Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MascotGuy/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:MascotGuy[edit]

MascotGuy (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

MascotGuy

MascotGuy (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

Report date April 4 2009, 03:23 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by PMDrive1061 (talk) 03
23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

This is the latest of literally thousands of sockpuppets created over a nearly five-year span by a user nicknamed "Mascot Guy." At this point, I feel that a formal complaint for a terms-of-service violation to this individual's IP is long overdue.

Conclusions

Seeing as all of the accounts are already blocked, and this case was simply filed for the purpose of having a paper trail, would anyone object to its closure? Tiptoety talk 03:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 It has been archived automatically.


Report date April 23 2009, 18:55 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by PMDrive1061 (talk)


Yet another clear-cut User:MascotGuy sockpuppet. He's been particularly active in April as evidenced at WP:LTA/MG. It's time to start rangeblocking each and every one of this jackass's socks as they come in beginning with this one. I'm fed up with dealing with this little SOB for five years. I would also propose a name recognition bot at this point given his predictibility in regards to naming convention.


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Request for CheckUser
Checkuser request – code letter: E  + F (Community ban/sanction evasion and another reason)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below. Requested by Tiptoety talk
  •  Clerk endorsed - Self endorsed, to perform a IP check / range block. Tiptoety talk 20:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  •  Clerk note: Case merged from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cruise Control Guy. In the future please file any new cases under this case name to ensure that we keep a accurate paper trail. Thank you, Tiptoety talk 19:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Streetfighters and all the accounts at [1] are him. I don't think an IP block is possible, unfortunately. Dominic·t 23:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • More good news. Well then, why not a report to the IP and why not a quick check of some of the other April socks to see where they're coming from? I'd hate to block a legit user on these networks, but hey, that's collateral damage for you. I don't mean to sound heartless, but shutting down a few potential new accounts while shutting down this geek seems like a relatively small price to pay.--PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one is stopping you from drawing up a complaint for the ISP if you'd like. The accounts I found were actually on the IP from the April 4 report, which I also checked. It's not a matter of affecting just "a few potential new accounts," but I don't think a block is possible. He's used several different ISPs just in the last month. Dominic·t 00:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

 Completed all identified socks have been blocked. No rangeblock is possible. Mayalld (talk) 10:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mayalld (talk) 10:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Report date April 28 2009, 00:43 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by PMDrive1061 (talk)


More MascotGuy idiocy. Clobbered before he could create too many sub-accounts. It's high time that someone in this organization besides me took this idiot more seriously with some real action against his IPs, not to mention a name recognition bot. I've had it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PMDrive1061 (talk • contribs) 19:43 UTC, April 27, 2009


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Additional information needed Do you mean to say that both are socks of MascotGuy? If so, then this case needs to be moved under that user. Also, please provide evidence of sockpuppetry in the form of diffs. Thank you, — Jake Wartenberg 03:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jake, I've been following this monkey's antics for nearly five years. Check WP:LTA/MG to see these two socks plus some others created by this user earlier today. He opens an account and then uses that account to open up sub-accounts, almost none of which he actually edits from. The naming convention and the creation of the other socks via the "master sock" are unique to this person and I've added the extra accounts. Just check the log for the Rhapsody Guy account to see the extras he created. What I'm requesting here isn't proof that it's MascotGuy since it so clearly is, but rather a rangeblock of the IP. I honestly don't know how he has access to so many IPs, but the fact is, he does and each should have a rangeblock imposed as they pop up in my opinion. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

 Delisted As previously established by CU, this guy hops from ISP to ISP with great ease. IP blocks would just be a pointless game of Whack-a-mole, because the blocks are vanishingly unlikely to stop him, but will cause massive collateral damage to other users. Possibly Werdna could expand the AbuseFilter extension to do something in this space. Mayalld (talk) 07:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mayalld (talk) 07:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]



MascotGuy

MascotGuy (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

Report date May 7 2009, 03:02 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by PMDrive1061 (talk)



Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Yet another round of sockpuppets created by banned user MascotGuy; details at WP:LTA/MG. The "Crash & Burn Guy" is the latest "master sock" used to create the other five. If a rangeblock isn't warranted at this point, I don't know what the heck will make it happen.

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

All tagged; all were already blocked. For the sake of this "master sock" idea, I've tagged them all as socks of Crash & Burn Guy, and tagged C&BG as a sockpuppeteer. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Report date April 17 2009, 22:48 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Abce2 (talk)

Check the New user creation log Abce2 (talk) 22:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

I think that a rangeblock is more than warranted at this point along with rangeblocks of any and all subsequent accounts. Let's report this issue to the latest IP and let them shut off his access for TOS violations. This monkey has created more problems in nearly five years than anyone working this site for its good should have to endure. I know that I'm sick of it. All I did was to take a look at the new user log (while I'm trying to take a break) and up went my blood pressure when I saw "Canada's Favorite Mascot." I also believe that this should be taken to the Wikimedia Foundation's lawyers for the investigation of possible prosecution. I am dead serious at this point. If there needs to be some sort of legal precident made in order to possibly prosecute chronic vandals, let's start it right here and now. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: I'm having trouble figuring out why it was these were blocked. I asked an admin to check for deleted edits, and there were none, nor edits at all. Account listed as master created the four other accounts, but why were they blocked? My best guess, was that you think this is MascotGuy..? Or am I wrong? Syn 21:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merged from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Canada's Favorite Mascot. Syn 21:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk note: Given this guys history, and the archives, CU has already said its not possible to block the ip or range due to ISP issues. With that, I move to close. Syn 21:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

 Delisted it really does seem that there is little that can be done other than blocking on sight, (and without comment, or drama). Mayalld (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Syn 21:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Report date June 11 2009, 15:13 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by PMDrive1061


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

MascotGuy is back after a rangeblock. I was told that he was editing from both an Apple computer store and a government office; as a result, he's been quiet for the last couple of weeks. The "Dr. Power's" account was the first one created and, in his inimitable style, was used to create the other five in rapid succession.


Conclusions

 Delisted all accounts are already blocked, and can be recorded at the LTA page if required. Mayalld (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mayalld (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Report date June 26 2009, 02:32 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by PMDrive1061

Yet another sockpuppet generator created by MascotGuy. His "sub-socks" can be found on the log. A range block of some public terminals worked for a good long time, but it's apparently time to do another CU on this latest round of his remarkable brand of idiocy. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE: Please add User:Jungleball to the list. The filter just caught another new sock farm. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: F  + Unknown (Other reason and unknown code)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Syn 02:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  •  Clerk endorsed Self endorse to check for a standard sleeper sweep per PMD below. Syn 02:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.




Report date July 2 2009, 02:31 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by PMDrive1061


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


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

This idiocy has to stop and it has to stop now. Please. Just run a CU on this dweeb and please, please hit whatever IP he's editing from with a range block. A good, long one. I have absolutely had it and I am utterly sick and tired of cleaning up after this freakazoid. I need some help here and since I can't impose a range block, I need someone who can. I'm about to burn out on this. PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please review the log for his latest sockpuppet farm. He was editing from public terminals the last time; I fail to see how a range block of these IPs would be harmful. PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Checkuser request – code letter: B (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.

 Clerk endorsed Looking through the archives, there are often one or more sleepers. Note to filer, I should warn you that his ranges have been too big to block in the past, so I doubt much as changed since. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Conclusions

 Completed IP blocked (it looks static) -- Luk talk 10:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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



Report date July 4 2009, 04:44 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by PMDrive1061


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Here we go again. No sooner is one IP blocked than this individual games us again. I've had it. I'm asking just once more for a range block, a formal complaint to the IP, legal procedings or something stronger and with teeth other than dodging and parrying this jackass. I'm already an admin here and a bureaucrat on two other Wikia wikis. How do I get CU privileges so that I don't have to keep on crying over here? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are one day too late actually, ArbCom just closed the application period for the upcoming CU/OV elections. (See here). Tiptoety talk 05:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
 Completed  IP blocked -- Luk talk 09:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PM, rangeblock is not feasible, he's using different connections each time, as far as I can see. -- Luk talk 09:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Report date July 5 2009, 02:22 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by PMDrive1061


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Request for CheckUser
Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below. Requested by Tiptoety talk 17:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk endorsed - To check for sleepers, plus perform another IP block. Tiptoety talk 17:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Now the little SOB is toying with us. This is the final straw and I will be reporting this matter to the foundation. It has to stop. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

 IP blocked for what it is worth, buyt he's hopping. -- Avi (talk) 02:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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


Report date August 1 2009, 02:43 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by PMDrive1061


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


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

This may be a copycat. If not, it will mark the first time in nearly five years that MG has written anthing on a talk page, namely mine. However, I am not totally convinced it's him. He created this one account, edited two articles and my talk page and was then blocked. PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Conclusions
  •  Clerk note: - Do they have to be tagged? If so, could I have a link to the accounts please? NW (Talk) 04:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Full list:
  1. Apocolypse Guy (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  2. Flapjack's Killers (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  3. Head & Break Guy (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  4. NaNAsplitz (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  5. Great Gatsby Guy (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  6. Sledgedog0 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  7. Sneddery (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  8. Loopydeloope (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  9. Scanteel (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  10. Wicketts (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  11. Squirepantz (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  12. Uhnkkk (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  13. Sledgedog0 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  14. Dreadman 66 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  15. Snolting (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  16. Hogdog0 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  17. Zygfield (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  18. Plorakk34 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  19. Sleddog12 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  20. Sockem40 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  21. Duckard (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  22. Plorak (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  23. Squirepantalones101 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  24. DaChimp1800 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  25. Hidges89 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

The master appears to be Sledgehog0 (talk · contribs), but it's clear that this guy was not a newbie. This was the same person who claimed to have hacked into the Squirepants101 (talk · contribs) account. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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


MascotGuy

MascotGuy (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

Report date October 13 2009, 02:23 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Nezzadar (speak)

Has created these accounts for no reason. Also created User:Telephony Guy. Has done nothing else. Is taking names away from future users. Nezzadar (speak) 02:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser request
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.

Self-endorsing as a sockfarm is being created as I type this. MuZemike 02:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

This idiot just doesn't get the message. Since he's likely editing from a public terminal, can we please just initiate a rangeblock? We had a merciful three-month vacation the last time blocks were initiated on this yahoo. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 IP blocked No obvious unblocked sleepers found. J.delanoygabsadds 02:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
  • No need to tag; all blocked. NW (Talk) 02:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date December 11 2009, 03:49 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by PMDrive1061


Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users


Request for CheckUser
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.
  •  Clerk endorsed - To check for sleepers and if possible perform and IP and/or range block. Tiptoety talk 08:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Our most persistent pest has been extraordinarily busy as of late. These are probably all on different IPs, but there was a point awhile back where some rangeblocks kept him at bay for a few months. Can do again if possible?

Unfortunately, I can't see anything that I can do, short of blocking entire ISPs. Each IP here was on a very different range. Dominic·t 08:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date December 26 2009, 20:40 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by —Duncan (that's me!)What I Do / What I Say


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

Yup, another bout of idiocy by San Diego's village idiot. Honestly, it is time to start hitting back with long-term rangeblocks. If any legit user is inadvertently locked out, he/she should have the option to contact an admin and have an account created. I strongly believe that the benefits of rangeblocks far outweigh the liabilities. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by —Duncan (that's me!)What I Do / What I Say 20:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

No other sleepers. Range blocks aren't going to help. He's all over the place. J.delanoygabsadds 20:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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


Report date January 26 2010, 03:51 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by PMDrive1061


Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: E  + F (Community ban/sanction evasion and another reason)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.

Yup, it's clearly MascotGuy. What I'm wondering is whether or not another rangeblock is possible or even feasible. These four new socks actually represent 24 new socks, all blocked.

 Confirmed - the usual bunch;
Now checking for suitable rangeblocks - Alison ❤ 00:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops - more  Confirmed;
Can't really get a good rangeblock in place, sorry - Alison ❤ 00:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: All accounts already blocked. No need to tag. Tim Song (talk) 10:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date February 13 2010, 01:41 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign)

I noticed Beer For My Horses Guy creating multiple accounts shortly creating this account in the User Creation Log. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 01:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Main account has appeared to be blocked. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 01:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

It's that idiot Mascot Guy again. I just checked the filter and saw this. See WP:LTA/MG to learn more about this person. PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: B + E (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.

Un-marking as closed and requesting that a check be run. We've gotten quite a few hits the last day or two on WP:SPI/BOT, and the edits didn't readily indicate the MO, but the usernames certainly do. –MuZemike 16:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

information Administrator note All of the accounts have been blocked. TNXMan 16:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-- Avi (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date 14:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign)

Evidence that the stale accounts above are actually socks is here. Beer For My Horses Guy is confirmed by CheckUser. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 14:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Conclusions
Report date February 28 2010, 03:26 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by PMDrive1061 [edit]
Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: B  + E (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

I am 99.9% certain that we're dealng with a copycat and a fairly ill-tempered one. Never once has the real MascotGuy responded to concerns, let alone attempt to contact another user. A real MascotGuy sock, User:Zany's Killers appeared soon afterward and did a rare edit in the article space...and not on my talk page the way this guy did. Once blocked, that sock made no attempt to edit his talk page. Classic MO. Pretty sure the two are unrelated, but if you want to run a CU on the "Zany's Killers" sock, I sure wouldn't mind. PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed –MuZemike 03:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, apparently a copycat. In any case,  Confirmed all of the following are a match:
Dominic·t 00:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date April 24 2010, 02:34 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Tim Song [edit]

The usual behavior. Tim Song (talk) 02:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: B  + E (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Tim Song (talk) 02:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Self endorsed for CU attention, to check underlying IPs and sleepers. Tim Song (talk) 02:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Filter 159 has been reactivated with additional (hidden) details that should improve its tracking. It should be monitored for potential future socks. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 03:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 IP blocked. Dominic·t 04:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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


Evidence submitted by Elockid [edit]

Same MO as well as creating new accounts using one account as the other recent socks. Elockid (Talk) 00:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Elockid (Talk) 00:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed for a sleeper check and IP block please. Elockid (Talk) 00:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No sleepers,  IP blocked. J.delanoygabsadds 01:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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



Evidence submitted by SoCalSuperEagle [edit]

Only 2 minutes after the first listed account was created, it was used to create the second one. Note how one username ends with "Guy" and the other ends with "Mascots". --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

information Administrator note Both blocked. TNXMan 19:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

05 September 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]



Evidence submitted by Pilif12p [edit]

Usernames are pretty obvious either a troll trying to get attention by acting like MG or it is MG. see WP:LTA/MG and [2] I'm not quite sure if checkuser is warranted in this situation, it's pretty WP:DUCKy to me though. (I'll request it, and can obviously be declined if not needed) Pilif12p :  Yo  05:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]

Even if it wasn't MascotGuy, it's obvious someone is violating the sockpuppetry policy just by looking at some of the logs. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 08:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

 Clerk endorsed Very rarely do we ever bother with a CU for MascotGuy, as the usernames can be blocked on sight very easily, but since we haven't seen him in a while I think it's probably prudent to do a sleeper check just to be sure. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 08:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-- Avi (talk) 09:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marking for close. TNXMan 18:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
30 September 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]



Evidence submitted by SoCalSuperEagle [edit]

This series of account creations (which took place during a 10-minute period per the account creation log) is clearly consistent with MascotGuy's M.O. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
01 October 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]



Evidence submitted by SoCalSuperEagle [edit]

This series of account creations within a 5-minute period. Clearly consistent with MascotGuy's M.O. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

information Administrator note Duckified --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

06 October 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]



Evidence submitted by SoCalSuperEagle [edit]

This. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

Socks blocked (and not tagged, per DENY), no sleepers found. TNXMan 19:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

08 October 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]



Evidence submitted by SoCalSuperEagle [edit]

This series of account creations. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]

This is beyond annoying. Why haven't his IPs been sitebanned yet? Srobak (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

Nothing CU can do here. All of these accounts were created on another wiki, so there are no logs for any of these accounts. –MuZemike 22:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I found the logs on en.wiki. No sleepers, anyways. –MuZemike 22:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
08 November 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by The sock that should not be [edit]

Per WP:DUCK, all created by User:The Power of Junk. The sock that should not be (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Auto-generated every six hours.

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
13 November 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]



Evidence submitted by SoCalSuperEagle [edit]

This string of recent account creations. Also, the first listed suspected sockpuppet tripped the MascotGuy filter. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Auto-generated every six hours.

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

All blocked (no check performed, however). TNXMan 18:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

23 November 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

This series of account creations within a 7-minute period. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 19:21, 23 November 2010 (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]

All blocked. TNXMan 19:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

02 December 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

This string of recent account creations. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2010 (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]

information Administrator note Textbook case. Blocked/tagged --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

05 December 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

This. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2010 (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]
Done and done. TNXMan 19:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: It is probably preferred in the future that we do not run a checkuser in these cases. They are quite obvious. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10 December 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

See user's account creation log, all these accounts and more are created by him within minutes of eachother, I would recommend keeping an eye on them.  JoeGazz  ▲  18:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I'm pretty sure it's just MascotGuy. To be honest, I and various other admins just generally block accounts like these on sight with no explanation other than "Block evasion: User:MascotGuy", no SPI, and no talk page block messages. And as far as I am aware, none of the socks ever ask to be unblocked, as this is just a game he likes to play, with no apparent intention to edit the wiki. There are probably hundreds of unblocked MascotGuy socks but he doesn't seem to want to use those for anything either, so he's mostly harmless. —Soap— 18:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
13 February 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

This. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 18:27, 13 February 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]

A bunch of socks plus another IP hardblocked. –MuZemike 19:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

22 February 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Typical account creation spree. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 17:51, 22 February 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]

All blocked. –MuZemike 17:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

23 February 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

This account creation spree. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 19:14, 23 February 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]

All blocked. TNXMan 19:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

01 March 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Here we go again. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 18:58, 1 March 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]
04 April 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

See Logs. DQ (t) (e) 19:09, 4 April 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]
05 April 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

[3] DQ (t) (e) 17:26, 5 April 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]

Pink clock Awaiting administrative action Ducks. DQ (t) (e) 17:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: All blocked by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 18:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

20 April 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

[4] & [5] & [6] -- DQ (t) (e) 17:26, 20 April 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]
  •  Clerk endorsed - IP block possible? while were at it sleepers? -- DQ (t) (e) 17:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No sleepers, no good range to block. Bigpondtechnologies is Red X Unrelated and didn't really fit the behavioral pattern. TNXMan 18:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very well, not tagging, as RBI applies -- DQ (t) (e) 19:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
02 June 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Should be pretty clear. One account, multiple socks, same MO. Eight years and several thousand socks ought to be enough for a rangeblock or legal action against this yo-yo (although I'm probably going to get trouted for the suggestion). PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:42, 2 June 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]

I can't speak to any legal action, but a range block isn't technically possible. The relevant range is a /12, which is beyond our capacity to block (and would cause a lot of collateral damage anyway). In any case, the named account has no sleepers I saw. TNXMan 23:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for looking into this. I had a feeling there might not be an easy or effective way to shut this guy down, but I figured it might be worth a try. Take care. :) PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12 September 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

All created in 10 minute timespan. Seems like User:MascotGuy. Tckma (talk) 17:18, 12 September 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]

Indeed. All blocked. TNXMan 18:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

19 September 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


 Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. Rather predictable naming convention. Diffs for this iteration: [7], [8],[9],[10], and [11], with a couple of WP:NPA edits here and here. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 23:23, 19 September 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]

The name might be a coincidence. MG usually just makes accounts nowadays. Elockid (Talk) 00:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Account already blocked. Nothing much else to do here. Marking for close. Elockid (Talk) 00:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

04 September 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


There is a new user who began editing the article Golden Team which is one of the favourite articles of Iaaasi (see:) Since this user did not edit anything on Wikipedia but the aforementioned article, I can't be 100% sure that this user is Iaaasi. But, if a check was run on this account, that would dissipate my suspicion.-- Nmate (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can I point out that I have restored the article to its last "good" revision before the multiple edits by user Mokalatte (who is currently blocked). If you compare his last revisions (22:13, 4 September 2012‎ Mokkalatte) to the revision last made by user GrandMariner ( 03:15, 19 February 2011‎ GrandMariner) you will notice a startling similarity between the revisions. I conclude that user GrandMariner and Mokkalatte are in fact the same. Furthermore I humbly suggest that the revisions made by Mokkalatte were not an improvement on the original article. I invite editoral review of my reversion, and am happy to abide by the decision of Wikipedia editors. Coopuk (talk) 12:54, 11 October 2012 (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]
  • CheckUser requested - Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention - There are enough style and behavioral similarities to justify a checkuser and sleeper check for this prolific puppetmaster. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
06 February 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Guy... MascotGuy perhaps? I'm not sure. But that guy owns nearly 1000 sockpuppet accounts. Checkuser requested. EthicallyYours! 16:50, 6 February 2014 (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]
  •  Check declined by a checkuser - Other than the coincidental username, I see no evidence that this is MascotGuy, and their edits suggest that they are not a sock. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing per DoRD's analysis. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
24 August 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

User has been reported to WP:UAA as a potential sock. When I looked into this further I found this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/MascotGuy

This page suggests that sometimes MascotGuy just creates user pages then does nothing with them.

I have raised an SPI to see if these two accounts are indeed related. They do kind of have a similar username. As I am unfamiliar with this vandal I am requesting CheckUser to see if there are any sleepers. 5 albert square (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2014 (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]
  •  Check declined by a checkuser - This LTA's usual behavior is to create an account, and to then use it to create a bunch more accounts right away. Since this account doesn't fit that M.O., I don't think that this is him. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The information available is insufficient to block on behavioral evidence. I'm closing this case with no action taken. Mike V • Talk 19:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
20 December 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Username matches LTA template usernames. Username (whose meaning is "yes, it's me"), and edit summaries ("my actions started because X", "this is what you get for Y") suggest the account holder has past history with Wikipedia. It Is Me Here t / c 18:21, 20 December 2014 (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]
  • The account's behavior doesn't suggest it's him, going off of the LTA report. I've blocked the user indefinitely as a vandalism only account. Mike V • Talk 03:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

01 October 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

Username should be all the evidence you need. Everymorning (talk) 02:06, 1 October 2015 (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]

information Administrator note Account has been blocked. Marking for close.--Slon02 (talk) 04:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17 December 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

Obvious sock. He made a couple of new ones here recently. —This lousy T-shirt— (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2015 (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]

  •  Blocked and tagged the job lot. Favonian (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18 December 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

Reporting him again. —This lousy T-shirt— (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2015 (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]


18 December 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets
—This lousy T-shirt—  (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2015 (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]


18 December 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets
—This lousy T-shirt—  (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2015 (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]


18 December 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets
—This lousy T-shirt—  (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2015 (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]


18 December 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets
—This lousy T-shirt—  (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2015 (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]


18 December 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets
—This lousy T-shirt—  (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2015 (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]

03 February 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

I'm fairly confident that it's him. —This lousy T-shirt— (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2016 (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]


03 February 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

This account created the other account mentioning MascotGuy. —This lousy T-shirt— (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2016 (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]


03 February 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

As you can see, he's having great fun creating new names. —This lousy T-shirt— (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2016 (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]


03 February 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

Another one. —This lousy T-shirt— (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2016 (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]


03 February 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

And another one. —This lousy T-shirt— (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2016 (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]


03 February 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

And more. —This lousy T-shirt— (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2016 (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]

  • The following accounts are  Confirmed:
3-Strike Laws Guy (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Telephone Towers (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Count de Wount (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Clouds of Nativity (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
That's How You Remind Me-of-MascotGuy! (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Jimmy Two-Shoes the Great (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Stuff Goofs (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Comical Clef (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
The Fairly Odd Mascots (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Head Foot Clef (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Water Babies Guy (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Fan de Wan (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Nighty-Night Mascots (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Telegraphics (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Out-of-This-World Guy (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Sunset Guy (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Funny de Wunny (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Scruff McGruff the Great (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Merge vs. Split (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Occupations & Speeches Guy (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Quality of Events (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Smack Bomber the Great (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Afterlife Guy (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Rascal de Wascal (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Barefoot Breakdown Guy (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Fly Away Home Guy (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Professionals Guy (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Drunken Pumpkins (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • @This lousy T-shirt: Just so you know, you can add additional accounts to the same case. You don't need to create an additional report each time you spot another one. Mike V • Talk 00:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @This lousy T-shirt: Or you can just drop them on a CU's talkpage, mine for example, or the talkpage of an admin who frequently blocks his accounts. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

17 February 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

Multiple new accounts created by him. Obviously him, not trying to hide it. —This lousy T-shirt— (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2016 (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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MascotGuy/Archive&oldid=1210159958"