Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Archive/February 2008

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

User:OVERRiDE K1

Suspected sockpuppeteer: OVERRiDE K1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

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

Report submission by

ArcAngel (talk) 20:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

CSDC OVERRiDE created this username.

Comments

Note by CSDC OVERRiDE - Yes, I am new to Wiki rules. The name CSDC OVERRiDE was in violation of Wiki rules, so I change my name to OVERRiDE K1. I will try to delete the account under CSDC OVERRiDE, or a Moderator please delete it for me! I hope this fixes the confusion! —Preceding unsigned comment added by OVERRiDE K1 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

No issue here, THe block is a username block. No sockpupettry involved :). -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:iamandrewrice

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Whitstable 01:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

The edit history of this user is similar to banned user iamandrewrice particularly in relation to edits to Latin Europe. The second edit of the suspected puppet warned an IP not to vandalise and warned with past experience hinted at "Trust me, I know a lot about this, having once been in your position... well kind of. If you do sockpuppet, then you will be 'banned', (not blocked). This is where you will never be able to come to wikipedia ever again even if you use a different name or IP address"

I suggested to Crystalclearchanges that editing in the article a banned member used to edit in a lot when they appear to be a banned member is not a wise move. I should add that yes, in that diff I did mention I didn't really care whether they were a sock or not, which wasn't wise. But at that point I was trying to help and didn't notice whether or not they had been disruptive.

Almost immediately, the user declared a wikibreak but still continued to edit. I monitored the Talk:Latin_Europe, where Crystalclearchanges appeared to be starting to employ the same tactics as iamandrewrice used to.

So I checked earlier edits and found some page moves [1], [2], [3]. There are others, once again all in the user's logs. There were also fashion edits, for example [4] and [5]. While that may not mean much compared to user:iamandrewrice here, that user (after being banned) moved to Simple English Wiki and made many similar moves and edits to fashion pages. Simple English contributions. I should add he changed his name over there after a while to Benniguy, hence the difference, but the logs show that.

Apologies, I know this could be clearer, but I have little spare time at the moment - if you need any further information, I'll be happy to supply it.

Comments

Hello Whitstable. I suspect, and it is only a feeling, that User:Britannic1 is also a sockpuppet of Iamandrewrice and Crystalclearchanges. Their contributions' profile, talk page history and style of intervention are very smilar. And Britannic1 appears also to be a British with a strong interest in all things "Hispanic" or "Latin". Also, after I changed my mind about the inclusion of a gallery in Latin Europe, Britannic1 appeared in my talk page asking my help with photo galleries for Spanish Americans and Spanish Britons. You may want to check it out. Thanks! The Ogre (talk) 19:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so - their contributions are quite different, but I'll take a closer look Whitstable 20:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

did Iamandrewrice have many page moves? Crystalclearchanges (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the Simple English Wikipedia, yes Whitstable 20:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is...? Crystalclearchanges (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Already blocked, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Iamandrewrice. MER-C 08:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:EctoplasmOnToast

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

Suspected sockpuppets: Ma1kel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Jaysweet (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

[6] [7] Switched accounts immediately following final warning

Comments

Conclusions: Both users blocked --Chris 21:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:19andy91 (3rd)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

19andy91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Eddy774 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

RFBailey (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

The third case today, although not quite as blatant as the first two. Just seven minutes after the second case was concluded, this new account was created (see log), and became active on articles related to National Express East Anglia (see contribs).

Comments

I suspect an RFCU may be needed this time. If confirmed, some sort of IP range block may be needed to prevent repeat offending.

I would agree entirely with the report submitter. This clearly appears to the same user whom I blocked for violating 3RR and has continued to use other accounts to attempt to avoid the block. Adambro (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to indef the main account and announce this on WP:AN ~~so that a community ban takes effect~~. Could you please request checkuser and ask them to work out a rangeblock or other method of stopping this? Jehochman ^Talk 18:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A range block is not feasable in this case. --Deskana (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully the user will give up on sock puppetry. I do not see that Eddy774 is doing anything destructive. Can somebody explain what is the problem with their edits? I've also asked this at WP:AN. See [8]. Jehochman ^Talk 19:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this user evading a ban? I wasn't aware that sockpuppets could be discretionarily permitted? MRSC • Talk 20:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Eddy774 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet account used to evade a valid block.
19andy91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) remains blocked, but with the condition that he will be unblocked after 5 days providing he agrees to an informal "mentorship" and does not create further sockpuppets. See discussion at WP:AN and User talk:19andy91 for details. Gwernol 02:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Untileveryoneisfree

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Untileveryoneisfree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Doingwhatwikitellsme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Untilallarefree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Doingwhatwikitellsme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Untileverycageisempty (talk · contribs) and Untilallarefree (talk · contribs)

The above accounts are blocked as SPA. Untileveryoneisfree (talk · contribs) is a reincarnation that is not heeding advice on Copyright and NPOV.

Comments

It's likely that there are other accounts. Guy (Help!) 18:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's file WP:RFCU to empty the sock drawer. Jehochman ^Talk 00:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Untileverycageisempty —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jehochman (talk • contribs) 01:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Several were Confirmed, the others were Stale. However, given the above evidence, I think we can conclude that all are socks. All are already blocked, and now they are tagged. Jehochman ^Talk 02:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another sock appears

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

copied from my talk page:

[9] SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

What's going on here? Is this another sock puppet? Jehochman ^Talk 04:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fixing the previous incarnations images. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Quack quack. I will block it. Please add a note to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Untileverycageisempty. Jehochman ^Talk 04:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And another

Johnhamfull (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) MikeHobday (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also blocked. The contribution pattern indicates that it is very likely the same editor. Jehochman ^Talk 17:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Lovesugar

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

Suspected sockpuppets: Lsonline (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Lsonline1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Blueboy 96 22:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Only edits by Lovesugar were been attempts to add spam links to rabbit vibrator. Shortly after being blocked, Lsonline appeared and attempted to add the same spam link. It was reverted immediately, and shortly after that Lsonline1 appeared and tried to add the same link. It was reverted; he's currently in a dialogue on the talk page.

Comments

Conclusions

No possible doubt that those are the same spammer. — Coren ^(talk) 23:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Walter Mellon Head

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Walter Mellon Head (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Avatar-Jedi-Alchemist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 22:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

His edits, which got him banned previously, have continued: the edits are about the same content (mostly on the Aang article) and include the same edit summaries. In addition, his userpage information is almost an exact copy on the sockpupper's userpage.

Comments

Conclusions

Quack, quack. Sock blocked. — Coren ^(talk) 23:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Kyleain

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

76.113.26.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Novangelis (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Editing previous case

Edits in succession to a sockpuppet in the previous case

Describing edits as "rebuke"
...as was done with past accounts.

Continuation of personal attacks
[10]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kyleain

Comments

Filed as Wikipedia:Abuse reports/76.113.26.119 which was referred here.

Conclusions

It's been ten days since anything abusive happened. We want this person to stop. Hopefully they have. I am going to close this case. If they return to cause further trouble we can reopen the case. Many of the diffs above are stale, more than a month old. This is a Comcast IP. It will be reallocated periodically, so there is no point in blocking at this point. Jehochman ^Talk 17:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:19andy91 (2nd)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

19andy91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Andrew1980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

RFBailey (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Four minutes after the previous case was resolved, this new account was created [11] and is active on the same/similar articles (see contribs: [12] [13]), especially c2c.

Comments

Conclusions

Jehochman has issued a one-week block to the main account for evading a block, and has blocked the sock puppet indef. This is a reasonable response. I note in passing that the edits by the new accounts have not been reverted, and I don't know if they should be. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Obscuredata

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Obscuredata has been blocked per WP:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Drstones. Suspicion of further use of sockpuppets comes from participation on WP:Articles_for_deletion/Oxford_Round_Table_(re-nomination), where we see this.

This is similar to previous edits on the original AfD, see here and here. The logic of the posts is the same, as is the dodgy English (suggesting all edits made by someone with ESL).

It might also be worth considering whether there is overlap here with Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Billingsworth; participation on the two AfDs seems similar, see here and here.

Comments

I am not sure if this is a sock puppet or a SPA. The post [14] immediately made me suspicious, it suggests prior knowledge of wikipedia processes but the logic is spurious and flawed and the claims are largely false, whether this is evidence of editing inexperience or just POV pushing is anyone's guess. --neonwhite user page talk 18:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Here TwoLove admits that he was asked to comment on the AFD by a blocked user. This in itself is not a reason to block him. He has not edited since the AFD, and I don't expect that he will. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Thecomedycavern

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

--Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

As soon as the puppet master was reported at WP:AIV for repeated recreation of the Lee Greenfield article, the sock was created and resumed this repeated recreation (see also Lee greenfield and other possible ways to capitalize this name).

Comments

I'm not sure what the point of this is now that the article has been salted, but you can also add in Derektrotteresq (talk · contribs), Pallets07 (talk · contribs), Standupreview (talk · contribs). —Wknight94 (talk) 12:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Really these should all be blocked, but I can't do it, and it's not worthwhile to bother someone else. If these guys ever vandalise again, block on sight. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Guywithdress

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

Suspected sockpuppets: Logged in 22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Notesense22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Salesmyth22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Full list in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Guywithdress
Report submission by

Collectonian (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Newly created account doing the same image tagging reversions that Guywithdress was just blocked for.

Comments

Guywithdress blocked indef for obvious block evasion. Mr.Z-man 02:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else see the obvious username connection here? THE KC (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

The two use different (static) IPs, so although the behavioral evidence is strong, checkuser does not definitively confirm the two as the same user. That said there is good reason to believe they are:

Behavioral evidence. Guy was blocked and last edited 02:20, February 13, 2008. He acknowledged the matter first at 02:08, February 13, 2008. Compare Logged In -- first edited 02:07, February 13, 2008.
The IP of Guywithdress is local to a specific US state. The IP of Logged In 22 is a town which by chance I have friends in, and therefore know is in that same state.
Other CU evidence suggests similarities too.

You might also want to look at:

The Smartass (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and ?kjdfng83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who share an IP with Guywithdress and edit in a manner suggesting existing editorship and a wiki-agenda (and started editing recently)
Nerjkng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who also edited on the same IP as Guyindress.

Logged in 22 shares his IP with 4 other accounts, 3 of which are blocked. The fourth is an account created on Feb 9 which has made one edit, a stub article that Ive checked and found valid. Guyindress also has two other users on his IP, one of which edited one day in december and also one day in this last week (all good edits), the other an account created Dec 4 that has made no edits as yet.

Conclusions

Likely FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Okay, so what's the point of this edit? I'm not seeing the connection to User:Primetime here. --Calton | Talk 02:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Sirjustinflames

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

84.71.97.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Thaimanfrombk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Evidence

These three accounts suddenly appeared from more or less nowhere and are tag-team reverting the Jet engine article to introduce material not backed by reliable sources, in violation of WP:3RR, and are not responding on talk pages; multiple accusations of vandalism in subject line, lack of good faith etc. etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jet_engine&diff=193541332&oldid=193535761 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jet_engine&diff=193467501&oldid=193376813 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jet_engine&diff=193304078&oldid=193297550 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jet_engine&diff=193356621&oldid=193321414

Bad faith vandalisation of launch loop:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Launch_loop&diff=193305299&oldid=189421300

Bad faith vandalisation of Scotland:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scotland&diff=prev&oldid=193006737

- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 20:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Filed Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sirjustinflames. Jehochman ^Talk 22:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Confirmed The sock has been blocked indefinitely, and I've given the main account a 3 day block. If trouble resumes when they return, let me know. Jehochman ^Talk 00:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:19andy91

Suspected sockpuppeteer

19andy91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

123andy321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

RFBailey (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Originally appeared to be a legitimate "alternative account", created due to apparent forgetfulness [15]. However, after 19andy91 was blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring on c2c (history block log), User:123andy321 continued the edit war (see [16]). So the second account is being used to evade the block.

Comments

Conclusions

Possible based on checkuser evidence alone. Given the behavioural evidence, and given the usernames, it is clear that the accounts are used by the same person. --Deskana (talk) 15:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lucasbfr has blocked 19andy91 for 72 hours for block evasion, and blocked 123andy321 indefinitely as a block-evading sockpuppet. --Deskana (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I got driven away for a few minutes before commenting here. Archiving, then. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Opp2

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Opp2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

and all listed ODN and Plala IP addresses in Case 1, Case 2, Case 3

Report submission by

--Appletrees (talk) 12:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Opp2 admitted that he uses Plala, and CITIE.[[17]] However, he also said he uses IIJ and NIFTY per his comment.[18]. I believe Opp2 use more than these listed ISP including OCN network because behavioral patterns of various anons resemble to this new advent anons. Within a short period time, the OCN anon seems to switch IP address easily, not only a different IP address, but also previously used ones. From 2008-02-05T01:16 to 2008-02-05T05:56 (3 hours 30 minutes), his ip addresses are changed to 4 different ip addresses. I think he uses some kind of IP generator or switcher. The ips are moving back and forth. [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]

They all are interested in Japan-Korean related articles, but some of them show almost all of field as their favorite field, others look like a single minded account. That is just a tactic to prevent them from being caught.

Timeline of the user's activities from 2005 to now
User	Interest	WP:RFCU / WP:SSP	Sock puppet	Registered	Blocked	Status
Kamosuke (talk · contribs)	ancient history, cuisine, sport, culture, territorial disputes	RFCU:Kamosuke	HaradaSanosuke	2005-11-05T13:41:15	2006-08-01T10:38:28	Infinitely blocked
Opp (talk · contribs)	Only Liancourt Rocks	RFCU:Bright888 RFCU:Opp2	A sock of Bright888, and Opp2	2006-05-28T13:11:12	2006-06-07T14:37:39	Infinitely blocked
KoreanShoriSenyou (talk · contribs)	Virginia Tech massacre, Korean independent movement, Japanese Imperialism, Zainich Korean, North Korea, Anti-Japanese sentiment, Japanese war crimes, Japanese history textbooks, Tsushima Island	RFCU:KoreanShoriSenyou RFCU:Amazonfire SSP:Azukimonaka	Azukimonaka, Orchis29	2006-12-02T04:06:39	2008-02-02T17:26:10	Infinitely blocked
Azukimonaka (talk · contribs)	Virginia Tech massacre, cuisine, manga, manhwa, Japanese traditional and pop culture, Eugenics in Showa Japan, Timeline of Japan-Korea relations, Sumo, Prostitution in South Korea, Comfort women, Disputes between China-Korea, Korean independent movement, Korean pop cultures, Ashahi Shinbun, Tokugawa shogunate	RFCU:KoreanShoriSenyou RFCU:Amazonfire SSP:Azukimonaka RFCU:DDRG	Sock of KoreanShoriSenyou	2007-03-10T17:47:34	2008-02-02T17:26:56	Infinitely blocked
Orchis29 (talk · contribs)	Manga, So Far from the Bamboo Grove, traditional culture and history of Japan and Korea, Anti-Japanese sentiments	RFCU:KoreanShoriSenyou RFCU:Amazonfire SSP:Azukimonaka	Sock of KoreanShoriSenyou	2007-12-28T12:13:43	2008-02-02T17:27:25	Infinitely blocked
Bright888 (talk · contribs)		RFCU:Bright888	Schola64, Polaris36, Foreastwest, Himawarichan, Cleclecircle, Opp	2005-11-03T20:20:36	1 week block after confirmed at 2006-06-04T12:21:16	Stale: last edit at 2006-06-19T03:41:43
ShinjukuXYZ (talk · contribs)		RFCU:NekoNekoTeacher	Sock of NekoNekoTeacher	2006-08-24T	Not infinitely blocked even thought the two abusive accounts were confirmed as socks on 3 December 2006(Isn't it a mistake?)	Stale:last edit at 2007-03-19T11:10:57
NekoNekoTeacher (talk · contribs)		RFCU:NekoNekoTeacher	Sock of ShinjukuXYZ	2006-10-14T00:18:26	Same reason above	Stale: last edit at 2007-01-02T00:07:51
Necmate (talk · contribs)	Anti-Japanese sentiment, Mike Honda, Comfort women, Yakiniku, History of Korea and Japan, Joji Obara		2007-03-06T09:07:57		Stale: last edit at 2007-08-29T08:57:48
DDRG (talk · contribs)	Joji Obara, Asahi Shimbun,	RFCU:DDRG SSP:Vml132f	Suspected as a sock of Azukimonaka, Amazonjoke	2007-03-16T08:45:11	2 blocks for edit warring	Stale: Last edit at 2007-07-31T07:53:51
LuckyandLucky (talk · contribs)	Virginia Tech massacre,		2007-03-27T05:51:20		Stale: last edit at 2007-04-17T09:25:32
Opp2 (talk · contribs)	Only Liancourt rocks, Anti-Japanese sentiment, Yakiniku, History of Korea, Japan.Tofu	RFCU:Bright888 RFCU:Opp2	Sock of Bright888, and Opp	2006-07-06T03:08:19		Active, but occasionally taking a long break up to for 3 months.

Opp2 also has the same habit in writing English as "was being written". Please see the collapsed boxes in the Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Azukimonaka file. He is the only one using the error except Orchis29. Azukimonaka, KoreanShoriSenyou and Kamosuke did. KoreanShoriSenyou who has strong anti-Korean sentiment never appeared at Dokdo article, even at the time for vote for the article name change. Azukimonaka only appeared at that time once at the article. I assume they(?) were afraid of being discovered their true identity through Checkuser files.

being written
Talk:Dokdo/Archive_8 User_talk:Opp2 (edit \| [[Talk:User_talk:Opp2\|talk]] \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) It is being written that it 占有 in an original source. You deceive by unrelated material. And You should study "appeal to ignorance (probatio diabolica)". I give priority to facts more than respect. --Opp2 06:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC) It is being writtenJapanese claims come from seventeenth century records, as well as a terra nullius incorporation in 1905." in a present article. When and in what did Japan say that? The format of the answer is as follows. Extra information is unnecessary. I verify it based on these three information. --Opp2 06:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC) Where is it being written Dokdo? It is being written Ullengdo(鬱陵島) & Usan-state(于山国) & Iso-take(イソタケ) in this map. --Opp2 05:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Talk:Liancourt_Rocks/Archive_12 (edit \| [[Talk:Talk:Liancourt_Rocks/Archive_12\|talk]] \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) However, these important information is not being written in a present article. I am very wondered. --Opp2 17:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Are not two islands described why? It is being written in the old Japanese maps.[14][15] --Opp2 12:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC) Present article is being written as a fact that Ahn Yong-bok went to Edo and received Kanpaku's(shogunate's) note. However, it cannot be confirmed that he met the shogunate and even he went to Edo(Tokyo) where shogunate was living in the record of Japan. Please teach if there is a reason not being described for such a valuable record. I will add to the article if there are no special question. Opp2 17:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC) A present article conceals a lot of inconvenient information for Korea like this. --Opp2 00:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC) By the way, Japan is prohibiting landing on Senkaku. A provocative act like South Korea government is not done. I really wonder about their insistences. --Opp2 23:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Talk:Liancourt_Rocks/Archive_13 (edit \| [[Talk:Talk:Liancourt_Rocks/Archive_13\|talk]] \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) It is necessary to explain the Algonort island for NPOV if you want to post. [9][10] And, this map is a Japanese map in 1875. The era name of Japan(????) and name of Japanese mapmeker(??) and Japanese character(katakana) is being written in explanatory notes in this map. --Opp2 01:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC) SCAPIN is being written. However, draft5 is not found. Cannot you distinguish SCAPIN and the peace treaty?--Opp2 14:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC) Talk:Liancourt_Rocks/Archive_14 (edit \| [[Talk:Talk:Liancourt_Rocks/Archive_14\|talk]] \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) That is an old theory by a obtuse Korean scholar before Rusk Documents and above sources was opened, and it is being written in the latter half part though citation is needed. Please read the article[45] Opp2 14:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Talk:Liancourt_Rocks/Archive_16 (edit \| [[Talk:Talk:Liancourt_Rocks/Archive_16\|talk]] \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) This Map was sent by Kotani to Edo.[45] Can you see Manoshima? In a Japanese map at that time, Matsushima(Liancourt Rocks) is being written in Takeshima's(Ulleungdo) southeast. --Opp2 (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments

"Opp2 admitted that he uses Plala, and CITIE.[28]"

I retract my previous comment about Opp2's current home provider[29] that Opp2 is now most probably using plala. Sorry for not updating my knowledge.

"My provider is IIJ and NIFTY. You?"[30]

I can mention the relationship between CTIE and IIJ. I think Opp2 commented that Opp2 was using IIJ since CTIE is hosted by IIJ.[31] Therefore, the comment was reasonable.

My another comment is about Opp2's tendency to use "is being written." Appletrees, do you have any other examples that is the same as the other suspected socks? "Is being written" (not "was being..." etc.) seems really Opp2 specific and can be useful to relate Opp2 to any other socks, while the editors whom User:Appletrees mentioned here such as Azukimonaka, KoreanShoriSenyou, and Orchis29 are using similar but not the same expression "is being written."

Anyway, I think Opp2 does not mind much to be checked again and again while Opp2 seems expressing anxiety to be designated as a sockpuppet by chance because of the popularity of the ISP.--Jjok (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A related case , Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Celldea has been closed. The result basically showed no relation to Opp2.--Jjok (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commnet: Jjok, you're the one who said that I might have been dealing with just one person (not several people , so your suggestion really encouraged me to file this) at hour talk page.[32] You did also "teach" me how carefully I should differentiate one from various ISPs. Do you need more evidences regarding the relation between the above mentioned users and Opp2? Fine, I only included partial of what I have because I wanted to make this file compact. You also missed to point out on @nifty, one of which Opp2 asserted to use. I have some that ip addresses which seems related to dog meat. The RFCU file you added to here is no relation with his case. That is all about Watermint and meatpuppetry of yours. I found something weird on the result.--Appletrees (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another related CU request has been filed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/2008FromKawasaki. It looks like K-J content disputes and User:Appletrees wants to know how many pro-Japanese and Japanese ultraright editors are acting, and ban them all because they disgrace Korean images with reliable sources.--Jjok (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jjok, well, regardless of my several efforts to inform you about chinilpa, you are insisting on calling yourself as such, from now I may regard you as a Korean senior born before 1930s. As for the the images, you're the one who takes the responsibility for the edit warring. You may also want to see this Talk:Sea of Japan#2channel meatpuppets from 朝鮮人のWikipedia（ｳｨｷﾍﾟﾃﾞｨｱ）捏造に対抗せよ 21. This explains why I have been chased by so many disruptive editors and why suddenly participants are increased for the poll at Sea of Japan article and began to change rankings related to Korea. What a wonderful party with meatpuppetry but isn't it nothing new. --Appletrees (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I believe the accusations are overly broad and the evidence is not well-organized. For the future, concentrate on a smaller number of accounts where you can demonstrate a conclusive linkage with a concise presentation of evidence. Jehochman ^Talk 21:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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:Hammerandclaw

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

barneca (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

I have a history with Hammerandclaw; I opened an ANI thread to suggest blocking his account [33]. The block ran from 14:35 Feb 19th to 14:35 Feb 21st. At Tony Sidaway's request, he was unblocked with the understanding that he would stop editing unconstructively.

However, he's now trolling me:

Hammerandclaw says he's going to spam a YouTube video at 18:13 on Feb 25: [34]

Drillerman shows up on my user page at 18:18 on Feb 25 to spam the same video: [35]. Note that I have had no previous interaction with this username.

Hammerandclaw shows up 2 mintues later to revert: [36]

Hammerandclaw leaves an annoying message on my talk page bragging about it: [37]

Hammerclaw makes vague comment [38] about "weird stuff going on" to another user on my talk page, and suggests to them "watch yourself…you don't want anything to happen to you."

I'm asking both accounts be blocked indef. Drillerman as an abusive sock, and Hammerandclaw because he's demonstrated he can't be trusted to behave, and for the vague threat to MastCell on my user page in the last diff above. I had a bad feeling at the time about the unblock, expecting we were being trolled, and now that it's been confirmed I suggest we limit the endless system gaming.

This passes my own duck test (I suspect sockpuppet, but if it's a meatpuppet it doesn't matter), so I'm not asking for a Checkuser prior to resolution here. But the person behind both accounts doesn't appear to be stupid, so I assume they expected to be caught, and that this is part of their fun. When this SSP is settled, I'll file an WP:RFCU to see if there are any other sleeper socks on this IP. --barneca (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Conclusions

I've blocked Drillerman (talk · contribs) as a likely sock and vandalism-only account. It looks like another admin has blocked Hammerandclaw (talk · contribs) indefinitely for trolling, threats, etc. I think this is very likely to be a case of sockpuppetry, and in any case both users evinced other unconstructive behaviors as well. You could send it to WP:RFCU to look for additional socks, but they may turn it down since both named users are already blocked. MastCell ^Talk 23:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Sportsfan678

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Sportsfan678 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Andrew.R.Daniels (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); TheJesusChristandGodtoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); ScrewUroleplayer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Polly (Parrot) 00:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Both accounts are SPA's used to edit the same article,no edits overlap.

Comments

Passes the duck test. Sancho 00:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Not enough evidence to establish that they are the same editor versus a few mates drinking beer a pulling a prank. TheJesusChristandGodtoo and SrewUroleplayer accounts have been blocked already. N further action is required. Sportsfan678 shows signs of being a potentially productive editor. If they are vandals, they will prove it beyond a doubt and then get blocked. Jehochman ^Talk 14:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Saedirof

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

MarkPC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Redlance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Youonlylivetwice (talk) 07:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

This invloves a long running edit war and disruptive behavior in multiple articles, namely Sengunthar, Mudaliar and Devadasi: Recent edits by violators: [39], [40], [41], [42],[43], [44], [45], [46], [47],

1. Saedirof (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) has been constantly edit-warring on Sengunthar, Mudaliar and Devadasi using multiple sock puppets and open proxies to push POV. (Check [48], [49], [50]) and was warned by many admins and finally blocked for disruptive behavior and edit-warring constantly. Check [51], [52]. Finally the last check user user results revealed that he was also using open proxies and blocked for a week: CU proof:[53]. Recently he has resumed edit-warring after expiration of block in the same articles: [54], [55], [56], [57]. Also he keeps blatantly lying and reverting by falsely accusing me of being a banned user. He was also warned by admin Jéské Couriano (talk · contribs) multiple times [58], [59] that he will be blocked if he continued to do this.

2. MarkPC (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) just deletes the exact same references from the article Devadasi which is related to article to Mudaliar and Sengunthar. The account MarkPC (talk · contribs) has been created for the sole purpose of edit-warring on the article Devadasi, (check [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66],[67], [68] while Saedirof (talk · contribs) edit-wars on the articles Sengunthar and Mudaliar at the same time. This user was initially found to be a sock of Saedirof (talk · contribs) (CU proof:[69]) but then later escaped by saying that he only edited Devadasi while Saedirof (talk · contribs) has edited Mudaliar and Sengunthar . But this is so not true as the 3 articles are closely related.

For example compare the recent edit-summaries by Saedirof (talk · contribs): [70] and edit-summaries by MarkPC (talk · contribs): [71], [72]. Look at the exact same sentence structure ("reverting after vandalism by YouOnlyLiveTwice a master puppetteer and a banned user") where they both falsely accuse me of being a "master puppeteer and sock of a banned user".

3.Redlance (talk · contribs) also mimics the same edits as Saedirof (talk · contribs) and MarkPC (talk · contribs)and seems to have been created to forge an illusion of multiple users supporting the POV. Check: [73], [74]. RFCU result:[75] proved that he was editing purely through open proxies.

4. Initial RFCU result link: [76] where Saedirof (talk · contribs) was confirmed as MarkPC (talk · contribs). But subsequently MarkPC (talk · contribs) escaped and got himself unblocked by saying that he only edits article Devadasi and that he has never edited the articles Sengunthar and Mudaliar on which Saedirof (talk · contribs) edit-wars constantly But this is not true as all 3 articles are closely related and MarkPC (talk · contribs) deletes the exact same references that Saedirof (talk · contribs) deletes from the articles Mudaliar and Sengunthar. See 1 above for edit diffs of Saedirof (talk · contribs) and 2 above for edit diffs of MarkPC (talk · contribs)

4. Multiple warnings by admin Jéské Couriano (talk · contribs) that Saedirof (talk · contribs) will be blocked if he kept falsely accusing me that I'm a master puppeteer and sock of a banned user:[77], [78]

5. Admin Thatcher (talk · contribs) confirms my suspicion that Saedirof (talk · contribs) and MarkPC (talk · contribs) edit from the very same ip location: In the most recent RFCU that I filed at 21:24 on 26 February 2008 (UTC), I told that I strongly suspected that both Saedirof (talk · contribs) and MarkPC (talk · contribs) edited from the same location. Admin Thatcher (talk · contribs) has confirmed this for a fact that Saedirof (talk · contribs) and MarkPC (talk · contribs) edit from the exact same location when he replied to a query by Saedirof (talk · contribs) later at 00:28, 27 February 2008. See proof: [79]. But admin Thatcher (talk · contribs) could not come to a conclusion based on technical analysis alone and he directed me here. He clearly says that Saedirof (talk · contribs) could very well be MarkPC (talk · contribs). To quote him: You and MarkPC edit from the same place. It is possibly a workplace, and I can't tell how many people work there, and certain other features make it look like you are not MarkPC, but that does not rule out that you are not the same person using two computers

Note: It is highly likely that one or more of the above are sock puppets of Mudaliar (talk · contribs) / Venki123 (talk · contribs) who were banned by the arbitration committee for heavy trolling and edit-warring on the very same articles, namely Mudaliar, Sengunthar and Devadasi. Check [80].

This is a clear cut case of sock puppetry which is proved beyond doubt by the results of the check user where intially MarkPC (talk · contribs) is confirmed as a sock of Saedirof (talk · contribs) but then later escapes as his only edits are on article Devadasi and the admin who unblocked him was unaware. that the articles Devadasi, Sengunthar and Mudaliar are very closely related with overlapping references. Moreover, the confirmation by admin Thatcher (talk · contribs) that Saedirof (talk · contribs) and MarkPC (talk · contribs) edit from the exact same location further reinforces that both Saedirof (talk · contribs) and MarkPC (talk · contribs) are socks of the same person who also comes via open proxies under the alias Redlance (talk · contribs).

Comments

MarkPC has been rechecked at his behest by Jpgordon (talk · contribs); the result was that MarkPC's previous checkuser link to Saedirof was a false positive, and he was unblocked based on that. I feel it is incorrect to list MarkPC as a possible sock. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 07:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the most recent evidence(at 00:28, 27 February 2008) by Thatcher (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) here[81] where he confirms both Saedirof (talk · contribs) and MarkPC (talk · contribs) edit from the same ip location like a workplace. He clearly says that Saedirof (talk · contribs) could very well be MarkPC (talk · contribs). To quote him: You and MarkPC edit from the same place. It is possibly a workplace, and I can't tell how many people work there, and certain other features make it look like you are not MarkPC, but that does not rule out that you are not the same person using two computers. I feel Jpgordon (talk · contribs) was unaware that the 3 articles Devadasi, Sengunthar and Mudaliar were related and based his decision on that. Youonlylivetwice (talk) 07:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Report was filed by a single purpose attack account.[82] To prevent rules gaming, no action will be taken. If Youonlylivetwice proceeds with these attacks, they will be blocked by me for disruption. Jehochman ^Talk 14:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Oh Noes its another account part deux

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Oh Noes its another account part deux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Oh Noes its another account part deux 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

--Snigbrook ^(talk) 01:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User created the second account before being blocked on the first one. The second one does not appear to be blocked.

Comments

Conclusions

That's pretty obvious. I will block. Jehochman ^Talk 14:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Oh Noes its another account

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Oh Noes its another account (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

Justin Eiler (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Vandalized User:Nightrider 83's user page. Considering the account name, it's almost certainly a sockpuppet.

Comments: Same MO as this case--Fabrictramp (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

The sockpuppet has been blocked as a vandalism-only account. --EoL talk 00:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:142.162.197.114

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

142.162.194.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
142.162.205.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
142.162.195.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
142.162.195.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
142.162.194.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
142.162.205.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Mark7532222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

--Endless Dan 19:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Pattern of finding a similar IP address vandalizing articles related to WP:PW. Then I found these comments.

Comments

Reviewing each of the IPs contributions, it's consistently garbage and vadalism. Most reverted and unreported.

Conclusions

He's annoying.

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mark753 - the smoking gun.

I've blocked the recent IPs. They'll probably return, but a range block would be excessive at this time. Jehochman ^Talk 21:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Clamorformore

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

Suspected sockpuppets: Uscrob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Nikfranklehrer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Nataliyam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); KM2studios (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Sharvimj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Smeag91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Voodoorex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Prescott B.‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (Added an argument for keeping to the afd... hours after the page had been deleted)

Report submission by

Mayalld (talk) 07:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Blatant (and dreadfully amateurish) vote stuffing attempt at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Jones

Comments

Seems to be well-founded suspicion of sockpuppetry. It took me three tries to make a comment because of the disruptive edits causing an "edit conflict." Several socks were created within 10 minutes of each other.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 07:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a huge fan of Alexis Jones as well as Survivor and I'm sure the other people who want to keep her bio are as well. Who are you to say she is not newsworthy? Do you know how many people become stars over night? Just because you haven't heard of someone doesn't mean they aren't an influential member of contemporary society. What is your personal vendetta against her? How does it benefit you to try to prove she isn't famous? Wouldn't your time be better spent trying to improve your life rather than attacking hers? Maybe you could use one of her empowerment lectures. I can't wait until she blows up even more and this whole thing shame slaps you across the face. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Con Amor,

-Rob —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uscrob (talk • contribs) 08:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- If she does something notable, then the page can be recreated. No big deal. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, the Alexis Jones discussion is irrelevant here. This page is for dealing with the sockpuppet allegations. Everyone of the socks should be banned, with a stiff block for the puppeteer.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 18:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You actually missed a few. There were two or three others who edited the article and talk page with arguments for keeping the page but didn't make it to the afd. It also might not hurt to include Lexijones1 (talk · contribs), who created the page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Patent socks - passes the duck test so spectacularly it's almost insulting (leaving aside the fact that the comment above is insulting). I'd advocate blocking the lot of them for abuse of multiple accounts, and would have done it already if I wasn't on my public account... _{The public face of GB}^T/C 09:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All sockpuppets blocked apart from Voodoorex, who doesn't appear to correlate with the other users. However if they do continue with the same trend then feel free to bring back here. Master blocked one week. Rudget | talk 18:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:PS optimal

Suspected sockpuppeteer

PS optimal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

AVRao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
RocketWoman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
PSContributor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Imichaelross (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Optimality (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Brentolde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Medvall (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence as per this page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/PS_optimal

Comments

All users should be permanently blocked.

Conclusions

The following pages need deletion since created by team of puppets:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIDO_%28optimal_control%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudospectral_optimal_control

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:Mattsbigbrother

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

Suspected sockpuppets: Leostar20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

- Mike Beckham (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

See reversion histories of Nine Network and Seven Network. making same changes as warned user previously

Comments

I wont do it again sorry :S —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattsbigbrother (talk • contribs) 12:58, February 23, 2008

Conclusions

Edits looks conclusive, and so does the "self-admission" above. Mattsbigbrother has probably already served a long enough block so won't extend his (even thought it automatically expired over 5 hours ago), Leostar20 blocked indefinitely. Rudget . 19:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:LakeOswego

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Wildad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Girardjl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Saucy tin1331 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Since the opening of the deletion review, here's a few more: Truth9898 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Upsidedownpiano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Theonome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

— Scientizzle 02:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Lake Oswego (a pretty new account) and a cadre of WP:SPAs (4 IPs & 10 new accounts) all voted keep on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. Edward Griffin (2nd nomination). Others continually recreated G. Edward Griffin following the AfD closure (now salted). Lake Oswego recreated Edward Griffin, too (now also salted). The situation resulted in an AN thread permalink & an ANI thread permalink. Lake Oswego recreated the article in userspace as well, now in the deleted revisions of User:LakeOswego. LakeOswego seems intent on making a big deal about this (not user page edits and such). — Scientizzle 02:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The IPs have different WHOIS results, so this may be the work of just a lot of off-wiki canvass meatpuppeting, but it's maybe worth a closer look. Checkuser? — Scientizzle 02:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The editing is all fresh, so checkuser should be able to sort it out. Having a blizzard of single purpose accounts appear is a sign of sock puppetry, but it is not enough to block them. Go for technical confirmation via WP:RFCU. The reason would be code 'D' and you should link to the closed AFD, and also to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/LakeOswego as the evidence. :D Jehochman ^Talk 02:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/LakeOswego now open. — Scientizzle 03:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STOP this checkuser request immediately! According to WP:RFCU "Vote fraud where the possible sockpuppet votes do not affect the outcome of the vote" is an "unacceptable request". The users accused of suckpuppetry voted "keep", but the outcome was "delete". Honor the guidelines! I am NOT a suckpuppet and can well speak for myself. Soon I will include a response to the accusation of suckpuppetry and provide a likely explanation for the "evidence" in a post on Nihonjoe's ^Talk page. If, however, I find that the checkuser request has been conducted, I WILL get a new username for further contributions to wikipedia, because I cannot trust anymore that my privacy is secured. Do you really have to be online 24 hours a day just to prevent people on wikipedia from running amok? FeelFreeToBe (talk) 03:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is This A Joke? What kind of response could I possibly have? I am not a sock puppet, nor do I have an alternative account. However, I can't prove a negative. I've been a user here for two years. I'm not someone's robot. I have never communicated with anyone else on this ridiculous list. I came to the page to look for leads to other works by G. Edward Griffin that I was not aware. I found that the page was up for deletion so, I voted to "keep" because I have found the page valuable in the past. That makes me a sockpuppet? Is my vote to keep what is claimed to be evidence justifying this slanderous accusation? It's about to make me an ex-WP user. I demand an apology and that my name be removed from this list immediately. Dicktater (talk) 05:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, really? Three contributions to a deletion debate for a POV-fork in 2006, where you demand formal notice and a right to mediation or arbitration if the debate closes as anything other than keep (it closed as an unambiguous delete); then in September 2007 you made your first mainspace edit, inserting a section about "false claims" made by a subject in a biographical article, sourced from YouTube; then on Feb 23 this year you took part in the deletion debate for G. Edward Griffin. I don't think I'm alone in thinking that these contributions would be no loss to the project, I'm afraid, so your threat is somewhat hollow. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is User:LakeOswego, Is it a joke, Are they really clamming that all these users are me? Each IP is form different country!, (74.128.181.67, 65.89.98.17, 216.126.104.68, 189.164.156.182) so just think about it, if I am really capable to do this, You think I will let someone delete the Article G. Edward Griffin? Just use your common sense—Preceding unsigned comment added by LakeOswego (talk • contribs)

User:Calton, What is your problem with me? Do you hate me?—Preceding unsigned comment added by LakeOswego (talk • contribs)

All I do is mop up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical. Can't imagine why you'd have a problem with that. --Calton | Talk 23:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/LakeOswego came back Inconclusive. An editor came forward to explain that there had been canvassing, an obvious sock violation. However, the article is deleted, the deletion review is closed, and the single purpose accounts don't seem to be causing further trouble. Essentially, problem solved, no need for further action. Jehochman ^Talk 23:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Mosiki

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

Suspected sockpuppets: Dari.tv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Shootthedevgru (talk) 05:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

removing speedy deletion tags from Ishq bector. Both accounts had this article as their only contribs.

Comments

Conclusions

Dari.tv blocked indefinitely. Warning given to Mosiki. Rudget . 14:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Rhode Island Hero

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Rhode Island Hero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) <blocked indef last Nov>

Suspected sockpuppets: 70.181.24.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) <48 hrs for continuing vandalism>; Greg Jungwirth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) <indef from RFCU>

Additional accounts after initial submission:

67.93.25.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) <"colective", no edits for several days, tagged>; 72.200.176.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) <"colective", already blocked 24 hours, tagged>; The C. Leader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) <indef from RFCU>; 24.250.38.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) <"colective", already blocked 2 weeks as a Crips r us sock, tagged>; Pokemega32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (suspected to be connected due to alleged stolen account) <doesn't edit for 5 1/2 months and comes straight to this SSP case? Highly suspicious, but see nothing blockable, tagged as suspected sock>; ~~ThegreatWakkorati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)~~ confirmed as unrelated; LDEJRuff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) <no action, not convinced of this one>; 70.253.93.103's vengance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) <indef username vio, implies disruptive intent>; I.P. 70.253.93.103's vengance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) <indef username vio, implies disruptive intent>; 70.253.93.103's vengance2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) <indef username vio, implies disruptive intent>; 3151253209225 leader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) <indef from RFCU>; 70.253.93.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) <already had a temp block, no recent acty, but tagged as sock>
Report submission by

treelo _talk 02:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Has edited user talkpages who have dealt with his sockpuppets in the past and prior identities' userpages with aphorisms tagged with "Colective" at the end. [83] [84] [85] Greg Jungwirth seems to be the real identity of the sockpuppeteer as a prior CU case has shown [86] The IP address has been warned due to vandalising his own accounts as a double-bluff.

Further evidence: Has recently blanked my usertalk page several times ([87] [88] [89]) and may want to consider the Greg Jungwirth account as the master account because of it predating the Rhode Island Hero account by a month. Also can be tied to User:Jungwirthwillkillallrocks given the Greg account tried to move their account to that username a few times [90]. treelo _talk 16:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism is ongoing via different usernames and IP addresses, might need something a bit more immediate to deal with this issue. According to a WHOIS check all IP addresses are coming from a single ISP based in Atlanta, GA. --treelo _talk 03:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has recently added goading comments to talkpages[91] [92] and userpages of previous identities[93] indicating their connectedness to a spate of pageblanking with associated accounts in an attempt to make those who have dealt with his vandalism in the past feel they cannot "catch him" and may have stolen another account. Given the severity of which Greg wants to vandalise and feel he's unstoppable leads me to believe that he may have mental problems and should have any prior accounts and newly used accounts at WP:LTA, preferably in a subpage. --treelo _talk 03:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFCU filed for suspected user. [94] --treelo _talk 18:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Excuse me, I haven't been on Wikipedia for a while, so when I came on today, it had a note to my IP address about changes to its talk page. Apparently, I have the same IP address as this person....

I have two questions:

1. Is it even possible to have the same IP Address as someone else?
2. Will the banning of these accounts affect mine?

I really don't want to be connected to any of this, plese answer back. Pokemega32 (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer, yeah they can have the same IP address but not at the exact same time. The vandal's IP address has come from a pool of IP address for your ISP but won't affect you unless you use the same IP address again should it be blocked in which case you'll have to log in to edit. treelo _talk 16:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heres some information that might help from the previous failed check user [95] DietLimeCola (talk) 09:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already been listed in the original case submission. --treelo _talk 14:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um the only thing I have to do with Rhode Island Hero, is that I live 12 houses away from him. And he is my friend.Greg Jungwirth (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that comment pretty much proves that you're a sock puppet of Rhode Island Hero. DietLimeCola (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Greg Jungwirth, The C. Leader, 3151253209225 leader are all indef blocked as a result of the RFCU case. Will look at the rest tomorrow. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

70.181.24.188 blocked 48 hours for continuing vandalism. 70.253.93.103's vengance, I.P. 70.253.93.103's vengance, and 70.253.93.103's vengance2 are all three blocked as username violations. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than write out all actions taken, see notes by each name. There is obviously something fishy going on here. "Crips r us" and Rhode Island Hero are not the masters, I think Greg Jungwirth is, so I'm tagging all in this case and the RFCU cases as such--at least they'll all be tagged the same too. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Gothgirlangel1981

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Gothgirlangel1981 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Steven Hipkins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by — Rlevse • Talk • 01: 48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

User:Gothgirlangel1981 began editing in August 2007. User:Steven Hipkins first appeared only one month ago in Jan 2008. Both self-identify as being from the UK. The edits of both users are almost exclusively in the area of sex and gender identity. The articles edited in common include Boyfriend, Girlfriend, Boy Scouts of America (BSA), Girl Scouts of the USA (GSUSA) and Phat pants. Even edits to articles that are not obviously gender related are often in fact gender related, such as this one to Phat pants by SH and this one by GG to the same article. In both cases "male" was placed in front of several words. This fascination with gender terms can also be seen in today's editing where both editors insisted the BSA was the largest boy youth organization in America where in fact is the largest, regardless of gender membership. (BSA is in fact partly coed). SH's edits to the BSA article today are here: [96], [97], [98], [99]. GG's edits to the BSA article today are here: [100], [101], [102]. Also today, both kept changing edits to GSUSA from "girls" to "young people" or "young persons" when it is in fact girls-only (see GSUSA's own website). SH's edits on the GSUSA article today here: [103], [104], [105], [106]. GG's edits on GSUSA article today here: [107], [108].

Their language and interests are strikingly similar.

Both users use deceptive edit summaries, claiming things that did not happen. For example, see this edit, where the summary is "Modify Date Stamps, grammar errors", but the diff shows no date stamps being modified and no grammar errors being fixed, it's just insertion of "male" for the most part. An example from GG, where the summary says "removal of irrelevant info - reedited lower section", but the info was relevant and there were no lower section edits. There's also this edit where the summary is "Removed info by vandalistic editor."; but the edit clearly wasn't vandalism.

Edit comparison tool results: here

Also note that when GG stopped editing today at 22:49, SH started up at 22:52, a mere 3 minutes later, when SH had not edited in 24 days. On 30 Jan (the last day where SH edited prior to today), SH stops editing at 15:48 and GG starts at 15:55, only seven minutes later.

We have interests, time of edits never overlapping, deceptive edit summaries, tag team disruptive edit warring on BSA/GSUSA (which SH was warned for), and general location linking them together and violating WP:SOCK. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Was bored so I looked through this case --and it's looks pretty convincing. Both seem to have some kind of "gender issue". They take turns editing (blocks of editing). Common articles of interest and same POV in those articles. A precipitating event (in the form of a dispute on the part of Gothgirlangel1981 on scouting articles and maybe "Phat pants") provides a "reason" to create a sockpuppet, in order to fake support. Recommend running a CU to confirm, but there seems to be enough evidence without it in the case it comes back as "inconclusive". I would be extremely surprised if it came back "unrelated." R. Baley (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

The evidence of sockpuppetry looks very convincing. Indef blocking sock, and 24 hour block for the master. Dreadstar † 03:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issue resovled, archiving case. Dreadstar † 03:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:UkraineToday (6th)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

80.97.94.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
62.6.242.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
212.248.240.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
88.191.25.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
189.56.193.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
212.92.23.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Jd2718 (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
62.6.242.14 appended by Jd2718 (talk) 08:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
212.248.240.1 appended by --TAG (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
88.191.25.38 open proxy by --TAG (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
189.56.193.250 open proxy by Timberframe (talk) 10:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
212.92.23.102 open proxy by --TAG (talk) 11:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

IP edits the same article as previous user:UkraineToday socks (see the previous sock puppet reports: 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th. He restores the same charts from his blog, makes false 3RR warnings, uses the same variety of mispellings (read to the end, they accelerate and become more unusual, regularly fails to sign, all matching the evidence in the previous sockpuppet reports.

And in case there is any question, he is hand-signing his talk page edits as D@Work, telling us he is the same editor as previously blocked-as-puppet DemocracyATwork. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jd2718 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The newer sock, user talk:62.6.242.14, appeared and edited twice, once the talk page where he heaped abuse on those who disagreed with him [109], and once he vandalized Internet Forum [110] which DeadEyeArrow had just repaired. DeadEyeArrow reverted UkraineToday earlier today. Jd2718 (talk) 08:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New anon ip 212.248.240.1 has restored charts created by UkraineToday at Template:Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007 --TAG (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The original block was for e-mail abuse. Since then he has revealed RL id, spammed talk pages, edit warred, and used multiple puppets to evade his ban.

Both IPs are open-proxies and were blocked as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies. But it's unknown if case will evolve. --TAG (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Both" in the comment immediately above refers only to the first two IPs. Jd2718 (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually - all future IPs of this abuser are expected to come from open proxies. 212.248.240.1 is also open proxy --TAG (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

189.56.193.250 continues edits by previous socks to the same images and talk pages, using the same vocabulary and characteristic spelling mistakes and continuing the campaign of trying to reveal my real life identity. -- Timberframe (talk) 10:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UkraineToday keep using proxy IPs from proksi.hash.es website. --TAG (talk) 11:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In case anyone felt like reviewing the original ban... There are current behaviors that reaffirm the need for the original ban. The account edit wars, as we've been seeing on Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007, and, after semi-protection, on the associated talk page. The account edits disruptively (see this talk page. The 1st edit is by the banned user, copying another editor's comment, sig, and time stamp from elsewhere). The account is abusive towards other edits. The account has revealed RL data about other editors. Jd2718 (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Tiresome. I have made sure all the IPs are blocked. They were open proxies. Additionally, I have semi-protected the pages that were being attacked. Hopefully the user will get bored and go find something productive to do with their time instead of bothering Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 00:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:YourLord

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Illustrious One (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

21:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

YourLord resumes block-evasion and disruptive activity mentioned in previous (IP-only) SP report Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/YourLord

YourLord's distinquishing behavior is adding certain categories to none-too-appropriate subjects, and is obsessed with cartoons and fantasy fiction "supervillians" [111] [112] [113] [114] [115]. An IP sock who self-identifies as YourLord [116] defends an IP in the same range for adding Category:Supervillains, Category:Fictional bisexuals, [117] [118] to Stewie Griffin.

(The trail of IP addresses used by YourLord is complicated to follow, but easy to identify by their distinctive obsessions. More relationships are demonstrated in YourLord's previous SSP.)

Illustrious One adds Stewie Griffin [119] to categories Category:Supervillains, Category:Fictional bisexuals, Category:Fictional characters who appear to be somewhat vain or arrogant, the latter being a new category created by Illustrious One and being populated characters from cartoons and fantasy fiction. Other edits are consistent with YourLord's interests and categorization.

Conclusion

This is an obvious sock puppet, especially if you consider these pairs of edits:

User pages: [120][121]
User talk pages: [122][123]

Checkuser will not help because the puppetmaster has not edited recently. I am blocking the sock. Jehochman ^Talk 23:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Cheeser1[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:BEATTHEHEAT

Suspected sockpuppeteer: V-Dash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

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

Report submission by

--Good Damon 17:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Comments

Conclusions

Obvious disruptive sockpuppet. Both users indef-blocked. No further action required. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:V-Dash

Suspected sockpuppeteer: V-Dash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Jack O Lanturn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

--Good Damon 19:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Comments

Could this guy please be blocked and have his various user accounts locked yet? --Good Damon 22:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Both users are already blocked, there is little more we can do. - Caribbean~H.Q. 09:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:88.66.25.90

Suspected sockpuppeteer: 88.66.25.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Willy on Wheels (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Naohiro19 revertvandal (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Comments

Evidence? That is a very strong accusation. Thedjatclubrock :) ^(T/C) 22:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I doubt this is Willy himself, however it's clear that this editor is no stranger to the lore of Wikipedia vandalism, and (not mentioned above) recently operated several accounts and open proxies to make their point. All useful blocks have been made, no further action required. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Studentbeerpong

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

205.228.74.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
205.228.73.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

AW (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Identical spam edits to Beer pong:

By User:Studentbeerpong: [124] [125] [126] [127]
By User:205.228.73.13: [128] [129]
By User:205.228.74.12: [130]

Comments

It looks like the IP addresses are shared by different users. Blocking them could result in a lot of collateral damage. I recommend contacting WP:WPSPAM, or following up at User talk:Studentbeerpong where A. B. is already compiling a spam report. They can blacklist the domain, and that will shut down the spam operation for good. Jehochman ^Talk 05:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

No sock puppet enforcement is possible at this time. Jehochman ^Talk 05:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:195.189.142.197

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

195.189.142.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
195.189.142.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
195.189.142.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
195.189.142.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Jamie S93 18:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

All five IP addresses have persistantly vandalized Opera Mini since February 17 2008. In total, all five IPs have made 17 edits to that article over 4 hours of time. All show the exact same pattern with vandalizing Opera Mini, and all IPs use the same edit summary when vandalizing that article; edit summary is either "This page vandalised using Opera mini!" (used once), or "Another succesful piece of vandalism using Opera mini!" (used 16 times). All addresses share the same IP prefixes (195.189.142.xxx). It appears that each time an IP address was blocked, another IP was used immediately. All IPs are currently temporarily blocked for vandalism. --JamieS93 (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit diffs with Opera Mini

195.189.142.197 - diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4, diff5, diff6

195.189.142.136 - diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4

195.189.142.226 - diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4

195.189.142.214 - diff1

195.189.142.202 - diff1, diff2

Comments: Note that all IPs belong to the Opera Mini proxies. Of course it's the same bored person. I'm not sure any action is warranted here. -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

They seem to have given up. Problem solved, at least for now. Jehochman ^Talk 05:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Josepha Marschke

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Josepha Marschke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Smarty Pants 12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Roleplayer (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Josepha Marschke was blocked indefinitely by User:Hut 8.5 at 17:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC) for making edits to articles that did not stand up to scrutiny once questioned, for making personal attacks against me because I questioned them, and for editing comments left by other people on their user talk page. Smarty Pants 12345 has made two edits, one to one of the pages that Josepha Marschke originally added wrong information to[131], and the second to make a further personal attack against me at User talk:Josepha Marschke [132]. It is for this reason that I believe Smarty Pants 12345 to be a sockpuppet of Josepha Marschke. -- Roleplayer (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The evidence is suggestive, but not enough to block without technical confirmation. Hence, I have started Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Josepha Marschke. Jehochman ^Talk 01:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Confirmed. Therefore, tagged and blocked. Jehochman ^Talk 04:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Harvardlaw

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Fish007cia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.3.154.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Supersquid (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Edits by user(s) above similar to modus operandi of banned user Harvardlaw.

Edits seem to be done without use of preview button as per edit history here [133] and here [134].
User edits primarily items that someway (he belives) involves him or his friends/family members.

Comments

Conclusions

This is obviously Harvardlaw. I've blocked the account and some IPs (67.17.182.113, 72.222.248.97, 68.3.154.99) and reverted the edits. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Rohit tripathi60

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Rohit tripathi60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Raghvendra60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Technobadger (talk) 08:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

This user stated that he is an employee of Nagarro Inc, in this edit, which he then subsequently removed. Both accounts appear to refer to a single person, Rohit Raghvendra Tripathi, who clearly identifies himself as a Nagarro employee here (using the same ID as his first WP account), as well as here, here and elsewhere.

Following the deletion of info about his employer from his talk page, he counters a prod for his companies product in this edit, and claims to be a user of Projistics with no conflict of interest. On the same day he creates the User:Raghvendra60 account.

Using this new account, he then removes the prod from the article where the COI lies (and which has been deleted 3 times as spam).

He then immediately logs back in under his old account, and resumes editing.

Also note numerous entries in COI and spam reports.

Comments

There is clearly suspicious behavior. However, the removal of prod is permitted by anyone. It does not have to be a different user. Actions that require a different user can manipulated by use of socks but this isn't such action. Archtransit (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

SSP investigations are time consuming and backlogged. A case like this could be adjudicated simply based on Wikipedia rules that do not require guessing and uncertainty as sock investigations require. Suggest polite discussion with user(s) about the use of reliable sources WP:RS and notability WP:NN. If a prod is deleted, an AFD can be filed. If you file an AFD, carefully consider it first. Don't file one in retaliation for a deletion of a prod. Once an AFD is filed, the decision should be a discussion, not a vote. Therefore, the use of socks for voting is not an effective strategy. A more effective strategy to keep the article would be to improve it so notability is clear. Archtransit (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Case to be re-opened, reviewed and re-closed. Archtransit has been desysopped as an sockmaster, with an occasional sideline in unblocking socks, himself.

Checkuser Confirmed, Rohit tripathi60 (talk · contribs) == Raghvendra60 (talk · contribs) == Dhirajch (talk · contribs). Thatcher 00:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Raghvendra60 and User:Dhirajch blocked as sock accounts, User:Rohit tripathi60 given a final warning for sockpuppetry/COI editing. Mr.Z-man 01:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:86.150.98.222

Suspected sockpuppeteer: 86.150.98.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: 86.150.98.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

See comment. Sockpuppet of banned User:Max Blaze

Comments

Er... the sockpuppeteer and the sockpuppets have the same IP? Did you mean to put in 86.142.3.101? Rudget . 12:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I have blocked the IP for attempting to harass another user. Whether they are a sock or not doesn't change that, and as an IP address, we should not block indefinitely. Jehochman ^Talk 19:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:124.185.79.125

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

124.185.240.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
124.185.53.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Deadly∀ssassin^(talk) 11:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Both addresses have a history of adding the same copyrighted material to Elton Flatley as well as the style of comments that the users leave on reverting editors pages User_talk:DeadlyAssassin and User_talk:DeadEyeArrow.

Comments

IP users editing times do not overlap. They are simply used once. The users do not claim to be separate users trying to give the illusion of consensus. WP policy states "A sock puppet is an alternative account used deceptively". I see no evidence of this occurring.

What I do see is edits which are not productive and warning that have been given by others. This could be the basis for blocking if bad behaviour continues.

I will have this case independently reviewed and will return if the review suggests another course of action.

Conclusions

Case closed. Suggest filing vandalism report (WP:AIV) if vandalism occurs. Archtransit (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Case to be re-opened, reviewed and re-closed. Archtransit has been desysopped as an sockmaster, with an occasional sideline in unblocking socks, himself.

Quite obviously the same person using a dynamic IP based on IPs and editing patterns (though 124.185.53.220 seems to have no edits). Too old now to block. If it continues/starts again, a short rangeblock or semi-protection might be in order. Mr.Z-man 01:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Deanrules

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

- ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 11:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Per history of Sovereign Harbour
- Vandalism by User:Deanhowell: here, here, here, here and here
- Vandalism by User:Deanrules: here

Comments

User:Deanrules created the article on October 28, 2007 initially as a serious article but has since taken to vandalizing the article under both names.

Both users have similar names. Both users have vandalism edits in the same article. However, a conclusion of sockpuppetry is not a complete certainty. One of the users could conceivably be trying to pretend that he/she was a sock in order to block the other user. In view of lack of conclusive evidence that the two users are definitely socks but clear demonstration of vandalism, any prevention of disruption should cite vandalism, not sockpuppetry. Archtransit (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Case closed. Consider filing complaint about vandalism and/or warn editors using vandalism templates. Archtransit (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Case to be re-opened, reviewed and re-closed. Archtransit has been desysopped as an sockmaster, with an occasional sideline in unblocking socks, himself.

Checkuser is Inconclusive; one edits from a school with some good accounts (and some vandals, typical of many schools) and the other edits from an apparent residence in the same broad geographic area. Thatcher 00:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Deanhowell blocked as a vandalism only account, leaving Deanrules alone for now as he's now inactive and only a couple edits were vandalism. Report to AIV if vandalism restarts. Mr.Z-man 01:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Rohit tripathi60

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Rohit tripathi60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Raghvendra60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Technobadger (talk) 08:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

This user stated that he is an employee of Nagarro Inc, in this edit, which he then subsequently removed. Both accounts appear to refer to a single person, Rohit Raghvendra Tripathi, who clearly identifies himself as a Nagarro employee here (using the same ID as his first WP account), as well as here, here and elsewhere.

Following the deletion of info about his employer from his talk page, he counters a prod for his companies product in this edit, and claims to be a user of Projistics with no conflict of interest. On the same day he creates the User:Raghvendra60 account.

Using this new account, he then removes the prod from the article where the COI lies (and which has been deleted 3 times as spam).

He then immediately logs back in under his old account, and resumes editing.

Also note numerous entries in COI and spam reports.

Comments

There is clearly suspicious behavior. However, the removal of prod is permitted by anyone. It does not have to be a different user. Actions that require a different user can manipulated by use of socks but this isn't such action. Archtransit (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

SSP investigations are time consuming and backlogged. A case like this could be adjudicated simply based on Wikipedia rules that do not require guessing and uncertainty as sock investigations require. Suggest polite discussion with user(s) about the use of reliable sources WP:RS and notability WP:NN. If a prod is deleted, an AFD can be filed. If you file an AFD, carefully consider it first. Don't file one in retaliation for a deletion of a prod. Once an AFD is filed, the decision should be a discussion, not a vote. Therefore, the use of socks for voting is not an effective strategy. A more effective strategy to keep the article would be to improve it so notability is clear. Archtransit (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Case to be re-opened, reviewed and re-closed. Archtransit has been desysopped as an sockmaster, with an occasional sideline in unblocking socks, himself.

Checkuser Confirmed, Rohit tripathi60 (talk · contribs) == Raghvendra60 (talk · contribs) == Dhirajch (talk · contribs). Thatcher 00:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Raghvendra60 and User:Dhirajch blocked as sock accounts, User:Rohit tripathi60 given a final warning for sockpuppetry/COI editing. Mr.Z-man 01:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Davkal

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

OoohLimehouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
195.155.32.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - revealed at [135]
TheLaPesca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - already blocked

Report submission by

Evidence

This user was immediately created after User:TheLaPesca was blocked for being a sockpuppet of User:Davkal and continued the conversation as that user at Talk:Parapsychology. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I think there is strong evidence of sock puppetry. I suggest filing a WP:RFCU since all the editing is fresh, and there is no reason to risk blocking the wrong editor. Additionally, RFCU may help uncover additional sleeper socks before they cause problems. Be sure to list all the accounts above, including the IP. Jehochman ^Talk 15:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

All suspected accounts and IP addresses have been confirmed in the February 17 request for checkuser. Case closed. Spebi 05:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Nationmaster

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

Suspected sockpuppets: Invasivepants (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); ButtCommandr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 24.213.58.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Mayalld (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Tag teaming in a vandalism spree at Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railroad Company v. Illinois

Comments

This appears to be a much clearer violation of Wikipedia vandalism policies than WP:SOCK. WP:SOCK states "A sock puppet is an alternative account used deceptively. In particular, using two usernames to vote more than once in a poll or to circumvent Wikipedia policies is forbidden." The evidence of sockpuppetry is merely circumstantial. The evidence of vandalism is clear and unmistakable.

Nationmaster and Invasivepants are the only users of the four listed who remain unblocked. All of their edits seem to be vandalism. It would be better evaluate their behavior on vandalism, which is clear cut, rather than try to deduct whether or not they are the same person. Due to the esoteric nature of the article vandalised, I suspect that the article was discussed in a school history class.

Mayalld, have you considered WP:AIV? Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that M.EB has made some very good points above, and I agree that this report is based more on vandalism rather than "who owns who" - I don't believe at this moment in time, we can appropriately conclude that Invasivepants is Nationmaster. As M.EB points out, it could have been something that was in class that day, and the only need for a block would be warranted on a vandalism block only. ButtCommandr has already been blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account, and so we exclude him from the results of this report immediately. I appreciate Mayalld's concerns and these edits even lead to a protection of the page in question, but I don't see any reason for Nationmaster wanting to create another account (i.e. Invasivepants) because there have been no blocks, and few warnings. At this moment in time I feel it would be best to see what happens, and if they return in these capacities - just report them to AIV and quote this SSP case - it, in combination with the final warnings I have issued, would surely lead to a block of some period. Rudget . 18:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that this report originated in vandalism. At the time, there was a lot of activity from all the users making the same edits, and it looked as if there was an intent to start a sock farm to allow more extensive vandalism whilst evading a block by keeping all accounts under the block radar. It would appear that once it became clear that the game was up, he got bored, so I don't see any further action as necessary on this case. If the accounts start up again, we can deal with it from there. Mayalld (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Case closed. No further action at this time. Conclusion appears to be supported by Mayalld (submitter of report), Rudget and Mrs. Easter Bunny. Nobody not in support of conclusion. Archtransit (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Case to be re-opened, reviewed and re-closed. Archtransit has been desysopped as an sockmaster, with an occasional sideline in unblocking socks, himself.

Important - in this case, all comments by third parties, as well as the conclusion should be reappraised and the case reassessed from scratch. (There is evidence examined by Arbcom that suggests at least one of the comments made to it was influenced by Archtransit, and therefore all comments should be set aside in re-evaluating the case.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed by checkuser; ButtCommandr (talk · contribs), Invasivepants (talk · contribs), Nationmaster (talk · contribs) and Acutevampirecatgirldame (talk · contribs) are the same person. The IP is probably Unrelated. Thatcher 00:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All accounts (except the IP) blocked for sockpuppetry per CheckUser evidence. Mr.Z-man 01:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Fila7345

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Fila7345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Fila3466757 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Fila934 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Fila3456789545477759 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fila3466757 (2nd) and contributions.

More at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Fila3466757 Stewart^(talk) 18:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The pattern of edits mirrors those from the previous cases listed above and to the puppet accounts in the Sockpuppet category. --Stewart^(talk) 18:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Indefblocked as WP:DUCK ... dave souza, talk 19:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:UkraineToday (5th)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

See also

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/UkraineToday
Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/UkraineToday (3rd)
Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/UkraineToday (4th)

Report submission by

TAG (talk) 10:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Following repeated blocks of this user which he has evaded by obtaining new Wikipedia accounts, he continues to reinstate his self created materials. All his previous unblock requests were reviewed and denied. New DemocracyInAction (talk · contribs) account are similar to previously blocked one DemocracyATwork (talk · contribs). New userpage User:DemocracyInAction is exact copy of [136].

Comments

This user is a persistent vandal, abuser and POV pusher.

Conclusions

This account has been blocked as an obvious sock puppet, due to the editing pattern. Jehochman ^Talk 14:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Downtrip

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Wikzilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Banofreep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Evidence

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Downtrip Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wikzilla

Comments

Downtrip has been found by checkuser to have abused multiple accounts and have been used for votestacking and 3RR bypass along with simple vandalism. One of his attributed accounts Wikzilla has been shown to have made extensive use of socks and and has been blocked [137], however downtrip and Banofreep remain active.Freepsbane (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

All indef'd. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Deanrules

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

- ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 11:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Per history of Sovereign Harbour
- Vandalism by User:Deanhowell: here, here, here, here and here
- Vandalism by User:Deanrules: here

Comments

User:Deanrules created the article on October 28, 2007 initially as a serious article but has since taken to vandalizing the article under both names.

Both users have similar names. Both users have vandalism edits in the same article. However, a conclusion of sockpuppetry is not a complete certainty. One of the users could conceivably be trying to pretend that he/she was a sock in order to block the other user. In view of lack of conclusive evidence that the two users are definitely socks but clear demonstration of vandalism, any prevention of disruption should cite vandalism, not sockpuppetry. Archtransit (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Case closed. Consider filing complaint about vandalism and/or warn editors using vandalism templates. Archtransit (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Case to be re-opened, reviewed and re-closed. Archtransit has been desysopped as an sockmaster, with an occasional sideline in unblocking socks, himself.

Checkuser is Inconclusive; one edits from a school with some good accounts (and some vandals, typical of many schools) and the other edits from an apparent residence in the same broad geographic area. Thatcher 00:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Deanhowell blocked as a vandalism only account, leaving Deanrules alone for now as he's now inactive and only a couple edits were vandalism. Report to AIV if vandalism restarts. Mr.Z-man 01:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Nealstudio

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Entrekinep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Crestview (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 04:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Both users argued that Michael Shane Neal, which is up for deletion should be kept. Both signed their name using four tidles, and wrote their username afterwards. They have very few edits outside the AFD. It appears as if the author of Michael Shane Neal is trying to stack votes.

Comments

Conclusions

Master blocked one week, socks indef. Note on AFD page. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:98E

Suspected sockpuppeteer

98E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppet

Hundredalexander (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (account created on February 14, 2008)

Report submission by

Spellcast (talk) 23:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

I blocked User:Hundredalexander as an obvious sock of banned User:98E. 98E always abuses the unblock template, so I thought I'd give evidence here as a possible reference for admins reviewing the block. The dot points state their editing patterns.

Hundredalexander only has about 80 edits, and already the common articles edited include:

Requesting image edits on semi-protected pages: [138],[139]

Reinserting an alternate album cover he uploaded for All Eyez on Me: [140], [141], [142]

Uploading alternate album covers that are virtually the same as the original: Image:Chronicexplicit.jpg and Image:Alternate2paceyez.jpg.

98E often uncapitalised the "l" in "like", citing the MoS.[143], [144] Hundredalexander added "like" as a word to uncapitalise in the naming conventions.[145] (That uncapitalisation is a move I usually do; I think he got that idea from my contribs).

Both always put the current article name on images.[146], [147]

Like Rappingwonders (talk · contribs) (a sock of 98E), Hundredalexander is familiar with fair-use rationales in his earliest edits. When giving edit summaries, both frequently start with a capital letter and end with a full stop.

98E has a long history of impersonation (and copyright violations), claiming to be everything from a 10 year old boy,[148] Trey Parker,[149] a 37 year old man,[150] a 20 year old guy,[151] and now an 11 year old boy.[152] Spellcast (talk) 23:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

98E and Hundredalexander say they broadcast themselves on YouTube.[153], [154] Hundredalexander even made a YouTube video in response to his block. This seems to prove he really is 11 years old. If that's the case, then this description from User:Replay7's userpage (a sock of 98E) in 2007 (where he claims to be a 10 year old named Alex) could be true. Also note that Replay7 uploaded Image:SBob.JPG, which looks like a picture drawn by a young child. Spellcast (talk) 02:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Conclusions

Already blocked, it doesn't get more convincing than this, when based on editing and behavior. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Leaveituptome1234

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Hardnfast (talk) 04:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

This is obviously the same user who was blocked for vandalism under the name User:Leaveituptome1234. He then conducted vandalism under the name User:Leaveituptome6789 and that account was subsequently blocked for being a sock puppet of Leaveituptome1234. This user is now using account User:LeaveituptomeHardnfast, using my account name in his account name. This user hasn't changed his act, he likes to vandalize pages associated with WEEI on air personalities particularly Glen Ordway and Fred Smerlas. This user also seems to take joy in posting messages on my user page, and filing false complaints against me because I dare revert his 'art'. Using my account name in his latest suck puppetry follows this trend.

User:Leaveituptome1234 [155] [156] [157] [158]

User:Leaveituptome6789 [159] [160]

User:LeaveituptomeHardnfast [161] [162]

Comments

Can I just ban myself? How does that work? And when my name and this IP gets banned, how long will it before I can hop back on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeaveituptomeHardnfast (talk • contribs) 13:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS- I love that I get my own project page, this is pretty sweet. So there is a project dedicated to shutting me up? Some people spend time putting in baseball stats on Wiki, others Civil War descriptions, who spends the time stalking me? I mean other than Hardnfast.--LeaveituptomeHardnfast (talk) 13:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

He even admitted it. Indef block. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:85.220.63.247

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

83.7.209.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
88.105.62.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
88.9.129.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
84.26.116.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
82.84.139.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
82.157.75.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
84.203.11.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

All are one-shot addresses; see Wikipedia:Abuse reports/8x Ranges for details. Possibly part of a botnet. The first five left death threats on two users' pages; the last three reverted innocuous statements in retaliation for my blocking the first five.

Comments

I agree with Jeske's assessment that these are all the same person. Unfortunately, with almost a week having passed since the last edit, I'm not sure if anything can be done. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Btwn what Shalom points out and being a botnet, blocking would be pointless. AN or AIV would be a better choice next time, SSP gets too backlogged for things like this. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:PPG345

Suspected sockpuppeteer

PPG2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

PPG345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Evidence

See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PPG2007. It's an archived case, but I am not sure how to re-open it with (yet another) sock. Yng varr 18:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Besides name similarity, what else for evidence do you have? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much the same behaviour that's listed in the archived sock case; the socks are focused on adding previously disputed material to List of characters in Camp Lazlo. Here's some diffs for comparison:

PPG345's only edit to the article in question: [163]
One of PPG2008's edits, same article: [164]
A couple of PPG2007's edits for the same article: [165][166]

Pretty much the same article with the same material. The user has edited other articles, but those aren't on my watchlist nor do I edit, so I can only compare to the article given here. Yng varr 01:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to make an educated guess that PPG345 is a sock as suspected, but I don't have enough evidence to be certain. Also, I reviewed the earlier case, so it might be good if an uninitiated eye can be brought to bear on this case. I'm not comfortable recommending an indef-block without a checkuser, but the old account may be too old to checkuser. Maybe the best thing to do is to keep this under advisement: if PPG345 really is a sockpuppet, and is here to troll Camp Lazlo articles, we can expect to see more edits along those lines. (Or he'll realize that he's under suspicion, so he'll quit using this account and start using yet another account.) Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit late on the reply here, but /shrug. Since no further edits were made, I'd suspect they'll just disappear (only to pop up later, when "the coast is clear"). Well, I'll leave it up to the admins on what they want to do with this case: close and archive it, or leave it open just in case. Yng varr 14:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I'm convinced enough, indef block. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Sgwoods

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

Suspected sockpuppets: Thomasg1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Jfire (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Also Comcast IPs User:76.21.3.172 and User:67.180.240.216. Edit patterns are very similar; both seem to be accounts of Steven Woods, who edits a group of related articles for which he has conflicts of interest: NeoEdge Networks, AOLbyPhone, Steven Woods, Michael Babiak (prodded), Jeromy Carriere, Alex Quilici, Diner Dash, and Cake Mania. External link-spammed the latter two, otherwise just general promotional editing.

Comments

There's a good chance, I'd say better than 50%, that these users and IPs are all the same person. I'm not sure why you're bringing this case here, though. All of the accounts are inactive and have not edited for many months. If you wish to have the articles deleted or pared down because of suspected conflict of interest, you can make that argument elsewhere. However, there is no need to take action against inactive user accounts which may not be used again. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I'd need more than 50% or so to block, esp with dormant accounts (which I do block, esp if a prolific pupptetmaster). No need here. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Nipponese Dog Calvero

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Nipponese Dog Calvero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

江川尚優 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

cab (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

He is interested in the topic of Vietnamese people in Taiwan; though up to now his edits in that area have not been disruptive [167][168].
- User:城市獵人 ("City Hunter", another suspected sockpuppet of User:Nipponese Dog Calvero) was also very interested in this topic and kept spamming various people's userpages with messages in Chinese complaining about evil Vietnamese mail-order brides in Taiwan and asking that we create an article on the topic [169][170]
His userpage right now [171] is very similar to "City Hunter"'s old userpage [172]
He vandalised Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Nipponese Dog Calvero [173]
His zhwiki account has been blocked as a sockpuppet of zh:user:影武者 [174]
After he was blocked from zhwiki, an IP in the 118.167.13x.* range removed the zhwiki interwiki from his enwiki userpage [175]
- An IP from the same range, 118.167.136.28, recently vandalised my userpage to change the People's Republic of China flag to the Republic of China flag [176], the same kind of vandalism that "City Hunter" liked to do [177][178]
- This IP range belongs to Hinet [179], a Taiwanese ISP, which is known to be used by zh:user:影武者 (see m:Vandalism_reports#影武者 (Kagemusha etc))

Comments

Conclusions

Blocked sock indef, master blocked long ago. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Jsb394

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Jsb394 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Mosquito0016 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

BlueAzure (talk) 04:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Jsb394 is a representative of One Economy Corporation. They confirmed that they were 208.118.160.122, which is registered to One Economy Corporation. They created Rey Ramsey and Alec Ross (Social Entrepreneur). Several days after they their COI came to light, they stopped editing. Later the same day the new editor Mosquito0016 started editing the One Economy Corporation related articles. Almost all of the Mosquito0016 edits have been to these articles. In this edit, Mosquito0016 added a cite web to the ref http://www.one-economy.org/about/history.asp. Mosquito0016 listed the author as Austin Bonner, but the page has no mention of an author. Austin Bonner is an employee of the One Economy Corporation, another employee of One Economy Corporation would probably know that she wrote that page. Mosquito0016 left messages to explain their editing of the One Economy Corporation related pages [180] [181]. Mosquito0016 also removed the COI tags from the articles.

Comments

I don't have any connection with jsb394, nor with One Economy. I clearly explained my intent before editing each article on the discussion page. All I did to the articles was add all the legitimate sources I could find, delete them and me for all I care: my experience editing these articles has made Wikipedia an enemy of sorts in my mind. Everything I do I am hounded by people, left and right. All I did was recreate a functioning article devoid of COI, what more can I do? The articles I remade are not stubs, they are not in any sort of conflict, but yet I continue to get warnings every other day and passive aggressive pre-made threats. I am sorry I ever tried to help with your encyclopedia. I can promise you this, I will never, ever, in my entire life, use Wikipedia again, because what you're doing to me right now is like a strange and difficult torture, slowly expelling me from your system like an unwanted turd, a product of constipation. I obviously have nothing to contribute, I feel supremely worthless in the face of your incredibly bureaucratic community matrices, in short I'd rather die than continue to suffer the digital jabs and prods of your users. I thank you for letting me try to help and I beg you, delete my account so I don't have to read any more of your exasperating warnings.Mosquito0016 (talk) 05:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the results of the UserCompare tool. β^_command 05:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to send this to checkuser. My own instinct is that this is sockpuppetry, but I think if the checkuser comes back positive, then the main account should also be subjected to RTV, i.e. indef-blocked. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 19:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser

Confirmed. note that indefblock != RTV. RTV is a courtesy reserved for user in good standing. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Per the results of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jsb394, I am going to indef block both accounts since they have only been used for disruption. Jehochman ^Talk 17:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing per RFCU, already blocked and tagged. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:KellyAna

Suspected sockpuppeteer: KellyAna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets: IrishLass0128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Bleek25 (talk) 11:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Please see the Las Vegas edit history. These 2 users accounts were started less that 24 hours apart.at first kellyana was putting the same information on the page. Then so he or she would avoid the 3RR rule Irish0128 started putting the same info on the page.

Also look at these edits both User:KellyAna 1,2,and 3 and User:IrishLass0128 1,and 2 did they are exactly the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleek25 (talk•Bleek25 (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:KellyAna has stated that this is the second time he or she has been accused of being a sockpuppet.This proves that I 'm not the only one that belives that he or she is a sockpuppet.Bleek25 (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I believe these 2 accouts are socks.Bleek25 (talk) 11:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. I've offered, as has KellyAna for a check user to be run many times. We both came here approximately the same day for the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady, Colleen Brady, and Santo DiMera articles [182]. We both come from the same external website that supports the couple (along with Antigone28, Perfectlovee, ForbiddenLove, and I'm one of the IP addresses before understanding how to get an account) and were asked by the administrator of that website to come over and help. As the request to help came from the admin of our site to help with a page about the couples our website supports, and we are both active members, we jumped in to help her. I then moved on to other Days of our Lives articles and expanded into other areas. There are several articles I don't touch that Kelly works on (the Survivor articles being a big one). There are articles I work on that she has no interest in, particularly my home town related articles of Garden Grove, West Garden Grove, California, and Pacifica High School.

Several people are putting the same content on the Las Vegas page, DJS24, Tj21, and others, Bleek is the one removing it and because Kelly and I work on the same Days of our Lives pages (we are both registered members of the Wikipedia Soaps Project) we made our way to other similar pages television related. Feel free to run a check user or what ever is necessary to clear this up. In reality Bleek25 is upset that he's been warned over 3RR and people aren't respecting his/her abbreviated version of a plot line and this is his retaliation to me reporting his 3RR violation yesterday. Thank you for your time. IrishLass (talk) 14:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the two accounts do share similar interests in soap operas, I believe, as with most genuine sock puppetry cases, that it would have been evident long before now. KellyAna even put through a successful change of username ... why do that if you were a sockpuppet? I think this is just motivated by an editing dispute.

OK, I'm a little biased because I've been helpful to both of these users. But I'd really like to see more of the classic sock evidence (very similar writing quirks, not being online at the same time a lot), before I even consider this. Daniel Case (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm re-listing this case since it was incorrectly attached to another, unrelated case. --Mosmof (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There need to be diffs to clearly show such an alleged relation as required in the instructions. Otherwise, I support dismissing this for lack of evidence. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just found this. Am I supposed to reply/comment/defend myself over this? (If I wanted to I could make the same accusation about Bleek25) or am I just supposed to wait for the decision. After 6 months here, in the last two weeks because of the Las Vegas article, I've been accused twice of being some puppeteer of another user. I don't control anyone, isn't that what a puppeteer does? What exactly am I supposed to do to refute these false accusations? KellyAna (talk) 03:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to new accusations. I was accused by someone who was a sock and has been blocked. That means the accusation was questionable in the first place because they were only accusing me because I accused them there was no previous report on me. And those 5 edits are just reverts of the content you removed, not 5 identical edits. KellyAna (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Dismissing case. They just look like two editors interested in the same topic to me. Also note the submitted filed a days-old 3RR on Kelly that was dismissed as stale. Suggest an eye be kept out for further such action. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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:Mavronjoti

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

80.78.70.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
84.20.70.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
84.20.74.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

--Dr.K. (talk) 23:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

All edit the same type of articles. Lately they have been concentrating in revert wars on the Ioannis Kapodistrias article. All IPs are located in Tirana, Albania.

Comments

See also discussion here: Talk:Ioannis_Kapodistrias#Hej_Doctor.2C. Mavronjoti actually signs as Mavronjoti while the robot signs as 84.20.70.228. Also he does not refute my suggestion that he is 80.78.70.196. Here: Talk:Kitsos_Botsaris he signs as Mavronjoti and the diff is: from 80.78.70.196

Conclusions: Not really sockpuppetry, since he isn't concealing the identity. Editing through anonymous IPs is not in itself forbidden. It would be better, however, if he could be persuaded to always log in with his account. Have you asked him politely to do that? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Snocrates

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

barneca (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

This report concerns a user currently undergoing an RfA: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Snocrates.

Snocrates is a very prolific editor in Categories, particularly WP:CFD, categories related to the Mormon church, and new categories patrolling (see contribs: [183] for typical pattern). With little warning, he quit editing on 1/31 [184], claiming to be moving to a place without internet access; this was very abrupt, and there was no discernable change in his editing pattern right up until the departure.

Zoporific was created a few hours later, on 2/1 [185], and immediately resumed making the same kind of uncommon, "advanced" edits, in the same particular areas (CfD's, Mormon articles and categories, and patrolling) at the same impressive rate that Snocrates did (contribs: [186]). Zoporific also joined the same Wikiproject: [187].

When Snocrates returned on 2/10 [188], saying internet service was available after all, Zoporific immedaiately reduced their contribution rate, but has not stopped editing completely. In the last day or so, however, their contributions have slowed to a trickle. There was little chronological overlapping of edits, as can be seen in the (poorly formatted) table at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Snocrates/Combined contributions 31 Jan to 12 Feb 2008.

There was one short period of nearly overlapping edits, between 03:18 to 04:24 UTC, 12 Feb 2008. This leads me to believe they may have been using the same computer at least at that time, so I requested a Checkuser evaluation via email to Alison. I submitted this evidence and asked for it to be performed privately, in order not to disrupt Snocrates' RfA in case it came back negative. It came back confirmed. As soon as this SSP is filed, I will leave a message asking Alison to come here to confirm the checkuser results.

This is not an innocent alternate account or an aborted name change; both accounts have participated in the same CfD's. I won't provide all of the diffs, but for example, see many of the discussions at the CFD log for Feb 8th. If you search for Zoporific's name, you will see that in almost all of the discussions, both participate as separate people. In particular, here Snocrates thanks Zoporific for filing the CFD. The two accounts also tag-team edit warred on Dieter F. Uchtdorf, leading to the blocking of HLT (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) for 7 days on 11 Feb 08.

I think withdrawal from the RfA is clearly necessary, but beyond that and indef blocking the User:Zoporific sock, I'm not sure what other actions are needed here. It would be a shame to lose Snocrates' impressive categories work, but this is clearly unacceptable, especially in an admin candidate.

Comments

Confirmed that Zoporific (talk · contribs) is a sock of Snocrates (talk · contribs). This has been used abusively on the Dieter F. Uchtdorf article. I was requested in email to run a checkuser given the evidence above, which I carried out. Filing a public RFCU case would have been unfair on the RfA candidate regardless of the result. So yes, this editor has been socking - Alison ^❤ 15:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I have added a link to this page in the discussion section at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Snocrates. This is the third time the user has disrupted the Dieter F. Uchtdorf article, and the disruption is recent. A prior block of 72 hours in November 2007 does not seem to have deterred the disruptive behavior. Therefore, I intend to place a one week block this time, pending a response from the user. Jehochman ^Talk 17:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Snocrates (talk · contribs) maintains that the other account is a different person using the same computer, see his talk page. Zoporific (talk · contribs) is currently unblocked. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 13:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether this is one person, or two roommates, it is not acceptable for them to tag team edit war the way they were doing on Dieter F. Uchtdorf. I am not blocking at this time because I think the point has been made, but if there are further problems, I expect that the community will react negatively. Jehochman ^Talk 13:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A case could be made that claiming to be roommates, when I think the evidence demonstrates convincingly that it is one person, is a continuation of disruptive behavior. However, since there are now plenty of eyes on this user, she is unlikely to resume the sockpuppetry. Although it sticks in my craw somewhat, I'm willing to drop this if that's what everyone else thinks is best, and I suppose taking it further runs the risk of embarrassing an otherwise productive user into leaving. But for the record, I remain convinced this is one person, and I think we may be encouraging future copycat "my roommate did it" excuses by dropping this. Since User:HLT was unblocked yesterday before his 7 days were up, I suppose blocks for the edit warring would also be pointless. --barneca (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is also double-voting in cfds on Jan 26, Jan 28, Jan 29, Jan 30, Jan 31, Feb 1, Feb 3, Feb 4, Feb 6, Feb 7, Feb 8, Feb 11. I am personally irritated about this one, which I would like relisted. I must say that the 2 room-mates defence doesn't begin to explain the editing patterns in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Snocrates/Combined contributions 31 Jan to 12 Feb 2008 (together with the travel details given on Snocrates talk page - S and Z have not been on the same island since early Feb). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have warned both users. [189][190] Jehochman ^Talk 15:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Lomerezco (4th)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Rosathebest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Mimilovesyou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Hall e valance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Whohaw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Inderezdi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

NoHenry (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Recent vandalism on Rosa Blasi and Jim Finn pages under name Rosathebest identical to vandalism under other usernames already banned.

Comments

User banned for vandalism after submission of this reportNoHenry (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Everyone's been indef-blocked, and with good reason. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Wazaka

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Wazaka2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
81.105.155.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Bazzargh (talk) 14:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Both named accounts have only made identical vandalism edits to Dawood Ibrahim, adding fish references everywhere. Wazaka: [191] Wazaka2: [192]. Wazaka2 account appeared after final warning to Wazaka. The 81.x account made similar fish-based vandal edits [193]

Comments

Conclusions

I have blocked the main account for 72 for vandalism. The sock puppet account is blocked indefinitely. The user is welcome to return using the main account if they behaved. If there is further vandalism, I recommend a long or indefinite block. Jehochman ^Talk 17:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Fila943

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Fila943 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Fila943 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Fila934 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

— Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Please see the following edits: 1 and 2. Thanks!

Comments

Conclusions

Quacking sock puppets of User:Fila3466757. Jehochman ^Talk 16:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Spectation

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Icestorm815 (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Comments

The IP and the user have "exchanged various vandalism to each other's pages. The IP added userboxes to the user's page. The IP has already been blocked for vandalism.

Neither user is constructive. SSP is a very complicated process that takes a lot of time. This is why there is a backlog. SSP is a process where one tries to deduct that the users are the same person, which is an inexact process. On the other hand, vandalism is unmistakable. Therefore, vandalism determinations should take priority. This is a vandalism case.

Also possible is that two users know each other and are just messing with each other. Their coooperative effort is mainly limited to each other's talk page and not articles. A word of advice to them or taking action based on vandalism is probably better than trying to determine if they are socks. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

They could be the same, but the 72 hour vandalism block on the IP has expired, and vandalism has not resumed. Therefore, no further action is required at this time. Jehochman ^Talk 14:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Mondrago

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

70.188.184.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
4.238.124.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
32.141.139.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
70.167.100.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
4.238.124.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
4.238.124.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 03:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

[194] History of Asia (band)
[195] What they continue to put in the article.
[196] Talk page shows that this user is the same user as the above ones.

Comments

70.188.184.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked for 31 hours due to repeatedly posting the same external link to Asia (band). The link posted, [197], is the same as posted by the other IPs here, and here, and by Mondrago here. IP 4.238.124.2 also posted a diatribe here that matched a similar post on the user talk of 70.188.184.84, here. If the IPs are not socks, they are certainly meatpuppets working in close concert. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 04:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional diffs: IP 70.167.100.82 posted the link here, IP 32.141.139.251 added the link here, 70.188.184.84 adds the link as prose here. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 04:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Asia (band) has been semi-protected for a week Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 15:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above link has been blacklisted. Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 19:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are making some, slow progress on the Asia (band) Talk page at resolving the underlying issues that led to this case and the edit war concerned. As discussed there, the contentious link under discussion and another had long been in the article and, I personally feel, are justified under WP:EL. Mondrago et al. were not forcing the link upon the page, but trying to return it. This does not excuse his/their behaviour, but in the spirit of WP:AGF, some clemency may be appropriate. I would like to suggest that any blocks on the article, links or editors concerned not be for too long. Bondegezou (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I concur that discussion should continue, I'm not confident that edits like this one from the editor or editors under discussion here are helpful at all. It's possible that one IP is acting as a good hand, while the others are not. 70.188.184.84 was blocked by me for 31 hours, but that's - to my knowledge - the only block to come out of this, so far. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 04:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link has been removed from the blacklist. See:

Talk:Asia (band)#Fan club link blacklisting as well as the preceding discussion:
User talk:Nakon#Spam blacklist

--A. B. ^(talk) 14:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heres a bunch more;

--Hu12 (talk) 23:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mondrago was indefinitely blocked on Feb 2, 2008 for spamming. It seems that he may be continuing via IP accounts. I am going to ask a checkuser to look at this and consider a range block as needed. Jehochman ^Talk 14:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4.238.124.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) one more--Hu12 (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Holy mackerel! Mondrago is Unrelated, per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mondrago. Hu12, if you think the IPs have caused severe disruption via spamming, feel free to place a range block on them. Jehochman ^Talk 14:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Pvsamrat

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Ankur0412 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Mjroots (talk) 10:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Pvsamrat has been creating several articles which have been deleted as spam, not notable etc., and also recreating previously deleted articles.

Ankur0412 has recreated an article previously created by Pvsamrat, and posted a message of support on Pvsamrat's user page.

This is my first sockpuppet report, so please forgive me if I don't get it right!

Comments

Sorry! But the Articles that were being Deleted by Wiki were not by a genuine reason. Those articles regarding the New TV Series are a Must in Such an Encyclopedia which Covers every Aspect.. Ankur0412 (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am convinced that these accounts are the same person. They both struggle with English grammar and use unconventional capitalization, and they sometimes fail to put a space after a comma. It's also worth noting that Ankur0412, in his comment above, did not deny the allegation made against him.

The evidence that convinces me of these accounts' identity is the revision history of

On 4 February 2008 at 9:30 PM, there is an edit by Ankur0412, followed immediately by an edit from Pvsamrat, then another edit by Ankur0412. This is not an isolated incident. There is another place in the article history where a group of edits by one user is followed within minutes by a group of edits from the other user, without any mixing between the two. The chances of this happening by coincidence, with two unrelated people editing an article that is of interest to almost nobody, is very remote.

I suggest that an administrator explain to this user that he must be limited to one account. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that Pvsamrat is by far the older of the two accounts. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I am going to warn the users that if they happen to be controlled by the same person, that only one account should be used, and that they should follow relevant policies. I do not think the level of disruption is so severe as to risk blocking, nor is it severe enough to request checkuser. Jehochman ^Talk 17:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Paul Harald Kaspar

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Paul Harald Kaspar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

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

Report submission by

^Avruchtalk 20:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Very similar edit pattern - overlapping articles with prior banned socks with the same POV of removing wrestling mentions from arena/venue articles. See WP:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Chadbryant for more informtion. ^Avruchtalk 20:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check the last couple of hundred edits from Chadbryant before he was community banned. Virtually all were the removal of wrestling events from venue pages. Same as the new sock. This version of his userpage says he's a KISS and Black Sabbath fan. Relevant edits from PHK:

[198] [199]

Same interests, same edits, seen it before. Quack quack. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It should be the other way round really. Chadryant is the puppetmaster. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Blocked as a sockpuppet. We had additional information not available to the checkusers which ties this to Chadbryant. --Yamla (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Justpassinby

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Joncourtney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
78.105.130.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Bondegezou (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

This is a complicated case about the article for the band Pure Reason Revolution. User Justpassinby has only ever edited this and related articles. His/her posts generally have a negative attitude towards the band and its members, but, earlier on, edits made tended to be more reasonable and followed policy, e.g. [200]. More recently, Justpassinby's edits have been unreasonable (e.g. [201]); various editors considered these edits to be vandalism and left warnings. These were ignored and this led to Justpassinby being blocked. Since then, there were a sequence of vandalising edits by 78.105.130.169 (the first ever edits from this IP address): these largely repeated Justpassinby's edits (e.g. [202]) or continued in a similar vein ([203]) and I presume are Justpassinby avoiding his/her block. Then came the first and only edit by user Joncourtney [204]. Jon Courtney is a member of Pure Reason Revolution. However, the edit made by the user Joncourtney was insulting towards Jon Courtney and the band and was in a similar style to edits by Justpassinby and 78.105.130.169, so I am concerned that the Joncourtney account may be a sock-puppet and it raises further issues of impersonation. There have been two further edits by 78.105.130.169 since too [205]. I would like to suggest semi-protection for the page and further administration action against Justpassinby and the Joncourtney account.

I initially reported this at WP:ANI and it was suggested I bring the matter here.

Comments: Further vandalism of Pure Reason Revolution by 78.105.130.169 today.[206]; (Sorry: forgot to sign the above!) Bondegezou (talk) 12:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]; 78.105.130.169 blocked for a week as an obvious sock. Black Kite 15:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think JonCourtney should be blocked indefinitely as a suspected sockpuppet. If he is innocent, he is able to appeal the block by the usual method. The evidence suggests that this is Justpassinby evading his block.

I don't see a preventative purpose in blocking Justpassinby again. A stern warning should suffice. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

User seems to have stopped disruptive editing. Notify an administrator and point to this report if the problems resume. Jehochman ^Talk 16:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:UkraineToday (4th)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

Timberframe (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2nd IP appended to this report by Jd2718 (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3rd IP appended to this report by —dima /talk/ 21:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4th IP appended to this report by --TAG (talk) 05:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5th IP appended to this report by Timberframe (talk) 11:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6th IP appended to this report by Timberframe (talk) 10:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7th IP appended to this report by TAG (talk) 11:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DemocracyATwork appended to this report by Ostap R (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/UkraineToday
Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/UkraineToday (3rd) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jehochman (talk • contribs) 14:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Following repeated blocks of this user which he has evaded by obtaining new IP adrresses, he continues to reinstate his self-published sources, post unsigned personal abuse, delete bot signing of his previous unsigned abuse, and vandalise other people's edits. The style and content of the contribs by 193.243.157.214 (see for example [[207]], [[208]], [[209]] and [[210]])and ElectAnalysis (see [[211]] are identical in contenet and style of abuse to those posted repeatedly by UkraineToday under his many previously reported sockpuppets, most recently 193.243.156.214 and 81.23.24.5.

See previous sock puppet reports listing his other user names and IPs [[212]] and [[213]]

It goes without saying that this latest IP address, like all the others he's used bar one, belongs to an ISP registered in Kharkiv, Ukraine, and his narrow range of interest - contemporary Ukrainian politics and Melboure - is identical to that of UkraineToday.

Further Evidence

user:ElectAnalysis was reported for 3RR and blocked pending this sockpuppet report. Soon after 81.23.24.4 appeared, restoring ElectAnalysis' edits with a similar summary style, and appears to be another sockpuppet, this one block-evading. Jd2718 (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

193.243.157.184 proposes exactly the same edits, uses the same terminolgy and even shares the same spelling mistakes as previous incarnations of UkraineToday. All these incarnations appear sequentially as previous ones are blocked or logged here Timberframe (talk) 13:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence by diff - compare content, style and spelling mistakes

Vandalaising links by changing url to URL, accessdate to accessdata

193.243.156.214: [[214]] (confirmed sockpuppet of UkraineToday, see previous case)
193.243.157.184: [[215]]

PACE commentary

193.243.156.214: [[216]], [[217]], [[218]], [[219]] (confirmed sockpuppet of UkraineToday, see previous case)
193.243.157.214: [[220]], [[221]]
ElectAnalysis: [[222]]
81.17.128.174: [[223]]

Poll results in bar chart and first / second place formats

193.243.157.214: [[224]], [[225]], [[226]]
ElectAnalysis: [[227]]
193.243.157.184: [[228]], [[229]]
81.23.24.4: [[230]], [[231]]
81.23.24.12: [[232]], [[233]]
81.23.24.0: [[234]]
DemocracyATwork: choose any from [[235]] 7-8 February

Court challenges of legality of Yushchenko’s actions

193.243.157.214: [[236]], [[237]]
81.23.24.12: [[238]]

Deleting refs by others suggesting election irregularities

81.23.24.4: [[239]], [[240]]

81.23.24.0: [[241]]

Deleting “Russian response” as inciting racial hatred

81.23.24.35: [[242]], [[243]]
ElectAnalysis: [[244]]

Wiki is not…, wiki in disrepute

ElectAnalysis: [[245]]
81.23.24.4: [[246]], [[247]]
81.23.24.15: [[248]] Timberframe (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This user is a persistent vandal, abuser and POV pusher. He singles me out as harassing him, but in fact his edits have been reverted by many people (see for example history of talk page for Ukrainian election, 2007) and he until recently he persistently refused to engage in discussion even when invited; lately he has started to use talk pages but only to talk, not to listen. He has a track record, as the diffs show, of vandalising links which are unfavourable to his POV, and repeatedly reinstating POV pieces in multiple locations in the face of consensus. He has been repeatedly warned and blocked by an ever growing number of editors for abuse, 3RR, POV pushing, self-publicising and issuing legal threats. He clearly has no respect for the societal basis of wiki, nor for the peer judgements made on his edits and behaviour. I move that this and all his previously confirmed sock-puppets be blocked indefinitely in line with the indef block already imposed on the puppetmaster account.

Since I posted this case, other users have identified further IP addresses as sockpuppets of the same user. To date these are all provided by Ukrainian mobile phone operator Kyivstar GSM from their block 81.23.24.0 - 81.23.31.255. User UkraineToday also used an IP address from this range a few days ago (see previous sockpuppet case). It would appear that IP addresses from this block are not associated with specific subscribers but allocated at random for each subscriber session. Therefore the only effective response in this case would be to block the whole IP range, to the possible detriment of legitimate editors who subscribe to this ISP. This can't be a new problem for wiki; what approach has been taken to dynamic IP addresses in the past? Timberframe (talk) 10:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to use WP:RFCU for confirmation but the user account has been blocked since September, so it would come back stale. Jehochman ^Talk 13:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

By tone, area of interest, and style, the above accounts all appear to be under control of the puppetmaster. The puppetmaster was blocked for legal threats and email harassment. I am blocking all of these accounts for block evasion (and range blocking 81.23.24.4/26 because of the severe, repeated misconduct and frequent use of many addresses in that range). Jehochman ^Talk 14:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Wikinger

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

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

Report submission by

Mayalld (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Both accounts have engaged in very similar non-substance edits to remove extra spaces from articles
Both accounts have engaged in talk page refactoring
Both use identical false arguments about reducing page load time when challenged about their behaviour.
User:CBMIBM edited User:Wikinger's user page to say that the password had been lost
User:CBMIBM was created less than 12 hours after User:Wikinger was blocked for a week for tenditious editing
Both accounts use identical, and unusual linguistic constructs, in particular; thus, I resign from... when assuring other editors that they promise not to continue with a particular problematic editing style.
User:CBMIBM just a little too quick to assure people that the IP address of his edits and User:Wikinger prove that they aren't the same person.

Supplemental evidence

Both accounts feel compelled to make small changes to talk pages (removing double-lines, and double spaces) in the mistaken opinion that doing so save on server space and page rendering time. See, for example, Wikinger's conversations with User:Nick in the last thread of his talk page here, against CBMIBM's conversations with Mayalld here. _GB^T/C 17:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I behave now constructively, and all coincidencies are accidental and former. Please permit me to exist in Wikipedia under CBMIBM nick. For proof please look that Wikinger asks for changing his name to other than CBMIBM: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pro%C5%9Bby_o_zmian%C4%99_nazwy_u%C5%BCytkownika#Wikinger_na_PC CBMIBM (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A checkuser on Wikinger returned a number of socks and likely link between Wikinger and CBMIBM - given that, and the evidence above, it is almost impossible that the two are not the same user, in which case the creation of the CBMIBM account during the unexpired one week block (after having been extended from 48 hours) of the Wikinger account is clearly the use of socks to evade a legitimate block.

Despite the user's assurances, he does continue to edit (as CBMIBM) in a tendentious manner, and in particular has been harrassing User:Evertype despite being told to desist on multiple occasions.

I believe that the user has a dynamic IP, so presumably blocking both CBMIBM and Wikinger permanently would be akin to slapping a plaster (bandaid) on a gunshot wound. It might stop things for a moment, but not for long. Would a range block be suitable? Or would there be too much collateral damage? _GB^T/C 14:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harassing Evertype is past. Believe me. I was banned from Evertype's talk page by Fut.Perf and never will break it. Wikinger's edits finished in end of 2007 and didn't went beyond end of this year. Thus please don't block me. CBMIBM (talk) 14:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't block me, because I never will break banning me from Evertype's talk. I even made some constructive edits in Greek numerals related articles, and will constructively contribute in future, thus block is unneeded. CBMIBM (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue at point here is no simply your current tenditious editing behaviour, but the question of whether you are User:Wikinger. You have repeatedly denied that you are, yet you seem to know too much about what he is doing, and be too quick to find "proof" that you aren't, which looks to be manufactured rather than real. And at other times, your comments seem to imply that you are indeed the same person as User:Wikinger, but are now reformed. Now, which is it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayalld (talk • contribs)

I know all about Wikinger from his edit history available here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wikinger and used infos from there after extensive crawling to defend me from false accusation of being Wikinger, I even from this edit history know that he abandoned his account in last days of 2007. That is all. I even didn't posted PIE=Adamic things as frequently as did it Wikinger. Wikinger ridiculously ignored all soft bans, while I'm heeding them immediately, as in case of Evertype. My first encounter with Wikinger's ideas was here, when I didn't knew that they are his ideas but I saw them interesting. My next step was googling more in matter that PIE=Adamic, and in this way I found Wikinger's ideas here in Wikipedia as even more interesting to me. As of base-7 system, I really think that God uses not only base-7 system, but all at least 19 systems at least in continuous range from base-2 to base-20, (second ten of numerals can have format from nulleven (0) to ninelve (9) , all between 9 and 10, but then numbers from 11 to 19 should have now format from oneteen to nineteen), because in Bible are base-6, base-7, base-10 and base-12 systems, while Wikinger thought here that God is limited only to base-7 system. As you see, my ideas are quite different from Wikinger's ideas, but in area of roughly the same interest. As you see, I build on his ideas further, as he never ever did. Further proof of difference between blanker and me is here:

IP of Evertype's blanker: (he broke ban that I keep) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:83.21.62.121 - http://samspade.org/whois/83.21.62.121 Szczecin city - contribs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/83.21.62.121
My IP type: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/87.96.8.90 - http://samspade.org/whois/87.96.8.90 GPRS net - contribs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/87.96.8.90

CBMIBM (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capitulation

I hided my Wikinger's former identity because I feared that I will be blocked, but if you, Mayalld told me that if I will reform and admit that Wikinger=CBMIBM, then I will be permitted to be here without any block. If you gave me clear choice, I choose NOW deconspiration and reform way. I really was Wikinger, but to unify my accounts I abandoned my former account and created new one. Please as reward permit to stay here under CBMIBM name and not block me even temporarily. CBMIBM (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Identity of the two accounts was really never in question, it was plain obvious. Continuous denial was just a Very Silly Idea, and it's good that this has now been dropped at last. The initial block evasion of the new account (editing during Wikinger's block) is now stale, as the original block would have long expired. CBMIBM, please choose one of these two accounts as the one you want to keep using; I will then soft-block the other with a suitable link between the two for transparency. What remains is a general problem of uncommunicative behaviour. Please consider yourself as placed under a kind of parole; I would say that any further disruptive behaviour is likely to be met with blocks pretty quickly (but I'd want to leave this to other administrators, since I've been engaging in content discussions with you). Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I finally choose for my main account CBMIBM account, and abandon Wikinger account, thus please soft-block Wikinger account and don't block CBMIBM account. CBMIBM (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Joshurtree

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Dan1980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Evidence

As can be seen from both users' edit histories, they are repeatedly doing the same edits to the same articles, thereby avoiding violating WP:3RR. [249], [250], [251], [252], [253]. When two users both keep deleting the same sourced content over and over again (they have about three similar edits per person per day), it looks like an attempt to avoid 3RR. When the same two users appear to share exactly the same interests and the same sports club (look at their edits to Sheffield Wednesday), it looks very much like SockPuppetry. JdeJ (talk) 13:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I am not sure exactly how you are supposed to defend yourself against being accused of being a sockpuppet as it has never happened to me before, but here goes!

I feel that JdeJ's evidence is very weak indeed. The reverts that myself and Joshurtree (and several other users including an admin, I might add) have made to United Kingdom are clearly explained on the article talk page, and briefly consist of the fact that there are numerous sources that contradict the source provided by JdeJ, which itself appears to be sensationalism. JdeJ and Sarah777, who has also been involved in this edit war, have both come close to violating 3RR on this article recently and could also be accused of sockpuppetry using JdeJ's argument above. Both users have been invited to attempt to gain consensus on the article talk page, but have so far declined, instead opting to continue their edit war. It is also worth noting that both users have made personal attacks against me within the last 24 hours.

As for the fact that myself and Joshurtree share one common interest (Sheffield Wednesday F.C.); I again feel that this is an extremely weak argument, as the club has literally hundreds of thousands of fans all around the world. The argument that we both only make three similar edits per day is also nonsense, if you check my edit history you will see that I have recently made many more edits per day than this, and on several different articles that have in no way involved Joshurtree.

Please feel free to check my edit history - you will see that I have made thousands of valid edits to Wikipedia over the last couple of years, which is hardly typical behaviour for a sockpuppet. I therefore feel that this accusation is unfounded and a further personal attack, and that I have no case to answer. I would appreciate it if action could be taken against JdeJ for making this frivolous accusation in the first place and thereby wasting my time. Given JdeJ's comments on his own talk page it appears that I am being targeted in "revenge" for adding 3RR warnings (in good faith) to Sarah777 and JdeJ's talk pages. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 14:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user may or may not be a sock puppet, but I resent the idea that the report is a personal attack. Given that the group of English editors edit warring over United Kingdom have shown a tendency to racially abuse other editors, stalk them from page to page, attack their supposed political views etc., I find it verging on the bizarre that Dan1980 choses to label everything other users do as personal attacks directed at him. Regarding the case in question, this is the first time ever I have heard the Financial Times being accused of sensationalism. JdeJ (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please find one example of me using "racial abuse" or attacking "supposed political views". I only became involved in this in an attempt to stop the edit war and hostility surrounding it, and have become a target myself as a result! The fact that your only involvement with me is to revert one of my edits and call me an "English nationalist vandal" before posting this sockpuppet allegation led me to believe that it was a personal attack. I do not think that there is anything "bizarre" in this logic. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 18:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I was much too vague. To the best of my knowledge, Dan1980 has never used anything even close to a racial abuse or attacked other's politics. I was thinking about other users making the same changes and expressed myself badly when I failed to make that distinction clear. Once more, my apologies for that. JdeJ (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having read through Dan1980 comments in more detail, I would like to withdraw this report and admit that I was a bit hasty in posting it. I honestly belived at the time of making it that both users were one and the same, for the reasons outlined above and for Dan suddenly appearing so that Joshurtree avoided violating 3RR but for some reason I missed how long both users had been active. It's embarrasing having to admit such a stupid mistake, I somehow thought that Dan was a new user. My apologies are due to both users, this is the first time I've written such an erroneous report and it will definitely be a long time before it happens again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JdeJ (talk • contribs) 22:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damn. I just written my rebuttle, mentioning the fact that I was talking to "myself" as far back as 2006, then I get a edit conflict and find the argument's over before i've even begun. Teaches me to take so bloody long over replying. Anyway on a serious note thanks for the apology I've dived headlong into things in the past and then had to slope off quietly with my tail between my legs so I understand. josh (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Report was withdrawn by the filing party. Jehochman ^Talk 14:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Nicosec

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Nicosec (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - Indefinitely blocked

Suspected sockpuppets

Mathew012345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - Indefinitely blocked
BobC5678 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - Indefinitely blocked
Jenny699 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - Indefinitely blocked
24.5.147.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - 21 days
Nicky012345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - Indefinitely blocked

Report submission by

Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Nicosec is contesting this AfD discussion on an article concerning Brant Secunda (with whom there may be a conflict of interest. The four suspected socks have just started editing, and have respectively made a total of 20, 1, 10 and 9 contributions, including the AfD discussion. All contributions are to the same group of articles as Nicosec edits.

Comments

Conclusions

All users listed have been indefinitely blocked for their activity, their creation time was also a large part of the final decision (i.e. all were created after the AFD discussion had started). Rudget . 13:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Durzatwink (2nd case)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets: Rws killer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Rws killer2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Umm killer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Nku pyrodragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Rws killer6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 12.33.122.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 72.82.252.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

_contribs STYROFOAM☭1994^TALK 22:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

His edits are all in the same area of interest, are somewhat biased in favor of what he is writing about, and all of their styles of talking are very similar, as in here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. I also know that all of the previous persons mentioned have been blocked and linked to User:Rws killer, as in here and here. Each of them have all been created a few days right after the previous identity was blocked indefinitely. (see the account creation log). There is a triangle between me, User:Sanjay517, User:Nku pyrodragon, and when the last person got banned, User:Durzatwink took his place. Also see the previous user's sockpuppet file. Also, the checkuser IPs are confirmed (see here) checkuser case is confirmed by User:Allison

Comments

I have made 3 cases on this so far; one was deleted immediately as a "test page" (so I discounted that one), and the other failed case didn't have enough evidence. So here I am with confirmed checkuser evidence that User:Nku pyrodragon=User:Durzatwink. _contribs STYROFOAM☭1994^TALK 22:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the third one. I am getting quite tired of showing all of my evidence that proves you wrong. This is obviously harassment. You are constantly accusing me of sockpuppetry and it is getting tiring. Please contact all of the people who proved that I am not a sockpuppt because a third case is just enough for me. Obviously this user enjoys harassing other users as you can see from all of his warns in his contribs. May I also add that he deleted many warns so you may want to check his deleted contribs. Thannks--DurzaTwink^TALK 23:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may debate over this case. However, I will continue making good edits and warn/report vanadals. Bye--DurzaTwink^TALK 23:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the Checkuser evidence. This absolutely, once and for all proves my point. _contribs STYROFOAM☭1994^TALK 23:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DurzaTwink has already been indef blocked as a result of the CU. See here. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 03:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Archiving; user has already been indefinitely blocked (log). haz (talk) 08:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Ctx1

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Ctx1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

Djsasso (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Beyond the obvious connection of usernames, I just went through a number of articles that were all vandalized by various combinations of the above accounts. The edits I started with were contributions of User:Ctx7 which lead me to the IP address and User:Stageseries. His/her edits also touch pages that were vandalized by the other Ctx accounts. Edits seem to be at the same times and a couple of them were even editing the user pages of the others.

Comments

I agree with Djsasso. Pretty obvious. I'm sorry, but this is more than a little obvious! KC109 (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

All Ctx's were already blocked for varying reasons, indef. Blocked IP 3 months and Stageseries indef. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Ghanadar galpa

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Ghanadar galpa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Nikhilsohail (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
70.112.72.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
70.112.2.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
70.112.6.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

IP address 70.112.72.233 is used by the user can be proved by these diffs [254] and [255]. User Gahnadar galpa and Nikhilsohail have similar edit pattern in Suicide attack article removing the mention of Hindu suicide squad calling it hoax[256], [257], [258], [259]. Gahanadar galpa was a sock of banned User:Hkelkar. Ghanadar galpa was blocked in 27 January 2008 at 22:03, Nikhilsohail account was created in 30 January 2008 at 10:00. Althoug there are debate on the inclusion of Hindu suicide squad in the article, that is a matter of discussion. These are possible socks. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

User:Nikhilsohail have been blocked for being a sock of User:Hkelkar. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Named accounts already indef blocked. Blocked IPs for one month. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Omarsiddiqui728

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Omarsiddiqui728 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

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

Report submission by

— TheBilly^(Talk) 23:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

admitted. Check contribs.

Comments

Conclusions

Blocked indef and tagged. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:GabrielVelasquez

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

142.132.6.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Dr Henry Draper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

John Carter (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

The suspected sockpuppet master has recently been involved in heated discussion about providing sources for statements he has made. I am a new admin, and have reported the case twice, most recently at Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#New problematic user. Please feel free to observe the discussion there, as well as the previous discussion. Recently, the IP address has posted on my talk page, in much the same style as Gabriel, comments indicating that he also believes that I am absolutely obligated to respond to all questions asked of me, a belief which strikes me as being rather suspect. That IP has also edited, in much the same use of language as I have seen from Gabriel, at an RfC Gabriel started about me at Talk:Nontrinitarianism. I received word of the Draper identity at the AN/I thread I mention above. I realize that as a new admin my credentials are not necessarily the best, but I do believe that there is sufficient basis to think that the same person may be behind all identities. Also, in my RfA, I specifically stated that I could not forsee blocking anyone myself in the near future, and couldn't in any event given the apparent COI some would accuse me of. However, I am more than curious about the two new accounts. If my being involved in discussion with the party in question is an obstacle to this request, I have no objections to being told that directly, and apologize for the waste of your time in advance. John Carter (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Comment Please include some diffs to show us exactly what you are talking about. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Draper identity I am including based on the statement presented by another party on the administrator's noticeboard, linked to above. I have no firsthand knowledge of that, however, the new editor has according to another party entered into the fray at the Gliese 581 page and its talk page. Regarding the IP, I received this messsage, which is simply the restoration of comments I had earlier deleted from my talk page from Gabriel earlier, and which Gabriel had restored in an identical way here. There also seems to me, and this is a value judgement, similarities between the kinds of phrasing used by the IPhere and previous comments from Gabriel, although that is a gut feeling and not one I can immediately link to. The fact that the IP's only edits as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/142.132.6.8 here] also including a rather abstruse article on Planetary human habitability, which Gabriel had also edited as recently as January 23rd, and which he indicates by his user pages relates to a primary interest of his is I think remarkable. And the fact that the IP states in his comment on the Talk:Nontrinitarianism page that he had been "watching me for some time" but had seemingly never edited before today, as indicated here, is definitely unusual. I do however admit that based on rereading the IP's comments I cannot find any repetition or other comments which clearly directly indicate any identity between the two. I've never done this sort of thing before, and my apologies for not doing it very well. John Carter (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no worries, just trying to make the point here. IMHO, I don't find these comments particularly disruptive. They are on your talk page and you essentially have the right to delete them at your leisure per WP:TALK, but he also has the right to add them to your page as part of a discussion. I too believe that the IP and user are one in the same, BUT, sockpuppetry goes beyond simply editing from an IP address and as a user (I've done that myself in an AfD and IfD, though I made it clear who was contributing). It must be something that is trying to get around policy (like avoiding WP:3RR or attempting to influence a vote. Quoting from WP:SOCK: "The general rule is: one editor, one account. Do not use multiple accounts to create the illusion of greater support for an issue, to mislead others, to artificially stir up controversy, to aid in disruption, or to circumvent a block. Do not ask your friends to create accounts to support you or anyone else. Multiple accounts are not for collusion, evasion, disruption, or other misuse." In short, an additional account must not be used maliciously. These diffs show a lack of understanding of WP policy/guidelines, but IMHO do not show any specific malice. As an interesting tidbit, someone can be disruptive and have multiple accounts, but not be guilty of WP:SOCK.

I will also concede he is treading on thin ice...

This may sound kind of blunt (just trying to cut to the chase), but have you bothered to ask him either user page if he is the same person?

As a tip, simpler diffs and simple sentences are easier to follow, such as:

User A did this edit followed by user B's identical and disruptive edit 5 minutes later to avoid WP:3RR: [260] [261] [262] [263]. User A already blocked (see history) and User B should share in the same fate.

In short, I don't see an explicit violation of WP:SOCK at this time. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't think to ask the IP. The IP responded to an RfC against me, and was the first person to respond in agreement with Gabriel. On that basis, it would have undermined his own statements in support of his RfC to say that the person who agreed with him was him, and I couldn't see either address agreeing that they were the same person. Also, the IP said "we" at some point, indicating again that it was multiple people, and it wouldn't have helped that case to say he was in fact Gabriel. Lastly, Gabriel has explicitly stated earlier that he cannot trust the majority of editors here, presumably because they don't agree with his own theological opinions, and given the distrust of others he has displayed, and his demonstrable habit of attacking others, I couldn't see him saying the only person to date who has agreed with him was himself under, as it were, a different name. But, thank you for the responses and my apologies for any unnecessary difficulties I may have raised. Like I've said repeatedly, I've only been an admin for about two weeks and have never dealt with socks before. John Carter (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well if he basically violated the "one account, one vote" rule and admitted it, that is a clear violation. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all,
I am going to have a busy weekend with personal family matters
and I hope this is not summarily closed without my having a chance to sift through the accusation points and refute them.
Secondly,
I don't need to do any long research to come up with this quote of John Carter's suggestion that I make other accounts
(Which is not an admission that I did, which if asked pointedly I would say I did not.), so this is what I recieved from him in his e-mail that I consider relevant:
"This could be avoided, possibly (I don't know any internal doctrinal points here) by perhaps creating a new account under a name other than your own and indicating there exactly what belief system you do profess. That way, no outsider would necessarily be able to prove that the editor in question is in fact you."
I immediatelty considered the possibility that he was trying to get me caught using a sockpuppet and refused the suggestion outright,
saying so on his talkpage, which of course he has deleted. Diff.
Thirdly,
I notice that I have not said so directly, so I should state, I don't know that IP address and I don't know the HenryDraper user account. And other than Edits on (two of/two users) the same articles as myself, I don't know what they are supposed to have in common with me: If I understand corretly, these two others are suspected as sock puppets of mine because they made edits within 5 minutes of eathother, which is not a direct reference to me or my account. Also, since this is visable and open to all users I don't see that this how this is automatically me in any way when all my contributions are visible to everyone, including John Carter let's not forget, and as such, anyone who felt like mimicking my edits for whatever reason could do so, including John Carter let's not forget (I'm tempted to create an account that mimics his edits to see how he likes it). This diff stood out to me because out of nowhere someone shows evidence that they are watching and is interested in what is going on, and I don't live in Texas: diff.
Fourthly,
I don't deny that I have been envolved in a debate at the Nontrinitarianism article talkpage with C.Logan and John Carter. For me the hidden issue is bias: an alarm goes off in my head when I realize there are few Nontrinitarians interested in inproving the Nontrinitarianism Article (because they are off doing what real Christains are asked to do) and a the same time I see biased Trintarians impeding the improvement of the Nontrinitarianism Article. I'm talking about my view and modivations, if you want proof of it, I'll have to make time for it, and elsewhere. So I am at this talkpage, someone who believes in the article's content, and of course I am not going to be happy about biased Trinitarian impedance. I have accepted for a while now the specific level of precision that is required by these two users (nb: not there before them) and I have been observing since then, having given them more then they asked for interms of references, that they have just dropped it, showing that they were not really interested in the improvement of the article in the first place. But to say that I was trying to tip votes using sockpuppets is taking it too far. In fact I don't see that an issue related specifically to the article or and article topic was actaully remarked on by that IP address user. I mean to say that, though I don't condone that was expressed there, I don't see that there was a vote on an article issue cast by the remark and so I don't believe that it is a violation, as you say, of the one account one vote rule. (On the point of bias, COI, and duplicity, one diff is here: Diff.)
Fifthly,
On the Draper account more specifically, I appreciate that it looks like a sockpuppet, but as I have said already I don't know the account and there are several instances in the Gliese 581 c talkpage of annonymous IP address making contraversial statements, but the point I would like to highlight is that this HenryDraper user has actually contradicted my clear statement of position to delete the paragraph, and so that would make for rather bad sockpuppeting if I were to use a (/said) sockpuppet to contradict myself. If I understand what I read there the HenryDraper user is making statement about (or forcing them to look at) other users lack of tact. I personally don't mind if everyone out there, annonymous or not, got on making points about policy in a direct manner. And on that note I think is is plainly biased of John Carter in his own world to be using an annonymous users comments (that affectively effectively show he is violating policy) to accuse me of something I did not do, so I quote: " 'watching me for some time' but had seemingly never edited before today, as indicated here, is definitely unusual." - I would say, as noted just above, unusual to John Carter who seems unfamiliar with the concept of anonymity. Of all the millions of Wikipedia users that wish to remain anonymous, I can not be made responsible for the comments of one against John Carter.
Sixthly, On what I believe is an attempt to show modivation, as I have said above, John Carter's impatiance with new users is well documented, even if I only quote my interactions with him, for example the trampling of the Wikipedia principle that says it is an "Edit Now" place, he should actively campaign against the use of said principle, instead of bashing every new user with the entire (probably 2 pounds or more) weight of the manual that would be the compilation of all Wikipedia policies. I should less implicitly express that aside from the lack of clarity (from my point of view, but I was the one spoken to) in what was required of me in terms of precision referencing for the Nontrinitarian article, there was no need for a sockpuppet for me to get done what was asked of me, which I have done. Further, I have to note somewhere that this was in my estimation modivated by simply the desire to impede, by Trinitarians, the improvement of the Nontrinitarian Article, as they have not bother to actually improve the article (mark date) since stopping me from adding anything that did not have a very specific reference, even after I provided said references and many other references, you would think that if they were sincerely interested in the articles inprovement that would have taken the many many relevant references (see Ref [264] and [265]) that I complied in giving them and actually actively began improving the article. But no, they just go in circles and do not more than impede. So my modivations are not what really should be on trial, but since they are, I think that John Carter's continued antagonism, and anyones' anonymous response to that, says more about him than it does any need for a sockpuppet by me. I don't need a sockpuppet to comply as I already have with a clearer request for precise referencing for an addition to a list of Bible verses that where already there (both at the Nontrinitarian article and the Trinitarian article) without referencing. Where is the concommitant action that goes that all the impeding talk. To extend the point, the actions that I see as relevant are his adding himself as memeber of Nontrinitarian Workprojects (eg.Jehovah's Witnesses) and subscriber of Nontrinitarian newsletters only after I mentioned that I considered it evidence of his bias.
Seventhly,
I object to this badly patched together accusation itself on the principle that I have not been able to look at all the evidence cited/alluded to in it: I can not see said discussion, related to me, at this link for example, Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#New problematic user, nor do I know the IP address of the Draper user account, both of which need to be specific if they are to be used as evidence, or I could likewise use all of Wikipedia as my witness in the same general way. Also, I don't see the neutrality in John Carter talking about my conduct, when he contradicts himself in action all the time, telling others not to delete things on their talkpages and then deleting any incriminating questions that appear there, ignoring issues that are raised there by deleting them, and generally being duplicitous.
Eigthly,
John Carter's continued harping on good faith is contridicted by his very own words here [266] "As per the statements at Wikipedia:Assume good faith, it is not required to assume good faith of individuals who have demonstrated bad faith" again continuely being duplicitous. I believe all of his reference to my distrust are exaggerated, continue to morph in strength from misquote to misquote, and are sufficiently addressed in/by my reasons and reasoning on my distrusting him.
Ninethly,
and lasly I hope, I think that in the future John Carter should leave such accusations to people who know better what they are doing,
and I think that he should as I quote him above "apologize for the waste of your time in advance" to all parties involved here.
(...Saving and Continuing...)
I was going to delete the directly above line but it seems that I could be falsely accused if I did,
So with that I will conclude my efforts here sign off and move on, over and out.
GabrielVelasquez (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
GabrielVelasquez (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The statement quoted was meant to imply that he could create an account to replace the current one, not to supplement it. It should also be noted that the above comment was included in the letter after comments in which I made it clear that the above named party might encounter obstacles if he were to edit using his true name if his church membership might be called into question and possibly revokable if he spoke of it to outsiders, as is allegedly done with members of the Iglesia ni Cristo from what I have heard, and that was the basis for suggesting using a different name, if Gabriel Velasquez is his true name, and that as such his own quotation is I believe a clear misrepresentation of the earlier conversation, by, to borrow a phrase from him, "using partial quotes and effectively taking my words out of context". It also should be noted that I have had extensive conversation with the above party in which he has indicated specifically that he on the basis of his own opinions will not trust most editors who do not agree with his nontrinitarian beliefs, whether they are otherwise trustworthy or not, which is a clear violation of AGF and not the best way to start editing in wikipedia. John Carter (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to Gabriel above:

Gabriel's second point has been addressed by me above. I note that he refused to respond to the statement that that statement itself is at best a partial quote from me.

Regarding his third point, he seems to me to be accusing me of those edits. I should note that there is no basis barring abject paranoia to make such an assumption. Unless he can produce evidence to verify that those edits even remotely resemble any of my work, I have to consider that an at best off-topic comment.

Gabriel's fourth point once again, although this time more specifically, shows that he actively refuses to assume good faith, which has been his central problem all along. It has been pointed out to him as problematic before. And I would love to see how Gabriel can indicate that requesting he provide the sourcing required for all content, which is required by policy, and which he has regularly refused to do, is any way an impediment to the growth of the article. Once again, I see unsupported allegations of dishonesty based on his own refusal to assume good faith of anyone but himself. And, as he has been told before, his views, or anyone else's, are not appropriate content for any article, whether he chooses to believe that or not. All statements in articles must be verified from outside sources. The fact that he refuses to acknowledge this policy, which has been pointed out to him, is part of his problem.

Fifthly and sixthly, I was not the one who first raised the accusation about the Draper account. The fact that Gabriel has not yet learned that pages tend to be archived, and that the discussion linked to is archived, is arguably not the fault of anyone but perhaps himself. The discussion is now included on the 360th archive page, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive360#New disruptive user. However, as I indicated before, I included the Draper account name on the basis of another party referencing it there. And no one knows the IP address of the Draper editor. It would help, once again, if Gabriel himself did not raise points which are at best irrelevant to the proceedings, and actually directly responded to comments made, like those of mine above which he has still, to date, ignored in his later comments. His comments about "bashing every new user" clearly completely and utterly fail to reflect reality. I have tried to engage this editor in reasonable conversation, only to be told that, based on his own overriding distrust of everyone who disagrees with him on his own religious opinions, that he was not interested in doing anything other than his "own thing". When someone refuses to respond to reason, as Gabriel has consistently done, there is no option but to seek to enforce the rules.

Regarding another of Gabriel's "points" above, he appears to think that I added my name to the JW project after speaking with him. In fact, as noted from that page, I was in fact earlier a member, but resigned in 2007, for reasons which escape me at the moment. The statement that I added my name after speaking with him is, so far as I can tell, counterindicated by reality. Such a clearly false statement I think does more to indicate his own lack of awareness of, well, reality, than just about anything else I can think of. John Carter (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I find this presentation hard to follow. If there is abusive sock puppetry, it is best to present a concise selection of diffs showing the most egregious examples. I don't see that here. Additionally, some of the links don't work, because they are not permanent links. To the right are help links that show how to harvest permanent links. I am going to close this case with no action. Additionally, to all parties: if a user is impolite to you, the best way to stop them is to ignore and slow revert their comments. Jehochman ^Talk 19:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:The Negotiator

Suspected sockpuppeteer

The Negotiator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Professional Deletionist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Snakese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Seriousspender (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

IAmSasori (talk) 16:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

While The Negotiator, Professional Deletionist, and Snakese were already blocked for sockpuppetry, I suspect that Seriousspender is a new sock puppet that the former user The Negotiator is controlling.

Seriousspender's contributions are very similar to the blocked account Professional Deletionist's contributions in terms of disrupting various articles and redirects, particularly ones related to RuneScape, even if the redirects were specific for the RuneScape game.

Such examples of the former Professional Deletionist's edits were: [267] [268] [269] [270] [271] [272]

Some similar examples of the current Seriousspender's edits were: [273] [274] [275] [276] [277] [278] [279] [280] [281] [282] [283] [284]

Diff #1 from Professional Deletionist and Diff #7 from Seriousspender are very alike in the same goal on the same article.

Diff #3 from Professional Deletionist and Diff #8 from Seriousspender also appear to have the same goal on the same article.

Diff #6 from Professional Deletionist and Diff #11 from Seriousspender not only appears to have the same goal, but also made the exact same redirect.

All evidence used were in relation to RuneScape, but there were apparently disruption in other similar topics according to the contributions.

Comments

A checkuser is strongly requested. IAmSasori (talk) 16:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A checkuser has been requested. IAmSasori (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My edits are on similar articles, and my goal is to improve Wikipedia. If you think I'm being disruptive or doing something wrong, shouldn't you have told me on my talk page?--Seriousspender (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already told you the suspicion case on your talk page and brought you here. IAmSasori (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

The evidence strongly indicates that Seriousspender is the same as Professional Deletionist. However, PD was blocked as an inappropriate username. There is nothing preventing them from registering a new account. Please explain why PD is The Negotiator. I have not yet seen the connection. Jehochman ^Talk 20:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Here are the smoking diffs that show that Professional Deletionist = Snakese. [285] [286] We know that Snakese = The Negotiator [287] and Snakese is indefinitely blocked for editing abuses. [288] Therefore, it is my conclusion that Seriousspender shall be indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet of Snakese. Jehochman ^Talk 20:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Martha Nilsen

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Martha Nilsen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Coigrich (talk) 02:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

These users continue to re-add links to the same Google discussion group even after extensive discussion about linking to the Google Group and an RFC decision against the links. The RFC consensus was that the Google Discussion Group does not comply with WP:EL. 'Cool Hand Luke' concluded, "It appears that only those associated with the group have supported inclusion, while a stream of independent commentators oppose."

June 2, 2007 Martha Nilsen added link to Google Discussion for first time, long before the RFC. [289]

December 23, 2007 After RFC decision, Sethie removed link per consensus. [290]

Martha Nilsen added link back 3 times, after the RFC was closed.
Jan 22, 2008 [291]
Jan 25, 2008 [292]
Jan 27, 2008 [293]

New user Exsmithsfriendsmember (added 16:20, 26 January 2008) subsequently added link back 3 more times, as of writing.
Jan 28, 2008 [294]
Jan 29, 2008 [295]
Jan 29, 2008 [296]

Comments

Martha Nilsen has no relation to me whatsoever. The link is not being added to external links, but is a source for information. Cool Hand Luke conclusion was regarding the link being placed under "external links". Alternatively the link can be removed, but the other source to the information posted is on the Smith's Friend's group's website, which is password protected. There is a movement by members of the Smith's Friends, which is an internationally regarded cult to edit the wikipedia article in favour of their group (bias) Exsmithsfriendsmember (talk) 08:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Posts to the group contain unverifiable information and often claim them to be internal memorandum or postings. It's interesting to note that Exsmithsfriendsmember was added as a new user right after Martha Nilsen began this activity. Coigrich (talk) 12:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can verify the information if you're willing to log into Smith's Friends members website. I am happy to provide you with the username and password, the same that is provided to all members. The article posted in the google group is a direct copy from the one posted on the Smith's Friends official website. Again, I have nothing to do with Martha Nielsen, the Wikipedia moderators can confirm this by checking IP addresses. Exsmithsfriendsmember (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have "no relation to {Martha) whatsoever", but jumped into this controversial edit, by chance, exactly after Martha Nilsen stepped out? You have intimate knowledge of the background to the link which Martha Nilsen posted, and support it to the extent that you are offering to provide a confidential password to verify? Martha has violated WP:NOR, formed her own opinion and published her ideas using this 'post' to prop up her opinion. This is the kind of work that causes some people to lose respect for Wikipedia. If you are not connected to Martha, I'd suggest you distance yourself from her contributions. Coigrich (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No user has the right to suggest to someone to distance themselves from my contributions. Not even Coigrich. I'm not a heavy user of Wikipedia, and I can admit I wasn't aware about the discussion going on about the link to this Google Group. And I can assure you the discussion isn't over. I just need some time. Unlike many others around here I have a life.Martha Nilsen (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Nilsen is not Exsmithsfriendsmember. Regards Martha Nilsen (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Exsmithsfriendsmember has 5 edits, three to Smith's Friends, two to this SSP case and appears the day after Marth Nilsen last edited that. I find this highly suspicious. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do have another username, however I was unable to remember the password for it. The other username is Uga Boga and I have participated in discussions relating to the Smith's Friends topic. I believe if you are able to check ip addresses, you will be able to notice that my ip addresses matches Uga Boga username and does not match Martha Nilsen. It may be highly suspicious due to coincidence, nothing more. Exsmithsfriendsmember (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These two accounts have not contributed to the encyclopedia. They have engaged in persistent spamming and disruption in an apparent attempt to promote a Google Group that they may be affiliated with. Whether they are violating WP:SOCK as sock puppets, or meat puppets is not determinative, because they qualify as spam-only accounts. As such, it is my decision to indefinitely block both accounts. However, I will agree with any administrator unblocking either account if it promises to stop adding inappropriate external links and refrain from apparent conflict of interest and promotional editing. Jehochman ^Talk 19:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Tba03

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Tba03 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Redfarmer (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User Tba03 created a nonsense page at This plugin which was speedily deleted after the user attempted to delay it by remvoing the template multiple times.[297]
After this page was deleted, user uploaded pic at Image:Thispluginbox.jpg.[298]
The account User:Thisplugin was then used to recreate the This plugin article using pic that user uploaded on master account. [299]
Master account had received final warning for vandalism and introducing inappropriate pages. Had they vandalized on the master account again, it could have been blocked.[300]

Comments

I uploaded the image before page was deleted, kvr is a really popular forum and someone else probably tried to uplaod the same image, was warned it was already there and used it to recreate the page since this thread http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2928880 has generated more than 20 000 views in about 3 days, so i'm pretty sure i'm not the only of the 500 000 members there who had the idea, especially when someone posts a link to wikipedia in the said threadtb (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hey wtf? im no sockypuppy, i'm one of the almost milion members on KvR, I clicked his link and created the page, what do you call it , a community, if someone links to an article that doest exist, i'll create it, you guys are worse and worse everydayThisplugin (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is extremely suspicious that the article you created was word for word the article that tba03 created plus the addition of the image. Redfarmer (talk) 02:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if you had taken 1 minute to check the linked thread you'll notice that it's the only things about this plugin that have ben said, ie, "this plug in is amazing!" as it's the whole point of the thing, you guys should at least do your homeworks, read reference material, check ip addresses, man, do something to get back some credibility, because as of now, you lost anytb (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and BTW, about the image, it's the only ever image of this plugin, was in the thread, if you try to upload an image with an exact same name, you get a warning, so he/she probably used that image instead of re upping it, you don't seem to know the power aof a coommunitytb (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. User:Thisplugin indef blocked, no action taken against Tba03. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:EASEUS

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

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

Report submission by

NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 03:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Creation of almost identical spam pages.

Comments

Conclusions

Master already has a name block. Sock is now blocked one week. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Lyle123

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Lyle123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: WALLE2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); GhostRobot666666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Alexnia (T) @ 11:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

lyle123 has been accused before of sockppertery regarding accounts related to the animated film WALL-E. Today I found WALLE2009 creating nonsense article regarding WALLE being built in 2009 which was proven to be a hoax. After I had place this page for deletion GhostRobot666666 turned up and tried it's best to remove the csd notice which I successfully reverted.

Comments

Conclusions

All users already blocked indef. MER-C 05:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Phillind

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

Suspected sockpuppets: 74.94.24.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Mayalld (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User has created self-promotional arlicles Phillip Silverstone and Phillip silverstone (the second article after the first was put up for speedy deletion), and has repeatedly removed the Speedy tag. Having been warned several times, the IP address removed the speedy tag. IP editor has confirmed at Talk:Phillip silverstone that he is the subject of the articles. Appears that having reached final warning as a logged in user he logged out and continued to remove the tags.

Comments

Conclusions

Please see the results of the UserCompare tool. confirmed. β^_command 05:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP temp blocked already, master warned. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Fila3466757 (2nd)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Fila3466757 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Fila934 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Fila3456789545477759 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Signalhead (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User has returned to Wikipedia following a one week ban for sockpuppetry and has continued with the same pattern of creating multiple accounts and occasional incivility and unconstructive edits.

Fila3466757

Fila934 - 28 January to 7 February 2008

Creates a blank userpage
Uses long strings of punctuation marks
Article Dreadful created - subsequently deleted (CSD A1)
Vandalism (adding hidden text)
Expression of view regarding non-native speakers
Wants a barnstar
more dubious edits duplicating info adding from other account (see *** below for previous edits)
Lack of care when adding a picture - subsequently removed as being of little value
Despite coaching in the past, error in adding picture to infobox
Addition of information into infobox that was out of context
multiple question marks and exclamation marks as demonstrated in the previous case.
Message on talk page responding to the deletion of an article created
Asking question in talk page irrelevant to article

Additional items on 8 February 2008

CAPITAL letter rant on Fila3456789545477759 following deletion of created article, as the creator of the article - see item 1 below.

Stewart^(talk) 07:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signalhead (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fila3456789545477759 - 1 & 2 February 2008

Uses long strings of punctuation marks
Article Incredible Comparisons created - subsequently deleted (CSD A1) - also see item 1 above.
Dubious information added (see *** above for next edits)
A typical outburst
multiple question marks and reluctant to use {{helpme}} to request help although previously coached.

Diffs added by Signalhead (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC) and Stewart^(talk) 22:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I have identified previous socks of this user. These match the same editing patterns and the usernames are giveaways. Could we talk to this person and convince them to use just one account, and maybe join WP:ADOPT? Jehochman ^Talk 21:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user has turned down earlier offers of help.Signalhead (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs would really be useful to show exactly what you are talking about. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a pretty clear cut case. Lara❤Love 20:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it isn't clear-cut from your point of view, but I'm sorry, but I just don't see a violation of WP:SOCK upon looking at a cursory glance through contributions, though the names are extremely similar. Furthermore, the instructions at WP:SSP state "All your statements should be supported by diffs." — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There appear to be inconsistencies between the sockpuppeteer's edits and those of the sockpuppets. However, the sockpuppets edits are very similar (i.e. Oregon etc.) and the name would seem to suggest a clear-cut case of sockpuppetry. Will leave open to other administrators though. Rudget . 21:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in the previous case it appears that creation of multiple accounts is being used to make a clean start or possibly to avoid scrutiny. A similar pattern of edits is being seen as in the previous instance, hence the suspicion of sockpuppetry. --Stewart^(talk) 22:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the results of the UserCompare tool. β^_command 05:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Blocked all indef. Clear socking. Also consider master has a history of socking, see his confirmed category and last month's SSP case, and his block log. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:MrPlow09

Suspected sockpuppeteer: MrPlow09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: BobSmith25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Blueboy 96 02:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Only edits by both users have been to the hoax articles Arthur D. Cooble and Cooble. Hardly a coincidence.

Comments

Conclusions

Sock indef, master one week. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Omarsiddiqui728

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Omarsiddiqui728 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

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

Report submission by

— TheBilly^(Talk) 03:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Iamthekingtom's only edit is to Bella Vista High School, claiming that someone named "Omar Siddiqui" is a notable alumni. Notice that name matches the username; User:Omarsiddiqui728 was blocked indefinitely but appears to be back on a sockpuppet making unconstructive (though not yet obvious vandalism) edits

The single post shows someone who has the same interest. Maybe you and I just haven't heard of the guy, but a single edit is difficutl to make a conclusion about. I recommend holding off for now. If contributions that are disruptive continue and fit a given pattern, then we can always revisit the issue. Thanks for the input though. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Conclusions

Please see the results of the UserCompare tool. Id say they are the same person. β^_command 04:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although It does seem likely that it is the same user, they have only made one edit and it's not concrete evidence, so I'm not going to block --Chris 10:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Neutralhomer

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

JPG-GR (talk) 09:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

First edit by Flatsky is a modification to his/her monobook.js - hardly the edit of a new-to-Wikipedia user.

Flatsky's Contribs
- Flatsky's contribs only occur during periods where User:Neutralhomer has been blocked (September 3, 2007 and January 11, 2008 through present day)
- Flatsky likes to revert vandalism using Twinkle, when "vandalism" is not necessarily the word for it ([301]). User:Neutralhomer was previously blocked for Twinkle abuse along the same lines ([302])
- Evidence of stalking the contribs of User:Calton ([303]) - a user that User:Neutralhomer has a long history of bad blood with.

Revision history of TV3 Winchester is dominated by edits by User:Neutralhomer, User:Flatsky, and User:Orangemonster2k1 (the former username of User:Neutralhomer).

Comments

User:Neutralhomer appears to only use the User:Flatsky account to avoid blocks - no overly abusive actions have been taken by the user, though incivility and improper usage of Twinkle continue. JPG-GR (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Blocked the sock (Flatsky) and reset the current block on Neutralhomer for the evasion. The evidence appears very clear that this these two are socks. Metros (talk) 12:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser requested for confirmation at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Neutralhomer. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 12:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Lantern Oil

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

Suspected sockpuppets: Connell66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

-XxKibaxX Talk 22:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Admitted on talk page.

Comments

Conclusions

Yup. Blocked. MastCell ^Talk 04:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:124.185.79.125

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

124.185.240.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
124.185.53.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Deadly∀ssassin^(talk) 11:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Both addresses have a history of adding the same copyrighted material to Elton Flatley as well as the style of comments that the users leave on reverting editors pages User_talk:DeadlyAssassin and User_talk:DeadEyeArrow.

Comments

IP users editing times do not overlap. They are simply used once. The users do not claim to be separate users trying to give the illusion of consensus. WP policy states "A sock puppet is an alternative account used deceptively". I see no evidence of this occurring.

What I do see is edits which are not productive and warning that have been given by others. This could be the basis for blocking if bad behaviour continues.

I will have this case independently reviewed and will return if the review suggests another course of action.

Conclusions

Case closed. Suggest filing vandalism report (WP:AIV) if vandalism occurs. Archtransit (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Case to be re-opened, reviewed and re-closed. Archtransit has been desysopped as an sockmaster, with an occasional sideline in unblocking socks, himself.

Quite obviously the same person using a dynamic IP based on IPs and editing patterns (though 124.185.53.220 seems to have no edits). Too old now to block. If it continues/starts again, a short rangeblock or semi-protection might be in order. Mr.Z-man 01:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Billingsworth

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Apprec8coetzee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Aristotle13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
InformationKey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Pairadox (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

The first round of evidence is these three edits, in which three different accounts all post delete votes within a five minute window on the wrong page. All three use similar reasoning, including claims of "attacks" against the Oxford Round Table by off-wiki people.

This is then followed the next day by these three edits, once again within a short time frame (10 minutes), including the last by a brand new editor whose first (and only) post is to the AfD page. Once again they use similar reasoning, including mention of off-wiki "conspiracies."

Comments

Conclusions

First and last already blocked indef; indef'd the other two, tagged all. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Teoph

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

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

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

Report submission by

--Good Damon 23:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

IP address restores reverted Nazi revisionist text to Posen speech: [304]
After several reverts, Teoph restores the same text: [305]
After another revert, Johanneskirchner restores the same text: [306]

This same behavior occurs simultaneously on Heinrich Himmler (see history)

Comments

Conclusions

All users have been blocked --Chris 04:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Fizwiz

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

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

Report submission by

Wildthing61476 (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User created Wizfiz account as a block evading sock, also is using account to harass User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me.

Comments

I feel can't sleep, clown will eat me hates me because I'm black and won't stop harassing me for it. He/she is never suspected of corky terms such as "sockpuppetry" his harassment on the computer is likely only his first step I fear he may attempt to meet me in person, which is illegal. Wikipedia must stop it or fear the law.

Immediately block both users for unfounded accusations of racism and clear violations of WP:SOCK. Please expedite and archive ASAP. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coulda been more clear on that: block Wizfiz and Fizwiz, not the target of his edits or the submitter. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But I wanna block EVERYONE! *ahem* Sorry, to clarify below, the sock and the master are blocked. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Can't sleep, clown will eat, me must have his user terminated and never allowed on Wiki again he is clearly a pervert and Commy you can tell by one look at his user page.Wizfiz (talk) 22:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Wizfiz[reply]

I'll get right on that. Both users indef-blocked. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:203.218.218.109

Suspected sockpuppeteer: 203.218.218.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

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

Report submission by

SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence: Returns to articles only edited by Instantnood.; Wikistalks User:Huaiwei and User:SchmuckyTheCat; Fixation on edits splitting Hong Kong/Macau from "mainland China"; Please see the results of the UserCompare tool.

Diff

The entire contrib history of the IP is pretty obvious. This diff is definitive.

[307] & [308] Socks have been pretty intent on restoring this redirect for a long time.

Comments

I note that this user has made edits to articles I recently edited in, including List of countries by foreign exchange reserves, List of airlines of the People's Republic of China‎, Tiger Airways destinations, List of merchant marine capacity by country‎, Singapore Changi Airport‎, Singapore Changi Airport‎ etc.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please could the submitter include some diffs into the report please. Thank you. Rudget. 17:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe he has failed to that because that will entail practically citing everything in [309].--Huaiwei (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not at all. A further reasoned explanation and diffs can make the job at SSP much easier. Rudget . 18:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added some evidence. Lara❤Love 20:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do admit the editing patterns are extremely similar, and the wiki-stalking is evident in such cases as shown here. The edits s/he is conducting are based on the same mindset that Instantnood had. The edit comparisons link that LaraLove provided is also helpful in showing that the edits that the IP is doing are somewhat recognisable to those of Instantnood, and the pages they edit are similar too. As an IP can't be blocked indefinitely, I'll leave another administrator who has more experience with blocking IPs in SSP cases close this submission per this rationale. Regards, Rudget . 21:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by previous IPs used by Instantnood ([310]) he seems to keep them for a week or two. I don't really care about whether it's blocked, as long it is readily apparent why the IP contributions are readily reverted. Also, I'm going to file an RFCU on the IP and one or two usernames. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Conclusions

Per the reasons provided above, IP is blocked for 9 days. Rudget . 16:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In what way are my edits similar to User:Instantnood's? I edited 11 of the articles he has edited, but I don't think the changes I have made to the articles are similar to those of his. 219.77.96.6 (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:MoralVictor

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

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

Report submission by

Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User created the account User:Upheld as a block evading sock on Islam related articles.

Timeline provided by StuffOfInterest (talk) (note, times are in EST)

16 Jan 2008 @ 05:00 - Account MoralVictor created
5 Feb 2008 @ 06:28 - First edit by MoralVictor to Aniconism in Islam
5 Feb 2008 @ 06:30 to 08:18 - MoralVictor edited 30 other articles and one template related is Islam
5 Feb 2008 @ 08:18 - MoralVictor blocked 48 hours for disruption
7 Feb 2008 @ 06:14 - Account Upheld created
7 Feb 2008 @ 06:35 - Upheld makes first edit to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)‎ attempting to change policy
7 Feb 2008 @ 06:36 - Upheld edits Aniconism in Islam‎
7 Feb 2008 @ 06:37 to 09:35 - Upheld edits 38 Islam related articles including many of those edited by MoralVictor

End of timeline --StuffOfInterest (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

MoralVictor's last edit was at 11:02, February 7th and Upheld began editing at 11:35 the same day, only 33 minutes apart. They edit similar articles. Upheld's contribs are more advanced than your average new editor. Useight (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Muhammad as a general by Upheld and Muhammad as a general by MoralVictor. Of course there is the ANI report where Upheld claims I am stalking MoralVictor. The problem there is I was reverting Upheld here. From 14:27 to 14:50. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 16:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

And the winner is.... DavidYork71 socks, as per Checkuser. Both blocked. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Jvolkblum

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Nyjockboy2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - Blocked indefinitely
The5bricks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - Blocked indefinitely
24.215.173.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - Blocked 1 month

Report submission by

--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Jvolkblum is an editor interested in articles relating to Westchester County, New York.
He has spent considerable effort edit warring (against User:HMishkoff, who has since stopped warring and is looking for a compromise) over whether Sarah Lawrence College is located in the city of Bronxville, not Yonkers.[311][312][313]
He also has the habits of adding image galleries[314] to SLC-related articles and de-wikifying headings[315][316]
He also edits as Special:Contributions/24.215.173.132 and does not attempt to conceal this fact. While logged in as 24.215.173.132, he sometimes signs his posts (manually) as Jvolkblum.[317]
NYjockboy2 edits exactly the same articles as Jvolkblum:
When warned about using alternate accounts deceptively, Jvolkblum told me that he and Nyjockboy are two separate people who converse (presumably offline) about common wiki-interests[318]
Nyjockboy2, like Jvolkblum, also de-wikifies headings[319]
As Nyjockboy2, the editor, rather than continuing to push the idea that SLC is in Bronxville, opined that we are placing too much emphasis in the lead on the campus location and should focus on other matters[320]
User:The5bricks popped up shortly thereafter and stated that he "honestly couldnt care less about where the college truly is or isnt. Its a dumb issue for anyone to start an argument over" but that, nevertheless, "Bronxville is the most relevant location to categorize the school under.."
The5bricks also de-wkifies headings[321] and signs his comments manually[322]
The5bricks has been employed to revert the article to preferred NYjockboy2's version[323]
The5bricks also edits from IP address 24.215.173.132 (same IP as Jvolkblum) and does not attempt to conceal this.[324]

Comments

These accounts are operated by a productive editor who does good work like uploading pictures and (occasionally) adding useful information to articles about their area of New York state; he also shows willingness to compromise. I do not wish to see him indefinitely blocked. Perhaps someone could confirm that these are indeed the same user and issue a stern warning to stop using sockpuppets/meatpuppets to prop up his arguments.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I cannot speak to the sockpuppetry, but I can confirm that Jvolkblum has been making questionable edits which appear to be promotional in nature, such as Wykagyl Golf Club. I rewrote the article from scratch, but earlier today he completely blanked it and replaced it with what appeared to be a copyright violation. I have reverted the article and warned the user. --El on ka 00:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

This should be an open-and-shut case; obvious sockpuppetry is going on, and the user seems unabashed about adding more sockpuppet accounts:
- User:No1Manhattanite - Blocked indefinitely
- User:HTranphuGirl - Blocked indefinitely
I'd appreciate it if some blocks were issued.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 10:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the IP has been shown to sign off as Jvolkblum, and then state he is The5bricks concludes that The5bricks is a sockpuppet of Jvolkblum. Concluding other evidence soon. Rudget . 17:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final conclusion

Every user indefinitely blocked. It appears that Jvolkblum is attempting to work around multiple final warnings, and the community patience has been exhausted by unrelentless forms of sockpuppetry. If he may seek re-admission to the community by requesting an unblock, he may pledge to stop this action immediately. For now though, all are prevented from editing, apart from the IP who's block will expire in 1 month's time. Rudget . 18:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Soydog

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

SGGH ^speak! 13:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Soydog created the article on Ottonomous [325] then proceeded to blank the page and then speedy'd it citing that the "subject" wanted his or her privacy [326]. Soydog also edited Anarchism in the arts [327] adding information. Ottonomous, aside from having the name that matches the aforementioned article, also edited Anarchism in the arts, removing information suposedly about him or herself [328].

Comments

While neither user has made significantly disruptive edits, there appears to be indecision as to whether this user wants the information on themselves on wikipedia, as well as issues of WP:N and WP:AUTO. These accounts could become quite disruptive I feel if the user continues to switch back and forth between adding and removing information on itself. While a basic message may have done the trick, this risk of greater disruption, I felt, warranted a report here. SGGH ^speak! 13:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Blocked Ottonomous, warned master. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Nadarhistory

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

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

Report submission by

^Avruchtalk 15:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Similar username to previous PONDHEEPANKAR socks (Nadarsagham most recently blocked) and same pattern of editing/style of comments on the talk page of Nadar (caste). This one has been around awhile, would that be classed as a 'sleeper'? ^Avruchtalk 15:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Conclusions: Confirmed Checkuser has confirmed the relationship between these two. Both are indef. blocked. Case is located here. -JodyB_talk 01:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Reneec

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Memphians in Support of David Saks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Vary | Talk 01:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Both are SPA's dedicated to getting David Saks of Memphis onto Wikipedia. Identical prose style: [329] [330] The latter account appeared a few days ago and picked right back up where the former had left off, down to including a laundry list of complaints against the same editors that Reneec had been railing against up until he was indef blocked in August of 2006.

Comments

This request may be counterproductive at this time and may be better suited for later. I am attempting to talk to both sides. Vary and Jersyko are opposed to David Saks. I am neutral. I might note that not all editors are socks as the checkuser previously showed that there are at least two separate editors, not just Reneec. See [331]. I suspect that this matter has no chance of resolution if focused on the sock issue but has some chance of resolution if the David Saks song issue is resolved. Some of the previous editors have discussed this in 2006. A summary of ideas might be useful in a RFC. It has something to do with possible inclusion of a David Saks song in the Memphis, Tennessee article since at least one song was cited in a city council resolution. Archtransit (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, I am not 'opposed' to David Saks, and I'd appreciate if you would rephrase that statement as it implies that I have some sort of personal vendetta against the man. I am opposed to including David Saks on the article on Memphis, because of past consensus that he and his song do not merit inclusion.

The song issue has been resolved. Long ago. This editor would not accept the consensus, and continued to argue and make ever more serious personal attacks until he was blocked for threatening to interfere with an editor professionally. Encouraging further discussion on the matter is only going to expose the editors in good standing who have dealt with this case in the past to further threats of the kind this editor was blocked for. There is a reason why indef blocked editors are not permitted to return to editing under new accounts.

Finally, the checkuser case did not prove that there were multiple editors involved. Checkuser can provide very strong positive evidence of abuse, but very little in the way of negative evidence. All that it showed was that Reneec did not edit from that range while logged in. And anyway, as the evidence I provided has nothing to do with past IP abuse, I'm not sure why the fact is even relevant. -- Vary | Talk 17:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Obvious sock, indef'ed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: - Archtransit has been desysopped as an sockmaster, with an occasional sideline in unblocking socks, himself. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Alexanderwasgreat

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

AlexanderwasgreatI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
AlexanderWASgreatII (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

--BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 02:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User and their socks have been making the exact same edits (1st edit by AlexanderWASgreatII) to the Rome: Total War article by modifying the same content to be POV which resulted in the article's semi-protection. Hidden text stating that this description is biased and to discuss if editors have issues with it and all warnings issued are ignored. Both Alexanderwasgreat and AlexanderwasgreatI have been blocked. High probability that this editor was likely making the same edits as an IP, and the article has a history of these edits by IPs across a range of IPs (article history) from the ISP PaeTec Communications Inc. This editor has then started to register a username in order to make the same edits.

Comments

Concur with submitter. This editor is trying to circumvent blocks through sockpuppetry (though I don't necessarily consider the content dispute "disruption", the circumventing of a block certainly is a violation of WP:SOCK). — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

All already blocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Nationmaster

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

Suspected sockpuppets: Invasivepants (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); ButtCommandr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 24.213.58.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Mayalld (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Tag teaming in a vandalism spree at Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railroad Company v. Illinois

Comments

This appears to be a much clearer violation of Wikipedia vandalism policies than WP:SOCK. WP:SOCK states "A sock puppet is an alternative account used deceptively. In particular, using two usernames to vote more than once in a poll or to circumvent Wikipedia policies is forbidden." The evidence of sockpuppetry is merely circumstantial. The evidence of vandalism is clear and unmistakable.

Nationmaster and Invasivepants are the only users of the four listed who remain unblocked. All of their edits seem to be vandalism. It would be better evaluate their behavior on vandalism, which is clear cut, rather than try to deduct whether or not they are the same person. Due to the esoteric nature of the article vandalised, I suspect that the article was discussed in a school history class.

Mayalld, have you considered WP:AIV? Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that M.EB has made some very good points above, and I agree that this report is based more on vandalism rather than "who owns who" - I don't believe at this moment in time, we can appropriately conclude that Invasivepants is Nationmaster. As M.EB points out, it could have been something that was in class that day, and the only need for a block would be warranted on a vandalism block only. ButtCommandr has already been blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account, and so we exclude him from the results of this report immediately. I appreciate Mayalld's concerns and these edits even lead to a protection of the page in question, but I don't see any reason for Nationmaster wanting to create another account (i.e. Invasivepants) because there have been no blocks, and few warnings. At this moment in time I feel it would be best to see what happens, and if they return in these capacities - just report them to AIV and quote this SSP case - it, in combination with the final warnings I have issued, would surely lead to a block of some period. Rudget . 18:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that this report originated in vandalism. At the time, there was a lot of activity from all the users making the same edits, and it looked as if there was an intent to start a sock farm to allow more extensive vandalism whilst evading a block by keeping all accounts under the block radar. It would appear that once it became clear that the game was up, he got bored, so I don't see any further action as necessary on this case. If the accounts start up again, we can deal with it from there. Mayalld (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Case closed. No further action at this time. Conclusion appears to be supported by Mayalld (submitter of report), Rudget and Mrs. Easter Bunny. Nobody not in support of conclusion. Archtransit (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Case to be re-opened, reviewed and re-closed. Archtransit has been desysopped as an sockmaster, with an occasional sideline in unblocking socks, himself.

Important - in this case, all comments by third parties, as well as the conclusion should be reappraised and the case reassessed from scratch. (There is evidence examined by Arbcom that suggests at least one of the comments made to it was influenced by Archtransit, and therefore all comments should be set aside in re-evaluating the case.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed by checkuser; ButtCommandr (talk · contribs), Invasivepants (talk · contribs), Nationmaster (talk · contribs) and Acutevampirecatgirldame (talk · contribs) are the same person. The IP is probably Unrelated. Thatcher 00:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All accounts (except the IP) blocked for sockpuppetry per CheckUser evidence. Mr.Z-man 01:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Guiedo (2nd)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Giedo ADC 657 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Pseudomonas_(talk) 23:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Vandalism of the user pages of editors responsible for blocking previous socks. Same abusive sloganeering in Spanish.

Comments

No good edits

Conclusions

Blocked indefinitely. Rudget . 16:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/JohnBambenek (2nd)

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:Fadix

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

John Vandenberg (talk) 06:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence: [332]

Comments: Self identification as Fadix. John Vandenberg (talk) 06:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Already indefinitely blocked. Rudget . 16:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Lysdexia

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

Suspected sockpuppets: 68.127.228.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Ckatz^chat _spy 05:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Reporting per notice here, and per IP's comments:

here, and
here

Comments

This report is based on a note left on the IP's talk page by Dacium.

Conclusions

IP blocked for 3 weeks. It appears to change, so hence the short block. Rudget . 16:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Ijnhy

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Xswaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Cftgb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Tovis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Wssra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Asdcv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 02:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Vandal edits to Illinois:

Attacks on me:

Comments

Quack, but all accounts are already blocked indef. Bencherlite ^Talk 02:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

concur. good call. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compare with edits of Asdcv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 09:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the results of the UserCompare tool. confirmed. β^_command 04:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

All users blocked --Chris 09:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Ijnhy (talk · contribs) has been determined to be a sock of Qwertgb (talk · contribs). Please see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Qwertgb for more details. --Kralizec! (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2009 (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:Aaron7008

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Aaron7008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Jacob man 589 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 08:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Creating of articles about a nonnotable musician with almost exactly the same contents see the logs for (Aaron dulecki and Aaron Dulecki

Comments

Conclusions

Sock blocked --Chris 09:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:76.182.32.227

Suspected sockpuppeteer: 76.182.32.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Toddst1 (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

See user's own comments at User talk:76.182.32.227 where he/she admits to being a block evading sockpuppet.

Comments

Conclusions

Obvious and as such not in need of action here. Just treat as vandalism report at WP:AIV if new throwaway IPs become a nuisance. No prior warnings necessary, just mark AIV reports as being about an obvious case of repeat block evasion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:AncyentMarinere

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

Suspected sockpuppets: The idiot boy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

JD554 (talk) 10:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

The idiot boy's account was created very shortly after AncyentMarinere received his/her fourth and final warning for vandalism. The idiot boy then started vandalising in exactly the same way as AncyentMarinere had on the same article.

Comments: Concur. FWIW. It's pretty clear.--Deadly∀ssassin^(talk) 10:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I blocked both indefinitely. They're obvious sock/meatpuppets. If more accounts are created, George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron should be semi-protected or a checkuser could be done to hopefully find an underlying range. Spellcast (talk) 11:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both already blocked and tagged. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:NASCARfan431

Suspected sockpuppeteer: NASCARfan431 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Eyeh8blacks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Eyeluvblacks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Alisyn^talk 03:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Same racial comments, similar editing styles, blanking warnings.

Comments

Could the report submitter provide some diffs please? Thank you. Rudget . 12:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

No action. No evidence submitted, NASCARfan4341 and Eyeh8blacks already blocked. No contribs from Eyeluvblacks. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Jahedul

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppet

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

Report submission by

Mosmof (talk) 05:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

This account has evidently been created to get around indefinite block. The original account was blocked for repeated copyright violations and claiming false image licenses: [333] The new account has uploaded an image with questionable copyright status claiming to be taken by the uploader himself, "Jay Han", for use in Tracy McGrady, where the old account concentrated his imagevios in.

Uploads by Jahedul: [334]

Upload by Jloso: Image:T1 mcgrady.jpg

Comments

FWIW, I don't think this is an abusive editor, except for his inability/unwillingness to understand Wikipedia's copyright policies. --Mosmof (talk) 05:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Common edits, such as to Fabolous and Fabolous discography, add to the evidence that this is likely a banned user evading the ban. I say block indefinitely. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 00:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Blocked indef. Master was already blocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Phoebe-SM

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Phoebe-SM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: 90.201.100.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

~~ [Jam]^[talk] 00:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Exactly the same evidence as provided for the first case, with updated edits:

Comments

Indef Block per previous discussion and outcome. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Phoebe-SM warned last time and 1 week, now indef. IP one month. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Dr. vivek Kumar Pandey

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Dr. vivek Kumar Pandey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Ekbal anuj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Toddst1 (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User: Ekbal anuj is the primary author of the article Dr. Vivek Kumar Pandey. The article is an almost verbatim copy of the user page of User:Dr. vivek Kumar Pandey. Both authors have heavily edited the same articles, especially Prem C. Pandey and appear to be alternate users, creating vanity articles about the Pandey family. There is some discussion of this on the afd page for Dr. Vivek Kumar Pandey

Note that the Prem C. Pandey page is almost verbatim on User:Ekbal anuj as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddst1 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I remember there were previous articles (now deleted) about Dr. Vivek Kumar Pandey, but I don't have access to users' contributions to articles that have been deleted.

Based on the activity on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Vivek Kumar Pandey and editing patterns, it appears User: 220.227.207.12 (now temporarily blocked for abuse) is also a sockpuppet of these two. Toddst1 (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Conclusions

It's pretty clear, from evidence presented and from editing patterns, including a unique style of detail in edit summaries, that these two accounts represent the same person. However, since one of the accounts is inactive for the last month, and the other started within the last month (so they are not simultaneous), and also since the behavior is not fundamentally abusive but simply violated the conflict-of-interest policy, I feel that blocks do not need to be issued. Accordingly, I am closing this case with a warning to the user involved, but without issuing blocks. (Note: I am not an admin.) Shalom (Hello • Peace) 01:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Hippytrout

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Orangepith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Alex Davideds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Dagophet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Evidence

I can only find the sockpuppets, but not the sockpuppeteer, but the guy keep on adding hoax award.

Comments

19:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Blocked all except Alex Davideds (talk · contribs) as vandalism-only and likely socks. The Alex account appeared to have a few semi-constructive edits, so we can let that go for now. MastCell ^Talk 22:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Fioranoweb

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

A. B. ^(talk) 13:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Fiorano Software has been waging an ongoing PR effort on Wikipedia for 2 years, spamming links and articles

Links

fiorano.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Now blacklisted

Spam articles created as blatant advertising and deleted by Wikipedia administrators

Atul saini
FIO ITPL
FIORANO - deleted 3 times
Fiorano ESB™ 2006
Fiorano SOA Platform
Fiorano Software - deleted 9 times
FioranoMQ™ 2006
Mr. Atul Saini - deleted 4 times
Mr. Srinivas Tati, - deleted 3 times
Mr. Vinod K. Dham , - deleted 2 times
Vinod K. Dham
Mr. Christopher Combs
Image:Fiorano logo.png - deleted 4 times
User:Sanjaya fiorano
- User page created as a spam page.
User:Sanjaya123
- User page created as a spam page.
User:Fiorano123
- User page created as a spam page.
User:Itpl fiorano
- User page created as a spam page.
User:Sanjayakumarsahu
- User page created as a spam page.

Articles vandalized

References

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Fiorano Software (again) (permanent link) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Fioranoweb--A. B. ^(talk) 15:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I have indefinitely blocked all the registered accounts. 125.16.137.130 is registered to the company and I have blocked it indefinitely as well.
There was no "first case"; the only previous report was Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fioranoweb (2nd)
No additional action appears to be required; I have made this report as a matter of record

--A. B. ^(talk) 13:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Perhaps you should ask a checkuser to identify any sleeper accounts that may be associated with these. I find that shutting down all the accounts at once can discourage them from making further attempts at evasion. You can file code 'F', block evasion, use a link to this report as the evidence, and specifically request identification of sleeper accounts. Additionally, checkuser will confirm the relationship and might identify any innocent party caught in the sweep, though I do not think that has happened here. Jehochman ^Talk 14:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opened here. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 22:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Jacob Peters

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Jacob Peters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

C.J. Griffin (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

He clearly has a pro-communist agenda and is deleting sourced information. He is also citing some of the same dubious sources he has in the past. See the revision history of the articles Russian Civil War, List of massacres‎, Great Purge, Genocides in history and Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia‎ for evidence of this.

Comments

At the least, the charge of "C.J. Griffin" is without evidence. If this is what he does on a regular basis towards those editors that make contributions contrary to his prejudices, then he should be sanctioned for abusive conduct. Interestingly, "C.J. Griffin" seems more interested in censoring views he disagrees with rather than actually exposing real sockpuppets. His charge of a "pro-communist" agenda is particularly bizarre. The claim that I have used "dubious sources" is at the least slanderous when almost all of my contributions thus far have incororated scholarly sources[338] [339] [340]. It's regrettable that "C.J. Griffin" has to engage in such infantile games rather than trying to make constructive contributions to this encyclopedia. Gulijan (talk) 04:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad for "Gulijan" (aka Jacob Peters) that every other time I've reported his sockpuppetry he's been penalized for it. Just look at the edits of the sockpuppeteer (Jacob Peters) and the sockpuppet ("Gulijan") and you can clearly see the similarities (i.e. that he's a Communist POV pusher). It's also a lie to claim that I regularly report editors I disagree with for sockpuppetry. Looking over my contributions will prove this is not the case. Notice that he didn't say a word about his deletion of materials with scholarly citations.[341] Other editors have also been reverting his edits as you can see on the articles I've provided in the evidence section.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 04:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the contributions history for both of them they haven't been editing the same articles.Cryo921 (talk) 10:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they have. Peters's sockpuppets have consistently hit these articles. Worth a checkuser, at any rate. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 15:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the allegations of this "Moreschi", I've checked the contributions of the user in concern, and his claim that the user has consistently edited the same articles is at the least inaccurate. It's interesting that while "C.J. Griffin accuses me of "deletion of materials with scholarly citations", it is in fact he who has been guilty of this. [342] The allegation of "C.J. Griffin" of a "Communist POV pusher" is bizarre, to say the least. Interestingly, it is he who hosts a web site entitled "Red Holocaust". It appears that he is not concerned with sanctioning those abusing Wikipedia policy, but is merely determined to punish those whose views do not conform to his prejudices.

Gulijan (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I regret very much that Gulijan made the same revert five times on 3 February on Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia‎. All the time he tries to add parts which do not fit in with the article, because they are extremely POV, and seem to have the obvious intention to give the impression that trying the Red Khmer is undesirable. As I (like others) have been working hard to make this a good and objective article, this hurts. Paul kuiper NL (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly enough, this "Gulijan" just made an edit to the Richard Pipes article adding a "controversy" section (which I just reverted)[343]. Is it a coincidence that another confirmed Jacob Peters sock by the name of "Hadjin" made similar edits to an article on another historian that specialises in the crimes of Communism (Robert Conquest)? See for yourselves:[344] "Gulijan" is clearly another Jacob Peters sock. You'd have to be blind not to see it.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is your reason for reverting the Alexander Parvus [345] edit, is it simply because you suspect a sockpuppet or because you suspect a "pro-communist agenda"? Questioning81 (talk) 03:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The former. Vandals are not allowed to edit wikipedia.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 04:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jacob Peters came back confirmed: user blocked indefinitely. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 09:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Durzatwink

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

Suspected sockpuppets: Rws killer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Rws killer2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Umm killer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Nku pyrodragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Rws killer6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

_contribs STYROFOAM☭1994^TALK 02:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

His edits are all in the same area of interest, are somewhat biased in favor of what he is writing about, and all of their styles of talking are very similar, as in here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. I also know that all of the previous persons mentioned have been blocked and linked to User:Rws killer, as in here and here. Each of them have all been created a few days right after the previous identity was blocked indefinitely. (see the account creation log). Also see the previous user's sockpuppet file.

Comments

Even though he has reformed a bit recently, he was intent on bringing me down before, and still is attempting to do that, as in here and other posts.

No I am not and you already made a sockpuppetry case against me but it was dissmissed. Please stop doing this. Thanks--DurzaTwink^TALK 02:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is another case that is being done between Styrofoam1994, Sanjay517 and me here. May I also add that this user is trying to bring me down after I collected a sufficient amount of evidence for sockpuppetry against the user's friend user:Sanjay517. However, due to my good faith, I did not add the sockpuppet master and sockpuppet in the WP:SSP. Sincerely--DurzaTwink^TALK 02:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user was my adoptee. However, for some odd reasaon he is now accusing me of sockpuppetry. Styrofoam1994 also vandalized my user page and he tricked people by claiming that he was a wikipedia administrator. All evidence can be seen here, which is also the exact place that I asked for the administrator who gave him rollback rights to double check Styrofoam's contribs. I did not say that i wanted his rollback rights to be removed. I clearly stated for his profile to be double checked. In the end, he maintained his rollback rights due to the fact that it is not an ability that can bring mass destruction to wikipedia and I continued on my life warning vandals, reporting abusers and reverting pages. Best regards--DurzaTwink^TALK 02:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durzatwink, look. All you're doing is mudslinging that is irrelevant to this sockpuppet case. Please reconsider what you are thinking. _contribs STYROFOAM☭1994^TALK 03:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of the supporting evidence helps back me up. It defends against your accusation that I am trying to topple you and how you have constantly attacked me from accusation of sockpuppetry to vandalism on my userpage. by User:Durzatwink

Seriously, you are trying to topple me personally. You constantly asked that guy about reconsidering my rollback rights so you were attempting to make him revoke my rights. _contribs STYROFOAM☭1994^TALK 03:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have fought against vandalism and have tried my best to improve articles and for some reason, Styrofoam1994 attacks me with this sockpuppetry case. Please lets rebuild our friendship. I offerd you to be my adoptee again so we can continue making good edits to Wikipedia. Your Pal--DurzaTwink^TALK 03:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, he suspiciously wrote "What can possibly be said about me?" on his user page, see here. _contribs STYROFOAM☭1994^TALK 03:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything on this page that looks the slightest bit like evidence that Durzatwink is participating in any sockpuppetry. Maybe I missed it? --Coppertwig (talk) 03:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean in the comments page, or the evidence? So far, Durzatwink has been editing random pages so he would avoid detection that he is a sockpuppet. Also, I request checkuser on these sockpuppets. _contribs STYROFOAM☭1994^TALK 13:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier, Styrofoam1994 (talk · contribs), who created this report, was repeatedly deleting evidence that had been presented on this page by Durzatwink (talk · contribs), even to the point of violating 3RR. I think the evidence has been restored. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far I have been editing pages and warning/reporting vandals to avoid detection? Truly this does not make any sense at all. Best regarsd--DurzaTwink^TALK 15:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reading some of the discussion on User talk:Styrofoam1994 (and see also this archived version), this looks less like a legitimate sockpuppet report and more like an attempt to bring some form of offline drama onto Wikipedia. I agree with Coppertwig that there's no evidence of sockpuppetry. This report should be closed accordingly. —C.Fred (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then what kind of evidence do I need? I've done the same thing for User:Nku pyrodragon's sockpuppet report, and he got banned accordingly. _contribs STYROFOAM☭1994^TALK 16:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the one edit of Durzatwink's that you presented [346] neither matched the style of the other edits nor was disruptive at all. So edit diffs would be a definite place to start. —C.Fred (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a limit as to how many cases of sockpuppetry a user can file against another user? So far this is the second case Styrofoam1994 filed against me regarding sockpuppetry and I have a feeling that the user may file another one. Thanks--DurzaTwink^TALK 17:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

No edits provide any technical proof of sockpuppetry. Requests for further details from the reporter led to even more specious diffs, such as a self-reversion to undo an edit the alleged sockpuppeteer did in his own account. Closing with a finding of not a sockpuppeteer. —C.Fred (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:151.199.24.215

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

SpinningSpark 02:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Compare [347] with [348]
The repeated vandalism of both to Yo Gabba Gabba!‎ kind of gives it away as well.
Both accounts seem to be largely/exclusively vandalism

Comments

Conclusions

Both blocked for vandalism (report that to WP:AIV), not convinced they're socks though. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Grawp (2nd)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Goblin (Dungeons & Dragons) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

AUTiger » talk 05:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Edits marked as minor with no summary removing multiple header tags of D&D related articles replicating actions of previous socks of Grawp see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Duergarthedwarf and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Qwerty of Man

Comments

Based on editing patterns, the following accounts are also suspected to be socks of the above editor:

Lurueue (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Yearscolour (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Silvanusanus (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Sharesses (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Denytrip (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Mainpushing (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Whomcases (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Untiluncited (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

All accounts created within 40 minutes of each other (03:40 to 04:19, 31 January 2008), and sole contributions of all accounts consist of identical tag removals to D&D articles and reverting merged/redirected D&D articles. --Muchness (talk) 06:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone please block all of these. This is a obvious call. --Jack Merridew 10:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I've blocked and tagged them all. Checkuser might be worthwile to pick up sleepers or block underlying IP... — Scientizzle 23:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jack Merridew 08:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed - you guys might want to check Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Qwerty of Man - happy blocking! - Alison ^❤ 20:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All already blocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:GuruJason5

Suspected sockpuppeteer: GuruJason5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Egg91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Eggd2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Comet styles 12:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

his edit to my talk page

Comments

Conclusions

All already blocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Egg19

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Egg19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Eggd2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Comet styles 13:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

see prior edits

Comments

Conclusions

Dupe of GuruJason5, all blocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Leaveout

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

76.220.202.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
76.203.127.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
76.221.187.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

To start off, Leaveout's edits can be found here: [349]. 76.203.127.38's edits can be found here: [350]. 76.220.202.205's edits can be found here: [351]. 76.221.187.73 can be found here: [352] Notice a pattern? There were a total of 103 edits (from three accounts) made to the Ayaan Hirsi Ali article yesterday, January 30, and were all basically the same type of POV edits. 28 edits were made by 76.221.187.73 on January 28. A grand total of 131 POV edits to a controversial article. Three of the accounts seem to have been created solely for the purpose of editing Ayaan Hirsi Ali. They are the same type of edits, same kind of edit summaries, and same biased information (and blatant POV in certain edits). Example: [353] from 76.220.202.205, [354] by [355] by Leaveout and [356] by 76.221.187.73 are the same thing and the overall changes to the article are the exact same from all accounts. This person has been confronted by several people in regards to editing without consensus on a controversial article like Ayaan Hirsi Ali. This person also made several POV edits to a related article, Theo van Gogh, on January 30. When I asked about the use of sock puppets on the talk page, the person ignored the question and told me to talk about the article instead of questioning him/her about sock puppets. Another user commented on the talk page for Ayaan Hirsi Ali that a sock puppet was being used. Read the last few sections of Talk:Ayaan Hirsi Ali to see what what kind of person we're dealing with. This person has also tried to report users for violating WP:3RR, even though they were just reverting the massive amount of edits until consensus was made on the talk page. The user was the real one violating the policy, although disguising it by using a different account to make the revert. The admin didn't fall for it and protected the article until consensus is made. The user has now begun to accuse the admin of being in some kind of cover-up and being a bad admin. Evidence of this is found on the admin's talk page [357], on Talk:Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and on the 3RR admin noticeboard [358]. In addition, read the "Dialog" section of Talk:Ayaan Hirsi Ali and see the question he/she asked. The tone and ideology really comes out. It's obvious this person intends to create a negative article. Basically, this user is trying to disrupt the whole editing process of the article and is being deceitful by using different accounts to make it look like more people have the same opinion. To sum it up, I'll copy and paste what I wrote on Talk:Ayaan Hirsi Ali:

(read WP:SOCK) Because of the use of sock puppets by Leaveout, 76.220.202.205, and 76.203.127.38 (all the same person), I'm encouraging others to ignore this indiviudal (and his/her other sock puppets yet to be discovered) because of continued abuse of WP:SOCK, WP:CON, and WP:EQ. All input by this person has resulted in biased information and opinions being inserted into the article without regard to other's views. (103 POV edits in 1 day) Attempts at having a civil discussion on the talk page have resulted in sarcasm and immaturity.Anyone wanting to state his/her opinions in regards to this article is encouraged to comment, but from now on, Leaveout, 76.220.202.205, and 76.203.127.38 is being ignored.

(i added this after i discovered the 4th account)

Also, I didn't realize it until now, that 76.221.187.73 is another sock puppet used by this person with a total of 28 edits to the Ayaan Hirsi Ali article on January 28. Notice the same kind of edit summaries were used. That's a total of 131 POV edits without consensus.

Please block this user (and all sock puppets) for causing disruption and edit wars to an article without having consensus. He/She was asked many times to stop editing and to use the talk page (in a civil and non-sarcastic manner), but has refused to do so until the admin ended up protecting the page. But the sarcasm and uncivility has now moved to the talk page. Several people have tried to reason, but all we get is sarcasm. He/She has now started posting countless topics that no one is replying to because no one wants to deal with the person. This is first time I've reported a sock puppet, so I hope I was thorough enough. If you need more evidence, I'm not sure how to give you anymore without sounding repetitive. It's just obvious to tell by looking at the edit history of all of the accounts. Thanks for your help.

Comments

I endorse this report by User:AgnosticPreachersKid and second the motion to take action against a very disruptive sock. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 15:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Confirmed by checkuser to be a banned editor. All now blocked. Note that this relates to a separate matter - Alison ^❤ 18:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked already. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:LAS1180

Suspected sockpuppeteer

LAS1180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

B15nes7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Torvalds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Old Moonraker (talk) 08:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User:LAS1180 has been responsible for a number of "sneaky vandalism" type attacks, consisting of changes to dates of birth or infoboxes. The most recent was here, for which he/she received a level 4 (immediate) warning. The edit was repeated eight minutes later, using the account of User:B15nes7 [359]. The vandalism was reverted but User:B15nes7 has inserted it once again.

Other indications of shared identity

LAS1180 has added a supposed source to an image with disputed copyright status ("This file is in the public domain, as it was found on the World Wide Web.") uploaded by B15nes7 [360]. B15nes7 has indulged in a small number of unhelpful changes to userboxes or dates of birth in the style of LAS1180: examples here and here and here. I haven't listed them all.

Comments

Not all the edits from either user are vandalism, and I have not reverted all changes, if I haven't evidence that they are wrong.

Support this as a violation of WP:SOCK identical low-level vandalism requires a response. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support same reason. Also, User:Torvalds (newly created 2008-01-30) shows the same behavior, see Seymour Cray. Paul Koning (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - undoubtedly the same person, who now seems to be totally out of control and is so persistant that keeping track of their vandalism is getting increasingly difficult. Nick Cooper (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Both accounts are being used for persistent, but low-level, vandalism. The sock account continued the vandalism when the "master" account was at risk of a block. Old Moonraker (talk) 08:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First two already indef'd, I indef'd the Torvalds, who just appeared. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:65.141.157.59

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected meat-puppet

various

Evidence

On the discussion page for Theta Nu Epsilon, the section 'Persistent Problem Poster from Purdue' (which is about this poster), 65.141.157.59 not only has responded three times trying to vary his signs for each reply. This behavior runs down the page at the end of almost every section, including at the the end of the 'Founding date' section, he actually cut and pasted my ISP sign to his entry, making it look like I'm arguing with myself.

"THE original papers say December 11, sworn affidavits of the founders prepared decades later say December 11. December 5 was never correct. Let it go. ---Writing from Middletown. 129.133.124.252 (talk) 01:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Here the Purdue poster has tried to fake that he's from Middletown.129.133.124.252 (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)"

He has also been edit warring, pushing a POV for views that a Purdue undergraduate society holds the secrets of the Presidents of the United States. This is not a serious editor.

Report submission by

129.133.124.252 (talk) 06:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Conclusions

IP only edited one day. Insufficient sock evidence provided, closing. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Phoebe-SM

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Phoebe-SM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

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

Report submission by

~~ [Jam]^[talk] 13:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Phoebe-SM changed names of Hollyoaks characters, adding fictitious middle names (and was temporarily blocked for doing it) - Emmahollyoaks has just gone and done the same thing, with exactly the same names.

Pages for comparison: (Phoebe-SM edits first, Emmahollyoaks edits after)

Mercedes McQueen: [361] [362]

Myra McQueen: [363] [364]

Michaela McQueen: [365] [366]

Comments

Comment

Switched puppetmaster & sockpuppet around for clarity & renamed accordingly
Moved to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Phoebe-SM to more accurately reflect the situation
Please redo your diffs IAW WP:DIFF. What you are stating are identical edits aren't very clear without them.

— BQZip01 — ^talk 00:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - I got them the wrong way round then wasn't sure whether I should / could alter it to be the correct way around. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 09:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I've gotten stuff backwards myself. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with submitter's comments. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Sock indef'd, 1 week on Phoebe-SM and final warning. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Azukimonaka

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Various IP editors from Japan's ODN network.

Report submission by Thatcher 17:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am filing this report for Appletrees (talk · contribs), who seems to need some help with the process. There are a number of Japanese and Korean editors edit-warring over a number of articles. At least one editor, and possibly two, have taken an interest in Appletrees specifically.

The checkuser findings are given above. See also User_talk:Thatcher#KoreanShoriSenyou_case. For example, on 25 January there were 4 reverts of Imperial House of Japan, two by an IP editor and two by Amazonfire. The same IP editor also reverted Appletrees at Timeline of Japan-South Korea relations and made a comment at Manga, which Appletreees had edited. It is Likely that the IP editor is the same as Orchis29, Azukimonaka and KoreanShoriSenyou. The connection between Amazonfire is more difficult to pin down. Either there are two people who have independently decided to target Appletrees, or there is one person who uses two different methods to connect to the internet and has so far managed to avoid a technical slip (Amazonfire has <100 edits to date). The editor who is behind the Azukimonaka account quite frequently edits while logged out and is POV pusher with a history of uncivil edit summaries. Details in the checkuser reports and I will ask Appletrees to make a comment here.

The evidence of a connection between the named accounts is strong; many IP edits that have a strong anti-Korean POV are likely made by the same person. The connection between Amazonfire and the others is more tenuous and the contribution history should be looked at. Administrative action of some kind is required here, some combination of blocking, warning, and semi-protection for the affected articles.

Evidence

One example, others at the checkuser cases.

Imperial House of Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Possible 3RR violation with ip

1st revert 16:59, 25 January 2008 by 61.209.160.250
2nd revert 21:16, 25 January 2008 by 61.209.160.250
3rd revet 23:20, 25 January 2008 by Amazonfire
4th revert 06:32, 26 January 2008 by Amazonfire

Timeline of Japan-South Korea relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is created by User:Azukimonaka at 12 October 2007 The dispute between me and Japanese users is inclusion of personal opinion (Japan gave a relief to South Korea) This comment is not mentioned on the citation (it is just a statics) but the Japanese users insist on putting it to the article.

It was originally added by 61.209.165.189 at 07:31, 26 October 2007

1st revert 21:21, 25 January 2008 by 61.209.160.250
2nd revert 23:05, 25 January 2008 by Amazonfire
3rd revert 06:33, 26 January 2008 by Amazonfire

I looked through their whole contribution history and not surprisingly they didn't generally appear same day except a few and their edits are never overlapped. The two violet boxes show the closet time ranges. So if checkusers sees it, they likely can confirm whether Azukimonaka and KoreanShoriSenyou are the same person or not.--Appletrees (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant pas RFCU and SSP files by other editors

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kamosuke

User_talk:Akhilleus/archive7#Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets.2FVml132f

Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/DDRG

Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Ikedanobuo

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Vml132f

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Vml132f

Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/DDRG

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mackan

was being writtten
Kamosuke = Azukimonaka = KorenaShoriSenyou = Orchis29 = ShinjukuXYZ = NekoNekoTeacher = Necmate = 43.244.133.167 I believe these people are the same editor per the following reasons. If you see it, you will notice the users' interests are all similar and same pattern of writing such as using passive sentences rather than active sentences such as concealed or denied. They like using "insistence" and "ground" or "groundless" rather claim, assertion or than citation, source, or evidence, etc. I'm not good at writing in English but they all make the same errors in tense such as "was being hated by" etc. The below are distinctive examples for the claim that they're all the same person. 2008-01-06T14:06:43 Grave of the Fireflies‎ (Because Japan behaves like the war victim as for "日 전쟁 피해자 묘사 '반딧불의 묘' 올해 개봉 취소" A, South Korea is being written that screening was stopped.) by Orchis29 2007-12-29T22:22:26 Kaidan The printer was being instructed also by Christianities. by Orchis29 2007-12-15T13:55:59 Japan "Sumo" is not being written, "Japanese wrestling" by KoreanShoriSenyou 2007-10-02T08:31:05 Chongryon‎ (The Japanese was often murdered by the riot by Confederation of Koreans Living in Japan. As a result, Confederation of Koreans Living in Japan is being hated by Japan now.) by KoreanShoriSenyou 2007-10-02T08:08:52 2006 North Korean nuclear test‎ (Japan executes the economic sanction to North Korea, and is being continued now due to this event.) by KoreanShoriSenyou 2007-10-04T10:28:43 Neo Gomanism Manifesto Special - On War‎ (The content that criticizes China to this book is not being written. Please write the content of the book in Talkpage because it is asking. (Perhaps, you are describing it not well-grounded. )) by KoreanShoriSenyou 2007-11-13T09:57:00 Eugenics Showa Japan is a section that Flying-Tyger personally added on October 20, 2007 is being Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Eugenics in Showa Japan by Azukimonaka 2007-09-20T10:02:59 Juicy girl‎ (Japan is not being written in the source.) by Azukimonaka 2007-07-07T05:09:21 Kombu‎ (→Reference - rv: It is not being written Chinese ingredients.) by Azukimonaka 2007-06-23T22:40:43 Blade of the Phantom Master‎ (→External links - This comic is not a grammar of Manhwa. This comic is being written by the grammar of Manga.) by Azukimonaka As for Kamosuke, he and HaradaSanosuke are the banned socks on August 2006 and are‎ Softbank odn ISP users = 211.131.78.52 [367]. Their (actually one person) writing style remarkably resemble that of Azukimonaka, KoreanShoriSenyou, Orchis29. I haven't looked through Kamasuke's contribution history, but he also made the same errors in writing past tense. ("was being written by someone") Kamosuke created his account at 2005-11-19T08:01:02.[368] According to the remain block log, He had been a long-time abusive troll and I strongly believe he has transformed as new edior with countless sock puppetry. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kamosuke Kamosuke (talk · contribs)'s edit summaries * [ 2006-07-06T16:43:54‎] Japan‎ (→Classical era - Baekje is still being discussed. see Talk) 2006-06-30T05:35:20‎ Japan‎ (→Classical era - Baekje is being discussed. And, it doesn't agree. This topic is not urgent. Please do Talk.) 2006-06-24T02:21:15‎ Japan-Korea relations‎ (Appleby. Please stop the data of sales and the audience rating being deleted. Moreover, please stop deleting the activity of the Japanese culture.) 2006-06-19T11:05:55‎ Japan‎ (→Pre-history - http://cache.britannica.com/eb/article-8481 Shinto - Korea is not being written.) 2006-06-18T01:46:49‎ Japan‎ (rv: Tortfeasor. Reason - Korean POV. He changed China to Korea. The explanation of the source is being written in Talk.) 2006-06-01T09:21:47‎ Japan‎ (Dogcow, Yes. In South Korea, there is an unique culture. (EX hungle)　However, the culture is not being imported by Japan.) 2006-05-01T01:06:31‎ Kofun period‎ (To Korean. Korean doesn't stop the history record(Samguk Sagi Book of Sui Book of Song) being deleted. Koreans never write the deletion reason.Korean should stop the history revisim) 2006-04-15T14:02:00‎ Yamato period‎ (The same content is being repeatedly written. Therefore, the overlapping part is united to Torai-jin (渡来人).　) 2006-02-09T04:16:02‎ Korea‎ (→Joseon - Rejection: citations　is not being offered. There is no history in talk.) 2006-02-07T10:16:47‎ Responses of Germany and Japan to World War II crimes‎ (→Korea - International Military Tribunal for the Far East Korean's war crime person's (B&C class war crime person) introduction is being prepared. Please stand by) 2005-11-28T07:14:55‎ Korea‎ (→Japanese occupation - Please stop the article being quietly replaced. The discussion is welcomed.) 43.244.133.167 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) This apparent sock ip doesn't seem to be a dynamic address. I think this should be blocked infinitely as well. 2008-01-09T08:42:10 Japanese cruiser Tsushima‎ (It shows a Korean peninsula of the name of a place. If the country is shown, it will be written South Korea.) 2007-10-04T09:30:37 Kyōgaku no Gaijin Hanzai Ura File - Gaijin Hanzai Hakusho 2007‎ (rv Please write Anti-Chinese sentiment in Japan being written in this book in Talkpage.) 2007-04-09T08:37:28 Yakiniku‎ (rv: http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2036.htm <- This is information not being written in this source. "What goes under the name yakiniku in Japan will most of ...") ShinjukuXYZ (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) NekoNekoTeacher (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Although ShinjukuXYZ was proven as a sock of NekoNekoTeacher, they were not infinitely blocked. They seem abusively used the accounts though. I think this account should be infinitely blocked along with another sock accounts. 2007-03-18T09:41:17 Yakiniku‎ (As for phonmonky Best, the source is wrong. And, the erroneous information is being written. Please think well again.) 2007-02-21T06:29:59 Emperor of Japan‎ (→History - The source is being written Korean peninsula.) 2007-02-21T06:13:10 Soga clan‎ (The Soga clan is an aristocrat with the emperor leaving home body. Please look at the genealogy of the Soga clan being written in the source.) 2007-02-21T06:05:12 Kofun period‎ (rv:Tressco Version is a version that the Socks user in Korean pressed. A lot of problems of this version are being written in Talkpage. Please edit it after answering all.) 2007-01-01T02:44:11 Emperor Ingyō‎ ("According to contemporary historians....," This episode is not being written in NihonShoki and Kojiki. Moreover, there is no historian who does this insistence.) 2006-12-07T10:34:37 Toyotomi Hideyoshi‎ (rv: The topic is being discussed. Please look at TalkPage.) Necmate (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) 2007-03-22T08:27:07 Mike Honda‎ (→Comfort women - [369] "50,000 to 300,000" is not being written in this source.) 2007-03-09T08:52:13 Comfort women‎ (Is this being written in the source? "the majority of the women were recruited by force or deception.")

--Appletrees (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

same writing style
the erroneous information They write poor wording in English and the literary word, erroneous is not commonly used and is likely for non-English speakers to see it in advanced test preparation books like GRE, GMAT. Although the ISP is not ODN (SoftBank Telecom) but OCN (NTT telecom), these user are all same user. 2007-03-18T09:41:17 Yakiniku‎ (As for phonmonky Best, the source is wrong. And, the erroneous information is being written. Please think well again.) by ShinjukuXYZ (talk · contribs) 2008-01-29T05:57:29 He often writes the erroneous information. He calls all users who corrected his mistake Socks though we correct his mistake. We will be able to participate in the article without using IP if you cooperate so that a Japanese user may contribute to the article on Japan. To our regret, all users who pointed out the mistake of Appletree are indicted as Socks. by 124.87.134.96 (talk · contribs)= OCN, NTT user delete is returned 2006-11-02T13:15:03 Korea‎ (→History - The source of Carter Eckerd whom Room218 deleted is returned. And, the source (http://www.kimsoft.com/2002/jp-rape.htm) that Room218 added is deleted.) by NekoNekoTeacher (talk · contribs) 2007-10-04T10:25:41 7-Eleven‎ (Deleted information is returned.) by 211.3.113.247 (talk · contribs) 2008-01-24T10:55:24 Manga‎ (Destruction by the Korean was restored. [370]]) by Orchis29 (talk · contribs) 2008-01-13T23:59:24 National Treasures of South Korea‎ (The source that the South Korean user concealed is returned.) by Orchis29 (talk · contribs) Probaganda 2006-10-17T06:09:49 Japanese war crimes‎ (→Later investigations - The part without the source is deleted. Perhaps, South Korean's Probaganda) by NekoNekoTeacher (talk · contribs) 2007-07-24T19:08:49 The source is Probagandasait of Korea. (The name of the Sea of Japan is denied there. )Please quote it from Fenollosa's book. by 219.66.44.159 (talk · contribs) 2007-10-05T16:40:41 It is anti-Japanese Probaganda by Chinese Communist Party to delete law grounds, and to insist on Holocaust of Asia. by 211.3.113.247 (talk · contribs) Insistence [2007-02-22T18:07:13] Soga clan‎ (Please do not conceal Soga clan's family pedigree to insist on the lie of Korea) 2008-01-13T23:56:23 Kofun period‎ (The insistence without grounds by the Korean user is deleted. Please come to the discussion page.) by Orchis29 (talk · contribs) 2008-01-12T04:02:09 Nihon Shoki‎ (The Japanese has a bias in the history. The user who doesn't admit my opinion is Sockpuppet. The Korean user's insistence is not tenable at all.) by 61.116.114.212 (talk · contribs) Loved 2007-10-04T09:48:32 Japanese war crimes‎ (Please present the legal basis. Whether you keep speaking ill of Japan because you love Chinese Communist Party?) by 43.244.133.167 (talk · contribs) 2008-01-06T14:15:02 Japanese handicrafts‎ (Because you are South Korean, South Korea is loved. However, the source of this culture is not Korea but China.) by Orchis29 (talk · contribs) Steal [2008-01-22T09:35:19] Dekopon‎ (RV Dkopon is fruits to which the kind is improved in Kumamoto in Japan. Korean User must not steal the culture of Japan.) by 124.87.134.96 (talk · contribs) 2008-01-23T14:09:39 Pyrus pyrifolia‎ (The Korean generally uses Hangul. http://news.google.co.jp/news?ned=kr&btn=Go　Why does Korean User keep stealing a Chinese culture?) by 219.66.44.214 (talk · contribs) Mr. or To Korean 2007-09-19T15:10:59 Eugenics in Showa Japan‎ (The source without a large amount of grounds that Fly put is divided. Mr. Fly. Please present the source.) by Azukimonaka (talk · contribs) 2007-09-04T12:28:55 Imperial Regalia of Japan‎ ("One or more of these may not be the originals. " This is a personal imagination of the Mr fly.) by Azukimonaka (talk · contribs) 2008-01-22T09:32:13 Manhwa‎ (Mr Korean. Please do a logical explanation. What is the etymology of Manhwa?) 124.87.134.96 (talk · contribs) 2008-01-22T09:43:56 Timeline of Japan-South Korea relations‎ ("To rescue the South Korea economy, Japan supported it" Mr ]Korean Why is it POV?) 124.87.134.96 (talk · contribs) [2008-01-08T17:42:44] Nihon Shoki‎ (To two Korean. Please write your insistences in Talkpage. Insisting Bais on an unpleasant history description for Korean people is not logical.) by 219.66.41.150 (talk · contribs) 2008-01-22T09:52:48 Pyrus pyrifolia‎ (To Korean people. It is Chinese that is written in the label. (幸福康寧) Please think logically.) by 124.87.134.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) by 124.87.134.96 (talk · contribs) 2008-01-22T09:15:17 Manhwa‎ (To the Korean user. Manhwa is Term that translated Japanese Manga into a Korean language.)} by 124.87.134.96 (talk · contribs) Manhwa 2007-12-15T04:22:33 The etymology of Manhwa is Manga. It is not Comic.by Azukimonaka (talk · contribs) 2007-09-21T12:16:48 Bucheon International Manga festival by Azukimonaka (talk · contribs) 2008-01-22T09:32:13 Manhwa‎ (Mr Korean. Please do a logical explanation. What is the etymology of Manhwa?) by 219.66.44.214 (talk · contribs) Shame, education 2007-10-04T09:43:57 Kyōgaku no Gaijin Hanzai Ura File - Gaijin Hanzai Hakusho 2007‎ (This book is culture and literature?. Be ashamed of the low degree of your education. And, please write the content of this book in Talkpage.) by 43.244.133.167 (talk · contribs) 2008-01-23T14:04:06 Manhwa‎ (To uneducated Korean User. Manga is Japanese that uses the Chinese character. Please explain the origin of Term of Manhwa.) by 219.66.44.214 (talk · contribs)

--Appletrees (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Appletrees asked me to comment here, and I'll state it bluntly: blocks and protection all round, either we have socks of a disruptive and poisonously biased user who is a complete waste of space, or multiple users who fall into that category. However, that's my gut feeling from a quick check, rather than the more exhaustive checking and investigating process that will probably be required. I'm not on as much these days, and can't commit myself to more in-depth analysis right now. In past dealings with the user I recall I was frequently reverting and blocking. Deiz talk 14:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to your investigation, Neither Orchis29 nor Amazonfire appear. Who does want to indict it by you? Who do you want to accuse? --KoreanShoriSenyou (talk) 10:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I relocate your comment because you left it in the wrong place. I don't need to paste the same contents of the RFCU file on you. You can visit the page and find about how many times your possible sockpuppt activities are mentioned. As you see this file is reported by Thactcher, the trusted checkuser and admin. Not only abovementioned users, there will be much more than that. In addition, of course, in the "was being written box", you and orchies29 mentioned. As for Amazonfire, I'm cleaning up my another report a bit, so you wouldn't miss to see it soon.--Appletrees (talk) 10:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. By the way, You insist, 25 users are "Koreansyorisenyo's account".[371] However, does it have grounds?. For instance, Endroit rejected your opinion by the name of the Sea of Japan. (You are requesting that the Sea of Japan is changed to a local name of Korea "East Sea". ) Amazonfire conflicts with you by the doubt of the author of So Far from the Bamboo Grove. You are indiscriminately indicting the user who opposes your opinion. Do you have the preparation for apologizing to them? --KoreanShoriSenyou (talk) 10:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KoreanShoriSenyou or Exclusive use for disposal of Chosenjin, I have no plan to let you you indulging your insistence. Endroit hasn't apologized to me for his accusation yet and the suspected people have been always on RFCU or SSP because of their suspicious and disruptive POV pushing. I haven't tagged "sock accusation" template on you and the others for their reputation, so I can hear your appreciation for that. However, you should apologize for your deception and mockery with your account name to all Korean editors. --Appletrees (talk) 10:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions: I am blocking 43.244.133.167 for a month and Orchis29, Azukimonaka and KoreanShoriSenyou indef each, with KoreanShoriSenyou the master account. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)...IP already blocked 3 months by other admin. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Franklin222

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Franklin222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected meat-puppet

Sbowers3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Tenebrae (talk) 05:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

At Vince Colletta, an article about a deceased comic-book artist, User:Sbowers3 has inserted verbatim the same SOAPBOX quotes as had has a previous editor, User:Franklin222, on 01:27 20 January 2008. The quotes are attributed to an unknown "Robert Bradley" — which links to that name's disambig page but which is certainly not one of the sports figures or others there. The "attribution" turns out to be a forum posting, which is disallowed per Verifiability policy.

It is the very same edit made previously by Franklin222, whom I contacted on Jan. 12 and 24 on his talk page to note that personal opinion and WP:SOAPBOX material was inappropriate. By his own claim, his material was WP:COI as well.

Given the verbatim nature of the Sbowers3 edit, this appears to be meat-puppet collusion,

Comments

I try to help out in lots of places: vandalism patrol, New pages patrol, Help desk, New contributor's help page, etc. At the Editor's assistance request page I saw a request by Franklin222, investigated the situation, and tried to help both him and the project. Read what I wrote at WP:Ear#Vince_Colletta. l told him that he was wrong on four of his edits, that the fifth one seemed okay but he made a technical mistake, so I corrected his technical error. What I didn't notice was that the blue-linked Robert Bradley was not notable, since it linked only to an irrelevent dab page. From the nature of his quote he appeared to be a professional cartoonist and so would be relevant. Had I followed the link I would have told Franklin222 that the quote also could not be included. I would add only that COI is not a prohibition; it is a caution. And Franklin222 was not trying to add material that was his own personal opinion; he was trying to add quotes from other persons. If the quotes are verifiable and do not violate undue weight he should be allowed to include them even though he is the son of the subject.

If you had bothered to look at my contributions I don't see how you could have concluded that I was anybody's puppet. A simple note on my talk page could have quickly settled the matter. Sbowers3 (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The very first instruction in WP:SOCK is Assume good faith. Well I will AGF on Tenebrae's part even though he obviously did not AGF on my part. Sbowers3 (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do, as a rule, assume good faith, and I also frequently help out newbies and the like, often posting the welcome template (as I in fact did with User:Franklin222.

But the editor above, despite his or her stated good intentions, made an inappropriate revert without posting any an explanatory edit summary, and without communicating any rationale on either the Vince Colletta page nor my own talk page.

Neither he nor Franklin222 notified me of any discussion at WP:Ear#Vince_Colletta.

And Franklin222 never responded to my initially friendly and then civil postings on his talk page.

I assume good faith. I made attempts at communicating, and was rebuffed. When I went to a third party, I notified the editors above. They did not do me the same courtesy. Given this lack of dialog, from both Franklin222 or Sbowers3, and the inappropriate nature of the edit, I don't believe a reasonable person could continue to assume, to make assumptions, in the face of these facts.

It's fine. Sbowers3 seems to have investigated the edit further, for which I thank him. The article itself honors the artist with the depth of its biographical facts and the pointing out of his considerable accomplishments, and the quotes section contains two laudatory (and one neutral) in addition to two critical — all scrupulously attributed to journalists or to industry professionals with firsthand knowledge, and numerically and journalistically balanced. Thank you. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. No hard feelings, I hope. I added a comment to Franklin22 at WP:EAR. I'd appreciate it if you would strike out the sockpuppet comment at Talk:Vince Colletta. Sbowers3 (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, and thanks for your gracious reply. With collegial regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Closing as this seems resolved. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Thewiseeye3400

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Thewiseeye3400 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

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

Report submission by

AMRDeuce (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Similar editing style. Thewiseeye3400 created Brown berries, and was promptly deleted. Orange berries created (obviously) Orange berries with similar context and was promptly deleted.

NOTE: Orange berries is already blocked.

Here is the content of Brown berries:

Hey I bet this page I made does not even last three days. Then they will yell at me for makeing a page just to prove a point.

Compare it to the content of Orange berries:

I bet this page will be deleted within 10 minuets, and user: orange berries will be kick off wikipeda.

--AMRDeuce (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The sock seems to have been blocked already. Is there another problem? GlassCobra 05:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

With sock blocked, I warned the master. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:211.233.41.27

Suspected sockpuppeteer: 211.233.41.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: 219.89.44.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 122.57.165.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Tanthalas39 (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Repeated attempts to make the exact same changes on the Reiser4 article:

Note original IP was blocked for edit warring.

Comments

Comment These accounts are all undoubtedly the same person. The edit histories and the cited edits are too much. They should be labeled as sockpuppets and share in the fate of 211.X.X.X — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alison (talk · contribs) blocked 211.233.41.27 as a proxy.[372]

Conclusions

All were already blocked for a time. Tagged the untagged one. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:UkraineToday

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

Timberframe (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

UkraineToday is already the subject of an indefinite block. Last week his sockpuppet 193.243.156.214 was blocked for a month. Notwithstanding these blocks he is now using 81.23.24.5 to abuse my talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Timberframe

Many of his phrases are identical to those he has posted under previous guises (listed above) on wiki. The addition of the link to the smear site http://p-ced.blogspot.com is his unique trademark, see for example the comments made under the name UkrToday two weeks ago at http://www.pravda.com.ua/en/news/2008/1/2/9681.htm and http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:Rj7Vis4msasJ:forum.pravda.com.ua/read.php%3F9,3590270,3627816+p-ced.blogspot.com&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=uk (the latter is a google cache as UP are purging their forum of UkraineToday's abuse). His blogsite melbournecitycouncil.blogspot.com (see previous UkraineToday sockpuppet cases for the link between UkraineToday and this blog) contains redirection code to send readers to the smear site. The only difference from previous abuses is that for the first time he is using an ISP in Kyiv (Kiev), Ukraine, rather than his more local ISPs in Kharkiv, Ukraine.

edit 27/01/2008: added 81.17.128.174 to the list of sockpuppets; the evidence is that this IP has been used to resume the arguments and revert wars where 193.243.156.214 left off when he was blocked as a sockpuppet of UkraineToday - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Court_of_Ukraine, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_parliamentary_election%2C_2007, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2007_Ukrainian_political_crisis.

Comments

The prior case is here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/UkraineToday. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On further research it appears that 81.23.24.5 is a dynamically allocated IP address and blocking it is therefore unlikely to affect UkraineToday's access. To date he's only used this ISP once, and that to vandalise my talk page rather than anything important. DDima has re-instated the block on 81.17.128.174, so I'm happy to have this case closed.Timberframe (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Closed per submitter request. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Morganenos

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

Suspected sockpuppets: Cyclopticbob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 12.213.224.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 12.213.224.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 12.213.224.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 12.213.224.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 70.41.207.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 72.173.38.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 72.173.39.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Zedla (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

similar v edits with references to "dwarf tossing" and "russian roulette"

Morganenos (perm banned for persistent v)
- diff1
Cyclopticbob
- diff2
- diff3

also reference suspected ipsocks at suspected socks with similar behavioral patterns.

listing ipsocks and diffs, all are through satellite ISP Wildblue with apparently dynamic user assignment.

12.213.224.36: diff
12.213.224.37: diff
12.213.224.56: diff
12.213.224.58: diff
70.41.207.218: diff
72.173.38.103: diff
72.173.39.62: diff

Zedla (talk) 06:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Agree Given the references and the similarities in styles (vandalism of possibly rival schools and use of similar words), Cyclopticbob should be indef blocked as a sock of Morganenos. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with additional IPs as the same user with the same style of disruption. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Inconclusive. Lots of school articles get vandalized by rival schools. Not enough here to prove same person. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Sallicio

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

L. Pistachio (talk) 09:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Both usernames commented in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bowie State University, Department of Public Safety, giving substantially the same argument. User:Orthodoxpharoah's only 2 edits are to the AfD and his user page. The other two edits on that user page are from User:Sallicio.[373] The account was created Jan 12, and it appears that Sallicio is now bringing it out for use in this AfD.

Comments

written to lord pistachio Hello! You should really reevaluate your interest in this. That "sockpuppet" is my partner in the Police Department of which I work. He is also an editor (however not as active as I). I asked his opinion and he wrote what he felt on the subject. I would suggest that you check out WP:CALM and try not to take things personally and stop looking for things that aren't there. After all, this is just Wikipedia. I assume that you did some sleuthing on the user that "supported" my cause. I helped him get his account going a few weeks back, so that is why I am on his history. Believe me, if I were to create a sock puppet...you wouldn't know about it. If you have any questions regarding my "integrity" please feel free to contact me at any time. I would also recommend that you assume good faith in the future. Before putting allegations on someone, perhaps you could bring your thoughts to their attention first before making such malicious allegations (that is a fairly bad thing to accuse someone of without getting one's facts together first). That's water under the bridge, and I realise that you are still somewhat young and perhaps a little overzealous. But, back to the issue at hand; I wouldn't be opposed to a merger if you are so adamant on doing something, because the BSUPD is still on the List of law enforcement agencies in Maryland. And to keep the consistancy (within the list) perhaps we could simply put a redirect to the main university article. I think this is a fair balance for the both of us, don't you? It would be very wiki of you to remove the allegations from my page now that I have explained who Orthodoxpharoah is. Thanks! Sallicio (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Sallicio[reply]

As an uneffected bystander, even if he's "your friend", and not you yourself, you really don't have a leg to stand on. The fact that the account has no editing history save for an edit to his user page reeks of something bad. I mean, what was he supposed to do, disagree with you? I'm sure you would not have been for his including his opinion had it not lined up with yours. -- JT ^Holla! 12:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

very true, but the issue at hand is whether he is a sock puppet or not. he asked what i was doing on my MDT (computer), I told him, he wanted to comment. so he did. I don't fault Pistachio for thinking what he did (I might've thought the same thing if the tables were turned). However, whether he is credible for my defense of the article is irrelevent here (which I knew when he was writing it, but he wanted to be a part of it anyway). But I appreciate your input! Sallicio (talk) 12:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Sallicio[reply]
- Even if what you say is true, that this new user is a friend of yours, then it constitutes use of a meatpuppet, which is pretty much the same thing. I find even that difficult to believe, however. --L. Pistachio (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A meatpuppet is, "a new user invited to an internet discussion solely to influence it, similar to a sock puppet."^[1] It does not constitute a meat puppet, nor have I ever suggested it as such. Like I have said before, Orthodoxpharoah was created a few weeks back. He inquired to what I was typing; I told him. It is very simple. The only thing that is wrong is that he is new and gave his opinion. When one starts to realize that he or she is wrong the "well anyways" start to slip in. Now, I understand that all the jury here has to go on is circumstancial evidence, (as it is quite impossible to have direct evidence in a forum such as this) I proffer some questions all should ask themselves when investigating this or anything else:
  - Does the suspected person have an established history on the site?
  - What contributions has the suspect given?
  - Does the suspect have a history of suspected sockpuppetry?
  - Does the suspect have a history of starting or participating in heated debates?
  - Does the suspect fit the "profile" of a user that would have sockpuppets?
  - Does the alleged sockpuppet fit the profile as such?

All I would ask of User:Lord Pistachio is that he remain objective and look at all evidence provided (as a courtesy I'm sure he would want done if the tables were turned on him) Thanks to all for an objective look. Sallicio (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Sallicio[reply]

- - Again, as an unbiased, objective party, the account would either fall into a sockpuppet or meatpuppet category. If your "friend" was completely objectionable (unlikely), he should have refrained from commenting at all, since it's highly unlikely a new user with no edit history would be familiar enough with WikiPolicy to make an educated ruling on the matter. -- JT ^Holla! 22:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. So I am guilty of poor judgment and having my "friend" (<---that really is unnecessary, as it denotes that the word is dripping with sarcasm which has already been established earlier) comment on my AfD. I knew at the time that it wouldn't help my case with the AfD, but it seemed to get him interested in becoming an editor, so it was worth it to me to lose the AfD case if it got him excited about doing stuff on wikipedia. He had only marginal interest when we created his account a few weeks back. The whole "sock or meatpuppet" thing didn't even cross my mind. So part of guilt is intent, which there was none. If there is anything more I can clarify, let me know. Thanks for being objective, Jason82. Sallicio (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Sallicio[reply]

Hi, I saw Sallicio's request for comment on the administrators' noticeboard, and so am commenting (although I am not actually an administrator). I have read Sallicio's side of the story, and am inclined to believe it. May I ask why the above individuals are not? (I ask because I may have missed some relevant point of fact.) --Iamunknown 22:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I'm closing this as a case of naivety with no intent to harm. ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 22:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meat_puppet

[1] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meat_puppet

[1]