Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gaydenver/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Gaydenver

Gaydenver (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date March 7 2010, 22:07 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by DD2K
[edit]

JB5000 and John Obamo are legal accounts by the same editor, but I listed both to make sure all evidence is listed. The account for Gaydenver had his first edit on 2-28-2009, but waited until 8-24-2009 to start editing consistently. Shortly afterwards the user started editing the Barack Obama article. I will highlight this edit regarding Obama as being listed as a professor in the article, with the edit summary stating- "removing false information. Please, don't put in wrong information". Then the user went to another editors page and made this edit, warning the user to 'not put false information' in the Obama article. The user then went on to revert two(1, 2) other editors, and then made a report at ANI demanding one of the users be blocked for inserting 'false information'. Which eventually got Gaydenver blocked. I will also highlight these four edits(1, 2, 3, 4) while the user was blocked, for comparison to JB50000's behavior while blocked. Also, the user negotiates with administrators by offering deals and 'being nice'. Which is another familiar trait used by JB50000 and the other users in this SPI case. Which I will now list.

JB50000 examples: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Suomi Finland 2009 1 2 3

Judith Merrick creating an article titled "Barack Obama condolences" within a week of the users first edit. The article was put up for deletion and was deleted. Then the user proceed to make edits that are strangely similar as the other users in this case. 1 2 3 4

Also, both JB50000 and Judith Merrick edit(Judith Merrick created) the Samuel Zoll article and have very similar edits. Gaydenver's account was inactive from August of 2009 to March of 2010, JB50000 was blocked for 1 week on March 2 2010.

I believe there are many more sock-puppets involved here, and a CU is needed to prevent further disruption in several articles. One of the earlier edits JB50000 made was to John Carter's page concerning a RfC for Rjanag, where I believe the main 'puppetmaster' could be located. With a CU. DD2K (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

I don't see what the logic to listing me with some of these other people. JB50000 seems very argumentative, but I am not. Soumi Finland 2009 writes about things I never heard of, such as Joaquin Lavin. I never edited anything the same as Judith Merrick. The question to the checkuser is why is this POV extremist picking on me?

The thing that binds all these users is only that DD2K doesn't like them. Some are tied because they use the word "nice"; I don't use the word nice.

If there is a checkuser done, then DD2K should have a checkuser on him since the accuser of a crime is sometimes the real criminal, at least in real life.

I am not these people and I want my name dropped because I don't edit the same articles as the others. So that's innocence two ways, not these people and not editing the same. These kind of accusations just drive people away so that DD2K can do anything he wants.

Conclusion: DD2K wants to block anyone that doesn't agree with him. If there were a poll and users voted the same way is one thing but I edit different articles than the others. Gaydenver (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As per this edit [1], Gaydenver has asked to be blocked. However, I reverted this [2] premature closure of this page, as I still feel a checkuser should be run for the alternate accounts, and for a possible lengthening of JB50000's block if any evidence turns up. Dayewalker (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc accused me. A UT professor (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc accused me. 129.111.56.164 (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just saved the checkuser some time. Now, Tarc and DD2K, you do the same. A UT professor (talk) 01:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using the same logic as the original poster, the following has similar traits, User:Abrazame, User: Tarc (both use the word nice).User:DD2K (because the accuser is sometimes guilty). Also add me User:A UT professor just to be neutral. I have just added a review of the Barack Obama article. The problem with the article is that there is too much fighting. If people would just discuss matters. Since there are millions of supporters, opponents, and neutral people, socks are irrelevant since there are so many people in the U.S. and so many potential meatpuppets. Just come up with neutral edits and explanations. A UT professor (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc has accused me of being a sock. Therefore, I formally add my name and his name to this list. Rather than think of new ways to improve the article, he attacks me on the FAR page accusing me of being a sock. This is the typical reaction of incivility. The really constructive thing to do would just be to think of ways to improve the article. I have given my ideas. None of these ideas are extremely pro and anti-Obama. They are all for improving the article. A UT professor (talk) 01:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New evidence http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=348470561 Tarc uses the word "nice" during an argument. This is one of the reasons DD2K used to prove sockpuppetry. Tarc is therefore a sock by DD2K's logic. Tarc also has removed his name proving guilt. A UT professor (talk) 02:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

Behavior does look pretty similar, particularly stances demonstrated in comments at the Obama talkpage, and his tone & style. JB50000 was recently blocked, partly because of edits he did to Talk:Barack Obama, so if he is continuing to edit there with some other account then his block ought to be extended quite a bit. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree as above, the behavior is very similar in several ways. This editor only returned recently with the block of JB50000, so if this sock comes back positive, I agree with Rjanag that JB's block should be extended. He's been disruptive enough. Dayewalker (talk) 23:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone else see any reason for this edit [3], in which Gaydenver appears to be asking for help from the same new admin that JB50000 went to? Is there a reason for the coincidence? Dayewalker (talk) 23:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I reviewed the edit history of all those users and there is a big pink label on JB50000 that he was blocked by that administrator. Ok, you are so persistent I will tell you. I am an employee of the City and County of Denver and do not wish to be more involved because I could be fired for wasting time. Please block me for life. Gaydenver (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like an attempt to get out of check user to me. If you're going to be fired for time wasting, don't edit from work, or just stop editing, there's no need to have a block... - Kingpin13 (talk) 04:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Gaydenver/JB50000 patterns seem convincing to me, from writing style and tone to editing topics to putting up superlarge photos on their user page during a block. As to SuomiFinland, I am hoping CU will exonerate him. I've had a brief conversation with this user he seemed — I hesitate to use the word "nice"! Coincidentally, Suomi had pledged not to edit for a week or two, just prior to JB50000's block, and has spoken of a sense of wanting to reduce his editing here, which recalls Gaydenver's comments above. I'm hoping I wasn't rooked by Suomi; although I don't have extensive familiarity with him, I actually wrote in that conversation that I interpreted him as a neutral poster with no axe to grind — or, I would add, wield — which I can't say about Judith Merrick and JB50000; the passive-aggressive pedantry those two have in common does raise an eyebrow. To Gaydenver's comment: applying CU isn't going to jeopardize his job, is it? Abrazame (talk) 10:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re your last question, no, it won't affect his job. The only person who would have access to the information (essentially, which IP addresses the various accounts have edited from) would be the person performing the checkuser, and that person wouldn't share the information with anyone; all he really does is say "the accounts are related" or "the accounts are not related" based on the evidence. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I looked at the talk pages of some editors editing this article and found this link. It seems that since I have not edited, I should be added to the CU list. Also Tarc used the phrase "nice" so he should be added to, using the same logic as the original poster. Some of the logic used seems very accusatory. Also add Abrazame, who used the word "nice". I just submitted a review for the article. A UT professor (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc vandalized and removed his name. He used the word nice and is a straw man/sock suspect. Really, these accusations need to stop and we need to get down to the business of article improvement. A UT professor (talk) 01:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I fully support adding the A UT professor account above to this list. While the block on JB50000 is over, if he's found to have been trolling with an alternate account, I would also fully support a reblock. Dayewalker (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need. I helped you out. My IP is shown above. I signed my name, log off, signed by IP, then signed my name again, all within one minute. I am a professor. A UT professor (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is every need, Checkuser doesn't just check IPs. Dayewalker (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In my opinion, the brand new A UT professor (talk · contribs) is almost certainly the person behind this SPI investigation. Briefly: new users do not spend their first hour in the way this user has; the user has exactly the same style of politely innocent editing that is clearly intended to provoke an over-the-top response that may cause trouble for the responder. I am unfamiliar with SPIs and will expand my opinion if requested by an established editor. Johnuniq (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am unfamiliar with what the outcome seems to indicate. Is Gaydenver unrelated to both groups, or related to both groups? If unrelated that would be surprising to me. I thought the behavior of the two accounts(JB50000/Gaydenver) to be pretty obvious. In any case, Ipromise edited Wikipedia while JB50000 was blocked. And if 'group 2' is related to 'group 1', then Suomi Finland 2009 and Qpwoeial were also active. DD2K (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a completely bad faith nomination of me. I am an immigrant and not involved in politics. I am returning after a silly bet (which was made BEFORE this bad faith nomination!) that Finland would win the women's hockey bronze (which they did) then may another silly bet that Finland would win the men's gold, which they didn't. This is just a fishing expedition. I admit to Kailuamodification, that was an old account that I remembered so I closed it (I was so honest that I officially closed it without anyone asking). I think I know Reagan Rommel and Qpwoeial, whom I'm never going to let use my computer again because of this accusation. Should everyone in Wikipedia be checkusered and be forced to answer questions about any other user found? I'm ready to edit and fix some articles that I started working on but, due to these accusations, I will extend my Wikibreak for 7 additional days.
Group 3 apparently is Gaydenver and is editing from the "City and County of Denver" so the original accusation is wrong. Group 4 apparently is the UT professor, at least according to the checkuser and is editing from the University of Texas. I am no Texan. My suggestion to DD2K is to just edit well instead of accusing great editors like me. I turned a lousy written stub into a 5 fold expansion DYK then to a GA. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to say I'm confused as to which of the users on the "Suspected sockpuppets" list have been checked (and which not) and what those checks indicate. I take it that the CU of SuomiFinland has exonerated him from any reasonable possibility of being JB50000 or the others, which I said above was my expectation and my hope. ReaganRommel and the Hawaii account have had no problems and I didn't wade through the other. So if someone can corroborate my interpretation of this, would they please respond here or on Suomi's page that there is nothing in this that implicates him or those who may have used his computer to create an account in any wrongdoing? In our efforts to prevent delinquency here, let's be sure we take a moment to acquit the innocent. Abrazame (talk) 02:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather an administrator go through this with the CU to find out if the accounts not listed below were using proxies or universities to edit from. I find it very hard to believe that the users are not related. There is just too many instances where the users use the same styles, and the same feigned politeness designed to act as if unbiased. Between 'prose', the "I will be nice", the negotiations with administrators and the 'self imposed' breaks, it seems painfully obvious to me that the accounts are related. Of course every case has to rely on the evidence and the experience of an administrator. So whatever happens is ok with me. DD2K (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Merrick (talk · contribs) is disrupting by FAR by continuing to relist the Barack Obama FAR, closed by the FAR delegate YellowMonkey last night. I believe this is consistent with past behavior from this drawer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Merrick (talk · contribs) [4] and A UT professor (talk · contribs) [5] similarly referred to me as the head of FAR (which I'm not), in spite of them allegedly being new users. This has been typical behavior on my talk page of past Obama-FAR socks, who nominate FARs inappropriately and then sing the same song when these FARs are removed by the FAR delegate-- this is a long-standing and recurring pattern, going back about half a dozen FARs. Please run a CU so we can be done with this time-consuming disruption. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The FAR looked open so I added a comment. (DaBomb87 agrees and write here about the confusion-not a case of disruption- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADabomb87&action=historysubmit&diff=350464235&oldid=350463902) Only AFTER I added a comment was the blue closed box added. If you look at the comment, the suggestions for article improvement were very good and very productive. I even took the effort to write detailed suggestions.
As far as using the term "head of FAR", A UT Professor wrote that in the FAR which I read so I was just copying that. If that is used as a reason, then SandyGeorgia should be blocked because both she and most other sockpuppets use the word "the", thus proving a link. I am not in Texas, very far from it. Also look at my edits and see how reasonable they are, not POV pushing at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Barack_Obama/archive8&diff=prev&oldid=350456079 Judith Merrick (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: CODE LETTER (Unknown code )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by DD2K (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 23:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Tarc and the others about the addition of his/her account. I don't suspect him/her related to the accounts at this time. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 02:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Behavioral evidence will be necessary to determine a link between the two groups and to any other parties listed above and not listed here. -- Avi (talk) 06:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: All six accounts listed at the top of this request were checked, together with those that arose during the sweep. If any of the accounts at the top of this request are not listed above, that means that there was insufficient technical evidence to indicate a relationship with any certainty, and behavioral evidence alone must be used. Please remember, that somone editing for the first time through a proxy or university account would appear unrelated technically, and behavioral evidence would be needed. I hope this clarifies any questions. -- Avi (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken some comparisons here, and while many of them edit the same articles, I think it's also plausible that these could well be separate people who may closely interact with one another IRL. Given also some slightly different edit patterns, I don't think the behavioral evidence tells the same story as the technical evidence, and in my opinion I am not inclined to issue any blocks at this time. –MuZemike 19:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
09 June 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by DD2K
[edit]

I'm adding these two accounts as duck cases, without a CU. But if a check user wants to run a CU, it might help with whatever IP addresses this user is using. The latest post at the Obama talk page seems like an obvious JB50000/Judith Merrick entry. The McChicken account was blocked for user name violation, but posted in the same manner. Dave Dial (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence submitted by Modocc
[edit]

Both The Chicken costs $1 and the Gaydenver puppet Judith Merrick (talk) have edited fairly heavily almost exclusively once per week on Wednesdays, [6] [7][8] in the same style and manner on the Barack Obama talk pages and on the same threads such as this contentious thread here with the user's McChicken account being created shortly after the Merrick account was blocked. --Modocc (talk) 00:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I am retiring because you [not Modocc] and Dave Dial are so inhospitable," said The McChicken costs $1 below. Perhaps this case should just be closed now. Yes? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

The complainer is a very partisan, very POV Obama editor. Wikipedia is neither Obama.com nor McCain.com. All the suggestions that I have given are neutral and valid. This complaint is a bad faith effort to gain advantage in David Dial's attempt to manipulate the Obama article to his liking. David Dial is also involved in an edit war described in ANI about FAQ #1, something that I am not involved in.

This sockpuppet accusation is false because it is very clear from my talk page that I changed my username per other's requests. It is very bad to ask that someone change their user name then accuse the new name of being the sockpuppet of the old name (particularly when the new name is intentionally similar to the old name to prevent confusion).

As far as I know, nobody with access to this computer is gay (not that I have anything against gay people) and I am certainly not in the gay area of Denver, Colorado. I am not User:Gaydenver.

The checkuser should review my edits and see that I am a decent editor with NPOV. Not only are sockpuppetry accusations wrong but User:David Dial fails to show what edits are in agreement to cause sockpuppetry because I am not Gaydenver. The Chicken costs $1 (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Dial's diff is deceiving. I fixed the edit. What I was saying in the edit is that I get e-mails from Barack Obama since I donated money to his campaign. The e-mails are newsletters. I was asking if these e-mails are considered reliable sources.22:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Chicken costs $1 (talk • contribs)

Additional comment
[edit]

I have looked at Gaydenver. Gaydenver is innocent and has not used any socks according to the checkusers (the checkuser has the exact language, something about no technical evidence (Avi) and no behavioral evidence (MuZemke) for the 6 users accused of being socks). However, Dave Dial (who also edits under the username of DD2K) and others have kept repeated the phrase "_____ is a sock of Gaydenver" enough times they got others blocked anyway. The common link isn't sockpuppetry, but anyone that Dave Dial wants to pick on. If Dave Dial is the face of Wikipedia, I don't want any part of this kind of dishonesty and harrassment.

Comments by other users
[edit]

If Chicken and McChicken are not the same user I will eat my hammer.never mind, I mis-read chicken's comment above As for the relation to Gaydenver, both like to inhabit Talk:Barack Obama, and both like to archive or shrink discussions on that talk page. Both accounts created after Gaydenver blocked, but not noticeably close. S.G.(GH) ping! 22:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eat your hammer like you promised. Using the same logic, User:DD2K and Wikidemon "both like to inhabit Talk:Barack Obama, both like to archive or shrink discussions on that talk page." Show me where I archived a discussion. Eat your hammer twice. Decorum requires that we not accuse others like you are doing. Please stop. Besides, I am retiring because you and Dave Dial are so inhospitable. The Chicken costs $1 (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are "retiring" because you know that it's obvious that you are a sock puppet of JB50000/Judith Merrick. You post in exactly the same manner no matter which name you use. I have many years of experience in sighting these kinds of cases, being a forum administrator of large sports forums, and I would bet you also have a main account. If I were a CU, I would run a check on the IPs you use(they either have to be all the same, or be open proxies/schools). Dave Dial (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DD2K has recently harassed me. But I am more seasoned than The McChicken costs $1 so I didn't quit. What a shame DD2K's action have resulted in the loss of a Wiki editor. It's a disgrace, actually.
Will someone tell me, please, what are the consequences for hounding someone so much that he quits Wikipedia? Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hounding schmounding. "Leaving" is the easiest way to avoid scrutiny for wrongdoing. Grsz11 00:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but he was forced to change his name as well, and for silly reasons and possibly against consensus (not worth counting now). So I implicitly including that in the "hounding". In addition, he was a newbie. Newbies can take things harder than experienced editors--that's why we are all supposed to be nice to newbies. But this guy was hounded right from the start. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't open this to see if Chicken and McChicken are the same, that's obvious, and has been stated openly. Rather, it's in order to determine if the person behind (Mc)Chicken is the same as Gaydenver and those associated puppets. Grsz11 01:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but he's a newbie. Isn't there a more newbie-friendly way to do this? Some kind of template ready to go in this type of circumstance? Look, I have no idea what his edits are like. All I know is he is a newbie and I am trying to help him for that reason also. I do not condone Wiki policy violations. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are letting yourself get bamboozled; this user is not a newbie by any stretch of the imagination. Tarc (talk) 02:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You act like this is obvious. Why is it you feel this user is not a newbie? Ink Falls 04:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{OD} Without spilling the beans here, the newbie certainly does seem to share certain editing traits with a certain banned user. I understand the good faith being handed around by everyone, but I'll second the idea that this should be looked into. If Chicken wishes to retire, this matter should still be Checkusered, as that's been the MO of the banned user before. Dayewalker (talk) 04:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.
Jumped the gun, perhaps, but  Confirmed. Totally unambiguous. --jpgordon::==( o ) 21:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
29 October 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by Access Denied
[edit]

Follows RIPGC's pattern of trying to find reasons to desysop admin Toddst1. In addition, IP is from Colorado, so seems likely to be Gaydenver. There are only about 8 days until RIPGC's checkuser data goes stale so I'm hoping for quick service here. Thanks, Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 22:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]

RIPGC/GayDenver is a pretty likely candidate - s/he tends to use IPs around Boulder/Denver Colorado (if I remember correctly) as this one did.

That being said, I'm sure there are more than a few folks out there that would like to see me de-sysopped after issuing over 7,500 blocks. Toddst1 (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]

I blocked some old socks, but that looks to be the extent of it. Also, checkuser will not connect users with IPs, so I can't comment on any relation between RIPGC and the IP you listed above. TNXMan 14:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RIPGC blocked by Newyorkbrad, no further users remaining, closing. Nakon 07:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

24 October 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


The editor Hi Balloon Boy's edits match the sort of behavior of the User:JB50000 and User:Judith Merrick socks. The copy and pasting of other editors comments into pages of other editors Talk pages, and then making pointy edits on other articles because the editor felt slighted, is done by both the Judith Merrick account and Hi Balloon Boy account.

  • Judith Merrick "Routine sorry"(1,2,3,4)
  • Hi Balloon Boy "Reasons why" 1

All have long periods of inactivity, with their main focus on Obama related articles, all editing with the same type of disruptive style.

Taking up same edits as Hi Balloon Boy while latter editor proclaims "Retired" or blocked.(1,2) The 'self-imposed' break from editing Obama or other related articles.

Also, all editors have the same feigned outrage at other editors and make claims that only they are neutral while everyone else is a Obama campaign worker. I would ask for just a duck block, but this user seems proficient in ip hopping, even if they are less skiled at hiding the same posting patterns/styles. Dave Dial (talk) 18:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. I am not anywhere near Denver. The real reason for the complaint is that they want to eliminate anyone with good suggestions for the articles. My suggestions are neither for or against Obama. Scjessey David Dial and Tarc are political hacks and should be investigated for meatpuppetry. BAMP (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am more polite than Mr. Boy. That is behavioral proof that I am not that person. Besides, all my suggestions are to improve Wikipedia content. They are very good suggestions. To drag me in is hostile. BAMP (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am NOT using WiFi. I am using my own computer plugged into the internet. BAMP (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not move without linking the Tnxman comment. This is reason why this case should be closed. It is not much different from a strip search, tax audit, etc. The person filing it is hostile and doing this to harrass. If they had an editorial reason to object, then just say why their suggested edit is better. BAMP (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't add comments to the Clerk, CU, and/or admin section. That section is used by administration and comments up here are just as visible. Thank you. Alexandria (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe Mr. Denver here has overplayed his hand by including me in with the "political hacks" that "should be investigated for meatpuppetry. In the recent altercations, I have made precisely one article edit and weighed in with 2-3 comments at ballonboy's ANI filing. "BAMP" shows quite an intimate familiarity with myself and others that seems highly unlikely to come from the brief interactions of today and yesterday. Gaydenver and Merrick were also quite quick to break out the "investigate them instead" diversionary tactic. IMO there's enough quackity quack evidence here to toss both of them to the indef pile. Tarc (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can only speak for myself. My edits are very good. They are constructive. I offer good comments on improving the article. Some others cannot refute the logic of my edits and resort to accusations of sockpuppetry. This tactic should not be allowed to happen. So the checkuser should stand back and ask "why are the edits of the accusers good and I am bad." There conclusion should be that my edits are of very high quality. BAMP (talk) 19:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the checkuser has completed the task. There is no conclusion of "confirmed, they are the same person". Therefore, this should be closed. To block me would only empower vicious attacks on someone (me) who edits very constructively and offers good suggestions for article improvement. BAMP (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

 Clerk note: Gaydenver is very likely to be  Stale considering the last check run on a confirmed account was back in 2010. No comment on running a check between the two socks listed though. Alexandria (talk) 18:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not much to see, unfortunately. All of the previous socks are indeed stale. BAMP and Hi Balloon Boy are in the same geographic area using open wifi/public terminals. Heli v de luna (talk · contribs) was created a few days before Hi Balloon Boy on the same IP, but should not be blocked until they edit (goes back to the public terminal bit). TNXMan 18:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, I mis-pasted. Heli v de luna and Hi Balloon Boy are using wi-fi. BAMP is in the same geographic area. TNXMan 18:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can close this as 'inconclusive', but because there are obviously problems, I'm going to issue BAMP a seperate topic ban under Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation, which should solve the problems of a.his 'unusual' editing style, and b.his fears of being harrassed. The Cavalry (Message me) 19:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18 November 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

IP address autoblocked because it was recently used by Jack Pater, a sockpuppet of this user. 1966batfan (talk) 01:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This IP may also be a sock of User:Lewisistheone1991, which is a sockpuppet of banned user Dereks1x.--1966batfan (talk) 01:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
26 February 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


USer started editing the Obama article with one of his/her first edits, restoring claims made another editor accusing Wikipedia of "pro Obama bias" and "propaganda". The user then went to ANI the same day, after making 2 edits concerning Obama. The user was blocked for edit warring on the Obama article, and disrupting the Talk page. The user then stopped editing for more than 2 years, and has now went directly back to the Obama article.

UCC is better than Christian edits Midemer JB50000

I am the only non-biased editor on Wikipedia, everyone else is a Obama fan or "inbreeder" Midemer JB50000

"We have consensus"(false claims of consensus, even when obviously is not true) Midemer JB50000

Now, to me, this is a painfully obvious DUCK, but a CU should be done in order to flush out any other accounts this user has. And after all these accounts keep popping up, it's obvious he/she has them. Dave Dial (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have to spill the beans on the obvious here? How in the world could this user claim "User:Jack Patern was accused and banned without even a checkuser done" within 10 minutes of being notified of this case? Or even if that was true or not? Come on, Jack Patern isn't even listed in the archives of this case. There is more, but it's disappointing that this user can troll page after page with the same silliness without a CU done, so I'm washing my hands of these games and naivete. Have a good day Dave Dial (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

David Dial is a POV-pusher who accuses everyone he doesn't like as being a sock. User:Jack Patern was accused and banned without even a checkuser done. This tactic of accusations against editors who you don't like must stop. If the checkuser shows no link (and there isn't because I am not these people), then David Dial should be blocked for incivility and edit warring. Midemer (talk) 03:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But there is an indication that Gaydenver is an employee of the City of Denver. I am far, far away from Denver. I am close to Valley Village, a neighborhood of Los Angeles. Midemer (talk) 04:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the accusations are false. I never said I am the only unbiased editor in Wikipedia. I am not delusional. There are thousands of unbiased editors and only a few disruptive, POV pushers, like DD2K, the complainer in this complaint. He should be CU'ed against his sock, Python something.Midemer (talk) 04:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gaydenver/Archive&oldid=1145957277"