking is against policy. I asked Coeur-sang is she has received a communication asking her to do that and she said she hadn't. I believe the evidence above shows that is not true. If you choose not to believe that evidence it is your choice, but I personally find it compelling. Rockpocket 17:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My one and only comment, I have stayed off this attack page for a reason - that reason is that editors are putting 2&2 together and getting 55! I am not going to justify myself to the whrilling dervishes on here but if the closing admin wishes to contact me via email (for privacy reasons) I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that these people are neither my sock or meatpuppets.--Vintagekits 16:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Er, hang on a second - attack page? If you look through my contribs you'll see that I've generally been on your side at AfD [94] [95] - indeed I've even started Arbuthnot AfDs myself (
  ^Talk 17:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
- For my part, I have nothing against you and my !votes on AfD's you have taken part in tend to be 50/50 in support. I also find the behaviour of those in perpetual opposition to you abhorrant, so please don't paint this as some sort of partisan attack on you. The information above was provided to me as an admin, with a request for help in submitting it. After checking its validity, I provided it for the community to decide. To supress it would have been a serious abuse of the trust put in admin. If you can prove "beyond a shadow of a doubt that these people are neither my sock or meatpuppets" then I suggest you do so publically and we can all go back to something more productive. Rockpocket 17:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few thoughts: TamB doesn't necessarily stand for "Tam Ball". Moreover, a "Tam Ball" is a legitimate product [96] and therefore it is possible that there are numerous people who use that term or a variation (e.g. TamBall20, TamBallBoy) as a username. In fact, that forum you link to lists that "Tam Ball" as being located in England [97] whereas here is a different "Tam Ball" located in Scotland.

It is also entirely possible that the "Sligobhoy67" on www.celticminded.com was simply taking credit for something he had nothing whatsoever to do with. People do occasionally lie on the internet :)

All that being said, the www.celticminded.com forum evidence is the strongest and it doesn't appear to bode well for Vintagekits. I do find it odd that while "Sligobhoy67" asked for voting assistance on www.celticminded.com the person with that username on Wikipedia hasn't voted on any AfDs. As I have only seen the screenshots provided, did "Sligobhoy67" ever declare himself "Vintagekits" on that forum? Did "Sligobhoy67" ever specify any particular AfDs for votestacking or was that a one time comment? IrishGuy ^talk 20:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are absolutely correct with regards to TamB (and to a lesser extent, the evidence against maplecelt is also circumstantial). I mentioned the coincidence only in passing, and it would be wrong to read anything more into that. However, there is clear evidence that at least two other members of Celticminded responded to SB's request. I think that is stronger evidence that three meatpuppets were recruited, if you identify the possible meatpuppet accounts in those AfDs, you are left with the editors listed above. That said, I wouldn't endorse any movement to sanction these editors for past indiscretions, even if the evidence was stronger. Its the meatpuppeteer that is the problem, not really the meatpuppets, who may indeed turn into useful editors. However, it would be much better if they were upfront about their past circumstances, rather than peddling untruths.

As for the Wikipedia Sligobhoy67 anomaly. I would suggest the reason this has never been used in AfDs is made clear in SB67's request at Celticminded, "REMEMBER - BEFORE you edit you have to register a name, NOT TOO FENIAN OR PROVO EITHER, I am called "VINTAGEKITS" on the site". I would propose that Sligobhoy67 realised that having an overtly "fenian" name does not always help his cause. SligoBhoy67 registered here first and made a few edits, the last being in July 2006 to Carmel Gunning, he then disappeared for a while. [98] On August 1st, Vintagekits registered, his first edit being to Carmel Gunning [99]

Also, note this diff. Sligobhoy67 makes his next edit (indeed, his only edit in a 4 month window) to support an argument VK is having. I think taken together this strongly suggests Sligobhoy67 is a sock of Vintagekits, though I guess its possible that it is simply another meatpuppet. I might be worth requesting a checkuser to see if we can link SB67 with VK?

The specific AfD's coeur-sang replied about were never publically mentioned, though SB67 said he would "contact" the people who volunteered to help with details. However the time and date of the posts makes it pretty obvious what they correspond to [100]. There are specific mentions of straw polls and debates on talkpages that SB urges others to votestack at, though. This includes, but is not limited to Martin McCaughey. Rockpocket 21:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I must have missed the screenshot of SB67 declaring that he was Vintagekits. That answers that question. Were any particular AfDs swayed one way or the other from these votes? IrishGuy ^talk 21:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its hard to say. There appears to have been votestacking going on in the opposite direction also. I don't know who was behind that, but User:One Night In Hackney/Temp gives you some idea. Its unfortunate for VK that his contribution to the debacle has been revealed so fully, when there are others that have behaved just as poorly. Rockpocket 21:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is stopping anybody investigating, and if there is evidence of bad behaviour on both sides I would recommend taking the case to arbcom and I think there is a case for not taking furhter action against Vintage until the other side of the case is more fully investigated,

SqueakBox 22:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I have asked other admins to decide on what, if any, further action should be taken, as its not really fair for someone presenting the evidence to also act on it. The discussion is here, feel free to offer your opinion. My personal opinion is that I'm not particularly predisposed to cutting Vintagekits some slack while both he Coeur-sang appear to be continuing to deny any involvement in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. If the editors were to come clean with the entire truth, and give their assurance this sort of thing wouldn't happen again, then I'm not sure any further action need be taken. Rockpocket 00:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am mentioned on User:One Night In Hackney/Temp. For the record, I did not contact anyone else about any of the AFDs I participated in that are listed there, seeking support or otherwise; nor was I contacted by anyone. I have already indicated to ONiH that he left out any reference to keep votes I made on the republican pages listed there. (I also voted 'keep' when that particular page was nominated for deletion). Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given our history, I am not the proper person to close this, but I find the evidence compelling. I suggest that if we hear no more from Vintagekits about the matter in 24 hours or so, we consider his silence an admission of guilt. I have messaged him reminding him that this case isn't going to just go away. --John 17:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Likewise, I don't feel it is appropriate I close this, given I presented a significant amount of evidence. I am also left with little doubt about what went on here and have asked a few other admins to take a look, if they have to time, and form their own opinion. No takers yet. If we hear no more in the next 24hrs, I suggest we ask Will Beback (who commented at AN/I) if he would consider closing. Rockpocket 17:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the two of ye have come up with no evidence - 1. If Sligobhoy67 was me on here what abuse of policy would have been carried out? NONE! 2. Like I said I can prove beyond a shoadow of a doubt that I am not Sligobhoy67 and i have never asked him to post on any forums for or on behalf of me, I do not deny that there is a link between but we are not the same person. I suppose you would be happy if I could show that we both had edited wiki from different countries on the same day, that would shut the two of ye up wouldnt it! I have already provide much of this information to an admin who emailed me some days ago but like I said earlier I am not perpared to divulge the information here for privacy reasons. If someone comes forward and nominates themselves as a closing admin then I will be prepared to provide them with the exact information.--Vintagekits 19:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Sligobhoy67 is you, then giving the appearance of two different users in the same argument is an abusive use of socks.[101][102] Do you have any explanation as to why someone calling themselves that name should say on a forum that he edits wikipedia as Vintagekits, rather than saying he edits by his own user name? Tyrenius 20:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said I am happy to provide the close admin with the full information.--Vintagekits 20:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not difficult to edit from two different countries on the same day. There are things called airplanes that facilitate this. The checkuser compared the editing from both you and SB67, and came to the conclusion that it is "likely" that you and SB67 is the the same person. That means there is nothing about your editing pattern that could prove "beyond a shoadow of a doubt" that you are different people. Combine that with the fact that SB67 has twice said he is you, and that he was stacking votes for you, and I think there is a little more than "no evidence" he is your sock. However, lets for a moment say you are different people. If you can provide us with information about SB67's edit history and location, then you clearly have a relationship with him. Perhaps you could ask him to come online and tell us why he said he was you, and chose to stack votes for you without your knowledge? Rockpocket 21:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that I would edit wiki in one country - fly to another and immediately edit wiki in another country just a year later I could make some point on wiki then you are deluded!--Vintagekits 21:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are other ways of editing in 2 different countries. Windows XP allows one user to control another's with the permission of the latter, and there are also free and pay softwares that do the same,

SqueakBox 21:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok, then, so if you are simply going to ignore my request that you ask SB67 to log on and explain his motivations (and, of course, It doesn't take a genius to work out why you might rather than not happen), then perhaps you could tell us which admin you provided your irrefutable evidence to. I'll ask him or her to close the case. Rockpocket 00:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided you with all the information I am prepared provide you with for privacy reason - I am not prepared to provide you with personal details just to satisfy your bloodthirst. The admin I have revealed information to is watching this discussion - if he wishes to be the closing admin on this then that is fine - but he may not wish to be the closing admin. This is my last comment to anyone who is not the closing admin because we are going around in circles, if you wish to "convict" me based purely on cirmcumstantial unverified evidence that can be explained away relavtively easily to a closing admin just satisfy your campaign then crack on - I am prepared to facilitate the closing admin with phonecalls, emails and any other proofs which they wish but I am not prepared to reveal private information on here for anyone.--Vintagekits 11:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I have corresponded with Vintagekits who gave me additional information which did not, in my opinion, alter the evidence. Due to the pattern of editing, as well as off-Wiki forum postings, it is clear to me that these accounts are either sock puppets of VK or are meat puppets controlled by him. I will block these accounts indefinitely. VK has been blocked seven times since January, and also has a proven history of using sockpuppet accounts. The disposition of that account is best handled on AN/I. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:48, 20 June 2007 (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:Leaveituptome6789

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Leaveituptome1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
76.19.169.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Leaveituptome6789 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Hardnfast 16:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Left message on my talk page User talk:Hardnfast that he was user User:Leaveituptome1234 who has been blocked for vandalism. In his block appeal he said he would find another IP and bypass the block, todays edit on my talk page indicates he carried out his threat. Hardnfast 15:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Conclusions

Obvious sockpuppet account blocked indefinitely. MastCell ^Talk 21:45, 18 June 2007 (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:Wanad

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Rura112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
131.104.218.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
131.104.218.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - self-admitted[103] IP of Wanad - Alison ☺ 07:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Volve (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Hemidemisemiquaver 19:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User:131.104.218.102 was making biased political changes to Bureaucracy until it was semi-protected, then User:Wanad started

131.104.218.102's diffs: [104], [105]
Some of Wanad's Diffs:[106], [107], [108]. Immediately after Wanad was blocked, User:Rura112 made this identical change: [109] with the exact same comment Wanad had been using: "Rv to correct version"

Volve:[110]

Comments

Looks like a match. I recommend an indef-block on all three user accounts, which have no productive edits among them. The person behind these accounts is welcome to start over under a new identity. (I'm still fairly new to this system, so I don't know how such cases are usually dealt with.) Yechiel Man 18:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Agreed; fairly obvious socks based on contrib pattern. Rura112 and Volve blocked indefinitely; the sockmaster account, Wanad, blocked for an additional 72 hours. IP's to be blocked as needed if further sockpuppetry becomes apparent. MastCell ^Talk 21:32, 18 June 2007 (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:Aeris Dies

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Aeris Dies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Bobby Boulders (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Rmasbury 20:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Claimed on creation

Comments

Conclusions

Duck test Navou 03:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both accounts already indef-blocked. MastCell ^Talk 21:13, 18 June 2007 (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:Lawdechris

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Sfajackoff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Sfajackoffs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
74.193.45.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by Sfajacks 04: 36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Lawdechris vandalized Stephen F. Austin State University on several occasions mainly targeting the Alumni section. As soon as he received a warning, Lawdechris stopped and sfajackoff vandalized the page in an identical matter (removing specific people from the list) plus several offensive edits. sfajackoff recieved warnings and the page was then vandalized by sfajackoffs in the same manner as sfajackoff. Lawdechris also removed content from the Crockett, Texas page which was later vandalized by sfajackoffs. 74.193.45.83 has also vandalized the SFA page several times in an identical way as Lawdechris and sfajackoff. Lawdechris has also blanked the Al Sharpton page.

Comments

Looks like a match. I suggest immediate indefblocking of Sfajackoff(s) because the username violates policy and is meant to make fun of Sfajacks, a good editor. Since the other two accounts have not edited for a week or more, a warning to steer clear of the disputed article should be sufficient. Yechiel Man 15:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

The SFA page has been vandalized at least eleven times from May 12th to June 14th by the usernames and the IP address listed. We are getting frustrated by the persistent and malicious vandalism by this individual.

Obvious. Sfajackoff(s) indef blocked, Lawdechris warned; any further vandalism from Lawdechris or the IP should result in a long block. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2007 (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:Tecmobowl

Suspected sockpuppeteer

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log

)

Suspected sockpuppets

Blacksoxfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
El redactor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.56.117.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.56.127.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

IrishGuy ^talk 00:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

71.56.117.42 first and only edits were to add added cardpricer.com to the Baseball card article.

Twenty minutes later, Blacksoxfan arrived (having never edited this article) and reorders the links slightly. He then adds that same link to other articles: [111] [112] [113] etc.

Blacksoxfan's main motive is to add his own site Blacksoxfan.com to articles [114]. Later Wolverinegod is created. He, too, adds cardpricer.com to articles. [115] [116] He later changes his name to Tecmobowl and continues to argue for the inclusion of Blacksoxfan.com in articles [117] as well as just add it himself [118] [119] [120]

Tecmobowl claimed that the owner of the site was Blacksoxfan. Blacksoxfan had his talk page blanked by 71.56.127.218 (the page was filled with warnings for constantly adding his own site to articles). 71.56.127.218 went on to add Blacksoxfan.com to articles and later admitted to being Tecmobowl. Tecmobowl even went so far as to remove references to Blacksoxfan spamming on an article talk page.

The IP Tecmobowl was using is out of Atlanta, Georgia as was the original IP 71.56.117.42...and the owner of Blacksoxfan.com is also from Atlanta, Georgia.

While Tecmobowl was on a 48 hour block, El redactor appears and his first edit is to add Blacksoxfan.com back to the Shoeless Joe Jackson article. He added it once more after it was deleted and then made a few more useless edits for the day and promptly disappeared. These other edits were pointed to by Tecmobowl as an alibi for it not being a sockpuppet [121]

Tecmobowl later left an edit summary which stated: here's some info for you "sockpuppetry" claim - most edits (if not all) from me and BlackSoxFan are from the same IP!! How could that be??? head scratcher huh.[122]

Checkuser came back Unrelated for User:El redactor and User:Tecmobowl Miss Mondegreen talk 06:41, June 14 2007 (UTC)

Comments

There is further discussion about El redactor's similarities to Tecmobowl at this checkuser request page: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tecmobowl and its talk page Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tecmobowl. Baseball Bugs 13:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have some experience in dealing with sockpuppets, and this one fits the bill. They usually do wait a little while after their main account is blocked, and then make a point of pretending to be new, yet zeroing in on a particular item they are passionate about. The longer they stay on, the more their normal editing attitude comes to the fore. El redactor became contentious and defensive very quickly, and used similar editing rationales, so to speak. Also, as with other sockpuppets, he seemed to know his way around very well for a "newbie". These are not just my thoughts, they are telltale signs as pointed out in the wikipedia sockpuppetry guideline. Baseball Bugs 00:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tecmobowl decided to warn El redactor...unfortunately, he warned El Redactor not El redactor (note the caps). Magically, El redactor came to my talk page will the full knowledge of a conversation he shouldn't have any knowledge of. El redactor is an obvious sock of Tecmobowl. I have blocked him accordingly. IrishGuy ^talk 19:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Miss Mondegreen I'm copying over some of my comments from the request for checkuser talk page and replying to some stuff as well:

Wait, I'm sorry--someone thinks that Tecmo is using a sock puppet and chose the name "El redactor" when he was busy chopping ELs? Sorry, but the irony there is dreadful.

Also, I just can't swallow this one--while El redactor doesn't have a lot of comments, they sound nothing like Tecmo's. The language style and everything is completely different, his edits appear to be of the gnomish variety, and he sounds new.

This is a copy of a comment El redactor made at WP:ANI:

"WHAT THE HELL? This is like following a treasure hunt. I go from one talk page to another to another and boom, I end up here. The same guys that have been argumentative and mean spirited. IrishGuy - I just left you a friendly message on your talk page and I have got to say that you are one of the most confrontational people I have seen on here. By the looks of your talk page, Baseball Bugs' talk page, and the comments above about Epfleche, I would say you guys are the sockpuppets. I made my first contributions on Wednesday night before I went to bed, then some more on thursday. Baseball Bugs then edited most of the pages I edited. From what I can tell, you accuse anyone who does not agree with you and get into fights all the time. And aren't you an admin IrishGuy? Aren't admins supposed to be level headed and polite? Maybe you should have that removed. El redactor"

these are two of his edit summaries:

00:57, 12 June 2007 edit to Will Ferrell (removed reference to his birthday, Baseball bugs is following me around)

00:58, 12 June 2007 edit to Shoeless Joe Jackson (→External links - second time - Baseball Bugs is following me around - link is good)

Baseball Bugs is following me around in edit summaries? You guys are the sockpuppets? Maybe you should have that removed (like being an admin is a failed organ)? He sounds like a newbie through and through and he probably wouldn't even be getting to pages like ANI or here etc... is because Irishguy and Baseball Bugs and Epeefleche are all commenting on each others talk pages and ANI on the wikiproject page providing each other with diffs on anything that pops into their heads. half a dozen diffs are exchanged every time someone sneezed, and because El redactor's first edit was on Shoeless Joe, he's been dragged into this whole thing.
<text removed> Miss Mondegreen talk 09:58, June 12 2007 (UTC)

Pretend these are both sockpuppets. Tecmo is blatant with blacksoxfan and then leaves himself notes? And then, waits over a day to get said note and then upon logging in, makes three other edits, two with the edit summaries "Baseball bugs is following me around" and then goes to Irishguy's page...only to comment on the Shoeless Joe section first and then comment on the section that has his sockpuppet's name? How quickly Tecmo has learned and yet he still left the message for the wrong person. If he was trying so hard to be subtle wouldn't he have realized that he'd left the message for the wrong person when he logged in and he had no new messages? Perhaps, just perhaps, El redactor noticed Irishguy at the Shoeless Joe talk page or got sick of baseball bugs "following him around" and went to his contributions and noticed he'd commented on a section called "shoeless joe jackson" on irishguy's page and went to comment there too and then noticed a section about himself. I'm sorry, but this El redactor thing is a serious stretch. Pretend for a second that there was a new editor who started out on that page. Might not the edits that he has look a lot like the ones that he has now? Miss Mondegreen talk 22:43, June 12 2007 (UTC)

The first edit yesterday from El redactor was to the Shoeless Joe talk page and somehow he already knew about me and my edit history in removing that link from articles. Please tell me how he knew to look exactly 100 edits deep into my contribution history to find evidence that I removed those links from other articles. Tecmobowl knew I removed them, but why would El redactor have known to look for it if they are different people? Odd, no? Additionally, the only two days that editor has edited were when Tecmo was under a block. That's one hell of a coincidence. Why does he only appear when Tecmobowl is blocked? Like I said, he either magically knew to go 100 edits deep into my edit history to find where I removed the link from other articles...or he just happened to go to those articles and look in the edit history...which isn't likely since he has never edited those articles. And the only two days he has edited are when Tecmo was blocked. El redactor first edited when Tecmo was blocked. His first edit was to add that link back into the article...then he made a series of pointless edits and promptly disappeared. Tecmo pointed to those same pointless edits as an alibi that it wasn't him using a sock. Convenient. Then Tecmo gets blocked again and magcially El redactor becomes active again. IrishGuy ^talk 23:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you yourself keep pointing out, he edited the Shoeless Joe Jackson article. While your edits to article may have been waaay down in YOUR contributions, there weren't way down in the article history, a place he probably would have gone to revert things. You also commented on the talk page, as did he. The simplest answer is often the best. While I'm not saying that there aren't things that aren't suspect, I see nothing that damning, and the fact that you and Epeefleche etc. keep pointing to things that are either wrong or that are too convoluted for words aren't very convincing. You want to look at the times...ok, let's look:

June 6

21:38, 6 June 2007 - Tecmo's last article edit that day

21:43 - Tecmo was blocked

23:16, 6 June 2007 - Tecmo's last edit of the day (talk page, after block)

June 7

22:00, 7 June 2007 Tecmo blanks his talk page

22:22 - El redactor's account is created

22:26 - El redactor edits shoeless joe

22:30 - El redactor edits will ferrell

23:54 - tecmo blanks a talk page message that he got at 23:52

June 8 and 9

07:52 - 08:12 - El redactor has five edits

21:51 - Tecmo's block expires

22:57, 8 June - 11:24, 9 June - Tecmo has 47 edits

June 10

07:09 - Tecmo starts editing and goes until....

17:32 - Tecmo's last edit before being blocked

17:39 - Tecmo gets blocked

20:16 - Tecmo's last edit of the day (talk page, post block)

June 12

00:54 - 01:44 - El redactor makes eight edits

05:52 - 07:32 - El redactor makes nine edits

12:04 - El redactor gets blocked

12:08 - Tecmo gets blocked

16:14 - Tecmo replied to 12:07 block notice posted on his talk page the block notice is the first edit to his talk page since his blanking of it on the 10th

Comments on timeline

While it does look suspicious that El redactor has only edits from periods of time when Tecmo has been blocked, if you look at them individually, they both show real signs of normal editing patterns. When Tecmo is blocked, he quickly responds to something on his talk page, but if nothing happens, nothing happens. But he knows when his block expires and is ready to come back.

El redactor doesn't have a lot of edits, but his edits have all been in a ten hour timeframe 22:22 - 8:12.

I just don't look at the timeframe and see sockpuppet. I look at those edits and say--"that should probably be looked at". But I don't see much evidence that this really has been looked at--I keep hearing how obvious this is and that bothers me. Miss Mondegreen talk 01:12, June 14 2007 (UTC)

Not to stick my nose where it doesn't belong, but

the issue of the links alone make it obvious sockpuppetry. If that's not obvious enough, though, take a look at all of the edit summaries made by User:El redactor:

10:32, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Will Ferrell (getting pointless citation out again and added a note, baseball bugs - please leave me alone.)
10:30, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tecmobowl (→Tecmobowl)
10:27, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Will Ferrell (→Date of Birth)
10:25, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Roy Lichtenstein (→citations)
09:05, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:Three-revert rule (Help Requested)
08:59, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tecmobowl
08:58, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Will Ferrell (Date of Birth)
08:57, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Will Ferrell (can someone address this? the editor is simply reverting my edits to create a problem.)
08:52, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Shoeless Joe Jackson (putting back in the link - how does one stop this type of behavior? please help)
04:44, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Roy Lichtenstein (citations)
04:38, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tecmobowl
04:30, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tecmobowl
04:25, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (→Tecmobowl and possible sockpuppetry)
04:18, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Baseball Bugs (→Note)
04:13, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Irishguy (→User:El redactor - forgot my signature)
04:13, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Irishguy (→User:El redactor)
04:11, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Irishguy (→Shoeless Joe Jackson)
03:58, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Shoeless Joe Jackson (→External links - second time - Baseball Bugs is following me around - link is good)
03:57, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Will Ferrell (removed reference to his birthday, Baseball bugs is following me around)
03:54, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Shoeless Joe Jackson (comments)
11:12, 8 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Bravo's The 100 Funniest Movies (wiki links - will do more later)
11:05, 8 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (Quotes)
11:01, 8 June 2007 (hist) (diff) m Top Chef (passive to active change)
10:56, 8 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Nirvana (band) (changed passive voice)
10:52, 8 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Shoeless Joe Jackson (→External links - Sorry about that, still learning the format - replaced my format with old format for link.)
01:30, 8 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Will Ferrell (why source a birthday???)
01:26, 8 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Shoeless Joe Jackson (→External links - - my first edit!!!!! I read discussion on the talk page. This looks like a good site to me.)

You'll notice that I bolded several of the edit summaries. Now check out User:Tecmobowl's surprisingly similar edit summaries (note that all of these were made over a two day span):

1. Style of edit summaries (e.g., hyphen-speak, discussion style, argumentativeness):

23:16, 10 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tecmobowl (just in case your watching IrishGuy - here's some info for you "sockpuppetry" claim - most edits (if not all) from me and BlackSoxFan are from the same IP!! How could that be??? head scratcher huh.)
23:04, 10 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tecmobowl (blanked again - I'm gonna wait it out and give you a few days to let all your pretty evidence "build up" - great job of bettering the content btw!!!!)
22:56, 10 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tecmobowl (get some sense and stop instigating things - your are the poorest admin i have ever come across - don't worry, I'll address your sockpuppetry bs soon enough.)
15:05, 10 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Kevin Youkilis (→Major League career - removed versatility comment - a batter isn't versatile simply b/c of batting position and there was no context given with the link.)
15:03, 10 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Kevin Youkilis (expunged Mel Gibson info - it's not relevant to the article, reworked section, removed rank information - doesn't seem practical to include, removed bogus link)
13:19, 10 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Babe Ruth's called shot (removed - this has already been discussed) (top)
10:14, 10 June 2007 (hist) (diff) m 1919 World Series (template use - see talk page discussion)
09:46, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Rickey Henderson (shortened infobox information - it's a summary not a massive list.)
03:44, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) USA Today All-USA high school baseball team (created article - going to add the players table next.)
03:33, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Kevin Youkilis (removed a statement that just didn't seem to fit - his ethnicity/religion don't really have anything to do with his nickname, alpha sort links, removed links (ask on the article page if need be))

2. "Passive voice" concerns:

20:24, 10 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Lewis Hamilton (rewrote intro, added sources, links, removed passive voice)
10:36, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Homer Bailey (incorporated content into the introductory as it is more appropriate there. removed passive voice and made it encyclopedic.)

3. "wiki links"

10:10, 10 June 2007 (hist) (diff) 1919 World Series (wiki link fix)
05:04, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) m Chris Marrero (wiki link & USA today team) (top)
04:54, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) USA Today All-USA high school baseball team (wiki linked the high schools)

4. Oh, and this one is cute:

16:20, 10 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Miss Mondegreen (Nom for Admin)

Regarding the issue of the checkuser: this guy is a serial sockpuppeter who has proven that he knows how to use proxies [123] [124]. Running a checkuser is a waste of time.

Frankly, I'm annoyed that anyone has to justify taking action against what is obviously a highly disruptive editor. And FYI, my opinion is coming from the peanut gallery here. Caeculus 20:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Of course, upon his return from his block, he spammed his website back into numerous articles [125] [126] [127] [128]...and then blanked a warning not to continue. IrishGuy ^talk 21:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except for Shoeless Joe Jackson, which he can't yet because it's protected. A millisecond after it's unprotected, his spamlink will go back there, too. Baseball Bugs 00:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I'm not sure what remains to be done here. The evidence above makes it clear that the named accounts and IPs are being used by the same person, and some of the accounts have already been blocked for sockpuppetry.
WP:ANI, I suppose it's worth having an independent assessment that 1) this is a clear case of sockpuppetry and 2) further disruption from User:Tecmobowl or any sockpuppet should result in a lengthy block. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:18, 15 June 2007 (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:Djavier

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

70.18.28.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Jalisah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

-- pb30<talk> 23:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

All have vandalized Paul Harris (basketball) with similar comments: [129][130][131][132]

Comments

This is a pretty obvious match. Since both non-IP accounts have no useful edits, an indefinite VOA-block is warranted. Yechiel Man 19:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions: Agreed; a fairly obvious case. I've indefinitely blocked User:Jalisah, and blocked the sockmaster for 24 hours. I think it's a bit early to indef-block him as a vandalism-only account, but if the pattern continues it would be warranted. I'll leave the IP alone for now. MastCell ^Talk 22:21, 14 June 2007 (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:Jing13

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Jing13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Tripartite007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), account created on 5 June 2007,
77mark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), account created on 6 June 2007,
Oceanicwave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), account created on 6 June 2007,

Report submission by

Vsion 05:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Accounts are created for edit warring and apparently to circumvent 3RR, in the article Ho Yeow Sun
The 3 suspected sockpuppet accounts were created at about the same time: 5-6 June 2007.
The suspected sockpuppets have only edited in Ho Yeow Sun, and the related article City Harvest Church (the church to which Ho was associated).
The most common edits by these account were for the purpose of removing a section about a controversy in Ho Yeow Sun. This is despite the fact that the incident is widely reported by the media and the material is well-sourced and other editors have supported its inclusion in the article.
- The diffs of the similar edits by the suspected sockpuppets are:
  - by Tripartite007, [133], [134],
  - by Oceanicwave, [135],
  - by 77mark, [136], [137],
  - by Jing13, [138], [139], [140]
  - by IP anons, [141], [142],
They had used a similar argument in the article's talk page, specifically using WP:BLP to justify the removal of the concerned text. This is despite being pointed out early by two editors that WP:BLP does not apply as the material is properly-sourced.
- By Jing13, [143] , [144], [145]
- By 77 mark, [146]
- By Tripartite007, [147]
Other similarities in editing history or style
- The 4 accounts made very few edit summaries or none at all.
- The 4 accounts had not edited their user pages.

Comments

211.22.177.173 made only two edits. Both edits were to the controversy section of the Ho Yeow Sun article. A while after that Tripartite007 logged in and posted a comment on the article's talk page. A while later 203.127.74.49 tried to remove the controversy section. Most of his edits were to the same article. After that, 203.81.35.6 (only 3 edits and to the same article) tried to do the same. - 202.156.13.3 17:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add 203.211.151.43 to the list. Jpatokal 07:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And 203.120.87.34, 203.120.87.30 and 203.120.87.1 - 202.156.13.3 11:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions: Fairly obvious socks, based on account creation times and editing history. Tripartite007 (talk · contribs), 77mark (talk · contribs), and Oceanicwave (talk · contribs) are indefinitely blocked as abusive socks. The sockmaster account, Jing13 (talk · contribs), is blocked for 72 hours. The IP's are also likely socks, but as they appear to be somewhat dynamic and have not edited in the last few days (as the article is protected), I'm not going to block them now. If IP's pop up with a similar editing pattern when the article is unprotected, they can be blocked at that point. MastCell ^Talk 20:15, 14 June 2007 (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:Ndesai

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by Cool Blue^{talk to me} 18: 06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Both users had a request filed that can be viewed here, and can be seen wanting to change their username to any username, most likely to evade further concerns of sockpuppetry. Both users have had edited at least once to

Hollis Hills, Queens, confirmed here and [148]. Both users also have very similar usernames, and Nimadesai was given a notice by OrphanBot that she had uploaded an image without a copyright tag here

, and the image has the name "Hollis hills" in the title.

Comments

Conclusions

With apologies to Cool Blue, I'm going to close this case. It's abundantly clear that these two accounts are the same person. However, since neither of them has edited since January, blocking or warning is not necessary. I take it upon myself to check their contributions for any neutrality problems. Yechiel Man 19:27, 14 June 2007 (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:Deco Da Man

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Deco Da Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Josh da man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

–

N96 02:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Evidence

Comments

Conclusions

Josh da man was blocked, and Deco Da Man was hit by an autoblock. Obvious sockpuppetry. Both users indeffed.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments copied over from Deco Da Man's talk page by Yksin:

Comment to admins from a bystander: I have only "known" Deco Da Man for a couple of days based on a problematic edit he made to an article I've done a lot of work on (see my message to him above about being careful about placing speedy delete tags, & his reply to me on my talk page. I did quite a bit of research on Deco Da Man's edit history before I wrote to him, & I found no reason to disbelieve any of his presentations of himself: he is a 13 year old kid from Australia who is a relative newbie to Wikipedia, has acquainted himself more with fiddling around with his own user pages than with edits out in the big wide realm of Wikipedia & does not seem well-acquainted with Wikipedia policies (which frankly, Deco Da Man, I think you might want to pay some attention to), but at the same time is good-willed & willing to learn from his mistakes. You also might note that his presentations of himself on his main user page were backed up by other information out on the net. For example, a Google search on his real name or on his nom de guerre of Deco Da Man will turn up pages that back up his claims. This is basically a smart kid who probably knows more about computers than I do, even though I work with them all day, but is perhaps a bit lazy about learning about policies & proper deletion prodding, etc.

I was suprised to find him accused of sockpuppetry. On looking at the edits between him, Josh Da Man, & Chingyhayden -- even before reading his explanation above -- I theorized exactly what he claims to have happened: kids engaging in typical kid behavior that in fact was of no harm to anyone. This looks to me rather like a case of forgetting the principle of "be kind to newbies", assume good faith, etc., and seems a case rather of overreaction to simple kid exploration of this community. Again, no harm was done, & there certainly were very few edits to result in such a consequence as indefinite blocking. So basically... I guess you could say I'm an adult (47) editor who has lived with a 13-year old kid, & I'm speaking up to ask you to give this one a break. Regards. --Yksin 08:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment to add: given the patience which all Wikipedians are asked to exercise in cases of even very blatant & disruptive vandalism, with levels of user warnings etc., the swiftness with which these kids were hit with indef blocks on the basis of very few edits & very little warning was pretty darn devastating. And unduly harsh. And also, thank goodness, pretty unusual. Particularly after seeing the patience with which a couple of admins dealt with a disruptive editor earlier today... I'm pretty appalled at the harshness exercised here. --Yksin 08:39, 14 June 2007 (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:Jagjagjagjab

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

--JForget 00:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

[149] The user edits the user page of a sockpuppet account of Jagjagjagjab (notice the user names ressemble) He later returned removing the Jagjagjagjab name on the sock tag.

[150] Here he is removing the admin tag of the user who've blocked Boume trien

[151] Here he uses a similar edit summary type then the Quebec vandal.

Also, on his talk page, he apparently created three or four empty articles of Ottawa area shopping centres most likely via the Template:Ottawa shopping centres I've created. I've been the one who've put sock tags to many of his puppets including Boume trien and posted several warnings in the past as well.

However, The vandal did not attacked the Quebec article as it was the routine from each sockpuppet of User:Jagjagjagjab which prompted me to make a request check to see if he is a sockpuppet of the Quebec vandal.

Comments

Conclusions

Both accounts are indefinitely blocked, without regard to their human identities. Yechiel Man 19:37, 14 June 2007 (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:Tvhosted (2nd)

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

Suspected sockpuppets: 74.100.185.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Momusufan 14:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Evidence

User:Tvhosted sockpuppet adding spam links on another IP

here: [152]

and here: [153]

Comments

Conclusions

Obvious. IP blocked for awhile. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2007 (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:Funnykid2010

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Funnykid2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Sadkid2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 02:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Similair Name
On page of Sadkid2010, it says "HalfShadow, why are you posting stuff about vandalism on my page for my other account when I did NOTHING????" proving they have another account, and HalfShadow warned it
User Funnykid2010 commented unsigned on halfshadow's page
HalfShadow has warned Funnykid in the past
On talk page of FisherQueen, they signed a message as follows: "-Funnykid2010, pretty soon Sadkid2010."

Comments

This might be a legitimate use, but i don't think so

Conclusions

Obviously the same person, but I don't see a violation of
WP:SOCK, so there's no reason to take any action at the moment. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2007 (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:Dead or alive, you're coming with me.

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Dead or alive, you're coming with me. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: I know you! You're dead! We killed you! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Come quietly or there will be... trouble. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Relax. You'll live longer. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Gogogadgetsockpuppet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Gogogadgetsockpuppetmark2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Rackabello 17:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Identical edits see [154] may be related to indef blocked User:Graham Heavy

Comments

AFAICT, all users listed above are indef blocked already Rackabello 18:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are all indef-blocked sockpuppets of Graham Heavy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). There are more accounts, all blocked, to be found in the histories of the affected articles. A previous checkuser indicated a dynamic IP. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Confirmed sockpuppetry, all accounts indef-blocked. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:10, 12 June 2007 (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:Yummytork

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

--Finngall ^talk 16:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Each account has on different occasions created the spam articles Browser Media and Browser CMS (now deleted) and added references to the latter into List of content management systems. (Yummytork diff) (Webmantork diff)

Comments

Yummytork was blocked for 48 hours on June 6 for creating several other spam articles, apparently on the behalf of clients as per the initial version of his userpage (he soon changed "clients" to "friends"). The Webmantork account was created later on June 6, posted an unrelated article (now up for AfD as original research), and started reposting previously-deleted content on June 11. Webmantork also blanked Yummytork's userpage on June 12, which by then included the sockpuppeteer tag that I had placed.

Conclusions

Obvious. Webmantork indef blocked, Yummytork's block extended for block evasion. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two accounts were in full and independent operation since before the Miriam Shear conflict even started. Thus the accusation based as it is on Yisraeldov being a replacement for Yisraelasper is groundless.Yisraelasper Note the following before the discussion:===The falsified report of User:Italiavivi=== "Report submission by Italiavivi 02:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence User:Yisraelasper was a single-purpose account who blanked, page-moved, and deleted information pertaining to Miriam Shear and Egged Bus Cooperative's Mehadrin (gender-segregated) bus routes in Israel. Yisraelasper's contributions cease altogether on May 2, 2007 [1] (after trying repeatedly to delete vandalism warnings from his User_talk page"

My contributions started on science so I did not have a single purposed account. If anything my single purpose has been about science and the Miriam Shear issue was a distraction. I removed biased language and made it clear that there were allegations. Italivivi deleted information that I posted. Italivivi did it and added biased phrasesology but when he did it he didn't call it bias. Any information deleted assuming I did delete it would have only been after Italivivi deleted my corrections on that information. Also deletion in and of itself doesn't mean you are eliminating information. There are controversies about whether something is true. The page move I did as a last resort and did not realize that I had done anything objectionable assuming I did. I had been unaware about there being an Egged Bus article. Right now I do not know what it says so I could not have contributed to it.

"[2]) and Yisraeldov's contributions begin a month later"

Wrong Yisraeldov's contributions I now see from his home page stated in June 2006 which was even before the Miriam Shear incident.

"[3]. Yisraeldov has since appeared at Egged Bus Cooperative objecting to the section on Egged's gender-segregated bus lines and defending Chareidi support for gender-segregated lines. Italiavivi 02:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)"

Assuming that's true, fine. I don't feel the need for seperate seating. I don't know what Yisraeldov's opinion on it is. I never read it. I never knew there was a person called Yisraeldov. I don't know his email address. My Hebrew name is (Yisrael) (Dov) (Shmuel). No one has called me Yisrael Dov. They can but it hasn't been done yet.

A simple checking into the facts could have been done. Italivivi falsified the evidence and on his Userpage he took Yisraeldov's protest and titled it as User:Yisraelasper and User:Yisraeldov. This is seen from the history section. Where Yisraeldov's original posting on Italivivi's page is I don't know.User:Yisraelasper

Bold text

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:Yisraelasper

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Italiavivi 02:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Chareidi support for gender-segregated lines. Italiavivi 02:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comments

If Yisraeldov is simply Yisraelasper seeking to "start fresh" on a new account (perhaps to escape the stigma of vandalism warnings on his/her User_talk page), that's fine. It should be made public if he/she is going to resume editing the same controversial topics, though. If Yisraeldov is not Yisraelasper, I apologize, but hope he/she can understand why he/she would be suspected. Italiavivi 02:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I'm not him( or her ) YisraelDov, is my actual name, you can check my TZ if you want.. Now how do I remove this stuff ?yisraeldov 11:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem likely to me. YisraelDov, information here isn't removed. As Italiavivi stated, there is some evidence to link the two of you, but I don't think it's enough. Od Mishehu 12:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is solid but inconclusive evidence to link the two accounts to the same person. As a practical matter, I think it's a moot point. Sockpuppets are actionable if one is being blatantly disruptive, or if they are trying to cooperate as if they were two people working together. I don't see either issue here. Yechiel Man 18:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandals can exercise their right to vanish. We want them to edit constructively, not shoot them down as a sockpuppet. The user is undoubtedly operated by the same person, but they're editing constructively, so there's no harm done. We have a good thing that happened to us, not a bad thing. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 19:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"undoubtedly operated by the same person!?" I'm not the same person! And how can you say that there is no Doubt!? You say that my contributions are constructive as opposed to vandalism, isn't that enough to at least enter a doubt into your mind!! yisraeldov 12:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]; "Right to vanish" generally implies that the editor is leaving the project, not changing usernames to avoid association with their past actions. Italiavivi 21:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

There's no temporal overlap between the contributions of these editors, and thus no violation of
WP:SOCK. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The Mehadrin bus line was not my cause. You are making canards. The Miriam Shear story I contributed to but it also was not my only one on Wikipedia. Also you continually censored out what I added on the Miriam Shear story. I have no account other one. Worry about your own cases of being blocked and condemned by people rather than starting up again with me. I am not identical with any other user other than myselfself. It so happens my full name includes the name Dov as my second name but I have no other Wikipedia account other than Yisraelasper. If you continue to make trouble I will urge you be banned again as you hinder rather than help. Yisraelasper

Italiavivi I contributed to more than just one article. You claim above that I was a one agenda user and yet you fail to say that my last post on May 2 was on something else a topic I returned to yet. I posted on

May 2 "Talk:Extrasolar moon (The Petition no longer exists)."

I am not identical to Yisraeldov. I also don't live in Israel. I don't have an agenda for separate bus seating. I don't feel there is a need for separate bus seating. The Miriam Shear dispute has been over for months. You kept on though reposting warnings on my user page including on June 12 the date of your posting above after not posting on my site for at least over a month if not longer. No one asked you to. I am going to complain about this attack on me to Wikipedia to have this page removed or otherwise have you banned. What kind of a system is this where the evidence is not reviewed? Anyone with an agenda like Italiavivi can defame someone and that someone is not informed of the charges to be able to make a defense?User:Yisraelasper

Italiavivi I didn't know until now that there was an Egged article. You just make accusations and this you submit as evidence! Yisraelasper

Italiavivi you say that Yisraeldov started contributing in 2007? He was around in June 2006* and I've seen now that the first of his many contributions as far back as I was able to see started in July 2006**. All this was before even the Miriam Shear controversy. How could he be sock puppet for what wasn't yet?

"*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:YisraeldovUser talk:Yisraeldov From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Welcome!

Hello, Yisraeldov, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Help pages Tutorial How to write a great article Manual of Style I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{

helpme

}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Mak (talk) 05:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Modern_Orthodox_Judaism

Your view of RZ is verry limited. Yes there is a MO comunity in Israel, and yes most of them tend to be RZ, but those are not the only or even the majority of Religious Zionists here. --yisraeldov 19:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)" Yisraelasper

You were supposed to notify me of the charge "Notify the suspected puppetmaster." Instead you just reposted on June 12th 2007 old Miriam Shear article warnings though no one asked you too. Yisraelasper

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:207.81.56.49

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Mumun 無文 00:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Evidence

At the

Mumun 無文 00:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comments

This highly disruptive anon. IP is suspected of being

Mumun 無文 00:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I am not a sock puppet and

Mumun 無文, to supply a reasonable and logical reason for this belief .--207.6.12.137 04:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Conclusions

Both IPs are clearly the same person. 207.6.12.137 gets a 72 hour block for evading the indef block on User:Mayor Quimby; if there are ongoing problems at REgina, Saskatchewan semi-protection is probably the best option. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2007 (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
read this
for detailed instructions.

User:Za

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Xanthereturns (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Waveisback77788 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Jwarrior343 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
917jake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Silver Fang 20:50, 11 June 2007 (GMT)

Evidence

For one thing this sock puppeteer goes to my school, so that's how I know myself. First of all, "Za" used to be named "Xanthe", and changed his name probably to hide his traces. Knowing this, it's obvious that "Xanthereturns" is an obvious sock puppet. And then "Waveisback" began vandalising the same pages in the same style, so it's obvious that it's him. I'll report any other users that seem obvious to me of being sock puppets of this sock puppeteer here.

Comments

In real life, he's a mentally challenged 13-year old kid who acts like he's 5. I'm not being horrible, I'm just stating facts. He thinks it's humourous to vandalise people's user pages because he doesn't like them. There's no way he'll ever contribute anything sensible to Wikipedia and should just be banned. I hope all of these users are banned, and if possible the IP address to, also ensuring that he doesn't make any more user names using his IP address.

Conclusions

All accounts, including the reporting editor are currently indef blocked. Nothing to see here.--Isotope23 20:49, 11 June 2007 (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. Confirmed by checkuser. Yechiel Man 14:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

User:Spoolintsi

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

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

Report submission by

Karrmann 12:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

This user keeps editing the Eagle Talon page and inserting poor quality images of heavilly modified cars into the article. Not only that, but also makes many fancrufty edits to the article. After reverting a few edits of his, another account, MikeTSIawd, popped up and kept reverting back to his edits, as well as an IP doing the same thing. After I got the page protected, they took to trolling the talk page and claiming that the previous images disgraced the car. They also managed to get around the block, and reverted the edits, but his sock wasn't. Well, I reverted again since this isn't an endorsement for the car. I finally got the page fully protected. Anyways, evidence I have that MikeTSIawd is a sock is because Spoolin TSI uploaded images of the blue modified Talon that keeps getting forced into the article, claiming that it is owned by "mike". Mike has uploaded images of the same car, or edited the pages about the images. And while Spoolintsi has made many other contributions, Mkie has only edited the Eagle Talon article, and his only edits were reverting back to Spoolintsi's version of the article. Anyways, the evidene mainly shows that this user is using this account as well as an IP to cause a dispute on the article, and we need them blocked.

Checkuser confirmed that they are the same person.
Comments

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:24.109.87.228

Suspected sockpuppeteer: 24.109.87.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

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

Report submission by

-- _Hdt83 ^Chat 04:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Comments

Conclusions

This case is moot. JB196 was indef blocked last year, and the cited IP is blocked as an open proxy. Since both are indef blocked, it does not matter whether they are the same person. Yechiel Man 18:26, 12 June 2007 (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:Redandproud

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Redandproud1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Redandproud17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Redandproud18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Redandproud19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Redandproud21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Redandproud22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Chrisch^Talk 14:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

By checking the contributions of the various suspected sock accounts - their time apart, the fact that many of the account have been used to edit particular articles, and the similarity of their names, it is highly likely that these accounts are all sockpuppets of Redandproud - a user that has been indefinitely blocked for vandalism.

Comments

Some of these accounts have been blocked, but not as sock accounts - as "vandalism only" accounts instead. I decided to list these above also, so that this can be properly investigated. Chrisch^Talk 14:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

... This is my first sock report, so I'm thinking that this section should be left alone for somebody else to form a conclusion... If I'm wrong about that, please let me know! Chrisch^Talk 14:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It really doesn't get much more obvious. I'll try listing at

AIV and see how that goes. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 14:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

All blocked, I believe. Any more that turn up can be listed at AIV. I'll watch this page and block any more that are added to here. Moreschi ^Talk 16:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great :) Glad I could help! -Chrisch^Talk 02:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All obvious socks, all blocked. If similarly-named accounts pop up, they can go to AIV. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2007 (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:Mysterious J

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Mysterious J (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by Cool Blue^{talk to me} 01: 51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

It is clear that the users listed above are sockpuppets of Mysterious J. Mysterious J started the

single-purpose account. Also, here, a now-indefinitely-blocked user, User:Dilatedraccoon, can be seen posting comments on DearPrudence's userpage, related to Chessckers, the article that Mysterious J created. However, Mockingbirdlee can be seen vandalising the page before Dilatedraccoon was. Dilatedraccoon was marked as a sockpuppet of Mockingbirdlee, who in turn was already marked as a sockpuppet of Mysterious J. Also, at Talk:Chessckers#Don't Delete Chessckers!!!

, Mysterious J can be seen making comments about the game being the next big thing, even being bigger than Pokemon or The Titanic. 67.186.251.102 makes a comment at the AfD, referencing Pokemon and The Titanic. I don't think that's a coincidence. Comments?

Comments

Possible, notice how none of them have userpages, and

James.Denholm 05:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Mysterious J created the Chessckers article. Yummysalad is created and argues for the article to stay on the talk page. The article was marked for deletion by DearPrudence. Mockingbirdlee immediately began harassing DearPrudence which led to his/her block. Almost immediately after, Yummysalad logged in and found him/herself caught in the autoblock. IrishGuy ^talk 00:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

All named accounts are now indef blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2007 (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.

Allison Stokke AFD

Suspected sockpuppeteer

N/A

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by ╦ 20: 31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Please see the AFD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Stokke (second nomination)

. The above users all voted 'delete' in a row, all with their first edit to Wikipedia, all within 34 minutes. I do not know who the sockpuppeteer is, but would like confirmation these are all socks of each other (to confirm AFD abuse).

Comments

Yeah, it's clear that these are all sockpuppets of one another. They have not made any other edits to Wikipedia. I would endorse an indefinite block on all of them, but I don't think it's necessary. The AFD closer was aware of the problem at the time. A Code G checkuser to find the puppet master might not be a bad idea. Yechiel Man 00:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I don't see the point of blocking these, since it appears highly unlikely they'll be used again. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:32, 13 June 2007 (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:Wikimegamaster

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

68.173.167.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
12.158.190.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Stellatomailing 20:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Those two (or one) editors are fighting an AfD I put up. Besides their similar wording, I found this strange diff, where it shows one edit just after the other, with different signatures. They look interested in the said article that I put for AfD, what is the gross of their contributions. Here you can see they talking to themselves(himself?).

Some more evidence: [158],[159], Other sock: 12.158.190.219[160]

Comments

About the notice above relating to his user talk page, notice that the "ip guy" doesn't sign AND calls Wikimegamaster "WikiMegaMaster" (notice capital Ms) and says I don't know how to sign things, so I'll just say it's the mysterious ip dude from the Dekker page.", and it says this clearly at least once on the edit page.

James.Denholm 09:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I guess he slipped when he was leaving the first message (in the diff). After the sp notice, he vandalized wikipedia and now is blocked.Stellatomailing 15:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I did vandalize Stellato's page after being accused of sock puppetting, because, frankly, I thought he only accused me (and still do) to try to keep me out of the AfD we're in. I guess I played in to him by letting myself get blocked. But, alas, as it says on my user page... I really don't care. I disgusted with deletionists like Stellato and feel they're going to ruin Wikipedia. The only reason I used to come to Wikipedia was to the absolute most obscure facts I could, if they don't exist online at wikipedia I have no reason to use it as a resource. I really feel in my heart that 99% of wikipedia readers will agree with me. I fear the downfall of what could've been a great project because of the arbitrary notability standards. How can a site wish to be the sum of all human knowledge if it doesn't include such. (sigh)Wikimegamaster 08:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Quite the opposite, ~~Maranda~~. Please check here: [161].Stellatomailing 19:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I thought I saw your name in a signature, it was elsewhere!Stellatomailing 20:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Wikimegamaster is already blocked for a week, no reason to do anything more. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:35, 13 June 2007 (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:Tajik

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

82.83.144.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
82.83.145.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
82.83.138.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
84.59.4.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by Atabek 20: 52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Tajik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was banned indefinitely [162], is using numerous anon IP socks to enforce his edits without any discussion on Safavid dynasty. Please, check the addresses provided, and semi-protect the page, the fragile consensus there is getting destroyed right now. Atabek 20:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Page has been semiprotected by another admin pending investigation. Newyorkbrad 01:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

If I'm understanding the Checkuser result correctly, the IPs aren't related to Tajik. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:43, 13 June 2007 (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:Komodo lover

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Komodo lover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log

)

Report submission by

Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Initially, this was brought to my attention after I attempted to deal with

here), he noted users Snakezilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Komodo lover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

), both of whom are blocked users.

One of Black Rhino Ranger's defining features was not using a signature, and instead writing his user name (sans links) at the start of his messages. He also tended to use excessive amounts of caps, and often made blocking threats. This style is shared by users Snakezilla and Komodo lover (note talk pages). They also have edited the same articles, made highly similar personal attacks, and were banned for roughly the same reasons.

As a new development, Black Rhino Ranger has admitted to making multiple accounts to evade blocks

here

.

Comments

Clearly a block-evading sock. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Definitely a sock, see [163]. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2007 (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:Hungryhorse90

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Hungryhorse90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: 195.194.168.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

^{(Talk to me)} 10:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Evidence

Almost identically-worded user page vandalism to

^{(Talk to me)} 10:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comments

This looks pretty clear-cut to me. Hungryhorse almost certainly edited from the cited IP. Since Hungryhorse's four edits are all vandalism, there is justification for a VOA-block, but since he seems to have disappeared, we could just let this die. Yechiel Man 18:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Hungryhorse90 and the IP are being used by the same person, and the Hungryhorse account probably got autoblocked by the block on the IP. There's no particular reason to place an additional block right now, but both accounts should be kept on a short leash and blocked if they cause further problems. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:52, 13 June 2007 (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:Jimmydiscount

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

Suspected sockpuppets: 155.144.251.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Bsroiaadn^Talk 04:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Making the exact same edits that were made by 155.144.251.120 until the IP got blocked, then this account started making them.

Comments

Sorry, I think I put them in the wrong order...but it should be clear which is which anyway. Bsroiaadn^Talk 04:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note this IP address is the internet conncetion to several large corporations in Australia, over 40,000 people are on this IP.--155.144.251.120 21:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Edits to System of a Down are unquestionably by the same person. Jimmydiscount was blocked for 72 hours at the time. If he shows up again, he can be blocked again. Obviously, the IP should be left alone. Yechiel Man 18:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds right to me. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2007 (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:Mockingbirdlee

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

Suspected sockpuppets: Dilatedraccoon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Yummysalad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Mysterious J (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

DearPrudence 03:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

added to by IrishGuy ^talk 17:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Chronology of events:
1. I tag Chessckers, created by User:Mysterious J, for speedy deletion.
2. A couple of hours later, the account User:Mockingbirdlee is created. He/She immediately sets to work at vandalising both my user page and talk page. The edits are reverted, and the user is tagged as a suspected sock puppet of User:Mysterious J (not by me).
3. User:Mockingbirdlee is blocked.
4. Very soon after, the account User:Dilatedraccoon is created. The user immediately vandalises my talk page.
5. User:Dilatedraccoon vandalises my user page again (after a final warning) and makes a reference to Chessckers.

Other evidence:
1. Both User:Mockingbirdlee and User:Dilatedraccoon attacked me using my userboxes - i.e., the fact that I'm for gay rights, environmentalism, etc.
2. For what it's worth, both users have animals in their usernames. It's not exactly hard evidence against them, but I thought I'd note it anyway.

More evidence

I believe that Mockingbirdlee and Yummysalad (who got caught in the autoblock) are socks of Mysterious J. Mysterious J created the Chessckers article. Yummysalad is created and argues for the article to stay on the talk page. The article was marked for deletion by DearPrudence. Mockingbirdlee immediately began harassing DearPrudence which led to his/her block. Almost immediately after, Yummysalad logged in and found him/herself caught in the autoblock. IrishGuy ^talk 17:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Name similarity isn't enough evidence to list things here; however, if there's enough evidence to list them - name similarity is an other connection to keep in mind. Od Mishehu 06:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say something, in another related case, Mysterious J vs Wikipedia, :

James.Denholm 09:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree - all of the accounts should be listed as sockpuppets of Mysterious J. --DearPrudence 18:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mysterious J. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2007 (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:Big.P

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Big.P (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

-SpuriousQ (talk) 09:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

5 June 2007, the account returned to register a !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiwi Camara (2nd nomination)
, an AfD nominated by Big.P.

Big.P (talk · contribs) has a history of abusively using sockpuppets. Big.P started the first AfD of this article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiwi Alejandro Camara, and he registered at least one !vote using an IP address, resulting in the first Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Big.p case. It was determined an "open and shut case", and the IP's comments were struck from the AfD.
Following the first AfD, Big.P created an account he used to impersonate another user whom he had disagreed with, using the account for vandalism. The ruse worked, and the user was initially blocked. Two weeks later, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Zigzogger confirmed that Big.P had framed the user. Big.P was subsequently blocked for 1 month.
Filabusta's account was created 3 days after Big.P's 1 month block expired. Big.P did not edit during the time Filabusta was active. Big.P returned on October 16 2006, 5 days after Filabusta ceased editing. His first action was to remove the block template from his talk page.
Filabusta's edit history shows similar interests as Big.P:
- Nearly all of Filabusta's edits have been to
  The Federation (band), and Tell Me When to Go. Big.P has extensively edited on this topic, in articles such as E-40, West Coast hip hop, and Hyphy
  .

Big.P's account is not his first. This account's first edit (outside his own userspace) was a conciliatory message to another user, explaining that "I don't plan to do anything stupid anymore" [167] and a withdrawal of several frivolous votes from an RfA [168]. His userpage still bears barnstars "given" by the users who cast those votes. Consequently, it's unclear how deep this sockpuppetry runs, but as that was nearly two years ago it may not be necessary to investigate this further.

Comments

talk | contribs) 06:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Then this is a pretty clear case of sockpuppetry or at least meatpuppetry. That account should not have shown up after 9 months of inactivity to comment on an AfD you started without disclosing the supposed relationship between the two accounts. -SpuriousQ (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Admitted meatpuppetry, could be sockpuppetry. Filabusta is indef blocked, no action taken against Big.P; further infractions of
WP:SOCK may result in a substantial block of Big.P. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:27, 13 June 2007 (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:Wongch2

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Wongch2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Susoctv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
158.143.229.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Marshalapplewhite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by Sherzo 00: 48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

3 accounts all editing the same content sequentially and supporting each other on discussions, the unregistered account has repeatedly vandalised and has been traced back to the LSE the account WongCh2 is own by an LSE student.

158.143.229.222 blanked Wongch2 talk page

Comments

it appears he is creating multiple throwaway accounts to defend his tv club.

Looks pretty clear to me. The socks should be blocked (not the IP of course), and he/she should be limited to one account. Yechiel Man 18:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Susoctv and Marshalapplewhite indef blocked; Wongch2 warned. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:04, 13 June 2007 (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: RabbitHawk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); RatMouseBoy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Wildthing61476 02:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Evidence

Puppeteer created numerous hoax articles about TV shows and was blocked for a month from editing. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Clinger Winker for evidence). New account is creating article in similar style (See The Rainbow (1986 TV Series), and Sleepy Princess (1958 film) for examples).

Comments

Adding new account that is following in same pattern

Conclusions

Clear sockpuppetry, all accounts are now indef blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:19, 13 June 2007 (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:Vinay412

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Vinay412 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log

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

Report submission by

andy 10:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Racky pt

The account was created two days after the blocking of Vinay412's most recent sockpuppet

The user requested unblocking of Vinay412's IP address and criticised deletion of one of Vinay 412's articles here

He said here that he has edited the talk page of User:Greg_dn, a sockpuppet of Vinay412 but the edit he refers to (here) was actually made by Greg_dn.

His edits and comments are confined to articles edited by Vinay412. Particularly Female body shape where he has been gradually restoring the article to the state it was left in by Vinay412 - for example here, which is commented as "recovered from old version" and here where he archived critical comments on the talk page before doing another reversion.

He appears to be about to recreate one of Vinay412's deleted articles (see here).

202.41.72.100: He signed himself as Vinay412 here

His editing pattern is identical with Vinay412

Comments

ip address 202.41.72.100 is shared ip. please do not block until and unless edits are made in good faith. thanks Vinay412 08:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i accept sockpuppetry. im soon using Wikipedia:Changing_username to stop using sockpuppet user:racky pt. as sockpuppets are allowed in wikipedia as long as edits made in good faith, i challenge any ban in advance. Vinay412 07:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
* i confirm above statement Racky pt 07:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin, please note that the purpose of this sockpuppetry was to evade a block (which had already been extended because of another instance of sockpuppetry) and that the user's edits during this time were disruptive. andy 08:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it was to evade block but evading is allowed in Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Evasion_of_blocks, you can see this in user:racky pt's first contribution. Even earlier sockpuppet was not disruptive you may go through earlier user:greg dn's contributions, that admin's decision was wrong. Racky pt 09:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
im continuing user:racky pt until i change username of vinay412 Racky pt 09:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both user:Vinay412 and user:racky pt have now been indefinitely blocked. andy 18:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

The named accounts are already indef blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2007 (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:Taharqa

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Mahmud II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by Urthogie 19: 47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

An earlier RFCU came up with "inconclusive" for Mahmud II and Taharqa. Inconclusive does not mean false, though. Here I will show that it is approaching statistically impossible that Mahmud II is not either a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Taharqa.
Mahmud II has around 50 edits and has been editing for about a week.[169] Their account was created while Taharqa was under a 5 day block for breaking the 3 revert rule.[170]
Throughout their 1 week stay at Wikipedia, Mahumud II has only edited subjects Taharqa is interested in-- subjects related to racial politics and Oakland, California and the bay area of california.[171]
Of course, it can be argued that Mahmud II edits outside of Taharqa's repitoire by editing non-race articles about Oakland. However, this point is easily countered by observing that Taharqa's email address, as indicated on this talk page[172] is [email protected].

Here is alias "Huey P Newton" with email [email protected] and location Oakland talking about hyphy on a rap forum.[173] [174]
Here is [email protected] with username "sonofisis" talking about West Coast Bay area hip hop/hyphy on a yahoo forum [175]
Here is "sonofisis" talking about race and ancient Egypt on a history channel forum, using links that Taharqa frequently cites to express opinions that Taharqa frequently cites. [176]
Here is Mahmud II editing Huey P. Newton [177][178]
Here is Mahmud II editing Oakland, Cali related articles[179][180]
Here is Mahmud II editing Talk:Hyphy [181]

The link from User:Mahmud II's user page is this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mWW6kRITEY . That video happens to also have been a favorite of "sonofisis" (location specified as Oakland)[182]. What are the chances of that?! There are only 10 favorites on sonofisis's favorites list, and there are millions of videos on youtube. What are the chances that the one linked from Mahmud II's user page would be one of them??

And of course, we can't forget the ancient Egypt and race connection between the two. Anytime Taharqa has been blocked or unable to revert again because of 3rr, Mahmud II has strangely appeared on the scene in agreement, reverting to her version.
Race and ancient Egypt
is the best example of this, because Mahmud II has reverted to Taharqa's prefered version a total of 5 times as far as I can count (it may be more). The following 3 diffs are reversions to Taharqa's version:

[183] [184] [185].

These two edits are the most most egregious of all, because in them, the puppet Mahmud II is used to revert me to Taharqa's version despite the fact that Taharqa is blocked at the time and that we are in intensive mediation over this conflicted diff.

[186]

[187]

Taharqa has been blocked for three different sockpuppets in the past.
Now, add all these facts together, and how is it not possible that Mahmud II is either a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Taharqa? Add it all together and its a statistical chance of about 1 in a million that Mahmud II would overlap in regards to interests, location, reverts, subjects, and activity on other websites.

Comments

This may be a meatpuppet, specifically a family member/brother, but I am confident that it is a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet of some sort either way.
Taharqa should be blocked for a long time (along with her puppet) if this turns out to be a meatpuppet or sockpuppet. After all, she uses it to break 3RR on pages she cant revert on for several reasons such as being blocked at the time, not being able to break 3rr, or not to look bad for the ongoing mediation. In addition, Taharqa has been blocked for sockpuppets in the past. Taharqa should be blocked for a long time if this checks through. She has had plenty of warnings.*
Inconclusive means it's not very clear if they are socks or not. It could mean that they all edit from the same geographic location but use different computers, or something similar. But regardless of the outcome of the
Race and ancient Egypt article (because of a consensus that it read too much like a personal essay or something like that). Also, while it may have proven convenient for this user to be mistaken for one, he is not "she"! "She" would not have chosen a name like Taharqa if that were the aim in the first place, so I wish that charade would stop as well. — Zerida 00:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Even if Taharqa is found to be within the same general area as Mahmud II this would seem to indicate that they are either sock or meatpuppets. What are the chances that a user from the same area is created when Taharqa is blocked, and overlaps in 3 chance ways-- Egypt, oakland, and hyphy, and also happens to revert at convenient times? And how does one erxplain that all of these accounts which edit in line with Taharqa at convenient times are from the bay area?--Urthogie 01:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Possible, but not conclusive. Please note that the off-wiki evidence was not taken into account, and will not be; we're here to scrutinize on-wiki behavior. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2007 (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
read this
for detailed instructions.

User:Cory thompson1

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Cory thompson1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Cory_thompson2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Cory_thompson3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Cory_thompson4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Cory_thompson5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

--健次(derumi)^talk 08:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Sockpuppets of Cory_thompson1 accounts were created close to the same time.

Comments

Obvious sockpuppetry. All accounts have been listed on AIV, and blocked. --Dark Falls ^talk 08:48, 3 June 2007 (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:Elalan

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sock puppets

Watchdogb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
12345ka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Lustead (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Main suspect

User:Watchdogb,

Evidence

Both of them take similar interest and amazingly similar writing skills.Heavy involvement in anti government schemes.Extremely pro-LTTE bias in articles. And who is this watchdogb ? Well ,I have no doub that he is the banned user User:Elalan. For that we just need to use common sense. Out of all the possible user name, watchdogb had chose B at the end of his name..And speaking of B, the only user comes to my mind is Trincomanb,Elalan's sock puppeteer !!

And the most striking proof that watchdogb is none other than Elalan is ,this. Elalan was proven to be a university student in canada and by doing a simple IP check we can see this watchdogb is also going to a university in canada too, toronto if i say precisely. And considering the fact that they take the same interest and edit same articles,taking account the user Elalan's inability to edit here due his permanent ban, I have no doubt that he created this sock-puppet to evade his block .

More evidences

Both user's have similar interest's and share similar tamil nationalistic views.

Similar anti government rants.

at his own user page and at ANI. Both users have posted similar rants BUT both times in wrong places ! Amazingly they make similar unencyclopedic mistakes too !!

lesser suspects 1

User:12345ka

This is a relatively new user, just spent his very first week in wikipedia. BUT what amazes me was, his first contribution here. His very first contribution here is to vote at t a AFD in which both user Lustead and watchdogb were heavily involved. Even if you see his contributions here we can clearly see this account was made for vote-rigging and to push some ones POV. The user seems to know wikipedia very well ,even though he is absolutely new here.How come some new user knows about an AFD going on here ? How come new user knows ,in depth details about other users in his first or second day in Wikipedia ? We just need common sense to realize this account is a definitely sock puppet of some other editor. And considering the fact this user has even given a barnstar, to Watchdogb , we might even ad that this was created not only for vote-rigging but also to give bogus barnstars to chosen users, a disgraceful act, considering we are all here to contribute in good faith.

lesser suspects 2

User:Lustead

Evidences

This user had his first edit on the 15 th on Duraiappa stadium mass grave article. And on the same day, his very first day in Wikipedia, he posted a message at ANI asking admins to intervene to resolve,what he called a dispute related to the article.here.Which is highly unimaginable considering this was only his first day at wiki!!As for a new user he seems to know too much of inside work in wikipedia. Although his interest is solely on a couple of articles, he has done no contributions to the any of the articles. In order to deceive the other Wikipedian users he has touched/edited a couple of other articles . But if you carefully look at the diff, those edits were micro-minor , and not even worth considering as contributions. add brackets add brackets add brackets add brackets

And who is he ? Well, though I have a no doubt that he is a sock-puppet of some one, his sudden appear in the Wikipedia and heavy involvement in the AFd made me to believe that he could well be a sock puppet of any of the mentioned sock-puppeteer.

I strongly believe these sock-puppet's were created in-order to evade blocks,push POV ,Vote rigging,and to achieve consensus in disputed articles. Judging by the way they edits and considering they have been here for a less than a week, I kindly ask relevant administrators to take an immediate action against all the accused.

Report submission by

User:Iwazaki

Conclusions

The evidence presented here doesn't make a compelling case. If there are ongoing problems on these articles
checkuser might help. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2007 (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:Shuppiluliuma

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Flavius Belisarius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
CalicoJackRackham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
DragutBarbarossa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Mihrimah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Gönülçelen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Hiberniantears 19:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User:Flavius Belisarius admitted to being at least indefinetly banned User:Shuppiluliuma in the Talk:Turkish Navy page under the "@Hiberniantears" header [192].

This is a very clear admission by the user: [193]

User talk:CalicoJackRackham, User:CalicoJackRackham admits to also being User:Shuppiluliuma under header: "33 Who is the wiseguy who thinks he owns Turkey?"

My only interaction with either user comes in the form of an edit war between myself and user:Flavius Belisarius in which the user employed anonymous IP's to revert edits, and eventually listed several user names (listed above) with which he also may be identified.

I see that Calico Jack and Dragut have both also been indefinetly banned.

User:Flavius Belisarius identifies with the above named banned user accounts on his own User page.

Comments

Might I ask if anything further is to be done about this? Hiberniantears 13:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

No need for further investigation, the identity is obvious. Just for background: Shuppiluliuma was banned (officially community-banned, if I remember correctly) for some episodes of aggressive edit-warring, but mainly for making large numbers of image uploads with seemingly problematic copyrights. After the ban and some pretty terrible sockpuppetry he approached me in private with a seemingly more constructive attitude, and demonstrated that many of the photographs were okay in terms of copyright after all. So, since the photographs were actually of high quality and he seemed to be making edits on Istanbul and related articles that some fellow editors felt were valuable, I silently let him continue to edit under his new account, hoping he would settle down and behave okay. He's generally a competent and well-informed contributor, but of a rather volatile temper though, it seems. So, upshot is, I'll have to bear the responsibility for having let this situation develop. Not sure yet about how best to proceed from here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's him, but since he seems to be editing constructively I'm inclined to do nothing. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Really!? I can understand if we don't ban him again. But this guy is at best off his meds 50% of the time. The rest of the time he does, in fact, create solid content. But, even Hitler built the Autobahn. (and no, citing the Nazi's does not sacrifice the high ground. This guy is, in the truest sense, a Nationalist). I'm pretty much only pissed off about the anti-Irish, anti-American, SuperTurk Hyperbole. The obstinate sense of ownership is annoying, but I can work with it, since this idiot lacks consensus. More to the point, he has been indefinitely banned multiple times. I point this out, and two admins think nothing should be done... Yes, I agree that he has been making good edits, but he has also made racist, hostile edits. He needs to at least be monitored. As I noted on Ak's page, banning him will not work, because this strategy is obviously a COMPLETE JOKE. Regardless, he needs to be watched. I am an editor, not an admin. You are the ones who need to step up to the plate here. Just give me a sign that you are paying attention. Thanks. Hiberniantears 03:16, 14 June 2007 (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:Dr CareBear

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Dr CareBear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 11: 26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Dr CareBear has been reverting and adding emotive and partly incorrect material to many pages on

akithisia. he has ignored discussion on the topic here. Now a new 'user', has begun editing the Akathisia page. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 11:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comments

Note that 124.6.165.163 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was also used to make identical edits. A checkuser request has been placed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dr CareBear. MastCell ^Talk 17:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Checkuser confirmed sockpuppetry - see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dr CareBear. MastCell ^Talk 21:15, 7 June 2007 (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:Havesmite

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Havesmite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was a new user who began undoing redirects of articles about Xenosaga fancruft and claiming they were redirected "without discussion", despite the information of these articles having been transwiki'd per consensus over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of terms in Xenosaga and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of terms in Xenosaga (2nd nomination) months ago. In the last couple days, Havesmite was blocked for 31 hours for the reverts, removing maintenance tags and trying to recreate one of those articles repeatedly. Amlost immediately after the block, Onlykeys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) signed up and repeating the same actions on the same pages Havesmite was working on.

Comments

Very clearly a block-evading sock, although Havesmite's block has since expired. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Agreed that User:Onlykeys is clearly a sockpuppet of User:Havesmite, used to evade his block. The Onlykeys account has been indefinitely blocked, and the Havesmite account's block has been lengthened to an additional 72 hours. MastCell ^Talk 20:57, 7 June 2007 (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:VinylJoe

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Rert2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by Jrod2 10: 50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

VinylJoe constantly attacks me with accusations of spam and impersonating engineer Edward Vinatea, even though my name is on my user page. (See: [194]),[195][196] . He has used Rert2 to create a false consensus [197]. He's also harassed me many times by asking to confirm my CS degree [198], and used Rert2 to do the same [199].

Comments

The similarities and single purpose account to disrupt the

Audio mastering

page and to discredit me in order to do so, are too evident.

Conclusions

User:Rert2 blocked as an obvious, disruptive sockpuppet of User:VinylJoe by another admin. Case closed. MastCell ^Talk 20:36, 7 June 2007 (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:Jayjg

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by --John Nagle 22: 54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Tag-term revert involving Jayjg (talk · contribs) and 132.66.238.69 (talk · contribs). The anon account, with no Wikipedia history before today, has three edits in Wikipedia, all related to similar issues. Jayjg (talk · contribs) has reverted StandWithUs three times today, and 132.66.238.69 (talk · contribs) has reverted it once.

Note similarity of comments on reverts. This is a possible sockpuppet or meatpuppet situation, but it's too early to be sure.

A traceroute to 132.66.238.69 returns "sackler29-6.tau.ac.il".

Comments

This is unexpected. I've had disagreements with Jayjg (talk · contribs) before, but he's generally stayed within Wikipedia rules since his arbitration decision last year.

I suspect I've been annoying Jayjg by replying to his insertion of {{fact}} tags by inserting very detailed references to government and IRS filings which validate information he would prefer be removed from the article. --John Nagle 22:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I suspect you're trying to get the upper hand in a content dispute through vexatious filings on a noticeboard. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:11, 7 June 2007 (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:65.18.93.106

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

GangstaFC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Rigmetony (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Rigmetony (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Redfoster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Bluefoster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

- Tiswas^(t) 15:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Contributions are mostly self-referencing (Special:Contributions/GangstaFC, Special:Contributions/Rigmetony, Special:Contributions/Rigmetony, Special:Contributions/Redfoster, Special:Contributions/Bluefoster, Special:Contributions/65.18.93.106) otherwise vandalism ([200], [201], [202])

Comments

The evidence points to

sock puppetry. When they do decide to escape the confines of their talk and user pages, it is either vandalism or unsourced claims. (User:Sweetjollybakerman

may also be a sock / meat puppet).

Conclusions

Meatpuppets or sockpuppets, no useful contributions, all blocked. GangstaFC claims to be a sock of GangstaEB [203]. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2007 (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:Emnx

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

81.157.73.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
IP-81-157-73-83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

additional suspected ip socks

86.131.33.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked for vandalising my user and talk pages
81.158.74.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) vandalised my user page
86.134.221.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) vandalised my user page
86.147.99.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) vandalised my user page

most likely culprit (real puppetmaster)

Whateley23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- This user is the one referred to in the comment on my user page, and their last edit prior to the creation of Emnx and User:IP-81-157-73-83 is this one.

A request for checkuser has been opened, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Emnx

Report submission by IPSOS (talk)

Evidence

All three are

conflict of interest over the article, but when directly asked refuse to either confirm or deny. See Talk:Mandrake Press

.

Sockpuppetry was used to disguise 3RR violation 1st revert [204] by IP address, 13:37, 31 May 2007 2nd revert [205] by IP address, 13:42, 31 May 2007 3rd revert [206] by Emnx, 08:13, 1 June 2007 4th revert [207] by Emnx, 12:54, 1 June 2007

ip address removes notice from User talk:Emnx, calling it "my page" diff

block evasion: Edited as 81.157.73.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) during 3 day block (between 09:17, 24 May 2007 and 09:17, 27 May 2007) of 86.131.33.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for vandalising my user page.

repeated removal of sockpuppet tags during investigation: Emnx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has repeatedly removed the sockpuppet notices from his user and talk pages during the investigation, despite clear instructions in the notes to the subject that the tags must be left for 10 days.

Comments

Yes, EMNX is the account I have started using.

Yes I was editing under 81.157.73.83

Yes I started and account IP-81-157-73-83 to make a point about demeaning anon users but have closed it.

Sock Puppet: No.

To play Devil's Advocate I actually took OPPOSING views i.e. I added delete tags and saying the WHOLE article should be deleted! rather than argue to keep it together.

Hardly the actions of someone trying to bolster an argument but making identical arguments.

If I forgot to sign . . . oops! Sorry! But under this user name I have been editing creatively linking and enhancing a wide range of related articles.

IPSOS has openly admitted that following vandalism of his user page he is using Mandrake Press as the battleground? Why?--Emnx 15:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taking opposing positions is called good hand/bad hand, and is a prohibited use of sock puppets. Read

WP:SOCK. IPSOS (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Just for the record I don't have a static IP address - so does that make me a Sock Puppet. Also, I sided with you and then you still reverted my edits -- you got very confused with what you actually want from the article as you seem more intent on arguing than allowing others to build the article. I have repeatedly asked you to contribute to the article but you simply revert or delete (which is your predominant pattern of editing).

Either improve the article or leave others to get on with it . . . please move on and stop making Mandrake Press your personal battleground.--Emnx 23:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one making it a battleground. I've simply tagged a few things that need attention. And that's "working on the article". I don't have to contribute text to it, and can't, as all my web searches have turned up zero reliable third-party sources about it. My position remains unchanged. That the article should be split and that it be determined if the current company is notable enough for an article. What's wrong with that? Just because you don't agree with me doesn't give you the right to vandalise my user page or give the appearance of more support for your position by editing as several different users and IP addresses without disclosure at the time you were doing so. IPSOS (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your 4th edit war since April! Nuff said?--Emnx 20:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it's impossible to say how many a vandal like you has been in, since you have no edit history with your dynamic IPs. Why not provide us with a list of all the articles you've edited with which IPs as there is still no proof you are anything but a single-purpose account, probably the owner or employee of Mandrake Press. IPSOS (talk) 01:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Blocks were handed out following the positive checkuser result. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2007 (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:Martonte

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

T-Kellz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

--Rrburke^(talk) 04:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User:Martonte was blocked indefinitely, following an AN/I report, for repeatedly inserting false information into articles about boy bands and rappers and for creating hoax articles about fictitious musical acts involving himself and his acquaintances. This activity consisted of inserting the name Travis Kellman [208] (or variations: Kid Trav, Trav K, T-Kellz [209] (note uncanny similarity to suspected sockpuppet account) to claim membership in these musical acts, presumably for the purpose of self-promotion.

Enter User:T-Kellz, who is also preoccupied with inserting this name into articles about boy bands and rappers. In this diff, User:T-Kellz inserts the name Travis "Martonte" Kellman in the article 112 (band). The nickname he gives to this fictitious performer is identical to the username of the indefinitely-blocked presumed puppetmaster account.

June 5: User:T-Kellz has again authored a self-promoting hoax article: T-Kellz

Relevant diffs (User:Martonte): [210],[211],[212],[213],[214],[215],[216],[217],
Relevant diffs (User:T-Kellz): [218],[219],[220],[221]

This sockpuppetry is also the subject of an unresolved and now stale AN/I report

Comments

If User:Martonte wishes to participate in this discussion, he will have to be temporarily unblocked in order to do so.

Conclusions

That's a sockpuppet, all right. T-Kellz is indef blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2007 (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:Reisender

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

JdeJ 22:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

The two accounts are used for targeting pages related to the former Yugoslavia and people from that region. Both accounts routinely replace the nationality of various people with the nationality Yugoslav. Neither of them engage in discussions about the edits, and both have frequently removed sourced statements without any explanation being given. The page on Marija_Šerifović is a typical example. Reisender removed a well-sourced statement about her nationality 13 times, despite being told by various users that this was vandalism. When he was blocked for the second time, 24.151.129.28 immediately appeared and started repeating the very same deletion of the sourced statement on nationality, doing so 6 times. Both accounts have been used to make similar edits to many other pages, usually changing peoples' nationalities to Yugoslavs, showing the identical pattern of not hesitating to remove sourced statements, or to removed fact-tags without adding any facts or even any explanations, as both have recently done on the page Yugoslavs. The identical behaviour of removing sourced statements, chaning peoples' nationalities, refusing to take part in discussions and the consant Yugoslav POV-pushing all suggest that this is the same user.JdeJ 22:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

To add further evidence, both accounts are now being used to vandalise the page Black Hand, once again by inserting a sentence involving Yugoslavs. This is perhaps the most obvious evidence, since the sentence is incorrect but 'both' users seem to be unaware of it. The original sentence read tells how the Black Hand had the the intention of uniting all of the territories containing Serb populations (notably Bosnia and Herzegovina, annexed by Austria-Hungary in October 1908). Not only is this correct, it is also correct English. Both accounts repeatedly change this sentence into telling how the Black Hand had the intention of uniting all of the territories containing Yugoslav populations (Croats, Serbs, Slovenes, etc) annexed by Austria-Hungary in October 1908). Bosnia and Herzegovina were annexed by Austria-Hungary in 1908, just as the original version claims. When the user pushes his Yugoslav-agenda, he seems to be unaware of the result of his change - a sentence clearly stating that the areas annexed in 1908 contained, among others, Slovenes. Not only is this incorrect, the user himself has acknowledged that such a claim would be incorrect but seems to be unable to see that his own statement says so. That two users, both vandalising pages by inserting Yugoslav POV-pushing, both would target exactly the same pages and make exactly the same error seems highly unlikely. Both accounts also display the same habit of never signing their comments. [222], [223]JdeJ 19:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Pretty clearly the same person, but I don't see evidence of a violation of
WP:SOCK, so no action will be taken at this time. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2007 (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:Platanogenius

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

Rosicrucian 21:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Original user was blocked for disruptive edits to Dominican Republic. Paneiro banned for being vandal sock though not confirmed after wholesale vandalism campaign on same article, blanking large sections. Comments on Talk:Dominican Republic indicated likely sock. Shortly after banning of Paneiro, Memeco account created with comments on article talkpage indicating intent to continue vandalism pattern. Edits are nearly identical, generally unsigned. Appears to also be attempting to create false consensus by "agreeing" with himself.[224][225][226]--Rosicrucian 23:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Platanogenius has already been blocked in the past and continues to express and use extreme POV and abusive statements" [227] Other IP's have continued on where he has left off as well as the username" [228] Platanogenius was blocked 2 days ago and Fabre08 shows up on the same article making the same edits with unreferenced sources.[229] [230],[231] [232], [233] [234] and [235] . Warned 3 times for vandalism [236] . Then leaves a mocking statement on the talk page. Please block. "Haha!! Don't worry, my friend. I will continue to undo all your sad attempts. Using websites is a simple and lazy form of getting information. I would also suggest you to not vandalize other people work and twist it for unknown purposes."[237] "has gone forth with calling others derogatory and slang terms including the word "cocola" which is feminine for "cocolo" which can equate to nigger"[238] YoSoyGuapo 23:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

same old story look at some of the contributions [239] [240] [241] [242] removing of links [243] , changing of demographics [244] , and same old removal of cited material [245] 64.131.205.111 04:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paneiro1122 Seems to be a fairly obvious block evasion for Paneiro.--Rosicrucian 17:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further examination, user also references Edgar181, the admin who blocked Paneiro [246]--Rosicrucian 18:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now he's admitted to being a sock evading a block.--Rosicrucian 19:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The number of users involved has been increased greatly by YoSoyGuapo after my initial posting of the case. I can't speak to the ones he added, but I have done my best to notify them of their listing in this case as I believe many of them were unaware. Personally, the only ones my current evidence covers are Paneiro and Memeco. I am now contacting YoSoyGuapo to see if he has any evidence he wishes to add.--Rosicrucian 23:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now he has. That's all good now, then.--Rosicrucian 23:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a request for checkuser here. If it gets accepted I think a checkuser would have better means to sort this out. VirtualDelight 08:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Dont think User:Avfnx is a sock Puppet!he has done constructive edits! User:Memeco is a new user but has not shown yet to be a sock puppet! ya have to be carefull of acussing wrong people! Ya could block innocent wikipedians!EdwinCasadoBaez 02:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the request for CheckUser came up dry, I'm willing to move forward in good faith and assume nobody here's a sock other than the one obvious one. I hope the other users will join me.--Rosicrucian 04:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too much vandalism has occured by individuals who have utilized similiar attack methods. I would like to proceed. The checkuser didn't come up dry, the results were inconclusive. There was a geographic relation. It doesnt mean they were false. YoSoyGuapo 08:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A "geographic relation" could be something as simple as most of the users involved being from the Dominican Republic. Which really is something that was at the least evident by the edit styles of those involved. A result of "inconclusive" on CheckUser means two things:

You cannot just revert the edits of these users because there is presently no actual proof they are all socks of Platanogenius. So the edit comments of "RV Platanogenius sock" are going to have to stop because that becomes unwarranted harassment.
If you want this sockpuppet case to move forward, you are going to have to narrow it significantly. The large number of users hurts you because there are too many of them to make CheckUser a valid tool. Oftentimes this is what wrecks sockpuppet cases. They cast too broad a net, and it makes it tough to catch the real guys.

At any rate, this has become a bit of a witch hunt in my eyes, and as the person who originally filed the case I can't say for certain that any of them are Platanogenius other than the one obvious one who signed posts as him. So personally I think the more constructive thing is to go back to the article talkpage and treat them as normal, decent users for once.--Rosicrucian 12:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I congradulate you on your good faith. The problem is when a bunch of high school kids from the inner city (which isn't a bad thing) [247] go out of their way to destroy articles and go around cursing people. " [248] . Similiar personal attacks have come from him "EdwinCasadoBaez (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) Multiple references of personal attacks [155] "Do you think i give an F*** about the no Personal Attack policy" [156] "This Annonymous User is so stuped." [157] "Where the fuk did i said that...you stupid idiot..."(keep it short). As well as on user talk pages, [158] ,[159]. He has been warned numerous times [160], [161], [162] . As well as uses multiple IP's and usernames [163] . A block due to these multiple and flagrant violations is believed to be in order." In any manner a sockpuppet was found [249] and blocked [250] . Thus our efforts were not in vain. YoSoyGuapo 17:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

All of the named accounts are blocked except for User:Avfnx, and I see no compelling evidence that he's a sock of anyone. The IPs will be left unblocked. If there are outstanding content issues I recommend an RfC or mediation. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2007 (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
read this
for detailed instructions.

User:BlakAndDirty

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

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

Report submission by

~Enviroboy^Talk_Contribs - 04:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Similar usernames and contribs.

Comments

This is the same person, I would say they missepelled their name when they first signed up so they made a new account with the correct spelling. Viridae ^Talk 06:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, haven taken a second look, I would say the missspelled one is as a result of them forgetting the password for the correctly spelled one. Viridae ^Talk 06:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Obvious troll, blocked. ··coel acan 19:05, 2 June 2007 (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:Map inc

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Map inc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Djbomb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Dm955 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Coolmac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
False man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Danngarcia 17:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Evidence

All users have created hoax articles about radio stations in the Philippines and reposts previously deleted articles that the sockpuppeteer or either of one of the sockpuppets created.

Danngarcia 17:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comments

Conclusions

All named accounts are blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2007 (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:Jjcabbage

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

BThomer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
AlamoGirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Bubbaflubba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Maydon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
RobLunan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Stellatomailing 06:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

All the users are screaming at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rob_Lunan.

All the suspected sock puppets have limited their contributions to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rob_Lunan. The only edits made by these accounts have occurred within an 18 hour period (22:43 28 May 2007 – 15:57 29 May 2007). No account has made more than two edits.

There are traits common to the posts of all suspected sock puppets:

The suspected sockpuppeteer and all the suspected sockpuppets have included insults in their posts.

All votes, whether cast by the suspected sockpuppeteer or the suspected sockpuppets, have been written as Do Not Delete, as opposed to the usual Keep.

Various posts accuse or infer that those supporting the AfD nomination have conflicts of interest:

In the first, AlamoGirl speculates that I may be “an ex with a grudge”.[251]

In the second and third, posted 17 minutes apart, Bubbaflubba and Maydon accuse those supporting the nomination of being in competition with the subject of the article. In doing so, they use similar language (“Why are you offenders trying to knock this guy off”; “This is corporate sleeze [sic] where a competitor is trying to knock out a notable source.”). Interestingly, the only post to display any knowledge about the industry in which Lunan works was made by BThomer, who provided a brief account of the relationship between Taunton Press and Lee Valley Tools (a former employer of Rob Lunan).[252]

66.78.121.157 may also be a sockpuppet. The initial edit by 66.78.121.157 involved the removal of all content pertaining to the AfD nomination. [253] Two minutes later, 66.78.121.157 removed the AfD tag from the Rob Lunan article.[254]. Both these edits were reverted immediately by other users. Twenty-eight minutes after 66.78.121.157’s final edit, BThomer made his or her first edit, casting the first to vote in support of the article. [255]. Victoriagirl 15:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above was written prior to the addition of RobLunan to the list of suspected sockpuppets. It does not address his post.[256] Victoriagirl 15:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

~~Alamogirl is not a real user, check contribs and logs.~~ Actually, a little bit of research, and the account is correct, just a typo in the reporting.

itchy 03:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Conclusions

Obvious. All indef blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2007 (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:TingMing

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Chunghwa Republic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Sid212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Nationalist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Momusufan

16:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC) Folic Acid 00:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Keeps editing

Republic of China despite community consensus, is a suspected sockpuppet to User:Nationalist [[257]] [[258]

], and improper page moves

Comments

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/TingMing. -Loren 17:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with this request for investigation into sockpuppetry. I believe, however, that the sockpuppeteer is not User:TingMing, but that User:TingMing is yet another in a long list of sockpuppets of User:Nationalist. --Folic Acid 00:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalist's block has been expired for about a week. I think there might be a possibility that TingMing is in fact a sock of Nationalist, and Nationalist now uses this sock as his main account.--Jerry 20:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Since there's an arbitration in process I think it would be premature to take any action here. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:08, 4 June 2007 (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:Nevercoast12

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Nevercoast12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

83.249.100.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Raisestoodbn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by Bleh999 23: 25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

The only contributions of these single purpose accounts has been to revert images I added to articles such as [259], [260], [261], [262],

After he was reverted by other users and me, he has returned as Raisestoodbn, and his only contributions have been the same as the previous, removing pictures I had added, [263], [264], [265], [266]

Comments

Conclusions

If these are the same person, I don't see a violation of
WP:SOCK. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2007 (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:Mctwating

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Kablammo 20:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Evidence

User:Mctwating was a single-purpose user who engaged on attacks on an expert on author Robert M. Pirsig on the article devoted to Pirsig.[267] The user was warned, User_talk:Mctwating but continued to engage in attacks.[268][269] As the username was clearly a vulgar attack upon the victim, the user was reported[270]:

*

Kablammo 01:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The user than was banned.

User:Bullyboo is now engaged in the same attacks. [271][272]

Comment by reporter: Alleged sockpuppeteer's conduct was a combination of offensive user name and offensive edits, both of which were attacks of the object of the user's attacks. If the user is permitted to register a new name and edit under it then perhaps this is a matter for AIV, but the prior warnings to the sockpuppeteer would be important in determining a remedy. It is not clear to me whether this should be reported at AIV as well.

Kablammo 20:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comments

Conclusions

Probably the same person, but no apparently violation of
WP:SOCK. User seems to have lost interest anyway. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2007 (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:The Rosner Family

Suspected sockpuppeteer

The Rosner Family (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Wkikfamilyboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
82.120.235.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Da trick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.217.96.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

itchy 17:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Evidence

This AfD. Several people with very few edits have voted to keep, and they probably come from the IP listed.

On the List of billionaires (2007) 102-946 User: The Rosner Family [273] and User: Da Trick [274] have made identical edits to put Robert Rosner (subject of the mentioned AfD) onto the list. Edward321 05:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added another IP after it put in info about the finacial guy on the page for the astrophsyicist guy. Eveidence here

itchy 17:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comments

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
read this
for detailed instructions.

User:EJBanks (4th)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

EJBanks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (4th)

Suspected sockpuppets

Poker Master (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (previously confirmed, blocked indefinitely for cat vandalism)
Fatone411 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (previously confirmed, blocked indefinitely)
BarackObamaFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (previously confirmed, blocked indefinitely)
TheJediCouncil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (newest sockpuppet)

As noted on EJ's user page, the user was blocked for compelling evidence that EJBanks was the indefinitely blocked vandal[275] User:Batman Fan/Creepy Crawler, and was blocked indefinitely.

Report submission by Doczilla 23:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Despite having been indefinitely banned under multiple usernames, User:TheJediCouncil has resumed the same disruptive pattern of categories and articles (with special attention to lists) related to comic books (especially Spider-Man and especially Spidey's movies and games), reality TV shows (especially Survivor), soap operas (especially Days of our Lives), Star Wars, and Democrat politicians. Categories were defined poorly or not at all, ambiguously titled, redundant to other categories, trivial, and/or inappropriately capitalized. User would go through quickly populating each category. Repeatedly, this user's articles and categories got nominated for deletion. Articles are poorly written. Occasionally the articles and some categorizations have been outright hoaxes. EJBanks created a hoax article about a nonexistent Spider-Man film. As User:Poker Master, he/she vandalized articles by adding obviously bogus categories.

Doczilla
23:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Here's something odd. Articles TheJediCouncil created but which got deleted have disappeared from TheJediCouncil's contribution history (e.g., List of contestants on Survivor[276]; Spider-Man Film Series Rogue Gallery[277]). Doczilla 02:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Conclusions

Clear sock, shows the same characteristic interests and behavior. Blocked indefinitely. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:17, 6 June 2007 (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
read this
for detailed instructions.

User:86.152.81.41

Suspected sockpuppeteer: 86.152.81.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Darren1986 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Jack1956 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); MDJB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); CharlieAmos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

tchy 20:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Evidence

If you look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E J Boys, the IP in question, and Darren1986 both act as the same person. Same thing with Jack1956 in Talk:E J Boys. I understand it's a tad weak, but it's likely.

Comments

The pc in question is used by several people in the same office who have all developed an interest in Wikipedia, and who, because they are new, have been checking each others entries and editing them. Is that a problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.81.41 (talk • contribs)

Added two suspected puppet per

itchy 23:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Conclusions

Admitted meatpuppetry and likely sockpuppetry. Since the accounts have "voted" multiple times in the AfD, this is a violation of
WP:SOCK. Jack1956's contributions are oldest, so that account will get a 48-hour block; the remaining accounts will be indef blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2007 (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
read this
for detailed instructions.

User:Emnx

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

SKRINE2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Coldmachine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by IPSOS (talk) 01: 17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Emnx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was recently blocked for 1 month for sockpuppetry as confirmed by checkuser. This was a set of single-purpose accounts and dynamic IPs concerned only with Mandrake Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Mandrake of Oxford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Emnx previously prodded Mandrake of Oxford. Now, following the block of Emnx, a new single-purpose account is created whose first edit is to nominate Mandrake of Oxford for deletion. There is reason to believe that this editor has a conflict of interest over Mandrake Press and views Mandrake of Oxford as "a competitor". See previous sockpuppet report for more details.

User uses exactly the same language ("seems to be based on commercial-minded exposure/advertising") in the AfD as previously used by Coldmachine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) in two edit comments: 1, 2

I tried to nominate Mandrake of Oxford for deletion but in order to do so I found I had to create an account (which I did). As part of my research (in order to support the proposal for deletion) I looked at the history of the article. I found the article had been nominated recently by Coldmachine. I simply copied his descriptive text, as it was a valid opinion by another editor — I thought it would help build consensus if the reasons given had already been perceived and explained by others. Can somebody please explain what have I done wrong? --SKRINE2 08:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Conclusions

WP:SOCK. I don't see convincing evidence regarding User:Coldmachine to conclude that he/she is a sockpuppet; the account's been around for awhile and edits a variety of topics. If there is further concern, checkuser may be appropriate. MastCell ^Talk 15:30, 5 June 2007 (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:Emnx (3rd)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Arthana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.131.28.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.131.34.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.131.37.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by IPSOS (talk) 01: 32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Arthana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a new user created since the most recent sockpuppet of Emnx was blocked. User's first edit has an edit comment and their second edit is to participate in an AfD. This new user has made a delete (non)vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mandrake of Oxford an article previously prodded by Emnx and later nominated for deletion by sock SKRINE2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). After my noting that the user is new on the AfD, an IP editor in the ranges used by Emnx made this edit.

For IP addresses previously used, see:

For second sockpuppet report re User:SKRINE2, see:

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Emnx (2nd)

As additional evidence, compare the recent comments from Arthana ([278], [279]) with the canvassing attempted by two different IPs, which were reverted as vandalism by blocked user Emnx: [280], [281], [282], [283] (first ip blocked), [284], [285], [286] (this is just a selection, see contribs for last 2 ip users for more).

Comments

It seems I forgot to sign my reply to the factually incorrect post by IPSOS

"Note: this user account (Arthana) was created 3 days ago. Today is the first time this user has participated in AfDs. IPSOS (talk) 21:19, 10 June"

That was wrong so I replied. I have now added my signature (better late than never!
I would note that I wrote in the AFD

"COI is not grounds for a delete although a "lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference" does seem to be to the detriment of a NPOV here."

It does seem this accusation is not made from a NPOV and I wonder if I am being accused because 1) I my account is new (yeah! a newbie) and 2) I voted against the delete. To be absolutely clear : I am not Emnx and have never been Emnx. Please remove the insulting false accusation from my user page without delay!--Arthana 08:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment

The only evidence I can see presented here is that I am guilty of using the same ISP as someone else (so that would be me and about three million other BT customers in the UK?) However, it should be noted that :-

IPSOS has recently made two false sock puppet/ puppetmaster allegations :-

The first was against Whateley23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) with whom he'd also had a disagreement. Whateley23 was accused of being a "real puppetmaster"!

and

The second was against Coldmachine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who placed a PROD tag on Mandrake of Oxford and who subsequently re-opened the AFD on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mandrake of Oxford. Coldmachine was accused of being a sock puppet.

the accusation against me followed shortly thereafter :-

Arthana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) voted in an AFD and disagreed with IPSOS and then accused of being a sock puppet.

There does seem to be a pattern emerging here and with two false allegations already to his/her name I am not very inclined to assume good faith on the part of IPSOS. Therefore, I am led to conclude that these events support the suspicion mentioned in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mandrake of Oxford that IPSOS has a COI and that these allegations of sock puppetry are attempts to remove or disparage views that don't coincide with his/hers.

This process will clearly not be completed before the AFD is determined and yet the result could be influenced as the good-standing of Coldmachine and I is undermined by these false allegations (whilst IPSOS's reputation remains unblemished).

I would really be grateful if someone would clear this up quite speedily and remove the tag from my user page (and the comments by IPSOS against my vote). I find this really insulting especially as it was placed by an editor with such a dubious history!

--Arthana 23:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, each of my reports identified some real sockpuppets. Maybe you were in the wrong place at the wrong time, but these things require checking into after a history of block evasion. Some people don't stop. You seem both overly defensive AND display knowledge of things that only the previous user would know. You're actually doing yourself in. Just my opinion. IPSOS (talk) 01:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

The early contribution history indicates that Arthana has been on wikipedia before (second edit to an AFD; vandalism patrolling started with third edit). Arthana's account was created after Enmx's block, so adding the "likely" checkuser result is enough to confirm a sockpuppet. Coldmachine is a little trickier, but the account for Arthana was created 26 minutes before Coldmachine asked about re-opening the AFD. If the account for Arthana had been created after the second AFD was open, it would be inconclusive, but the temporal proximity and the likely checkuser result together are enough to convince me that Coldmachine is also a sockpuppet. Both accounts blocked.--Chaser - T 17:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]