Jump to content

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Archive/July 2006

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Copperchair

Evidence

User:Copperchair was blocked for 366 days as of 13:23, March 12, 2006 for editing articles which he was banned from as a result of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Copperchair (articles on Star Wars and War on Terrorism). User:Esaborio made his first edit on 15:31, March 16, 2006 to Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi and over the following weeks made many edits to Star Wars and War on Terrorism articles. The edits are very similar. Shortly before Copperchair was banned he was updating IMDB rankings of Star Wars movies ([1] [2] [3]), and when Esaborio was created he immediately started doing the same thing ([4] [5] [6]).

They have made very similar edits to War on Terrorism related subjects. Specifically, they both seek to remove references to the Iraq War as being part of the War on Terrorism and they have both shown interest in updating casualty count pages.

Esaborio's user page is also strikingly similar to Copperchair's. Compare Esaborio's page as of today here to Copperchair's user page before he was blocked here.

IP 201.199.77.202 may be Copperchair/Esaborio as well. The anon jumped into editing World War III here and here as soon as Esaborio was warned about violating 3RR, and has been making many similar edits to many articles concurrently with Esaborio. See also:

  1. Template:World War II, where the two made edits within three minutes of each other between 14:21, July 27, 2006 and 14:24, July 27, 2006
  2. War on Terrorism, where the anon removed Iraq from the list of WoT theaters here, was reverted, and had the change put back in by Esaborio here.
  3. World War III again, here, where the IP makes one of Esaborio's favorite edits as seen here and here.

A request for checkuser was filed (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Copperchair) but requests for checkuser are currently on hold. TomTheHand 19:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

When I asked Esaborio if he was Copperchair, he did not deny it. PBP 19:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Esaborio has been blocked for 24 hours for violating the three revert rule, but he posted the following on his talk page and requested that it be posted here:

According to TomTheHand, I have at least two different computers at home, since when a user is blocked, his or her IP address is also blocked, and he claims I am Copperchair, whose account was blocked. Note that Copperchair used to edit at the same hours of the day as I do, which is logic, as we are both from the same country (Costa Rica), and the hours we have both use are night time, when one has free time. I took part of the User page of Copperchair for my own, since when I looked what User's pages linked to Universidad de Costa Rica, where apparently we both graduated from, I found his/her. After revising Copperchair's contributions and mine, one can see that while we both share the same interests (Star Wars and the War on Terrorism), Copperchair used to edit almost exclusively and daily a large list of Star Wars articles, and just one about the War on Terrorism. On the contrary, I edit a lot of war articles (not just from the War on Terrorism), and have only edited the articles of the Star Wars movies (less than six), and sporadically. He/she also openly said, and showed, with his/her edits, he/she had a grudge against the newest versions of the Star Wars films, which I don't. How can a user that said “Personally, I HATE the 2004 DVD version of the Star Wars Trilogy” suddenly forget about waging war against it? Note that he/she used the word “hate”, in bold, no less, which proves how much he/she disliked it. On the other hand, however, I must admit I have used the IP 201.199.77.202, and am willing to face the consequences for doing so. Since this case is based on an absurd exaggeration from TomTheHand, intent on blocking a user just for don't sharing his opinion about an article or two related to war, I must ask it to be disesteemed. Esaborio 20:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Note that when a user is blocked, his or her IP address is only temporarily blocked in response to attempts by the blocked user to edit. TomTheHand 20:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

An interesting problem exists in the explanation put forward by Esaborio. For one, Copperchair was banned in March 16th. It was not until June 19th that he copied the user page and pasted it at his own in this edit, here: [7]. You will note that he forgot to change the link in the "Feel free to leave me any comments" portion, which still links to Copperchairs user page. It seems odd to me that you would just happen to stumble upon this user page of a banned member a good 3 months after he made his last edit. As for the other points, these mean little. Before June I dont think that I ever edited an article relating the the Israeli army, yet since this time I have almost devoted my entire time here to working on things related to the ongoing operations. The fact that the edit wars were resumed in both the Star Wars and War on Terrorism related articles nearly seamlessly, and on the same side of the dispute at that, is pretty solid proof of sockpuppetry. What you would have us beleive is that you came to Wikipedia, and 3 months after someone made their last edit copied their user page as you just happened to have gone to the Universidad de Costa Rica and graduated in 2005, just happened to have studied law, and just happened to hold identical views and present identical reasoning as someone who you had never before seen (due to him being gone by the time you arrived.) This premise is unbeleivable. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Just stumbled upon this, [8], Copperchair uploaded the image, and after it was deleted the very same image was uploaded again by Esaborio. ~Rangeley (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I think there is enough to block. Iolakana|T 18:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:BballJones

Evidence

Edits from Getaway are suspicious for the following reasons:

  1. They are working in tandem to revert edits to articles, like Stem cell research controversy.
  2. Of all the articles in Wikipedia, the two users have intense interest in the same topics (like Condi Rice, Stem Cell Research, and Sam Brownback) which are not all that closely tied. See Getaway edits and BballJones edits.
  3. Getaway, with only several days experience feels quite qualified to leave administrator-style notes on other people's talk pages explaining Wikipedia policy.
  4. Getaway left a message on my page re Condi Rice which was strange because I have never edited that article (he meant to leave it regarding stem cell research controversy), but then BballJones expanded on the comment, also in regard to stem cell research, still without correcting the Condi Rice reference. I would have thought one of two people (if they were separate) would have got it right. See here for the edits.
Comments
BballJones is a friend of mine. And yes we work on the same topics. --Getaway 02:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
BballJones is a friend of mine. And yes we work on the same topics. --Getaway 02:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I do feel qualified to tell Deet that he was adding personal commentary to an article. --Getaway 02:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
No, the fact that is was a wrong reference proves that two different people are involved. --Getaway 02:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
The first comment was left after my first edit to stem cells, the second after the second revert. It's also strange that they both felt the need to write notes on the talk page rather than just edit the article as is normal when you disagree with what is written. Two people with the identical interest in articles, identical thoughts as to how they should be written, and identical approaches to editing articles and talk pages. Are you friends or identical twins? Deet 12:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Please take this matter to WP:RFCU. Iolakana|T 18:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:YaR GnitS

Evidence

Previous accounts have been blocked - looks like there's a new one though:

YaR GnitS X (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of YaR GnitS contains other suspected sock puppets. See [9] for ANI post. Also, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay ICP --AbsolutDan (talk) 05:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Blocked. Iolakana|T 18:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:SkipSmith

Evidence

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Skipsmith, created on July 19, 2006.

User SkipSmith has had a history of trying to push edits to the Actuarial Outpost page to memorialize non-notable, and some banned, members of the community, has engaged in trying to expose the identities of some of the anonymous moderators there, and has tried to add a section on phrases, with the express intent of honoring a a member who was thrown out of the Outpost for being a troll. Please see talk:Actuarial Outpost and Talk:Actuarial Outpost/Archive 1.

To this end, I bring the following list of "throwaway" accounts whose sole purpose was to malign me and support Skip's position:

I could bring the diff's, but merely clicking on the "contributions" link will show that these are created specifically to talk about the Actuarial Outpost and disparage it there, or elsewhere in User:MarkTween's case.

I was hoping I would not have to do this, but Skip's accusation forces me down this road. These are either sockpuppets or meatpuppets, and should be banned in either case, I believe.

The following may also prove informative, especially as User:Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA had contacted me off-line, and I strongly suspect Skip as being one and the same: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA

-- Avi 14:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

I'm not sure these are "throwaway" accounts. The discussion on Actuarial Outpost turned quite nasty, with open intimidation of those who made edits that some disliked. For example, one user used the IP address attached to an edit to send a threatening fax to another user's place of employment --- see http://www.glenn.ca/?p=41 and http://www.glenn.ca/?p=42 . I suspect this off-wiki harassment is why many users who started participating in the discussion and held views contrary to Avraham quickly abandoned it, making it appear they were "throwaway" accounts. You could ban those accounts, but I have a feeling they will not return anyway because they fear for their jobs.

Skip, you are one step away from accussing me of harrasment. That is grounds for a libel and slander suit. Consider carefully what you are saying. What happened between you and glenn is between you and glenn. Whether you or he hae an actionable case against each other is for the two of you to work out. However, implying that I have engaged in harrasment is both patently false, and likely actionable under libel and slander, and I expect you to revert your edits. -- Avi 17:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Now you're gonna sue me? Wow --- a perfect example of the kind of intimidation I've been complaining about. My post clearly states it was Glenn that was harassing people off-wiki and driving away people that disagreed with you and him, which likely accounts for the appearance of "throwaway" accounts --- and with threatening faxes, sockpuppet accusations, and now threats of lawsuits, can you blame people for quickly getting out of this discussion? SkipSmith 18:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I am glad you clarified that I had nothing to do with any attempt at harrasement, because your statement implied that I harrassed those editors, when you know full well that glenn and I are two seperate people, and have for the past four years. Someone's reputation and good name are not things to play with; neither are libel and slander. -- Avi 18:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

On the edits, I think there is a sincere disagreement on the content of the article. I stopped making changes to the article quite a while ago, and instead am trying to work things out in the discussion section. However, the discussion is not going well for reasons outlined above. SkipSmith 17:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged. Iolakana|T 14:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Panairjdde

Evidence
Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Panairjdde, as well as 151.44.82.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 151.44.81.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) among other ranges within 151.44.*.* such as 151.44.36.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and in the range 151.47.*.* such as 151.47.126.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). This user is constantly removing the usage of "AD" (Anno Domini) from articles, ignoring the fact that WP:DATE does not have anything that says that they should be removed. When articles contain dates that are both BC and AD (or BCE and CE), they are both supposed to be used. Ryūlóng 02:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It appears that the entirety of 151.44.0.0 can be utilized by this vandal. Ryūlóng 02:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Both 151.44. & 151.47. are assigned to Infostrada Internet, based in in Milan Italy. I suspect that Infostrada has a DHCP pool, so blocking those two ranges means that we are also blocking on the order of 130,000 Italians from contributing to en.wikipedia. -- llywrch 22:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • That explains why he's focusing on subjects within southern europe/roman catholicism. Ryūlóng 22:25, 25 July 2006(UTC)
Right, and Ethiopia is Southern Europe/Roman Catholicism! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.44.91.151 (talk • contribs)
When I didn't answer on your talk page at Montanism, I never thought you would make yourself the bane of this project over it! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry, I have nothing against you. It is llywrch that I put the blame on.--151.47.87.229 00:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I simply run out of names. Did not mean to insult anyone, particulary my old "friend" CS. Take it as an homage.--151.47.87.229 00:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments

Don't forget User:Ahrarara. --ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought that User:Ahrarara was included in the first one, which is why I did not add it. However, if you believe that the name should be included, then by all means, add him/her. Ryūlóng 02:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I have blocked Brunetti. Same language, same obsessions, only now with cyberstalking & 3RR violations (e.g, Mark 6). Sigh. -- llywrch 22:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
You should blame yourself, you started all of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.44.91.151 (talk • contribs)

I am talking to this user now. He has been a user since 2002, a productive contributor since 2004. He shouldn't be going through and making all these format changes against consensus and the Manual of Style (ArbCom decision), but this is remediable, and I'm not sure he has done anything else except perhaps make a few snide comments. —Centrx→talk • 00:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

And the related ban evasions. —Centrx→talk • 05:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Accounts have been blocked by other admins. Iolakana|T 14:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: See also Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Panairjdde, ANI Archive#User: Panairjdde blocked, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Panairjdde. —Centrx→talk • 03:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Kramden4700

Evidence

Kramden4700 has made many useful edits, but he has a view that there is nationalistic bias in Wikipedia. [10] He chooses to push his view through, without consensus from the Wikipedia community. [11] [12]

He has changed redirects of global cities from the cities to disambiguation pages. [13] [14] [15] [16] In doing so, he has violated my good faith by taking the links that I suggested on the Talk:Philadelphia page and using them to support his cause. He with his sockpuppets are disrupting the Wikipedia community to prove a point, while at the same time, trying to damage my reputation [17] [18] [19].

Similar behavior from at least one of the sockpuppets has emerged, namely Wrath of Roth. [20] Rekarb Bob's user page even acknowledges his view of "nationalistic bias."

From a quick glance of the contribution history of all four accounts, I found no evidence of overlapping histories, which would disprove sock puppetry. And among the four of them, they always support each other.

Based on their edit histories, Kramden4700, Wrath of Roth, and Pleasure Thirteen have a mutual interest in Phildelphia, Pennsylvania media-related articles. Also, Kramden4700, Wrath of Roth, and Rekarb Bob have a mutual interest in The Price is Right.

I claim that Kramden4700 is the puppet master of the other three. Also, from this talk page posting Kramden4700 was accused of being a sockpuppet of User:Spotteddogsdotorg, which I don't know too much about. Tinlinkin 23:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments
  • I will leave Wikipedia now because I am not going to waste my time if I am going to be abused. I got accused when I first started and considered leaving, and this is the last straw. Kramden4700 00:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • And I just want to say for the record, I liked Rekarb Bob's anti bias idea. Excuse me for trying to negate bias. It is the kind of crap when people make edits like other people that makes people scream sockpuppet is why I will leave and NEVER RETURN! Kramden4700 01:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I have created a message of appeasement to come back on his talk page. I will withdraw the nomination if he acts in good faith. Tinlinkin 09:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You got to be kidding me. It is just coincidence. Wrath of Roth 14:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I would like to withdraw my nomination and close this discussion. This was my first heated edit war on Wikipedia, and I jumped to conclusions too quickly based on similar behavior, similar views, and lack of overlapping contributions. Things can be purely coincidence. I became too emotionally involved in a "witch hunt" for controversial changes, and for that part I have learned from it and have accepted the fallout. Tinlinkin 20:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Good. There was absolutely no evidence for the suspect. If you wisah to discuss more, take it to the noticeboard. Iolakana|T 13:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:MARVEL

Evidence
  1. MARVEL (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has been around since 6 November 2005. The user has provided many useful edits, but has frequently been dismissive of other users, pushed own point of view and been incivil. Recently, this user has been warring with a number of other users on certian articles — Greater and Lesser Tunbs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Persian Gulf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Hatra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).
  2. Odenatus (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) was created on 21 July 2006, and began editing articles in a similar manner to MARVEL. It may have been created to avoided threatened 3RR block on Hatra.
  3. Sanatruq (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) was created on 23 July 2006, and began editing articles in a similar manner to MARVEL and Odenatus. — Gareth Hughes 21:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hakhamaneshi read his user page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aladine (talk • contribs) 09:44, 24 July 2006.

  • I was so uncivil so i have answered every question asked!, i have been so uncivil that i have just added the arabic name to the persian name while others REMOVED the arabic name and the true ideas!!, i thing you mr Garzo and mr MarkGallagher are kids wanna practice power and be the "tough" guy, since my posts were not answered and you wanted to shut my mouth, i will edit every thing wrong, i will correct every thing

one last thing if any one want to discuss any issue with me use the User talk:MARVEL

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Gary Frill

Evidence
Discussion moved from WP:AIV
Comments

Seems to be taken care of. I am going to close it now. If there are any more, alert me on my talk page and create another case. Iolakana|T 13:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Beryoza

Evidence

Actually Beryoza is probably a sockpuppet of someone else currently unknown, possibly seen as an anonymous person going under 70.177.216.113. This guy and another, User:SincereGuy (interesting name) have made edits and comments in the article Talifan and its talk page, yet have no other contributions whatsoever to any other article. Also, both accounts appear to be only days old, consistent with the beginning of the edit war. Also, here are the contribution page of these two accounts: [21] [22] Neither have anything resembling a normal contribution list. Furthermore, both accounts (and the anonymous person) share almost the exact same opinions on the topic as seen in the talk page Talk:talifan

Comments

This person is apparently trying to add NPOV statements in the article.

This is my IP, I've made numerous edits before I decided to create an account.144.133.104.71 11:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC) (Beryoza)
You'll see that I actually contributed to that article on the above IP in its edit history. In short, this accusation is baseless. :I've also made no contributions to the article apart from adding the link for www.talifan.com, earlier, before registration. :Beryoza 11:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone keeps accusing me (SincereGuy) of being a sock puppet of Beryozo and redirects here. I officially joined Wikipedia recently as I want to contribute actively to Wikipedia instead of just being a passive 'consumer' as I have knowledge in several fields that I felt could be of use to others. With the guidelines fresh in mind, I stated the reasons why I'm of the opinion that the links in the Talifan entry violates pillar 1&2. I can't understand why I'm being harassed and accused of being a sock puppet. The accusation is ridiculous and no evidence other than me simply disagreeing with User:New guy has been presented. --SincereGuy 20:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that I removed the first tag in accordance with Notes for the suspect as I was of the opinion that the accuser hadn't formed a proper evidence page. However, as New guy now redirects here, I'll let it stay up until this has been resolved. --SincereGuy 20:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

IP addresses can be faked by proxies. Explain yourself better than claiming your IP addresses are different. It's very unlikely two people would join a day apart and immediately know what they're doing, plus edit the same article with the exact same opinion.New guy 05:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

So your accusation is now I used a proxy IP address for all the edits I've made to wikipedia before registration, as evidenced here
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=144.133.104.71. For what purpose? To lay the foundation to engage in my sinister plan to give my opinion that your link references are questionable, months later? I suggest you give your paranoia a rest and assume good faith as advised by Wiki instead of immediately assuming like any number of people who disagree with your position must be sockpuppets.Beryoza 07:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for breaking in here again, but since this involves me too (as User:New guy falsely accuses me of being a sockpuppet of Beryozo and redirects the 'evidence' here), I wonder if New guy has requested CheckUser or if I can remove the tag as New guy hasn't presented any other evidence than me simply disagreeing with him. --SincereGuy 09:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Panairjdde

Numerous IP addresses, including User:151.47.126.70, User:151.47.99.146

Evidence
  • Repeated edits made as Panairjdde.
  • Admits in comments, & on user page; not hiding his identity at all.

User: Panarjedde

Evidence
  • Continuing edits made as Panairjdde.
  • Admits in comments to contributions; not hiding his identity at all.
Comments

This user was banned for 24 hours for making disruptive edits; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User: Panairjdde blocked for details. User appears to want to keep resetting his ban by creating socks. Sheesh, just go to bed, spend the day outdoors & away from the computer, & it will all be over. You badly need some time away from Wikipedia, Dude! -- llywrch 01:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Panairjdde does not longer exists, since the account was closed. How is it possible to be sockpuppets of a non-existing account? Is the use of a paternalistic tone really needed?--151.44.36.230 10:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC) (Panarjedde, whose account was blocked indefinitely and has no other way to answer that using an anonymous account)
And what about this account: User:Panarjedde.
BTW, Pan, you cannot "close down" an account, you can only chose to no longer use it ... which doesn't protect you from the consequences of your actions, regardless under what identity you operate. I am sorry that I misjudged you when I first encountered you on Talk:Montanism - you were right contentwise and wrong behaviourwise and now the misbehaviour has won the upper hand. Str1977 (smile back) 12:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

How long shall I wait to see my account unblocked? When the block ends?--151.47.117.140 17:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Limit your anon edits to your talk page, WP:AN/I, & other pages relevant to your case, & the block on your original account will expire. If you want to change your use name, either post to Wikipedia:Changing username or the WikiEN-L mailing list. However, the block will be transferred to your new user name. -- llywrch 23:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
You already blocked me "undefinitely", why should I ask for a new account, to see it blocked undefinitely too? Are you jocking?--151.47.76.121 23:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Aslo, do you understand what you read? That account is closed, how can anyone ask to move a closed account?--151.47.76.121 23:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I blocked that account indefinitely because you already had your original account active. Explain the situation to another Admin at one of those two fora, & perhaps they may see things differently. Or not. However, you may find other Admins more responsive if you respect your 24 hour block before posting there. -- llywrch 23:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll write it bigger, so you can understand it: PANAIRJDDE ACCOUNT HAS BEEN CLOSED, NOBODY CAN LOGON. How can a closed account be "active"? And how can I "respect [my] 24 hour block", if you blocked me indefinitely?!--151.47.76.121 23:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
If you stopped bashing your head needlessly against the wall for a moment, it might occur to you that another Admin could intervene & revert that block. That Admin, of course, might ask me if I objected; but my response would be to point to my explanation for blocking you, your voluminous comments & edits since I blocked you, your repeated attempts to circumvent the block, & ask the Admin if she/he were comfortable having you back on Wikipedia.
But didn't you say you were leaving Wikipedia? Or have you changed your mind? This may seem to be mocking, but there is no other way to put it: decide which it is & stick to your decision. This will be very persuasive to whichever Admin you ask to help you. And here is some useful advice: don't petition either Tony Sideway or David Gerard to help you. They are far less nice than me. -- llywrch 00:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Never said that. I just said I closed the account and moved on, but if you block me indefinitely, how could I move on at all?
As regards other admins, you blocked me indefinitely and I should ask to someone else? You should provide me with good reasons for this indefinite block.--151.47.76.121 00:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
All blocked. Iolakana|T 12:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:LimWRtacCHsua

Evidence
  • Appeared soon after Panairjdde stopped posting from anon IP addresses, & began to make same kind of edits on same articles that Panairjdde had been making.
  • Appears to edit from same time zone as Panairjdde has. (Graphs showing the times users edit in are currently disabled on Kate's & Interiot's editcount tools, making conclusive determinations difficult.)
Comment
  • In the past, Panairjdde has openly admitted to using specific socks. So if this user clearly denies being Panairjdde, I'll accept that I was mistaken & remove the tag. However, I expect this user to behave far more maturely & reasonably than Panairjdde, & not to make the same mistakes.
I am not Panairjdde, since Panairjdde account has been closed.--LimWRtacCHsua 21:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
That answer evades the intent of my question. Is this account used by the same person who has used the Panairjdde account? If they are used by different people, what relevance is it whether the Panairjdde is open or closed? -- llywrch 03:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Clearly there are no persons on WP, but only users. Any policy based on persons is bound to be based on speculation.
What "began to make same kind of edits on same articles that Panairjdde had been making" does mean? You stated "[Panairidde was] making disruptive edits"; which of my edits is "disruptive" in your standards?--LimWRtacCHsua 17:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not in the mood to play games here. To put this in words you can understand, you're obviously the same person who has edited under the name. Because you still have not respected the 24 hour block I put you under, this account is also blocked. -- llywrch 19:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I ask you to show me the disruptive edits I made, and the answer is a block? Nice behaviour, be proud of yourself.--151.47.115.171 21:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Furthemore, on what proofs you decided this block, on your "sensation"? Or did you reallyy found some evidence? To put this in words you can understand, I am not Panairjdde.--151.47.115.171 21:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
You are the same person as he (or she) that used the Panairjdde account, which is what matters. Accounts are only supposed to have one user and one user is supposed to have only one account. It's a one to one function. If broken without special (e.g. for a bot, an account where you represent your company, represent wikipedia, etc.), then you can and will be banned. I am trying to reason with you, Panairjdde, as I find this whole matter rather ridiculous, but you will have to cooperate with others and stop your disruptive edits if you want to continue editing on Wikipedia. I must say that your position is becoming more and more untenable; you just keep digging the hole deeper and deeper. Stop digging for a second and think about what you are doing and its effects. I am posting my note to you on one of your IP talk pages below:
Panairjdde, I'm warning you to discontinue your insertion of AD into every single article. You are clearly using it to make a point, and you're only going to turn more people against you. I had originally thought that Llywrch went to hard on you for what you did (avoiding a 24 hour block), but you're starting to prove him right. What you're doing right now is tantamount to wikistalking, a practice that is highly frowned upon and very bannable. I urge you to simply let the block ride out. Do something else for a day or two (or a week, if the block is that long, which it could be if you continue). Read a book, play outside, you can even read Wikipedia articles, but stay away from editing. Trust me, if you simply let the block take its natural course instead of breaking the rules, you'll find Wikipedia much more accomodating. I would let the block first and then try to discuss the issue of using or not using AD/CE and BC/BCE in the proper forums, rather than changing all dates to one format or the other. You may think that you're proving to others how silly the rule is (on which I'm not going to comment), but you're really turning people against your cause. The indefinite blocking of your username is not written in stone, mind you. If you show good behavior and rationality, instead of all this sockpuppetry, then your original username will probably be restored after the appropriate block length expires. I'm entreating you to stop this because I think you have good potential as an editor, and I'd hate to see someone get permabanned and leave the project over some silliness like what date format should be used. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 23:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Please think about what you are doing. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 00:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Panairjdde, just in case...


Dear Yom, I would like to tell you the beginning this story from my POV:

  • This all started when I applyed the Manual of Style and got against a stubborn User:Codex Sinaiticus for Montanism. I tried to discuss this matter, but nobody wanted to give his opinion on the matter.
  • I discussed with CS, but he kept twisting the rules to his favour.
  • I avoided Montanism and got over in my usual routine of MoS application, and eager users reverted my edits not because they were against them (some said they agreed with me), but because I should "stop the edit war" first.
  • I returned to Montanism, and asked for a third opinion, the answer was "stop the edit war".
  • I asked a RFC, and the few editors coming (I don't know if because the RFC) said "stop the edit war".
  • I went to MoS talk page and proposed an edit whose aim was to make clearer something was already there, but the only persons discussing the matter (llywrch and another) just said every editor is free to do whatever he wants, as regards using redundant AD.
  • I returned to the Montanism talk page, and told them I had found a section of MoS that clearly showed I was right, the only answer was "stop the edit war! wait a week".
  • I edited Honorius (emperor) (an article I contributed to in the past) to include AD the way CodexSinaiticus and all the others involved claimed was in the powers of an editor. It was to make a point, I admit, but in a non-disruptive way (and this is true however you read WP:POINT). llywrch (an admin involved in the discussion) blocked User:Panairjdde for 24 hours. Maybe you already know the end of the story

So far I witnessed a lot of editors eager to formally protect Wikipedia (those who reverted, those who appeared to petition against the edit war, the one who immediately blocked because he tought I made a disruptive edit, all those prompt to block sockpuppets, and so on), but nobody who had really cared about the content (and I'm sorry, but if you think this matter is "ridiculous", you are among those who don't understand), and stubborn users who clutter WP of ADs just to make a point (have you seen CS talk page?). So, I was a little angry because I felt the block was wrong, but the whole point with evading the block was to show people that it was only a matter of principle, to tell them that content is more important than "form" (blocking, endless procedures to settle a matter against someone who doesn't want to collaborate, and so on): I closed Panairjdde account (something nobody cares to understand - I can't log on anymore).

The funny thing is that until now, a few people, including you, showed to tell me they agreed with me or my position somehow, sometime, but that I was behaving bad, now. Where all those editors were when the matter was under discussion?

Now, I still say it is a matter of principle. That llywrch blocked me for 24 hours (and now indefinitely, even if he still refers to a 24 hours block) is not important, I can do without WP for one day, one week, one month, or forever; that he acted as an admin with an important action (the 24 hours block) without understanding the situation is by far more important to me. I see him like a policeman that sees a thief robbing an old woman, and starts shooting around: even if he gets the thief, he risked the life of innocent people around him, and this is by far more important than avoiding the theft.

Now, what I want? Not Panairjdde account back, since it is closed. Not Panarjedde back, since I can avoid editing at all. I want that my work of months is saved, that "my" Wikipedia grows well. This means, to me, that easy-trigger admins like llywrch do actually think before acting, weighting the formal break of the rules (and I still maintain I did not break them in the beginning) against the real problem they are watching to. This also means that those asked to give a third opinion really want to give a third opinion on the matter (I had other problems with "third opinion" in the past - see Talk:Constantine XI, if you like). This also means a more serious behaviour of all those who enter into a dispute resolution.

If, in the process of obtaining this, I have to dig the hole deeper and deeper, I shall accept the consequences: if I did not do those edits to Ethiopia page you would not have showed here, right? But be sure I shall "fight" this till the end, because it is important to me.

Best regards.-- The person behind Panairjdde/Panarjedde

All blocked. Iolakana|T 12:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:BrittonLaRoche

permanently blocked [23] (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Celtic_toe and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Phyllis_Jackson for samples of behaviour) blocked for stated intention -on his userpage- to troll), user User:BrittonLaRoche is suspected of currently editing as User:FelsenVonEngland. Pete.Hurd 18:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

User:FelsenVonEngland, contributing artwork credited to Britton LaRoche (eg Image:Caledfwlch gold2.jpg), or adding links to such images, eg [24] Pete.Hurd 18:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Editing (recreating) Celtic toe article (albeit as a redirect), a contentious (see fairly nutty AfD debate) User:BrittonLaRoche article. Pete.Hurd 18:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser confirms the usernames[25]. - Tapir Terrific 21:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Making posts of Britton's art work since he cannot do so on Wiki-Pedia. He uploads them and I link them. I am cautiuos not to post any offensive material, I see nothing wrong with his requests. --FelsenVonEngland 03:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

How is he uploading the pictures when his other accounts are all blocked? IrishGuy talk 20:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
He's uploading the images to Wikimedia using accounts there, then linking those images here via sockpuppets. Pete.Hurd 20:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Britton suggested the name Felsen Von England, He said it meant "Rock of England" which I liked a lot. I can change my user name to something else. Is the name offensive? He is talking to another mutual friend named Allan also. I would expect more artwork contribution. Is that a bad thing? --FelsenVonEngland 22:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I remember now how we came to the name, I speak a little German. He asked how you would say english stone in German. I said I dont know, but von england is of england, then Felsen is rock. So I chose Felsen Von England for Rock of England.--FelsenVonEngland 22:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Checkuser has already confirmed that FelsenVonEngland is a sockpuppet of BrittonLaRoche. Having other people set up accounts for you to perpetrate your work in an effort to evade an indefinite block is, indeed, a bad thing. IrishGuy talk 22:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
"Is that a bad thing?" Yes, Britton it is. As has been explained to you previously elsewhere, if the images contributed are merely digital manipulations of images grabbed whilly-nilly then there is the assumption that they violate the original artist's rights. Pete.Hurd 22:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I do not know anything of what he has made other than I posted for him. I am only doing a favor for him, and I can stop. But, I do not see why he is doing any thing bad, by asking me to post his work when he cannot. H easked me to creat celtic toe, but I knew little of it, and felt it waste of time, so I made a redirect to the morton's toe. I think he is only having fun. But most of his articles do not interest me, so I only link his pictures for him. --FelsenVonEngland 22:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I talk to Britton, he said he does all his work, and asked who had reported my account, then before I could answer he listed several names. Only two were not posting here. He said more, but it is not important. I see him do many things for games also. In my opinion all this is silly, I am losing inetrest. (on both sides)--FelsenVonEngland 23:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
User:DarkAudit claims [26] to have found the original source for one of your images. If this is so, then it must be assumed that more than one are non-original Pete.Hurd 23:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I do not know what you refer to, and honestly I am not interested. I spoke to Britton, said he will post his responses on EnglishStone to all: I bid you good night. I believe that I will stay out of the matter.--FelsenVonEngland 00:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

All blocked per RFCU case. Iolakana|T 12:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Scottydukes

Evidence
  • Scottydukes created an article which I can only assume is about him called Scot Sherman. It was soon tagged for speedy deletion because of its utter lack of an assertion of notability. This is when the first suspected sockpuppet showed up. User:Henry_Bigg_1986 removed the speedy tag citing that the article was too long to speedy (nonsense). That user proceeded to try to change the policies of the criteria for speedy deletion, even going as far as nominating {{db-bio}} (the template the article was tagged with) for deletion. User:Henry_Bigg_1986 also stated on the article's talk page that WP:MUSIC grants notability to anyone who makes music (more nonsense), and voted keep in the article's AfD, again citing WP:MUSIC.
  • Following the creation of the AfD and the User:Henry_Bigg_1986 edit to it, User:Scottydukes (puppetmaster) shortly tried to "vote" multiple times in the AfD, by creating false signatures. All of these contributions have been tagged as such in the AfD.
  • After that failed, the other sockpuppets showed up on the AfD. All of their first edits have tended to be to the article in question, or the AfD. A few of the later ones then made a couple token edits to other articles, presumably to attempt to invalidate other user's claims in the AfD that these users were puppets.
  • One suspected sockpuppet has nominated the article as a Featured article candidate. More sockpuppetry is occuring here, in addition to the AfD.
  • As well as the Scot Sherman AfD, User:Reggae_Sanderz and User:Henry_Bigg_1986 were both involved with the silly article, Haluwelkyu and its AfD. A new sock suspect, User:Covellicsp, has shown up for that new AfD.
Comments
  • I am a fan of the radio show mentioned in the article. Although my first edit was to argue to keep, that shouldn't matter since I'm been a member for a few months now. And no, I was not asked by Scottydukes to argue in his favor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acromagalin (talk • contribs)
  • The user's sockpuppets or someone else, now simply anonymous AOL accounts, have now attempted to close the AfD (with WP:SNOW somehow cited as a reason for closing). They did it through the whole process as well, making it appear as any other closed AfD, and removing the tags from the article. I've undone because it's obvious that it was vandalism. Just commenting that the user or vandals who like this article are getting sneakier. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 07:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Let me make it clear, I don't know Scot personally. I will have nothing further to do with this. Reggae Sanderz 19:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Please, stop modifying the evidence section to remove your name. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 07:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Most users appear to have moved away from the FA discussion, and so seems unlikely. Iolakana|T 12:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Bluecanoe

Evidence

This user's internet record label Blue Canoe Records and a musician Joseph Patrick Moore on the label were both AFD'ed. During the deletion process, receiving many delete votes, the sock puppets started showing up, voting to keep the page and posting links about the label and how the musician was their favorite, in a clear attempt to subvert the process. Their edit summaries are identical and none of them have done any other edits except those related to the record label and the musician.

User:Sallyroberts28 voted here and see the edit summary for Moore here, where User:Sallyroberts28 and User:bobj7 and an IP user had almost exactly the same edit summaries. --Awiseman 19:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

69.164.192.176 (talk · contribs) and 69.164.210.238 (talk · contribs) are two specific IPs that are related to this user. Ryulong 21:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments
As the creator of various AfDs that this user have commented on, I think it can be said that this user is a sockpuppeteer. Even at the AfD for Blue Canoe Records, she stated that "Give it some time, I'm sure others will add to Joseph's listing-that is if you decide to keep it." The following day, the suspected sockpuppets arrived. Ryulong 20:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about? I looked at your comments above and am not familar with either of these users. I will refer to my previous comment posted that I wanted to remove the label listing. Please advice on the sockpuppets? Thank you.bluecanoe
  • At 14:47 I asked for our account to be deleted. The spam from the sock-hoppers occured after this (as I have been doing some investigating of my own). Does this make sense? Why would I ask for the Blue Canoe Records account to be deleted and at the same-time be orchestrating some sort of mischievous campaign? This is clearly a cruel joke!! I will wait patiently for the account to go through the deletion process. bluecanoe
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Mayor Westfall

Evidence

It looks like User:Baron Von Westfall is a sockpuppet of the indefinitely blocked User:Mayor Westfall. Mainly this is because of the similarity in the names & the use of the reference desk. In [27] BVW seems to agree that he is MW. Block log for MW is here. This account was only created & used after Mayor Westfall account was blocked. AllanHainey 11:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments
Contacted the administrators noticeboard, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Review. Iolakana|T 16:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Seems to be acting in good faith. If you get suspicious, recreate a report again. Iolakana|T 12:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Zapatancas

Evidence

[28][29][30][31] and [32] are all reverting Zapatero to the Zapatancas version which Zapatancas cannot do as her is banned. This user is also obsessed with harrassing SqueakBox, only Zapatancas hates SqueakBox and his hatred is enormous. [33][34] [35] [36] [37] etc including multiple vandalism of Squeakbox's page just like Zapatancas. This edit summary [38] compares toi this [39] both want the world to know the truth about SqueakBox, Zapatancas here here here here here, Hagiographer here SqueakBox 13:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

I've not reverted to Zapatancas' version but to a version previous to SqueakBox and Zapatancas' edit war. I don't hate SqueakBox. I couldn't care less about him. What happens is that he has only posted insults since I met him without making a single comment about content. I haven't vandalised his page. I've only posted in a respectful way that he's in Personal attacks parole. That's true and has been decided by the ArbCom and he tries to hide it to continue his pattern of insults. I can only be blamed for reverting his vandalism, what he does with his identity, that of his sock puppet User:Skanking o through the anonymous User:63.245.13.231. He uses redirections to prevent articles from being edited or read and not in those cases when several titles are valid for the same article, the only case when using redirections is valid. Hagiographer 07:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This CheckUser case shows that Haigographer and Zapatancas are unrelated. Jesse Viviano 15:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That is strange, the first check user by tony Sidaways proved there was no evidence either way and given they are both using ip's from the same place this is no proof the users are not connected as they clearly are connected, SqueakBox 17:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If the RFCU comes up inconclusive then they are not sockpuppets. Iolakana|T 12:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:SqueakBox

Evidence

As it can be found in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas, SqueakBox was banned from editing the Wikipedia for a month, starting in June 4, and articles related to José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. I suspect User:Skanking could be SqueakBox because:

  1. In July 13, 2006 this user had an attitude strangely similar to that of SqueakBox and favourable to him. Here [40] he reverts a notice that informs that SqueakBox is under personal attacks parole. He claims he's "reverting a troll" in the edit summary. Surprisingly, SqueakBox had done the same minutes before [41] posting the insult "vandal troll" in the edit summary. Later he edits my talk page [42] repeating the same comment that SqueakBox "leave SqueakBox's user page alone". Later, he edits the Zapatero article talk page [43], posting that I will blocked as a vandal. This [44] message by SqueakBox threatening me with taking me to the ArbCom shows the same assumption of bad faith and is expressed in similar terms . Why User:Skanking became so interested in the article Zapatero? He was simply a user who had accessed SqueakBox's page by chance, wasn't he?. Here [45] he goes to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. He claimed I was a vandal, but I have never had any contact with the ArbCom. Why he posted that message there? Curiously enough, SqueakBox had recently edited that page [46]. Later, he changed the title of a section in the talk page of Zapatero [47] so it defined as vandalism an edit made by mine in good faith, and that even though I'd posted this explanation in that talk page [48]. SqueakBox had done just that some minutes before [49]. He goes to the article José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and recovers an old version by SqueakBox that contains errors introduced on purpose such as the surname "Armendaris" instead of "Armendáriz". To explain all these casualities he posted this message [50]. He claims that SqueakBox's user page became a watch for him after he posted a welcome message in his talk page (?).
  2. Spanking became active when SqueakBox was blocked in June 4 (see [51]). It was created on April 29, when the arbitration case had already been opened (that happened on April 13). But he became very active on June 4, when SqueakBox was blocked. He looks very interested in Cannabis ([52]), Haile Selassie ([53]), and Honduras in general ([54], [55]). User:SqueakBox mentions in his user page that he lives in Honduras, includes a cite by Haile Selasie ("Until the colour of the skin is of no more significance than the colour of the eyes there will never be peace") and SqueakBox claims to be pro-cannabis in a userbox.
  3. There're similarities between Spanking and SqueakBox user pages. Both claim in their user boxes to have a es-5 leve of Spanish, English native speakers, that they are not drinkers and that they are owned by one or more cats. Both claim to live in Central America.

It the suspicion of sock pupettry is confirmed it would mean that SqueakBox has not respected neither his one month ban nor his one year ban on Zapatero's related articles. Hagiographer 11:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

After this evidence was posted, User:SqueakBox deleted the mandatory notice from Skanking's user page ([56]) and redirected this page to his user page in order to hide it ([57]) Hagiographer 10:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This certainly is a large amount of evidence, and think it is trustworthy to block. Iolakana|T 12:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Drosenbe

Users Blacktooth and Drosenbe626 (the latter with only one edit) appear to be sockpuppets of Drosenbe. These accounts appear to have only been used for the self-promotion of bands and radio programs of which User:Drosenbe (Dave Rosenberg) is a participant. The articles Surf music and Surf rock have been repeatedly edited by Drosenbe, who also appears to be editing anonymously at times. Drosenbe and Blacktooth have been entirely unresponsive to my notes on their user talk pages, either asking for a discussion at the appropriate article talk pages or for acknowledgement of WP:AUTO. The only thing these accounts seem to ever do is add links to Dave Rosenberg's bands to articles.

I will be undertaking separate ventures to find a way to deal with the self-promotional edits themselves (Wikipedia:Spam) but I think that the pattern of edits by User:Drosenbe, User:Blacktooth, and User:Drosenbe626 is quite clear enough to determine that they are all the same individual.

--G0zer 18:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Both blocked, see [58] for explanation. Iolakana|T 14:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Tyruler

Evidence
  • Removal of unsigned notice [59]. Andjam 15:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Anon IP signing as Tyruler [60]. Andjam 15:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Anon IP has received several warnings for vandalism to Council on American-Islamic Relations, as seen on User talk:24.225.226.57, and is continuing to focus mainly on that article. Andjam 15:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Tyruler has also been warned for vandalising a CAIR-related article. Andjam 15:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Vandalistic blanking by sockpuppet. [61] Andjam 15:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Comments
  • Removal of unsigned notice, Anon IP signing as Tyruler.

I am new to Wikipedia and have made contributions without being signed in, that explains the AnonIP charge. I posted without signing in, but I thought that a legal wiki policy. Its truly sad how the user andjam is going through a litany of charges to block me. Truly sad indeed...

  • Anon IP has received several warnings for vandalism

However the case here goes deeper than the hollow accusation of "sock puppet." It goes to the heart of an edit war and revision I made to the article CAIR. In one goes to the discussion webpage of the article, one can clearly see two users Andjam and sdedeo use intimidating tactics and other tools at their arsenal to block users and to quell dissent. I have tried earnestly to work with them to revise the article, where I put an NPOV tag up, only to find that the tag keeps being removed. Then finally when its not removed, all of my edits are deleted and told they do not adhere to "NPOV." If one goes to the discussion page to the CAIR article, they'd find that the user Sdedeo had requested secretly the help of Andjam to prevent anyone from adding or challenging any biased quotes. To them the article is perfect as it stands and can not tolerate and accept a difference of opinion.

  • What's worse is the two users esp. Andjam of leveling accusations against me of being a vandal and a sockpuppet of blank pages.


First of all, I've never heard of those terminology until now. Second of all, I know that I unintentionally saved half a page, causing the other to remain blank. That mistake was being heralded by andjam as evidence of my vandalism and subsequent block form Wiki.

However, I have no doubt that all of these accusations are being carried out to silence me and keep me from editing the CAIR page and other editors having to deal with me. As sdedeo alerts his buddy andjam: that I lost my patience with this guy, but would be happy if YOU'D JOIN the discussion.

No doubt he has joined the discussion. Just with the litany of charges, including blanking, vandalism, deletion, sock puppet. etc. Andjam even approached kimchi.sg to put me on block, but to no avial. So he has yet again added another rationale to block me, I'm sock puppet. As Bart would say, "Ay caramba!" Never knew the world of Wiki was loaded with online bullies such as them, who use every page in the book to malign naive Wikipedians. Don't be surprised if another charge is levied against me, maybe personal attack, huh? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tyruler (talk • contribs) .

The anon IP received 5 warnings or similar from 4 users in April. Were they also the result of accidents? Andjam 10:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
This anon IP address was the same and it as done before I registered my IP address with wiki. Back then, I was unfamiliar with the workings of Wiki and edited the grossly inaccurate content on CAIR only to be bullied by users such as yourself as conducting vandalism. A charge which infuriated me since all I thought I did was edit this page as per the instruction on top of each Wiki webpage, only to learn that was considered illegal and vandalism. Again I'd appreciate it if you stop playing every card in your book to prevent me from contributing to articles such as CAIR including reverting my entire edits because you found two sentences out of 5 paragraphs to be "NPOV" Tyruler 00:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I am going to close this as "inconclusive" because I am going to assume good faith and say that he did just forgot to sign in, but obviously that means he would have to physically type his username, instead of ~~~~. Iolakana|T 14:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Frater_FiatLux

Evidence
  1. Zanoni666 (talk · contribs) was created at 18:53 (CST), 9 June 2006 first edit during Frater FiatLux (talk · contribs)'s first block for 3RR (14:48, 9 June 2006). block log
  2. Zanoni666 (talk · contribs) 6th edit is to open a complaint on WP:ANI - [62]
  3. Zanoni666 (talk · contribs)'s edit comments refer to "Moderator T. Morton" [63] who had not been involved in the matter since 4 June when the dispute was over the page Golden Dawn tradition. (diff of T. Morton's last comment)
  4. Frater FiatLux (talk · contribs), the next day after being unblocked, also refers to "Moderator T. Morton" diff
  5. Both users are engaged in reverting to the same versions of the same articles with similar (sometimes identical) accusatory edit comments: article 1 diff, article 2 diff (examples of browser autofill)
Comments


-999 (Talk) 03:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I think meatpuppetry is much more likely here. Both Zanoni666 and Frater FiatLux are always telling me how they can provide their IP addresses for WHOIS queries to verify they are in different parts of the world, but so far, neither of them have managed to answer my question on whether they know each other outside of Wikipedia. In fairness to them, they have not had much time to respond to this question, but I will report back here when they do answer the question. In the case of User:Opuaut, I blocked as a sockpuppet of Frater FiatLux and got an e-mail from FiatLux saying it's not a sockpuppet cause they live in two different parts of the world. When I emailed back asking if they knew each other and if he asked Opuaut to revert to his versions, he hasn't replied yet.--Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 06:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    Well, User:Zanoni666 and User:Frater FiatLux both send me an e-mail, and the originatng locations are indeed on different continents as they claim. So, it are not sockpuppets. That they know each other is obvious. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, but the autofilled edit comments suggest that they are also sharing accounts. -999 (Talk) 14:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    To me, it is clear from the edit summaries that they have the same goal in mind, and that is bad enough, and gives as Deskana says, the impression of meatpuppetry. The sharing of accounts can only been checked using checkuser, and a request can be made there. However, even if we proof that, it is not going to resolve the problem. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    Too true. Deskana suggested [64] asking for a community ban of Frater FiatLux on WP:ANI since he is clearly the one pushing the revert war and recruiting meatpuppets. Others have suggested a user conduct RfC. Any recommendations as to which path might be preferable? -999 (Talk) 15:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    I can now confirm that User:Opuaut is indeed a different user, and not a sockpuppet after I recieved an e-mail from that person as well. I have done a ip-trace on the IP numbers in the e-mail headers, which all go to permanent allocated accounts. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
This user has exhausted everybody: 3RR violations, accused of being a mster sockpuppet, personal attacks, and the edit summary use is very unusual. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 18:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I personally want to do all I can to make sure Frater FiatLux understands policy, and this is tough. I don't think we can get him as a sock, but Zanoni and Kephera are more likely to be the same user. I added a few things on this discussion page, and am waiting for comments there. Zos 18:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I have discovered these annoying accusations and sent an e-mail to K. VD Linde. As I am certain that there will be no doubt that I am not a sock puppet, you can now refrain from making further such accusations. Thank you. Kephera975 20:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
This user is indeed coming from a connection that is independent of the previous three, no doubt it is another person.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I am going to close this becuase it has been around the sockpuppet page for ages. Not edits have been made since June 23. And as Kim van der Linde states, most likely not the same person. Iolakana|T 14:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Lionette

Evidence

User:Lionette created article Haris Cizmic which was shortly nominated for AfD (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Haris_Cizmic). Lionette was observed first changing a delete comment to read "do not delete" [65]. Shortly after, the following user accounts added support comments to the AfD:

All of these accounts were created minutes before the addition of these support comments, and have no edits besides the above AfD page. --Matticus78 22:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, the following user:

Has only made edits to the same articles as Lionette, added support comments in the same style as the above sockpuppet suspects and during the same time period as the above users. --Matticus78 10:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments
  • 25+ more sockpuppet accounts added today solely to vote against deletion in the above AFD. NawlinWiki 15:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

All have been blocked for at least some time. Except Manchesterunited22, who does not exist. Iolakana|T 17:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Lord el zilcho

Evidence
  • User talk:Lord el zilcho says "I'll be back... you just wait."
  • User:Lordelzilcho has similar user name. Just without spaces.
  • From a deleted image's history: Special:Undelete/Image:Dave-afro.jpg:
    • 15:41, 12 July 2006 . . Lord el zilcho (Talk | contribs | block) 420×280 (28,848 bytes) (Taken by stuman at a surf party. It was a blast.)
    • 20:01, 12 July 2006 . . Lordelzilcho (Talk | contribs | block) 420×280 (28,848 bytes) (Thats right, I'm back and I'm bad baby!)
  • The latter keeps posting the same nonsensical article under various titles (Murrildo, Murraldo, Murroldo).
  • User talk:Lord el zilcho turned down my sexual advances for some "just friends" spooning. I was lubed up and everything.

--wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Not interested so spin on it bawbag. --Lord el zilcho 16:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Both blocked. Iolakana|T 17:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Orbiter2006

Evidence

Abusive edits[66] largely consistent with those of User:Stopping your vandalism - previously suspected of being a sockpuppet, and signed with this name as well. This user seems to also have engaged in stalking, making edits to a fairly unique combination of articles that I have been involved with [67] [68] [69] --Leifern 11:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments
Blocked. Iolakana|T 17:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Pokerking

Evidence

He has a total of one edit to the Wikipedia, and it is relating to a current WP:AFD, the 5_of_spades. This users comment appears to be ballotstuffing in the discussion per [70]. User:Kryters is the original author of the article 5_of_spades. --Porqin 13:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments
Blocked. Iolakana|T 16:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Profanthony

Evidence

This user has two edits to the wikipedia (1 post + 1 adding signature), both to the WP:AFD article 5_of_spades. His edit [71] appears to be ballotstuffing to keep the article 5_of_spades that User:Kryters had created. --Porqin 13:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments
Blocked. Iolakana|T 16:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Imacomp

Evidence

User:Imacomp has been demonstrated to use sockpuppets in the past, confirmed by RFCU at: case although the most recent RFCU has been declined because Mousescribe openly admits to using the same IP as Imacomp.

Despite that admission the evidence suggests that Mousescribe is Imacomp, Mousescribe is clearly familiar with Wikipedia despite having no experience, demonstrates knowledge of the extensive history of the Freemasonry pages, attributing this to a review of the history. Phrasing of edit summaries is similiar and there is use of edit summaries to convey personal attacks, as has been done by Imacomp and the predecessor account User:Skull 'n' Femurs. Mousescribe also has a user page very similar to a previous Imacomp Sock, Azuredeltascribe [72].

user:Skull 'n' Femurs has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. See the [Block Log]

Imacomp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) socks are:

Skull 'n' Femurs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Currently Blocked Indefinitely
Deltascribe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Currently Blocked Indefinitely
Azuredeltascribe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Listed as a sock of User:Imacomp/Currently Not Blocked
Blue Square (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sock of User: Skull 'n' Femurs/Currently Blocked Indefinitely
Darth Dalek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sock of User: Skull 'n' Femurs/Currently Blocked Indefinitely
Hiram Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sock of User: Skull 'n' Femurs/Currently Not Blocked
Bolton TI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sock of User: Skull 'n' Femurs/Currently Not Blocked
Mousescribe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sock of User:Imacomp/Currently Not Blocked
My 42 is in (Base 13) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sock of User:Imacomp/Currently Not Blocked
Book Mouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sock of User:Imacomp/Currently Not Blocked
82.33.159.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Sock of User:Imacomp/Currently Not Blocked (Sock was not logged in when he posted this

Points to note:

Mousescribe user page is very similar to that of Azuredeltascribe [73]

Mousescribe also articulates hailing from Lancashire in a very similar manner to that of Skull 'n' Femurs page, [74]

Imacomps' contribution history demonstrates the topic areas, and the style of edit summary usage: [75]

This is similar to Mousescribe [76] and a recently demonstrated Imacomp Sock Deltascribe:

This is very similar to Mousescribes contribution history: [77]

User: David Gerard highlighted that User: Skull 'n' Femurs tended to delete all talk from his talk page, including behaviour warnings. This is also evident on Imacomps talk page [78] and Mousescribe [79] talk pages

User: Deltascribe indicated a link with Skull 'n' Femurs by editing that page long after it had been blocked indefinetly: [80]

Imacomp is now ostensibly attempting to retire the Imacomp ID, claiming to be a son, however the contribution history and familiarity with debates would suggest it's the same person. The Imacomp account is still in use and there is now an attempt to use both accounts in discussion on Freemasonry. [81]

Comments
All blocked, except from Hiram Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who does not exist. Iolakana|T 16:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:The Sand Man

Evidence

Shortly after The Sand Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was issued the test2 template, Deductionary clause (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) began inserting the same l edits into User:Psychonaut's userpage. I'm not sure if it is possible, but a check of which IP(s) are controlling the two accounts could quickly resolve this issue.

Comments

If this is indeed sock puppetry, the user would be in violation of WP:3RR.

Vandalism-only account anyway. Iolakana|T 16:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Sponkerde

Evidence

This appears to be the North Carolina Vandal back in action. The user nominated as the vandal may not be the correct sockmaster.

Lot's of edits in quick succession to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elitism (an AfD closed for over 6 months). Each user has no contribs other than their vote to AfD. Seems to be a similar pattern occuring on Hayesville, North Carolina, leading to these suspects:

These editors also appear to be socks involved in the vandalism of Elitism:

From Elitism 2nd AfD:

From Elitism 3rd AfD:

Found 7/16/2006

Comments

I'm tagging User:Sponkerde because he was the first vandal to attack the Elitism AfD. I suspect that these are socks of an established vandal, but I can't figure anything to that effect. I apologize for an errors in the report...I've never posted here before. Alphachimp talk 01:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I watched alot of this transpire, on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elitism, but also on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elitism (2nd nomination), and now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elitism (3rd nomination). I am glad that all these accounts are assembled for future reference because they do seem to stem from one user. DVD+ R/W 02:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
    Per this edit, all socks have been blocked with the subst:NCV template applied to their userpages. They now join the fine ranks of NCV socks. Alphachimp talk 02:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
    I just added a few more aliases that I found today. I reported them to WP:AIV. Alphachimp talk 02:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    Where did you find them, by the way? DVD+ R/W 02:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    I decided to go digging a little bit deeper into the list of articles frequented by the North Carolina Vandal (check out his awesome page.). I looked back in their histories for editors performing vandalism that appeared to be new users. I then checked their contribs. Turns out that they were all already blocked. Alphachimp talk 03:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

All blocked. Iolakana|T 16:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Anwar saadat

Evidence

This user has fewer then 100 edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=212.85.1.2

He has been reverting 3 unrelated articles to the versions by user Anwar saadat: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ram_Janmabhoomi&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindu_Rashtra&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manu_Smriti&action=history


Comments

User Anwar saadat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anwar_saadat) has a history of creating problems on wikipedia articles related to South Asia. While the evidence is not too strong here, I strongly suspect that he is using a sockpuppet.

Edits are suspicious. Iolakana|T 16:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Tvhosted

Evidence

Tvhosted's contributions which include his legal threats and link spam.

Contributions of 70.27.48.140 It is all link spam to the same site that Tvhosted was advertising before his block.

Contributions of 70.27.49.167 It is all link spam to the same site that Tvhosted was advertising before the block on 70.27.48.140.

Comments

This user is a link spammer. Tvhosted got blocked for 24 hours for legal threats, and later got blocked for 48 hours for link spam. He was editing anonymously as User:70.27.48.140 to continue waging his link spam campaign. 70.27.48.140 was later blocked for link spam for 24 hours. This user is now editing as User:70.27.49.167.

Blocked. Iolakana|T 20:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Steers got horns kid, you don't

Just look at User talk:Steers got horns kid, you don't.

Also has made several anon edits using ip addresses, possibly open proxies in the 70.108.*.* range:

  • All report to WP:OP. Will wait for their response. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 18:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you! This person seems to be rather problematic and may have had an ongoing confilct with someone who had a website and is trying to wage a personal vendetta using Wikipedia that the website owner may not even know about! I Watch 19:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The proxy scan returned negative. However, the IP addresses all belong to Verizon (70.104.0.0/13), so it is possible that they are dynamically assigned, sort of like AOL does. Naconkantari 20:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Now also using 151.200.14.141 which like the ones above are Verizon accounts in the DC area. I Watch
  • Now also using 151.200.254.76 which like the ones above are Verizon accounts in the DC area engaging in more vandalism. I Watch 15:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • So, if it's just like AOL, unfortunately, there's not a lot anyone can do, because they are practically anonymous. I Watch, if there is any other evidence then that would be very good to prove this is a sock. But, these IPs are obviously shared with other users, so, like AOL, fifteen minutes is the max. Iolakana|(talk) 17:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:TheMadTim

Evidence

User is blocked, but keeps creating new accounts using proxies etc to beat block. User has created RFC against me. And has started WP:3RR against me and WP:RFI against me.

I had previously been indefinitely banned under my current username(small k). I felt that the ban had been unfair, so I had created a new account user:KarateKid7 (big K), this account had gone practically unnooticed and despite the fact that I would admit that I am not the most popular contributor, I do try to be reasonable. I also admit to previously using the sockpuppet user:John79 whilst under a short ban. I was accused of using the sockpuppet user:Bill_the_Bear, this user only got 1 edit to the outside world so is hardly a prolific vandal, but anyway I deny that this was me, seeing as I admit to user:John79 I think this gives my claim some weight.

Under my sockpuppet user:KarateKid7 (big K), I ran into a couple of revert wars with user:TheMadTim, he was very quick to report me for WP:3RR and on both occasions of him doing this admins, agreed that I was reverting his vandalism. On the second occassion we were both blocked as a cool down period, my ban was overturned, in the meantime a new user user:TheMADTim turned up, and vandalised some pages. A checkuser confirmed little and suggested that it might have been me but it never confirmed it, I deny that user:TheMADTim is a sockpuppet of me. Because of this my sockpuppet user:KarateKid7(Big K) was discovered and was perma blocked. I created a new sockpuppet user:theKarateKid7 and contacted the blocking admin and discussed with him the initial permablock he agreed that it was unfair, and as the admin who had issued it has left. He raised the issue on the admins noticeboard and I was unblocked.

TheMadtim got pissed off by this and put on his page that he had left the project. He obviously has since been blocked for being a puppetmaster of abusive sockpuppets. As it is me that he has an issue with, I am not surprised that he targets certain pages that I have made edits to.--Karatekid7 16:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


He is also deteremined to get me blocked that is why he creates multiple accounts, so that he can for example have one warn me for vandalism, one report a 3RR, one raise a WP:RFI, one start a WP:RFC, have others do multiple edits to the same article so that it looks like I am violating 3RR. --Karatekid7 16:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


please compare edits with - user:PeppiMantos --Karatekid7 16:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that everyone one of these is a sockpuppet of his.

List of Proven Sockpuppets of TheMadTim:

Comments
  • I have scored every one that is already blocked. I will review other soon. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 15:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Please explain, in good detail and depth, what the entire clash is all about. Only then will the reviewers of this case understand. Thanks, Kilo-Lima|(talk) 16:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

Chowbok

Evidence

New user 68.198.52.124 made highly controversial change to Will Eisner without citation. Request was made at User talk:68.198.52.124 for citation.

Rv was made without citation by Chowbok, whose uncvil and incomprehensible edit summary consisted of "(How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? FOUR.)"

After posting a request at User talk:Chowbok for citation and for a comprehensible edit summary, I received un uncivil reply at User talk:Tenebrae.

Rv was made without citation by new user Mtn

  • This particular change, never made before that I could discern in the 4 1/2-year-old Will Eisner article, certainly not in the past year or so, was made three times in 24 hours by three users, two of whom were new.

Thank you for any help. -- Tenebrae 18:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

    • Response to below: No bad faith, due to meat-puppet possibility. Also 68.198.52.124 and Mtn have now admitted being the same person. In any event, I crafted a compromise solution on the Will Eisner page that avoids the contentious issue entirely, and have posted notice of this on all three user Talk pages and the Eisner talk page. If there are no objections over the compromise from the other person(s) involved, I'd be happy to withdraw this. -- Tenebrae 01:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
This is a bad-faith report by a user with an agenda and a hair-trigger. I noticed that he reverted a change at Will Eisner that I thought made sense, so I reverted it back. Just because I agree with somebody's edits doesn't mean they're sock puppets. I encourage admins to look at the edit logs--all of my recent edits will come from three IPs--my work IP, my old home IP, and my current home IP. The other user(s?) will not be coming from there.


I am angry and offended that a good-faith edit I made has subjected me to such harrassment. I'm a long time Wikipedia editor and have never been accused of such a thing before. If anyone could advise me on what recourse I have against this user, I would be most appreciative.
Finally, regarding the edit summary--undoubtedly brighter bulbs will get the point, but since I have to spell it out for others: Bob Kane was not the sole creator of Batman. He was the co-creator. This has been amply documented. This user's argument against this was that Kane must be the sole creator, since he was credited that way. I'll admit I was being too cute, but my point was that just because the comics credit him solely, it doesn't make it necessarily so. Just like how even if you call a dog's tail a leg, it still has only four legs--calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one. —Chowbok 21:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

To the admins: please note User_talk:Chowbok#Erasing_posts, where Tenenbrae scolds me for erasing posts by "other users", thereby admitting he knows that User:Mtn is somebody else. This proves that this accusation was brought in bad faith. —Chowbok 21:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not withdraw. I want somebody to investigate this and clear my name. Further, I want it noted that this user reacts to editing disputes with false accusations. —Chowbok 16:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have held my tongue so far. Two of the addresses have admitted to being the same person. The evidence I presented speaks for itself as to reasonable suspicion. -- Tenebrae 18:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I have requested the starter of this claim to go to check user. If they do not create one in time, or do not want to, I will create one; I have notified the user myself. Iolakana|(talk) 19:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Can I do it? —Chowbok 20:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Sure! Contacted user regarding this check user. Iolakana|(talk) 19:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I have started the RFCU. —Chowbok 14:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
WP:RFCU will typically not process checkusers requested by the person being checked. See many examples on any given RFCU page. ~Kylu (u|t) 17:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Bazzajf

Evidence
Bazzajf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and 62.77.181.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • 62.77.181.16 started editing articles on June 6 shortly after a 3RR block was placed on Bazzajf, and stopped editing articles after the Bazzajf block disappeared.
  • 62.77.181.16 edited many of the same articles as Bazzajf, including Bazzajf's user page.
  • Compare also [82] with [83]: both ranting comments use the same strange "agenda-based communications" formulation.
  • Bazzajf picked up right where 62.77.181.16 left off on Talk:Henry M. Jackson.
  • An administrator blocked Bazzajf for other sockpuppet use in this time frame, but I don't know the sockpuppet's name.

-- FRCP11 12:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Additional Evidence

--FRCP11 14:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

  • IP is out of Dublin, Ireland, and Bazzajf's user page indicates he's from Ireland.

-- FRCP11 15:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

  • On 28 June, Bazzajf was blocked for a month for continued personal attacks. This page was noted at WP:AN/I, and since the block, the sockpuppet tags on the IP's userpage and talk were blanked by the IP. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Comments

The block extension for sockpuppetry was, I believe, unjustified. User:Bazzajf says that User:Bazzajful is his roommate, and I see no reason not to believe it. That doesn't address the current accusation, of course, but I think that item of evidence shouldn't be considered for this case. Powers 12:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Why would his roommate choose so similar a name? Why would the roommate, if a genuine user, not have continued? William M. Connolley 13:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Now that I've looked at Bazzajful's single contribution, I'm skeptical that that user is a sockpuppet, but I think it's pretty clear that 62.77.181.16 was a sockpuppet evasion of a block by Bazzajf. -- FRCP11 13:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
3 contribs [84]. OK, I see him asserting its not a sock, but the reasonning seems odd. Anyway, its the anon we care about? William M. Connolley 13:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The anon evasion of a 3RR block, yes. Not thrilled with the bad-faith editing and the violations of WP:CIVIL, either, but Wikipedia procedures really don't do anything about that. -- FRCP11 13:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
FRCP11 is correct, I am user bazzajf, I log in on my home PC as bazzajf but on my work PC when I was blocked, I logged in as an anonymous IP address as I could not log in as myself and edit. I was not happy with
  • An extension of a ban for sockpuppetry as user bazzajful when I clearly illustarted I was not indulging in deceitful sock-puppetry and let my housemate express my vested interest even though I quoted him what I wanted said

and

  • An unfair application of 3RR in that the principle to treat reverters equally on the same article was not applied despite the evidence I provided. I welcome LTPowers apology however.

I look forward to another ban and I probably deserve it. I've been a bit of a bollocks on line, I don't know if I'm here because I like trolling around looking for somebody I deem to be overly self-righteous to take on in a debate of if I have a genuine contribution to make.

It is probably the former.

Thanks for your time and attention and apologies if I caused any offence, obviously it wasn't personal, how could it be, i don't know you people. It was in the spirit of the debate I s'pose.

Take it easy 62.77.181.16 15:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No it was not in the spirt of debating, unless you debate badly. I suggest you read up on logical fallacies (things people use when they can't debate properly) which personal attacks fall under. Personal attacks only take away from the issue at hand and are an improper way of supporting your position by attempting to discrediting your opponent. Personal attacks are in the spirit of childish name-calling to get what you want. Paul Cyr 17:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


The statements you make amuse me. My debating skills are reasonably good, I merely throw in the odd jovial catchphrase here and there to add a bit of colour, I always deal with the issue at hand, the "personal attacks" you speak of in relation to me are amusing in nature and are used very infrequently by myself and are hardly vicious or majorly offensive so desist from the lecture because it certainly doesn't apply to me. Like I advised you before, go looking for vandals who engage in irrational debate and irrelevant insulting language and leave me in peace. Bazzajf 10:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I didn't find the comment "knucklehead" amusing. Powers 12:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Hopefully, with both the user and the IP blocked, the user will click-on. Other admins have already blocked whomever. Iolakana|T 12:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Case closed: Iolakana|T 12:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Imacomp

Evidence

Compare edits [85], [86] and [87], and it's quite clear that User:Deltascribe is a sockpuppet of Imacomp. Also note the simularities in username to User:Azuredeltascribe, a proven sock of Imacomp (as per RFCU)

Comments

There is currently a RFC filed for Imacomp, and it is likely that he has created socks to try to circumwent any negative (from his POV) effects of this. Note that Imacomp himself might be a sock of the blocked User:Skull 'n' Femurs.

Blocked per the above evidence. Iolakana|T 11:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Case closed: Iolakana|T 11:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:FruitsAndVegetables133

Evidence
loghead1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and FreshFruitsRule (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Fruitsandvegatables133 was blocked originally for a week for sockpuppetry in a featured article discussion[88]. Freshfruits was created on May 31, 2006, 4 days after FAV133's block. Loghead1 has been floating around since May 14, 2006. Loghead1 left a few messages on FAV133's talk as if to try to show different users, also he asked a question about sockpuppetry and when it could be used[89]. In terms of edits, it appeared the FAV133's ultimate goal was to get Eburn, Ontario featured status, something that he was later blocked for. Freshfruitsrule and loghead1 show similar behavior to FAV133's edits in which all three have edited Eburn, Ontario, Cambridge School, and others. They all show similar behavior in how they act.


Comments

Sorry for the screwups, my first time dealing with sockpuppets. Yanksox 02:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Will have to go to WP:RFCU, as there is limited evidence. OK, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/FruitsAndVegetables133. Iolakana|(talk) 17:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Returned back "Inconclusive." Iolakana|T 13:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Case closed: Iolakana|T 13:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Jonmon6691

Evidence

Ruined my user page as IP address 71.111.56.139, and then once more under this account. Now it seems that Angry Gnome has the same rudeness and editing pattern as these accounts, and might as well be the same person all the time. Besides, this name is a little inappropriate by Wikipedia standards.

Comments

This is my first time at chasing away sockpuppets. --Slgrandson 14:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

ok, I understand what your saying, but like the person who you say I'm a sock puppet of, vandalizes my page too... doesnt make much sence vandalizing myself...... I really dont see how are editing patterns are alike but whatever. Angry Gnome

OK. Will have to take this to RFCU. Iolakana|(talk) 18:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Added to RFCU: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jonmon6691. Iolakana|(talk) 18:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
case came back "unrelated". Iolakana|T 13:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Case closed: Not blocked. Iolakana|T 13:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Archive/July_2006&oldid=137839923"