Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shakinglord/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Shakinglord

Shakinglord (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
20 October 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Both trolled ANI and "requested" banning of User:Shakinglord. Quack. If possible, IP block and/or CheckUser. HurricaneFan25 23:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

  • User:Placer Racer abruptly popped up yesterday on AN/I attacking User:Shakinglord, saying he should be banned, deletes articles, etc., etc. He edit-warred to keep his attack up, and was shortly blocked as an attack-only account and obvious troll. Also obvious was that he had to be somebody's sock- or (from his comments) meatpuppet, however I had no idea as to whose. Today, User:Banana General appeared on AN/I saying...yup..."Ban Shakinglord, he deletes everything he sees!" Quack, quack, blocked. Given that two of these have appeared, I suspect sleepers, and it'd be nice to know who the true sockmaster is here, too, if that can be done without it being fishing. The Bushranger One ping only 00:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Technically speaking, these are the following results:

The following are a  Confirmed match to each other:

The following are also highly  Likely match to Shakinglord

No other accounts found. Elockid (Talk) 00:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...I wasn't expecting that. (Also, another below...) - The Bushranger One ping only 00:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
21 October 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


[1]. Quack. The Bushranger One ping only 00:39, 21 October 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]

 Confirmed match to Banana General (talk · contribs) +  IP blocked too. Elockid (Talk) 00:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: all blocked by some way or another. Alexandria (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15 November 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

User is mimicking characteristics of previous Spotfixer sockpuppets, first, like these two, created their userpage with a single image (building on it later). Also, has been highly active at ANI right away, also a characteristic of previous socks. Calabe1992 22:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. I assure all of you, I am not a sockpuppet. Go ahead and check, but I am here to tell you that you will not find any sockpuppetry. BusyBlacksmith (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

BusyBlacksmith is Red X Unrelated to Spotfixer. But is a  Confirmed match to Shakinglord (talk · contribs). Kaishu Tachibana (talk · contribs) is also a  Confirmed match to Shakinglord. Elockid (Talk) 02:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

16 November 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Per this admission. Need to add these two. Calabe1992 17:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chimeramax added per the claim that it is his friend. Calabe1992 17:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

I have to question whether what Shakinglord says is credible. He first denied that BusyBlacksmith was his sock (above); but it turned out to be true. He also claims that three of the accounts — ChocolateWolf, Kaishu Tachibana, and Chimeramax are his "friends". I don't think the claim that they are his friends can be trusted, given the situation above. HurricaneFan25 18:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm curious about is whether these really are socks or not. Guess we'll wait for an admin to determine where to proceed. Calabe1992 18:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
information Administrator noteWhile Hithere and Gromoror are no doubt stale, Chimeramax should be recent enough for a connection to be determined, so I've added curequest. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think it's bye-bye User:ChocolateWolf also at this point. Calabe1992 20:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
  •  Clerk note: I'm closing this case (and implicitly declining the checkuser). Of the three socks listed, two haven't edited in more than a year, so a checkuser can't help there. As to the third, Chimeramax - the account hasn't even edited yet, so I don't really think we can justify a checkuser solely based on what a sockmaster says. Relist if that account becomes active, though. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17 November 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Shakinglord was indef-blocked by Elockid; two of his previous socks have made similar posts. (see ANI/tp of Elockid) Not quite sure about the sockmaster, but I'm sure Wathappened is a sock. HurricaneFan25 15:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scrap what I just said; it's more likely to be Realhistorybuff (talk · contribs). HurricaneFan25 15:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Quack Calabe1992 15:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
06 December 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Shakinglord's socks (e.g. BusyBlacksmith) and UnbelievableError share similar writing styles. Just 1 hour and 11 minutes after the account's creation, UnbelievableError claimed that he had saw Elockid at the noticeboards and asked for the regular welcome links. Elockid has previously blocked Shakinglord and a few of his socks. UB caught my attention when he quickly popped up at ANI early today (a pattern similar to BB). It seems somewhat suspicious to me, so I'm requesting a CU. HurricaneFan25 16:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

This is my first and only account

  • I am unfamiliar with the accounts listed above and have no idea if we share similar writing styles.
  • I spent some of my first hour or so after creating the account trying to find and figure out how to place a template that would link me to some information for beginners. The remainder of that time I spent looking for someone who might be able to help me do so.
  • I have read an/i for quite some time without an account. I now view my edits in that area as mistakes. As soon as I am done here, I intend to go there and strike much of what I put on there. I'll also be apologizing for misuse of that board for my rant. After that, I plan to steer well clear of the "edit" link when reading an/i.

That said, I can see how coincidences can collide and create the suspicion described by HurricaneFan25UnbelievableError (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Long story, will be expanding this in a moment. Calabe1992 17:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, back on 20 October, this user, among others, was blocked as a sock of Shakinglord. SL then said that this user was a friend of his, and asked for them to be unblocked. An admin assumed good faith and did so.

After that, more Shakinglord socks were uncovered, making his claims seem rather not credible, and he was ultimately community banned. However, this account was never blocked, and it mysteriously became active again on 4 February, adding welcome messages to users (some who have no contributions), and again mentioning the whole "friend" thing. I'm certain that this account really is a sock, and that we have sleepers and others out there as well (probably some of the ones with no contributions that this user welcomed) Calabe1992 17:34, 17 February 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]

 Confirmed the following are the same:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shakinglord/Archive&oldid=1138679346"