Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Soccermeko/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Soccermeko

Soccermeko (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 July 9 2009, 02:13 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Kww

He shares an overwhelmingly combative attitude with Soccermeko, and just recreated one of Soccermeko's articles: Yolanda Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yolanda Johnson is interesting too, and contains input from Soccermeko socks). Soccermeko was primarily active before the current system, but Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Soccermeko is pretty lengthy, as are Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Soccermeko, Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Soccermeko_(2nd_nomination), Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Soccermeko_(2nd), and Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Soccermeko_(5th). Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Soccermeko is lengthy, and pretty good IP evidence is included in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Soccermeko.—Kww(talk) 02:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum, I will note the astonishing speed with which Lovejonesfly found this report: no messages were left on his talk page, nor was it mentioned in any edit summary. It's nearly like he's been waiting for me to file this report. I find his accusations of "lying' remarkably reminiscent of the statements on User talk:Soccermeko, as well the refrain of "I don't care" on that talk page and his discussions of Solange Knowles. "Lying" occurs in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Soccermeko(12th) as well, and I know that another twenty minutes of searching talk page contributions of Soccermeko socks would reveal that to be a recurrent theme.—Kww(talk) 03:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment after checkuser results: I think the behavioural evidence alone was close to enough, and the "possible" result from the checkuser should be treated as confirmation. The more Lovejonesfly argues, the more he resembles Soccermeko. Look at [[1]]: the broken sentence structure, the interesting spelling of "editing (compare "You don't like to see the page editted by no one" on that page to this page: " ...telling Kww to leave me alone about editting ...", "When I first starting editting...", "...I got the hang of editting Wiki"), the accusations of lying, everything about Lovejonefly's writing just shouts "Soccermeko" to my ears.—Kww(talk) 21:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I knew I would find it if I kept looking: "This is not evidence but bad faith.".—Kww(talk) 01:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Yolanda has thousands of fans. Now, I do not know who exactly I'm am accused of being directly, but I do why User:Kww wants to lie on me. I got told him in a recent discussion starting with his edit,

The saddest thing is that neither party really has it right: the reference for each figure should be next to each figure. This practice of ganging up thirty references next to a column header may look prettier, but it makes verification a bitch and makes it much easier for vandalism to go unnoticed. The version with the source per chart is better, but still not right.—Kww(talk) 22:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC) No, the saddest thing is that your still talking about it when the discussion has already closed. Also please refrain from using profanty. Discuss the matter like an adult, not an sassy teenager. Lovejonesfly (talk) 00:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Now, After reading Sockpuppet investigation page, I believe I have been accused of sockpuppeting out of bad faith after telling Kww to leave me alone about editting the Solange Knowles discography. So I believe the checkuser should be removed because I haven't done anything wrong.

information Note: Also I noticed that first sentence states "He shares an overwhelmingly combative attitude with Soccermeko, and just recreated one of Soccermeko's articles," I believe that to be untrue. When I first starting editting Wiki. in May 2009, I was nice user. When reporting a user at Admin Notice Board, after speaking with another user, we tried to reserve a problem peacefully. But I got mad, after people kept sending email about the Solange Knowles discography. Again, I believe it to be bad faith! Nothing was stated to not recreate a delete page. Lovejonesfly (talk) 02:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simple, I look at everyone's edits. Especially people have recently created "beef" with me. The fact is your lying. I am not a sockpuppet and this was brought by Kww's anger. Again, nothing but bad faith. Lovejonesfly (talk) 03:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On Kww's talk page, I gave him this message, out of good faith.

You know, it's a shame when people blow things out of bad faith. But again, I will forgive you if you simply stop lying "and that's showing my nice again, like I did as an early editor of Wiki.". Otherwise, I will continue to prove you have created this out of bad faith. Lovejonesfly (talk) 03:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Soccermeko's edits, my contributions are not based mainly on Nicole Wray. Nor are my edits fully about one topic. I have been to many articles adding/removed information depending on the updates. Also my edits contains no traces of: Cam'ron, Trin-i-tee 5:7, Storm, Gym Class Heroes, Lady Saw, Ramiyah, Lil Wayne, Crime Mob, Lil' Kim, Spell cast, Mocha, or any other further edits that I looked through. Now, I noticed that we do share edits in Michelle Williams, Kelly Rowland, and Sunshine Anderson. Although on Michelle Williams, I keep multiply removed album and single covers from the main page. On Sunshine Anderson, I re-formatted the page after I got the hang of editting Wiki. Lovejonesfly (talk) 03:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Note: I have a life and does involve always editting Wikipedia 24/7 like most of you. I watch youtube video of the people I hear sing. Unfornately, me coming across the video were she sings a sample of song is another random event. Also, I told him I would leave the page alone, Drmies, there's no point in you trying to make me look bad to. Because as I looked at your page, starting with my edit

    The fact that including the information, "Nicole Wray performed the song before..." is not an act of vandalism. Now, youtube was added as a source before I got there, and in the video they credited Laurent Gbagbo as the "Head of State". So you might wanna check the sources before reverting again. In addition that comment, I also would like to state that if my edits need references, then so do the others that were already added. So my edits were not considered an act of vandalism, but yours. So please do not rename the citation for what it really is. As I stated with a previous user, there is no need to lie. Lovejonesfly (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Pfff. The removal of unsourced information is vandalism? What nonsense. And it doesn't matter who put it there first--you stuck it back. Sourced to YouTube! Ha, did you really think we needed YouTube to verify that Gbagbo is the president of Cote d'Ivoire? You don't get it--YouTube is not a reliable source and cannot be used to verify anything, not even a person singing a tune somewhere. As for the other references, I looked at one or two of them, and removed two other non-reliable references, which you may have seen if you looked. I don't know if you're calling me or "a previous user" a liar, but I would urge you to mind your manners. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Get mad if you want because the truth is truth. I pay attention to details and actually help Wikipedia instead telling people what's official and unofficial. Lovejonesfly (talk) 01:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Pff. YouTube as a reliable source, that's a truth we can do without. "The head of state in Africa", that was a nice detail you paid attention to. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

So in truth, I contact him out of good faith as he responded in bad faith. Thanks for another example, Drmies. Lovejonesfly (talk) 03:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your style of argumentation is almost Palinese--you know, in the "not quitting your job is for quitters" kind of way. Drmies (talk) 05:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • information Note: Well, I have used good faith when I approached many people on Wiki. It is not mentioned in Wiki what pages cannot be editted, re-created, or what needs a reliable source. I don't think everything needs a source if it has already happen. And in my further defense of being accused of being a sockpuppet, I don't think I need to explain any further. We all know that this is was brought out by Kww's bad faith and then without contacting Drmies, he somehow manage to find his way to page to make me look. Lovejonesfly (talk) 16:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
information Note: Everyone makes spelling errors including you. That irrelevant statement proves nothing. Lovejonesfly (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
information Note: Kww's comments are now no Unnecessary, but  Stale. Lovejonesfly (talk) 01:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My comments have now  Completed. Lovejonesfly (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{declined}}. With lack of evidence and nomination of bad faith by User:Kww, I nominate this checkuser investigation to be declined immediately and closed. There is no relation between any of two parties. Lovejonesfly (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Red X Unrelated[reply]


Comments by other users

I am not aware of the history here, nor have I known Lovejonesfly for very long--but my interactions with them on Theme from Mahogany (Do You Know Where You're Going To) was enough to convince me of the "combative attitude" mentioned by KWW. KWW and I are apparently both aggressive and disruptive (see user talk history--[2]--and that is why I noticed their edit here, when I was going through Recent Changes). The arrogance with which this user edits (and comments on) their userpage, for instance, suggests that the project has little to gain from this editor--and that combative attitude is not compensated for by high- or even medium-quality edits. I understand that this is really a matter for another forum, though. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 9 July 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 —Kww(talk) 02:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]


  •  Clerk endorsed - Though I will note that Soccermeko is stale, so this may require looking at some of the IPs Kww listed above in his evidence. Tiptoety talk 02:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  • Based purely on technical evidence, relation between Lovejonesfly, Soccermeko and/or Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tarysky is  Possible. I see only a very small number of users on the relevant range, but it's hard to say if that's because of low traffic or the current (soft) rangeblock. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if being disruptive, as in the above comment, was not enough, I can clearly attest that this is Soccermeko, and I have blocked him based on the clear behavioral evidence by looking at Lovejonesfly's contributions history. This one was as loud as a duck can quack. The same sorts of articles, the same types of edits, the same talk page manners, creating same articles Soccermeko did, etc. etc. His familiarity with Wikipedia from the moment the account registered shows this is a long time user anyways. I am very familiar with Soccermeko, and this is unambiguously him. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

 Likely Same IP range with the blocks all over it. -- Avi (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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



Evidence submitted by Kww [edit]

A WP:DUCK case. Recreating articles that Soccermeko recreated with numerous socks, fascination with Nicole Wray, creation of unsourced future articles about truly non-notable garage rappers. —Kww(talk) 14:56, 9 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]

Already blocked and tagged, just doing the paperwork.—Kww(talk) 14:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

26 December 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

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

Nicole Wray obsession, especially shelved album. Quack. SummerPhD (talk) 04:54, 26 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]
05 January 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

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

Just back from a one week block for sockpuppetry, editing the same targets. Quack. SummerPhD (talk) 01:09, 5 January 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]
  • IP blocked. Nakon 02:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
27 November 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Pattern of edits at Nicole Wray per previous history. first second Also message at my talk page [3] in a similar vein. Long term disruption (adding unreferenced and unnotable information about cancelled albums, mixtape releases etc) dating back to at least December 2006. Quack. Cloudz679 20:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am also requesting checkuser with the above evidence, as the suspected puppetmaster is blocked indefinitely [4]. Cloudz679 20:40, 27 November 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]

The master and all identified accounts are extremely  Stale for checkuser purposes, so we have nothing to compare to; additionally, this account was created recently and nothing in the history seems to indicate that he's ever run more than one account at a time, so I think sleepers are unlikely. Request for checkuser no Declined, but this can still be looked into on behavioral grounds. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 21:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed the report had been opened. Already blocked as a sock. Contributions and discussion patterns both match.—Kww(talk) 23:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

22 April 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


See below. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:20, 22 April 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]
  • All four  Confirmed to each other by Ponyo in UTRS #10693. There appears to be sufficient behavioral evidence to connect them to Soccermeko. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Soccermeko/Archive&oldid=1142566260"