Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Archive/February 2007

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

User:William M. Connolley

Suspected sockpuppeteer

William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Philosophus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Someguy1221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

~ UBeR 20:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

As proposed by an anonymous IP user earlier,[1] and through the suggestion of Brittainia,[2] there is a suspicion of sockpuppetry with Wikipedia user William M. Connolley.

Someguy1221, since day one of his inception just last month, has been reverting vandalism and giving warnings on user pages (seems advanced for a first day user—but nevermind that). In his first non-reversion or warning, he casted a vote to speedy delete an article on solar system warming.[3] That is, without prior notice.

Philosophus, an admitted sockpuppet,[4] also took place in the vote, and decided to delete the article.[5] Just four days after the inception of this account, this user, not surprisingly, voted to accept William M. Connolley as an administrator.[6]

William M. Connolley has had a long and continuous role of POV-pushing and unwarranted content deletion in articles relating to such topics.[Ref#6.5][7][8][Etcetera] ~ UBeR 20:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments
  • This accusation is entirely ridiculous. The accusations are by an IP user and a red-link with an account history of two weeks and less than 100 edits, neither of which present any evidence. William is one of our most active and valued contributors and administrators. The three accounts have different editing patterns and histories. And whoever thinks that William would need a second account to edit "articles where harassment outside of Wikipedia might be an issue" should familarize himself or herself with his edit history. This is at best stupidity, at worst harrasment. --Stephan Schulz 20:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I find this case implausible, and possibly vexatious. If you're going to accuse an admin of sockpuppetry, you need stronger evidence than this, and you should probably note that William M. Connolley blocked Philosophus for 3RR on 31 July 2006: [9]. Unless someone supplies better evidence for this accusation I think this case should be closed. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Conclusions

Dismissed and closed right now. Nonsense. Newyorkbrad 22:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:TheCharminBear

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

FlippingPenguin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
TacoBellEater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
LeanordSink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
RonaldMcDizzle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
13.8.137.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
13.8.137.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
67.160.129.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by
WilliamKF 02:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Evidence

These all appear to be sock puppets of user:TheCharminBear in that they are supporting each others vandilism by reverting reverts of their vandalism. WilliamKF 02:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is one example (there are many more) of reverting the same vandal edit by different accounts to revert the revert of vandalism:

Original edit: diff Revert of revert: diff Revert of revert: diff Revert of revert: diff Revert of revert: diff

And another:

Original edit: diff Revert of revert: diff Revert of revert: diff Revert of revert: diff Revert of revert: diff Revert of revert: diff Revert of revert: diff Revert of revert: diff Revert of revert: diff

Comments

This seems like an open and shut case, blatant vandal using sock puppets to revert the revert of their vandalism. WilliamKF 02:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually you got the wrong puppeteer, it's actually Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/SneakySoyMeat. HolyMoley 03:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked two more not yet discovered sockpuppets: Candanda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and TheSmellyBomb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). - Mike Rosoft 13:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I found another IP address apparently used by this person (and added above): 67.160.129.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). WilliamKF 19:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

All named accounts indef blocked, IPs blocked for shorter lengths. Closing. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Jefferson Anderson

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Jefferson Anderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Frater Xyzzy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

ALR 21:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Frater Xyzzy has previously been blocked, on 19th Jan, based on RFCU evidence as a sock of Jefferson Anderson. Notwithstanding that a more recent RFCU indicated no connection at the IP level. Frater Xyzzy claims to have moved from Boulder Colorado to Seattle. I note that the RFCU statement does not indicate whether either location claim is legitimate.

Evading the block using an unrestricted IP address Frater Xyzzy recently pushed an effort to PROD an article he authored into AfD. Jefferson Anderson initially voted on that AfD before withdrawing that vote when it was noted that there was a likely sock puppet situation ongoing.

Despite no previous interest in the article Jefferson Anderson proceeded to extensively edit the article, indicating an awareness of the history and the available sources which strikes me as unusual. Edit summaries are very similar between the two users, including the use of sock puppetry accusations.

Jefferson Anderson has subsequently moved into another article, Jahbulon, which Frater Xyzzy has previously edited demonstrating an awareness of the extensive and involved history of content dispute, including indications that he is using hard copy of sources. A recent AfD for that article was heavily socked with a number of participants now permanently blocked.

I note in a review of contribution history that the two accounts do show some similar trends and demonstrate conflict with similar users. Both have been involved in an ongoing Arbitration case, Starwood, subject to considerable sockpuppetry. Arbitration discussion and evidence of sockpuppetry is available at the workshop page which suggests that meatpuppetry is a viable alternative assessment.

There is an indication of communication between them, here although I'm not sure why it is deemed necessary to telegraph this by responding to an email by leaving a message on the talk page of a banned user, unless to suggest that they are not one and the same person.

Another interesting bit of evidence is this bit of talk where Jefferson takes a level of offense far beyond "heading off incivility" at a comment that was made on another user's page regarding Frater Xyzzy. The subtle ad hominem attacks (of which, incidentally, I was accused of doing when I requested the RFCU that proved my suspicions) are also somewhat reminiscent of Hanuman Das, another editor of Jahbulon in the past and also banned. I had wondered why I thought Hanuman Das originally wrote the Obligations article, and now I see why: Xyzzy, Das, and Anderson have all seemed to gravitatate towards similar articles despite claiming no relation to each other, and are similar enough in attitude, temperament, and knowledge of what they edit (despite claims to the contrary, trying to play the new user). One of these things in common is a coincidence. All three together is not. Furthermore, the pattern of edits and behavior (including the many RFCs, ANIs, and the ArbCom case involving these same users) makes it very hard to claim there is no relation. MSJapan 21:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Additional point This is discussed on AN/I which Jefferson Anderson raised in relation to WeniWidiWiki, note that one comment in that discussion has been removed by Addhoc which de-contextualises the explanation of RFCU.ALR 22:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Further evidence - SockPuppetry Analysis

Ok, I came across this on my occasional {{unblock}} request patrol and decided to do some in depth investigation here. Perhapses my results can be of assistance.

I took a sample of every edit each account (Frater Xyzzy & Jefferson Anderson) and found a day that both accounts had a large number of edits to check for any pattern.

  1. FX First: 15:56, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Rockthing (→Article space categories on your user page)
  2. (18 intermediate edits)
  3. FX Last: 17:14, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Homosexuality and Wicca (revert vandalism)
  4. JA First: 17:59, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) White & Nerdy (revert insertion of "hello hello hello...")
    (47 intermediate edits)
  5. JA Last: 20:32, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Clay S. Jenkinson (rm missing image)
  6. FX First: 20:38, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Neopaganism (→Historical sources - rm argumentation)
    (13 intermediate edits)
  7. FX Last: 20:56, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Neopaganism (article is pretty clearly written mostly from experience rather than sources and reflects the editors' opinions rather than facts)
  8. JA First: 21:05, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Benin (rv anons, not sure what changes, if any, are true)
    (22 intermediate edits)
  9. JA Last: 21:55, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) John Wycliffe (revert anon who is removing all wikilinks and references)
  10. FX First: 22:03, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Kemetic reconstructionism (article appears to cite no sources whatsoever)
    (6 intermediate edits)
  11. FX Last: 22:11, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Kemetic reconstructionism (looks like original research)
  12. JA First: 22:15, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Sierra (revert anon vandalism)
    (32 intermediate edits)
  13. JA Final edit: 23:13, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Private screening (film) (huh?)
  14. FX First: 23:20, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Altar (Wicca) (article appears to be unsourced)
    (9 intermediate edits)
  15. FX Final edit: 23:31, 4 December 2006 (hist) (diff) The Invisible College (article appears to be unsourced)

This was just a look at a single day. Take it for what it's worth.

The second search I made was a "edit-overlap" search. Of all articles where both accounts made major contributions (5 edits or more) only one article came up: Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism. However, both accounts seemed to focus most of their energies on similar topics (paganism and related articles).

The last search I did was a subjective writing style analysis. I would make this as likely due to the similarity in punctuation and writing style (as perhapses illustrated by this edit and this edit among others). ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Related evidence - An additional comparison of writing style - And possible transfer of account to other banned user

FX and JA make the same mistake here [10] and here [11]. Both refer to a nonexistent "Pagan Reconstructionist Paganism" (FX) or "Pagan reconstructionism" (JA) article. FX catches the mistake and changes it to "Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism (probably because it resulted in a red link), but the JA mistake stands (probably because a redirect under that name (to "Polytheistic Reconstructionism") keeps the link blue).

Additionally, the current defense is that FX is not a sockpuppet because the FX IP has changed from the one used by Anderson to a new IP in Seattle. However, Baba Louis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), banned sockpuppet of Hanuman Das (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) also showed a Seattle IP. There is the possibility here of no move having been made, but merely use of a second ISP that reads Seattle. Another possibility is that the new IP is due to the FX account now being used by banned user Hanuman Das/999/Ekajati. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


Additional evidence from Mattisse - target of sockpuppets User:Hanuman Das, User:Ekajati, and User:999 and the similar pattern of preoccupation with me and sockpuppets on the part of User:Jefferson Anderson.

Example one This is one episode occurring October 23-24 in 2006. Ekajati and Hanuman Das had not posted on the page, John Lee Hooker, before or since. (I was blocked for 3RRR rule - I did not know then that edits were considered reverts.)

  1. 17:31, 24 October 2006 Mattisse (Talk | contribs) (you are vandalizing by moving the citations missing tag to the bottom of the page under Footnotes - I have place a tag at the top - do not remove or you will be reported for vandalizing)
  2. 16:40, 24 October 2006 Ekajati (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 83439393 dated 2006-10-24 15:36:48 by Ekajati using popups)
  3. 16:38, 24 October 2006 Mattisse (Talk | contribs) (you are vandalizing by moving the citations missing tag to the bottom of the page under Footnotes - I have place a tag at the top - do not remove or you will be reported for vandalizing)
  4. 15:36, 24 October 2006 Ekajati (Talk | contribs) m
  5. 15:10, 24 October 2006 Mattisse (Talk | contribs) (replacing tag removed by User:Hanuman Das,User:Anger22 & User:Ekajati with citations missing tag - removing tags without fixing problem is vandalism)
  6. 13:43, 24 October 2006 Hanuman Das (Talk | contribs) (wrong tag, article has a references section so is not unsourced)
  7. 23:06, 23 October 2006 Mattisse (Talk | contribs) (replaced unsourced tag reverted by Ekajati without explanation and removed by Anger22 previously)
  8. 18:52, 23 October 2006 Ekajati (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 83222918 dated 2006-10-23 15:45:16 by Anger22 using popups)
  9. 18:02, 23 October 2006 Mattisse (Talk | contribs) (article does not cite its sources for verification of material)
  10. 15:45, 23 October 2006 Anger22 (Talk | contribs) m (rm large gap in EL section)
  11. 14:30, 23 October 2006 Mattisse (Talk | contribs) (?External link - added external link Willie Dixon induction into Blues Foundation Hall of Fame 1980)
  12. 14:27, 23 October 2006 Mattisse (Talk | contribs) (article does not cite its sources for verification
  • Note User:Anger22 was solicited by User:Ekajati to harass me on October 19, 2006 [12]
  • Note" On the same day, October 24, several ANI complaints were filed by the above users against me and my alleged sockpuppet User:Timmy12. Diffs provided if desired. At least one as on John Lee Hooker.

Example two Just recently, in the short time Jefferson Anderson has been an active user, he has made the following edits on John Lee Hooker, not his usual area of interest.

  1. on Jan 2 [13]
  2. on Jan 3 [14]
  3. on Jan 12 [15]

Example three Additionally, on Jan 12 Jefferson Anderson shows up on my talk page on January 12, having had no interactions with me before and posts many times all on that day, then lists me as a rude editor on his user page along with a Mattisse sockpuppet box.

  • Sample of January 12 diffs:
  • JA (his first edit on my page about Sockpuppet Harrassment. [16]
  • JA post #2, part of a seriies of postings listing my named sockpuppets [17]
  • JA post #3 lets me know he made changes in the Sockpuppet policy [18]
  • JA says he says I am wrong in my point of view regarding those named as my sockpuppets [19]
  • JA after my apology he denies I offended him [20]
  • I copy my replies from his page to mine [21]
  • JA says I have offended him [22]
  • JA denies I offended him [23]
  • I apologise again [24]
  • and again [25]
  • JA expresses anger at me [26]
  • JA accepts my apology [27]
  • JA starts his list of rude editors (me) on his page[28]
  • JA complains about me on his user page

[29] and [30]

  • another user advises him to remove it [31]
  • JA puts I am not a Mattisse sockpuppet box on his user page[32]
  • someone else, User:Salix alba removes Mattissee sockpuppet box from his page although he was requested to do so by User:BostonMA [33]

The last edit summary I made asking him not to post on my page again has been used repeatedly since as an example of my harrassment of him and my violation of WP:CIVIL. On January 18 he posted on my talk page again: [34] I am suspicious of him now because he posted on my page repeatedly without knowing me, his subject was sockpuppet (known preocupation of Hanuman Das and Ekajaki), he was overly invested in me as shown by his posts, after I apologised deeply three times, he listed me as a rude editor and posted the Mattisse sockpuppet box on his user page (which User:Salix alba removed. Why would a disinterested user invest so much time in me? Sincerely, Mattisse 15:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Additional note, linguistic similarities The discussion referred to above on AN/I has been described as Bragging by both parties Frater Xyyzz and Jefferson Anderson in a generously reciprocal SSP draft. Odd choice of word to describe the discussion.ALR 20:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Duh, his talk page is on my watchlist. I read his comments this morning. No need to create a Gordian knot when a simple explanation suffices. Jefferson Anderson 20:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Evidence against- Overlapping edit sessions with 204.122.16.13 (Frater Xyzzy's IP)
204.122.16.13
  1. 22:11, 1 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obligations in Freemasonry (→Obligations in Freemasonry)
  2. 21:52, 1 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (→Conflict of Interest issues on Obligations in Freemasonry and related AfD)
  3. 21:38, 1 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Obligations in Freemasonry (→Conflict of interest
Jefferson Anderson
  1. 22:14, 1 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Ripley St. Thomas C of E High School (rm template which did not add to the article and bold subject)
  2. 22:06, 1 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Dudley Lynch (clean up and tag)
  3. 21:52, 1 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Dom Kavash
  4. 21:46, 1 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Kimball High School (rm self-link) (top)
  5. 21:44, 1 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Voting bloc
  6. 21:40, 1 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Rotary screw compressor
  7. 21:38, 1 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Alabama State House (top)
  8. 21:30, 1 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obligations in Freemasonry (yes, ma'am, but if you insist on leaving them here, I strike only the vote)


Comments

A checkuser has already been done here. This is a bald attempt to neutralize two out of three parties on the opposing side of a content dispute on Obligations in Freemasonry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jefferson Anderson 19:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

As ALR has noted with the AFD diffs, the situation was peculiar enough to me to warrant an RFCU. The purpose of said RFCU had absolutely nothing to do with Jefferson Anderson; it was to establish a link between the anon IP and Frater Xyzzy, which the user did himself on the RFCU page, because he thought it would get him unblocked. Nevertheless, while the IP claimed not to be hiding, diffs show he rm'ed a prod on the article (by reversion, not removal), then claimed COI on the AfD without disclosing that he was the original "author" (rather, copy and paster) of the article. Given the result, requesting the RFCU was prudent. MSJapan 21:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Since you are replying to my comment, I'll respond here. There is no restriction in WP:PROD that prohibits the author of the article from removing the prod tag. It happens all the time on prods that I place. You're not supposed to put the prod back. I always either immediately AfD it or tag it in some other way to get attention. Jefferson Anderson 21:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

In context of the previous allegations of sockpuppetry /meatpuppetry involving the tag-team harassment of participants of the Starwood Arb, I suggest that Blnguyen and Thatcher131 be contacted for their opinions before acting, as this is hardly the first time this issue has come up. Same exact behaviour, different articles and editors.- WeniWidiWiki 22:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You should note that Thatcher131 concluded that no harassment existed. That all the edits and comments were appropriate to address COI issues, "The good news is that, except for the sockpuppetry (both accounts editing several AfDs and the Celtic Paganism article), the edits were (in my unofficial opinion) more or less reasonable as to questioning the appropriateness of the CR Faq as a source", and that the issue was thus dropped from the Starwood arbitration as having nothing whatsoever to do with it. Jefferson Anderson 22:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That is an improper characterization of events. You left out this part from the same comment:

"The bad news is that while I was analyzing the case I became convinced that Frater and Anderson are the same editor. It may not be proveable in a court, but the evidence is much stronger than is normally required on Wikipedia..." Diff

She should probably speak for herself, though. - WeniWidiWiki 22:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Which was disproven by checkuser, here. Your following me around with these accusations is probably harassment and I will be taking it to WP:AN/I. Stalker. Jefferson Anderson 22:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Groan.. This is what the second or third time you've made that allegation against other users today? My contrib history speaks for itself - we have very little overlap or even interaction. - WeniWidiWiki 22:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, no, I haven't. Point to these accusations if they exist. You are just trying to tar me with a broad brush for reasons of your own. Jefferson Anderson 22:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

How about MSJapan's userpage? Diff The talk page of Jahbulon HERE? ANI? Diff1, Diff2 Filing an AMA "complaint"? Diff - WeniWidiWiki 23:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, asking another user to be more civil is distinctly different from what you are accusing me of. As for AN/I, MSJapan provably went admin shopping to get Frater Xyzzy blocked again, and his buddy ALR is now trying to silence me in the same way. Pretty low way of trying to win a content dispute, if you ask me. Jefferson Anderson 23:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Conclusions

Frater Xyzzy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Ekajati. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Jefferson Anderson has apparently left Wikipedia ([35]), and at any rate the alleged sockpuppetry is part of an ongoing arbitration (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood), so I'm closing this case. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Josh290

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Josh290 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Pie man124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Mitchell Urich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Pie man125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Pie man126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Pie man1210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Pie man129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by


Evidence

Similar multiple disruptive edits to User:Mhking & User talk:Mhking, plus other edits to entries of entities in and around Newton Aycliffe, UK, including at least two different schools' entries from that area. The entire sequence stems from my placing a Speedy Delete template on an entry for a made-up term called "The Jim" that Josh290 posted last week. When he asked me about trying to keep it, I cited WP:NOT. He took umbrage at that, and went off, promising death, destruction and other forms of flaming chaos. I just shrugged. All in a day's work. --Mhking 15:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments
Conclusions

The Pieman accounts are blocked as sockpuppets, and the other accounts were autoblocked. Closing. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:195.82.106.244

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets
Report submission by

avyakt7 22:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

User 195.82.106.244 (aka 244) has been banned from editing the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University article.[36] This user was using different proxy IPs which apparently came from Japan. After the page was semi-protected his current sockpuppet account "Some people believe" entered in action by reverting the article to his favorite version before arbitration ended [37]

This disruptive editor is making daily edits with provocative summaries made by random IP addresses that have never edited before. The edits are disruptive in that they constantly re-introduce material that was deleted with good reason after sufficient time-out for other editors to comment. Specifically, they introduce material that 244 was known to champion. Also the style of editing is consistent with how 244 was behaving just before arbitration.

oldid=102612684] and discussion topics [43],

  • Disruptive edits tend to follow a daily or twice-daily cycle.

user performed a number of incognito minor edits to unrelated articles [44] then suddenly flipped and made a contentious edit to this article based on a tabloid article that 244 was strongly promoting [45] [46].

avyakt7 22:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

User "Some people" have been recently blocked for 24 hrs for a 3RR infringement[47] Thank you; avyakt7 14:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

User "Some people" have been modifying the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University page. Please take a look at the history. How long before you take action? Thanks, avyakt7 00:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
User Some people have been banned indefinetely [48], however, this user has made a lot of damage to the Brahma Kumaris article by making 30+ additions to the article.[49] Starting January 28 and January 29. I am requesting the article be reverted to this version: 17:30, 28 January 2007 by Riveros11. Hope this request could be taken care of ASAP, since time is a factor in reverts. Thank you. avyakt7 21:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Comments
Conclusions

Per this arbitration case, 195.82.106.244 was banned for a year and Some people was indef blocked: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Brahma_Kumaris and there's been no activity from the IPs since early January. Closing. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:ColScott

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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


Report submission by

Kynn 08:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

This user is quite blatantly a sock puppet of multiply-banned [removed] née Spawnopedia née ColScott, as evinced by the obsession with the Manson case (called for speedy deletion on Charles "Tex" Watson), by the personal vendetta against Kynn (called for deletion of Pima Community College), and the vandalization of the Jane Hamsher page (speedy deletion again). Kynn 09:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Also wants Tom DeSanto speedily deleted. I've undone all of these changes, but this guy keeps coming back with repeated new sockpuppets, being a jerk, and then getting punted. (He's also harassing me via email and attempting to subscribe me to multiple mailing lists.) Kynn 09:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/ColScott (report on now-banned Spawnopedia).

Comments
See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/AZJustice. Sanddancer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked as a sock of AZJustice. Presumably, ColScott is also one in the same with these. --BigDT 05:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Conclusions

Both users are indef blocked. Closing. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Gregory9

Suspected sockpuppeter

Gregory9 (talk · contribs)

Suspected sockpuppets

130.126.15.57 (talk · contribs)
130.126.15.145 (talk · contribs)
HarmonyThree (talk · contribs)

Report submission by

Moroder 19:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

All three have signed up in the last few days, have zero contributions to wiki, do not do anything else than file a series of false reports against an established user and share the same IP address from the same university: UIUC.

130.126.15.57 on 14 February 2007
130.126.15.145 and HarmonyThree on 24 February 2007

No contributions other than the fake reports and harrassment. This user <redacted> has a long history of zero contributions compensated by much harrassment against people. Moroder 19:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Moroder is making these accusation because he is upset that I reported his account as a suspected sock puppet that is evading a permanent ban. I gave him a warning which he quietly refused, then after my second warning he responded by posting on the administrators' noticeboard [50]. Since he ignored the warning and continued posting, I filled out a sockpuppet case against him. His report against me is merely a futile accusation in retaliation.

You can see the details of his sock puppet case at the evidence page Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Ati3414. Basically, I found out about his sockpuppetry from physicsforums.com. I warned user Moroder which didn't work, so I looked into officially informing wikipedia. Wikipedia didn't allow me to create the page unless I signed in, so I made this account and filled out the forms. I appologize if this was not appropriate. I merely wanted to report abuse to wikipedia.

I also find his claims strange because User:Gregory9 has had no interactions with User:Moroder. -- HarmonyThree 09:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


Conclusions

Possibly the same individual behind all accounts, but Gregory9 (talk · contribs) stopped editing on 16 December 2006. HarmonyThree (talk · contribs) started editing on 24 February 2007. The 2 IP's have some edits, but I don't see any evidence of abusive sockpuppeting per WP:SOCK. There is nothing here to investigate. Closed.--Isotope23 14:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Ati3414

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Ati3414 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Moroder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
67.170.234.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)}
67.170.224.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)}
24.7.125.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)}

Report submission by

HarmonyThree 12:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

The implication is that User:Ati3414 is using these sock puppets to evade a permanent ban.

To show the connection between User:Ati3414 and User:Moroder,User:67.170.234.213,User:24.7.125.29 it is useful to first establish the patterns of User:Ati3414.

For those not familar with Ati3414, he made it abundantly clear and known that he is Adrian Sfarti during his bouts of self promotion. For example he got blocked for repeatedly adding his own name to the List_of_Romanian_Americans. He next caused trouble by spamming links to his papers all over the place. Here are some examples of those papers:

  • wbabin.net/sfarti/sfarti9.pdf
  • wbabin.net/sfarti/sfarti10.pdf
  • wbabin.net/sfarti/sfarti11.pdf
  • wbabin.net/sfarti/sfarti12.pdf
  • wbabin.net/sfarti/sfarti14.pdf
  • wbabin.net/sfarti/sfarti17.pdf
  • ..etc

If you want an example of him openly admitting he is Adrian Sfarti, check out his comments when he got blocked for this behavior. In particular, all these papers display the author as "Dr. Adrian Sfarti" and while trying to convince editors after the block to allow the spamming he states "I would be more than happy to remove my name from the papers."

One reason I bring up this information is because Sfarti also participated on physicsforums.com (as "clj4") and was permanently banned there as well. He later created a new character ("nakurusil") which displayed similar behavior, and directly referred to making the edits on wikipedia which User:Moroder did. Because this user's pattern so closely matched Sfarti's a moderator was asked to check into the IP addresses and determine if they were the same people. They were. So through IP checks, User:Moroder has already been verified to be Adrian Sfarti / User:Ati3414.

Since the admins here at wikipedia do not have access to the records the moderators at physicsforums.com have, while strong implicating evidence, it is also important to establish additional evidence of identity through Moroder's actions on wikipedia as well. As you will see there is plenty, even including some IP address evidence on wikipedia as well.

First, Moroder likes to spam the same papers: [51] This spam is so well known that other editor's even refer to it as "Sfarti spam" when removing it. [52] Additionally Moroder has posted links promoting Sfarti's patent [53].

Second, Moroder edits the same topics as Ati3414. Looking through their contributions they have a very distinct combination of interests: they both focus mostly on relativity pages and computer graphics algorithms pages.

Third, while it is probably not worth the time, reading Ati3414's talk page and Moroder's talk page as well as their posts in the various relativity related articles' talk pages they argue on, it will show that they have the same style of hostile attitude and way of dealing with other editors.

Fourth, they live in the same region and use the same local ISP -

Sometimes Ati3414 forgets to sign in and shows up as User:67.170.224.36. It is apparrent in the content, but if you have any doubt here is an example edit that proves it: changed signature after logging in.
Similarly Moroder sometimes forgets to sign in and shows up as User:67.170.234.213 (proof) or as User:24.7.125.29 (proof).
Tracing these IP's show that all three IP's go through te-8-3-ur01.santaclara.ca.sfba.comcast.net right before reaching the destination.

-- HarmonyThree 12:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Wait a minute, Kevin, you just signed up as HarmonyThree. Talk about sockpuppets looky here:

130.126.15.57 aka 130.126.15.145 aka HarmonyThree Moroder 18:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


Apparently the source of the report is a pair of sockpuppets themselves : 130.126.15.57 and 130.126.15.145, the aliases of Kevin at UIUC (the IP addresses trace back to UIUC). Kevin has been caught trying to defraud his fellow students by mr. AS in collaboration with the police. Since then he has been warned by the faculty staff to stay away from mr. AS. Nevertheless , he continued a pattern of cyberstalking, as evidenced by the above. Kevin, aka Gregory9 aka 130.126.15.57 aka 130.126.15.145 has no interest in wikipedia other than stalking mr. AS. His only "contributions" to wiki are in the form of harrassment and an occasional vandalism. Kevin has filed a frivoulous lawsuit that has been thrown out of court, he has nothing better to do than stalk real contributors because he is seeking revenge from being caught. He imagines seeing mr. AS in every poster that matches his delusions. Time to grow up and get a life. Moroder 15:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Good detective work, User:HarmonyThree! I was just discussing apparent sockpuppetry with the moderators over at Physics Forums, where socking is strictly forbidden, and where PF user "nakurusil" has been causing much grief (unfortunately just one of several problem users). This will save me a lot of work in my discussions with moderators there! Harmony, FYI, I am PF user "Chris Hillman" (currently inactive due to a spate of sockpuppetry, trolling, and crankery).
It is unseemly when two registered WP users report each other as sockpuppets, but it seems to me that the only relevant point in this section is that HarmonyThree, whoever he/she might be in real life, has provided (in my view) clear and convincing evidence that these two users and the two IP anons can be identified. I also find the evidence of habitual Sfarti-promotion convincing evidence that this individual is most likely Adrian Sfarti. Actually, if Bogdaniusca's translation is accurate, Ati3414 has referred to Adrian Sfarti in the first person, so there really seems no room for reasonable doubt. I can provide more information about Sfarti's "throughtprint" (idiosyncratic interests and so on), but that seems superfluous. ---CH 21:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Additional: a PF moderator just confirmed to me that PF user "nakurusil" was indeed (AFAIK, independently of this WP investigation) confirmed there a few days ago as a sockpuppet of a formerly banned PF user, "clj4". Since sockpuppetry is strictly forbidden at PF (I think that's a very sensible idea!), "nakurusil" has now also been banned from PF.
I feel that "interservice cooperation" between Wikipedia and other public forums where sockpuppetry has been a problem could be very helpful. As this case shows, an individual who is habitually engaging in puppetry in one forum is apt to do the same in another. I hope some admin here at WP will quietly compile a list of WP admins who know sysops at other large public forums. I have in mind some kind of blacklist of habitual puppeteers and trolls, somewhat like existing blacklists of open proxies and spammers.---CH 00:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

There are about 50,000 people at UIUC. Yes, I go to UIUC and yes I came from the physicsforums and signed up an account with the intent to report you for evading your ban. That does not make me Kevin. You have accused a friend of mine (User:Socrunchy) of being a sockpuppet in the past for trying to stop your self promotion as well. Just because there are several accounts, and even several from UIUC, trying to stop you does not mean we are all the same person. You are "infamous" enough that many people know the details and patterns of your past behavior (see CH's post above even, he found a nice old post from you adding even more evidence).

Moroder, I also note it interesting that you admit to knowing personal details of Sfarti's life. This is just more evidence against you. And as for your rant, the only people that will know what you are referring to are those at UIUC and we know that what really happenned was nothing like that. Sad to say, some fellow undergrads find the story interesting enough that they are going to try to get the engineering department to pay you to fly out and give an invited talk as they find the story so entertaining. It personally disgusts me that your acrid personality may be rewarded in anyway. I hope it does not happen. -- HarmonyThree 01:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to add one link up above: here is Bogdaniusca's translation of the edit in which User:Ati3414 speaks of Sfarti in the first person: "I wrote the wikipedia entries as well as the attached articles, in my own time, just to help those who can't afford exorbitant prices", where "attached articles" appears to refer to certain signed "publications" he was adding to external links to, which are located at the "crank journal" The General Science Journal, such as The “Twins Paradox” - Demystified, which is bylined "Dr. Adrian Sfarti".
We should add 67.170.224.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (that is ca.comcast.net again, same as for the other two IPs already mentioned here) to the list of Sfarti socks. Sfarti's first edit as this anon was to add himself to two lists of notable Romanians. Apparently he was promptly deleted on the grounds that he is not in fact notable, and in a fit of pique, simply blanked the entire list!
Good work, HarmonyThree! But for the record, in future I would strongly advise against registering a WP account just to report one vandal. You can ask active admins for advice here; I think the current consensus might be that it is acceptable to keep one sockpuppet account for things like reporting misbehavior which can lead to retaliation. Contrary to Sfarti's belief, I myself have never had any sockpuppets, either here or at PF. I don't think Sfarti is "infamous", BTW, although I do think he should be on some blacklist of habitual sockpuppeteers. I only know about him because last year I attempted to study the question how serious a threat information manipulation by self-promoting cranks poses to the Wikipedia. He is only one of literally hundreds whom I had concerns about wrt socking, wikishilling, and so forth.---CH 01:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Kevin, go get treatment. You and your sockpuppets are seriously sick. Moroder 01:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Lets cut out the personal attacks and speculation as to people's real identity, it doesn't help and it doesn't really matter. Ati3414 (talk · contribs) was indefinitely blocked for legal threats, not community banned; it is an important distinction. Indef means the individual who used the account conceivably can come back and contribute to Wikipedia, but if they are engaging in the same sort of behavior they were blocked for they are subject to indef blocking or banning without notice. A ban means the individual behind the account cannot contribute to Wikipedia. Period. Per WP:DUCK I think Moroder (talk · contribs) and Ati3414 (talk · contribs) are probably the same individual. At this point though I don't see any evidence that Moroder (talk · contribs) has done the same sort of edits he/she was indef'd for with the Ati3414 (talk · contribs) (namely legal threats). I'll leave this open for the time being though if someone wants to post diffs that show this behavior. There were some claims to this at WP:AN, but I need to see evidence, not claims.--Isotope23 14:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Fair enough.--Isotope23 16:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Conclusions

WP:DUCK these are the same individual and since Moroder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is now blocked, this is a moot investigation.

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

User:141.157.198.75

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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


Report submission by
Ronbo76 15:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


Evidence
Comments
Conclusions

Both IPs got 1-month blocks for vandalism; closing. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Hillock65

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Hillock65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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


Report submission by

Yarillastremenog 00:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Account created recently after User:Hillock65 had asked his useraccount be deleted, very similar to edit warring and accusing others of being 'xenophobic' and inciting hatred by accusing others of being Jewish

[54]: [55], [56], [57], [58], [59]

when told about the source of the screenshots in question (a war documentary) he accuses the uploader of being an avid porn fan [60]

Report by Betacommand

Block log (last 20):

Chuprynka

Hillock65


'Pages edited in common by' Hillock65 and Chuprynka:

Page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II

Chuprynka

Hillock65

Page: Talk:Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II

Chuprynka

Hillock65

Page: Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II

Chuprynka

Hillock65

Page: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Chuprynka

Hillock65

Page: User talk:Yarillastremenog/Archive 2

Chuprynka

Hillock65

Response to report

This report only shows that two users edited the same article. However, their behavior at the talk page was strikingly different. Chuprynka's comments were civil and reasonable. Hillock's were uncivil and defiant.

Additionally, Hillock has been notorious for POV-pushing and revert warring all over Wikipedia, while Chuprynka was not. There was no evidence that Hillock was anything more than a nationalist POV-pusher. This does not make him a socker per se. Further, the report was submitted by Yarillastremenog, a user now himself banned for sockmastering, as a retaliation for a sock-check submitted against him.

To summarize, no evidence whatsoever that Hillock is a sockmaster whatever disruptive his edits were. (I am not concenred with the fact of his block per se). Additionally, the edit patterns of the two editors are dissimilar enough to reject the match based on their edits alone. Their editing the same article does not prove sockpuppetry. I am here only to disprove false accusations. Hillock may stay banned for disruption, but he is no guilty for socking. Chuprynka has no reason to be blocked whatsoever. --Irpen 19:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Upon review it was decided that there's no sockpuppetry here; both users unblocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Momento

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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


Report submission by

Mael-Num 04:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence
  • As shown above, both users share a style of "revert warring" to achieve their goals in making their edits last. Neither appears to dialogue as a means to resolve conflicts. In the case of Momento, I can say that this user may even edit in spite of consensus against him, and sometimes lawyers WP policy to give his edits the appearance of validity, even though he appears to have no genuine interest in consensus [67] [68] and shows flagrant disregard for his fellow editors' opinions [69].
  • The evidence of "revert warring" and malicious editing in spite of consensus speaks to the apparent disregard for rules on the part of the user, which supports the idea that such a person may resort to puppetry.
  • In any case, these users (User:VictorO and User:Momento) are malicious WP:SPAs which exist for the sole purpose of disrupting progress on articles related to Prem Rawat. If they are not found to be sockpuppets via IP research, and neither is a proxy, then they are surely meatpuppets related to a small number of editors who have recently made superlative efforts to disrupt and inject POV into the Prem Rawat series of articles. Per the cited section on such puppets "for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one individual."
  • Other editors who appear to be participating in this campaign include Jossi and possibly Francis Schonken.
  • In evidence of the above statement, Jossi within a short time of my making a series of reverts made to protect against vandalism on the part of VictorO filed a WP:3rr case against me with no warning[70], and in spite of a ban for VictorO for vandalism [71]. The ban against VictorO would preclude my reverts as being anything other than the proper course of action. Indeed, the WP:3rr was declined when reviewed by one admin, and upheld when another admin fixed an autoblock issue. Yet Jossi continues to insist that the ban be applied for 48 hours, despite my never having been banned for any previous offenses.
Addendum Upon a second review of the case, VictorO's block has been reduced from 1 week to "time served". The original findings (decline) of the WP:3RR against me have also been upheld. Mael-Num 22:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I submit this as evidence of possible collusion to precipitate a revert war using the VictorO account with the goal of removing editors with a contrary opinion from participation in the Prem Rawat article. This is another example of meatpuppetry.
  • Francis Schonken moved the Criticism of Prem Rawat article into the main article despite ongoing discussion and a growing consensus against such a move. The move was followed by a continuing series of edits to "trim" the then-"overly large" Prem Rawat article by removing critical content [72] [73].
  • This merge, used as a justification to trim criticism, is being perceived by some editors as an effort to marginalize certain opinions not favored by some editors [74]. However, it is plausible that this was just a case of Francis innocently trying to be helpful, and others taking advantage of the situation. The action is suspicious, and perhaps based on this alone merits some looking into, but I have no evidence or belief that he is working in collusion.
  • Finally, I also request the assistance of any interested admins who are reviewing this situation in referring me to the next step that needs to be taken. This is obviously a very complex situation, and I understand if it is beyond the scope of those who deal primarily with puppets and would require more thorough investigation. I am a relatively new user and need advice in documenting what I perceive as a very serious issue. Please get in contact with me at my talk page].
  • Addendum 2/1/07: After a series of reverts[75][76][77], rising out of Momento's and Jossi's shared disapproval of critical information in the Prem Rawat article and unwillingness to edit and revise rather than revert, VictorO made a sudden return to the Wikipedia scene, jumping in right where Momento and Jossi left off[78], without a word spoken in the ongoing discussion[79].
Please do not mis-represent me. It is you who made unilateral changes to the article. You argue for others to revise, when you actually delete other editor's work, delete sources and engage in original research. Pot kettle black. Seek to build consensus instead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Comments

See WP:AN/3RR#User:Mael-Num_reported_by_User:jossi_.28Result:.29 for the discussion about this user's disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

With his first edit on December 6 2006, this user seems to be awfully familiar with WP. Maybe a checkuser on his account is warranted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

By all means, and with my explicit approval. Mael-Num 06:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been involved in the set of Prem Rawat articles from the start and I do not think that VictorO and Momento are sockpuppets of anybody. I agree with user:Mael-Num that Momento engages in Wikipedia:Wikilawyering to remove contents that s/he does not like. For example, all stable contents in non-English was removed by Momento with the stated reason that the original Dutch had not been provided which was to a great extent untrue; I had provided most of the original Dutch citations long ago, but they were lost somewhere in the many talk archives of several closely related entries, like talk:Prem Rawat and talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat. Also, I think that Momento's habit of labelling claims as "exceptional" on the basis of his personal opinions and thus raising the bar for inclusion higher and higher is inappropriate and a form of wikilawyering. Andries 10:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late. M-N didn't tell me he had alleged I was sock puppet or a meat puppet. I'm neither.Momento 13:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Conclusions
confirmed Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 16:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Both users unblocked; see [80]. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Rajsingam

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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


Report submission by

Lahiru_k 20:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence
  • These two users don't know how to use the Minor edit sign. They just type "m" in the edit summary area instead of using the check box.
  1. 12:54, December 30, 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Can't sleep, clown will eat me (m)
  2. 11:24, December 30, 2006 (hist) (diff) User:DoDoBirds (m) (top) [rollback]
  3. 11:22, December 30, 2006 (hist) (diff) User:DoDoBirds (m)
  4. 11:20, December 30, 2006 (hist) (diff) User:DoDoBirds (m)
  5. 11:17, December 30, 2006 (hist) (diff) User:DoDoBirds (m)
  6. 10:37, December 30, 2006 (hist) (diff) User:DoDoBirds (m)
  7. 10:29, December 30, 2006 (hist) (diff) User:DoDoBirds (m)
  8. 08:03, December 30, 2006 (hist) (diff) Dodo (m)
  9. 07:55, December 30, 2006 (hist) (diff) User:DoDoBirds (m)
  1. 10:05, January 19, 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Anton Balasingham (m)
  2. 10:01, January 19, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tarinth (m)
  3. 09:58, January 19, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas (m) (top) [rollback]
  4. 09:57, January 19, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:DoDoBirds (m) (top) [rollback]
  5. 09:54, January 19, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Dennisthe2 (m) (top) [rollback]
  6. 09:52, January 19, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Ccscott (m) (top) [rollback]
  7. 09:50, January 19, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Dangerous-Boy (m)
  8. 09:48, January 19, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Rumpelstiltskin223 (m)
  9. 09:47, January 19, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Freedom skies (m)
  10. 09:46, January 19, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Seraphimblade (m)
  11. 09:44, January 19, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Wackymacs (m) (top) [rollback]
  12. 09:43, January 19, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:SiobhanHansa (m) (top) [rollback]
  13. 09:41, January 19, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:RaveenS (m)
  14. 09:39, January 19, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Oden (m) (top) [rollback]
  15. 09:38, January 19, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Oden (m)
  16. 09:36, January 19, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Jimbo Wales (m)
  17. 03:17, November 22, 2006 (hist) (diff) Asian-German Sports Exchange Program (m)
  18. 03:14, November 22, 2006 (hist) (diff) Asian-German Sports Exchange Program (m)
  19. 03:10, November 22, 2006 (hist) (diff) Asian-German Sports Exchange Program (m)
  20. 01:46, November 22, 2006 (hist) (diff) Asian-German Sports Exchange Program (m)
  21. 16:22, November 21, 2006 (hist) (diff) Asian-German Sports Exchange Program (m)
  22. 16:19, November 21, 2006 (hist) (diff) Asian-German Sports Exchange Program (m)
  23. 16:17, November 21, 2006 (hist) (diff) Rajkumar Kanagasingam (m)
  24. 15:46, November 21, 2006 (hist) (diff) Rajkumar Kanagasingam (m)
  25. 14:07, November 21, 2006 (hist) (diff) Rajkumar Kanagasingam (m)
  26. 13:55, November 21, 2006 (hist) (diff) Rajkumar Kanagasingam (m)
  27. 13:52, November 21, 2006 (hist) (diff) Rajkumar Kanagasingam (m)
  28. 12:48, November 21, 2006 (hist) (diff) Asian-German Sports Exchange Program (m)
  29. 12:44, November 21, 2006 (hist) (diff) Asian-German Sports Exchange Program (m)
  30. 11:49, November 21, 2006 (hist) (diff) Asian-German Sports Exchange Program (m)
  31. 11:43, November 21, 2006 (hist) (diff) Asian-German Sports Exchange Program (m)
  32. 11:41, November 21, 2006 (hist) (diff) Asian-German Sports Exchange Program (m)
  33. 11:40, November 21, 2006 (hist) (diff) Asian-German Sports Exchange Program (m)
  34. 05:21, November 21, 2006 (hist) (diff) Rosy Senanayake (m)
  35. 05:20, November 21, 2006 (hist) (diff) Rosy Senanayake (m)
  36. 05:17, November 21, 2006 (hist) (diff) Rosy Senanayake (m)
  37. 05:08, November 21, 2006 (hist) (diff) Rosy Senanayake (m)


Rajsingam's vote
DoDoBirds's vote
12:14, January 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajkumar Kanagasingam (keep)
12:04, January 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Kelly (journalist) (Keep)
  • User:DoDoBirds suddenly popped up for this AFD, after been inactive for seven(7) days from the last edit and there are no talk page message on regarding that.
09:06, January 7, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 6 (→Template:State terrorism in Sri Lanka)
12:49, January 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Saddam Hussein (Saddam Hussein and Donald Rumsfeld)
  • User:DoDoBirds was able to create an advanced userpage as his/her first edit 23mins after the user account creation which is also bit doubtful.First editLogs
Comments

Comment by Rajsingam: I apologise for my behaviour as I am the sockpuppeteer(Rajsingam) for the sockpuppet (DoDoBirds) and redirecting the DoDoBirds to Rajsingam.

I have started the DoDoBirds on 30 December 2006 to get involved in the highly sensitive international political issues and named it as DoDoBirds on the perception how the Dodo birds were wiped out from the world by Man if he couldn’t stop the atrocities against each other one day he also will be wiped from this world.

My Violations & Reasons behind

1. I have voted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajkumar Kanagasingam which is my own biography article, after I noticed the Delete vote of User Lahiru_k at 07:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC) just three hours after the AFD tag was put by User Nv8200p at 04:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC). Lahiru_k has never done any editing on my article and his rush for voting, made me to suspect the whole deletion process as a Sinister AFD Scam and prompted me through the DoDoBirds as a third party voice to high light my various activities which are documented in the off-line media sources.

2. I have voted twice on the Template deletion Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_January_6#Template:State_terrorism_in_Sri_Lanka as I have personally affcted by the state terrorism in Sri Lanka since my childhood in the war-torn Jaffna Peninsula.

I apologise once again for my behaviour.Rajsingam 05:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Serafin

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Suspected sockpuppets
Report submission by

Philip Gronowski Contribs 04:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

User:Serafin and User:Arudra have both been making incredibly similar (Arudra, Serafin) POV edits to articles and both appear to have a similar agenda. They also appear to share an i.p. which edits articles in the exact same ways that these two do. A check user would be very useful in this situation to establish if sockpuppetry is occurring. Arudra has a small ammount of edits but I believe that there is a decent case to present here. The i.p. edits are really convincing me as well. Philip Gronowski Contribs 03:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

For User:131.104.218.46 here is my other evidence:
Incredibly similar edits, all about the same topics, User:Arudra is a common go between as well. Self admitted here and 131.104.218.46 being used to escape block. Pretty straightforward I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip Gronowski (talk • contribs)

User:207.245.84.70 claims to be Serafin and uses a similar editing style. Olessi 06:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ptak (talk · contribs) - Responding to comments left for Serafin: [81] } — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.smith (talk • contribs)


Is it possible that Serafin does not realize he is breaking the rules by using these IP addresses while User:Serafin is blocked? Olessi 17:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

  • 219.66.235.103 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has not signed as "AS", but has discussed similar topics and has a similar style of discussion. He responds here to comments about Serafin. Olessi 20:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

On the German WP, this user(s) used the names Aserafin, Bserafin, and Cserafin, all of which have been blocked. On the English WP, he has used Arudra and Erudra (Andrew and Edgar?). Olessi 20:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Further suspected sock puppets of the user on the German Wikipedia, all of which have been blocked as well. All three of them were trying to continue an edit war started by Aserafin related to the dates of birth (history) and death (history) of Johann/Jan Dzierzon. --Le petit prince 20:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Ptak An additional sock puppet of the user on the German Wikipedia (indef blocked today). --Le petit prince 11:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Dlugopis Another sock puppet of the user on the German Wikipedia created for the sole purpose to continue his edit wars over there (...again, in rather broken German). Indef blocked today. --Le petit prince 22:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

In the English wikipedia he also uses the following accounts:

Today's sockpuppet (sigh! :-( ) on the German Wikipedia:

  • Wiatr (indef block as usual)

Reported by another user on de:Wikipedia:Vandalismusmeldung:


210.245.160.188 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) signs as Serafin[82] while evading yet another block.

Comments

I've made some blocks:

  • 207.245.84.70 - Hard-blocked for 1 week
  • Serafin - Hard-blocked 72 hours
  • Arudra - Indef softblock.

I hope this gets his attention. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 08:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

After a Checkuser case has confirmed further sockpuppetry, Serafin has been blocked for another month by User:Heimstern. Olessi 07:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

All named accounts blocked; recent IPs blocked. Checkuser cases are ongoing. Closing. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Spruceforest

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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


Report submission by

Smee 09:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Evidence
Comments

I am still new to this and all I did was add a comment on a talk page without loging in. I then corrected it per Smeelgova's request. So that I was known as the author of the edit instead of my IP address. Spruceforest 16:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Further Comments- Forgetting to log in is not being a sock puppet according to what I have read. I simply did not log in. I understand more about Wikipedia now and I will make sure that I am logged in when I edit. I also understand that while Smeelgova is accusing me of something, she also wants to make sure that everyone follows the rules. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spruceforest (talk • contribs).

  • COMMENT: - Again, it is quite simple to note above that this was most likely not just a matter of "forgetting to log in". The user was warned four separate times for vandalism, by four different editors. Smee 07:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC).
  • Spruceforest - Until Smeelgova pointed it out, I never even saw a warning on an IP address page. I now understand better what the deal is here. I am not on Wikipedia as often as she is. Spruceforest 02:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Smee - It can clearly be shown from the number of warnings of vandalism from different individual editors to this user and to the user's sockpuppet IP address, that these are not innocent one-time events but a pattern of utilizing a sockpuppet IP address for vandalism. Smee 07:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC).
  • Spruceforest - I am not sure what Smeelgova's deal is, but 3 of the 5 instances that she is refering to happened before I signed up for a wikipedia log in. I have said everything that I am going to say about this. Spruceforest 16:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Smee - Check the user's inappropriate usage of IP address sockpuppet, and multiple warnings from different editors, and judge for yourself... Smee 07:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC).


Conclusions
dismissed Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 16:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


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

User:SneakySoyMeat

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

HolyMoley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
13.8.125.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Morgasmic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

— coelacan talk — 23:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


Evidence

HolyMoley has been making the same "rapist van" edits[83] that got SneakySoyMeat blocked.[84] Then there was Morgasmic, who made these same edits,[85] and who also made "dwarfism" trolling edits,[86] [87] which SneakySoyMeat also did.[88] The IP 13.8.125.11 joined in on dwarfism,[89] and also complained on talk:peppermint,[90] to which HolyMoley conveniently replied,[91] using that as an artificial consensus excuse to remove content from the article. SneakySoyMeat and Morgasmic are already indef blocked. The IP and HolyMoley are being used to evade this block. — coelacan talk — 23:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments
Conclusions

I can confirm all but HolyMoley Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 16:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/TheCharminBear. WilliamKF 22:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:130.156.29.61

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

130.156.29.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
130.156.31.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by
User:70.23.199.239 2:30, 21 January 2007
Evidence

The same person apparently used 130.156.29.61 yesterday and is using 130.156.29.134 today. (Note that only the last number differs between the two IPs.) If you check this individual’s "contributions," and go to each article's history page, you will see that all he does is follow me around, from article to article, using one IP on one day and under the other IP, the next. He hasn't done anything else in recent days. His m.o. under both IPs is also identical; he never gives any explanation for his reverts, not so much as an "m."

(Addendum: User: 130.156.31.143 today employed the identical m.o. as User: 130.156.29.61 and 130.156.29.134, of following me at every article I worked on and undoing my edits without ever listing what he had done Special:Contributions/130.156.31.143, and like the other two IPs, he originated from Bloomfield College. He also violated Wikipedia rules on 6 September 2006, by secretly deleting an entire passage by another editor (not me) on the Talk:Jim_McGreevey page.

Diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jim_McGreevey&diff=prev&oldid=74166450

70.23.199.239 09:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC))

“:According to the WHOIS reports for 130.156.29.61 and 130.156.29.134, your friend is a student or emplyee of Bloomfield College. Not sure if that helps, but obviously it's the same person. AuburnPilottalk 23:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)” 70.23.199.239 02:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I just want it to be known that I did not submit this report or request that it be submitted. I have nothing to do with it and merely informed 70.23.199.239 of the WHOIS information. AuburnPilottalk 02:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Who went to WHOIS and researched the two IPs -- me or you, AuburnPilot? And who then posted the report on my USER TALK page, me or you?

A reader skimming this page might come away with the impression that you're saying I lied about the report coming from you, and forged your wiki signature. But of course, you submitted the report -- to me. And I duly quoted you, which was my right. Anyone with doubts about the exactitude of my quotation, should check my USER TALK page, in the indented middle of the section, "130.156.29.61 = 130.156.29.134?" 70.23.199.239 03:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

(Addendum: See whois summary below: http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl 4:39 23 January 2007 Search results for: 130.156.31.143

New Jersey Higher Education Network NJEDGE (NET-130-156-0-0-1) 

                                 130.156.0.0 - 130.156.255.255

Bloomfield College NJEDGE-BLOOMFIELD-COLLEGE (NET-130-156-24-0-1) 

                                 130.156.24.0 - 130.156.31.255

70.23.199.239 09:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC))

Conclusion

Same user on a network no need for a SSP its an annon with a rotating IP. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 16:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Mistersupes

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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


Report submission by

Kesh 03:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Mistersupes had a habit of blanking pages with his name as seen here. Our IP vandal has the same MO. diff

Comments

There's a lot more than that. To date there are about 15 or so, both named and random IP. He just keeps switching IPs when he gets shut down. HalfShadow 04:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If you would please point out further articles that have been vandalized in this manner, I'll add their IDs to this list. I'd appreciate any help you can offer, as it's getting annoying. -- Kesh 04:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
[92] He's been doing this for days, not including random IPs. HalfShadow 04:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing that link out. I didn't know there was already an RfC on this issue. -- Kesh 16:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Superman was vandalized by Mistersupes131 on Jan 19. Flyguy649 17:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Conclusions

Dealt with by RFCU, see [93]. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Jullianv321

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Jullianv321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Unjustfulv321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)"

Evidence

Unjustfulv321 is an account with but one edit, to remove a speedy delete request from the article Revans Rangers started by Jullianv321. I also believe Revansrangers to be the same user, but that account has not as of yet engaged in sockpuppetish actions. Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

The fact that we share the same name is coincidence but i noticed that the revans rangers page was a good source of information so i took off the speedy deletion Unjustfulv321 21:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I totaly agree with unjust full but when u accuz me of pupiting it rly offends me!! Jullianv321 21:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Besides making his second edit as a reply above, Unjustfulv321's third edit to date has been to delete four IFD nominations related to the deleted Revans Rangers article. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Both accounts indef blocked; closing. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Mykungfu

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

172.161.37.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
64.131.205.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
172.193.231.127‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
172.164.250.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Redstormman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
AfricanAmericanHistorian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Vkmayes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
MrDouglass (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
172.165.197.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
172.162.244.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Robotam 16:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Continuation of persistent sockpuppet Mykungfu, aka NinjaNubian, via anon IPs after permanent ban of his major accounts.[94][95][96][97][98][99] User continues to edit via anon IPs, picking up the edits and arguments of User:Mykungfu,inserting/reinserting the same links as Mykungfu (see [100] vs. [101]) and and demonstrating incivility towards the same editors as Mykungfu[102][103][104]. Editor continues to vandalize and stalk templates, members, and entries related to certain African-American fraternities and sororities, such as placing delete templates on sites related to Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity[105] and inserting "grants honorary membership to men" in Delta Sigma Theta Sorority.[106] Usage of multiple usernames and anon IPs is modus of this blocked editor who has vowed that "this will go on forever"[107] if he/she is not allowed to have his/her way. All of the above IPs and usernames were created during periods or immediately after periods where socks of Mykungfu were blocked, or administrators declined to unblock said sockpuppets.


Comments
  • I received information about this on my talk page. I'm not to sure about why i'm listed as a sockpuppet. My entry for "grants honorary membership to men" in the sorority was actually a direct copy and paste from "11:23, 18 January 2007 (hist) (diff) m Omega Psi Phi " this article and was placed in 14:01, 23 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Delta Sigma Theta . I changed a few things on my initial copy and paste, but it wasn't perfect (i forgot to change men to women). For this i'm listed as a sockpuppet? thanks for reading. AfricanAmericanHistorian 21:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • That's one example, MKF. Your citation to the same group of self published blogs, google searches etc. tend to be a giveaway as well, among others; there is also your MO of attempting to enlist "help" under false pretenses once you get caught.-Robotam 21:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That's the only example that I am listed under. I don't know about anything else or anyone else. I thought google was a good technique to use. I dont see what's wrong with [108] , [109] , [110] , or my other edits. what have i been caught doing? adding links and information? I dont know what the huge issue you have with this individual, but I am not s/he. I'd appreciate it if I was removed from this. thanks. AfricanAmericanHistorian 21:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Speaking of which, other common MOs of Mykungfu are Wikilawyering(see above), as well as using support socks to bolster a position or give the impression of support.[111][112]The suspected socks were all used in editing Sigma Pi Phi in this manner,[113] and in another instance, the IP comment appears to actually be signed "mykungfu[114]." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robotam (talk • contribs) 03:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC).


    • I took a look at MrDouglass and I don't see any Sigma Pi Phi editorials

[115] I took a look at kkmayes and only see one contribution there and it wasn't to Sigma Pi Phi [116] I took a look at Redstormman and there were 2 contribution to Sigma Pi Phi [117] I have one contribution and that was to fix a heading [118] It is also very unusual to me that 172.193.231.127 [119] would answer a question that was posted by Vmhayes on his user page as well as on the AKA talk page if it were to himself. [120] It is even stranger that 172.164.250.29 would give a warning to MrDouglass on user talk:MrDouglass [121] I also was given a warning by 172,164.250.29 on my talk page. This is how I found out about this [122]. All in all, I don't belong in this sockpuppet case. The quicker this is resolved the quicker I can have the message taken off my userpage. AfricanAmericanHistorian 06:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mykungfu, User:AfricanAmericanHistorian and User:MrDouglass have been blocked as definite socks of Mykungfu. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Redstormman was also blocked by Mr. Darcy. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

All but one named account has been indef blocked; see [123]. Closing. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Chicken1997

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Chicken1997 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Chicken1996 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

esanchez, Camp Lazlo fan! 04:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Steven K. Purcell being repeatedly made by both users.

Comments
Conclusions

Both accounts indef blocked; closing. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Venrix

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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


Report submission by

Rklawton 22:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence
  • Puppet recreated article Joshua G. Cantor-Stone and re-uploaed image Image:ColJoshua.png - both originally created by puppetmaster.
  • Puppet removed evidence of warnings on puppetmaster's talk page[124]
  • Puppet vandalized page of user who nominated the AfD'd article for deletion.[125]
Comments
Conclusions

Crazyneeds is indef blocked; Venrix blocked for 1 week. Closing. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:DCarltonsm@msn.com

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Confirmed sockpuppets
Suspected sockpuppets
Additional reports


Report submission by

ThuranX 04:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

This user's edits are quite similar in subject matter to both User:D12795, see contribs here, and to User:DCarltonsm@msn.com, see here. In addition, M12592 edited D12795 [126] [127] to remove the sockpuppet tag, and previously D12795 edited DCarltonsm@msn.com similarly removing templates and tags [128], as well as readding exactly the same unsourced material as M12 would later add [129], . In addition, D12795 created an IP named account User:71.247.242.186, whic hdid the same exact edits as M12 and D12, see here. As if all that wasn't enough, he's practically advertising it here, since there's no communication between the two. I should mention that I found this entire situation after volunteering to help out on the R68 page after seeing it up on AN/I a couple days ago. Since then, all attempts to engage this editor have failed, and his edit summaries have become hostile. I started examining his contribs and figured all this out. (it wasn't difficult.) ThuranX 04:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Seems to be a Verizon customer operating from New York City.

Conclusions

All named accounts have been blocked; closing. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:WaffelWTC

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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


Report submission by
Ronbo76 15:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


Evidence

Please see World Trade Center and its history of edits diffs. Similar edits/blanking/pictures are being made by this account and and anonymous IP (user:121.142.240.55]]. Racial attacks are being created and reverted by editors.

Comments

Recommend all accounts be traced and blocked permanently.

Conclusions

Sockpuppetry is a secondary issue that I wouldn't be concerned with because these are vandalism edits anyway. So those users are indefinitely blocked and any new vandals can/will be blocked on sight. No checkuser or anything is needed in this situation. --Aude (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Named accounts indef blocked; IP blocked for 31 hours for vandalism. Closing. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Evrik

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

English Subtitle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by
jergen 10:22, 20 January 2007
Evidence

User:English Subtitle is only active in renaming and moving non-English article titles in English article titles, mainly in Scouting articles. The discussion on the possibly renaming of some of the articles on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting/Translations did not reach any consensus, sole supporter for the article names chosen by User:English Subtitle was User:Evrik who left the discussion without comment. --jergen 10:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

After moving articles User:English Subtitle makes unnecessary small edits to the redirects preventing them from being overwritten. The same action was taken by User:Evrik on November 27, 2006, when he moved Scouts Musulmans Algériens to Algerian Muslim Scouts before reaching any consensus in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting/Translations; afterwards he made an unnecessary small edit to Scouts Musulmans Algériens to prevent this redirect from being overwritten. --jergen 17:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I left the discussion mainly because I've had to slow down my contributions to wikipedia - and didn't have time to waste arguing with Jergen. Sorry, not me. I should also note that while jergen submitted this report, User:Kintetsubuffalo has been involved with the process here and here. This is not the first time that User:Kintetsubuffalo has done this. Kintetsubuffalo now has a habit of accusing others of being my sock puppet. --evrik (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC) Has a check user been requested? I guess I have a week to wait before I can remove that tag. English Subtitle 22:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions
In conclusive data I cant prove they are sockpuppets. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 16:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


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

User:Rjensen

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Obow2003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Jozil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

-- Cielomobile talk / contribs 07:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

The accounts User:Obow2003 and User:Jozil seem like obvious sock puppets. They suddenly both voted in support of moving an article in a close time period, in the exact same style (diff). They had very few edits before this vote (in fact, Obow only had one previous edit, see here for Obow, here for Jozil), and all their edits were on talk pages voting for some proposition or another (no mainspace edits). Rjensen has voted along with these sock puppets every time they have edited (see this for example, or this, or this), and he's already been banned multiple times for 3RR violations. I'd suggest that he is permanently blocked, as he repeatedly violates Wikipedia policy with ill intent. At the very least, these sock puppets need to be banned, and Rjensen needs to somehow be reprimanded.

Comments
Rjensen comments:

Obow2003 and Jozil are real people and not me. They have an interest in American conservatism and I alerted them to the problems and encouraged them to join in the discussion. Rjensen 07:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that asking others to join in a debate, unless careful, may be seen as "meat puppetry". Wikipedia debates are a collaboration to find what's best, not a question of "voting numbers". So it's important to be aware of that. Whilst "good faith" newcomers are more than welcome, there are dangers of non-neutrality if a number of people visit an article in response to a request from one "side". Take a look at WP:SOCK for the policy in this area. Especially, note that if it's unclear, then previous decisions have held that inappropriate meat-puppetry can be treated the same as sock puppetry would be. Something to be aware of. FT2 (Talk | email) 08:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Wjhonson comments:

You're right it smells. Not completely clear-cut but definitely suspicious. And on another count, what user needs EIGHT 3rr violations before they learn the rule? Apparently one who doesn't care to play by the rules. Wjhonson 08:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said they are real people and different people, so I will ask them to comment here. This came about because I strongly objected to Cielomobile's renaming a major article (American Conservatism) with no discussion or vote. Rjensen 08:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Even if so, that may well be seen as an inappropriate action. "I didn't like the action so I stacked the editorship in the article" would still be seen as highly inappropriate, and you may have inadvertantly put those concerned in a difficult position of now being seen as sock or meat puppets, both classified under the same policy. The non-neutrality of the action can be seen in that for example, there was not really the chance of people arriving as a result of your invitation, who disagreed with your stance for any reason. And as you point out, none did. So it's a bit of a stacked deck. In future, if you disagree with a decision, I strongly suggest you post a request for help internally, for example on Wikipedia:Requests for comment, so that those who contribute and check it out, come with a neutral slant, and from any and all viewpoints equally. FT2 ([[User_talk:|Talk]] | email) 09:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I did not move the article with no discussion or vote, but you can judge for yourselves at Talk:Liberalism_in_the_United_States#Page_move. But please, keep that out of this discussion. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 05:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I openly invited people on the talk page to protest what I considered a blatant disregard for Wiki rules. And I invited people to protest by email. I indeed tried to be persuasive rather than "neutral"--it is false that Wiki policy requires editors be neutral in disputes. On the contrary it encourages them to take sides: to Vote. I requested help from all editors on the Talk page and on the WP incidents page, and I tried to be persuasive.

Of course this is a discussion page about alleged sock puppets, defined by Wki as "A sock puppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name." and "to invent a separate user. This may be used for fictional support of separate people in a vote or argument by falsely using the account as a separate user." I categorically deny that allegation. As for "stacked deck" that is what I was protesting: that editors did not have a chance to vote on renaming the important article that I and many others had worked hard on for months. I am surprised that a sticker for rules is uninterested in that issue. As for "meatpuppets" --it means to "create brand new accounts specifically to participate in, or influence, a particular vote or area of discussion." That did not happen here. Rjensen 10:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It might be worth recapping WP:SOCK a bit. A sock-puppet is when one person operates two different accounts, which act like two different people. It's allowed, provided the different accounts aren't used in the same debate to give a false appearance of multiple participants. Meat-puppetry is when one solicits non-neutral participants to join a debate because one believes they will add weight to one's own side. Its a problem because although the people are independent, the views added are not, and it can sway a debate which is not really about "opinion" but should be about finding neutral presentations and consensus. Because it can sometimes be hard to tell whether two editors of this kind are the same person or not, and because the effect is generally the same even if they are different people, it's generally the rule that the same rule applies to both, whether separate people or not. Wikipedia is not about "I didn't like their view so I added more voices to the debate". if there was a problem then WP:RFC (Requests for comment) as above, is the right venue for more input. See also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe FT2 has misstated the Wiki policy on Meat Puppets. I followed the guideline: An arbitrator clarified the position: "Briefly, I think a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine.... If there are a small handful of editors who share your taste and/or philosophy, it is sometimes acceptable to contact them with regard to a specific issue as long as it does not become disruptive." ' (from WP Canvasssing.) I quoted the rule ("create brand new accounts specifically to participate in, or influence, a particular vote or area of discussion.") and said that did not happen here. Note that the root problem was that American Conservatism was moved without a discussion and without a Request for Move. That violates Wiki rules and I protested strongly against Cielomobile's actions,and now Cielomobile is making these false allegations in retaliation. Rjensen 17:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
You need a little more familiarity with how Wikipedia works, and especially with the definitions in WP:SOCK. The quotation you give from WP:CANVAS goes on to state, in the same sentence:
'"Briefly, I think a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine. Aggressive propaganda campaigns are not. The difference lies in the disruption involved. If what is happening is getting everyone upset then it is a problem. Often the dividing line is crossed when you are contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article."
It's hard to imagine you read the first half of a short paragraph, but not the second half. New accounts were created, and others were upset.
Separately, you are mistaken a second way. If you are discussing specific issues, and feel that more competent input to the discussion is needed, then yes, seeking input is valuable. That is in the main, what WP:CANVAS ("Canvassing") is referencing. You need to read WP:DP ("Deletion policy") though, since these accounts were used in deletion discussions:

"It's worth noting that (...) the purpose of a discussion is to bring out a "sense of the community" and the valid points for or against each view." [Background]

"It should also be noted that packing the discussion with sockpuppets (multiple accounts) and meatpuppets (advertising or soliciting of desired views) does not reflect a genuine consensus, and usually doesn't raise much in the way of novel policy considerations. A deletion debate is not a popular vote, but a way of obtaining editors' views as to whether an article meets policy guidelines or not, so these kind of activities don't achieve much." [Abuse of deletion process]

What use were these additional accounts? Even if genuine, did they add any additional policy based views to the discussion? How could they - they could only reflect lack of policy-related knowledge (if other individuals) or your point of view already stated (if socks). So it was a bit futile in any case, whatever the nature of the new accounts. Whether you were acting in good faith and just wanted to honestly prevent a move you felt was harming the article, or whether in bad faith and wanted to stack the process, protesting a move is not any kind of grounds for stacking an ensuing debate, whether on AFD or the talk page, and selective quoting from guidelines is just not going to help to make it so. I imagine this is still likely to be a fairly clear breach of WP:SOCK and WP:DP. But others may make the final decision. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Cielomobile comments:

Here is why these accounts are definitely sock puppets, Rjensen. The comments made by them imply a knowledge of wiki policy, and every single one of their few edits is on a vote for an AfD, RM, etc.. Obvious sock puppets. They are your sock puppets because you are the only editor to vote in more than one of the discussions in which the puppets have voted (I know "vote" is not the proper word). Even if they are not your accounts (this could be checked by an admin viewing the IPs of all involved parties), you have undoubtedly asked these people to vote in your discussions every time, which is meat puppetry (considered that the accounts are only used for voting). However, in the discussion for moving Conservatism in the United States, they used the exact same style of writing (see the bolded "SUPPORT") voted within a relatively short period of time (diff). That is mighty fishy. I checked against User:Isolani, the other editor vehemently who vehemently supported moving back the article, and he did not make a single edit in the previous votes of the sock puppets, so he's out of the picture. You're the only candidate, Rjensen, and the evidence against you is a bit overwhelming. An IP check could confirm all of this, although it wouldn't necessarily rule you out, as you could have edited under these accounts from a different IP. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 05:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Cielomobile has much credibility -- he NEVER contributed to the article on American Conservatism until he successfully fooled an administrator into moving it without a poll or vote. Normally Wiki defers to the numerous editors who worked long and hard over a period of months rather than to some outsider who seems to have no interest or knowledge of the topic (he is unaware that the people, ideas, events and sources of American Liberalism are very differnt from American Conservatism, claiming instead they are very similar. That proves a lack of interest.) Rjensen 05:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
This is the kind of accusatory language that I'm talking about—it's an ad hominem argument. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 05:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, the puppets and Rjensen all use similar, accusatory language. For example, they like to accuse me of POV for moving the page (which is completely uncalled for), see Talk:Conservatism_in_the_United_States#VOTE:_Move_back_to_.22American_Conservatism.22. I hope this doesn't come off as a personal attack, but in general their language in general is a bit childish and definitely similar in several aspects. See the diffs I posted in the initial evidence. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 05:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

well anyone who wants me to follow the rules exactly should, I suggest, follow the rules and definitions very closely themselves. I quoted the official rules and suggest that FT2 do the same. Sock puppet = Same person, and that is false. (try emailing them and asking if they exist.) Likewise Meat Puppet rule was not violated. I have charged that Cielomobile deliberately violated Wiki rules and he has yet to respond to that allegation. I also note that his editing record shows zero interest in the topic of American conservatism, which makes it unfortunate indeed that he tried to make major changes without discussing them. Is that not against Wiki rules? Rjensen 10:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I have not violated Wikipedia policy. I'm beginning to sound like a broken record here—I followed the procedure mandated by WP:RM, specifically: "If you are proposing that multiple closely related pages should all be moved for the same reason (see Multiple page moves), it may be advisable to create this discussion on only a single talk page and provide links from the other talk pages to this centralized discussion." That is exactly what I did. It is not a violation of Wikipedia policy. Stop accusing me and other editors of doing so; it borders on a personal attack. Besides, this is not the appropriate venue to discuss the page move; this is about your alleged sock puppeteering. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 11:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
What happened is that I complained loudly and said there was a serious violation of Wiki rules going on. Obow2003 and Jozil agreed with me but had their own unique, new reasons for complaining. Thus Jozil said "Most Americans refer to our country as America, not the United States. I find when I travel that non-Americans are the ones that refer to us as the United States." That was new and not something I said. Likewise Obow said: " I am a college student and lots of my friends use wikipedia and we want to make it useful for them. Changing the title makes the article hard to find." Again that is not part of my own argument (I am long past college age, by the way). Those quotes refute FT2's incorrect assertion that: "Even if genuine, did they add any additional policy based views to the discussion? How could they - they could only reflect lack of policy-related knowledge (if other individuals) or your point of view already stated." The refutation is that Obow203 and Jozil made original contributions based on their own experience--both have been active in political debate in colleges which I never attended--and they did not merely echo my position. Furthermore it is not true that new accounts were created to engage on this issue, which is a basic requirement for meat puppetry. Finally, I suggest that when a page move was made illegally it should be changed back immediately, not open to a new round of debate. Rjensen 11:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
You have ignored all the substantial evidence presented against you. All of their edits are in votes on talk pages which you had previously voted in (none in the main namespace), and each of their edits reflect the same view as you, i.e. support, oppose, etc.. This is the fundamental issue here, not the silly language issues that you are nitpicking. In one of the edits, Obow said he was in college, and you are not in college. Here's an idea: you fabricated the "I'm in college" comment to throw suspicion off yourself. Whether or not this was your intent is irrelevent, however; like I said, the main evidence is that each one of their edits have been in votes in which you have also voted in the exact same way. There is nothing you can say to refute this; it is no mere coincidence.
You admitted to telling them that these votes were occurring; however, there is no message on their talk pages, so you must have contacted them outside Wikipedia. If you did this, it was meat puppetry, but it really has no logical sense. If these people do actually exist, isn't it a bit odd that the only edits they've made were to talk pages for votes? They claim to know about Wikipedia policy (they obviously do not, but that is an entirely different matter), but they haven't made any edits to the main namespace. If these are in fact real people, I suspect they would've made at least one edit in the mainspace. The only logical explanation is that you made these edits yourself, that these are your sock puppets. At the very least, they are meat puppets, but if I were Rjensen and wanted to try to sway consensus in my favor, I wouldn't contact my friendd and ask them to register accounts on Wikipedia and vote. I'd just do it myself. Regardless of whether or not the accounts are operated by another physical person, you obviously control the accounts, as they have voted the exact same way as you, and you admitted to contacting them to help in the votes, so they are effectively your sock puppets. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 11:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Cielomobile goes on and on, but he has no standing to do so since he never edited the article under discussion. Rjensen 19:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't destroy my credibility in regards to your sock puppetry. This discussion is not about the move; it is about your sock puppet activities (which, again, you have yet to respond to). -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 23:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out Wikipedia's policy regarding cases in which it is difficult to ascertain whether the puppets are sock puppets or meat puppets. According to Wikipedia:Sock_puppet#Meatpuppets, "when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one individual." This was a decision made by the ArbCom; so there is no wiggling room here. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 23:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I flatly deny the sock puppet charge. The other two folks are real people who have their own opinions (different from mine) and did not create new accounts to join this debate. If any administrator wants to check he should ask them directly. Rjensen 23:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I suggest that a checkuser be filed. --BenBurch 13:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Ok, I can do that, but it wouldn't be able to clear him if the results are not conclusive, seeing as he could have easily edited these accounts from different IPs, used proxies, or had other people make these edits (if they are meat puppets and not sock puppets). -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 06:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I began to file a request, but this case did not fit any of the situations which call for a CheckUser. These accounts are obvious sock/meat puppets, and it is rather obvious that Rjensen is the puppeteer. Whether or not he himself made the edits is irrelevent, as I've already explained; in cases in which it is not clear whether the puppet accounts are meat or sock puppets, they are to be treated as sock puppets. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 06:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It would be nice if an admin could take a look at this case. It's been sitting here for over 3 weeks. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 06:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    • The charges are false and were brought by Cielomobile in revenge for my allegations of fraud on his part, for systematically deceiving administrators. Rjensen 14:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Do you have a link to where your allegations of fraud are? Wjhonson 15:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
        • yes: Talk:Conservatism in the United States is where it all happened. Rjensen 22:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
          • The discussion there only prompted me to realize that Rjensen was using sock puppets to create the impression of consensus. The two puppets in question both voted "SUPPORT" in the exact same style within a short period of time. Upon further investigation, it became obvious that Rjensen was controlling the puppets. I actually considered one of the other users who had voted in the discussion might be the puppeteer, but he had no link to the puppets, unlike Rjensen, who was linked to them in every possible way. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 03:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Cielomobile was deceiving administrators then and has not changed. His allegations are based not on "a short period of time" (whatever that means) or revenge, and are false. He has never denied the allegation of systematic deception on his part--that there was no need for a debate or vote on changing the name of the article. Rjensen 04:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Your assertions are not only absurd, but irrelevent. Your attempt to discredit my argument by attacking me is what is known as an ad hominem argument. I do deny your assertion that that I have decieved administrators, but I'm not going to play any of these ridiculous games with you anymore. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 03:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It's now been one entire month since this was filed. Any admins out there? -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 03:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Cielomobile still does not deny his guilt in tricking administrators. Rjensen 04:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
      • "I do deny your assertion that that I have decieved administrators." That was one line up. Now I'm truly done playing your games. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 05:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Cielomobile tricked administrators into moving American Conservatism without any discussion or votte whatsoever--does he deny that? It's what the fuss is all about. He never once edited the article. His statements on this page are an effort to gain revenge. Rjensen 05:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I've already explained the move several times, but it has nothing to do with your sockpuppetry. You have yet to make any valid explanation for the voting patterns posted in my initial evidence (except that you asked them to vote for you, which in itself is meat puppetry and a violation of WP:SOCK). -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 17:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Conclusions
Confirmed socks see:[130] for evidence. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 16:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Gardez Bien

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Gardez Bien (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Simpledays (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Macionis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Thisisbossi 12:17 15 January 2007 (UTC)
RebelAt 14:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
JuJube 02:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


Evidence

Maryland

Montgomery County, Maryland

Prince George's County, Maryland

Virginia

Comments

Edits by the users Simpledays (talk ;; contrib) and Gardez Bien (talk ;; contrib) have been extremely similar in nature and have been repeatedly posted in the same manner, without any response, and likewise reverted by other members working on the articles. The articles include Maryland, Montgomery County, Maryland, Prince George's County, Maryland, and Virginia. The edits typically refer to the ceding of land from the two counties to form DC; and also economic information regarding the life sciences. Both topics have been worked into the article elsewhere and were not deemed worthy of being in the introductory paragraph.

Note on Virginia edits: Simpledays edits to the Virginia article concern a paragraph that Gardez Bien pointed out in a discussion on the Discussion Page and began at approximately the same time as Simpledays' other edits.

With regards to Macionis, it should be noted that the user's first edit was a posting to the 3 Revert Rule noticeboard, which occurred nearly 40 minutes after the blocking of Simpledays and indicates a knowledge of both the rule in itself and that Simpledays had been blocked. Posting that amount of text onto the noticeboard requires some knowledge of how Wikipedia functions -- seemingly an advanced task for a user's first edit.

Conclusions
Socks See:[131] for evidence Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 16:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Matthvm

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Matthvm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
(Banned in August 2006, but still making sockpuppets)

Suspected sockpuppets

Matthvm2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Markhamman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Retsopllib (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Tacnam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
D052 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
Helpper (talk · contribs · count · logs · email)

Report submission by

Sprocket 21:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

I believe the aforementioned users are sockpuppets/meatpuppets of the blocked user Matthvm. Matthvm was a user originally permablocked here for persistant legal threats, incivility, and sock/meatpuppetry. Following the investigation, the following sockpuppets of his were blocked indefinitely:

They seem to have the same interests (Nova Scotia towns, transportation), and they've all exhibited a dislike towards treating a regional municipality as a location. Both Markhamman and Matthvm2 have accused me of having an "agenda" when I try to argue that an R.M. and a community are both locations, and Markhamman has been reverting my edits without commenting on my reasoning at all. Also, on Markhamman's user talk page, Matthvm popped by here to tell Markhamman to ignore me; I thought the timing was a little suspicious, considering Matthvm2 hadn't edited any other time since November.

Matthvm has been using these accounts to evade a perma-block, while still retaining that incivility that helped to get him blocked in the first place. ([132] [133] [134] [135])

Both Markhamman and Retsopllib (formerly Bill poster) have been changing hundreds of Halifax-related articles, with an edit summary almost always similar to "Halifax Regional Municipality is regional municipality -not a place as per HRM website". Most of all these users also have a fondness for changing their username, and here, Markhamman commented on Retsopllib's name-change request.

Thanks!

Comments

Before trying this, I put in a checkuser request. It was denied; they said it should be placed here instead.

The same person may have edited under the following IPs. Both originate from public education facilities in Halifax, Nova Scotia.

  • 192.75.95.75
  • 142.227.239.232

Also, today, Markhamman apparently "quit" (see his user page) - I'm submitting this entry nonetheless, to prevent further abuse and to have the obvious sockpuppet accounts blocked. I have a feeling he may show up again in the future, under another sockpuppet.

Note Jan/20/07: Retsopllib also quit soon after Markhamman, and, like Markhamman did, left a note on Jimbo Wales' talk page.

Note Feb/18/07: I've added User:D052 to the list of suspected sockpuppets, because he wikilinks years the same way Retsopllib did. I've also added User:Helpper for the same reason, and also because he edited Retsopllib's user page.

Conclusions
see [136] too much data to render properly they are sock/meat puppets Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 16:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Mpfox2006

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Mpfox2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Eddie200700000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

—XhantarTalk 20:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Both accounts have made edits only to Noni, as of this writing. The edits are similar, adding the same spamlink to the article. Also, similar edit summaries were used. Mpfox2006 has already been warned for vandalism by Mckaysalisbury; see User talk:Mpfox2006. It is believed the puppet account was created to circumvent a possible 3RR violation.

Diffs: [137] [138] [139] [140]

Comments

Case can be closed/archived; both accounts have been indef blocked by Kafziel. Thank you.

Conclusions

All accounts blocked; closing. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Verdict

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Candyproof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Damon88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Idres (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Steve cold 360 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

↪Lakes (Talk) 12:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


Evidence

Candyproof's edits continue the same antics that the previous sockpuppets do (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Verdict for past incidents). ↪Lakes (Talk) 12:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Added Damon88 to the list. The constant edits related to Brock Lesnar along with a request for unprotection on that article goes along with the previous antics described in the first report. --  oakster  TALK  22:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Damon88 also removed Paulley's response to my talk page about himself [141]. ↪Lakes (Talk) 20:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note: This user has now taken to creating accounts and then waiting for a number of days in order to get around semi-protection on some of the pages he wishes to edit. For this reason, there are undoubtedly many more accounts created by this user waiting for the five days to pass. --Yamla 17:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:RCU might be a way to track down those sleeper accounts. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Conclusions

See also Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Verdict. All named accounts have been indef blocked; closing. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Kzrulzuall36

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Kzrulzuall36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

K2rulzuaIl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Kzrulzuall11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

bradkittenbrink 01:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

The accounts are named quite similarly, and their contributions (Special:Contributions/Kzrulzuall36, Special:Contributions/K2rulzuaIl, and Special:Contributions/Kzrulzuall11)are clustered in time and show a similar pattern of vandalism, replacing the entire page with their signature (~~~~)

Comments

Kzrulzuall36 has already been blocked by Kuru for vandalism at this point.

Conclusions

Never mind, all 3 of the accounts appear to have been blocked by now bradkittenbrink 02:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC) All 3 accounts indef blocked. Closing. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Planetary Chaos

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Planetary Chaos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

209.247.23.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
209.244.42.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
209.247.21.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
63.215.28.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by
Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 03:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


Evidence

Standard stuff, immediate knowledge of editing/policies/guidelines/procedures for new editors. All of these editors have come in effectively with a single purpose-to revert changes to the binary prefixes. One of them, after being asked about sock puppetry, effectively confirmed that these are either sock or meat puppets [142]. However, every one of them who has spoken exhibits a typing tendency characteristic of Planetary Chaos, namely, not using spaces after punctuation (especially periods or commas), or before sigs. Some examples:

  • Planetary Chaos: [143] (edit summary), [144].
  • 209.247.23.17: [145], [146], [147].
  • 209.244.42.183: [148]
  • 209.247.21.237: [149]
  • 63.215.28.13 has not engaged in any communication or used anything but auto edit summaries, so hasn't done anything which would exhibit the typing error, but has shown the same single-purpose behavior.

Given this same typing error (which is really not a very common one) being repeated this frequently, and all of the IP's repeating it being here for the same purpose (reverting binary prefix edits), it looks pretty clear to me that the same person is behind the edits. Planetary Chaos participated extensively in the discussion regarding the MOS change on this matter, but has not spoken to it or been involved after the anonymous reverts began. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 22:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Also noted that Planetary Chaos used vandalism templates on User talk:Sarenne regarding the binary content dispute [150], [151], [152], a practice also engaged in by the IP editors [153], [154], [155].

It appears these users are socks of Piratesofsml. Planetary Chaos has edited Doberman Pinscher and John Adams in pretty much the exact same vein of Piratesofxml, and Piratesofxml and his socks exhibit the same typing idiosyncrasy. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 06:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Comments

Well, ofcourse your wrong ,Sarenne could be a sock puppet of you and I could form evidence infavor of that also.But we will wait and see and when it comes back as no they are not the same how foolish you will look. Have a nice day.209.247.23.17 22:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If you really think Sarenne's my sock, please feel free to put a case up! I'd be happy to volunteer for a checkuser, for that matter. And I could be wrong, and if I am you have my apologies, and so does PC. However, it sure does look a lot like it to me, I wouldn't make an accusation unless I were quite sure I was correct. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 22:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of check user go ahead and check me against all the other whom you claim I am.209.247.23.17 22:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey I added my self and every one you say is me on check user.Hope the results smak you down a notch.209.247.23.17 23:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Came here via the AN/I thread. This editor is also linked with IP 63.3.11.2 (talk · contribs), which assisted the main account in edits to South Mountain Park in mid-January. In December and early January, 63.3.11.2 was used by a now indef blocked user and sockpupeteer. That user also edited from a number of dynamic IPs from the 209.24x range. The editor in question has a history of, among other things, taking a very US-centric approach to MOS issues (especially on Doberman Pinscher, which Planetary Chaos has also taken an interest in) and using multiple accounts and IPs to create the illusion of support for his actions. A past history with sock puppetry and checkuser cases would help explain the interest Planetary Chaos has shown in sockpuppetry cases, as evidenced by his talk page. There are other clues, but those some of the clearer ones.
At any rate, in light of the past history from these IP ranges, I think a request for checkuser is in order, to see if an indef block for this account is appropriate and to try to root out any sleepers. Since the anon coming from 209.24x is so confident that no link will be found to Planetary Chaos, I think it's a safe bet that the editor hasn't been editing from that ISP while logged in to that account, but it should still be possible to find a link to the old, blocked accounts, and from there the link to the dynamic IPs is blazingly obvious. -- Vary | Talk 03:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

What about 209.244.42.180 commenting on .183 talk page as .183 and signing .180 [156]?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pethr (talk • contribs) 05:39, 12 February 2007(UTC).

Also that was me editing South Mountain Park for some reason I kept getting logged out. Now, on to User:Sarenne and User:209.247.23.17 My Warning templates look like this and User:Vary knows all to well,we had our dealings over Princess Charming [157] and that was my mistake they were infact not vandalism (mistakes happen) now look at these templates and I'm willing to bet (looking at the time frame that User:Sarenne placed these first and User:209.247.23.17 replied inkind (im not taking up for the annon what he/she did was not right) [158] and [159] If you have any other questions for me please feel free to use my talk page if you want.  Planetary Chaos  Talk to me  17:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, leaving the warning templates was wrong on both sides, and I left a note asking Sarenne to stop it as well. However, the issue here is that it looks like you're an old friend of ours, User:Piratesofsml. You exhibit the same typing idiosyncracies, you've taken the same interests and edited the same articles, and he's even used the same IP ranges to revert war as are performing the massive binary reversions now! (He's also used an IP in the range you specifically stated was yours, at South Mountain Park.) Can you possibly explain all that? (By the way, the checkuser was declined on the grounds that the case is effectively proven by what's been pointed out anyway.) Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 17:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

As for the bianary prefix you will see that at the end I was all for using the new prefix and it was me who suggested that all articles using MB and GB be changed [160] As for Doberman,I my self have a Doberman undock uncropped so yes i edited there as well. Living in Virginia I also created a page about a lake Leesville Lake and inturn this lake is connected to Smith Mountain Lake that User:Piratesofsml has edited. As for my IP 63.3.11.2 I guess thats mine however that's not what my firewall says it is so I assume it is a shared IP. From what I read at checkuser [161]I would like it to say declined on the grounds that the case is effectively proven by what's been pointed out. But it says Unnecessary with no further comment.  Planetary Chaos  Talk to me  18:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahh I see, I just followed the trail and read User:jpgordon's talk page. But I am still at a loss I am not related or connected to Piratesofsml other than By editing the same (few) pages. I honestly don't know what to tell you except that there should be a checkuser performed on me.So Can I ask for one for my self?  Planetary Chaos  Talk to me  18:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You can ask, but if you looked at jpgordon's page, you'd note that CU isn't magic pixie dust. All checkuser can do is follow a technical trail. I'm noting you've still failed to explain any of these amazing coincidences here. (By the way, I recall Piratesofsml saying he was from Virginia too, the coincidences do just keep piling up, don't they?) You can certainly go file a checkuser request, but it's up to the reviewing checkuser whether performing it would be useful and appropriate. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 18:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I can not just explain this away as from what I read about Piratesofsml he is from Smith Mountain Lake. I however live in Roanoke, Virginia.There are many editors here from Virgina even an Administrator User:Vaoverland

http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Category:Lakes_of_Virginia Other this fact I honestly don't know what to tell you.  Planetary Chaos  Talk to me  19:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Also I was doing a Recent changes patrol when I ran across what Seraphimblade 2 described as "characteristic interest in the Founding Fathers' religious classification" Look at my contribs, and Talk page and time frames for verification.That is also how I stumbled in to the bianary prefix mess.  Planetary Chaos  Talk to me  19:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The edit in question was this one, in terms of the Founding Fathers. [162]. It does look like the revert was very soon after the old edit, which certainly does look like it was found on RC patrol, but the characteristic interest is still there, especially a revert without explanation of a non-vandal edit. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 21:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I was corrected labeling some things as being vandalism, that is why on my talk page you will see I used WP:NPOV now I just use the fact tag. And if I run across a vandle in rc that was on Thomas Jefferson and I corrected the edit would that make me Piratesofsml because the interest was there?No,I don't think so,but hey every one is entitled to their own beliefs.If you still think that I am Piratesofsml or any IP that you listed the go ahead and keep my User name here. But I would like you to fix this this mess. Thank You.  Planetary Chaos  Talk to me  22:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

  • My final comment.Attention to the Administrator who is going to review this case.Please see these diff diff

diff and many more while I was on RC patrol.Thank you.  Planetary Chaos  Talk to me  18:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions
see [163] for evidence. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 16:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Note: brought to this page via a request for review on IRC. I have reviewed this evidence. It seems sound to me, I'd concur with a conclusion that these IDs are probably the same editor, based on stylistic similarities. ++Lar: t/c 17:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The IPs are indef blocked as socks and the master account has been blocked for 1 month. Closing. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Gre paty

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Gre paty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Wikipedia Man12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Ytny (talk) 05:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

The puppet account was created after the master account was blocked (albeit for 15 minutes), and has been used to upload the same copyrighted images, under the same file names, with the same cryptic summaries and the same faulty image licenses.

See:

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

User:Jonathon_The_Impaler

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

ImpalingVamp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Impaler13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
VampKat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Familyof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
ImpalingVampyre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Butseriouslyfolks 16:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

ImpalingVamp and Impaler13 have only been used to edit Jonathon Sharkey. Impaler13 and ImpalingVamp both sign edit summaries Nel Sangue, Jonathon. Indefblocked user Jonathon The Impaler is a SPA purporting to be Jonathon Sharkey who signed edit summaries the same way. It is suspected that VampKat and Familyof are also sockpuppets of Jonathon The Impaler. All of the above sockpuppets were used to edit Jonathon Sharkey, the account Jonathon The Impaler was banned for editing because of numerous legal threats against Wikipedia in edit summaries. Butseriouslyfolks 16:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


Comments

It is me. Well, all the ones I signed Nel Sangue. The family of one, was my wife Spree. And VampKat is Kathleen Sharkey. Her aol acct. is VampKat.

The reason why I posted under the close, but different names, is because Wikipedia is ran by a bunch of cowards, who can't handle the heat.

Well next month when I'm in St. Pete, FL, let's see how hot this Satanic Vampyre can make it for the owner of Wikipedia.

I am sure you cowards will delete these remarks.

Now, get ready to have your pages screwed up by my people. Have fun making corrections...

Nel Sangue,

Jonathon "The Impaler" Sharkey

  • It should be noted that Kathleen Sharkey is an alias sometimes used by Jonathon Sharkey. He did have a sister by that name, but she died in infancy. So that makes VampKat, ImpalingVamp, Impaler13 and new user ImpalingVampyre admitted sockpuppets of indefblocked user Jonathon The Impaler. Butseriouslyfolks 21:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It should be noted that she is not the sister that died at birth. Also, I am still waiting for proof that I supposedly used her name. Our handwriting styles are totally different. Put up, or shut up!

Nel Sangue,

Jonathon "The Impaler" Sharkey

PS When is the movie about your life being premiered?

  • Probably a couple of days before you win an election.  ;-O Butseriouslyfolks 23:17, 19 February 2007

(UTC)

  • Remember, Wikipedia banned me for LEGAL Threats. Not illegal. If you can't take the heat from a Satanist, don't start the flames of Hades up!

Impaler won a Honorable Mention Award for Best Documentary. Praise be to Lucifer and the Goddess Hecate.

Is your documentary going to be about your worthless fatbutt life?

Nel Sangue,

Jonathon "The Impaler" Sharkey

  • Maybe I'll invite you over sometime to see my Certificates of Election. You're probably curious what one looks like. Butseriouslyfolks 20:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Conclusions
Please see [165] for conformation. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 18:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Irub Man

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Irub Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Bob Cigar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Bubjub (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Dublebuble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Erub (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Hububletelescope (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
I Love Baldur's Gate II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Irubcroix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Kenny Rubgers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Le ub (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Lub Ann Womack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Tony Shalub (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Trublecleft (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Ub8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Ubtastic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Williamxeses (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Brad Beattie (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

All accounts have continuous spamming of some random google video URL. After several warnings, user has continued to create new accounts. Upon identification, user abandons the identified account and creates a new one. --Brad Beattie (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Bob Cigar just popped up as his new alias. I haven't tagged the talk page as it would no doubt lead to another account being created. --Brad Beattie (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I think this may relate to my removal of the same google video 5680554127237156232 about Cairo, Illinois that was posted by 151.196.122.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [166]. --Dual Freq 17:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I was about to do it myself, but I'm just going to reccomend it here. You should bring this to WP:RFCU, so a checkuser can block the IP, the sleeper accounts, and all of the known sockpuppets after he/she confirms they are sockpuppets. Iced Kola 20:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I think a checkuser request is a bit over my head. I have no idea if this case meets the strict requirements laid out at WP:RFCU and since I'm not an admin I won't be able to block anyone regardless of the outcome. I'm simply adding additional evidence to this sock puppet case since the video is obscure enough that it seems likely that the IP user is the sock puppeteer. --Dual Freq 21:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I added a checkuser request. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser#Irub Man et all. --Brad Beattie (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I know that Dual Freq, I was talking to BradBeattie :-). Also, this is actually a good case for WP:RFCU, I already opened up two cases like this. Iced Kola 22:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I've become aware now that my IP address has been banned to due use of accounts(some listed here) that I do not own. I don't have an account at all and I read through the articles and decide to every so often fix one, revert vandalism, etc. After searching through the accounts it claims I have, I have reached here. I would like to plead that I don't want this IP banned for the sake of those who edit like me. I believe this must be a shared IP, or someone has gotten on and abused it at least. That's all I have to say about that. 71.179.12.119 01:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Now that it is confirmed, what is the next step? --Dual Freq 17:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw "what links here" at my userpage and I see this page. Why am I on here? Igfi 04:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Your username or IP address has been connected via checkuser. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser#Irub Man et all. I'm not sure exactly how, but most of the other users have vandalized wikipedia by adding links to a google video as noted above. --Dual Freq 05:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added the Google Video link to Shadowbot's spam blacklist. Shadow1 (talk) 13:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Results were confirmed by checkuser for:

  1. Bob Cigar
  2. Bubjub
  3. Dublebuble
  4. Erub
  5. Girlub
  6. Glubrub
  7. Hububletelescope
  8. I Love Baldur's Gate II
  9. I visit le hub?
  10. Igfi
  11. Irub Man
  12. Irubcroix
  13. Kenny Rubgers
  14. Le ub
  15. Lub Ann Womack
  16. Massub
  17. Private Bubutcher
  18. Private Butcher
  19. The Kwinks
  20. User:Thehubnub
  21. Tony Shalub
  22. Trublecleft
  23. Ub8
  24. Ubtastic
  25. Ultiub
  26. Who is ub?
  27. Williamxeses

All named accounts listed as suspected sock puppets have been indef blocked as vandalism-only accounts. --Akhilleus (talk) 08:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Nationalist

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Chunghwa Pride (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Vic226 03:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


Evidence

I will be crystal clear about my points here, since this is the third time for us to file the sockpuppeteer abuse against Nationalist.

Comments

Chunghwa Pride is indef blocked; Nationalist was blocked for 1 month starting 6 Feb. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions


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

User:Tony360X

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Tony360X (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Cockmaster500 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
BigFrank100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
24.23.201.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

pbryan 03:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

In the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversial literature page, sudden support with similar misspellings to keep the article have occurred. Furthermore, an IP address was used anonomyously, but signed as a registered user. I have indicated my suspicion in the disussion page. I expect further investigation (e.g. IP address correlation) will provide corroboration.

I can explain the misspelling. I did not take the time to use spell check and I apologize for that. BigFrank100
"You" misspelled it three five times in the same paragraph, all in the exact same way Tony360X has consistently misspelled this word throughout all of his contributions. pbryan 05:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
"BigFrank100" has now corrected his spelling in the AfD discussion page. pbryan 04:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow, thanks for the announcement about my correction. When do I hear the news that you’re pregnant pbryan? LOL - BigFrank100

Further talk page contributions by User:BigFrank100 reveals other grammatical idioms as is used by User:Tony360X: the frequent use of "cause" instead of "because", prefacing offensive statements with "no offense, but ...". pbryan 06:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Saying "no offense, but ..." is not evidence. Many people say "no offense, but ..." -- Tony360X

User:Cockmaster500 and User:BigFrank100 both have misspelled harass in the same way (harras). See User talk:Cockmaster500, Talk:Controversial_literature. pbryan 20:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

They both sign comments on Talk pages by manually typing links to their User pages without dates, instead of using the conventional shortcuts ~~~ or ~~~~. Examples of mistakes they have made in attempting this same uncommon method of signing are diff for User:Tony360X and diff for User:BigFrank100. Pomte 04:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments
  • Wow pbryan are you that desperate to have the Controversial literature article deleted that you have to go around making false accusations that I’m a puppet of this Tony 360X. He has made an article so useful that two professors at Stanford are going to be using it. Can I ask you what have you done for Wikipedia or even with your life? BigFrank100, Sunday February 11 2007; 9:22 PM.
  • In your user page, you have the same style of ending all of your lines with line breaks <br>. This, along with the fact "you" misspelled article (artical) three five times in the same way as Tony360X has consistently misspelled it, along with the creation of your account on the same day you voiced your opinion in the delete page: these amount to circumstancial evidence far too coincidental for me to reasonably doubt that you are anything but a sock puppet of Tony360X. pbryan 05:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Conclusions
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Bradles 01

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Bradles 01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Force Pavilion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Jane 01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Bradles 02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Gimboid13 05:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


Evidence


Comments


Conclusions


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

User:Homo erectus3000

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Homo erectus3000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Homo erectus reborn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by


K.Z Talk • Vandal • Contrib 23:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence
  • Similar names
  • Vandalised same user space (User:Kzrulzuall)
  • Homo erectus3000 and Homo erectus3001 were both blocked for SSP previously, thus homo erectus reborn
Comments
  • Seems to be already blocked, just wanted to raise awareness.
Conclusions

Both accounts indef blocked. Closing. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Der Eberswalder

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Der Eberswalder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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


Report submission by

jergen 19:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

User:Familienoriginalbenutzer was created by User:Der Eberswalder on February 6, 2007 [177]. On de.wikipedia de:Benutzer:Der Eberswalder was blocked infinitely for abuse of sockpuppets after a positive checkuser request [178]. de:Benutzer:Familienoriginalbenutzer was one of his many sockpuppets.

Comments

Familienoriginalbenutzer is a colleague of me who uses the same provider (imagine.ie) and who asked me to create an account for him because imagine's IPs are usually blocked. --Der Eberswalder 09:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions
data in conclusive see: [179] Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 15:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Jonathan ryan

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Jonathan ryan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Mohammed Hamadiyah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

kylemacd 17:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Both of these accounts are obsessed with adding references and images of Jonathan Ryan to pages about the 7/7 London Bombers.

See the history of: Germaine Lindsay Hasib Hussain 7 Colenso Mount

Also, in the text that Mohammed Hamadiyah added to Germaine Lindsay he said:

At the time,Lindsay met Jonathan Ryan (aka,Mohammed Abu Abdullah Hamadiyah), also a Convert to Islam.

I think that's pretty much an admission. kylemacd 17:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments
Conclusions

They have both been indef blocked (Ryan for copyright violations, and his sock for being a sock), so there's no need for this anymore. · AndonicO Talk 11:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Closing. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:WzMG5LJ

Suspected sockpuppeteer

WzMG5LJ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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


Report submission by

Squirepants101 21:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

This IP address originated from Guatemala and claims that CRWXT is not a sockpuppet of WzMG5LJ. Note that on WzMG5LJ's user page (now indefinitely blocked), he reveals that he lives in Guatemala. The user page was deleted than recreated with the indefinitely blocked tag. Also note that on the his user page, he reveals that he is a sockpuppeteer (Betos00, CRWXTr7, CRWXT were his sockpuppets. All of them have been blocked indefinitely).

Comments
Conclusions
No link between users. I dont think they are socks. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 15:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Benjiwolf

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Silence-of-the-Wolves (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Ttguy 13:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Benjiwolf was blocked [180] - 17:13, 15 February 2007 for 24hrs Silence-of-the-Wolves created an account 17hrs later [181] at 10:40, 16 February 2007 Silence of the Wolves then made edits on all the pages Benjiwolf had previously been editing [182].

The comment on Silence of the Wolves user page states "the name says it all". Ie Benjiwolf feels like he has been silenced. Ttguy 13:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence by AuburnPilot

Benjiwolf has now admitted that s/he is using the above alleged sockpuppets. S/he states "i may no longer edit at all...i may decide to edit with the hard right character "silence of the wolves" on some few occasions...yet this character "benjiwolf" is leaving wikipedia." [183] auburnpilot talk 18:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Daniel575

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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


Report submission by

Yossiea (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

User GS has been contributing to the same articles, and in the same manner as Daniel575. In addition, Daniel575 has stated numerous times that he lives in Givat Shaul, and he is from the Netherlands. Besides contributing to Israeli articles, he is also contributing to articles about The Netherlands. Yossiea (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, both Daniel575 and GivatShaul are obsessed with the Egged Buses. Both respond testily to anybody challenging their ideas (the reason Daniel was banned to begin with).--Meshulam 21:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Also, this would be his 4th or 5th sockpuppet attempt. Yossiea (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Danh90

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Danh90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

81.149.196.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Nonpayer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
135.196.237.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Timewaste (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
How3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Lou22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Thevandal999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Kburps (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Notenough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Oldman50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Idontliketheimage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Theman0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

-Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 12:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

All accounts used to vandalise Phil Mitchell, Sonia Fowler and Ben Mitchell (EastEnders). Some of the sock puppets were blocked, and one of them said in an edit summary that if the pages were semi-protected; they would stop (see here)

However, since articles have been semi-protected, the user has used the Danh90 account, an established account, to vandalise Phil Mitchell.

{Note: Also, now some of the accounts are old enough to edit semi-protected pages, they are being used to vandalise - i.e. Timewaste)

Also, an account called "Timewaste" has been used to vandalise the EastEnders article on the Spanish Wikipedia - see edit.

Comments

my aplogies i had found out his date of birth on his eastenders profile i will change it to his proper birth year now User:danh90(talk)

And also vandalised the article by adding "fat", as the other incarnations have done. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 15:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Conclusions
Please see: [186] the sock evidence. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 19:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
This evidence makes it clear that they are all the same person - will any action be taken? -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 12:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Bradles 01

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Bradles 01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Bradles 02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Gimboid13 09:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


Evidence
  • Username is a give-away.
  • Recreated the article Sports trainer previously the subject of several edits and discussion (and possibly created?) by Bradles 01 and deleted on 12/1/2007. See edit summaries at Special:Contributions/Bradles_01.
Comments

Bradles 01 has an indef block. Gimboid13 09:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Bradles 02 has now removed the suspected sockpuppet notice from his/her user page [187] and placed an abusive message on my talk page [188] without actually addressing the accusation of sock puppetry. Gimboid13 06:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

All i am trying to do is create an article to improve wikipedia, an article that in my opinion was wronfully deleted in the first place, nothing wrong with trying to improve wikipedia. Secondly, this twit (Gimboid13) needs to stop involving him/herself in issues that do not concern him/her, furthermore, the comment left on the talk page is not 'abusive' don't believe check it out for yourself! (Bradles 02 00:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC))

Conclusions

Bradles 02 was indefinitely banned on 18 February 2007 as a sock puppet. Sports Trainer was deleted (again)

This user had another sock, User:Jane_01, which has also been blocked indefinitely [189].

For future reference this user's real name is probably Bradley Anderson [190] or Bradleigh Andrews [191] and he's probably Australian

andy 11:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Both accounts are indef blocked; closing. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:The1uncle

Suspected sockpuppeteer

The1uncle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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


Report submission by
Steve.Moulding 18:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


Evidence
Multiple hoax pages on the same and closely related subjects created over a short period of time. No legitimate pages created by either ID. Several pages created by The1uncle already Speedily Deleted
All hoax pages created by User:Emperian were Speedily Deleted today by admins.
See this and the following 10 or so pages in my deletion log for examples. All articles are written in the same style, are about the same geographic region and have the same style of bogus references. IronGargoyle 00:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Also see here for copy still in undeleted page history since it has been turned into a redirect. IronGargoyle 00:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Both edits are the only ones made on Feb 14th by the respective Users, are both Musician biographies and both refererence the same website www.discogs.com

Comments
Conclusions

Check user request confirmed sock puppet. http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/The1uncle

Steve.Moulding 18:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
User:Emperian blocked indefinitely on 17 February 2007 -- Steve.Moulding 23:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

,

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

User:Starwars1955

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Starwars1955 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

LOTR04 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
AllStar27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
BrettFavreFoxSports (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Superbowl25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Potter80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
March16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
BevKim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Lakers89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
SpaceMountain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
TheQueenHMS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Galaxy071 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Alyssa00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Malibu55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
BeverlyHills85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
GrowingPains1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
FamilyTies82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
LadyVols (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
(See also Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Starwars1955 for previously reported and banned sockpuppets)


Report submission by

PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 06:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Adam Weeden 12:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


Evidence

Similar edits and edit summaries as previously identified sockpuppets as well as the original user - see [192], [193], [194] compared to previous sockpuppets [195] and others, [196] and others. In addition he makes special mentions of distaste for certain editors, including myself, who had not edited in over a week, despite this sockpuppet's having never edited this page prior to that day, while seeming to "agree" with his other sockpuppet.

Comments
Conclusions

These accounts have all been blocked as very obvious sockpuppets. No discussion necessary. Grandmasterka 21:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

A range block of 4.245.120.0/24, 4.245.121.0/24, and 4.245.122.0/24 has been enacted to prevent Starwars1955 from operating more puppets--see this Checkuser request (with even more usernames) and discussion at AN/I. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC) All named accounts are indef blocked, no new names added for 5 days. Closing. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:RunedChozo


It has been asserted that the user RunedChozo has been using the account NotAWeasel as a sockpuppet for the following reason:

  • The majority of use by the account NotAWeasel, coincides with a period in which RunedChozo was blocked from editing.
  • Similarities in edit history. Note the focus in both users edit histories for articles relating to Beit Hanoun
  • The similar strange habit of adding new sections to talk pages by editing a pre-existing section as noted here and here
  • The unique claim of the feelings of ownership of the article PlayStation Portable by the user ZakuSage for both users on the same day as seen here/here and here.

It should also be noted that in the past this user has been confirmed to be engaged in the act of sock puppetry with the use of the account Wheelygood, and by acting as a separate person with the IP 129.7.35.126.

If anyone else has further evidence please add them here. - ZakuSage 21:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

  • As discussed at here at WP:AN/I, I believe there is need for a thorough CU on this case. Regards, Asteriontalk 03:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

The user RunedChozo has been using the account NotAWeasel to personally harass me in some sort of sick grudge in both editing the article PlayStation Portable and in editing the article's talk page. After the sockpuppet account was banned, the puppeteer user continued to harass me by falsely claiming that I was attempting to claim ownership over the same article. He then went way out of line by making entirely false accusations on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#ZakuSage|Administrator's noticeboard]]. I fear continued harassment by this user and will be seeking further help in dealing with him. In the meantime I would like him exposed as the sockpuppeteer he is. - ZakuSage 19:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You have no evidence and no case. I have no relation to NotAWeasel, I note that wikipedia policy mentions that users on contentious issues like Beit Hanoun will often arrive. I note that YOU have serious page ownership issues and continually revert any changes made to the PSP article since your version some months ago. I am also tired of your harassment campaign against me.RunedChozo 21:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw his claim, despite your illegal removal of comments that you just didn't like, and I saw that it had meaning. There's nothing to your so-called proof and you know it. RunedChozo 23:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place to talk about this, but not only were his/your comments entirely disruptive, they were a personal attack which has no place on Wikipedia and I was entirely justified in removing it. - ZakuSage 00:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
If you can confidently assert you're not him, why don't you agree to a checkuser? My experience, and that of others, is that users tend to puff and blow smoke when asked for a checkuser if it'll turn up true, but they'll jump at the chance to clear their name if not. So how about it, RunedChuzo? Patstuarttalk|edits 00:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This case is just ZakuSage's bad faith and a method by which he is harassing me. He's done so on a temp page I am working on to try to improve an article, he's lied about me and other users, and he is behaving in nothing but bad faith. I have no problem with a CheckUser because I know it will clear me, just as I know it has already shown before that I am not the person he is accusing me of being. RunedChozo 19:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This user is now engaging in moving the report for vandalism purposes. - ZakuSage 20:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I got confused about what was being created, because the filthy liar ZakuSage KEPT CREATING THIS LYING BULLCRAP IN MY USER SPACE. I apologize for moving it and THIS page I won't move again. RunedChozo 20:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
THAT was moved long ago. Please cease your childish behavior, I have already reported you for vandalism. - ZakuSage
Conclusions

All named accounts have been indef blocked. Closing. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Wizardbrad

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

CSMASTER84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
FGreen1989 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Krator 23:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence


Comments
  • Note that I'm on the 'keep' side of this AfD, and just want to have this discussion as clear of puppets as possible.
Conclusions

Confirmed by checkuser. CSMASTER84, Ccfr88, FGreen1989 and BlackMateria all blocked indefinitely, and Wizardbrad given a final warning. Daniel.Bryant 23:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Quicklinks:

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

User:RRJ

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Chiving (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Bob74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Cosmopolitancats (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.139.6.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by
Jhamez84 01:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


Evidence

I strongly suspect that this is a case of ongoing sockpuppetry. The evidence relates to the contribution history (and seemingly instantly found co-operation) of these accounts, and insistance that uncited, biased, unhelpful comments be included on the Altrincham article.

Inline with WP:REF, WP:V and particularly WP:NOR, I've asked for citation regarding comments, which I veiw as an effort to POV fork an obscure and dis-used system of British geography (which further goes against the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places)).

The comments relate to how they believe this system is common place in large numbers in one particular settlement - which I, and others, find objectionable. And the accounts seem to be created to add weight to this view.

I've left warnings and messages of policy support at User Talk:137.205.8.2 which promptly provoked the creation of User:Bob74 (which recieved a very similar message from myself) whom in turn left both this and this incivility.

I've also tried to outline Wikipedia's position on this here, which just lead to lately recieving this unhelpful threat.

A swift investigation would help before this spirals further. Thank you, Jhamez84 01:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


Comments

I am cosmopolitancats and have no idea how I am supposed to respond to this. I am not a sock puppet of RRJ or any of the other people mentioned. I am extremely surprised to find this accusation as a response to view is expressed in good faith, with reference to wikipedia guidance found on the site and with expert knowledge.

I should like it noted that I happened on this accusation of sock puppetry completely by chance. In the message to me on my talk page jhavez84 makes no reference whatsoever to this accusation of sock puppetry. I didn't find this very helpful or constructive and suspect this may have influenced my response below.

To refute the accusation:

1) I really don't understand the accusation of "seemingly instantly found co-operation". I happened upon the page because I used to live there and happened to check it out one day - and walked into what seemed to be a big row about naming conventions. So far as subsequent contributions are concerned, presumably the accuser is aware that a page can be watched and that although my main contributions are in other areas I returned to check this page out any changes or comments made which led to further comments. Isn't this the way wikipedia works? How can this provide evidence of and lead to an accusation of sock puppetry?

2) My account was not created as an instantaneous response to points being made on the page about the locality in question. The accuser has not identified specifically how the various accounts identified have a related contribution history so it is difficult to refute what he has in mind.

3) I have an established record of contributions in other areas of wikipedia - including identifying articles which were sub-standard (completely unrelated to geography and naming conventions) well in advance of commenting on the page in question. According to my contribution history my earliest contribution is May 2006 - on a completely unrelated matter (ie my account was not created to comment on the page in dispute. I only started contributing to the page in dispute on 9 December 2006.

4) I commented on the page in question as a view was being taken by Jhavez84 about a common practice relating to naming in a locality (repeated in his accusation) - which I know to be true and he was stating his belief was untrue. In addition to local knowledge I have a degree in geography from Cambridge and my dissertation was on local government reorganisation and the perceptual geography of boundaries (ie where boundaries are in people's heads as opposed to current administrative boundaries) which took as its subject the metropolitan borough of Trafford in which Altrincham is located hence I have some considerable expert knowledge of the issue in question and is why I commented. I understood at the time that expert knowledge was accepted. The talk header has been added since the dispute started and it would have been most advantageous in averting the dispute if that header had been inserted at a much earlier stage as it points to policy on original research.

5) I did comment on the multiple accounts to the effect that if you lose your password you have to create another account to continue contributing to wikiedpia and that should be borne in mind before making assertions about the use of multiple accounts. As it is I have had only one account since I started.

6) I edited the page once not realising that I was not logged in and subsequently logged in and tried to remedy the record. I'm not quite sure whether what I did was right or not but I was certainly never trying to hide my identity other than completely unintentionally.

6) I did agree with the accuser that the article needed to be improved and pointed to the guidance which existed that I could find.

I now understand that my original research is not acceptable however I can dig out the references for the perceptual geography issues which relate to this area - which are published documents. If I need to provide citations then I would expect somebody with a remit to improve an article and with more knowledge of wikipedia policy to provide guidance on the type of citation required. This did not happen. What I got was somebody stating what their belief was.

I would comment that I do find it very odd that wikipedia appears to accept items from newspapers which are notorious for getting facts wrong and does not for a piece of research done for a Cambridge degree.

My agreement with others of a view that the accuser does not agree should not generate an accusation of sock puppetry. I would suggest there is a disagreement - which may, in part, be due to people not understanding all aspects of wikipedia policy. I would expect those with greater knowledge to exhibit that knowledge on discussion pages - as to rights and wrongs of content - rather than to resort to accusing people of sock puppetry.

I think the reason why people may be getting agitated is that those with local knowledge of a specific area feel that they are being accused of being liers (ie their statements as current local practice is not believed). There must be a way in which wikipedia can record both fact as to current naming according to wikipedia conventions and administrative process and fact as to current naming conventions in use within a locality (ie as a result of perceptual geography and local cultural issues which should be respected). I have been looking for guidance on how this might be done. I have no dispute whatsoever with the fact that Altrincham is not in Cheshire. I'm at a loss to know how one validates local practices. I'm minded to refer the article in question to the pages of the local newspaper to see what sort of response it generates.

I find the comments about 'whacking the traditional county activitists' on the accusers talk pages to be most concerning - although I do recognise that the comments were not personally made by the accuser. It suggests to me that there is a group taking an apparently 'aggressive' stance on a naming matter which fails to accept that there maybe needs to be some more debate about finding a way of respecting local cultural issues at the same time as correctly reporting administrative naming conventions. Or does Wikipedia omit all references to culture when it has a narrative about a place? For the record I am not a traditional county activist in any way shape or form - but I do like to see recognition of a form of geography which is just as real as postal districts. This is especially important when administrative boundaries change so often. It's also particularly pertinent to much wider issues concerning boundary issue and disputes and cultures within the world as a whole and I would have thought both wikipedia and individual contributors need to be mindful of behaving in a very sensitive and respectful way in relation to such matters. Would it not be more helpful to point to the place where these debates about wikipedia policy and naming conventions are being held so that we can all contribute?

I would very much welcome a swift investigation of this as I know I'm not a sock puppet and I am very saddened by the behaviour of the person reporting me. I questioned his views on the basis on a wikipedia article extant at the time - which has interestingly been changed since I expressed my views. I can only rely on wikipedia policy guidelines that I find. Check the version of the one I quoted at the time I quoted it.

An approach which involves levelling accusations at people as to sock puppetry and trolling on the basis of the evidence presented:

  • is not likely to generate active and constructive contributions from people interested in improving an article.
  • does not seem to me to accord with the wikipedia policy of accepting what people say in good faith
  • appears to seek to exclude debate and discussion in an appropriate form.
  • does not seem to be the ideal first step towards a constructive resolution of the dispute and/or arbitration.

It seems to me that the dispute in question may well need arbitration - and guidance as to how to do that.

I suggest jhavez84 in particular needs to consider the following notions:

  • all the people he has identified as sock puppets are in fact separate individuals (ie I know I'm not one and suspect the others aren't either)
  • they may have a point worthy of further exploration in a civilised and constructive way
  • accepting what people say in good faith is a basic tenet - the question should be how to cooperate to find a way to express in an article in a way which conforms to wikipedia guidance - which may need to be revisited from time to time

What saddens me the most is that the most amount of effort is going into a very small aspect of what this article should be about. It's effectively distracting time attention and effort from the improvement of the article to a good standard. Witness the time I have had to take to respond to this wrongful accusation. Cosmopolitancats 11:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Cosmopolitancats had an extensive contribution history on Pastel, Pencil, Sketch, and similar art articles for months before getting involved in this issue. Clearly not a sockpuppet.

Chiving and Bob74 are closer to Wikipedia:Single purpose accounts, but haven't contributed since November, and that, with the combination of Jhamez84 stopping contributing soon after making the accusation, the false accusation above, and the apparent triviality of the dispute (which I intend to nominate for Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars) leads me to leave them alone also.

Closing with no action. Apologies to Cosmopolitancats for taking so long to close and it had nothing to do with how mice feel about cats. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

,

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

User:Germanium

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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


Report submission by

Trovatore 04:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Tossing the same word salad about 1/0 and Gödel's incompleteness theorems that Germanium was spamming at theory of everything. See for example [197]. --Trovatore 04:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The IP user spoke for Germanium on his talk page. [198]. CMummert · talk 04:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Indef blocked user Germanium.

Conclusions

They seem likely related, but the IP has not been disruptive nor edited recently, and we do not normally block IPs for extended periods of time. Therefore, no action will be taken at this time. -- Natalya 18:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Verdict

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Greatkhali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Martin181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Robertsir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Coolvanillaboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Rockaway360 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Badassguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Thomas86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Chingchongwang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Kidj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

IP addresses

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

Report submission by

SteveLamacq43 00:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Paulley 15:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Lakes 10:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

New user account was created on January 4, a day after the suspected puppeteer blanked their former talk page. New users edits are pretty much identical to that of banned user Verdict. They have edited Brock Lesnar with the same vandalism, removal of formatting, nonsense and other disruptive edits for which Verdict was banned.

Martin181's Brock Lesnar edit
Verdict's Brock Lesnar edit

Both users have also uploaded the same images with no rationale to use on the article. Verdict's versions have since been deleted but logs are here. Martin 181's logs are here.

Comments

I have just added another suspected sockpuppet the also makes edits to both Batista and Brock Lesnar the same as the above two. --- Paulley 15:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I've added another sockpuppet who makes exactly the same edits to Brock Lesnar as the above three. SteveLamacq43 15:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I added another one who was created right after Martin181 was blocked for 10 days. He then asked for the autoblock on Martin's IP to be lifted...and asked for Lesnar to be unprotected. Way too many coincidences. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This user has continued to set up accounts to avoid the block, and to edit from an anonymous IP address (213.113.231.253 (talk · contribs)). Additionally, the user has continued to request unblocks using these sockpuppets, and on unblock-en-l. Initially, I was willing to consider an unblock if this user was able to show good faith and avoid any further violations of policy for a period of three months. This user has continued to waste the time of several administrators, however. As such, I strongly recommend this user not be unblocked for at least a year. --Yamla 19:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This user indicated in email to me today that he has no intention of abiding by Wikipedia's block and plans to continue creating abusive sockpuppets. His IP address has been blocked by another admin for six months. The consensus on unblock-en-l is to ban him for at least a year and possibly indefinitely if his abuse continues. --Yamla 15:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Added a new one. Badassguy does the same edits as previous sockpuppets. ↪Lakes (Talk) 10:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thomas86 continues Badassguy's work. ↪Lakes (Talk) 13:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Added a new one. Chingchongwang is a meatpuppet used by Verdict to soley agree with his edits. --- Paulley
And more keep coming. Kidj this time. ↪Lakes (Talk) 16:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment:

--Akhilleus (talk) 06:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

all named accounts are indef blocked; ip is blocked for 6 months. Closing. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Huseregrav

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

66.90.137.157‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (Confirmed puppet)
Drtuttle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (Now confirmed)
Noliesplease (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

The Kinslayer 15:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Special:Contributions/Huseregrav
http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Special:Contributions/66.90.137.157
http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Special:Contributions/Drtuttle
http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Special:Contributions/Noliesplease

Husregarv started edit warring an certain articles (listed below in comments), until myself and User:Olliegrind started questioning his reasons. He then stopped and immediately afterwards the IP started carrying on doing exactly the same thing. The IP was banned for violating 3RR, and after that Drtuttle did the same thing, although that account tried poorly to convince myself and Ollie to go with his idea, even though Ollie and I had provided multiple sources to support our idea about the genre, and his sole argument was essentially 'We all disagree, so we have to go with my (Drtuttles) idea until I say otherwise.' After the IPs ban was finished, Drtuttle suddenly went inactive, and the IP resumed warring on the articles. The Kinslayer 15:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, suspicion on the Drtuttle account came about when he joined in The Sword discussion on around the 8th claiming to be new, yet his edit history showed he had edited The Sword on December the 22nd. The Kinslayer 23:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The IP address has now returned from his ban and has resumed vandalising all references to The Sword again. Same M.O. as last time. Any chance of an admin actually doing something about it this time? The Kinslayer 11:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

The user has been behind a systematic campaign against any articles referring to the band The Sword. The user removes all reference to The Sword being a Doom Metal band from the following articles: List of doom metal bands, Heavy metal music, 2006 in metal and consistently blanks all information on Age of Winters apart from the track listing. Myself and another editor have repeatedly asked for reasoning and provided evidence to support our arguements, but we are being stonewalled. The Kinslayer 15:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

These users (specifically 66.90.137.157‎) have made many edits to pages that reference The Sword but make no mention of their genre, like Intonation Music Festival and Music of Austin. He has also completely removed The Sword link from The Sword (disambiguation). This is not just about the genre, but about removing all mention of The Sword from any page. Other pages The Sword was removed from include Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biography (musicians) articles by quality/23 and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biography articles by quality/138. Olliegrind 18:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Husgrave has also been behind a really bad-faith AfD nom of The Sword which can be found here. Diez2 17:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment. All named accounts have been indef blocked as master & puppets; the IP is blocked for vandalism for 2 weeks starting 8 Feb 2007. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

All named accounts indef blocked; IP blocked for two weeks. Closing. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:NYkid0709

Suspected sockpuppeteer

NYkid0709 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Suspected sockpuppets

Not NYkid0709 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
70.101.196.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (contributions, time of edits)
Meow07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (nature of edits follow precisely the same pattern)


Report submission by

(Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 18:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

NYkid0709 (talk · contribs) was blocked. Then, "Not NYkid0709" shows up with a revert to one of the articles puppetmaster was previously working on. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 19:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

The name of the new account, timing after block, and nature of first edit seems consclusive. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 19:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems, through looking at autoblock list, that NYkid0709 was unaware of the block until a few hours later. Eli Falk 22:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure what the autoblock list is. What I can tell from his block log, from talk page history and editor contribs is the following:
As well, it stands to reason that the user would know right away—by not being able to edit—that there was a block. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 07:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Eli Falk 19:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I see what you mean. However, this does not necessarily mean the user was unaware of the block, just that s/he tried to edit whilst being blocked. The notification of a talk page message (left by the blocker) would have appeared and the user could have known immediately, then tried to actually edit ~9 hours later. As well, the new user was created right after the block. To me, this says nothing but sockpuppet. It doesn't matter anyway. The suspected sockpuppet has not made any further edits and the suspected puppetmaster's block has expired. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 19:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say a quick and dirty look at nykid's 123wiki123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) account shows a similar obsession with the Canada icon, at the least. Syrthiss 14:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Okay. This is a bit convoluted, but here's what's come out of it:

  • By the username, time of creation, and only edit being to continue the reversions that NYkid0709 (talk · contribs) had been doing, Not NYkid0709 (talk · contribs) will be blocked as a sockpuppet. The time of attempted editing causing an autoblock is interesting, but it's highly possible that he saw the message that he was blocked, created a new account, and tried to edit from his original account later.
  • nykid (talk · contribs) clearly edits from 123wiki123 (talk · contribs), but has given rationale for its usage. Although they did engage collectively in some 3RR some time ago, for now it seems legitimate. From this diff, the IP 70.101.196.236 (talk · contribs) is also related, but there hasn't been any issue.
  • Without checkuser, there doesn't seem to be strong evidence that nykid and related accounts are indeed related to Nykid0709. Since none of the accounts are currently disruptive, it doesn't fit any of the possible case requests, and therefore can't be performed. If edits from these various accounts return and are disruptive, further investigation may be appropriate.
  • Similar reasoning applies to Meow07 (talk · contribs). Though the edits are similiar, they may or may not be different users, and without checkuser (again, not appropriate in this situation), we can't be sure.

-- Natalya 18:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Nationalist

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Sid212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Vic226(chat) 03:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


Evidence
  • Nationalist has the record of using sockpuppet to circumvent 3RR violation and block. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nationalist
  • There is also a history of completed CheckUser case: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nationalist. The new request for CheckUser is listed below the confirmation message. The result is likely (a sockpuppet of Nationalist), according to jpgordon.
  • The contributions of Sid212, as a new user, focus on similar areas to that of Nationalist.
  • Nationalist is currently blocked for 72 hours since 00:25, 2007 January 30 (UTC) by Cbrown1023, and there was a significant amount of activity previously by his first sockpuppet Taiwanlove during Nationalist's 3rd block for personal attacks. Plus, Nationalist (under the name Taiwanlove) shows that his attitude and behavior was unchanged even after he is blocked for three times before. According to the indications above, it is possible for Nationalist to continue such disruptive behavior to Wikipedia with another sockpuppet, provided above.
  • In this edit summary of his, he makes the same accusation as those of Nationalist ("POV editor"; [199] [200] [201] and many more) on Jerrypp772000 for reverting against his edits.
  • Looking at this history page, it's suspicious that Sid212 edited when Nationalist had been blocked.
  • Nationalist responded to the question I asked Sid212:[202]
  • Sid212 became active again, after Nationalist was blocked.
Comments
I'm not an admin, however, having interacted with Nationalist on the Chien-Ming Wang article, this account shows greater familiarity with Wikipedia and its editing process than most newcomers. The new account uses the same edit summaries, and has immediately joined in edit wars (which while are not going on in 1 specific article, but over a number of articles - all related to Taiwan. The subject and type of edits as first edits on Wikipedia, strongly suggest that this user is using another sockpuppet to dodge a block and continue disruption of Wikipedia. Thanks. Yankees76 04:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Nationalist, before he was blocked, also loved having edit wars with me. Sid212, a new user, edited almost all the articles I did earlier. I found that suspicious.--Jerrypp772000 22:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, Sid212 hadn't edited after Nationalist was back from block.--Jerrypp772000 04:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Conclusions

Based on the editing pattern, contribution history, this evidence and the checkuser findings I have blocked the account indefinitely as a sockpuppet to evade blocks. Teke (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Nirelan

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Nirelan2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Random832(tc) 16:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


Evidence

Created (or, at least, first started editing, I don't know how to check account creation) shortly after User:Nirelan was blocked for four days for 3RR on Dave Winer. Immediately began making the same contentious edits to Dave Winer. Similar name.

More evidence Nirelan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his two sock-puppet IPs 70.104.126.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 71.244.175.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) were blocked from editing Wikipedia for 96 hours. [203] Less than 12 hours after Ryulong blocked all three, Nirelan has registered yet another sockpuppet to continue vandalizing this article, Nirelan2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). betsythedevine 17:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Nirelan2 has confessed to being a sock puppet. (please ignore his lawyering, i've addressed that in my response in the next revision)

Comments

I think this is highly obvious, but process is important. --Random832(tc) 16:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Nirelan2 has been indef blocked by Ryulong, and Nirelan has been blocked for 1 week for block evasion. No further action is required, so closing. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Homo erectus3000

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Homo erectus3000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Homo erectus3001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

--The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 08:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence
  • Similar username as if a "series."
  • HE3000 was blocked by Kuru, who was later vandalised by HE3001.
Comments
Conclusions

both accounts have been indef blocked; closing. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Celtic0106

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Celtic0106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

ChingChonee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Asuss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Fudgeloch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Wise Fraternity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
YupiMango (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Tasmaniazzz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

--AbsolutDan (talk) 01:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

The AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Donnelly (author) shows significant amount of single-purpose accounts created to lend support to keeping the article. Similar patterns in comments, several of the comments were edited and signatures/changed by other accounts. See the AfD's history.

Comments

At least three different users signed comments as Celtic0106.

Conclusions

Others signed as Tasmaniazz. Case proven, puppets blocked. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Elnurso

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Babek777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Azerbaijani 17:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Elnurso's contributions: [204] Babek777's contributions: [205]


Elnurso was blocked for breaking 3rr, and so he created Babek777 so that he could continue his vandalism (continuous removal of sourced information, even after a compromise was reached). As you can see from Babek's contributions, he came out of nowhere and he even knew what to put in the edit summary. It is obviously Elnurso.

Please notice his continuous blanking of sourced information on the Azerbaijan article and I hope the appropriate measures are taken. I reported him on the administrators notice board but it was ignored, I may not have put it in the right place, so I am putting it here now. Thanks.Azerbaijani 17:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments
Conclusions

From the identical edit to Azerbaijan (Elnurso's edit, Babek777's edit), the very knowledgeable edit summary usage, and the fact that it has not been used since Elnurso (talk · contribs)'s 3RR block expired, Babek777 (talk · contribs) will be blocked as a sockpuppet. -- Natalya 20:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Crazychink

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Alexey61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Taco325i 04:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Today, User:Crazychink created the article Bmw 550i, which was plagued with copyvios, poor spelling, factual errors, and inappropriate tone. In response to a speedy deletion tag that was placed on the article, User:Alexey61 added a {{hangon}} tag (using an anon IP), and added a comment in the discussion. The comment added by Alexey61 used the same incorrect spelling of "mustang" as "mustage." I offered suggestions on Crazychink's talk page on how to improve the article on an otherwise appropriate subject. He responded to me by email, signed "Crazy chink" but from an email address beginning with the word "Alexey." All three: Crazychink, Alexey61 and 70.20.234.84 have made edits to the articles Bmw 550i and Soil, with the latter two accounts vandalizing Soil. -Taco325i 03:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments
Conclusions

Although email evidence not avaliable on Wikipedia shouldn't really be used to determine if someone is a sockpuppet in this context, this edit by Taco325i (in particular the second section), followed up later by this edit by Crazychink are basically an admittance to Alexey61 (talk · contribs) being a sockpuppet; that account will be blocked. -- Natalya 19:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:EllEffer

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Retarded linus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Linus the tard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Big ole mofo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Canuck Pig is GHEY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
CanuckianFatPig be GHEY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
CanuckistanianFatPig is GHEY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
ThatGuyIsYoPimp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
ThisGuyIsYoPimp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
202.248.48.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Snicker|¥°€| 16:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Repeated edits to tard as EllEffer, Retarded linus, Linus the tard and Big ole mofo. Each edit is identical.

New edits now include a new image he re-uploads despite request for speedy deletion actions.

Vandalized my userpage as EllEffer.

Also, repeatedly vandalised Canadian-Bacon's page as Linus the tard, Canuck Pig is GHEY, CanuckianFatPig be GHEY and CanuckistanianFatPig is GHEY

Vandalized Gogo_Dodo's page with various disparaging comments on January 27, 2007.

This began on January 1, 2007, and the most recent attack was today, January 9, 2007 (edited tard once more).

More edits on Jan 26 & Jan 27, 2007. This time as ThatGuyIsYoPimp, and ThisGuyIsYoPimp as listed above.
Comments

This user has some bizarre obsession with some guy named "Linus" apparently on some forum, and keeps putting his picture on the tard page, then attacking the editors who revert the edits and give him warnings.

Conclusions

Retarded linus (talk · contribs), Linus the tard (talk · contribs), Big ole mofo (talk · contribs), Canuck Pig is GHEY (talk · contribs), CanuckianFatPig be GHEY (talk · contribs), and CanuckistanianFatPig is GHEY (talk · contribs) have already been blocked due to vandalism or username issues. ThatGuyIsYoPimp (talk · contribs) and ThisGuyIsYoPimp (talk · contribs) will be blocked as they are clearly sockpuppets. The IP has not edited recently, and since we don't normally block IPs indefinitely, no action will be taken towards it. If it does continue similar edits, though, it would be appropriate to block it for a short period of time. -- Natalya 19:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Westphall

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

200.163.184.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
200.163.184.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
200.163.184.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
201.3.196.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

SUBWAYguy 02:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

200.163.184.161 added Carlos Westphall to the above page; I removed it. 200.163.184.25 added it back

User:Westphall added C. Westphall to the above page; I removed it. 200.163.184.161 added it back; I removed it again. 200.163.184.25 has since added it back. 200.163.184.47 has since edited C. Westphall's entry on that page.

User:Westphall added links to two wikipedia pages he created. 200.163.184.47 added external link to C. Westphall's web site.

User:Westphall added C. Westphall to the above page; I removed it. 200.163.184.161 added it back.

Comments
Conclusions

They appear to be the same user, but since we do not normally block IPs for extended periods of time and they have not edited, disruptively or otherwise, recently, no action will be taken at this time. -- Natalya 19:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Ednas

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

--RolandR 12:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Following the protection of Gilad Atzmon to prevent constant reverts, this account was set up purely to denounce the critics of GA, and of Ednas and suspected sockpuppet Nihipri, using antisemitic language simiilar to that of both GA and Ednas.


Comments

Is Isarig a sock puppet for RolandR? Let us therefore all call for an investigation in IP numbers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ednas (talk • contribs)


Conclusions

Though they are editing on the same side of the issue, and though Zizitop (talk · contribs) made some disruptive accusations, there doesn't seem to be clear evidence that they are in fact the same user. They may be, but at this time it can't be for certain. Since Zizitop (talk · contribs) has not edited since the string of edits to Gilad Atzmon, and since the actions do not fit any of the criteria to request a WP:RFCU, no action will be taken at this time. -- Natalya 15:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Orriginal

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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


Report submission by

SUBWAYguy 01:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

I marked a page started by User:Orriginal (Peace at Daggers Drawn) as prod-delete. User:Orriginal marked three pages I started (Sportsjournalists.com, Bethesda Magazine, and Film Score Monthly as prod-delete. I removed those prods. Later the same day, User:207.172.231.137 prods Bethesda Magazine and Film Score Monthly as prod deletes, using the exact same wording as the earlier prods by User:Orriginal The IP address's only other contribution was to add Peter David Orr to List of novelists from the United States (this has since been reverted). Peace at Daggers Drawn was written by Mr. Orr.

Comments
Conclusions

They certainly appear to be the same user. We don't normally block IP addressed indefinitely, and since there has been not recent edits, no action will currently be taken. -- Natalya 15:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Ednas

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

RolandR 21:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Ednas was blocked for 3RR on Gilad Atzmon. During the block, new account Nihipri appeared, making identical edits. After the block ended, Ednas returned, again making the same edits and praising Nihipri. So far, they have made the same reversion eight times over two days between them. I suspect that Nihipri was a sockpuppet set up in order to enable Ednas to cheat the block and to subvert 3RR. It also seems likely, from the content of the edits, that Ednas is actually Gilad Atzmon himself.

Comments

Yet it would appear that two other editors¸ RolandR and Isarig made reversions to their version of the Gilad\Atzmon something like 33 times between the two of them. Who are the sock puppets here? Let us propose that Wiki admin does a thorough search of the location of each presumed sock puppet. More about all of this at Under the subtitle Vandalism and Stalking on the Gilad\Atzmon discussion page http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Talk:Gilad_Atzmon#Vandalism_and_stalking_on_Gilad_Atzmon_site_-_3rd_party_intervention_urgently_needed Ednas 12:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

From the timing of the creation of the account Nihipri (talk · contribs), the similiar reversions to the page Gilad Atzmon, and the continued reversions of that version by Ednas (talk · contribs), it seems Nihipri (talk · contribs) is indeed a sockpuppet, and will be blocked. -- Natalya 14:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Utzchips

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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


Report submission by
BostonMA talk 20:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Evidence
  1. see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Utzchips
  2. see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Hines
  3. First edit by user:Megamaniiit adds Yumdomains to the Domaining article.
  4. second edit adds Brad Hines.


Comments
Conclusions

The user is editing in similar patterns at User:Utzchips, but there doesn't seem to be any direct evidence that they are in fact the same user. Megamaniiit (talk · contribs) may be similarly acquainted with the field. Since the actions don't fit any of the reasons for request at WP:RFCU, and because there have only been two edits that were not super disruptive, no action for now. If there are further edits, however, that might change things. -- Natalya 14:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Rony888

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Rony888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Probuzz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Labnol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

--AbsolutDan (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Rony888 has been permablocked as a spam-only account. Within 5 hours, Probuzz account made its first edit, and during a gap in editing times, account Labnol made its contributions.

Rony888 was permablocked for spamming links to www.labnol.net, a blog run by Rony John. Probuzz's contributions have consisted of spamming links to probuzz.wordpress.com (another blog also run by Rony), labnol.net, and also engaging in discussions intended to garner support for the link. Labnol's 2 contributions have been to add support for a comment posted by Probuzz on Talk:FeedBurner and to modify an existing link to labnol.net.

Also note the obvious connection between usernames and sites.

Correction: Rony888 has only been blocked for 1 week, so further action may be necessary against this account. --AbsolutDan (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

The alleged socks have been indef blocked and there hasn't been any activity from Rony888 since 6 Jan. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Both links added to Shadowbot's spam blacklist. Shadow1 (talk) 13:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

The two suspected sockpuppets have already been blocked indefinitely for the link spamming in question; no further action need be taken. -- Natalya 02:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Egwiki

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Hske (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
64rywn9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Mstanleybrown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Bob1114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Nitzanv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
JamesB70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by
SauliH 14
57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


Evidence
User:Egwiki confirmed he was co-founder of the jewelry retailer Brilliant Earth at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brilliant Earth. A series of accounts have been created since the Afd was started, and edits have been limited to voting on this Afd discussion. User:Hske is one of these. See contribs SauliH 14:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, User:64rywn9 see contribs SauliH 15:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, User:Mstanleybrown see contribs. Also, see this edit compare
Also, User:Bob1114 see contribs.
Also, User:Nitzanv see contribs.
Also, User:JamesB70. Since the Brilliant Earth article was put up for deletion two user accounts have been used to edit the article to make it appear less like a press release see here, the first was by User:64rywn9 (noted above) and the other was JamesB70. JamesB70 comes out in support for Brilliant Earth in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brilliant Earth AfD discussion. In this discussion I had noted that the only editor to the Brilliant Earth article was User:Egwiki. Now with the two sockpuppet edits, JamesB70 states at the AfD discussion, Have included my edits as well. [User:JamesB70:JamesB70] 18:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC).
Earlier edits by JamesB70 contribs show a connection between Egwiki and JamesB70. On October 16 I made this edit to the Conflict-free diamond article, and on Oct 15 I made this edit to the Blood Diamond articleto remove the external spam link to Brilliant Earth. The very next edits on both of these pages were by JamesB70 on the new sock account to add a link to Real Diamonds Facts website. This site parodies the World Diamond Councils website, a site owned by Diamonds for Africa. The other edit was to link to the organisation Diamonds for Africa which is an organisation established by Egwiki and btgersten. These two users are board members of Diamonds for Africa. Diamonds for Africa is the charity of Brilliant Earth - see the article, and this page. The intimate link between Brilliant Earth and Dimaonds for Africa is noted by the link that gives back to Brilliant Earth at the base of the page. This organisation does not recommend any other jewelers than Brilliant Earth. The JamesB70 sock account was set up to distance the inclusion of these links from Egwiki, to make them appear less connected with the owners of Brilliant Earth, and board members of Diamonds for Africa ie Egwiki.
JamesB70 is also familiar with terminology such as Google test. see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brilliant Earth. which is unusuasl for a newbie.SauliH 14:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Comments

Added all sites related to this issue to Shadowbot's spam blacklist. Shadow1 (talk) 14:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

As can be seen from their various edits solely to the AfD discussions including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brilliant Earth, Hske (talk · contribs), 64rywn9 (talk · contribs), Mstanleybrown (talk · contribs), Bob1114 (talk · contribs), and Nitzanv (talk · contribs) are clearly sockpuppets of Egwiki (talk · contribs), and will be blocked. As for JamesB70 (talk · contribs), the evidence connecting Diamonds for Africa and Brillian Earth is compelling, but as of now I can't be absolutely sure that one is a sockpuppet of the other. Unfortunately it doesn't fit into any of the guidelines for a request for checkuser, because any vote fraud that went on isn't affecting the outcome. If more information becomes avaliable, however, a clearer picture may be drawn. -- Natalya 14:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Okkar

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Gadone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
MgMinGyiTharMgMyaPhay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
213.165.224.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
N.Linn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Phothar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by
Chris 03:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


Evidence

User Okkar showed up yesterday (Friday, January 5, 2007) as a contentious single-article editor at Military of Myanmar, started to make unilateral deletions which I reverted, which led to a revert war. I stopped, because it's just not productive.

Some how you seems to have convieniently forgotten to mention that you were found guilty against 3R rule and you were warned for abusing new comers and then you stopped, not because you thought was "not productive". Okkar 05:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Then he found our Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Burma/Myanmar, for which there had been no complaints in four months, and wants to change the page name. I said I would only support the move if the other Burman members of our project who had been there earlier would wish it. Hence the start of the flaming, and in short order User:Gadone showed up, and quickly changed names to MgMinGyiTharMgMyaPhay, and also accused me of "discriminating" against its country, which is the same argument Okkar used. This is an editor with no edits of articles, just piping in on a vote to skew the results. It's too similar and too quick to be anything but a sockpuppet. Chris 03:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

In the age of IRC and IM messaging, news travelled fast and quick, surely as an internet user, you would have known. That should not be the ground for the basis of your accusation. Neither you nor your supporter have contacted the said persons in questions, who are currently online and chatting on irc. Yet, you insist that these are not real people simply to suppress any dessent and objection against your rule on WikiProject Burma/Myanmar Okkar 06:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Update-now there has been created Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:WikiProject Burma/Myanmar, sockpuppets N.Linn and Phothar showed up, again never having edited an article, but placed the bogus names at the RfM, minutes after Okkar had done so. These are clearly sockpuppets. Example from Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:WikiProject Burma/Myanmar enclosed below-
  1. Agree. Okkar 06:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Agree. N.Linn 07:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Agree. Phothar 07:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
This is a pure lie. These people are the Myanmar Online users. You can contact them personally online at irc server on irc.myanmaronline.org. They have all joined to make their voice heard on the issues relating to their country. Myanmar internet users realised about discriminating and insulting comments regarding their country name was made by Chris when i put the topic of the discussion threat to #ygnchat (the main irc chatroom for myanmar internet users with over 300+ users daily from Myanmar). YOu can contact them indvidually on irc server at Myanmar Online, their nick names xcore, phothar and gadone. You can verify this yourself. This is a pure personal attack and trying to remove me from Wikipedia due to the fact that I am standing up and speaking up for my country. Okkar 01:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I further supply the following evidence to revert this false report - please see the whois output of the users:

gadone is gadone@gadone.co.uk * gadone gadone is connecting from *@213.165.240.27 213.165.240.27 gadone is a registered nick gadone on ?!~#eckali @#dagon-1 !~#Dream-Prince &#ygnchat @#burmese !@#help @#admins ?!@#ops ?!@#services &#talk.myanmaronline.net !&#nitric ?!#zero ?!@#jungle !&#operhelp !&#helpdesk !@#radio !&#helpers ?!&#Friz_43v3r ?!&#oct-<30 gadone using irc.yadanarpone.net Yadanarpone gadone is a Network Administrator gadone is available for help. gadone End of /WHOIS list.

phothar is phothar@gestapo.de * phothar phothar is connecting from *@irc.innwa.net 213.165.240.19 phothar is a registered nick phothar on @#talk.myanmaronline.net !@#jackass ?!@#services @#admins ?!@#ops !@#quiz @#burmese !~#clones !&#helpdesk @#hackers #ygnchat !~#taunggyi phothar using irc.innwa.net Innwa Communications IRC Server phothar is away: I am Offline Now, Leave the Message! phothar is a Network Administrator phothar End of /WHOIS list.

the other user xcore is currently not online.

Again, this report was made in order to silent our opposition to Chris discrimination of our country name. A mediation request has been lodged as you can see, and he is simply trying to remove us. Since he has been using Wikipedia a while, he is using all these complaints procedures to get the upper hand in the dispute. I hope some admin would take serious action on this kind of fake reports. Okkar 01:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with any new user who is civil, and does not unduly push their viewpoint. As per the matter of the mediation, I publically stated in the talk page that I will support the move if it is supported by the members of the project who were here before Okkar showed up. Chris 01:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Please see the users posts and none of which contains any uncivil comments, nevertheless please do bear in mind we are talking about one's country here and people tend to take offence when discriminated (i.e. when being told that our country's name will only be recognised if US States Department recognise it). It is clear that this is simply a cheap attempt to silence the opposition in order to get the upperhand in particular dispute which was filed against him and his group. This kind of users who abuse wikipedia's policies and procedures to his own benefits should be investigated and banned. Okkar 01:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
It is interesting to note that both gadone ([206]) and phothar ([207]), users on the MyanmarOnline chatroom come from the same locations. But they do have different IP addresses, and there is no way to prove whether those same users created the usernames on Wikipedia.--Hintha 02:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Ever heard of BNC? they are using BNC on a shell server. Anyone who has any knowledge of IRC and Internet Chatting knows what BNC are. Again, you are trying to attempt to pull the wools over the eyes of the admins here. Have you even attempt to have conversations with these users? Please stop trying to silence the opposition with cheap trickery. Okkar 03:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia includes in their definition of Sockpuppet "to generate an appearance of consensus, or to vote more than once", and at http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Forbidden_uses_of_sock_puppets says

"Voting and other shows of support" "Wikipedia uses a "one person, one vote" principle for all votes and similar discussions where individual preferences are counted in any fashion. Accordingly, sock puppets may not be used to give the impression of more support for a viewpoint. This includes voting multiple times in any election, or using more than one account in a discussion at polls and surveys, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, or on talk pages."

"In addition to double-voting, sock puppets should not be used for the purpose of deception, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists."

Nobody is trying to silence any opposition, as stated multiple times a name change would be supported if the vote is clean. I stand by Wikipedia's definition of sockpuppets when it comes to bringing in ringers to skew a vote. Chris 13:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Whats not clean about Myanmar people voting for the name of their country? is it really that hard to accept that people simply does not share your views? Okkar 15:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Comments
Conclusions

From the evidence, it is clear that if not sockpuppets, the accounts in question are at least meatpuppets. Convincing users to come to Wikipedia solely to influence a discussion or vote is not to be stood for. However, the accounts in question have not edited since the 7 January discussion, and did not contribute strongly to the issue. Because of this, they will not be blocked as of yet. However, if any of the canvassing continues, all offending users will face the possibility of being blocked. Take this as a lesson not to use others to influence discussions. For information purposes, from this edit, it is clear that Okkar (talk · contribs) was at one point. editing from 213.165.224.55 (talk · contribs). -- Natalya 13:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


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

User:Captaindansplashback

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Captaindansplashback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (indef blocked)

Suspected sockpuppets

I Am Muslim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Roodolfo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Return of Rodolfo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
added 5. Feb
New Rave? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Xcvz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
"moo" he thought (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
"moo" he typed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Agathoclea 12:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

All accounts try to include a "hidden track" on Eminem_Presents_The_Re-Up [208], [209], [210], [211]

while at the same time harassing User talk:Brookie. [212], [213] (see further up the history for a marriage proposal by Breathe Reprise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) [214]

sa

Comments
Given this admission can we get a Usercheck done on these User names? Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 08:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

What's a Usercheck? Roodolfo 16:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I wish to make it clear that I Am Muslim is not a sock puppet of anybody. The evidence you have supplied for this is that I have simply made the same edit to The Re-Up as captaindansplashback and have supposedly abused Brookie. I wish to say the following:

1) If I have put the ShockStewards song on The Re-up as a hidden track as well as other users this only confirms the fact that it is on the album. All that this evidence shows is that we both have copies containing the track. There is also a rumour circulating that only certain regions have the track and it is possible that I am simply in the same locality as these other users who have also bought the album.

2) I have never abused Brookie. The only point at which I made contact with Brookie was last week when I asked him/her to provide me with a link to the page where you apply for adminship. That is the only contact I have made with this user and this conversation can be seen upon Brookie's user talk page.

Please review my case in light of these explanaitions.

I Am Muslim 14:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


  • I indefinitely blocked User:Captaindansplashback for trying to start a vandalism campaign, and in particular encouraging other users to create sockpuppet vandal accounts; see this diff. I'd sure like to see an explanation or apology before allowing this user to continue. NawlinWiki 13:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
    • That campain was originally explained at Wikipedia:How to write a shit article Agathoclea 14:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I must say that I apologize for all the disturbances I caused however it was intended as a joke and was not to be taken seriously. I don't believe I vandalised lots of pages but if you feel you must block me then block me. I feel I have tried to turn over a new leaf but I am still being accused of things. So block me I'm fed up with Wikipedia now, it seems that even if you do things right you are still accused. I have apologized but I don't think it will do much good so I'm leaving goodbye and good luck with everything. I also suggest you block all the accounts accused and get this over with. Roodolfo 11:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Conclusions

These and others confirmed by Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Captaindansplashback Agathoclea 10:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Frankn12345

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Frankn12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Babilion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
74.99.192.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by
IrishGuy talk 00:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


Evidence

Babilion is a brand new user. He has created word for word replicas of deleted articles originally created by Frankn12345. All the articles are spam for a company that Frankn12345 is employed with. IrishGuy talk 00:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, 74.99.192.158 has edited the same articles and added the same link spam that Frankn12345 has. IrishGuy talk 02:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Comments
Conclusions

Case proven. Specifically the pages in question are apparently Studica and Torcomp. Babilion blocked. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


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

User:Robbiebodhrán

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Paul J O'Brien (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 16:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

New page Robbie Harris was created by User:Robbiebodhrán. I tagged the article CsD. User:Robbiebodhrán tagged with Template:hangon. New user User:Paul J O'Brien was created, and first action was deleting the CsD tag from the article, then pasted the same comment into my Talk page, the article Talk page.... I suspect that User:Paul J O'Brien was created (or a real "meatpuppet" enlisted) to sidestep the grounds for CsD, namely WP:COI, WP:BIO, WP:NOT#SOAP/WP:NOT#WEBSPACE.

Addendum: The Robbie Harris page is no longer CsD, but tagged with Template:Notability. Still, a Check User may be in order, and the puppet account blocked. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 23:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments
Conclusions

I'd call for a checkuser, but it doesn't really fit into the ABCDEF letter scheme on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser, and neither have edited since Jan 6, so no sign of intent of ongoing disruption. No action, but without prejudice - if they start both showing up to vote in an AfD, for example. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Premier

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

124.187.150.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
124.184.172.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
124.183.226.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
124.183.176.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Note

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Premier
Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Premier 2nd

Report submission by

Gnangarra 15:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


Evidence
diff this warning resulted in this response on my talk page and this comment at Talk:Indigenous Australians combined with previous threats, User page vandalism, trolling resulted in User:Premier recieving an indefinate block.
this comment also at Talk:Indigenous Australians and this edit to Indigenous Australians
Comments
Conclusions

Seems to be a shared IP group, with some constructive edits. We're asked not to block IPs like that indefinitely, and these haven't edited in weeks. No action. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Jordan sluss

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Jordan sluss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets
Report submission by

James086Talk | Contribs 13:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

expanded namelist Agathoclea 21:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Their edits are only to vandalise my user page in the same manner as each other within short periods of time of each other. See the history of User:James086. User:Jordan sluss is blocked indefinitely for vandalism (to my userpage).

Comments

Daanarchist might be caught up in this as a bystander, but all are blocked indef. Still awaiting a checkuser result to see if an underlying IP could be blocked. Agathoclea 21:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

If all already blocked indefinitely, there's nothing to do here. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


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

User:BenH

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Benhallums1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by
Grutness...wha? 06:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


Evidence
  • Noted as a suspected sockpuppet on Benhallums1's user talk page by User:Lambertman, and I must say the quixotic nature of the edits is supportive of that. BenH, before his permanent ban, was - among other things - responsible for repeatedly creating and adding new types of stub templates to the bottom of very long articles about Southeastern US television stations. Benhallums1's MO is identical. This, and the similarity of their usernames, is indicative, to say the least. Grutness...wha? 06:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Comments
  • I had been intending to block Benhallums1 for his re-creation of deleted material (yet again... his previous block for the same activity only ended a few hours ago) when I saw User:Lambertman's comments on his user talk page. I added an indefinite block while bringing this here to be confirmed/otherwise. Hope I've done this right... it's the first time I've done this. Grutness...wha? 06:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Conclusions

Grutness, as far as I can figure it out, WP:SSP is for non-admins to post to about users they suspect of being sock puppets, then an admin investigates the presented evidence, and blocks or not. From that, if you already blocked the user in question, posting to SSP isn't really useful. Closing as "nothing to do here" - I haven't investigated enough to know what I would have done otherwise, but from a cursory scan of contributions it certainly wasn't out of the question; I won't unblock. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Giovanni Giove

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Giovanni Giove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

GiorgioOrsini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
151.67.87.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
aka LEO Cherso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

—KingIvan 04:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC) --Gp75motorsports (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Looking at each user's contributions, it is highly likely that GiorgioOrisni was created by Giovanni Giove to create the illusion of support for his views on the article "Juraj Dalmatinac". Another point to notice is that GiorgioOrisni's first ever edit was to the talk page of Juraj Dalmatinac, where he immediately started repeating the same words spoken by Giovanni Giove, and immediately engaged in edit warring over that article - quite an unusual thing for a genuine new user to do. Both accounts edit the same articles - often edit warring with other users, most notably on Juraj Dalmatinac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Andrea Meldolla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and other articles of famous Croatian/Italian figures. Both account seem to have the single purpose of removing all references to Croatia or Croats on articles of famous historical figures, and claiming them as exclusively "Italian", while calling all other views "pseudo-historical". Both account use the same style of language in talk pages and edit summaries. The account GiorgioOrsini is also guilty of vandalism, by removing people from article lists and then adding words such as "falsifier" to describe someone[216]. It can clearly be seen that these "two" users are the same person.

Comments
Conclusions

Not likely enough. They have each made many contributions, including discussing issues on each others' talk pages. They made the following sequence of edits, which they would almost have to be two people to make.

  • 10:16, November 12, 2006 GiovanniGiove Talk:Giorgio Orsini
  • 10:20, November 12, 2006 GiovanniGiove Talk:Giorgio Orsini
  • 10:27, November 12, 2006 GiorgioOrsini User talk:Dar-Ape/Archive 1
  • 10:27, November 12, 2006 GiovanniGiove Talk:Giorgio Orsini
  • 10:28, November 12, 2006 GiorgioOrsini User talk:Dar-Ape/Archive 1
  • 10:35, November 12, 2006 GiorgioOrsini Talk:Giorgio Orsini

It is not a blocking offense for a new user to enter an article debate, they have to start somewhere. Cleared. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Beckjord

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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


Report submission by
Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 01:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


Evidence

Beckjord is known for editing the Bigfoot page in order to insert material about himself or the interdimensional hypothesis, see an edit history showing User 63.3.68.138's additions to the Bigfoot article. Also, see the addition to the talk page that brings up a source for the interdimensional hypothesis. Edits to Jon-Erik Beckjord seem harmless (see history comparison) but, if truly made by Beckjord, these edits violate Wikipedia:Autobiography. For previous sockpuppetry of Beckjord, see suspected sockpuppets here or see them individually: User:205.208.227.27, User:71.198.46.76, User:Beckjord can't sleep, must edit Bigfoot, User:Don't sleep clown will eat you, User:Dr Joe, User:DrJoe, User:Jon-Erik, User:Linuxbeackjord, User:Luminary666 and User:Orphanannie.Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 01:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Also see this page history for another "signed" confession. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 19:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


Comments

I tried to put the required notice on User talk:Beckjord but the page is protected so I couldn't do that. I tried to follow the rules, but I just wasn't able to do that one step. I'm doing all the other steps, though. I hope that is OK.Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 01:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've put in a request at the requests for page protection page to see if I can't get that notice put on User talk:Beckjord. If it doesn't get unprotected and I can't get the required notice put up, I hope y'all will understand. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 02:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, now User:Royalguard11 inserted that notice for me at User_talk:Beckjord#Sockpuppetry case, so this detail has been resolved. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, what's the point of this process? The IP's first edit clearly establishes it as Beckjord or an impersonator. Any edits it makes to paranormal topics should be reverted, per the ArbCom ban. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

From reading the Wikipedia documentation about sockpuppets, I was given the impression that I was supposed to present proof in this way instead of slapping suspected sockpuppet templates on people's pages. Isn't the point that the original user was banned for about a year? Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, take my comment as agreement with your proof :-). It's definitely him. What do you think we'd best do about it? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, for starters, put a confirmed sockpuppet template on the puppet user page instead of the suspected template. Then maybe ban that IP, unless it's shared. I'm not really sure what to do, I thought that administrators took over that part of the decision-making process once they were sure it was him. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Another thing: Beckjord is currently under a one-year ban from the ArbCom. His ban timer needs to be reset. Scobell302 06:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Case proven, however we are discouraged from blocking IPs for more than a few days except in extreme cases. Will block for a week, but it may be more symbolic than functional. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Creepy Crawler

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Creepy Crawler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by
— Preceding unsigned comment added by ThuranX (talk • contribs)


Evidence

Contributions [217] match those of banned user Creepy Crawler [218].

Comments
Conclusions

Convincing: all contributions are putting articles in overly broad categories, with idiosyncratic spelling.[219] Blocked. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Juro

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Suspected sockpuppets

Edit warring. (reverting)

Report submission by
--Vince hey, yo! :-) 00:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Evidence
IP possibly does not belong to one person, but all three did nothing, but reverted User:Timur lenk's edits on the same day (dec 21) IP & Klio55), Klio 5 & 55, Klio55 & Juro.
Note
I am pretty sure, that these socks are belonging to an established editor here, and this checkuser will (probably) find the master. I've got only a tip. This behave perfectly fits's to User:Juro, who commented here his revert the (almost) same contrib (revert) as Klio55's (K55 cut out a spam also) as "again", but I didn't find [220], [221] any previous discussions between Juro and Timur lenk in this question. IP and the pretty same usernames acted with the same strong "pro-slovak" and sometimes childish ("anti hungarian") way, as User:Juro frequently acts, but I would be happy, If I'm wrong.
Note2
Juro was caught sockpuppeting before (User:TemporaryQWE), but beated the rap.
Comments
Conclusions

All named accounts, including Juro, already indefinitely blocked. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Jasonrantz

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Radioguy1982 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Tuckdogg 03:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Sock puppet of previously banned user Jasonrantz. He showed up almost immediately after Jasonrantz was banned, made nearly exactly the same edits (down to the exact text on the pages), and has the same habits as Jasonrantz (such as periodically blanking his talk page to remove vandalism warnings). Ban. Tuckdogg 03:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments
Conclusions

Actually, I can't see any of his edits blanking his talk page. Jasonrantz was blocked as a vandal-only account, while Radioguy1982 hasn't vandalized at all. True, both seemed to like to promote the Jason Rantz program, but for Radioguy1982 that was restricted to creating an article about it, and adding links to interviews on it, a few - they may or may not be appropriate, but they aren't blatant vandalism of the Jasonrantz style. He may just be a separate fan - there must be more than one. Note also he hasn't edited since Dec31. Insufficient evidence. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Chidom

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Nicer1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

--SandyDancer 12:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

Please see notifications to suspected puppet master and the responsehere.

[ALTHOUGH NOTE CHIDOM HAS DECIDED TO CUT AND PASTE THE WHOLE DISCUSSION I LINKED TO HERE BELOW IN ORDER TO OBSCURE THE DEBATE --SandyDancer 15:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)]

The Nicer1 account was created solely to nominate certain articles related to pornography for deletion - this is stated on User:Nicer1. There is also a statement that Nicer1 is "a long-term anonymous Wikipedia user". I suspect this to be untrue and believe the account is a sock for User:Chidom, registered to avoid the scrutiny of the community for his or her actions.

Suspicions were aroused by these edits:

  • [222][223] were made from the Nicer1 account to Chidom's status indicator.
  • [224][225] were made from the Chidom account to Nicer1's status indicator.

Chidom has responded to this with:

"Not that it's any of your business (since when is editing another user's status page an indicator of a sock puppet?), the edits are made to create placeholders on each other's watchlists that still show up when the "Hide my edits" option is used."

I found this distinctly unconvincing. Why would two apparently unconnected users be editing each other's status indicators? The only circumstances I can imagine this happening is if the users were accustomed to working together on articles and were in communication - there is no evidence of communication however. I contend that these edits were a slip up on the part of Chidom - he did not intend to edit the status indicator on the other account, doing so absent mindedly, forgetting which username he was currently logged in as. The two accounts have continued to edit each other's "status indicators" since I left the message about this on Chidom's talk page. Whether this is because the explanation given above by Chidom is genuine, or because by continuing to do this Chidom hopes to create that impression despite his earlier slip-up, I cannot say.

I will not speculate as to the motivations of Chidom/Nicer1, but it should be noted that most of the RFDs initiated by this user ended in near unanimous "Keep" votes and many of the articles were clearly not viable candidates for deletion.

Like Nicer1, Chidom's main area of interest also seems to be articles related to pornography (see edit histories - Chidom's contribs and Nicer1's contribs).

Comments

Note that Chidom's main area of interest is gay male pornography, while Nicer1's main area of interest is heterosexual pornography. The similarity is not as large as it may at first appear. AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Also note this important sentence from Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets: "1. An alternate account that is not used for abuse does not warrant a complaint. " Is it your contention that placing prod's on uncited articles is abuse? If not, please specify the abuse. AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
SandyDancer apparently enjoys calling into question the motives of users that make edits with which s/he disagrees
  • SandyDancer got into a dispute with User:Nicer1; see User talk:Nicer1#Proposed deletion
  • SandyDancer continuously made accusations or inferences that Nicer1 had ulterior motives for making the nominations
  • SandyDancer chose to ignore the explanations given and continued to assert that SandyDancer had correctly identified the motives
  • SandyDancer is now making accusations that Nicer1 is my sock puppet with no evidence; indeed, quite the contrary, as is stated by SandyDancer: "there is no evidence of communication however"
  • Sandy Dancer has failed to acknowledge the constructive edits made by Nicer1 to articles on pornography or comments on others' edits; doing so would undermine the assertion that Nicer1's motive was a crusade to delete articles on porn
  • Nicer1's reasons for nominating the articles were clearly stated; some others agreed with those reasons and improvements were made to some of the articles
  • The articles in question were completely unsourced and failed to assert any notability or importance
  • Any article may be nominated by any registered user for deletion
  • Arguing with a user's reasoning is acceptable; calling into question their motives on the basis of absolutely no evidence—but, instead, pure conjecture—is not
  • I explained to SandyDancer why Nicer1 and I were editing each other's status pages
  • With regard to that explanation, SandyDancer has again ignored the information given by a user, continuing to attach motives where there are none
  • The method we came up with regarding our status pages began on 1 December because that's when we thought of a way to mark our places in our respective watchlists; yet another explanation the SandyDancer has chosen to dismiss
  • In order to edit each other's status page, we have to specifically go to the page and edit it; it is a deliberate edit and could not be done absentmindedly
  • While users may disagree about edits, making accusations and insinuations of the kind that SandyDancer has made is inappropriate
  • Nicer1 and I don't edit the same articles, although we both have an interest in pornography
  • I will echo Nicer1's comment that continuing to make unsupported accusations and inferences and refusing to accept a user's explanations is calling another user a liar; a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks
  • Nicer 1 is my spouse; that is no one's business
As I said on my Talk page; I hope SandyDancer will spend time constructively improving Wikipedia rather than harassing users—Chidom talk  19:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Trying to throw mud back in the hope it somehow sticks to me? Sheesh! Please read WP:NPA.
The issue here is one of suspected sock puppetry. I accept I may be wrong but your ultra-defensive actions suggest to me I am not and you intend to make this unpleasant. I will rise above it.
And as for the attempt above to frame my legitimate queries about your motives as uncivil behaviour - you asked for a third opinion, and you got it here.
For the record, I was perfectly entitled to question your/whoever's motives when querying the actions of Nicer1 and did so in a civil manner You were engaged in conduct which drew criticism from several users, not just me. I am not uncivil simply because I don't believe something you say. The "assume good faith" principle doesn't stretch that far.
I am not harassing anyone, and I do contribute to Wikipedia. Its just that I happened to spot suspicious behaviour, and am totally unconvinced by the "spouse" get out, as is another user who has observed the process. --SandyDancer 21:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I have moved what has been posted on my talk page to this page, between the ===='s"—Chidom talk  23:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

======= (begin talk page excerpt)

User:Nicer1

Are you operating this account as well? The reason I ask is that these edits [227][228] were made from the Nicer1 account to Chidom's status indicator, and these edits [229][230] were made from the Chidom account to Nicer1's status indicator.

On User:Nicer1 this statement appeared:

I'm a long-term anonymous Wikipedia user who proposed that some articles be deleted using the {{prod}} tag and the tags were removed without following the process; the articles weren't changed at all before removing the tag. The other user also took it upon themselves to remove a speedy delete tag (that I placed subsequent to the {{prod}} tag being removed). Since anonymous users can't nominate articles at {{AfD}}, I created this account in order to do so.

If this account in indeed yours, the statement is untrue. I am particularly concerned about this because of the WP:SOCK policy. The Nicer1 account was set up to block nominate for deletion a number of articles related to pornography. In particular, if this account is yours, it would appear it was set up to avoid scrutiny from other editors. I notice much of the edit history of the Chidom account relates to pornographic articles too.

You will note I left a question about this on User talk:Nicer1 at 00:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC). It goes without saying that I am very sorry to have bothered you with this if I have this wrong, and trust you will be understanding. --SandyDancer 12:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Nicer1 is not a sock puppet; there is no evidence (the two of us posting to the same AfD, for example) to support your assumption, which is incorrect.
The statement made on Nicer1's user page is true.
Not that it's any of your business (since when is editing another user's status page an indicator of a sock puppet?), the edits are made to create placeholders on each other's watchlists that still show up when the "Hide my edits" option is used.—Chidom talk  08:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how you can maintain that editing another user's status indicator - for whatever reason - doesn't suggest the accounts are maintained by the same person? What other reason could there be? Why would Chidom and Nicer1 - who have no history of collaboration and have no posted on each other's talk pages - be cooperating in this way, if separate users? Couple with this the similarity in your areas of interest.
I'm afraid I find your explanations unconvincing and I will take the matter further. Your lack of civility does you no credit. --SandyDancer 10:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Show me where I've been uncivil; it isn't any of your business. You're once again leaping to conclusions that are unsupported by any evidence.
Nicer1 is my spouse, ok? That's still none of your business, nor is it anyone else's. We avoid chiming in on the same disucssions, etc., so as to avoid any appearance of sock puppetry.
As for your reference, neither one of us has made any effort to "confuse or deceive editors". Both our edit histories are clear; you still refuse to accept that there have been no ulterior motives involved here.
You now seem to be the one on a mission. Please spend your time constructively improving Wikipedia rather than harassing users.—Chidom talk  17:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Anyone reading the exchange will see the incivility.
I have no interest in harassing anyone, but to be honest I think the actions you/whoever have carried out using the Nicer1 account have been disruptive - nominating a load of articles that clearly shouldn't be deleted for example. The results of RFDs speak for themselves, and I am not the only user to object.--SandyDancer 18:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Stop trying to characterise a legit sockpuppet enquiry as a personal attack. It ain't. Calm down. This isn't a personal dispute between us. You've had you say, I've had mine. The fact I don't feel convinced by your explanations does not equate to a personal attack and I have never, ever called you a liar - you keep trying to twist things to make out I have. By your logic, no-one could ever be sanctioned on WP because all they'd have to do is say "it wasn't me" and if anyone didn't believe them, that would be a personal attack. --SandyDancer 01:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sock puppet discussion

Why have you taken it upon yourself to add the pre-discussion of the issue - which is already linked to - to the article? My concern is that you are trying to falsely characterise the whole thing as a personal dispute in the hope others just pass it over - I am removing it again from that page. You are not entitled to dictate the terms of the discussion about your alleged sock puppet activities. --SandyDancer 08:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not appropriate for you to remove any of my comments or quotes from the discussion. Please see my info box above:
"Please note that I may quote your comments or move them to other pages at my discretion"
(This was present when you first added material to this page. first post and corrected post with <nowiki> tags.)
Regardless, you are removing my response to your evidence in this matter; please do not edit my response again.—Chidom talk  14:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
No. I am not removing your comments. I have not removed your response to my evidence - that response remains in its entirety. I am trying to stop you from obscuring the matter at hand by cutting and pasting a huge chunk of discussion from your talk page on the page about the sockpuppetry case. Why do you believe it is right to do so? You are, after all, deleting and moving my comments in the process. I did not consent to you doing so. --SandyDancer 14:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Please also stop discussing this matter here; you opened the Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Chidom matter; any further comments should be made there. These comments have also been moved there.—Chidom talk  14:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

======= (end talk page excerpt)

The information from my talk page has been deleted from this page twice by SandyDancer. I have advised on my talk page, and will repeat here:

"It is not appropriate for you to remove any of my comments or quotes from the discussion....
"Regardless, you are removing my response to your evidence in this matter; please do not edit my response again."

I have copied further discussion from that page here, and will continue to do so if necessary. SandyDancer cannot open a Suspected sock puppet matter and make comments "behind the scenes" that relate to the matter. All the information in the copied posts is related to SandyDancer's initial questions regarding the sock puppet, my responses, and SandyDancer's subsequent decision to open this matter—all information that is germane to this matter. I have also adjusted the formatting of this section to faciliate separating comments; apparently AnonEmouse's comment above wasn't seen because of the earlier formatting.

You are deliberately trying to obscure the point here by piling in loads and loads of repetitive text. All of our discussion is - and always has been - conveniently linked above at the top of the article. I will say it straight - you are acting in bad faith. Your behaviour is very tiresome, but clearly very effective. What it does is make the whole thing look like some crazy argument, and ensures it is passed over who just think it is two users having a row. Well that isn't the case, but I am tired of arguing with you. Well done. --SandyDancer 15:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you assign motives incorrectly; I am not trying to obscure anything. Firstly, copying and pasting the information that is linked to is a matter of convenience for readers; secondly, the discussion of this matter belongs here, not on my talk page.

The question posed above by User:AnonEMouse, seems to have been overlooked; I'll copy it here for convenience:—Chidom talk  00:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Also note this important sentence from Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets: "1. An alternate account that is not used for abuse does not warrant a complaint. " Is it your contention that placing prod's on uncited articles is abuse? If not, please specify the abuse. AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Chidom - If Nicer1 truly isn't an alternate account of yours, why would you be so keen to focus on this question?
If Nicer1 is your sock, then you set the account up purely to escape the inevitable criticism you'd get for nominating a load of clearly notable articles for deletion. That is abuse in my book. Furthermore if Nicer1 is your sock, you posted a deliberately misleading statement on the user page designed to further obscure what was going on. That is abuse in my book.
You like moving other people's comments around, don't you? You aren't meant to do that. --SandyDancer 12:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I "focused on the question" because you hadn't answered it. In order for you to begin a Suspected sock puppet action, you must have believed that Nicer1 was an alternate account of mine. Believing that, you would also need to believe that the account had been used for abuse. You have explained that you did believe that, and what you believed that abuse to be. That's all the question asked you to explain.

Even if you believed the Nicer1 account to be an alternate account for me (which is untrue to start with), this action should never have commenced to begin with. You have chosen not to believe the evidence given to prove that Nicer1 is not my sock. I will contest your allegation of "abuse", as there was none.

Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy Background, "Anyone except a blocked user is welcome to participate in nominating articles for deletion or discussion of existing nominations."

Nominating articles isn't abuse.

Wikipedia:Criteria for Speedy Deletion Articles Criteria no. 7, "An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject."

It doesn't say that the subject of the article isn't important, it says the article doesn't say that it is. The articles did not assert their importance and so met this criteria. They could have been nominated for Speedy Deletion; instead, they were Proposed for Deletion (prod). Nicer1 has already explained that this was done to give editors time to improve the articles rather than the articles disappearing instantly via Speedy Deletion.

Your objection to the nominations has been that the magazines are important. They may well be, that's not the issue. The articles need to state that the magazines are important and include information as to why they are.

Wikipedia:Criteria for Speedy Deletion Non-criteria "Non-notable subjects with their importance asserted: Articles that have obviously non-notable subjects are still not eligible for speedy deletion unless the article 'does not assert the importance or significance of its subject'. If the article gives a claim that might be construed as making the subject notable, it should be taken to a wider forum."

So, nominating an article for Speedy Deletion that says it is important is inappropriate; a different process (prod, afd) must be used. It was never claimed that the subject of the article was non-notable, only that the article didn't specify that it was; so there was no allegation that the articles were "obviously non-notable". Nicer1 tried to err on the side of the articles being improved by using {{prod}} instead of {{deletebecause}}.

Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. 'Verifiable' in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."

Wikipedia:Verifiability Burden of evidence goes on: "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

There were either no sources cited in these articles or the source listed was a link to the magazine's website. A company website is not a third-party source. What the policy says is that someone other than the company has to have written about it; if the company isn't important enough for that to be true, it shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.

Nicer1 withdrew the Articles for Deletion nominations of three of the magazines and added the {{unsourced}} template instead. He also expanded the Galaxy Publications article and provided sources; how was that abuse?

You have not referred to anything in Wikipedia's policy or guidelines that characterizes Nicer1's actions as abuse. In short, nominating these articles was well within Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not abuse.

As for "moving" comments, there is a difference between "cut and paste" and "copy and paste". I have only copied comments to make it easier to follow the discussion in chronological order; I have not deleted the information. I'm not aware of anything that prohibits copying information, only deleting information.—Chidom talk  18:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikilawyering at its best.
If nominating those articles for deletion was as justifiable as you say it was, why didn't you do so from your own account? Why did you set up a new account and pretend it wasn't you? --SandyDancer 21:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Conclusions

As I wrote above, no disruption means no foul. It is not against policy for two users to share a computer. We can encourage them to declare this publically (prominent example: User:Tim Starling, Wikipedia developer), but we can not require it (example: User:Angela, former Wikipedia board member, founder of Wikia). Note these two have also edited each others' user pages quite often, but have not, as far as I am aware been accused of skulduggery because of it. Closing case for lack of any other admin seeming likely to do it. -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:GangstaEB

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

MrCEO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Sabertiger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

— Canderous Ordo 21:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

His own apparent admission.

Comments

Sabertiger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is Willy on Wheels and has been blocked indefinitely in July. MER-C 13:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Conclusions

Convincing admission. Also MrCEO's first edits come 5 minutes after GangstaEB posts that he will leave after failing an RFA and being accused of being Willy on Wheels. Since GEB hasn't edited in over a month since being blocked after his "flame out", I'm going to leave the main account alone - it has a lot of edits, some trying to be constructive. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:216.83.121.194

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Doctor33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
EAA11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Krabs502 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Krabs504 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Krabs509 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Krabs514 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Krabs515 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Krabs520 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Krabs600 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Krabs622 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

  oakster  TALK  17:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

The IP address has been constantly creating new accounts purely for vandalising articles with false information such as false theme music, creation of non-existant video games. The sockpuppets have generally have similar edits:

Comments
  • The IP address was blocked for a week in last February for vandalism. The address was then blocked again for six months on 4 June for use of the Krabs sockpuppets (proven by CheckUser). Following the end of the IP block, the vandalism has started again under Doctor33 and EAA11.
Conclusions

This one was tough, as it requires knowing what the theme songs for wrestling events actually are, which, I have to admit, I don't. But I did research a bit, and it does seem that these accounts' edits are universally unsupported or even contradicted elsewhere. These accounts have made many contributions, including some useful ones, such as creating Charlotte's Web (video game) ... but on the whole, they do seem to be mostly hoaxes or vandalism, and does not respond to comments on their talk page, just blanking it. So it's a shame, but we'll have to lose the few good contributions with the bad. Blocking indefinitely. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Ivan Kricancic

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Ivan Kricancic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppet

Rts freak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Kruško Mortale 16:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

User:Rts freak and User:Ivan Kricancic cooperated in History_of_the_Bosniak_people article in order to revert changes. They pretended to be different users. User:Rts freak pretented to be an ethnic Bosniak, while Ivan Kricancic according to his user page hates the Bosniak people. This is obvious abuse in Bosniak History article:[240] and [241]. Two "different" reverts by suspected sock puppet in "controversial" article. Second thing is that he pretends to be a Bosniak which is rude and unfair, in order to humiliate a nation.

Apart from ex-yu articles, it seems that "they" share interests in Smallville, notably Allison Mack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Sam Jones III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Kristin Kreuk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yours. Kruško. Kruško Mortale 16:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment

First of all, I take offence at being called a "sockpuppet". Second of all, it is very offensive for Kruško to accuse me of not being a Bosniak - my parents are ethnic Bosniaks who migrated to Australia; does the fact that I was born in Australia mean I'm any less Bosniak. Besides, I think that growing up in Australia where there are many migrant communities has given me the ability to interact better with people of different backgrounds, which is why I can interact in a civil manner with users such as Ivan Kricancic (who, is not a full Croat - it states on his user page that he is Croat, Filipino and Spanish). I have read the talk page of History of the Bosniak people and it seemed to me that the tags are indeed justified, so I put them back on the article. I won't edit that article or it's talk page until this case is over, though, just in case some sort of conflict of interest arises. And, no, from Ivan's user page, I would not say that he hates Bosniaks, but it is easy to see that he is ill-informed about us as he thinks that we are just Croats and Serbs who converted to Islam. But I believe that working with him on former-yugo article on Wikipedia can help to educate him about Bosniaks, until his point of view about us will be changed. Another point is, just because I share an interest in Smallville does not make me a sockpuppet of Ivan's - there are many users who contribute to Smallville articles, are they all someone's sockpuppets as well? I really think that it is very possible (in fact it's happening right now) that at least two people who have a South Slavic ethnic background could be interested in articles about their ancestry and also share an interest in a certain T.V show (especially since both Ivan and I are from Australia). My final thing to say is, that I even had suspicions that, based on their edit style, edit patterns and use of broken English, User:Kruško Mortale was a sockpuppet of User:Bosniak or User:Ancient Land of Bosoni (the latter of whom also has the accounts User:Ancient Bosoni and User:Bosoni), but I didn't make any accusations because that would have been bad faith behaviour on my part, just like this is bad faith behaviour on Kruško's part, because he's just doing this because I made one edit that he didn't agree with. I hope you admins make the right decision. Goodbye. - [rts_freak] | 5p34k 2 /\/\3 23:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I just want to say that administrator Duja supports me to do this (you can see that in my talk page), because he also thinks that Rts freak might be a sock puppet. The above explanation by suspected user is not enough, so the best thing is to check him, I am now sure more than ever because he also made a very important mistake about Bosniaks when he pretended to be one of them, which no Bosniak will ever make, but this is enough for now...Yours. Kruško. Kruško Mortale 16:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Mr. User:Rts freak's suspicions, I totally support him. He can make the same request as I did. But remember that I am 100% sure that this user is a sock puppet. Yours. Kruško. Kruško Mortale 16:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Comments

information Note: Moved from Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/LorenzoPerosi1898 (2nd). MER-C 13:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Conclusions

Case proven. Besides common interests, origins, and residences, they both edit the exact same deletion disputes minutes after each other, with the same opinions, and even same misspellings (it's). If they aren't the same person, they are brothers editing from the same computer.

  • 04:52, September 28, 2006 Ivan_Kricancic Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 September 27 [242]
  • 04:58, September 28, 2006 Rts_freak Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 September 27 [243]
  • 00:33, September 29, 2006 Rts_freak Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 September 29 [244]
  • 00:37, September 29, 2006 Ivan_Kricancic Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 September 29 [245] Note their identical rationale for keeping fair use images.
  • 11:40, December 1, 2006 Ivan_Kricancic Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petula Shaw-Dennis [246]
  • 11:43, December 1, 2006 Rts_freak Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petula Shaw-Dennis [247] Note that this was Rts_freak's only edit for 3 days before and 6 days after - he logged on, wrote "Delete - Per nom. I mean, come on." in an AfD, and logged off for six more days.

Blocking Rts_freak, strongly warning Ivan Kricancic not to do that again. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)



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

User:Cplot

Suspected sockpuppeteer
Report submission by
Tbeatty 04:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
additional report by
Jayron32 04:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
additional report by
--tjstrf talk 06:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
additional reports by
Morton devonshire 02:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
additional reports by
StuffOfInterest 13:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC) - 15:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
additional reports by
Kchase T 20:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
additional reports by
MER-C (as I come across them)
additional reports by
—Dgiest c 19:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


Evidence

All of these IP's edit the same articles as "support" for CPlot after his block and all have edited "Federal Authorities are now blocking" sections in various articles. They are all Sprint IPs from the Chicago, Illinois area. They also attack MONGO (the blocking admin). Some of these have been blocked for trolling. --Tbeatty 04:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to better understand this situation. Can you please elaborate by specifically linking to the alleged attacks and what you consider to be "an attack"? Thank you. --CyclePat 04:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
This is User:Zoe warning not to make attacks. --Tbeatty 05:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I still don't see the link. Is there something I'm missing here. Please explain. All I see up above is a bunch of IP's that are mostly from the same area. (I think 1 or 2 are from different locations). Then I see the allegations that it is cplot that is running them all. What is the link? (I've studied for example John Rutter's Requiem and been able to make links with Benjamin Britten's thematic material. Usually it helps if I deconstruct the thematic material, place a small extract of that music and comparativelly analyse it with the primary subject) Given the circumstances of cplots 1 week block, and that this alleged sockpuppetteering could make that 1 week block be indefinate, I think it is very important to demonstrate the relationships. (not only that, but given the circumstances he was blocked under it is all the more important!). I vito the current block and ask the accuser to step up to the plate and explain yourself, otherwise I believe you are disrupting wikipedia and will not hesitate to do everthing possible to have this issue clarified higher up! --CyclePat 05:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The evidence can be found here: [258]. Each one of the IP sockpuppets made an edit to [Wikipedia:Village pump (news)] within 1-2 minutes of their prior vandalism being removed. The edits were each substantilly the same in content and tone. Whether this is one person using some IP-drifting technique to avoid blocks, or is a series of friends each editing from a different location to do the same is moot. The entire enterprise needs to be stopped. I hope this helps. I could post the difs, but look at the list of edit summaries, and compare to Cplots edits, especially this one: [259]. Hope this clarifies the issue. This issue is being handled at multiple venues, including WP:ANI and WP:ABUSE --Jayron32 06:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I did have a message on my user page that was a little suspicious. It could have been cplot but at the same time it indicated it was his friend. This was removed from my page by Zoe, I think because he believes its sock-puppet material. Seeing my off on use and, usually, my good faith and would not have said that was sock-puppet... but boy nose was in fact twitching thinking this could be my client (I am cplot's advocate). But why wouldn't he just email me! I dunno... these are all assumptions. And given the circumstances I would like to assume good faith more towards my client and that there is a smeer campaign based on some bad communications all based on the september 11, 2001 article dispute. --CyclePat 05:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Comments

Please be warry of the block that was placed on cplot. My observations, after being asked to be his advocate, indicate that he was blocked in a revengeful maner and possibly in violation of WP:Block. (I am trying to hold a discussion at User:MONGO talk page, however I may be required to send this to the official WP:AMA board for further assistance and, as everyone seems to be suggesting mediation). All this to say, that cplot is blocked and there are some pretty suspicious things happening (even to the point where my user talk page has been vandalized to suppress a message in support of cplot.) Though this does not denny the fact that sockpuppets may exist, it does show the hostility was appears to have been escallated by a team of carefully crafted users "ganged-up!" Hence, I put you to the strictess of proof and that any allegations of vandalism be properly demonstrated. --CyclePat 04:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Block looks appropriate to me. I posted an invitation for evidence and volunteered to perform an independent investigation of the claims. The sockmaster and sockfarm continued posting unsupported allegations to Village Pump without ever taking evidence to my userpage or e-mailing me (unless the NSA, the space aliens, or Barney the Dinosaur ate the e-mail). DurovaCharge! 06:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
The block was reviewed and supported at AN/I and a number of the sock puppets have been blcoked for simple disruption. --Tbeatty 05:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Another example: USEBACA category is prevalent in a number of the sockpuppets. --Tbeatty 06:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC) Here it is done by Cplot. --Tbeatty 06:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Added User:VIUlyanov as a suspected sockpuppet. Consider his comments here at ANI: [260]. --Jayron32 04:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Conclusions

My, I have never seen so many sock puppets in one accusation. It looks like all are being blocked already without waiting for this case to close, so might as well close the case. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Enlighter1

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Enlighter1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

66.246.218.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
64.111.110.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) --added by 86.56.48.12; see comments below
66.79.164.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) --added by 86.56.48.12; see comments below
Thekingofyouall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) --added by 86.56.48.12; see comments below


Report submission by
Matthew 16:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


Evidence

This user is repeated removing sockpuppet tags and warnings from various Users that have previously been used by Enlighter1 --Matthew 16:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments
Comment by 86.56.48.12:

For evidence to my additions of suspected sock puppets and IPs, please see the history of Al Jazeera English and of Talk:Al Jazeera English.
Specifically:
PS: In the interest of full disclosure I will add that I myself have done some edits to the said pages under other IPs (e.g. when at a friend's place). Anyway, I currently prefer to be as anonymous as can be, so please don't ask me to create an account, because I'm not likely to do so. I also possibly may not respond to User_talk:86.56.48.12. -- 86.56.48.12 22:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Conclusions

Thekingofyouall blocked, IPs not, as they haven't edited in weeks or months. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Orangemarlin

Suspected sock puppeteer

Orangemarlin (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by
Evidence
  • These two accounts often particpate in the same AFD's. They often seem to make similar arguments that show the same weakness in or disregard of understanding policy.
  • I have looked at Verbal's first few edits and compared those with Orangemarlin's around the same time. Since then, I have now become quite concerned that these are NOT two individauls who share a very similar world view, but ONE individual. An individual who might very well have created in good faith a mere alternative account at first. But he or she has now fallen into using both accounts to more easily persuade the consensus of various AFD's and DR's to his or her preference.
Diff's showing Verbal's early edits intersecting Marlin's (merely evidence of a possible alternative account)
Here's Verbal's work on National Resident Matching Program

On Verbal's very second edit to wikipedia this is what he did

Here's Orange Marlin working on the same article a few days prior to Verbal joining wikipedia
Then notice that Verbal in his or her next few edits (all within the first 20 edits) takes an interest in the word allopathic and articles that contain it
Some recent discussions (AFD's and a DR) where both Orangemarlin and Verbal have participated (which I've also been involved)
Comments
  • Please remember to notify all accounts listed as possibly linked to the sock puppetry in question (instructions).
  • This is an absurd claim. If they are the same person, not only do they suffer from schizophrenia, given that they !vote different in the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precambrian rabbit discussion, they also do not get any sleep. Looking at the last few days, together they edit all day round. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Editing 24/7 would explain the schizophrenia... ;-)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Hey. It's really good coffee. Except, you know, I have a real life, job, children, sleep, food, relationships, riding my motorcycle, movies, you know, real life.  :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  • It is so absurd, I nearly snorted my coffee this morning. I filed this because this SSP is obviously revenge for several blocks that have Firefly has received for his uncivil and lacking good faith attacks on other editors. I have requested that a checkuser review this and immediately close it, and that Firefly be indefinitely blocked from the project. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  • This filing is a heck of a stretch. I sense some bad blood. Why vent in this way, though? It's incredible, and I'm incredulous about it. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Both OrangeMarlin and Firefly have also both edited at both WQA and ANI. I believe they are good hand/band hand socks of each other. </end sarcasm> Based on history, sadly an obvious vexatious filing. ►BMW◄ 18:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Conclusions
Normally if I came across this I'd decline on the basis that fish CheckUser is not for fishing but I was asked offline to look at this and it's within discretionary range, so I did... Red X Unrelated ++Lar: t/c 20:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Spoilsport! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Nothing against Verbal, but geez, couldn't Firefly chosen someone that might have made this fascinating? I mean if he accused me of being a sock of User:ScienceApologist, now that would be hysterical. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:VacuousPoet

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

PurpleSunfish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
170.215.15.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
199.62.0.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
74.33.29.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
67.139.169.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
65.73.44.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
170.215.45.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Velvet elvis81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
74.33.26.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
65.73.80.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
YouNeedASmackBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

OrangeMarlin 08:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

This gentleman, who goes by the name of Vacuous Poet, has been banned outright several times. Please see his change of IP Addresses (and he's not trying to hide it) in Talk:Evolution, and Talk:Evolution/falsifiabilitydraft. He engages in a hit and run argument, changing his IP address as he gets banned. I believe a couple of his addresses have been banned. He is very frustrating. Here is a quote from one of his postings:

Regarding block my account. Easy enough to get around (assuming it is true, and I do not think it is true). Regarding my single purpose account. Not true, I have contributed to other articles on wikipedia. With regard to me being a Creationist. False. Regarding to my not being interested in this article. Self-evident that I am. Regarding my deleting of posts. I did not delete posts that I disagreed with. I left many posts that I disagreed with. I deleted posts that seemed to violate an honeset intellectual discussion. Regarding my being brainless. False. I am in fact a scientist (though unpublished in a journal). I admit that I am not a relevant scientist, though. Regarding the hostility. Some of you are clearly fanatics, self-appointed gaurdians, who obfuscate and ignore a perfectly valid question. Regarding others who have defended the question, thanks. VacuousPoet 20:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC) User:Vacuous Poet

I have added, Velvet Elvis 81 to the suspected sockpuppets of VacuousPoet. In discussions at Talk:Evolution/evolutionreligiondraft, his method of typing (using bolds within a sentence), his shrill tone, and argumentativeness indicates to me that he's the same person. He's being very disruptive.

I don't know if VelvetElvis81 is or is not VacousPoet; I've run into him on the Noah's Ark article but not the Evolution article. It is possible he is a sockpuppet, but I don't see any reason to suspect he's a sockpuppet - there are other people than VacousPoet who are biblical literalists.
VacousPoet is not engaging in sockpuppetry. What he is doing is actively evading a ban. That is very much against the rules of wikipedia, and he has absolutely no respect for following the proper procedure to be unbanned. He may more may not be a sockpuppet of someone else (kdbuffalo?), but this branch of accounts is him trying to evade being blocked. He needs to wait for his ban to be lifted via the process and stop evading the block. Titanium Dragon 07:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Added PurpleSunfish (talk · contribs). This account was created to fill out sockpuppet accusations against myself and other users after another VacuousPoet sockpuppet (170.215.15.99 (talk · contribs)) added the corresponding templates to our User pages. N6 08:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I'm not sure what "evidence" has been presented here, but I am certainly NOT a sock puppet. I've never heard/seen VacuousPoet, I'm not a scientist, I have a user account not just a random IP address (which seems to be Vacuous' m.o.), umm . . . what other evidence is there? A quick look at Talk:Evolution/evolutionreligiondraft will make it clear that I have neither displayed a shrill tone nor been particularly disruptive. This is just an example of someone who is mad that I disagree and is attempting to retaliate. It's ridiculous that I have to keep this baseless sock puppet tag on my page for 10 days now.--Velvet elvis81 03:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I just noticed that Vacuous tends to post only on the Evolution page. I've made edits all over the place.--Velvet elvis81 03:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Are we ever going to get a resolution as to whether I am or am not a sock puppet of Vacuous Poet? I think it's pretty clear I am not based on our edit histories--we happened to connect on a single issue (and not even on the same PAGE, mind you) and I was accused of being a sock puppet. That sounds vaguely similar to the sock puppetry charges involving Orangemarlin and N6 that were probably untrue and that they crowed so very loudly about. It's been ten days with no resolution. I'm removing the tag from my user page. Let me know if there's a problem with that.--Velvet elvis81 16:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind I had nothing to do with the case against you in particular, just some anon IPs and PurpleSunfish. N6 00:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Vacuous Poet Comments

User:Orangemarlin and are engagued in persecuting Christians and Creationists. For exmaple, see Singling out of a Christian user.. "This topic infuriates me, because I just despise the Christian Right in the US." from Crusade against Christians contributing to Evolution related articles for source. Orangemarlin and fill bait new users with ad hominems when they bring up problems with articles (e.g., failure to distinguish adequately between evolutionary speciation and evolution within a species), get discussions to devolve into flame wars, accuse new users and users they don't agree with (such as Velvet elvis81) of being sockpuppets, etc. I have been falsely accused of being a sock puppet of Kdbuffalo.

In any event, I am not a sockpuppet. Wikipedia:Sock_puppet defines a sockpuppet to be "A sock puppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name." Initially, I posted not signing, then I would add the tag "Vacuous Poet," in response to somebody who asked me to sign my posts, then I created an account called "Vacuous Poet" to appeal a block of my IP address.

I have never hidden my identity on any of the evolution talk pages or articles. I was initially unsigned and then Vacuous Poet.

My IP was blocked because an admin accused me of being a sockpuppet of Kdbuffalo (probably due to a message from fill or Orangemarlin, who did not like the criticism's to fill's baby, the evolution article, on talk:evolution). This has been appealed twice, and denied, so apparently more than one admin does think that I am a Kdbuffalo, although they have not emailed me. Email me at msm30@yahoo.com, and I will respond with my phone number. You can then call me, and we can figure out a way for me to identify myself to you in such a way that you will know that I am not Kdbuffalo.

It is clear that fill and Orangemarlin are using evolutionary and religious articles as soapboxes to argue that God is a myth, evolution is on par with the law of gravity, and it is clear they are abusing wikipedia due process by accusing me of being a sockpuppet of kdbuffalo, and now Velvet elvis81 of being a sockpuppet of me. It is also clear in the evolution article that fill is doing something analogous to "quote mining" in that when he addresses the controversies of evolution, he, for example, compares evolution within a species to the law of gravity, as opposed to evolutionary speciation, which has a less solid scientific foundation than evolution without speciation.

This complaint should be dismissed since the complainants are clearly on a crusade, claiming that I am a sockpuppet of myself (how can that be?), and likely the sources that falsely accused me of being a sockpuppet of Kdbuffalo as well as falsely accusing velvet evlis81 of being a sockpuppet of me. Also, they violate so many of wikipedia’s standards, such as no personal attacks, for example, without fail calling anybody who brings up a point they cannot refute a "Creationist", a slur in their minds. They are wasting admins time fighting intellectual battles using dirty tricks. 74.33.26.71 06:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

Just a note, it looks like somebody (perhaps those playing dirty pool) are now actively vandalizing the evolution talk page with a strawman sockpuppet. These possible strawman sockpuppets are Ymous, 12.145.177.110, 64.53.136.44 21:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC). 65.73.80.45 06:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet
More comments from OrangeMarlin
What I say or don't say about Christians is a personal opinion. In the Evolution article and discussion, we dismiss pseudoscience, because it has no place in the discussion. I admit to using pedantic language, but I have not violated any rules, including sockpuppetry. Since this is a fact-based assessment of Vacuous Poet being a sockpuppet, here are the facts:
  • Vacuous Poet was banned on or about December 22 for deleting and revising comments on the Evolution:Talk page. Several users filed complaints about his doing this, and his user name was blocked.
  • Within hours of being blocked, he switched IP addresses, did not register under his name, although he clearly uses his name with various IP addresses, to avoid the block.
  • That day another of his IP addresses were blocked, whereupon he switched to another IP address.
  • velvet elvis81 has posted in several locations, including Evolution based discussions, despite his claiming not to, and uses the exact same wording, tone, and bold highlighting as VacuousPoet.
  • According to the sockpuppet rules, a member who uses other methods to get around a ban, including switching IP addresses can be accused of sockpuppetry, which I have done. I

OrangeMarlin 14:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal issues aside, the facts are that you keep changing your IP address to get around bans. I believe two or three of your ID's are currently blocked, and yet you brazenly continue to post, using your IP address along with the nom de guerre "VacuousPoet". That's your choice in life, but it meets and exceeds the definition of at least attempting to get around the blocks. Why can't you just sit it out for one week, relax, and come back. You got blocked for editing and deleting comments, which is expressly forbidden. None of us find what you write to be very informative, and it is argumentative, but so what? You believe what you believe, we'll discuss it with you and move on. But for you to violate rules left and right means you have no respect for us or Wikipedia. Why don't you just chill out, quit evading blocks, then come back in a week? Then you can argue to your heart's content and as long as you don't get into revert wars, deleting comments, and violating other pillars of Wikipedia, you can post away. Many of us will argue with you, but that's how it works here. As for a vendetta against you, please give me a break. I don't care what you write. Do you think you're the worst or best of the anti-evolution crowd? Hardly. But I don't like rulebreakers and people who publicly state they can get around the rules. So there are a bunch of us who monitor each of your IP addresses, and add it to the case. You aren't making your case any easier. So, again, if you think I dislike you, you're wrong. If you think I don't respect you, that's true, because of your frequent and obvious disregard for the rules of Wikipedia. If you respect us and Wikipedia, then do the right thing. OrangeMarlin 19:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you please quit editing pages? You are not an administrator. You are blocked just for editing discussion. Leave anything I write alone. Please. Orangemarlin 07:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments from Filll

I am astounded to find more attacks and unfounded accusations here. I will respond however:

God is a myth

I have never claimed this, and in fact I have tried to enlist the services of some creationists to explore this topic with me. No one has taken me up on it however. I do claim, similar to the US legal system, all major scientific organizations, Nobel Prize winners, and the vast majority of scientists, that introducing the supernatural into science is against the rules of science. Once you do that, it is not science any more.--Filll 15:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


evolution is on par with the law of gravity

They are both well established theories of science. I am not the only one who has noted this. I am in good company. This is a terrible negative charge?--Filll 15:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


and it is clear they are abusing wikipedia due process by accusing me of being a sockpuppet of kdbuffalo

It is hard to keep track of all radical extremists. But I do not believe vacuous poet is as constructive as kdbuffalo. He would actually produce real citations that were not from creationist websites sometimes. Vacuous poet is mostly just disruptive.--Filll 15:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

and now Velvet elvis81 of being a sockpuppet of me.

As I said, it is hard to keep track.--Filll 15:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It is also clear in the evolution article that fill is doing something analogous to "quote mining" in that when he addresses the controversies of evolution, he, for example, compares evolution within a species to the law of gravity, as opposed to evolutionary speciation, which has a less solid scientific foundation than evolution without speciation.

All that it requires is a few more citations, which we have. Of course "true believers" will reject anything, so this is just an empty complaint. And it is clear he does not know what quote mining is.--Filll 15:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Back again!

VacuousPoet is back to their old tricks again, muddying discussion on Talk:Evolution with the same tired arguments. I added another IP. At this point we have a clear violation of WP:SOCK since User:VacuousPoet is on an indefinite block. N6 06:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions
  • This is clearly related to Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Orangemarlin and I will close both at the same time. That was a clear revenge nomination, and baseless.
  • User:Velvet elvis81 has many different interests, so seems unlikely to be a sock puppet of a gentleman blocked as a single purpose account.
  • User:PurpleSunfish as been blocked indefinitely already.
  • 170.215.15.99 has admitted to being Vacuous poet,[261] and is currently sitting out a 31 hour block for vandalism (presumably for specious accusations against Orangemarlin).
  • 199.62.0.252 was blocked for a week on Dec 26, and went back to his ways as soon as that block expired, with the Orangemarlin SSP accusation, and blanking the VacuousPoet user page.
  • 67.139.169.22, 74.33.26.71, 65.73.80.45 are admitted VP accounts, but haven't edited since Dec
  • 65.73.44.65, 74.33.29.35 and 170.215.45.95 haven't edited since being blocked for a week as a VP account
  • User:YouNeedASmackBot doesn't seem to exist - no contributions, user page was created by User:Orangemarlin for the sole purpose of placing a suspected sock puppet tag, and when I went to block it for implying a bot per Wikipedia:Username#Inappropriate_usernames, I got a "no such user" message.

Whew.

I'm going to make an offer to VacuousPoet to discuss his case with Pschemp, who seems to be the main blocking admin. This offer is based on the fact that from what I've seen of his edits, they are contentious, but not outright vandalism, they do seem to be mainly discussion, and allow for argument and compromise. I am also not sure why the admins think he is User:Kdbuffalo, who seemed to have a different style. And finally, I am not at all happy that the accusers in this case apparently lumped in a bystander who happened to hold opinions they disagreed with, and make up an account to pad out their case. :-(

However I will only do take up VP's case with Pschemp on the case that VP promises to

  • stick to one account,
  • not make any more revenge accusations of sock puppetry or similar,
  • not to edit war on articles until consensus or at least compromise is reached,
  • and to restrain himself from deleting other people's posts on talk pages.

If so, then quite possibly we can improve the articles in question instead of wasting everyone's time with blocking IPs.

If so, then VacuousPoet should post his agreement to this offer on my talk page, and I will take up arguing for his case. I can not, of course, guarantee success in convincing Pschemp to let me unblock the main account, but I can guarantee that I will try.

If not, then unfortunately, we will have to continue the useless dance, probably by blocking 199.62.0.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), then the next account VP switches to, with nothing constructive coming of it until VP gets tired. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Curandero101

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Curandero101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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


Report submission by

Aurorabaha 03:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

User account created on October 16, 2006: created within 5 days of first sockpuppet report on October 11, 2006 regarding sockpuppeteer user:Curandero101 created within 2 days of second sockpuppet report on October 14, 2006 regarding sockpuppeteer user:Curandero101 created the day after sockpuppet User:Haqiqat101 of sockpuppeteer user:Curandero 101 was permanently blocked on October 15, 2006

User goes out of his way to consistently defame Baha'i resources on Wikipedia as he has done on Bayani and Talk:Bayani. There exist no incidence of such activity by other users except user:Curandero101 and his various sockpuppets.

User sent an email to our church acusing us of being a "Baha'i Zionist Front" on same-day link to our church was removed from Ayahuasca external Church links by sockpuppet user:Thamarih.

Comments
Conclusions

Curandero101 last edited October 11, and made only one minor edit to Ayahusca, spending most of his time on Bayani. Note that his block was not indefinite. Thamarih first edited October 22, and made no edits to Bayani, or any other article Curandero101 edited, spending most of his time on Ayahusca. Two people both disliking a church is not conclusive evidence of identity. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:RJII

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Poet Liar Who Always Tells the Truth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Bi 13:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

Upon registration, Poet Liar immediately embarked on a campaign to, well, improve the article on the Integrated Management Associates company, by adding two more links to the company's own self-aggrandizing writings. It's quite clear that Poet Liar isn't really a new user, given that

  • he shows some familiarity with Wikipedia policy terminology such as "undue weight"; and
  • he claims to know what's "Wikipedia common practice".

If I have to say who I think the puppet master is, I'll guess it's User:RJII, judging from

  • the style of their edit summaries -- "added ...", "deleted ...", etc. (see RJII's edit summaries, and Poet Liar's edit summaries);
  • the arrogant tone and ad-hoc argumentation;
  • RJII's association with the Integrated Management Associates article in the past; and
  • the typo "irrelevent" (see Poet Liar's edit summaries above, and this and this from RJII).

In any case, there should be little doubt that the "new user" Poet Liar is, in fact, not a new user at all. -- Bi 13:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

(Addendum: RJII is a banned user. Bi 18:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC))

Comments

There are a few CheckUsers on RJII at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/RJII. None involve Poet Liar Who Always Tells the Truth. Poet hasn't contributed since 29 Dec, and looks like a throwaway account. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Not proven. RJII had wide and far ranging interests, Poet Liar only one. Knowing such terms as "undue weight" is not hard, considering A certain 'Bi' used them not long in the article history before Poet Liar's first edit. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Wolf Rees

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Wolf Rees (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Kraig grady (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
John H. Chalmers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Jstarret (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Badmuthahubbard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Citicat 01:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

User Wolf Rees created the (alleged vanity) article Cris Forster. The article was nominated for deletion for vanity/autobiography. User commented in the AFD[262] using the non-standard opening Do Not Delete. Four other user accounts were created to argue on the same AFD page, Three ofwhich also used the Do Not Delete opening, and used a similar language style. AFD also received the afdanons tag. None of these users have made any edits outside the article and the associated AFD.

Comments
Conclusions

Actually, Badmuthahubbard has made plenty of edits outside the AfD and article, and there is no such account as Jstarret. That weakens the case for the others, and in any case they haven't shown they're likely to edit elsewhere as sock puppets - though I will admit, they do look similar. Per blocking being preventative, not punitive, I'll leave them alone. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Archive/February_2007&oldid=123573034"