Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spacecowboy420/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Spacecowboy420

Spacecowboy420 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

24 December 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

Sorry this is so much to read. This is a very experienced sockpuppeter who has been very active.

Spacecowboy420 is clearly not a newbie, engaging in classic returning user behavior like creating a blank userpage on their very first edit, diving deep into WikiProject Talk pages on his third edit, showing deep knowledge[1] of disruptive behavior patterns before his 20th edit. He admits to seeking controversy and provoking edit wars, with pointlessly provocative actions: [2][3]. They have surely been blocked multiple times before, and have returned with numerous sockpuppets to evade blocks. He also shows an avocation for pursuing other sockpuppeteers. I guess you gotta be one to know one.

User:Zachlita is also obviously not a newbie, stating upfront they are a returning editor. This account was clearly created to help further Spacecowboy420's agenda on a related group of articles: Dodge Viper, Dodge Ram SRT-10 and Dodge Tomahawk, the one where the controversy started. Another similarity with Spacecowboy420 is the edit summaries "stupid comment"[4][5] used to summarize the sockmaster's habit of nuking large blocks of text: [6][7][8].

Zachlita seems to be deliberately making untenable deletions [9] with obviously inadequate edit summaries in order to provke me to revert on Dodge Tomahawk, since I was just warned to cease edit warring on that article and agreed to do so[10].

As far as I can tell the only motive for removing well-cited material on the criticism of the top speed of the Tomahawk is that it is a way to provoke a battle. The desire to move controversy to the first sentence of one article [11] while erasing it completely from another tells me this person simply wants to be disruptive. This is a case of long term abuse, and there are very likely lots of sleepers and active socks in play here. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Flyer22 Reborn (talk · contribs): appears to be rival of Spacecowboy420 by their talk page interaction but there is just too great a similarity in their behavior pattern: editing large numbers of totally unrelated articles, whose only common thread is maximum potential for controversy, and an ironic fascination with finding sockpuppets. Could be I'm overthinking it but given the history and the overt WP:POINTy agenda, I don't think checkuser is unwarranted. The Editor Interaction overlap is quite strong and hard to explain otherwise. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Dennis Bratland, did you decide to report me here because of this matter? When I first saw that you had WP:Pinged me, I figured that it was for help, since I commonly uncover WP:Sockpuppets and many editors trust my word on such matters. So I continued editing and decided that would I see what the fuss is about afterward. Imagine my surprise to see that you have reported me. Feel to free to run all the WP:CheckUser data on me that you or someone else wants, but I have to state that, with the exception of the report on Spacecowboy420 and Zachlita, this is the most absurd report I've ever seen. I shouldn't even comment; I should ignore you and go about my merrily way. But since your report made a point of stating "and an ironic fascination with finding sockpuppets" and links to my blocklog, I will note here that all of that is addressed at the top of my user page/talk page. Like I told another editor, "all my other blocks were misunderstandings, except for the one where I was blocked to protect my account since it was WP:Compromised, as is clear at User talk:Flyer22/Archive 10/Block cases. If you are going to read/report on a person's block log, then actually comprehend it and report on it accurately." And maximum potential for controversy? With regard to me, that's because I deal with a lot of WP:Disruptive editors, including Spacecowboy420, and I edit a lot of contentious topics. And you know what? Wikipedia is better off with me doing that dirty work; I won't be apologizing for it. I will note this report on my talk page for a laugh, though. Happy holidays. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC) Edited to add the "with the exception" bit. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. If you're right, it is at least fascinating how much the edit history of someone like you has in common with someone like Spacecowboy420. Staring into the abyss too long or something. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:17, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is my last reply to you (at least in this thread): I have no interest in a number of those topics. Because I am a WP:Patroller, often using WP:STiki, I have significant overlap with various Wikipedians. You and a number of others need better skills at spotting and reporting WP:Socks. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see how taunts help you here, but maybe they do. Seems to me checkuser will resolve it one way or another and nothing else needs to be said. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As indicated by my discussion with Spacecowboy420, I indeed know which past account(s) he has used, but I won't be commenting any further on that. He will return, and return. Reporting him is useless, except for temporarily debilitating him. And I am beyond tired of dealing with that editor. As long as I don't see him editing, he is not my problem. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

if someone wants to check me out, then check me out. nothing to hide here.Zachlita (talk) 22:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I find Dennis' analysis to be compelling, as Spacecowboy420 and at least one of the named socks are engaging in DUCKy behavior wrt to argumentative and provocative editing of substantially similar material. The diff provided by Dennis labeled "untenable deletions" is an especially clear quack, supporting Spacecowboy420's position of downplaying the top-speed contention at Dodge Tomahawk. Regardless of the outcome of the checkuser, it's pretty clear that Spacecowboy420 and his various incarnations aren't here to build here an encyclopedia. – Brianhe (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

of course you find his analysis compelling, youre involved on his side on the article he is annoyed about, its in your interest to agree with him. I cant speak for spacecowboy or flyer, but im here to build an enyclopedia. just cos you dislike my tone or disagree with my edits doesnt mean im less worthy of editing.if i was here to disrupt the place, there are more creative or exciting ways than removing something i dont think should be in a bike article. Zachlita (talk) 23:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It speaks to your lack of experience on Wikipedia to conclude that this is a personal issue because I happen to agree with Dennis on certain content. Over the course of a decade, one's perspectives change and now I see that it is in everyone's interest to collaborate, even if they don't necessarily agree with the other person's point of view. I've been trying to help you to understand this on your talk page, apparently without effect. In fact I do tend to trust Dennis because we've been working together on motorcycling and other topics for quite some time, and it is on the basis of that trust that I evaluated his input, not on the basis of his opinion on subject matter for one article. Perhaps at some point you will be a contributor who can earn other people's trust as well. Brianhe (talk) 00:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason for pointing out that these are experienced editors returning under new accounts is that it suggests deception, especially as Spacecowboy420 denies it. It also suggests that these are not the first socks; that in fact there may be many socks before this and the original sockmaster is unknown -- to anyone but Flyer22 Reborn, I guess. I've noticed with sockpuppets that the first one you detect is rarely the first sock, but only the most recent in a long series of them, as Flyer attests. Not being a newbie is hardly sufficient proof of socking, but it is a data point that adds weight to the case. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:26, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • I've removed Flyer22 Reborn from the list of suspected puppets. The evidence is wholly insufficient. As an aside, Flyer22 Reborn would be the alleged master as their account was created in 2007, 8 years before the other two. I haven't analyzed the evidence about the other two users, but I will say there's far too much rhetoric in the filer's comments than evidence. Moreover, just saying someone isn't a newbie isn't sufficient to connect them to someone else.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:20, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two accounts are Red X Unrelated. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

11 December 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Please look at the history of Targeted killing, link here, starting with his edit at 09:16 4 December 2017 (OK in itself), but then starts to edit-war, and when warned about edit-warring, first switches to an IP (above) and then, when warned about sockpuppetry, to a new account (above). The edits from the IP and new account all repeat the same behaviour. NSH001 (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2017 (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 and endorsed by clerk - The evidence isn't strong enough for a duck block, but the new account is suspicious. Please compare the two accounts to determine if this is more likely meat or sockpuppetry. Sro23 (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mitsubishi love and Insect love are  Confirmed to each other. They are Red X Unrelated to Spacecowboy420. no No comment with respect to IP address(es). Based on existence of one sleeper, I did a quick check to see if I could find an older master, but I don't see any other obvious accounts for Mitsubishi love/Insect love. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Socking requires two actively editing accounts. Insect love was created a day before Mitsibishi love and never used. Closing with no action.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

14 December 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Mitsubishi love is a SPA account who started editing on the 10th and has repeatedly removed sourced info from the Targeted killing article.[12] [13] [14] [15] [16] 124.106.135.86 has repeatedly removed the same sourced info [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] as has Spacecowboy420 [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] and STSC [28] [29] [30] Edward321 (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Spacecowboy420 and I have fought against each other to the death in many occasions. No case to answer. STSC (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there yet another report here wasting people's time? There was a report on Dec 11th that was closed, does there really need to be another one? Move to slap Edward with a trout for making this report three days after the last one. Look at our interactions in the past and it will be easily understood. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've removed Mitsubishi love from the list. See archive. User:STSC is older than Spacecowboy420. I don't think there's sufficient evidence to take any action with this report. If there is a connection between two long-standing editors, there would be more similarities than in one (controversial) article, and, without more, I would decline a request or endorsement of a CU.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Insufficient evidence. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

14 April 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

I wasn't going to bring this up again after the recent ANI thread, but since Spacecowboy420 is still actively claiming the IP is a different person and using this as an excuse to drag on a dispute that should have ended weeks ago, getting this on-record in an SPI seems like the best way to resolve it at this point. (Unless specified otherwise, "the IP" here refers to 124.106.139.19, and not the inactive 124.106.139.19, which is included for completeness's sake.)

  • The IP appears to be in the same range as 124.106.135.86 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which assisted Spacecowboy420 in edit-warring last December (see the last two entries in the archive).
  • The recent disruption on the Momoiro Clover Z article began when the IP added something to the lead and Spacecowboy420 reverted.[31][32] The following day Spacecowboy420 spontaneously self-reverted.[33] This looks like a weak attempt to disguise the undisclosed editing while logged out.
  • Spacecowboy420's even being aware of the above edit is suspect, as he had never edited the article before or apparently shown any interest in Japanese pop music (he set himself up in opposition to editors who are interested in Japanese pop music here).
  • After the above, Spacecowboy420 edit-warred for a while, then once he hit 3RR the IP jumped in.[34]
  • Spacecowboy420 also edit-warred to restore the IP's changes to several other articles at around the same time.[35][36] In those cases Spacecowboy420 had edited the page before the IP, and the IP's edits happened to be in-line with Spacecowboy420's POV, which makes it look like Spacecowboy420 logs out to make "controversial" edits; on the Momoiro Clover Z page, the "controversial" edits just happened to be the first ones he ever thought of making.
  • 124.106.132.236 also restored a Spacecowboy420 change with its first edit to that article.[37]
  • The IP and Spacecowboy420 are the only editors who hold the idiosyncratic view that the "blackface controversy" in question belongs in either the lead or the table of contents, and that the group in question are "known for" the incident in question.
  • Spacecowboy420 and the IP also share the somewhat-telltale tendency to ignore the indentation of the comments to which they are responding and outdent, typically to a point of double-indentation. It's endemic to his edits and can be seen in abundance here; for convenience I'll just give the one diff of me simultaneously correcting one logged-in instance and linking to several logged-out ones.[38] 124.106.132.236 does this too.[39][40][41][42]

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It just came to my attention that the "blackface controversy" content was first added last June by another IP in the same range, which also edit-warred in Spacecowboy420's stead on several other articles, either emphasizing his content by adding it to the lead or continuing to edit-war at other users after Spacecowboy420 had "left".[43][44][45] Or they just put the blackface stuff in the lead sentence making it obvious that at the least they are the same person as the other IPs.[46][47] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Why were notices not placed on the talk pages of all users concerned? That's a particularly underhand move, don't you think? But that's not the important thing. The important thing is that I am not SpaceCowboy and I will show why.

I edit under an IP. I used to edit with an account, an account that has previously been listed as a sockpuppet of SpaceCowboy and cleared of any connection by a clerk. I will log into that account shortly to confirm my identity. The account that I previous used does not have any blocks, sanctions or restrictions, so I consider it acceptable to edit using an IP. The account that I used does not (to my knowledge) have any overlapping edits with the IP that I use to edit, although there might have been an occasional edit where I forgot to log in, but that certainly isn't sock puppetry.

Of course check users can't compare IPs to accounts. It would have made this all a lot easier, but it is what it is. The account that I previously used is Mitsubishi love and here are the accounts contributions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mitsubishi_love

It is as far as I'm aware totally possible to compare accounts to accounts. Please compare my previous account to SpaceCowboy (and any other account you think might be me) and please note that my account has previously been compared to that of SpaceCowboy and stated to be "Unrelated to Spacecowboy420" by a clerk. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Log in to confirm identity. (Thank fuck I could remember my old password) - thats my biggest plus point with IP editing, no password to care about. Mitsubishi love (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Closing with no action. Thank you, IP. Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

18 May 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Last December, CU determined that SC420 and the shifting IP editor who briefly edited under the username Mitsubishi love were "unrelated", but I strongly suspect that this was a case of evading CU by only logging into his "main" account from one computer on one stable internet connection. There is strong behavioural evidence connecting SC420 to ML and the various IPs, presented in previous cases. The behavioural evidence was thrown out because of CU, but no one seems to have noticed that SC420's editing pattern strongly suggests he was evading CU. ML and the most recent IP are blocked, so there's no immediate danger of sockpuppetry as an issue in and of itself, but the editor behind the ML account is banned by ArbCom for "outing";[48] if that same person is also behind the SC420 account, then SC420 also needs to be blocked. I know CU can be evaded[49] and can even get the wrong guy[50] but I am unfamiliar with how to "prove" sockpuppetry when CU has been evaded, so if any of this is out of line I apologize. It also was not clear if the clerks/closers looked at the behavioural evidence in the previous cases and determined that it was insufficient to block if this is a case of evading CU, as the behavioural evidence was not even mentioned.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:54, 18 May 2018 (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]

  • No reason to revisit this. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 13:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Spacecowboy420/Archive&oldid=842337994"