Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Archive/October 2007

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Chriistopher[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Chriistopher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

ChrisFashion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Wiki Townsvillia n 13:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

[1]

Comments

most criminals are caught by their own stupidity, not by the effectiveness of the enforcement.

Conclusions

dumbass.

Self-admitted, plus other evidence. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Eric Shalov[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Eric Shalov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Hackel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

John J. Bulten 21:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

I wouldn't ordinarily post two SSP reports the same day except the second is so clear-cut. As a Ron Paul follower and now editor for 1-2 months, I have never seen any serious allegations that Paul or his supporters are sending illegal spam emails. Suddenly today Eric Shalov and Hackel have the same interest, where Hackel is an apparent single-purpose account created today. All this evidence is within the last day.
Eric made 2 edits and Hackel 1 to "Ron Paul" which brought in the same spam issue in graduatedly moderated approaches: [2], [3], [4]. See [5] for Eric's defense. Eric has been here for years so this level of coordination with a new account is surprising. I believe the first edit was clearly vandalism.
Eric: "his spamming campaigns violate federal law", "a campaign of unsolicited e-mail advertising, done in violation of 15 U.S.C. 7701", "supporters spammed a multitude of political blogs", "the e-mail spam, which is most certainly a federal offense", "massive political blog spam campaign".
Hackel: "unsollicted spam messages advertising Ron Paul's presidential campaign .... the campaign has not released an official response"; "Describe email spam controversy"; and I think the deleted page has more similarity of writing style, as follows:
Hackel also created a page "Ron Paul Spam" and its talk page, which stated that it was for the purpose of airing this same controversy and mentioned the CAN-SPAM Act. It was rapidly deleted by NawlinWiki (thank you!) before I could get a diff. See [6].
Same understated, innocent tone along lines of "I just want to get the information out there" (Hackel), "I would like to defend my edits in which I mention the Ron Paul spam" (Eric), "Welcome to Wikipedia! I posted a comment about your Ron Paul contributions" (Eric), which is unwarranted given the vandalistic strength of the edits.
User:Life, Liberty, Property helpfully flagged Eric as a troll here, and may have more evidence. The consensus at Talk:Ron Paul has been unequivocally against these two editors' contributions. John J. Bulten 21:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The enterprising admin will also observe other questionable behavior, such as Eric's treatment of me personally. I don't have evidence that this is more than a first offense of sockpuppetry, vandalism, and incivility, but I believe Hackel should be blocked indefinitely (even if not a sock), and Eric given due warnings or timeouts. I considered WP:RCU, but there is serious backlog there and WP:SSP seems more appropriate due to the sudden identical outbreaks of the issue. I am not filing any other complaints on this incident at this time.

To Eric: It's strange that you have been here so long and still think it's appropriate to make two (or three) wholesale controversial and accusatory edits, get knocked down by five editors, and then submit that your hope is for consensus-building. I see that you're trying to back out of the hole now, but I don't think you've yet learned the difference between substantiated claims (like my latest) and unsubstantiated claims (like your latest).

This is out of line. I am not Hackal, and I stand by my edits. I have never edited on Wikipedia with other than my ONE account that I have set up on 12 Wikipedias language sites. If my initial comments on the article's Talk page were rough, it's because I was genuinely bothered to see the article's opening blatantly slanted towards making Ron Paul out to be a top candidate, without caveats. In fact, all over the web, people are complaining about this campaign-related spamming activity (a Google search for "Ron Paul" +spam returned over 300,000 pages). I never even noticed Hackal's edits until he responded to my pro-consensus discussion on the Talk page. If he complained about the spam on the same day, perhaps it's because we were both victims of today's spam campaign. Overall, this is a ridiculous accusation— and it's especially egregious to be wasting the time and energy of users and admins when this is a debate that should be decided by consensus. John J. Bulten's weak attempt at political infiltration- trying to spin his pro-Ron-Paul censoring edits back at me, will not stand. Googling for his name reveals that he is a highly biased, dogmatic Ron Paul advocate, and an investigation of why he is taking a position of such authority on this page may bear value. I invite others to judge me by the over 1,800 edits I've made over the last 3 1/2 years, and by the over 250 articles that I've initiated or translated from other languages. Wikipedia is about furthering knowledge, not censoring it. - Eric 23:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If what you say is true, then why don't you out Hackel instead of me, as an obvious vandal and/or puppet of another? And why is it not a caveat to note Paul has "significantly lower support" than "top tier"? And when did "Hackal" respond to your discussion on the talk page? And why do you say the spam campaign was today-based rather than 10/21-based? And can you point me to two of my censoring edits that I tried to spin back at you? And why do you distinguish my edit from those of the other 4 editors who all "censored" you similarly in the article or my talk page, one of whom thinks you're a troll?

Admins, please let me know if this information was appropriate here, or if it would have been better for WP:RCU or the Vandalism page. John J. Bulten 01:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How am I to believe that this is not a case of biased political infiltration, and that Bulten‎'s efforts to censor or silence anything negative about Ron Paul are in my imagination, when, in the 38 days he's had a Wikipedia account, 72 of John J. Bulten‎'s 106 article edits (that excludes Talk:, Wikipedia:, User:, and Template: namespaces) (or 68%) are in Ron Paul articles, and of the remaining 34 edits, 100% are related to Paul and the 2008 election? And if Bulten is not a biased political operative that should recuse himself from editing the Paul article, then why do I find his name on this and this and this? - Eric 03:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, so I note you have no answers. To answer yours, operatives are paid, I'm not. But thanks for running the numbers and the Googling. "Welcome to Wikipedia!" John J. Bulten 12:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few things first. First, Mr. Shalov's initial edits were not "vandalism" - vandalism is replacing article contents with "poop" in big letters, etc. The insertion was very poorly sourced, as was discussed elsewhere. Second, any issues with Mr. Bulten's editing and his (presumably volunteer) work with the campaign may be taken to WP:COIN. I think there may be a case there - money needn't change hands for a conflict of interest to exist.
As to the suspected sockpuppetry claim. I see some similarities in the "understated, innocent tone" referenced above, suspicious timing, and similar opinions about what constitutes a valid source (blog comments and emails). I'm not sure this is conclusive enough, so I'll let another admin weigh in.--chaser - t 19:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chaser. Believe I was confusing vandalism with libel. Have read WP:COI and though I've adverted my biases generally, I may not have done so strongly enough. Appreciate the headsup. John J. Bulten 20:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin or anything, but Eric pointed me to this dispute to see what I thought of it. Firstly, I know Eric in person and that he'd not use a sockpuppet. Beyond issues of reputation and personality, it doesn't make any sense—no vote was going on, and it isn't like the numbers of people pushing a perspective should decide anything anyway. On controversial pages especially, decisions should be made based on reason and consensus (see WP:CON), because there will always be a disproportionate number of fanatics devoting attention to a page about a political figure...full of both sockpuppets and meatpuppets alike.

Whether John likes it or not, this is a major issue getting press with Ron Paul's campaign. When Paul wins online polls he has been disqualified (justly or unjustly) because the hosts of the polls believe that his tech-savvy supporters are skewing the results through sockpuppet/meatpuppet tactics of their own. And Eric has noted that though we don't use blogs as primary sources, the very sentence he was reacting to was one which was touting Ron Paul's internet popularity by some of the same measures—as if this is a worthy metric to emphasize in the lead. There's a contradiction there, and though I think Ron Paul's internet popularity is newsworthy I think the challenges to that are on equal footing.

That said, I don't think Eric's edit should have stood. I criticized his over-reaction to receiving a spam email from who-knows-where and then being twice reverted for griping about it. His choice of words was poor, but really you can't please everyone the first time around so good faith gets you far (after all, I've been called pompous for as little as using the phrase "to mention in passing") But what I'm most troubled by as I survey history is how John—a 1.5 month Wikipedia editor whose account pretty much only edits Ron Paul articles and makes sockpuppet accusations—is getting away with so much "guns blazing" in administrative space without apparent reprimand. I note Starkrm's comment after being similarly accused of being a sockpuppet: You've only been editing here for a month? What sort of experience could you have? If you had done this to other people who aren't so interested in defending themselves as I am, then your actions might just drive them away.

I concur, and when this behavior isn't kept in check on Wikipedia, it fosters the precise cases for creating an alternate account merely to keep heated issues in one small area. Hackel may just be someone who watches the recent changes log, saw some keywords that interested him (ron+paul+spam), and wanted to put in his 2 cents while avoiding having his primary account getting ensnared in something like this. Honestly I'm leery of adding my thoughts because the Ron Paul page isn't that important to me—and suspect this is going to cause John to start poring over my edit history to try and find something I need to be administrativized for. But I'm speaking up to say: this is not the spirit of what Wikipedia editing should be like. It takes patience to build an encyclopedia, and that means not launching sweeping campaigns against long-term editors a couple of hours after your first encounter with them.

As for conflict of interest, I don't know if it's against wiki etiquette for Eric to have searched out John J. Bulten's affiliation with the Ron Paul campaign on the Internet. It seems like John is knowingly using his full name, initial and all, so one would reasonably guess he considers his support to be a matter of personal pride and would have no motive to deny his involvement. Yet he's said ("Nor do I want to know why you're googling and republishing details about other website accounts named "John J. Bulten" [7]) instead of owning up to any affiliation. That strikes me as disingenuous and I think it would be more appropriate to disclose his bias on his user page (currently blank), especially if Ron Paul and supporting articles are the only pages he plans to edit. The people on WP:COIN can then take a balanced look at his work and whether the his edits, discussion, and vigilante administration should be challenged. Metaeducation 22:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to (hopefully) clear something up. I am most definitely not a "sock puppet". It's true I just created a wikipedia account to talk about the Ron Paul spam issue, as I certainly don't spend any amount of time on Wikipedia (hence my not responding until this morning). I was upset that the Ron Paul campaign wasn't saying anything about the emails on their website, so I wanted to get the info out here. I intentionally tried to do it in a neutral, non-disparaging way, but apparently that wasn't good enough. Incidentally the information I included in my edits was from my call to the campaign, where they claimed they were not responsible and were considering releasing an official statement. The extra Ron Paul Spam page I created simply contained the full text and headers of one of the many spams I received, which I wanted to use as the source for my edit. Of course I was not claiming that the -content- of the email was a reliable source, but the fact that the emails were sent should be reliable. I'm not sure how to prove this here, though. Regardless, I'm not really interested anymore. I take offence to your assertion that I should "be blocked indefinitely (even if not a sock)". There are absolutely no grounds for this. Also, I must add that I never responded to any "pro-consensus discussion" on any talk page. I do think that this is an important issue that should not be ignored and *something* about it should be posted to the Ron Paul page. I've never seen this kind of political spam before and it is definitely noteworthy. Hackel 08:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice three things that stand out here to me:

Hackel's editing pattern is unusual for a new user, but that alone doesn't prove a sock case
John's interest in and ability to detect sock cases for a user that's only been on wiki for a month or so is also unusual (he's active in other SSP cases and RFCU cases), but these alone don't prove anything wrong is going on either
Agree there are likely COI issues going on here and suggest reporting to that noticeboard — Rlevse • Talk • 12:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I respect the input of Rlevse, Chaser, and Metaeducation. Please see my response. John J. Bulten 15:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

The evidence is inconclusive and the alleged violations of WP:SOCK are limited, making a checkuser unlikely. Taking Mr. Shalov and Hackel at their words, my conclusion is no evident sockpuppetry.--chaser - t 16:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Neno8403[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Neno8403 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

BlueMaryland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
76.114.195.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Master Editor In Chief (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Gyrofrog (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

BlueMaryland (diff) and Master Editor In Chief (deleted edit) have both uploaded Image:NorthwesternHS ArialView.jpg. Both misspelled "aerial" in the file name. This same image has been uploaded numerous times as Image:NorthwesternHS Arial.jpg (deleted) (again, note the misspelling), Image:NorthwesternHS 3.jpg (deleted), Image:NorthwesternHS 3X.jpg (deleted) by Neno8403.
All three editors added the image to Northwestern High School (Hyattsville, Maryland) (BlueMaryland's diff, Master Editor In Chief's diff, Neno8403's diff).
Both BlueMaryland (diff) and Neno8403 (deleted edit) have tagged the image with {{PD-self}}.
BlueMaryland used verbiage in the article's image caption (diff) very similar to what Master Editor In Chief used in the image description (deleted edit).
76.114.195.19 removed the {{Di-no source}} tags (diff, diff) shortly after I had added them to Image:NorthwesternHS ArialView.jpg and Image:NorthwesternHS 1.jpg‎ .
Self-admission: BlueMaryland left a note on my talk page (diff) stating "I have had issues with you in the past", although this account had made no edits before October 31.

Comments

I indefinitely blocked Neno8403 in April for repeated copyright infringements (see Special:Undelete/User_talk:Neno8403). Only BlueMaryland has made recent edits, but I wanted to list Master Editor In Chief for the sake of evidence. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Given BlueMaryland's self-admission ("I have had issues with you in the past…") and the other evidence, I will close this case and block the sockpuppet accounts. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Axhamil76[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Axhamil76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Pacificoceania (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Abe Froman 17:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Content reversions on Charles Krauthammer by User:Pacificoceania [8] and Axhamil76 [9].

Comments

Based on single-article editing pattern, and similar content reversion style, I believe User:Pacificoceania is a sock of Axhamil76.

Conclusions

90% of Pacificoceana's edits revert Abe Froman and all his edits are on Charles Krauthammer. This is an obvious disruptive SPA and probable sock, but I am not sure if the puppetmaster is Axhamil76, so I'm indef blocking Pacificoceana and warning Axhamil76. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Mais oui![edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Mais oui! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppet

Garmaidk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Evidence

On User talk: Breadandcheese, Mais Oui! added a section, it was reverted, and Garmaidk reverted it back.

Comments

You did not put the required notices on their talkpages, please do so. While it was only G's 3rd or so edit, this case is only based on that one edit, he might simply be agreeing with Mas. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC

Conclusions

There is only one edit in common. Not much to base sock puppetry on. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:TUMAS214[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

TUMAS214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

Ian Cairns 15:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

[10] detailing similar POV rants / edits in similar sections by Loremaster and TUMAS214
[11] detailing similar POV rants / edits in similar sections by TUMAS214, Smallmas214, Rodgersmas214, Mas214Kapinga, ZHUMAS214
[12] detailing similar POV rants / edits in similar sections by Sercimas214, 121.209.209.171, TUMAS214, Chenmas214, Chotisornmas214, Daymas214
Ian Cairns 15:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

There's so much in a similar vein that I've tried to be concise in the above reports, which have been put together with the assistance of User:Oli Filth and User:Gscshoyru. I have recently blocked UserTUMAS214 for vandalism and tagged some of the puppets - but more come to light each time I look. Not all suspected / reported socks above are tagged. Gschoyru has reported [13]. It is beginning to look like:
[14]
"1) Wikipedia assignment. Worth 25%. This semester you will choose three concepts, things or people relevant to MAS 214 and will contribute to (or create) their Wikipedia entries. Your contributions must include citations to readings and other resources from MAS 214."
Not so much a sockpuppetmaster more a concert band....
Ian Cairns 15:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to put the warning tags on their pages per the instructions. Tumas214 just got created today and you think he's the master account? Which one is the master account? — Rlevse • Talk • 19:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this case should probably be closed; as it's clear it's not actual sockpuppeting. See WP:AN#Dozens of bad-quality edits as a result of a coursework assignment for a more-detailed discussion of what's going on. Oli Filth^(talk) 19:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AH so. very interesting. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What should be done if more are noticed? I have encountered at least three more: Rodgersmas214, Mas214Kapinga, and Constantinidesmas214 in articles I watch. The problem, I think, is the poor quality of the edits - if they are good quality, they shouldn't be removed just because they are the result of a school assignment. But if they are not, and many that I've seen are not, then we just have a major pain in the neck to deal with. Also - FWIW - I don't see a connection to Loremaster. Tvoz |talk 23:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Agree with the consensus in the ANI thread, this is not socking, but editing en masse and each user should be dealt with as any new user. Some already have talk page edits and even been blocked for 3RR, etc. Deal with each on their own. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:89.242.1.96[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer: 89.242.1.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: 78.145.184.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 78.145.163.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 84.13.153.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 78.145.158.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Collectonian 22:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

In a span of less than 10 minutes, these IP addresses made multiple attempts to blank the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), and Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance) pages and replace them with the exact same content. These attempts are still on going.

Comments

Already blocked by other admins. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Already blocked, no more edits, closing. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:66.23.224.223[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

66.23.224.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Popperian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

gorgan_almighty 11:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

The puppetmaster started out by creating an article for his product, which was deleted at AfD. During the AfD, puppetmaster claimed several times that if his article is deleted, so should every article on network management software ([15]).

After the AfD closed, puppetmaster vandalised the AfD page ([16] [17]).

When the vandalism was reverted, the puppetmaster revealed his sockpuppet by using it to restore the vandalised version ([18] [19])

The sockpuppet is now making a WP:POINT by sifting through Wikipedia nominating all articles about network monitoring software that he can find ([20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27], and the list goes on and on). Admins have been reverting his nominations as invalid.

Update: The sockpuppet continues to add AutoNOC to the List of network management systems article ([28] [29]).

Comments

Comment from User 66.23.224.223:

This is also our account "Popperian". We will try to post on the account. Our prior account was deleted. This is actually a dynamic IP that is re-assigned every 30 days. We have plenty of other IPs we can but in an attempt of good faith we have used the same one, because we believe the issues are actually legitimate. It is not quite the mischievous the administrator has repeatedly been accusing us of for weeks as he deletes our page revisions.

After administrators ignored requests to review these pages and began reverting our AfD requests for review for only selected pages that legitimately need review, we posted on Sysop page, Coredesat to request review for these pages.

The administrator listed did not actually perform an accurate review of the AfD change requests made. We did not mark all these pages to be deleted. We marked the ones that actually need review (advertisement, no references, not-notable). Articles by publically traded companies, or very well known names were not asked for review. We only requested deletion review for the actual articles that should be revieed. Other editors have expressed the same comment and agreement with us that "Yes many of these articles do need to be reviewed and appear to violate the same terms".

We are in the process of terminating all involvement with Wikipedia. We are obviously not wanted here. We are also requesting all trademarked and copyrighted information that we have deleted from commentaries be removed. Please do not revert these deletions of copyrighted and trademark material. In the cases of the deletions, the rights of use to these registered trademarks and copyrights have been revoked.

Our experience in this process has been such that we will join the camps of Educators, and Education Boards and others in requesting the banning of Wikipedia in schools and in other forums because the system isn't quite so "open" as people want to claim. The administrators control it, only who knows exactly who these people are, and the administrators have already admitted they are highly biased about what content they allow and what they censor and that has certainly been our experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popperian (talk • contribs)

Additional comments by submitter:

The puppetmaster couldn't resist vandalising the evidence section of this page when he submitted his above comments ([30])

You have repeatedly violated our registered trademarks. We will delete all improper use of our trademarks meant to inflict harm upon us.

The puppetmaster's comments do not explain why the sockpuppet vandalised the concluded AfD, or why the sockpuppet is going on a rampage of AfD nominations against network management articles.

Get over yourself, I already think you are an idiot. It was not a rampage. I have been reviewing these articles for more than a year in the frustration of the bias we are receiving. I went through a selected set of the articles that should be deleted for the same reason our article was purged and I requested review for them and posted my comments. Isn't this how Wikipedia is supposed to work? Or is it just the "Gorgan almighty" biased world?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Popperian (talk • contribs)

—gorgan_almighty 12:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unintentional, didn't realize it had passed AfD. If it has passed AfD, I disagree with it, and that article should still be deleted for the same reason our article was deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Popperian (talk • contribs)

Comment from User 66.23.224.223:

The administrator in question is using our registered trademark without our authorization. He been specifically told that his use of this trademark has been revoked because he has been abusing it with the intent to cause harm or injure our company. We request all copyrighted material that we removed and trademarks that we removed and related changes to be made permanent.
This administrator should be banned from modifying any articles posted by us. He has already indicated a high level of personal bias.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Popperian (talk • contribs)

Regardless of the outcome of this sockpuppetry case, I think the AfDs should proceed since there are a number of articles on that list that are adverts and should probably be deleted. --A. B. ^(talk) 12:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finally a Sane Administrator! We have no problem with deleting our article, all we ask is the same policies applied to us be applied to all others. Please put this guy in charge of all NMS entries. This gorgan_almighty guy has been harassing us for more than a week, he has violated our trademarks, he has re-posted copyrighted material. And now he is trying to get us banned. He should have administrator privileges revoked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popperian (talk • contribs) 12:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no comment on whether those other AfDs should continue or not. I was not the one who reverted them. Feel free to do a procedural re-open of them if you like. —gorgan_almighty 12:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other articles we marked for AfD need to also be reviewed. The article we originally posted that the SysOp purged has an equal number of third party links prior to the purge, I am not sure if he actually reviewed the page prior to purging or made the delete based on Gorgan's old commentary. However, this article should be recovered because it was better quality than many of the others you appear to be keeping. Cases in point: Zenoss, Zabbix, and Xrate. Why are these articles not subject to the same scrutiny from Gorgan_Almighty and his band of "un-biased editing saints"? Our article was their equal, our technology more widely deployed, but for some reason these are exempted from review?

The Zenoss and Zabbix articles are in bad shape and need a clean-up, but the links in their reference sections clearly show that they have been the subject of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Xrate, on the other hand, does not appear to be notable enough for inclusion. I have tagged it for suspected lack of notability, and if no sources are added, I'll nominate it at AfD. —gorgan_almighty 13:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the AfDs I posted should be reviewed. Since it has been advised that I stay away from the NMS section for COI reasons (which I agree with) ... I'm not going to touch it. However, all AfDs I posted should be reviewed, and I personally think the entire list should be deleted, either that, or all 300-or-so production verifiable NMS included. The latter is what I think should actually be done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popperian (talk • contribs) 13:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sockpuppet's "dynamic IP" explanation also does not explain why the sockpuppet keeps adding AutoNOC to the List of network management systems (as noted in the update to the evidence section). If the sockpuppet really was a different user entirely, then why would he do this? —gorgan_almighty 12:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offense Gorgan - but you really shouldn't even touch our edits ... you are already trying to get us banned.

Either way, Popperian seems to be a vandalism-only account. —gorgan_almighty 12:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a brand new account created as a result of this debate. I plan to keep the account, presuming it doesn't get deleted and use it for all future edits. My interests are not just NMS related although that is what keeps the lights on. We originally had an account in the page name but can no longer get into it. We would have done all edits in the page name if not for having lost access ti he account form more than a year ago. I am not trying to deceive, vandalize, or harm Wikipedia. My existing opinion, however, is that it is a highly biased, inconsistent, and censoring media form, not at all what I expected. I actually know a lot more about this market than the administrator and am multi-decade expert in the market. Not a single change I have made constitutes real vandalism. Every edit I have made has been either (1) to add more information, in a high quality manner to Wikipedia, or (2) after the information I added was deleted by "Gorgan_Almighty" to apply the same deletion policy in a fair, uniform, consistent manner to other such pages. I would not have marked any page for AfD had administrators actually reviewed them themselves after I requested review approximately 20 times. But the pages I marked for AfD need to be reviewed, and perferably deleted ... at least if you plan to purge our pages.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Popperian (talk • contribs)

If you really are prepared to "reject your old ways" so-to-speak, and start editing Wikipedia in an appropriate unbiased manner, then I think you may deserve to be given a chance. I suggest you stay away from network management articles, as you have demonstrated a conflict of interest in that area. I recommend that the concluding admin considers this course of action. —gorgan_almighty 13:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing wrong with my "old ways". The issues haven't changed, going on for a year now. Once these issues are cleaned up, I have every intention of staying away from NMS articles providing the AfD's I requested are carried out. Someone who knows the NMS market really needs to be put in charge of cleaning it up, and I personally believe that page should list all 300 or so of the primary existing production NMS that are out there. Ours and the others. 300 is not too big of a number and peer-edited review is actually a valuable reference for customers. Don't worry - I'm not going to do that for you guys, I've already had my fill of dealing with WikiBias. Editors definitely have it completely wrong if they think it's some kind of an advertising boon to be listed on that page, one year of page listing, and not one qualified referral from it. The only thing to come from it has been grief and waste time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popperian (talk • contribs) 13:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, I personally think this entire discussion is stupid, as were Gorgan and ThomJakobsons edits. They obviously don't have a clue about the NMS market and really don't know what they are doing. If you guys want to know what you should be doing ... it is pretty simple: Wikipedia's policy should be to aggregate all related summary NMS knowledge for verifiably real products and companies. This may be the "attempted" policy currently, but it has been a complete failure as it disallows anything that isn't either free software or software from large monopolies. If someone is clearly trying to spread viruses or something, ya, delete it, but the Internet actually does need a quality, comprehensive list of NMS. There are about 300 of these in existence to my knowledge and my personal feeling is that ALL of these should be listed, our page, and the other pages. I do not believe the advertising/promotional value of the link is significant, at least not in my experience. However, a high quality general NMS list that differentiates between the complexities of the products will actually provide a lot of value to the public. I am routinely requested for such information from many people trying to figure this market out because they can't figure it out. All of my edits have been a function of this perspective. I am neither vandal, nor advertiser, nor blind promoter as I have been accused. My message has been the same for more than a year and not one administrator (except the guy above) has paid attention. Either delete it all or keep it and make it fair and consistent. There shouldn't be this non-sensical, biased NMS list that exists right now. It is wrong to selectively and almost randomly censor certain products and technologies. If you can't figure out what policy you want to do here (I think you should keep everything that is verifiably legitimate) ... it's just going to be a nightmare, and I'm going to come back in another 30 days and we will have this battle all over again. Delete it all or keep everything that is verifiable real and accurate. Comparisons between the products and feature/platform differentiations would probably be very valuable to the general public ... but the existing list is biased crap that specifically censors anything that isn't from a large monopoly or isn't free software.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Popperian (talk • contribs)

I am not going to comment any more on this subject, as I believe I have said all there is to say. I will leave the rest up to the concluding admin (although I will still revert any attempted vandalism to this page, or any other). —gorgan_almighty 13:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you (and ThomJakobson) have been informed that you are using our trademarks in a manner that we do not authorize in such a way that what we believe has the specific and intentional intent of harming our company. You tracked our IP addresses down and published personal information and are harassing us. Guess what, you visited our website and we also have your IP address. If you continue to harass us, we will take legal action.

Use of trademarks in commentary has no protection in trademark law, which I suspect you already know. As for "copyright violations": you agreed to licence your comments under the GFDL when you posted them; this is displayed on the page when you submit them. You can't revoke such licensing afterwards, so deleting them claiming "copyright/trademark violation" is vandalism, and it distorts the record of the discussion. As for "published personal information": your IP address was recorded in the publicly accessible edit summary when you removed the deletion notice and made changes to the article. I didn't "track down" anything, you left that information on public display and I pointed out that the IP editor to the article might have some connection with the company concerned due to geographical proximity. You confirmed that, not me, so the only disclosure of personal information has been on your part. Thomjakobsen 14:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomjakobsen and Gorgan, you have been informed that it is our view that both of you are harassing us and using our trademarks in such a manner as to intentionally inflict harm on us. You have been warned.

I will revisit these things in 30 days, hopefully someone cleans up this mess. I ask editors to debate and formulate a clean, clear policy that is free from bias as to who should and should not be included on the NMS list and probably others. I will not touch NMS listings as per requests. If you don't come up with a clean, clear, fair policy ... the only thing that's going to happen is more grief and wasted time for all of us!
- There is a clean, clear, fair, and widely accepted policy already. Please read this and this. Any article, NMS or otherwise, that meets these requirements will be included. Those that do not, will be deleted. That policy is the gold standard for inclusion. Any other consideration regarding popularity or importance is irrelevant. Arakunem 15:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, to clear something up for Popperian, I'm not an admin -- just an editor. Second, If these AfDs have been put on hold, then I suggest reactivating them a few at a time per my comments at User talk:Popperian#Your AfD nominations -- 20+ related AfDs is a lot to digest if the nominator has not done prior legwork on notability issues. --A. B. ^(talk) 15:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

User:Popperian acknowledges that he/they has been editing as 66.23.224.223. I see what might be some technical violations of the sockpuppet policy here--in particular, both the IP and the named account participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AutoNOC. To avoid being accused of violating the sockpuppet policy, it's best if you stick to using only the Popperian account, and to make sure that you are always logged in when you edit.

There are other user conduct issues that are more important here than sockpuppetry. First, Popperian's use of "we" and "us" in the posts above strongly suggest that multiple people are editing under the Popperian account. This is not allowed by Wikipedia policy, and unless you can confirm that the account is being used by one, and only one person, I will block the account from editing.

Also, Popperian's comments about the alleged trademark abuse--especially the comment "Thomjakobsen and Gorgan, you have been informed that it is our view that both of you are harassing us and using our trademarks in such a manner as to intentionally inflict harm on us. You have been warned." violates the spirit, if not the letter, of Wikipedia's No Legal Threats policy. If you continue to use legalistic language in this manner, there's a strong possibility that your account will be blocked from editing. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legal concerns generally resolved, this was appreciated. The courtesy blank was appreciated, if possible, to clean up all remaining issues, no edits we make seem to last very long, and any edit we make appears to open some other can of worms ... so can someone please also courtesy blank this page Talk/IP and this one Talk:User. Someone appears to have unrecoverably deleted the only thing that was actually desired on this site (namely information on the NMS list with the other listings), so no more real plans to use Wikipedia further. What is the point when everything we do is recorded for eternity but things may be permanently deleted by people whom we view as highly biased against us? We took down the sister wiki server for this project and mediawiki this morning. It would actually be a favor if you deleted this account and all other such references. We are done with Wikipedia, it causes far more problem than is useful, thanks for the people who helped.

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Wrestlingfanatic[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Wrestlingfanatic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

122.167.232.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.254.143.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

— Swpb^talk.edits 14:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

All are WP:SPAs to add the same spam link, thenewpwb.com, to the same article, Collaborative blog.

Comments

You did not warn Wrestlingfanatic, pls put the notice on their talk page. I am not so sure of ...221, he only has one edit and it was 3 months ago. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

One of the IPs is from California, one from India. Don't know where the named account is from. He may have just forgotten to log in as this is only a couple of edits. He was also not informed of the case here. Closing for lack of evidence. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:B_Nambiar[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

B_Nambiar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Malayaliyan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Vivin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Headmast ship (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Zencv (talk) 07:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tulu war 05:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Both of these users have been reverting lots of revisions in the article National Development Front, without providing any explanation. The edits by both users occur more or less during the same time. An invitation to discuss in the talk page had been unanswered so far. The reverting reintroduces lots of low quality and POV sentences and weasel words into the article and both follows similar style. As there are practically nill contributions from User:Headmast ship other than vandalism in the above mentioned article, I strongly suspect that this user is a sockpuppet created for editing the above mentioned article Zencv (talk) 07:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User in order to avoid 3RR violation in Nair article has used ids User:B_Nambiar and User:Malayaliyan .

See the pair of diffs in Nair article [31] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nair&diff=166257743&oldid=166257195 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nair&diff=166294339&oldid=166272719

In Ezhava article

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ezhava&diff=165619413&oldid=165613948 (The word dalit added) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ezhava&diff=165637472&oldid=165622138(The word dalit added but with some ref) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ezhava&diff=165608046&oldid=165604721

Many other similar edits/revrets in article like Malayalee, Nair, Ezhava, Nambiar (Nair Subcaste)‎,

Comments

I only find suspicion on the Nair article. If there are more articles involved, pls provide diffs. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user has accused me and the other user of sockpuppetry based on absolutely nothing. In fact, he has been warned by an admin about not placing sockpuppet tags on user pages. The root of this problem is this user's POV pushing. I have no idea where he came up with this idea that I and B Nambiar are the same persons. This case is without merit. This user should be issued a stern warning about violating WP:NPA and making frivolous sockpuppet accusations. --vi5in^[talk] 01:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I do not find enough evidence to justify a block or sock tags here. As the article is now protected to admin-only editing, I'm closing this. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:MinsiPatches[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

MinsiPatches (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Minsi Scouter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
CampMinsi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Contributions of Special:Contributions/Minsi Scouter clearly indicate a single-purpose account created for the large number of scout-camp based AfD's (first of which is here, scroll down for remainder) begun by User:MinsiPatches a few days ago. The account was created 03:04 UTC Friday morning, and after putting basic text on their user and user talk pages, went straight to AfD with a clear notion of how to format a response there. All !votes were exactly identical and in favor of keeping the articles.
MinsiPatches began these AfD's shortly after the deletion of Camp Minsi (which has since been recreated as a redirect). During that AfD, he was noted to have taken part in canvassing other editors for support in keeping the article. When it was deleted, MinsiPatches nominated a series of other articles on scout camps for PROD, then AfD, using a verbatim copy of the rationale for the Camp Minsi deletion. Treasure Island Scout Reservation has since been snowball closed as obviously notable, and the consensus on the remaining articles is hovering between keep as a bad faith nomination or merge to another article.
The appearance of yet another "Minsi" account interested in these articles is a bit too much for coincidence. The intentions of these accounts are extremely similar, and the operation of the accounts has some similarity The user MinsiPatches has shown in the past that he is either not knowledgeable of, or has no respect for, policies and procedures that are in place to prevent the disruption of the site. The recent chain of this disregard for policy leaves me to suspect foul play with the account User:Minsi Scouter. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

A report at WP:ANI was issued for User:MinsiPatches in regard to a potential WP:POINT violation with the multiple AfD nominations. The discussion was archived here with no action taken. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added User:CampMinsi due to name and editing similarity. Note that this is the oldest of the three accounts. I'm not sure if CampMinsi is the same as the other two, but it warrants a looking at. Note that since I am currently involved in reviewing other SSP cases and am in the ScoutingWikiProject and have participated in the discussions mentioned by Hersfold, I have to recuse myself from taking part in admin actions in this case, but that does not preclude me from participating in a standard user role. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure they are related, although it is possible. Their contributions are laid out in such a manner that they were never both online at the same time - the two closest timestamps are here for Camp and here for Patches, a 2.5 hour difference. CampMinsi did support MinsiPatches' potential canvassing activities in the Camp Minsi AfD here, but they've had no other direct communication otherwise. Generally sockpuppets are used to support each other more often, at least from what I've seen. CampMinsi does also predate the creation of the other two accounts by over a year, and appeared to be in good standing up to and through the completion of the Camp Minsi AfD. Since then, he has made no edits to the project. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sockpuppet of anyone. Yes, I only really work on Minsi related articles, so I can see how other Minsi-centric editors might appear similar, but we are not the same. I do personally know the person behind user:MinsiPatches (we both worked at Minsi together a while back), but I am not him; I am not his sockpuppet, his meatpuppet or any other type of pawn. CampMinsi 20:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

User:Minsi Scouter has been indefinitely blocked, the account was an obvious WP:SPA utilized for vote stacking in several AfDs. User's third edit was to vote in an AfD, the first two edits were to create the user and talk pages. Dreadstar † 21:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Haham hanuka[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Haham hanuka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

TRFA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
82.166.207.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

gidonb 00:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

The banned User:Haham hanuka seems to push his pov and linkspam (pay-per-view pornosites) [32], as well as to insert his halfbaked templates [33], personal attacks and copyrighted pictures [34] [35] [36] again, this time as User:TRFA. Concentrations are as usual: Nazis (notably Adolf Hitler [37]), Porn, Yigal Amir [38], Israeli tv, and discrediting of LGBT people [39] and organizations (perceived to be) at the left side of the political spectrum [40] [41]. English is as bad as before (although that of course is allowed; just another indication), edit summaries such as 'rv vandal' [42] [43] [44] are also exactly the same. Proper use comments on his talk page page are also removed, often as "vandalism" [45] [46] [47], making mockery out of our policies and the work of our users and making it hard to see that we are dealing with a serial vandalizer of articles. All these and more are precisely the edit methods and style of Haham hanuka. With his disrespect for policies, facts, pov, copyright and others, this determined edit warrior creates huge stress at multiple sections of Wikipedia and forces our better editors to leave.

Sorry it took me a long while to detect: I moved on to other articles and problem areas after this took up to much of my time and I was confused for being a side in a conflict. The problems with Haham, however, only got worse with no one to do the endless work he created so he was completely banned without my knowledge. I now happen to run into him again. I appreciate the verifying of the ban evasion and the banning of this sockpuppet who already causes a lot of damage to the encyclopedia. gidonb 00:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Asked for diffs and specifics from submitter. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rlevse. I have added just a few references. The examples for each instance are too numerous to count. If you want me to draw the attention of a few of the many administrators who had there hands full with Haham hanuka in the past, let me know. Also let me know of any more points you want me to reference or better reference. Note that I usually just edit or scan for new vandalism and hoaxes. I edit Wikipedia since 2003. Thank you for your interest. gidonb 12:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This shows a lot of inappropriate behavior and warnings, much of it from earlier this year, yet he was never blocked. Why so? Also these diffs show his behavior, they don't show how is the same as Haham hanuka. You're right, you may want to ask an admin more familiar with these users to look at it. That would be better here, I think. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Haham's blocks under his new identity are just a matter of time. He broke 3RR but the npov defending party may not have filed (see User talk:The pink panther#habitual gutting of woman by User:TRFA) and he deluted the abusive context of his edits by removing the more serious warnings. But this is not about a single behavior. Haham hanuka was indefinitely banned [48] (also at his native he.wiki) for stressing the patience of our community far beyond what we are willing to suffer. Regards, gidonb 13:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser won't be helpful here, of course, since Haham has been gone since last January. But given that Haham was so obviously identifiable, it shouldn't be hard to make a little table of a half dozen Haham diffs compared to a half dozen TRFA diffs to show how they're the same person. The IP address also isn't helpful; it's a dynamic IP in Israel (and we already know both HH and TRFA are from there.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the contributionlist it looks very much in HH style and the seemless history - last edit as HH 20/01/07 - first edit as T 22/01/07 makes a very compelling case. Agathoclea 18:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions: That'll do it. I'm blocking as a sock of Haham. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:71.156.47.81[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer: 71.156.47.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: 71.156.45.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 71.156.37.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 75.1.250.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 75.2.216.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 75.3.229.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 75.1.244.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 75.3.227.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 71.156.35.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

Wisdom89 21:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC) mirageinred 22:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Edit histories reflect the same POV pushing on identical articles Wisdom89 23:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
75.2.216.91's contributions are exactly the same as User:75.1.250.153 mirageinred 22:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:75.3.229.90 appears to have the same agenda, avoiding discussion and ignoring core policy. Wisdom89 02:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative action

21:23, October 18, 2007: 75.2.216.91 is blocked for 24 hours by Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs) for 3RR violation.[49]
22:36, October 18, 2007: 71.156.47.81 is blocked for 24 hours by Yamla (talk · contribs) for vandalism.[50]
02:47, October 19, 2007: 75.3.227.21 is blocked for 31 hours by Josiah Rowe (talk · contribs) for 3RR violation.[51]
05:22, October 24, 2007: 75.1.244.104 is blocked for 72 hours by Josiah Rowe (talk · contribs) for sockpuppetry, personal attacks, POV-pushing and 3RR violations.[52]

Comments

I assume it's okay to add more than one sockpuppet. I added User:75.2.216.91, for the same reason.
A new contender has emerged User:75.3.229.90 Wisdom89 02:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I've added ~~two~~ three more IPs he used earlier. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added another one, User:71.156.35.190 — this one hasn't edited the House and ER articles, but has edited one of the other IP pages to change the sockpuppet tag so that it pointed to me and Wisdom89 (talk · contribs) instead of to him. Pretty transparent. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the results of the UserCompare tool. β^_command 14:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Yes, some of these do appear to be the same user. The problem is that they are all IPs and all start with 71.... or 75..., plus several haven't been used on wiki in a week, all of which likely means the use has an ISP using dynamic IP addressing and if we block them all for a long period, there will be a lot of collateral damage to innocent users. Several have already been blocked for various reasons. I will block ...190, who just vandalized a sock tag, for 48 hours. Sorry there's not much more I can do here. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:PennyLane100[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

PennyLane100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Dylanharvey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

But|seriously|folks 02:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

I believe this sock was created to support the user's efforts at Nathaniel Street-West. PennyLane100 has no edits unrelated to this article. Dylanharvey spent about 15 minutes on other articles, making 5 edits. All of the rest are related to Nathaniel Street-West.

DH was created about three hours before PL100 left this message on my user talk page defending his editing of Nathaniel Street-West. That was the first edit PL100 made after I tagged Nathaniel Street-West for COI issues, and also PL100's first edit in about three weeks.

A day later, we have this as DH's 4th ever contrib, claiming he just happened to notice what was going on to one of his favorite Wikipedia articles and supporting PL100's editing. Since then, PL100 and DH have been backing each other up on the article's talk page.

Both PL100 and DH share a distinctive style of writing, including lengthy paragraphs and the unusual misconception that talk page notes should be preceded by a "title". See [53] and [54]. They also both erroneously believe that I prodded the article, nominated it for deletion and made other comments, suggesting they do not understand how the page history works.

I wouldn't care so much, except that both PL100 and DH have now expressed opinions, in their similar and distinctive styles, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathaniel Street-West. Ordinarily, I would have blocked DH as a sock by now myself based on the quack test. I am uncomfortable doing that because of my direct involvement with the article, so I am presenting it here for review. Thanks. -- But|seriously|folks 02:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Conclusions

Totally agree with BSF and kudos for recusing yourself. Dylanharvey is indef blocked and PennyLane100 warned not to do this again. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Lomerezco(2nd)[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Lomerezco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Hall e valance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Whohaw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Inderezdi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

NoHenry 17:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Continuing vandalism of the Rosa Blasi page, this time under User:Inderezdi. Other logins already indefinitely blocked.

Comments

Conclusions

No doubt. He's blocked now too. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Orlandofiges[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Orlandofiges (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

DavidPricesolicitors (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Penguinchristie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

12 Noon 18:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Both puppet accounts were created by puppeteer [55]. All 3 accounts have edited Orlando Figes [56].

Comments

The user had already claimed on VRTS ticket # 2007102410007907 that their publicist and lawyers have edited the article, which is consistent with the names of those accounts. Whether they should be blocked as single purpose accounts or for making legal threats is another matter. - Mark 03:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of us don't have OTRS rights. Where are the legal threats? I'm not seeing things like vote stacking, avoiding 3RR, etc. Pls provide diffs. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs are they keep reposting the same peacock terms in violation of WP:BLP. Check their diffs on the history (if I need to link them, let me know, but it is clear on the history page which are their edits, all made on 10/22 and 10/24).--12 Noon 15:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Now I see it. The two created accounts are clearly socks. BUT there is another issue, the puppetmaster's usename matches the name of the person the article is about. This is a violation of the username policy, towit "Usernames that match the name of a well-known living or recently deceased person, unless that verifiably is your name," unless he can verify he is indeed this person. I'm blocking the two socks indef for colluding on the article and also warning the puppetmaster on the name and sock puppetry. If the socking continues, he'll be blocked indef also. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Lomerezco[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Lomerezco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Hall e valance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Whohaw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

NoHenry 17:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Identical vandalism on Rosa Blasi and Jim Finn pages.

Comments

Conclusions

Good catch. Pretty conclusive. Lomerezco was already blocked indef as a vandal, but I tagged as the puppetmaster. Blocked the other two indef as socks. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC) PS. Hall e was also already blocked as a troll. Tagged him too. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Brycei7[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Brycei7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Bryceia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Brycei1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

NrDg 17:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

[57] inserting same hoax character.

Comments

Conclusions

Clear cut block evasion. Brycei7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Australia2world[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Australia2world (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Freedomfighter1112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Chrisch^Talk 12:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User User:Australia2world is continually disruptive, and has finally faced their final warning after a barrage of personal attacks, removing content from articles, and other edits that in one way or another are against policy. When confronted with the final warning message (the second to actually be placed on their page - they removed the first which I have recently restored), it was in response to yet another unhelpful edit of theirs to the Padua College article. After actually receiving this message, it is my belief that the account operator of User:Australia2world created a new account - User:Freedomfighter1112, as it was created not long after the warning was left (see here for the creation log. Under this new user, a new comment of relatively the same nature was posted here.

The Australia2world user has previously posted messages such as this on my Comments page, and yet have not been blocked, despite a long history of disruption.

Please check into this issue at your earliest possible convenience.

Chrisch^Talk 12:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'm going to send this to checkuser. I think it's right, but it's best to make sure. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Checkuser is not needed, in my opinion; this is almost certainly sockpuppetry, and I've indef blocked Freedomfighter1112 and blocked Australia2world for 24 hours. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:85.189.82.128[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

85.189.82.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
RFCU here

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

Into The Fray ^T/C 23:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Persistent and ongoing hoax vandalism, as well as some more obvious vandalism and attacks (mostly against me) from most of these accounts and IP's. What ties them together are the themes surrounding a fictional British "rockstar" named Rosster. The general theme is to insert factually incorrect information about Rosster in various British-related articles, though there are also claims that Guy Sharpe is the manager of the band Klaxons and various other spurious claims. I have reverted a lot of edits and this appears to have started last year. Obviously, there is more than one IP behind it all and this is probably meatpuppetry, but I get the feeling that there is one persistent IP behind most of it (probably 85.189.82.128 or 84.45.168.106). Here are some diffs: [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94]. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosster Records, the page log for Rosster, which is now deleted and salted and this log as well. Into The Fray ^T/C 00:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I have also filed an RFCU. Into The Fray ^T/C 00:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All the named accounts are blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

‎

User:ColourWolf[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

ColourWolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

218.186.13.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Plagues Of Truth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Arbiteroftruth (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

[95]- A comparison of a legit edit and edits made by the IP listed above. The storyline features the same radical, terrorist oriented crap that ColourWolf has inserted on Wikipedia almost a year ago.
Plagues Of Truth, although he has not made any bad edits, fits the category of ColourWolf sockpuppets for two reasons: A. the user edits only Power Ranger and Singaporean actors and dramas, the set of pages that ColourWolf edits. Neither he nor ColourWolf has ventured beyond those pages. B. The account is trying to establish legitimacy before massively vandalizing Wikipedia. ColourWolf has been known to do this before. User:PowerClown123 is a good example.

ColourWolf's reign of terror has gone on long enough. It's time for everyone to stand up against this.

Comments

Plagues of Truth has made three edits, all of which seem to be in good faith. Surely this is a bit silly to then say that, because his 3 edits have been about the same two topics he is therefore a sock? The weird thing about someone making good edits to establish legitimacy before massively vandalising topics is that it looks exactly the same as someone making good edits to establish legitimacy. After looking at his edits one of the edits is nothing to do with the power rangers; your evidence is therefore "he has made good faith edits to one of the topics that ColourWolf has, therefore he must be a sockpuppet of colourwolf". By slapping a big "suspected sock" on this users page you may have scared off a potentially valuable user; editing the same page as colourwolfs socks is not grounds on its own for being socks; if it was then from the page history you'd have been blocked for all your reversions. Ironho lds 10:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:ColourWolf[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

ColourWolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

218.186.9.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
203.116.59.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Arbiteroftruth 17:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

[96]- made by ColorWolf [97]- made by 218.186.9.4 [98]- made by 203.116.59.28

All edits contain the same content. All are fictitious information, and I have verified them as fake after watching the series after the Internet. These information also found its way into the Wu Cheng Yi article.

These users have seriously compromised the integrity of the Honour and Passion page with their fake edits and bogus sources.

As proven by the edits made above, all three users have some form of coordination, and thus, they are co-conspirators in a vandalism attack.

Comments

I moved the reporter's comments up, to comply with standard formatting. I'm not sure what we have here. It looks like sock puppetry, but I'm not 100% sure. I also don't know what to do about it - maybe block the IPs for a day for revert warring, but we can't permanently block the IPs because the edits were not simple vandalism. Likewise for the main user: maybe block him for a day, and if he gives a good explanation, then unblock. The article might need to go through dispute resolution. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to go through DR, because the contents this guy has inserted is FAKE! People have verified that. This is not a dispute. This user severely crippled the integrity of a page by inserting fake contents! We are not arguing about POV or opinions here. We are arguing about the veracity (or lack thereof) of the edits ColourWolf has made. Arbiteroftruth 00:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Could be socks but looks like edit content dispute too. Pls provide diffs showing false info. Also, you may know it's false, but how can I tell that? Much of this is in Chinese too. Rlevse 02:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will offer this. The following links are links to the final episode of the Honour & Passion TV series on YouTube.

[99] Part 1 of 5
[100] Part 2 of 5
[101] Part 3 of 5
[102] Part 4 of 5
[103] Part 5 of 5

Mediacorp Channel 8 provides English subtitle for this show, so there exists no language barriers. Look at them and you will know that the Colourwolf edits are absurd and bogus. Arbiteroftruth 06:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the fact that having to verify sources by reading subtitles from a Youtube video is annoying, the only concrete evidence that these users are socks is that they edit the same pages, perform (roughly) the same edits, and the IPs have the same ISP. Other than that, a checkuser would have to get this one, as the only thing we can block them for is edit warring. Shadow1 (talk) 13:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

This isn't strong evidence of sockpuppetry. At this point, User:ColourWolf looks more like a throwaway account than a genuine contributor (that could easily change if s/he returns and contributes constructively). A genuine problem here is that both User:ColourWolf and User:Stormynight91 violated 3RR on Honour and Passion on October 10; both users will be warned.

I have no opinion on the content of the articles in dispute, and hope that someone can find a better way to verify the content than a YouTube video. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:66.162.176.102[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

66.162.176.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

205.133.190.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

WolfKeeper 20:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Sockpuppet IP edited/harassed me: [104]

While blocked at main account:

Evidence that they are the same person is the nature of the vandalism both accounts have carried out:

[105]

and:

[106]

additionally the timing of the vandalisation of my talk page is significant (I just reported them and they were suspended on the main account.)

Comments

The accounts have carried out vandalism over a long period. The existence of other sockpuppet accounts has not been ruled out and seems fairly likely (the user seems to dilute their vandalism between accounts to minimise the chance of a ban.)

The vandalism seems to be of the adding deliberately incorrect information to the wikipedia variety.

Both IP addresses seem to be fixed IPs (stable over long periods).

Conclusions

They are currently blocked at the main account, I believe this block should be extended and include the sockpuppet also.

Both IPs are from Columbus, OH, but from different ISPs. Editing patterns are different. The few diffs provided are not conclusive. If there is long term vandalism, report to WP:AIV or WP:ANI as appropriate. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:South Philly[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer: South Philly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Student erotica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 151.201.155.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 151.197.111.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); ~~NangOnamos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)~~

Report submission by

Gscshoyru 03:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Student Erotica is tag-teaming with South Philly in Erotica.[107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112]

151.197.111.178 and Student erotica/151.201.155.166 are SPA's previously blocked for 3RR and using socks (respectively) to restore a "Student erotica" section to Erotica against consensus (removed by 4 different editors, explained extensively on Talk:Erotica and User talk:151.197.111.178).

South Philly is the original insertor of this information. [113]

Today, South Philly stops when he hits three and Student erotica takes over. Both users have a pattern of similar accusations made in Edit summaries, including presumptive accusations of edit warring before any has occurred.[114] [115] [116]

NangOnamos harrasses an Erotica editor involved in this conflict on that user's Talk page.[117] Less certain about this one, but the bogus, insinuating accusation fits the pattern of other socks in this case.

Actually I think he's just pissed at me because I undid some mass blanking to an article that he thinks is justified -- I don't think he's a sock. Gscshoyru 12:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the edit history, doesn't seem like the same person. My mistake. I'm striking that one. / edg ☺ ★ 13:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All these socks are new accounts. With the exception of NangOnamos, all use Wikipedia jargon in edit summaries, suggesting experience beyond their edit counts. 151.197.111.178 makes a manipulative RFPP.[118] Student erotica begins adding WikiProject tags to articles minutes after being called an "SPA" in this report.[119]

Note the intention to edit war stated here. South Philly acknowledges being informed of this SP report here. Student erotica then canvasses [120], [121] [122], [123].

Article Erotica is fully protected pending the outcome of this SP report. Checkuser is requested. / edg ☺ ★ 10:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This edit war has been going on for at least a week before I jumped in. Gscshoyru has been editing, claiming consensus, against another user, driving an edit war and getting another user blocked. I joined into the argument today, and now I get attacked too. South Philly 03:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of what's been presented is actually evidence. Just innuendo. South Philly 03:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If tag teaming were a crime, then Gscshoyru would be blocked as well. South Philly 04:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We need a checkuser to determine these claims, but I will have to agree with the contributor filing this claim. Edit histories are similar, in addition to comments and uncouth behavior. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 04:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this right, I got nowhere editing anonymously, so I register. that makes me a sock of another user with whom I happen to agree? That's pretty screwed up logic. Student erotica 04:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's the similarity in your manner (edit summaries and the way you talk to people) and the time in which you edit as well. You're a suspected sock, not a proven one. The checkuser request will show whether you are or aren't. Gscshoyru 04:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I registered because there were complaints about anonymous edits. Edit summaries and style of talking. Please ... Student erotica 21:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

If it's not sockpuppettry, it's meatpuppettry. Both are blockable. But we'll wait for the checkuser first.Rlevse 16:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser is well-backlogged. If this is blockable either way, why not get on with it? / edg ☺ ★ 18:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks blockable to me, the two usernames are apparently being used to tag-team, and the editing patterns are very similar. Dreadstar † 19:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User accounts indef blocked, IP's temp blocked and article protection reduced to semi-protection. Dreadstar † 19:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Thanks much! / edg ☺ ★ 19:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Utah History[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Utah History (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

98.202.82.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
98.202.84.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.144.10.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
24.10.224.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Pitarnaken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Icewedge (talk · contribs)

Evidence

The user has added controversial information to various articles, the IP's have continually re added the material after it was removed or have been engaged in personal attacks against Pitamakan (talk · contribs) the user who removed the controversial material.

Comments

I'm not sure if this is the right place for this report, I just wanted this brought to someones attention. -Icewedge 05:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've come to the right place. I think all listed accounts are from the same person, promoting the same agenda. In particular, the single edit by the first IP, to vandalize Pitamakan's userpage, is extremely offensive. I would recommend a one-month block on Utah History for personal attacks and evading a block. If the admin is not sure, checkuser should be available. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for butting in, but I wanted to note that the above individual has also created the account Pitarnaken to push his edits during his block, apparently with the aim of impersonating me. Would it be possible for that account to be indefinitely blocked? Many thanks. Pitamakan 13:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Utah History blocked one month, Pitarnaken indef for both sock and username reasons. IPs one week.Rlevse 17:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Nrcprm2026[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Nrcprm2026 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (blocked)

Suspected sockpuppets

1of3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Done (blocked)
209.77.205.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
66.56.206.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Andy r2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (blocked, added by Crockspot)
Acct4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (blocked, added by Crockspot)
Starkrm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
John J. Bulten (added by Turtlescrubber -jjb)

Report submission by

John J. Bulten 03:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Evidence of 1of3 being sockpuppet of puppeteer Nrcprm2026 (James Salsman, recent puppet: BenB4)

Hardly any edits to 1of3 talk page before 10/6/07, then immediate controversy per user's talk:
1. changing another's text on John Stossel talk page (1)
2. messing with Ron Paul photo after consensus (2)
3. historical pederastic couples: considered unconstructive and libellous (3)
4. reverting at cosmology (4)
5. adding third-level pages to own user space, getting deleted and restored
6. request for mediation party at Iraq War (5)
Other edits for comparison: Larry Craig (6), sex positions, many other sex pages (7), terrestrial planet, common descent (4), Ann Coulter, electoral systems, cumulative voting (8), Al Gore, WP:RS (9), Knights Templar, We the People Act (2), Living persons noticeboard (Jason Leopold section) (10)
1of3 first edited 6/29/06, immediate and obscene use of edit summary
On 7/29/06, as third edit, 1of3 redirected his user page to his talk page-- prevents easy contribution search?
1of3 active 6/29, 7/11, 7/29-8/1, 8/27-31, 9/11, 9/19/06; then 2/19/07, 8/28 (20:58)-8/29 (1:15), 9/29-present; BenB4 was blocked 9/28
matches BenB4 who edited:
1. Ron Paul and its WTP Act sections, Political positions of RP, Gold standard (2)
2. Stossel (1)
3. voting (instant-runoff voting, approval voting, preferential voting, alternative voting, Condorcet method) (8)
4. Iraq War, Gulf War, Persian Gulf, Al-Qaeda in Iraq (5)
5. Jason Leopold and biographies noticeboard (10)
6. Methamphetamine and sex, The Meth Song, penis (7)
7. WP:RS (9)
8. evolution (origin belief, Big Bang) (4)
9. Historical pederastic couples on 8/31 (3)
10. Larry Craig on 8/29 (6)
BenB4 active 7/14-23/06, 7/26, 9/27, 3/28, 4/2, 4/12-17, 5/27-6/8, 6/21-...-8/22, 8/29 (2:01)-9/28: perfect overlap of 1of3
James user page likes instant-runoff voting (8), evolution (4)
Abuse: BenB4 and 1of3 have both held the entire Ron Paul page "hostage" to a POV tag over a single sentence or two. 1of3 over 2 issues: "polls 4%" vs. "polls low", and whether all racist comments should appear in article or some in footnote. BenB4 POV-section 9/13 over phrasing of Paul's pro-life position. BenB4 also immediately affirmed POV added 9/20 by Photouploaded and BenB4 became the prime arguer for retaining POV while Photo assisted. BenB4 removed POV tag 9/25 because he had gotten his way over the article, and did not edit Ron Paul again, suggesting intent to switch to extant sock 1of3. In both cases the objection was made to the lead as an excuse for labeling whole article POV. Ben also added a POV tag per talk message 9/8 00:32. Add: Here Ben moves NPOV tag from section to whole article "as is clearly obvious". John J. Bulten 16:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Similar talk habits, both BenB4 and 1of3 spark discussion over controversial edits and then ignore responses solicited by the processes they invoke (i.e., POV dispute and WP:BRD). Consensus suggested that BenB4 was unhelpful and/or abusive.
Diffs [124] and [125] (same edit summary: "correct") should be a sufficient smoking gun. John J. Bulten 22:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the (first) IP user, see:
1. Paul supports regressive tax? [126], [127], [128]
2. Paul would flat-out prohibit all abortions? [129], [130], [131]
3. Paul's actions & words conflict? [132], [133], [134]
4. User's interests include Ron Paul, Iraq War, speciation (evolution), Malloc (C programming like James).
User:Turtlescrubber appears to be different from James because the two were engaged in two different edit series 10/13 16:58-17:02 (Turtle on Al Gore, 1of3 on FAs), Turtle had a heated conversation 9/19 16:27-16:40 with BenB4 that does not look contrived, and the interest clusters do not align neatly. If an effective checkuser tool exists with the power to see if Turtle is some other abusive editor, that might help. John J. Bulten 14:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only one abusive editor here. Hey, John. How are things? :) Turtlescrubber 15:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since 66.56.206.68 has only 6 edits I am pushing that user's evidence harder (probably not the best use of my time, but here goes).
1. Appears just when James would be expected to be seeking new identities and IPs
2. Jumped immediately to editing John Stossel and Talk:Ron Paul, two hot-buttons of James; similar protectivism over same articles
3. Immediate acquaintance with hierarchical talk boards, links, and style
4. Similar view that what should or should not be mentioned is obvious
  1. 66:*: "This should obviously be mentioned" (Romney's self-financing, with link, in a Paul article) [135]
  2. BenB4 "your obvious conflict of interest as evidenced by" (09/10 14:13 Talk:Ron Paul archive 7); "Including his statements about himself when they conflict with the legislation he has introduced is a gross violation" [136]; "any editor may remove unverifyable content per WP:V; the burden of showing verifiability is with those including" [137].
5. Similar fixation on exact quotes from sources to the exclusion of paraphrases
  1. 66.*: "link to article saying this" [138]
  2. 1of3: "what the references actually say" [139], "what the ref actually says" [140]
  3. BenB4: "what the bill says from http://thomas..." [141], "source doesn't say this per main" [142], "article says date is 22nd" [143]
6. Similar focus on adverting minor self-correction
  1. 66.*: "corrected self" [144]
  2. BenB4: "rv self" (added "A") [145], "revert self" (deleted "ing") [146], "self-revert: technically broke 3rr again" [147], 17 more examples searching on "self"
7. Similar focus on minor punctuation mistakes
8. 66.* comes from Road Runner Midsouth Herndon VA; 209.* comes from AT&T/SBC/PacBell Richardson TX; Nrc* has used 71.141.107.41 which has the same AT&T/SBC/PacBell Richardson TX provenance; several other IPs in same service were suspected of being Nrc*, such as 71.132.129.114; 69.228.65.174 was used by puppet (possible meatpuppet) Peter Cheung and is same service; 75.35.112.95, 75.18.207.177, 75.18.207.177 from AT&T/SBC were also possibles. Based on this and without better analysts chipping in, this is supplemental evidence for 209.* but not for 66.* (unless this jogs someone else's memory).
9. WP:DUCK
Here T.D. Cudgel points out that we should log James's every IP due to rampant abuse and ban evasion, which I support, and Cudgel indicates we have not been handling James well enough yet. The odds of 66.* being an innocuous user are not negligible, so there an SSP block might be better than a straight ban if no better evidence materializes; but there are not firm evidence standards here and I think open-source consensus generally should operate on preponderance of evidence rather than reasonable doubt, so I would have no problem banning either. This is my considered opinion as a forum moderator elsewhere. John J. Bulten 15:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Add Starkrm whose evidence is obvious upon consulting contribution lists and dates, and who is now (10/18) the depleted uranium editor of choice. T.D. Cudgel also pegs JLeclerc and Pdilla as suspicious depleted uranium editors, but I'm not looking for diffs on those two unless they start editing the politics articles. However, don't let James feel free to abuse any account; please let's all keep an eye out. John J. Bulten 17:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of what is "obvious"? Now that I've read what a "sockpuppet" is, I think I understand a bit more. I'm not a sockpuppet. I've made contributions to radiological related articles and stuck in my 2 cents in a few other places. What is in question here? Starkrm 19:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See your user page. I'll grant it may not be so obvious as I thought at first glance. John J. Bulten 21:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite different from your statement "Add Starkrm whose evidence is obvious upon consulting contribution lists and dates..." which gives the impression you have done your fact checking when you didn't. I find Mr. Salsman annoying on Radsafe, but I would certain be certain of my facts before calling for someones banning. Starkrm 21:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All night I was concerned that I had made an inappropriate accusation on hasty review. However, on further review of the record, my gut feelings were vindicated in that there is enough evidence to request a checkuser. If it should come up clean I will be happy to apologize for the inconvenience:

This is truly unbelievable. A a famous scientist once said, "People (even some smart ones) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view." I have NEVER in my life seen a more textbook example of bias. I really feel like I'm in Nazi Germany being asked for my "papers." Don't you have anything better to do than compare posting dates and times and imaginary connections through obviously frivolous coincidences? Did you not actually READ any of my contributions? James Salsman, who I am familiar with through the Radsafe list server, is a blatantly anti-nuclear advocate. I am not! I will attempt to give my explanations below but I say directly to you, Mr. Bulten, I have taken this as more than an inconvenience and your apology better be damned good, and public. Starkrm 19:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect overlap with 1of3 9/28-10/18 and almost perfect with BenB4 from SRM creation 3/22-9/28. That is, edit periods in one correspond with gaps in the other. Frequent close shifts from one account's activity periods to the other's, such as SRM first edit in a month being 9/28 2:18-2:28, corresponding to Ben gap between 1:09 and 14:36; BenB4 "au revoir" 9/28 14:45 and SRM editing Light 9/28 14:50-53 and following; SRM 10/1 18:32 after 1of3 18:26; SRM 10/15 20:45-46 after 1of3 10/15 19:46-20:07, ending there for the day; SRM 2:59-3:06 10/18 during 1of3 gap from 2:23 to 4:46. One exception 7/18 21:28 is easily explicable. Nonsock would statistically expect more than one exception and fewer close shifts.

I can't explain my editing times. I suppose I could selectively find those who edited at times other than you and attempt to accuse you of something similar, but I have better things to do with my time. I edit when I can. During breaks at work and time at home. I really liked the ideal of making an online encyclopedia that everyone can contribute too. Suddenly, I don't feel so welcome. Starkrm 19:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sudden activity: SRM activity since BenB4 ban 9/28 has been 1/3 of SRM's total output since 3/22. (I'm partly responsible, of course, after accusing SRM.)

See above reply. I feel sometimes motivated to correct errors and grammar and sometimes I don't. If that makes me guilty of something then go ahead and assume most of the wikipedia editors guilty as well. Starkrm 19:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clear interest in depleted uranium and radiation, as well as political issues such as GWB impeachment. If a sock, this account has been much more hermetic than the others.

I do have an interest in radiological issues since I am a Health Physicist. I wouldn't attempt to contribute to articles on Shakespeare, etc... I guess I could ask you to explain what you mean by saying I have been more "isolated" than the others. Starkrm 19:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits have only two overlap areas with James's instead of ten or more, which is actually in your favor. John J. Bulten 19:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First edits 3/22 were to user page and to Plutonium. User page immediately provided a single sentence of justification which permits uranium edits to appear reasonable. SRM's first edit to Plutonium changed "204.113.19.8" to "Starkrm", and that IP appears to be SRM at least for 3/21-22 (Helen Caldicott edits in common with SRM) and otherwise appears random. That IP goes to proxyout.utah.gov, which makes me suspicious but I don't know how much I should be.

Since you've "outed" me as living in Utah (and where I work) I don't know why you would use it as "evidence" that I am someone who does not live in Utah. Admins - is there some sort of privacy issue of someone revealing my IP, residence and place of work here? Starkrm 19:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like Ben: [148] SRM: "Rewrite to NPOV and correct sentance structure." Ben loves to talk of NPOV and correctness. SRM refers to POV 3x in edit summaries.

Again - did you look at my edits. This particular article bothers me because it was so poorly written in the first place. I tried to clean it up and thought I would clean up more to show the lack of evidence behind the LLRC movement, but now I am not so sure. Starkrm 19:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Why not?" [149] Ben: "Paul considers it an essential element of his position, why not put it alongside his other positions?" [150] Ben: "why leave it open when the outcome is known? Why not explain reasoning on talk?" [151] 10/15 SRM: "Why not here. It is relevant to the science." (Also, Ben refers to relevance 7 times in edit summaries.)

My point is clearly stated in my summary - It is relevant to the science. I think pointing out that the Iraq government under Hussein may be responsible for some of the medical problems going on in Iraq was germane to the argument against DU being a cause. I was holding the EXACT OPPOSITE view that James Salsman would have on DU. Again, please actually read what my edits are. Starkrm 19:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that last edit, SRM reintroduces ref to potential Iraq fallout, deleted by P.B. Shearer. TDC re-deletes: "Come now James". SRM does not object to TDC's characterization of SRM as James on talk, edit summary, or CU page. SRM now acts like he has just learned what a sock puppet is, but he also expresses familiarity with "Mr. Salsman" from "Radsafe". There may be another explanation than puppetry, but there's enough evidence to justify my accusation and to leave it to the admins to decide. We'll know in 10 or fewer. John J. Bulten 17:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought when I saw that retraction was "There is clearly some history I don't understand going on here. I'll just stay out of it." I don't understand the connection you are making by saying I can be familiar with Mr. Salsman from Radsafe and therefore should know what a sock puppet is. Please explain the connection. Starkrm 19:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name relationship between "Starkrm" and "Starcare", and "Clerkbird" and "JLeclerc", is interesting but may be insignificant. Certainly relationship between "Acct4" and "1of3" (and perhaps "BenB4", been before) is granted. John J. Bulten 17:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the funniest "evidence" of all. Are you serious? OK - "Starkrm" has the letters "star" in them as does "Starcare" but what connection is there with "Clerkbird" and "JLeclerc"? Maybe a quote from one of your statements below will help you understand how I feel right now. "Admins, would you also mind letting me and Turtle know what is the penalty for making easily disproven false accusations without evidence?" I don't know who you are trying to impress, or why, but you have made this editor at Wikipedia feel harrassed and very unwelcome. If that was your intent, then good job. Starkrm 19:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, the admins will take everything into account and if you're not James you have nothing to worry about. No harm, no foul. My point is that there is credible evidence for requesting a checkuser. The checkuser may well be credible evidence that there is no sockpuppetry. Please recall a few points: you publicly associated yourself with the IP (just as I am publicly associated with sites familiar to Burzmali and "outed" by him). Also, your similarity with James was first noted by TDC, not me, so it's not personal; and since DU is not my interest, TDC would be more able to judge whether your and James's edits to DU are in alignment, so (please forgive me) I'm not involving myself in the subtleties of why your DU edits favor your innocence, as an admin can find out instead. Also, I didn't say you lived in Utah, nor do I know where Salsman lives, though IP evidence suggests somewhere more east. Also, I faced the same accusation of SSP (so I certainly understand your feelings of harassment, and shared them above), but my own accuser has not seen fit to move from vague similarity to credible particulars warranting further research. Also, "If it should come up clean I will be happy to apologize." Also, "Do not take it too personally." I've only been editing a month myself, and now I'm suddenly facing both sides of the question simultaneously, so I do understand your position, whether you are or are not a sock. Ultimately there really is no harm to me when various accusations are made once, tested, and dropped; same applies to you. In good faith I am changing my request here from block to CU. Our best approach right now is to laugh at the irony of the situation and continue to act normally. John J. Bulten 19:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Hardee, Ha Ha. The harm is that you come in with symbolic "guns-a-blazing" and act as if you are an authority figure here. You've only been editing here for a month? What sort of experience could you have? If you had done this to other people who aren't so interested in defending themselves as I am, then your actions might just drive them away. It is obvious to me that you first made a conclusion, and then searched for evidence to back it up. You could similarly accuse anyone who edits the article about "depleted uranium." Let me give you a little friendly advice - Think three times before making ANY authoritative comment about someone or something you are not sure about. Don't say it is "obvious" that someone should be banned. Don't call for someones banning without rigorous evidence. Don't ever "out" anyones private information even if you put it together from public sources. And don't forget to apologize. Starkrm 20:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

User "Photouploaded" also acts suspiciously similar but I have not regarded his edits as particularly abusive like I did Ben and 1of3. If you could user-check for similar patterns 'twould be useful. Am not compiling evidence for Photo today. When JLMadrigal (a helpful editor) removed the POV temporarily, Photo immediately replaced it. Also Photo did the initial POV tag, with the water immediately carried by BenB4.

BenB4 and 1of3 have perfect-overlap edit histories (including a 46-minute apparent account switch on 8/29), have edited 10 of the same article families, and perform the same abusive activity (frivolous use of POV). Photouploaded appears complicit but I have not worked on his evidence. Please ban 1of3 and review Photouploaded for ~~banning~~ blocking if similar sockpuppet evidence arises.

Add: BSbuster should be watched for sudden activity. I noted that BSbuster links here, perhaps because someone else made a "(2nd)" SSP report which vanished before I made my "(2nd)" report.

To James, I would add that I appreciate your clarifying your POV at [152], suggesting that you believe your continued rulebreaking improves WP. The answer to "Why follow rules (arbitrator probation) when it won't improve WP?" is this: Why should the admins follow the rules when they could ban you preemptively instead of according to what constitutes WP due process? Even if "improvement" trumps everything, we still have different POVs about what constitutes improvement, and a vast consensus is growing for the proposition that banning you indefinitely would be an improvement over permitting you any leeway, even to make community-agreed improvements. The reason for this community view is that, as I've hinted, permitting one hardened anarchist to remain unpunished encourages others to anarchy (including the admins who are charged with fair and just administration of policy), and anarchy is regarded as self-evidently not an improvement. If you want to go all the way back philosophically, "improvement" simply means what each person regards as "better" or "good", one's values; each person's values differ and can be adjusted situationally; and therefore no protestation that "improvement" is accomplished can stand unless there is some way of describing, not just what one thinks is good, but what is truly good in itself. Either nothing is truly good in itself, or something is. If nothing is good, then all claims of "improvement" are phony and you have no reason for being here. If something is good in itself, then we should be able to reach consensus about what it is, and to recognize when we are the small minority. If you are truly convicted that you should fight this consensus, more power to you-- but you can only fight it by arguing that some other consensus of right and wrong should be preferred, you cannot fight existing consensus by abandoning all rules and retaining improvement as a rule. By the way, in meatspace, that consensus is called "God". He who considers consensus must believe that it exists and that it rewards those who seek it. Since you will not have another opportunity to hear from me, I suggest you take this data to heart before you meet the indefinite ban IRL. John J. Bulten 16:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added user John J. Bulten to this list. Short edit history with similar edit patterns. I have watched this page for awhile and have always assumed that John J. Bulten was BenB4 (Nrcprm2026). Turtlescrubber 22:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admins, would you also mind letting me and Turtle know what is the penalty for making easily disproven false accusations without evidence? Thanks. [153] and [154] might help. Adding 209.77.205.2 to list (with evidence); pardon me if I don't add the templates this second.

Turtle, I have nothing to fear from you. John J. Bulten 22:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you? It's more for my peace of mind than anything else. Don't take it personally. Turtlescrubber 23:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All, Turtle has not formed a proper evidence page and I reserve my rights as such. However, I think Turtle is ticked that Hillary Rodham Clinton didn't make FAC this week and suspect retaliation. I originally considered listing Turtle in this report, but decided there was no need to clutter it with everyone who acted like Ben (Turtle apparently feels differently). But because I'm a Ron Paul kinda guy I don't know whether I'll exert process against Turtle yet. Anyone want to run checkuser on the two of us? John J. Bulten 23:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since one of my statements has been dragged into this ... 1) the Hillary Rodham Clinton FAC was already headed for failure before User:John J. Bulten showed up at it, so a retaliation motive seems unlikely; 2) I have no idea who's a sock of whom, if anyone; all I ever said at [155] was that User:John J. Bulten's edit history as a purportedly new user seems suspicious — how many users within their first month in Wikipedia are nominating high-profile articles for FAC, posting notices on administrator boards, trying to get other users banned as socks, etc.? — but that if he is a legitimate editor, I am willing to deal with his sometimes uncivilly-delivered content views. Wasted Time R 00:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarrely, in Bulten's defense, based on my observations of him on another website, he is exactly the type of person that would jump in and pseudo-wikiLawyer up a storm. In regards to Wikipedia, I won't judge if that is good or bad behavior, but it reduces the likelihood of him being a sock. Burzmali 03:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean that article that says "Some Wikipedians allege that the charge of wikilawyering is used, particularly by Wikipedians more influential than them, to avoid giving careful attention to their claims"? And what website do you mean? If it's the one with the "pirates", surely you know that behavior in a legal-oriented community like that is different from behavior in an open-source community? And what is the casuistry you invent to distinguish pseudo and regular WL? All I do here procedurally is read the policies and repeat the spirit of what I read-- like that section about outing other users. Guys, now I am starting to get concerned about WP, because they're really creeping from the woodwork of a sudden. On other sites people admit they're hostile but don't complain to admins about it, and here it's the reverse. I'm now up to three attackers. I mean, I'm helpfully compiling significant evidence for evasion of a known indefinite ban, and I get this kind of flip criticism from Turtle and "Michael". Perhaps someone reputable can advise when and whether I should start taking it personally?

Wasted, thank you for your olive branch, I never thought my quick ramp-up skills would be a liability. John J. Bulten 13:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<-- Reset indent

John, I'm not attacking you, I apologize if I came off sounding harsh above. I just pointed out that from my observations of your behavior other places we have crossed paths, you aren't likely to be a sock. I don't think your quick move to quote chapter and verse of wiki policy or the "sock-like" behavior that Wasted mentioned should, in and of itself, result in sanctions against you. Using those tactics to negatively affect the content of WP will get you in trouble quick, but I'm not touching a politics-related content dispute. For the record, I don't disagree with your suspicions that User:1of3 is a sock of User:Nrcprm2026. Burzmali 17:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

1of3 was indefinitely blocked 10/18 by Morven
209.77.205.2 ...
66.56.206.68 ...
Acct4 was indefinitely blocked 10/3 by Tariqabjotu
Andy r2 was indefinitely blocked 10/18 by EliminatorJR
BenB4 was indefinitely blocked 9/28 by Moreschi
BSbuster ...
JLeclerc ...
John J. Bulten ... (proforma --jjb)
Kevster2 was indefinitely blocked 9/28 by Moreschi
Pdilla ...
Starkrm ...

Question - is there a fuller discussion/RFCU/etc somewhere about this sock farm or is it being judged by behavior here? Not a criticism, just a question: my experience has been that both methods can be accurate, and both can be wrong. This page, though, is not like most SSPs that I've seen, so I'm wondering if there's more somewhere else that I missed. Thanks. Tvoz |talk 20:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tvoz, this is my first try. I'm also working from User:TDC's request here. John J. Bulten 21:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, the named accounts are already blocked, except for Starkrm, who I do feel is not a sock of Nrcprm2026 and John J Bulten, who is obviously not a sock. Rlevse 16:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Kraken7[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Kraken7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

BusterD 17:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

This user has 79 mainspace edits over roughly 16 months since account creation. Edits are on three pages exclusively, 52 of those on Mexican-American War, with 34 of 58 total talkspace edits in the Talk:Mexican-American War page. The very first account post is here, and since this time user has continually pushed this particular assertion through various talk discussions (including page move discussions). Consensus doesn't agree with this position.

Since the unsuccessful page move request in mid-July, the pagespace has been vandalized some 57 times, by listed ip users and "Ghost accounts", in all circumstances on the subject of disputing the name of the war and the corresponding name of the pagespace, and in a majority of cases by an ip or account using "rv" or "reverted vandalism" in edit summary, usually mocking the editor who reverted user's previous vandalism attempt.

Accounts User:Ghost account 1, and User:Ghost account 2 have already been blocked as socks and several of the ips listed are Tor nodes.

It is possible that some other user is running these socks and in that case I will offer apology to User:Kraken7. It seems more likely to me that user is a content-area-specific sock puppetmaster for someone using other content-area-specific sock puppetmasters as middle managers to avoid blocking.

No matter the culprit, it is obvious that someone is running these socks and proxies, and while the accused may not be the guilty party, sock behavior is demonstrated here.

Diffs (with edit summaries):

Ghost account 8

05:04, 5 October 2007 (Undid revision 162344447 by Haemo (talk)rv vandalism by user Haemo (talk))

15:11, 5 October 2007 (no summary)

15:50, 5 October 2007 (Undid revision 162469233 by BusterD (talk)reverted obvious vandalism by BusterD)

Ghost account 2

03:09, 4 October 2007 (edit symantics)

07:13, 4 October 2007 (Undid revision 162177327 by Griot (talk) rv vandalism by (talk))

17:43, 4 October 2007 (Undid revision 162214529 by BusterD (talk) rv vandalism by BusterD (talk))

19:18, 4 October 2007 (removed repeated vandalism by North Shoreman (talk))

Ghost account 1

17:09, 29 September 2007 (changed as per talk page)

17:20, 29 September 2007 (Undid revision 161146315 by Bkonrad (talk)reverted to title name as found in talk page)

17:27, 29 September 2007 (Undid revision 161147920 by Bkonrad (talk)do not continue to violate the 3rr BKonrad)

68.108.3.215

0:609, 23 September 2007 (Edit spelling)

12.198.94.194

18:47, 23 September 2007 (Undid revision 159773626 by Griot (talk)rv vandalism by user Griot)

18:48, 23 September 2007 (Undid revision 159773840 by Griot (talk)rv vandalism by user Griot)

20:36, 23 September 2007 (Undid revision 159848624 by BusterD (talk)removed vandalism by BusterD)

211.178.81.118

21:15, 23 September 2007 (Undid revision 159872196 by Bkonrad (talk)removed vandalism by user Bkonrad)

71.166.49.7

21:58, 23 September 2007 (Undid revision 159879864 by BusterD (talk)removed repeated vandalism attempts by user BusterD)

209.121.220.178

04:29, 5 September 2007 (no summary)

01:39, 6 September 2007 (Undid revision 155798162 by Darkspots (talk))

01:46, 6 September 2007 (Undid revision 155961326 by North Shoreman (talk)Re: identified vandalism by North Shoreman)

74.86.134.106

18:02, 7 September 2007 (changed spelling)

18:10, 7 September 2007 (Undid revision 156315764 by North Shoreman (talk)No I was always taught the other name.)

81.201.56.15

16:39, 8 September, 2007 (Undid revision 156321532 by Griot (talk) rv; vandalism by user Griot)

23:17, 9 September 2007 (Undid revision 156805033 by North Shoreman (talk)Undid repeated vandalism by North Shoreman - who made you the Führer?)

69.30.195.20

17:15, 9 September 2007 (Undid revision 156511663 by BusterD (talk)edit grammar)

64.113.84.91

21:54, 9 September 2007 (Undid revision 156737543 by Bkonrad (talk)Re: rv repeated vandalism by Bkonrad) 76.104.162.147

22:48, 9 September 2007 (Undid revision 156797378 by North Shoreman (talk)Undid repeated vandalism by North Shoreman)

67.88.206.98

04:05, 25 August 2007 (no summary)

159.49.254.2

16:52, 25 August 2007 (Undid revision 153538822 by Bkonrad (talk)re: Undid vandalism by BKonrad)

24.69.51.102

02:07, 26 August 2007 (Undid revision 153599286 by Bkonrad (talk)re: removed vandalism by Bkonrad)

03:32, 26 August 2007 (Undid revision 153665597 by North Shoreman (talk)edit: removed vandalism by North Shoreman - do not change the name)

69.80.238.93

19:58, 26 August 2007 (Undid revision 153675060 by Bkonrad (talk)Edited to undo vandalism by Bkonrad)

12.165.108.130

03:15, 27 August 2007 (Undid revision 153812444 by North Shoreman (talk)Re: removed VANDALISM by North Shoreman)

75.127.83.84

20:42, 28 August 2007 (Undid revision 153924895 by Bkonrad (talk)re: Undid vandalism by Bkonrad)

Comments

I've requested checkuser here. BusterD 16:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Haemo states when actively looking he found some 30 "Ghost accounts" cued up for use. BusterD 16:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the above is accurate, there seems to be evidence of vandalism and sockpuppetry on the page in question. I am accused of being the culprit because these events happened after I made edits or comments that appear relevant to the vandalism or sockpuppetry. I am also accused of being a "content-area-specific sock puppetmaster for someone using other content-area-specific sock puppetmasters as middle managers to avoid blocking."

My response to those charges: I have never vandalized Wikipedia or any other website, nor have I ever used a sockpuppet on Wikipedia or any other website. No evidence connects me to these events beyond the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. That is, the proliferation of vandalism and sockpuppetry after I have made my comments is NOT in and of itself proof that I am the sockpuppeteer. As for the charge of being a "content-something-or-other," I have no idea what that is. If someone would explain it to me, I can tell you whether I have done so. Be that as it may, no evidence is shown for why my being a "content-something-or-other" is "more likely" than the possibility that "some other user is running these socks."

Obviously I have upset some very tender sensibilities in trying to open a line of inquiry while following Wikipedia procedures the best I could. So be it. Ban me for life from Wikipedia for being an upsetter of very tender sensibilities, but not for vandalism, sockpuppetry, or content-something-or-other.

Regarding some of the specific pieces of evidence:

"Consensus does not agree with this position." What consensus? When, how, and with whom was this "consensus" built? Whether consensus exists or not, what does that have to do with my being the culprit?

How does the use of "rv" or "reverted vandalism" prove that I am the culprit?

Why is it significant that two accounts "have already blocked been blocked as socks" and that "several of the ips listed are Tor nodes"? And what does that have to do with my being the culprit?

What is the significance of "Admin Haemo states when actively looking he found some 30 'Ghost accounts' cued up for use"? How is this related to me? How does this finding (if accurate) make it more likely that I am the culprit? Kraken7 22:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I gathered evidence for this case, effort was made to meet two criteria:

1) Demonstrated harm requiring investigation--A clear case of connected ips and socks used in coordinated effort to apply vandalism to the page

On the methods-The use of "rv" and "reverted vandalism" links many of the edit summaries, suggesting the same user
On the methods-The use of mimicking the previous reversion edit summary language (possibly to mock reverters) likewise links many of the edit summaries, suggesting same user
On the methods-Several of the edit summaries of these contained POV buzzwords which suggest a similar if not the same user:

...who made you the Führer
...new age idea...clinton...ashamed of america...
...political cowardice

On the methods-The reality that 30 sock accounts had been prepared already before this process was filed demonstrates a desire on the part of the puppetmaster to continue this pattern; this provides a compelling reason for a full investigation by responsible parties no matter the culprit —Preceding unsigned comment added by BusterD (talk • contribs) 21:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the merits-The specific content of the edits (changing "Mexican-American War" to "Mexican War") links all of the edits, suggesting a similar user, but not necessarily the same user

2) Identify suspect fitting method/opportunity/motive--when looking at the universe of all users and ips editing en.wikipedia, which user or users seemed the likely suspect(s)?

User's editing history reveals a very narrow pagespace focus (3 pages with more than one edit, 2 talk pages with edits, as of the filing of this case)
User's editing history on Mexican-American War and Talk:Mexican-American War often demonstrates a narrow focus of content, specifically that of changing the lede section of the article more in line with the assertion made in user's very first post. Based on discussion, user holds strong opinions on the subject. Even now there's discussion about whether the modifier "more" should be inserted in the phrase "...the conflict is commonly known as..." to create "...the conflict is more commonly known as..."
Even though user first raised this issue 16 months ago, and though the issue has been much discussed in talkspace and failed requested page move discussions, user continues to make the same assertion in the same talkspace even today
As demonstrated by user's response to evidence above, even now user refuses to see evidence that the assertion (if I understand the position correctly) "Mexican War is the most common name for conflict in literature, and therefore this page should read 'Mexican War' and page space should be moved to 'Mexican War'" isn't supported by consensus as reflected in unsuccessful page move attempts and like discussion on talk

After I had written this case, I submitted it for examination to an administrator who had already made him or herself involved in this matter (by reverting and blocking sock 8). Said administrator suggested I had enough evidence for checkuser, and while I deferred at that moment, I requested checkuser when I submitted this case for SSP. When this process and the checkuser process are complete, I hope the puppeteer will be revealed and blocked in a way which prevents easy recidivism. BusterD 17:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In proceeding with this accusation, it appears two criteria were met: insinuation and guilt by implied association. However, there is still no evidence to connect me to the vandalism and sockpuppetry reported above.

1) It is alleged that the use of "rv," "reverted vandalism," and "mimicking the previous reversion edit summary language" suggest "the same user." Likewise, the use of "POV buzzwords" and "the specific content of the edits" is supposed to suggest "a similar if not the same user" and "a similar user, but not necessarily the same user." Perhaps. However, it is also equally likely that all of this suggests: a) several users sharing the same politics and a penchant for vandalism, b) copycat vandal(s), or c) some combination of a) and b). It would seem incumbent on the accuser to exclude these possibilities and then to show how at least some of these deeds could only have been done by me.

Further, regardless of whether the "reality" of "30 sock accounts . . . provides a compelling reason for a full investigation," I find the predicate "no matter the culprit" to be disingenuous since this investigation focuses exclusively on me. Moreover, what evidence connects even 1 of these 30 sock accounts, assuming for the moment their "reality," to me specifically?

2) Is "user" supposed to refer to me or a "universe of all users"? If the former, why resort to euphemism? If the latter, why is only the singular or singular possessive employed throughout? I will assume the former to be the case in what follows, but I would expect that someone appropriating Zola's rallying cry to be more forthright.

What relevance does an alleged "very narrow pagespace focus" have to my being the culprit? Is it not good Wikipedia practice to "adopt" a page?
How does a supposed "narrow focus of content" or my having "strong opinions" (itself a matter of speculation) make it more likely I am the culprit? What is the relevance of my participating in a continuing discussion?
How is my perceived persistence relevant to my being the culprit? As for the issue being "much discussed in talkspace," that would depend on the definition of "much" and the standards of discussion since there's been little substantive discussion at all.
As for my refusing to "see evidence" that my contention "isn't supported by consensus," I see that "consensus" has been declared here on this talkpage for the second time, but I'm not sure repetition in and of itself necessarily makes that declaration true. I think not. But, even if consensus exists, what of it? Does a consensus foreclose now and forever a talkpage discussion? Besides, what is the specific relevance of this to the charges made against me?

I look forward to a process that will reliably reveal the identity of the puppeteer. Maybe this process should have been initiated before accusing me as the culprit? Kraken7 16:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Today I added a new sock which has appeared on Mexican-America War; Bkonrad0 is a username which resembles that of an established editor on the page. BusterD 11:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That one is now blocked as an obvious bad-faith account. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems likely that the new SSP case above (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/BusterA) is somehow related to this case. BusterD 12:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? What evidence shows they are related? What exactly is the relationship? Kraken7 16:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added another account doing the same mischief. BusterD 18:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added two more new accounts making same edits and similar edit summaries. BusterD 20:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If my accuser were serious about finding out who is behind the sockpuppetry that has plagued this page instead of just going after me personally, then one might expect a thorough examination of the other two pages I am said to edit to see if they too have suffered from similar outbreaks of sockpuppetry and vandalism. If an identical pattern were found to exist on either or both pages, then I would expect the weak circumstantial case against me would be somewhat bolstered. However, if these pages were relatively untouched or no such pattern were evident, then my accuser might find it difficult to explain this seeming anomaly. Kraken7 14:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

The named accounts are already blocked and while there is obvious socking going on here, as Haemo says on the RFCU page, it's impossible to tell who the puppetmaster is. Rlevse 16:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Guitarlegs[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Guitarlegs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Bond0023 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Chilechicken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
AgentOranges (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
194.73.101.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

John 15:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

All three users and the IP are very (almost exclusively) interested in Depeche Mode, all generally use four tildes in edit summaries, and their edits are very similar (in other ways). I strongly suspect that the latter three accounts were created to back up the former in edit-warring on their favourite article. A look at the page history should be persuasive.

Comments

I am in agreement with John. All the evidence points to puppetry and I also suggest that User: 194.73.101.7 be given a look as well, since they are making the same counter-productive edits on the same Depeche Mode page. BGC 17:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Guitarlegs and IP blocked one week. Other 3 accounts blocked indef. Pretty convincing case. All users tagged.Rlevse 13:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For reference

See also this version of my talk page which documents the results of a CU I was requested to run. Additional details available to CUs on request. ++Lar: t/c 19:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:86.45.209.228[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

86.45.209.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

Ichormosquito 03:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

This case speaks for itself: these are all blatant attack socks directed at User:SchuminWeb.[156][157][158] The puppeteer has not responded to good faith efforts toward resolving his disputes[159] and has repeatedly evaded blocking measures. SchuminWeb seems to be ignoring him so as not to fan flames; but as a third party observer, I think our best option right now would be to take serious action. We should be able to block him whenever, wherever, starting with his latest sock, User:86.45.209.228, which he has claimed is unrelated to the accounts and IPs listed above.[160]

Originally posted by Clubjuggle at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism: 86.45.209.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - On User Talk:SchuminWeb;. Another User:Johnjoecavanagh // User:Orellon / User:Concerned Citizen101 IP-sock. All of the 86.40 and 86.45 IP addresses in the history of User Talk:SchuminWeb and User:SchuminWeb are this user. Clubjuggle ^T/C 21:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Whoever you think I am, I will go away, right now, and you shall never hear or see me again. 86.45.208.104 12:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The suspected puppet master has said as much in the past.[161][162]. Ichormosquito 13:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said he will rue the day and that I had given up. I am promising now to leave and never to come back.

Just think this all could have been avoided if Ben Schumin had of just shown an inch of respect for other well wishing users. Instead he was arrogant and talked to me like he was superior. I hope he learns something from this and the next person he shafts might not go away so easily. 86.45.208.104 13:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And just for the record, I can't do anything about all the socks. Every time I start my computer I have a new IP adress. 86.45.204.21 10:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best way to handle this situation is to semiprotect User talk:SchuminWeb for a week or two until the troll behind all this activity gets bored of harassing this fellow. We don't need to block the IPs, but we need to stop them from doing what the person behind them is trying to do, viz. to harass an established editor. Anyone wish to agree or disagree? Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If semi-protection is our only option, we should just take this guy at his word. We can semi-protect if he keeps at it. Ichormosquito 03:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

The named accounts haven't been used in at least 6 weeks and the harrassment seems to have died down. If no more evidence arises, I'll close this in a day or two. Rlevse 19:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Marion143[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Marion143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Marion105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Spellcast 17:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Obvious sock puppet of Marion105 who has been blocked twice for adding deliberate factual errors in Tupac Shakur discography. In fact, every edit Marion143 has made is adding deliberate errors to articles. This is all after the original account, Marion105, was blocked for a week. Spellcast 17:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It's backwards, 105 would be the sockpuppeteer and 143 the sock. But in addition to that the block on 105 expired on 17 Oct and 143 didn't become active til 20 Oct. Where is the vio of sock policy? I see no vote stacking, collusion, edit warring, etc. 105 hasn't edited in awhile. I see past vandalism, but not sock violations. If there are some, provide diffs. Rlevse 18:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I realised it was backwards after submitting this. I was on Marion143's userpage and when I used twinkle to submit this, there was a field called "Sockpuppet" which you had to fill in. I put in his first account, Marion105, but I should have made the report using the oldest account. Anyway, my point is that shouldn't Marion143 be blocked for vandalism after a recent release from block? His only edits after being unblocked on October 17 is adding deliberate false information. Spellcast 19:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

My guess is 143 doesn't realize he can still use the 105 account. As such, this isn't blockable sock puppetry as they aren't editing at the same time. Now if he starts using both and they jointly disrupt, vote stack, etc, they we have a sock case that is blockable. I'm blocking 143 for vandalism at this point for 48 hours. Let's monitor and see what else happens. Leaving case open for now. Rlevse 20:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for blocking him. I only brought this up here because my block request to AIV was declined. Spellcast 20:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's committed more vandalism since then, so it was an easier decision. I'll leave this open for a few days and if nothing else comes up, then close it. Rlevse 01:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:WOverstreet[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

WOverstreet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Wren21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
99Walkerman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

04:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

recreation by 99Walkerman of AFD-deleted article created by WOverstreet

Wren21 (talk · contribs) most edits to WOverstreet-created articles
recreation by Wren21 of PROD-deleted article created by WOverstreet
- This is over one week old, so not actionable, and included here for informational purposes.
128.164.213.231 (talk · contribs) most edits to WOverstreet-created articles
- This is over one week old, so not actionable, and included here for informational purposes.

WOverstreet has been indef blocked. Sock puppets being used to evade block.

Comments

This is going to need a checkuser, so I will ask for one. The anecdotal evidence is strong but not overpowering. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

The last deleted revisions by WOverstreet match exactly what his socks submitted, despite the fact that their user creation logs show the accounts were created after the first deletions, respectively. Both blocked indef. Checkuser unnecessary. WOverstreet would do well to stop creating sockpuppets and follow our sockpuppetry policy. If he does that, he might get unblocked and welcomed back in a month or two. If not, his socks will continue to be blocked and their articles deleted. It's up to him.--chaser - t 10:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:68.54.56.198[edit]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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.
Suspected sockpuppeteer: 68.54.56.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: HavenBastion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 13:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Okay, this one's in the bag - both puppeteer (on Talk:First-person shooter) and sock (on User talk:HavenBastion) claim they own a website, a link to which is being disputed at First-person shooter. Puppeteer is currently blocked 1 month for spamming a link to website. I think this is enough to prove they are the same person.

Comments

This is HavenBastion's first edit. It's beyond improbable that a truly new user would do this on his first edit. The circumstantial evidence of sock puppetry, with the goal of undermining consensus at First person shooter, seems compelling to me. I would recommend a one-month block, equivalent to the block on the IP address. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This may be pretty extreme, but I recommend indefing both of them. The IP has disrupted Wikipedia enough, they've been blocked 4 or 5 times. They need to be indefed for operating the sockpuppet in the first place. The account is obviously them (they use the same arguments, and they both hate me =( ) and it needs to be indefed as a sockpuppet before they get four days old and are able to spam First-person shooter again. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 16:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin may want to consider that both users have violated WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:COI and WP:EL; have repeatedly refused to accept that Consensus can change, they think that the fact that they think their site is a good resource trumps policies and guidelines. The closing admin may also want to fully-protect Haven's talkpage because 68 abuses the unblock template every time they are blocked, and I expect the same out of Haven. I would also like this closed before Haven can edit First-person shooter; I have a feeling they are just aging the account to circumvent semi-protection. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 17:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haven has been indef blocked for severe violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 17:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

This is being closed. Haven has been indeffed, and IPs can't be blocked indef, so there's nothing more that can come from this case. Monitor the IP, it can be blocked again. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 18:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:0scalefactor[edit]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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.
Suspected sockpuppeteer

0scalefactor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Excel 2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Computational defunct (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
DtothH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
82.5.117.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Challenge198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

--^DarkTea © 07:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User:0scalefactor is an account with only a couple of edits which made this reversion diff on 02:01 2 October 2007 to revert the racial classifications on the Dravidian people article and User:Excel2008, an account with only a couple of edits, has made the same reversion diff four hours and fifty minutes later on 06:51 2 October 2007 on the racial classification of the Dravidian people article. Another new user with only 1 edit, User:Computational defunct, made a similar edit regarding the race of Indians 3 minutes prior to 0scalefactor's on 02:04, 2 October. This user may also be a sockpuppet.---^DarkTea © 07:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:82.5.117.20 made 3 reversions (1st, 2nd ,3rd) followed by User:DtothH, an obvious sockpuppet of the anonymous user, who made the 4th and 5th reversion on the Dravidian people article. DtothH appears to have arisen as a result of the 3RR warning I gave the anonymous editor, creating a new user account to escape the 3RR rule. This anonymous editor 82.5.117.20 and their sockpuppet User:DtothH have been pushing for the same point of the view on the Dravidian people article as the previously-listed 0scalefactor and Excel2008. I suspect they may all be sockpuppets of the same person. At the very least, User:DtothH is a sockpuppet of User:82.5.117.20.----^DarkTea © 18:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Challenge198 appears to be a sockpuppet of at least one of the previously mentioned group who has manifested to edit the Caucasian article with the intent of showing Indians to be all Caucasian on this edit. All the previous editors have mainfested themselves with the intent of showing that all Indians are Caucasians, so they are all editing the same type of articles with the same point of view. They all manifest themselves with no other edits just to push this point of view.----^DarkTea © 01:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

see [163], its hard to call β^_command 11:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already looked at their contributions. That is not news to me. Can you trace their IP?----^DarkTea © 11:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im not a checkuser, I created that to help others look into their contribs. β^_command 13:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's very suspicious. You don't just happen to have two accounts show up within a day of each other to make controversial edits to an article about race in India, and not take interest in anything else. I'm not sure about Computational Defunct, who has made only one edit, to a different article than the other two accounts. However, I'm pretty confident that 0scalefactor and Excel 2008 are tag-teaming. A checkuser would be wise before executing any remedial action. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Shalom here; some of the activity looks suspicious, but I'm not sure that all of these accounts are connected. I would point out, though, that activity from the named accounts is several weeks old at this point, and if there's not a current problem, there's not much point in blocking any accounts. A checkuser request might be helpful in sorting out what's going on, if there is current disruptive activity. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I'm closing this case. My conclusions are that all of the accounts have engaged in editing which is prohibited by policy; but considering that none of them (save the IP address) have edited recently, there is no need to block anyone over this. Please keep an eye on these accounts, however. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 17:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

Data here can be retrieved by any admin from the deleted revisions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lahiru_k[edit]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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.
Suspected sockpuppeteer

Lahiru_k (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

Sumoeagle179 20:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

See Prior checkuser report

A SPA report had been reported before by another user. Blow are the content User:Iwazaki, FIRST SSP REPORT:

After being warned that User Lahiru_k a known sockpuppeteer was following me [in my edits] contrary to WP:Stalk, User:Iwazaki began to follow me around in my edits [[164]] and [[165] these are couple of examples only. Both the account were used to avoid 3RR rule in the following article. They are both interested in similar articles are vote together in XFD and edit in the same pattern. In the talk pages both accounts use !! after making a point. They have never edited at once. User Lahiru_k although a good contributor was identified as a malicious sock puppeteer.

Below is connection between User:Mystìc, a sock of User:Lahiru_k, and User:Netmonger

User:Mystìc chose to fight his block and IP was revealed as 222.165.157.129. Then User:Netmonger apparently forgot to log in and then logins in as Netmonger, tying his IP to the one Mystìc used.

- The IP 222.165.157.129 belongs to Mystic here is where the Mystic admits that this is him and signs with the said IP. Now we see that Netmonger is using the same IP. Also note that Mystic is a sock of User:Lahiru_k

Here someone else accusses Netmonger of being a sock of Lahiru_k. Netmonger and Lahiru_k say the exact same thing, see here and here

Here are cases where Netmonger and Lahiru_k vote together: [166], [167], [168] (check histories as they used custom signatures).

Netmonger and Lahiru_k both refer to WP:DGAF, which not many people know about. See [169] and [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tablighi_Jamaat_and_allegations_of_terrorism&diff=prev&oldid=142440452 ], Netmonger also has the DGAF userbox on his page. Snowolfd4 also refers to DGAF here

Again another simillarity, only Lahiru_k and netmonger have reference to Netmonger's Terrorism UB, see [170] and [171].

Both Netmonger and Lahiru_k call the same user a troll, see [172] and [173] and [174]

Below is the Connection of User:Lahiru_k and User:Kaushini

Here Lahiru_k reveals his IP, which appears to be either dynamic or his account is in use by multiple users. Checking his edits, one sees he's active up to 18 hours a day.

Below is the Connection of User:Lahiru_k and User:Kaushini

Here Lahiru_k forgets to sign in as Kaushini and he corrects it. Here that same IP again acts as Kaushini AND ALSO refers to User:Snowolfd4 as Lahiru_k.

- Another note: Lahiru himself claims that the IP (203.115.31.180} belongs to him. Take a look how he signs with the IP but then says oops and signs his name here. The same IP leaves a message on User:Lahiru_k talk under another name (Kaushini) here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Watchdogb (talk • contribs) 23:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kaushini, Lahiru_k and Mystìc all vote in a tfd together

There are two instances of lahiru_k and netmonger making edits on the same minute interval. However, lahiru_k did boast here that [175], there are "technical" ways to workaround it. Persumably he has the knowledge to do so.

See block logs for these users. They all seem to have been blocked before.

Snowolf4 and Iwazaki have removed their sock tags here and here Sumoeagle179 00:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, it was another account that removed Iwazaki's tag. But Iwazaki is incorrect in that this is actually a pretty solid Sock case, esp with Netmonger and Lahiru. It was an honest mistake that I missed it was a different account.Sumoeagle179 10:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Here is a damning connection between three of the accounts. Snowolfd4 here writes "You need to stop wasting other peoples time" [176].

Here snowolfd4 again:

"I'm not going to waste my time regarding the extensive trolling on the other page, because I frankly have better things to do" [177]

Here netmonger mentions:

"I do not want to waste anymore time discussing here who did the right thing or wrong thing, the article has been nominated for deletion, if the references are really unreliable as you guys are saying, let the wiki process take its course and the fellow editors will decide whether the article should stay or go." [178]

Here lahiru_k mentions: "I have lots of things to do other than explaining things word by word to you. Go and read the content of the given policy and mind that I'm not your help desk guy who paid by Jimbo." [179]

Three accounts have pretty much the same behavior and have shown to have an incivil attitude.

There is an IP edit (that could be verified via checkuser) that shows more resemblance to user snowolfd4 than lahiru_k, The IP is from New York [180] and have edited Sri Lanka related articles such as STF. It has also been used as a shared vandalism account. Lahiru_k claims to be from Colombo, Sri Lanka. Snowolfd4 claims to be from New York. Here user snowolfd4 forgets to login into lahiru_k account hence blanks the page with the ip [181]. User watchdogb reverts the edit, thinking it was vandalism [182]. Realizing this mistake, he later logins in as lahiru_k and does the exact same thing as the ip address. [183]. Sinhala freedom 19:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User snowolfd4 writes a comment on Haemo page [184]. Having mistakenly logged into lahiru_k corrects the formatting here [185]. Having then noticed this mistake, lahiru_k accounts tries to further cover up that mistake by doing more formatting edits the next day of other users comments [186] [187].

User lahiru_k seems to have uploaded a lot of US military pictures recently, [188],[189],[190],[191],[192],[193], [194],[195]. This is very odd for a person coming from Sri Lanka. It is after all more in keeping with user snowolfd4 who claims to be from the US.

Apart from voting the same (lahiru_k,snowolfd4 and netmonger) on every xfd related to sri lanka, here for example, both chose to revert from Adam's Bridge. Here lahiru_k reverts changes [196]. Here snowolfd4 does it, [197] Its a little suprsing both users would choose to have same page on their watchlist.

User snowolfd4 has also choosen to hide the suspsected sockpuppet tag from his userpage. [198].. with the comment "check user has already confirmed that's not true, so quit wasting my time." However as sumofeagle has reported above, lahiru_k boasts of how to get around this. Sinhala freedom 22:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looks like there are none, considering users who have the same POV talk the same. There is no "daming" evidence incriminating either.Baka man 22:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Condiering how messy and unorganized this page is everyone will miss something. I know Lahiru k != iwazaki. I do not know about anything else.Baka man 23:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~I agree there is no evidence against Iwazaki, hence he is innocent.~~ Actually, there might be some evidence now which I will present shortly. Sinhala freedom 23:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It cannot be claimed now that there is no evidence of a connection between Iwazaki and lahiru_k. For example, lahiru_k harps on the theme of justice in this post [199]. Ironically enough, in tandem, Iwazaki also harps on these theme of justice here [200]. This obviously is very very weak evidence and doesn't constitute enough to have a definite link, but raises suspicions. Admin Maxsem has noted here [201] that vigour with which Iwazaki is attempting to defend lahiru_k raises suspicions. Also it is very suspicious, you have the Arsath account, alternate name of banned Mystic account come here and correct a link in Iwazaki's defense of lahiru_k [202]. Sinhala freedom 02:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good, also please be noticed that U also vigorously defending the accuser, does that make you a sock puppet of the accuser ? I have seen some people have defended you at the SSP case against you, so does it make all of them your sock puppets ? Could you please for the sake of space here, go through the previous reports against me,where you can clearly see UNRELATED' part at the end of the page.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 07:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:Watchdogb

Evidence seems to prove the connection between User:Mystìc, a sock of User:Lahiru_k, and User:Netmonger.

The IP 222.165.157.129 belongs to Mystic here is where the Mystic admits that this is him and signs with the said IP. Now we see that Netmonger is using the same [203]. Also note that Mystic is a sock of User:Lahiru_k ---Watchdogb 22:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence seems to prove the connection between User:Lahiru_k and User:Kaushini.

Lahiru himself claims that the IP (203.115.31.180} belongs to him. Take a look how he signs with the IP but then says oops and signs his name here. The same IP leaves a message on User:Lahiru_k talk under another name (Kaushini) here Watchdogb 23:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by User:Haemo

A lot of this report is very tenuous, and the sheer number of accused users makes this sketchy. However, in my opinion here is the bona fide material that is very damning:

222.165.157.129 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is based in Sri Lanka, via Sri Lanka Telecom. It has been established that this IP is is User:Mystìc, who is an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet of User:Lahiru_k. However, we can also see that the same IP is is User:Netmonger. Thus, this is strong evidence that User:Lahiru_k is User:Netmonger.

However, I do not think there is evidence User:Snowolfd4 is a sockpuppet of User:Lahiru_k. All IPs associated with Lahiru, for example the above, and this IP are based in Sri Lanka, while all those associated with User:Snowolfd4 are from New York. This implies to me that they are probably not the same person.

I can't speak on the other users, since there is only very weak evidence presented against the currently non-blocked ones. However, I believe that the above is reasonably conclusive. Currently, there are six known sockpuppets of User:Lahiru_k; something which he has previously been blocked for. This would be the seventh, after his previous block for sockpuppetry. --Haemo 23:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment,

This is probably the worst SSP I have ever come across, accusing all the SL editors. The accuser has dig into past and giving an old SSP case against the same user. He has obviously given no proofs regarding many users, including me. And not only that, he falsely accusing me(here and at ANI) of removing sock tags, by giving diffs in which my name does not even appear!! This whole case is based on extreme bad faith and nothing else. The accuser him self had NO interaction with me before nor he has done any edit in SL related articles. still he is trowing me various accusations ! And I dont see a single action taken by administrators against him !! He is being blatantly breaching , civil,AGF and many others, and I see nothing!! Haemo, could you please explain why ? Why you have kept your silence while some one blatantly accusing ME,(when I did not even have a chance to defend my self ) ?

comment,

Haemo, with all the due respect, both yours and fayssals decision to block certain users is erroneous. I am a network engineer and have a fair good knowledge about how the IPs work.And even the wikipedia says ,|In current practice, an IP address is less likely to be an identifier ! You know why ?? because, It is due to technologies such as:Dynamic assignment. Even the wikipedia article contrary your decision here.The only ADSL provider in SL is SL telecom and they allocate IPs dynamically. And if you know about DHCP, then you would know its highly possible to have same IPs at different times.Go through their edits and IPs, then you would see many IP addresses. go through yours,if you are using a static IP,then there will be only 1.(If you still don't believe me ask any of you friends who has any basic knowledge about networking/DHCP). Therefor I would kindly request you to retract your decision and do the justice to the relevant users.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 03:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just reply shortly to this. The IP which he and Netmonger used was not dynamic. Sri Lanka telecom allocates some of their IPs dynamically, and some statically. The IP address that both Netmonger, Laihru and Mystic used was not a dynamic address. --Haemo 19:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I ll be brief too. Please show us ,lahiru_k has ever used Mystics static IP .IF mystic uses a static one and Lahiru_k has also used that static IP, then you are right and case closed.But, if you have no evidence that, then you should seriously think about unblocking them.The earlier SSP,which blocked Mystic,was erroneous and here you have a very good opportunity to correct it and give justice to the blocked users. We dont hang innocent people, do we ?Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 00:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, regarding allegations and false claims and insults against me(here), I am still waiting your reply.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 00:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was pretty clear that the case against you, and Snowolf was without merit. In any case, I'll leave it up to Laihru to explain the circumstances here — there's too much up in the air to over-ride a prior confirmed checkuser, and the suspicious behavior going on regard Arsath. --Haemo 01:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not about that. This user making so many accusations(such as following him around, and removing sock tags), for which I have no idea. And I consider them highly uncivil and insolent.

Thanks for the comment you made at your talk page. Hope you can get into the inner side of technical issues related to IPs. As I said below this case is extremely complicating, esp the whole episode is based on wrong decisions made earlier. Humans do make errors,mistakes, that's our nature. But we also correct them and thats what we need here,now .Iwazaki^{会話。討論} 09:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand these claims about Lahiru k and Mystìc. The checkuser result confirmed that they are the same person. To my mind, the burden now moves to them to explain why two people are operating from the same IP.--chaser - t 02:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chaser my friend,to my knowledge, these two disputed editors, Arsath and Lahiru_k have never used same IP, which is claimed by some as a static IP. And this gives the conclusion that the earlier decisions to block was erroneous. Regarding dynamic allocation of IPs, I think I have quite clearly explained that, this is alone shouldn't be used to identify. I know this case is rather confusing. And thats why I am kindly requesting you to look back at their contributions,editing time,writing style and things.Regarding Kaushini, she is from the same school as Lahiru_k(and with probably hundreds of others), and probably using school computers. So isn't it unfair to block her based on IP similarities?? She was blocked less than 2 months after she became an editor here. I have seen users from Cambridge university sharing IPs and editing here. So why would you block users from Sri Lankan schools ? Isn't this a discrimination against a poor third world country like SL, where most of the people edit from the schools ?? Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 09:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This IP chaos in brief,

222.165.157.129 is the Mystic/Arsath/Netmonger [Static ip, Sri Lanka Telecom (SLT)]
203.155.32.180 is me [Static ip. SLT] only few months I used that but not now
124.43.000.000 to 124.43.255.255 range use by both of us [Dynamic ip, SLT]

I never used 222.165.157.129 or Mystic/Arsath/Netmonger never used 203.155.32.180 which are both static IPs but we both used 124.43.000.000 - 124.43.255.255 IP range which is assigned to the ADSL/ISDN dynamic pool. If someone can proove that I used 222.165.157.129, I'll pack my bags. Lahiru_k 15:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You neglect to mention that another sockpuppet of yours, Mystic/Arsath used the static Netmonger IP address. --Haemo 20:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please don't circumvent your block using IP address. It will be a huge pain if you do; just comment on your talk page. --Haemo 20:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for commenting here and I'm not going to do this again. I didn't neglect that actually but it was a mistake. Also please be kind enough to call those accounts as my suspected sockpuppets of mine, because though you guys had your own jugement, I'm still a Suspected sockpuppeteer. Lahiru_k 20:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP recap solid evidence

124.43.221.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)-Colombo, Sri Lanka; Lahiru_k
222.165.157.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)-Sri Lanka; Mystic and Netmonger, which ties Netmonger to Lahiru_k since the first checkuser tied Mystic to Lahiru_k
203.115.31.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)-Sri Lanka; Kaushini and Lahiru_k
198.61.20.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)-York College of CUNY Jamaica NY, has to be Snowolfd4

other evidence shows Snowolfd4, Iwazaki (who says he lives in Japan), and Lahiru_k all supporting each other. Sumoeagle179 22:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time I am asking you to stop your rants and insults towards me.You have been,even after admins cleared me, engaging in mud slingging at me by calling me as socks of others and I belive these claims are highly insultive.I am not sure why you cant see the earlier SOCK reports. I and snowolf are

UNRELATED and no one even paid attention to this,which was removed by the accuser him self!! And even here,admins have cleared both me and snowolf,and if you continue your insults like this,I have no options but to take your insolent behaviour to the ANI. Thank you.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 07:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment

This is a another evidence that user Arsath is not Lahiru_k. From the Wiki scanner, one could easily get the edits made by the disputed address(which some claim Arsath and Lahiru shares). it is clear from this that Lahiru_K has done no editing from this IP. Isn't this a proof that both Arsath and Lahiru_k's blocks are erroneous ?Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 10:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Behavioral Evidence Linking lahiru_k to Mystic/Netmonger/Arsath

Mystic account was the one who apparently created a smiley template [204]. See through talk history. Isn't it highly suspicious that lahiru_k account would hold onto the custom smileys in his user space, after the smiley template was deleted off wikipedia ? [205]. Sinhala freedom 02:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if you are accusing them as socks because they had similar interests, then why don't you look around your self?? We have you, watchdogb,wikiraja.raveen editing same way and with same POV. So are you accusing all those guys(including)of sock-puppeting ? Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 07:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed Arsath/Netmonger, who indicated that it's true that Arsath=Mystic=Netmonger. The only issue remains the checkuser result connecting those three to Lahiru k. I'm still investigating that connection. It's not clear whether the IP has any relevancy since we don't know what evidence Dmcdevit used to make the original checkuser finding. It's typical that checkusers can't reveal much information in performing their checks.--chaser - t 03:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New evidence on User:Arsath

After being dormant for 10 months, this account was created by User:Mystìc and he admits it. As Mystìc is a known sock of Lahiru_k, this makes Arsath a known sock of him too. Sumoeagle179 20:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still looking through behavioral evidence with mixed results. To wit, there are a few indications of similar misuse of English words, but it's not yet clear to me that this constitutes enough commonality to indicate they are the same person.

Misusing "bias": Netmonger [206] "article so it is not bias" [207] "...are bias reports"; Lahiru k [208] "Are those bias?"
Misusing "advice": Netmonger [209] "advices"; Lahiru k [210] "advices"

I'm still looking through behavioral evidence like that, although I'm still uncertain about how much, if any of that, is due to a common first language; there are some common errors among those with the same first language. There's still the prior checkuser result, of course.--chaser - t 22:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

User:Netmonger blocked indef by User:FayssalF
User:Lahiru k blocked indef by User:FayssalF
User:Kaushini blocked indef by User:Haemo
user:Arsath blocked indef by User:Chaser

Enough of this. Lahiru k has been using a bunch of sockpuppets, including Snsudharsan, Arsath, Mystic, and Netmonger. All of this has been confirmed by Checkuser or other IP evidence.
There is no compelling evidence that Snowolfd4 and Iwazaki are sockpuppets of Lahiru k, and given the number of Checkuser requests that have been run (including Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Snowolfd4, which found that Snowolfd4 and Iwazaki are unrelated to each other, and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lahiru k, which found that Snowolfd4 was unrelated to Lahiru k), there's strong reason to think that they aren't sockpuppets. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This seems straightforward enough to me, but User:Chaser has asked me to unarchive this case, so I have. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re-archiving. Endorse current results of case. Not much new is going to be decided here. RyanGerbil10(C-Town)

Thanks, Ryan. There's a relevant review statement at ANI [211].--chaser - t 01:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:68.54.56.198[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

68.54.56.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

71.3.217.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
HavenBastion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 12:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Okay, pretty solid evidence here. On Talk:First-person shooter they all use the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT. The argument is that the people removing a disputed link are removing a perfectly good resource that has been in the article for a year and that said link was useful to the community. They also say that the link is being removed in the name of "community consensus" that was biased against the link. And a quick search on IP2Location shows that the two IP addresses are in roughly the same area. You may think it's not strong evidence, but what are the chances of two IP's from the exact same area and one account using the exact same argument that only a webmaster would use? If they aren't the same person, then they're probably recruited by the sockpuppeteer.

Comments

They've obviously been both recruited by the sockpuppeteer via the web site, but the fact that they're both using different ISPs makes it more likely that they're separate persons. Nevertheless, I don't believe this warrants an SSP report. This is intended more for sockpuppets, not obvious meatpuppets. Shadow1 (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Yeah, this is "meatpuppetry"--not the type where two or more people know each other in real life, but the kind where a bunch of people are responding to a notice on the front page of a web forum. This is best dealt with through page protection. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:skateremorocker[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

skateremorocker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Sk8erforzero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Hoponpop69 18:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Other than the similar names, both users have strikingly similiar edit histories. All of both users edits relate to bands genres, and both users always mark all of their edits as minor edits.[212][213] Furthermore, their edit histories will show you just about every article that Zero has edited, have been articles that emorocker has also edited.

Comments

Emorocker now claims Zero is just a friend of his.[214] Could we get a CheckUser to see if this is the case? Even if it is true this could fall under meat puppetry. Hoponpop69 23:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see [215] β^_command 04:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How have these accounts violated WP:SOCK? --Akhilleus (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because if infact it is one person, they are trying to make it look like there is more of a consensus than there really is. This is in violation of wikipedia rules.[216]Hoponpop69 20:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In another consensus discussion zero this time claims he is friends with emorocker, but he does it using the exact same poor grammar style, and lacks a signature on his post, as emorocker always does.[217] Compare it to this[218] and notice all the similarities. Hoponpop69 18:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are there more diffs to support this claim? This isn't much to go on. Rlevse 01:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Looking through Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-03 The Classic Crime convinces me that these two accounts are run by the same person; their writing style and general attitude is similar. However, the accounts have participated in the mediation case claiming that they're separate people, and this is a prohibited use of a sockpuppet to make it seem like there's more support on a side of an issue than there actually is. User:Sk8erforzero is indef blocked, User:skateremorocker is blocked for 24 hours. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Superdj1[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Superdj1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Undephined (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
199.245.188.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
65.3.128.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Jorfer 15:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

The same vandalism on one article and the writing on the sockpuppets user page with the other account

Comments

Should be an open and shut case

Conclusions

Blocked both named accounts as vandal only and noted sock case on talk pages. Rlevse 14:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Kpkambo[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Kpkambo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

Dethme0w 05:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Tao300 has been caught redhanded. Edit history shows that Kpkambo added an extra vote to an AfD (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Spiritual_Agnosticism), realized that his sig was visible, reverted it, and then as Tao300 posted the identical vote, character for character. Gtdude and Lordoftheflies123 are contemporary with Tao300, have no contribs prior, and expressed the same points that Tao300 and Kpkambo himself did.

07/10/09 18:46 PDT: Adding User:Velvetluvr to the list of sock puppets. No prior contribs. Read this guy's user page - he actually admits to being a puppet!

And another one. Special:Contributions/71.59.8.82 turned someone's comment into a Keep vote. No prior contribs.

And Special:Contributions/68.209.121.58. Within minutes of the others. Last prior contrib was in February but since this is an IP that is probably the same as no contribs. Probably a meatpuppet.

And User:Brainiac1024. At about the same point in time, inserted vote in the middle of others to make it look less obvious, and no contribs prior.

And User:BrutusTheLiberator. Another one that keeps deleting Shalom's note to the closing admin, and no prior contribs. Dethme0w 02:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This puppetry is apparently being done for the purpose of tilting the result of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Spiritual_Agnosticism. Kpkambo himself tried to vote twice under his own account.

And he has added another one, User:Velvetluvr.

And that user has removed your note. -- Dethme0w 02:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The sock puppetry is clearly evident for the purpose of vote stacking. I recommend that the three puppet accounts be blocked indefinitely, and the puppet master should be blocked for at least three days, or until the AFD expires, so that he can't cause any more trouble with that. (He has no other meaningful contribs anyhow.) I'll leave a note at the AFD, advising the closing admin of this problem. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Observation. The one thing that seems to distinguish this person from the couple or so legitimate "keep" voters in this AfD is that the puppets all extol the value and originality of the article while evading or flatly denying (without further comment) the core rationale for deleting it - that it is entirely OR. -- Dethme0w 02:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

All user accounts blocked in the course of closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spiritual Agnosticism. Sandstein 21:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, already blocked. Rlevse 14:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Jcvides[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Jcvides (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Technicalcat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Fwdsupport (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Peteweez 05:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Evidence

Technicalcat was created just as soon as I began warning Jcvides about advertising blogs and creating autobiographies on wikipedia. I tagged both articles he had created for speedy deletion: Polecolaw and Juan Vides. He removed the speedy deletion tags (to his credit, he left a hangon the article one of the times he did this) even after being warned once. After being warned a second time (warning level 4 with a threat of blocking), Technicalcat, created moments ago, removed my speedy deletion tags. Technicalcat is obviously a puppet of Jcvides, for his timing could not have been better.

Comments

Conclusions

I recommend Technicalcat for account deletion and Jcvides for blocking (I will post his username to the Admin Intervention page).

This is pretty obvious to me. These three accounts were all created the same day, tried to put the same text into the same article(s), and there are also some cases of tag removal between them. Blocked all indef and tagged with sock tags.Rlevse 12:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Grant Chuggle[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Grant Chuggle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Colaatje5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Daniel Case 05:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

This case began with a flurry of sockpuppetry by Chuggle, starting roughly a month ago, that has led to his indefinite block and apparent departure from the project. I first blocked him for personal attacks and vandalism to the talk pages of users CelticGreen and IrishLass0128 after they had warned him about constantly adding unencylopedic information to articles on U.S. soap opera characters (such as names of miscarried or stillborn children, detailed character backgrounds that have since been retconned, and reverting their removals of same).

However, his ISP, Telkom SA, apparently uses dynamic IP, and he found fairly quickly that he could continue editing with a new session and just not logging on, as he more or less admitted. I had to block many socckpuppets of his, and the story can be pretty much be followed from there on User talk:Grant Chuggle. After the block was finally extended to indefinite by Yamla due to Grant's continued insistence that he would continue to post as long as he was able to, we thought we'd seen the end of it.

But recently IrishLass alerted me to Colaatje5, who similarly makes edits to soap opera pages against consensus, with the added wrinkle of marking all of them as minor, even in cases where they're clearly not. With no edit summaries, either. And to some of the same articles (Stefano DiMera, André DiMera) that I semi-protected when Chuggle's sockpuppetry began). Colaatje5 has also vandalized the user pages of CelticGreen[219] (incidentally violating WP:OWN as well) and Flyer22 [220], another soaps project editor who had warned him about this.

The name "Colaatje" sounds vaguely like Afrikaans to me, and given that and the editing pattern I share IrishLass's suspicions that Chuggle may have again found it difficult to stay away, but thought this time that he had figured out how to get away with it. Daniel Case 05:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

One of the additional habits Chuggle had that Colaajte5 also enjoys doing is removing hidden comments and tags directed to other editors in regards to adding or removing information within articles. A historical review of their edits will show the numerous times tags have been removed.IrishLass0128 14:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Though I completely grasp the concerns on this matter, as I stated on my talk page, I do not feel too much that Colaatje5 is Grant Chuggle. Not that this means without a doubt that Colaatje5 isn't Grant Chuggle, but I saw Colaatje5 around some time before I saw Grant Chuggle. Colaatje5 did not just appear in the aftermath of Grant Chuggle-gate. And while Grant Chuggle says that he is male (though he has been known to lie to editors, I cannot see why he would lie about that to us), I feel that Colaatje5 is probably female; won't go into specifics as to why I feel that is. Also, Grant Chuggle did not click minor for every single one of his edits. Colaatje5 does. Colaatje5 is also one of those types of Wikipedian editors who does not respond back...ever... Grant Chuggle does respond back, and will let you know what is on his mind. Colaatje5 would edit All My Children-related articles. I never saw Grant Chuggle do that. All of this leads me to believe that there is more reason to believe that Colaatje5 is not Grant Chuggle than to believe that Colaatje5 is Grant Chuggle. Flyer22 23:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I agree with Flyer222, there are too many differences. Plus Grant was blocked indef back in Sep, so I'm curious as to why this was filed.Rlevse 02:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Ayd000[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Ayd000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Ayd000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Korkut000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Korkut00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Aydchery00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Acery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Ayd86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Aydin00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Edit history on GPhone. I've only gone thru the first page, but all these users are link-spamming the article with the exact same text. Some diffs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GPhone&diff=163644377&oldid=163644251
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GPhone&diff=163080059&oldid=163051422
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GPhone&diff=162923813&oldid=162918591
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GPhone&diff=162913636&oldid=162897027
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GPhone&diff=162894547&oldid=162882547
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GPhone&diff=162868885&oldid=162510561
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GPhone&diff=161997488&oldid=161761453
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GPhone&diff=161509411&oldid=161381465
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GPhone&diff=161373744&oldid=161340883
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GPhone&diff=160759255&oldid=160708510

As I look at the history, this just seems to be totally out of hand. The user will add the exact same text, which is repeatedly deleted, and continues the cycle under another user name. I don't know if all of these accounts have been tagged or blocked. The few I did notice I did tag, but I can't find a master account, or a report to tie them all together.

Comments

Aydchery (talk · contribs · block log) (sock cat) would be the master, blocked indef, talkpage deleted, most of his socks blocked as well (except the newest). --Van helsing 21:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

All of the listed accounts have been indef blocked as socks. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Gazh[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Gazh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

YESYESandmanygoals (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Lurker (said · done) 13:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

YESYESandmanygoals seems to be mainly used for posting on talk pages, often trolling or just plain bizarre. User:YESYESandmanygoals contains anti-Scottish trolling. This could be a case of a good hand/bad hand account, as the Gazh account itself is often concerned with more serious discussion on issues such as Englishness etc.

These diffs show these accounts makign the same change to the Braveheart article- [221] and [222].

The following diff seems to show the user outing himself as a sockpuppet (in his own words- he dropped a clanger) and trying to correct the mistake- [223].

Comments

I control YESESandmanygoals through telepathy, his real name is Yegov and he is originally from Sofia, Bulgaria. *rolls eyes* Gazh 15:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've spent about ten minutes to investigate. It looks like there's a content dispute on the article where both users made the same revert; it doesn't mean they're the same person. (They did it three days apart, so there would have been no violation of 3RR.) My analysis of editing habits, writing style, edit summary usage is inconclusive: maybe they're the same person, and maybe not. It's really difficult to make a determination. The "clanger" which is the last piece of evidence, and which turned Lurker on to this case, is also inconclusive: maybe Gazh was just fooling around and not trying to hide anything. My advice: do a checkuser if you want, but otherwise assume that these folks are unrelated. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here an anonymous IP is admitting sockpuppetting. Meanwhile Yesyesetc. posted this message on his user page. Lurker (said · done) 11:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intresting enough the two accounts both are editing celtic related subjects and are both editing North east england related topics however, same accounts or not there is no violation of WP:SOCK going on here and certainly no participation in the same dicussions whatsoever or to sway the opinions of other users. The sunder king 20:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I think it is possible these are the same people, but maybe not. I feel there is insufficient evidence. Furthermore, as "the sunder king" points out, there's no real violation of WP:SOCK here, not vote stacking, no serious edit warring, etc. Hence, I'm closing this case. Rlevse 01:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Iantresman[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Iantresman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Applecola (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Leokor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Art LaPella 06:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Iantresman, Applecola and the inactive Leokor all advocate plasma cosmology, patiently and relatively free of the bombast typical of newbie plasma cosmology advocates. Applecola in particular showed a thorough understanding of Wikipedia procedures from his very first edit, and his sixth edit among others, thus resembling the veteran Wikilawyer Iantresman a lot more than he resembles a newbie.

Their punctuation is very similar and I don't think it's a coincidence. Talk:Plasma cosmology contains 44 semicolons - 6 from Applecola, 14 from Iantresman, 20 from Leokor, 3 from Mgmirkin and 1 from 74.43.736.132. All these editors similarly advocate plasma cosmology, so it is at least imaginable that all of them are the same person. Perhaps I should have included Mgmirkin as a suspect but that could be a coincidence. None of the semicolons on that page are used by opponents of plasma cosmology or by fence-sitters, although the whole page is a debate between advocates and opponents. Similarly at the most recent archive page, Talk:Plasma cosmology/Archive 8, there are 14 semicolons from Iantresman, 1 from Guy (who does not resemble Iantresman), 2 from Ionized (who does resemble Iantresman), 1 from Thatcher131 (who does not resemble Iantresman), 1 from TristanBC (?), and 2 from Mgmirkin (who does resemble Iantresman). Applecola and Leokor weren't editing yet, but it confirms that Ian is fond of semicolons. A less persuasive case can be made for similar use of question marks, which Ian often uses after declarative sentences, as if to ask "do you agree?". Counting only complete, declarative sentences without words like "perhaps" and "maybe", I count 2 for Mgmirkin, 1 for Iantresman, and 4 for Applecola (none for others) at Talk:Plasma cosmology, and 1 for Ionized, 4 for Iantresman, and 1 for ABlake (the only editor listed for question marks who doesn't resemble Iantresman) at the same archive page. Art LaPella

Please also review: User talk:81.31.38.19 and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Iantresman. ScienceApologist 23:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Iantresman below: Yes, Leokor/Leonid Korogodski appears to be a real person, as does Mgmirkin. However, when Leokor writes elsewhere [224] [225] [226] [227], he doesn't use semicolons (except in HTML code). I searched in vain for the semicolon character, then I searched for other phrases to prove the sites were all searchable. No semicolons. None. So, does Leokor suddenly change styles when he writes on a Wikipedia talk page? Or when Iantresman emails Leokor, does he say "I'm banned from Wikipedia, so do you mind if I use your name?" If this is all circumstantial, perhaps Ian would agree that another Check User for Applecola and Leokor would put this whole misunderstanding behind us. Art LaPella 01:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I reserve the right to improve my English over the years--and finally learn when to use a semicolon. Most of those links are fairly old. More relevantly to the subject: [228]. Incidentally, debates tend to invite sentences rich in semicolons. --Leokor 17:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The forces allegedly compelling Leokor to use semicolons have no such power over most of us. Leokor's American spelling on Talk:Plasma cosmology is almost perfect (3 errors) - too perfect compared to his other writing. So a spell checker must have been used, and I presume Ian can find an American one. Leokor's dashes probably aren't the result of a conspiracy theory (otherwise Ian would have thought about semicolons) but the only other place Leokor uses so many "--" 's is in the Leokor article he only now presents as his own, not in the Leokor articles I discovered by myself. So can we just Check User and sort this out? Art LaPella 06:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Iantresman is banned, and trying to get unbanned at WP:RFAR#Iantresman. I found no punctuation evidence against Soupdragon42, despite someone's sockpuppet accusation at User talk:Soupdragon42.

Comments by iantresman

ArbCom clerk and administrator Newyorkbrad has authorized me to reply here, despite being on a temporary un-ban in order to post an appeal.[229]
I think the "semi-colon" evidence is somewhat circumstantial, and I am sure there are similarities of characteristic editing that can apply to most editors.
Leokor's real name is shown on his user page, and a search on Google Scholar shows a number of results that match his Ph.D. claims. I also emailed him, and he responded, and I am sure other editors could do the same
Mgmirkin (mentioned above) is clearly a different person, and you can compare his photo on his user page with mine on my home page.
Ionized (mentioned above) is also not me, we had a dialog on his talk page on "Plasma cosmology"[230]
During the current ArbCom appeal, three people confidently accused Soupdragon42 of being a sock puppet of mine (including ScienceApologist above),[231] but fortunately I know the person, and we were able to supply personal information to show otherwise; see the subsequent change in view by user Durova.[232]
Unfortunately I have no additional information on Applecola, but hope that the evidence above against the other alleged sockpuppets, is sufficient to outweigh the circumstantial evidence regarding Applecola, and a number of semi-colons. I suspect that Applecola's understanding of Wikipedia procedures is due to the username being new to Wikipedia, rather than the person.
So yes, there are similarities in editing styles between different editors, but I don't think this is a surprise. --Iantresman 23:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Leokor

My real name is Leonid Korogodski, and it is indeed listed at my user page. Any admin wishing to verify my identity is welcome to email me at the address listed in my profile, and I will respond both from my home and work addresses, with my employer's phone number attached for verification purposes, as well as further relevant information you may ask for. Also, feel free to inquire at MIT to verify my Ph.D. title. --Leokor 17:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of the writing styles, I would expect someone astute enough to research mine and Iantresman's semicolon usage to be able to recognize apparent differences between American and British spellings. As to the semicolons themselves, their use is governed by the rules of English grammar, and not by personal preference; although, we may err in grammar occasionally--hopefully, not often. In the previous sentence, as in this one, the use of semicolon is required; otherwise, the writer would be guilty of a comma splice. Although each of these sentences can be split, the parts are related closely enough to warrant joining them into a single sentence. That said, how about counting the dashes? I tend to use a lot. --Leokor 17:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may also contact, if you wish, the staff and members of the Viable Paradise writers workshop--see their website for the contact information--to confirm my existence (and to give them a good laugh at the "punctuation evidence"). --Leokor 17:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

This needs to go to Checkuser, where someone can investigate IP evidence. I don't think anything else will solve this; the stylistic similarity between Iantresman, Applecola, and Leokor's posts is suggestive, but not conclusive. Leokor, if you want to email me to confirm your identity, please feel free. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get my email? Sent the same day as you posted. Leokor 20:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I don't see any strong reason to think that Applecola and Leokor are sockpuppets. As I said before, a Checkuser request may be warranted; this would be a code "F" request. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:DemolitionMan[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

DemolitionMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

CaptainNemo420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

--Josquius 14:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

He has only edited one page. Indian Rebellion of 1857. He reverts my npov edits with the title 'revert vandalism' much as he did with his other account.
The ip 203.123.144.131 has also made such edits. On the talk page demolitionman got in trouble for editing using this ip for these edits.
He seems to believe I violated the 3RR by editing 6 times in a week. He is avoiding breaking his version of the 3RR with this account.
He has the same bad attitude and fanatical racism against British people on the talk page.

Comments

FWIW, I suggested that this report be made after reviewing User:CaptainNemo420's 3rr report, which was filed after only 3 other edits. I found his knowledge of WP policy unusual for such a new editor. Assuming that this account is a sock, I have no opinion who may be driving it. Ronnotel 14:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a rule that new editors should not be aware of the 3RR? I have used Wikipedia for a while but never felt the need to make an account. And I am not the only one who disagrees with User:Josquius - there is DemolitionMan as well as Bobby Awasthi. Is Josquis claiming that all 3 usernames belong to one individual simply because they disagree with his ridiculous views?

CaptainNemo420 04:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the ridiculous strawman attempts and try to behave in a civil manner.
I am well aware of Bobby Asawathi's existance. I am also well aware of the current problems in India with the far right. I fully realise there are probally quite a few people in the world who disagree with me on most things.
The evidence for you holding two accounts though is fairly compelling; not conclusive of course but a check of ips should sort that out.--Josquius 07:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh - thanks for teaching me civility. Perhaps you are confused between the terms "subservience" and "civility". I am quite aware of the problems caused by the BNP in the UK today and their brainwashing of people like you. And the evidence of your right-wing imperialist agenda is fairly compelling; almost conclusive. And by all means - let anyone check my IP address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainNemo420 (talk • contribs) 09:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You probally won't be capable of reading it as you just like to assume I'm the kind of evil moustache twirling Englishman you've read about in your fairy stories/history books but: I'm Irish and I live in the Netherlands. I'm also quite the socialist though this would be somewhat difficult to prove. --Josquius 09:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See. Dutch IP. (Josquius)--145.116.1.1 09:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick check of who User:Awara Nakara Nalayak is too - looks like a brand new user, fairly similar PoV, that popped up for a single edit on the 1857 article. Edit diff - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_Rebellion_of_1857&diff=164702273&oldid=164050700 and his user page simply says "Currently busy Fire Fighting in Wikipedia", talk page is "Can be used as an alternative to WP:Sandbox for all I care". srs 10:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Clear sockpuppetry, and a 3RR violation to boot. CaptainNemo420 indef blocked, DemolitionMan blocked for 24 hours. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:ThreeE[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

ThreeE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

216.85.6.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

— BQZip01 — ^talk 04:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

ThreeE's edit history Note that his edits stop a few hours before the IP address gets on.

Update: ThreeE is now back on and 216.85.6.131 is nowhere to be found. If I had to hazard a guess, he went somewhere for the weekend and logged in there under an IP. IMHO, his actions are clearly that of a puppetmaster and fits the definition almost exactly.

216.85.6.131's edit history Note also only one overlapping post from the user name to the IP address (perhaps the sole time he forgot to log in first?).

Use of an IP address to avoid violating WP:3RR. It should also be noted that WP:3RR states

Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. This particularly applies to editors who persistently make three reverts each day, or three reverts on each of a group of pages, in an apparent effort to game the system.

Comments

Comments from 216.85.6.131 seem to be exclusively related to works user:BQZip01 has done and appear to be harassment of the same manner as previous actions. Posts on ThreeE's user page seem to be a preemptive attempt to deflect the sockpuppetry claim, but he has never posted on ThreeE's page (or anyone else's before), so that behavior seems highly suspect. Additionally, he is using this account to bolster his position on changing a Wikipedia policy, a clear violation of WP:SOCK. His particular form of argument seems to be the same: he has an agenda and then tries to find a policy on Wikipedia that is close to supporting it and interprets it to support his position. When told he is wrong, he tries a different tack on the same perceived problem, but never addresses the fact that his original claim was resoundingly rejected. I will readily admit I am in some ways "edit warring" but ONLY to stop bad faith edits/vandalism by a user who apparently has some sort of bias against either myself or organizations/institutions to which I belonged (my presence likely has NOTHING to do with it).

I find it telling that the first edits in months start exclusively on pages that both ThreeE and BQZip both edited. Additionally, the edits appear to be from a source who knows quite a bit about Wikipedia policy, not something usually tied to new/IP users. These edits fit "Characteristics of sock puppets" to a T

Not surprisingly, sock puppet accounts usually show much greater familiarity with Wikipedia and its editing process than most newcomers. They are more likely to use edit summaries, immediately join in existing edit wars, or participate vocally in procedures like Articles for deletion or Requests for adminship as part of their first few edits. They are also more likely to be brand new or a single purpose account when looking at their contributions summary.

Resolution request

This particular user is currently being contentious, uncivil, and disruptive. Despite being told by three admins, an uninterested third party, and the majority of the users on the talk:Fightin' Texas Aggie Band page (see archives 3 and 4 for more information) that his interpretation is flat wrong, he continues to persist.

I request that this user be blocked for a significant period of time for multiple violations of WP:SOCK (over 22 postings in about 24 hours) as well as a third violation of 3RR (his second block due to 3RR violation lasted 36 hours, so anything longer than that) and an admin (or higher) direct this user to stop posts of this nature and his sockpuppetry. Preferably, if it within the authority of an admin (and I admit my knowledge is a little weak when it comes to authority) I request that this user be prohibitted from posting on any subject related directly to Texas A&M University or at least be directed to do so. If I need to take this request elsewhere, please let me know.

Response(s) from ThreeE

As I've said before, I welcome a checkuser to clear these accusations. the accuser continually invokes process and policy whenever edits are made to articles he or she believes they WP:OWN. ThreeE 17:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have repeatedly stated that I own none of these (I have never made any such claim to the contrary except on my user page IAW WP:USER) and am willing to compromise on phrasing if the current wording does not suit him. Furthermore, of course I invoke "process and policy"!!! That is the basis of Wikipedia in the first place. If there are no rules/instructions/standards, then it is merely a free-for-all forum. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Clear sockpuppetry and 3RR violation. ThreeE and the IP will both be blocked for 72 hours; this is the third 3RR violation. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Laughing Joker[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Laughing Joker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - already blocked indef for POV pushing and disruption

Suspected sockpuppets

CptHowdy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - already blocked indef for abuse of multiple accounts
Joker828 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
JokersWild1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
SockPuppeteer123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - already blocked indef for username concern
75.3.126.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - already blocked 24 hours for vandalism (Note this unblock request)
97.82.225.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - already blocked 8 hours for 3rr violation
75.186.91.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 01:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Report by Wisdom89 01:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC) at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/97.82.225.246 was merged into this report.[reply]

Evidence

User:Laughing Joker was blocked indefinitely 2 days ago for POV pushing and disruption. 2 accounts listed above, User:Joker828 and User:CptHowdy, have made very similar edits, see [233],[234],[235]. They have contributed to the same articles and the diffs listed above show the exact same edit made using the different accounts. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 01:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All suspected users have contributions spread between 3 articles: Creationism, Intelligent design, and Mary (mother of Jesus). Save for one or two examples (and the extensive edits to Primerica Financial Services by User:97.82.225.246), edits are made exclusively to these pages, typically reinforcing the exact same changes and often cooperating directly (one sock's changes are reverted with reasoning detailed, and another sock responds by slightly altering the information being added).--C.Logan 20:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The contributions page of User:JokersWild1 shows similar edits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intelligent_design&action=history

See [236] ,[237] and [238]

See [239]

See [240] and [241].

For a closer examination of the problem, see contribution histories here [242], [243] and [244] Wisdom89 19:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edit history of Creationism and Intelligent Design are strikingly similar to one another, as are the warning tags for all users Wisdom89 01:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Originally reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Obvious sock by User:ConfuciusOrnis. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 01:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/97.82.225.246 has been merged into this case to allow for easier collection of evidence in order to put together a case. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 20:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the accounts listed above have already been blocked. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 20:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

All the named accounts have been blocked for various reasons (they're all socks, though); the IPs don't seem worth doing anything about at the moment. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Chrisdidzun[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Chrisdidzun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Christopherdavid21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Christopherdavid22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

jonny-mt(t)(c) 08:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Keeps removing db-bio tag from Chris_didzun article ([245], [246]), which appears to be an attempt at an autobiography. Chrisdidzun stopped editing after the first reversion of his revert, Christopherdavid21 did the same ([247]), and now we have Christopherdavid22 whose revert ([248]) I just reverted.

Comments

All the contribs are deleted. As a formality, it might be wise to block the puppets, but definitely not the puppeteer. I'll warn him, and that should be enough. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Concur with Shalom. The socks are blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Nandoaranguena[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Nandoaranguena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Ode1979 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Papa November 02:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Almost exactly recreated deleted material at IBrick (Need admin rights to check deletion history, I'm afraid)

Comments

Conclusions

Probably the same person, but I don't see the point in blocking; the accounts usually get abandoned in cases like this. If disruptive activity starts again, then we can consider a block. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Rationalistbiplab[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Rationalistbiplab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Sumitrahumanist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Rationalistdebasis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Unputdownable (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Michaelbusch 17:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

All four are single-purpose accounts used only to flame on Talk:Prabir Ghosh. I suspect that Rationalistbiplab is not the true puppetmaster. Please also check User:Anindyasundar, which is a SPA, but somewhat broader than the others, and User:Pinaki ghosh, who has a known COI on the Prabir Ghosh article. All these accounts have been using Talk:Prabir Ghosh as a place to feud, with the other side of the feud being User:Sukanta Das, who has been warned of personal attacks but does not listen. Michaelbusch 17:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Conclusions

Likely the same person, but I don't see a reason to block; the accounts seem like throwaways, rather than long-term sockpuppets. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Koopa turtle[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Koopa turtle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Koopa turtle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
24.208.224.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Nintendude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Torc2 11:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Evidence of the sockpuppetry can be seen in the type of sneaky vandalism (in the form of unsourced edits) such as this (this whole article, really), this, this and this, racist edits to subjects like NIG and Nigg, and common subjects like highways and cities in Michigan, video games, "Lists of songs about...", models of American cars, and the word "poop." They also use redirects to further POV, such as here and here.

Here's one instance where they edited the same topic within hours of each other: here and here

Comments

I believe these are actually sockpuppets of Nintendude, who has been blocked indefinitely and has created a bunch of other puppets.

I've spent more time investigating this than is healthy, and I can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these users are the same person. Even the edits to statutory rape were to different parts of the article and in different styles; and that article naturally receives a lot of unneeded attention. My suggestion is to treat Koopa turtle as a new-ish user. His edits seem to reflect some newbie tendencies: some are good, and some got reverted by me just now, not for bad faith, but just because they're inconsistent with prevailing style on Wikipedia. I don't think anybody needs to be blocked or even warned. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you look at the totality of the edits and compare them to Nintendude, it's pretty clear. Especially given edits such as Koopa turtle's creation of Niggers who like pooping out their butthole and edits made by known Nintendude socks like this one, this, andthis in which the page was filled out with that same phrase repeated over and over. See also these edits in Nigger (disambiguation), where an edit by known Nintendude sockpuppet Curly snake is followed six minutes later by an edit by 24.208.224.153. Torc2 21:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the IP discovered and blocked from Nintendude's rfcu was 24.208.226.51. They look pretty close to me. Torc2 22:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the "niggers" evidence (sorry for using that word) is fairly strong. I now think that Koopa Turtle may indeed be a sock puppet of Nintendude. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I blocked this user, I think the correlation (after running some checks) is strong and Koopa Turtle should be tagged as a Nintendude sock. ++Lar: t/c 20:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since blocks have been handed out, there's no reason to keep this open. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:I Am Mclovin[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer: I Am Mclovin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: I Am McLovin It (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Possible sockpuppeteer that was blocked 48 hours for vandalism. The suspected sockpuppet was created some time before then. However, once the suspected sockpuppeteer was blocked, the suspected sockpuppet started taking up the same kind of vandalism, which is adding misinformation, inserting nonsense in the middle of sentences, or adding things to articles in the wrong place that disrupts the flow of the article (i.e. putting information about mating in a sentence about the colours of a hamster). Compare: [249] and [250],. Also, adding vandalism to Tenor drum by suspected puppeteer and to North Korea by suspected sockpuppet. The suspected sockpuppet and suspected sockpuppeteer also add information in the middle of a completely unrelated sentence, see: edits to Tenor drum (adding information about history in the middle of a section of its use) and edits to Hostage (adding information about consequences to a sentence about a hostage-taker). Besides the above, the extremely similar usernames aroused my suspicion.

I am also requesting checkuser on the two accounts at WP:CHECKUSER. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More evidence: Some of the vandalism from both accounts have to do with Hamsters. The suspected sockpuppeteer added nonsense, while the suspected sockpuppet added nonsense and misinformation. The suspected sockpuppet also referenced some of their nonsense in their edits to North Korea listed above. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Puppet blocked. See reasoning at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/I Am Mclovin. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 12:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Both accounts indef blocked, no reason to keep this open. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:BusterA[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

BusterA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

BusterE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
BusterF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
BusterH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Rjd0060 03:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Sockpuppeteer created account and 3 sockpuppet accounts within 2 minutes of each other. This is evident from the user creation logs:
BusterA; Sockpuppeteer; Created
BusterE; Sockpuppet; Created by BusterA
BusterF; Sockpuppet; Created by BusterA
BusterH; Sockpuppet; Created by BusterA

Comments

There have not been any (malicious) edits from any account yet, however I feel that a report is justified per WP:SOCK which states "A sock puppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who already has one or more accounts.". That doesn't say if we have to wait until there are malicious edits or not.

I am creating this report on behalf of User:Tckma. See this section of Tckma's talk page. - Rjd0060 03:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the creation of these socks was in my honor (such a dubious honor as it is), and more properly belongs to this case below. One of the other established page editors (User:Bkonrad) on Mexican-American War page has seen a name imitator (User:Bkonrad0) already blocked as a bad faith user for vandalizing the page. BusterD 12:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the User:Kraken7 report. The accounts were created on October 10th. Mexican-American War is currently semi-protected. Perhaps your sockpuppeteer is waiting out the four-day period required to edit a protected page. In that case, someone should watch these accounts on October 14th (Sunday). I'm going to be out of town this weekend and I'm not sure I'll have reliable internet access, so I can't make any promises. --Tckma 13:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added these four new socks to BusterD's checkuser request for Kraken7. --Tckma 14:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not seeing any contribs on any of these accounts. Which isn't to say that there won't be... --Tckma 14:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

As pointed out above, these accounts aren't obvious violations of WP:SOCK, but the usernames are too close to BusterD, in my opinion, and I'm blocking them on that basis. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Serminigo[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Serminigo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- he is already indef-blocked. Shalom (Hello • Peace)

Suspected sockpuppets

Slongho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Improbcat 20:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Nearly all of Slongho's edits are surrounding trying to get User:Serminigo unbanned. Including creation of nonsense articles, images, etc.

Both users have recently created nonsense articles with toilet humo[u]r, and those nonsense articles have been speedied. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a pretty safe bet. I suggest indef-blocking the sock. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Conclusions

Both accounts are indef blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:EvangelicalArrow[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

EvangelicalArrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

JesusLightMyWay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
WhenJesusreturnsinglory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Mike Doughney 12:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Recent edit history on Benny Hinn. To avoid the block on edits by unregistered users, the user account is created, a number of minor edits to other articles are made, and then the Benny Hinn article is attacked. When given a final warning or banned, user sets up a new account and continues the pattern. WhenJesusreturnsinglory's comment on their own talk page indicates that the account has been set up to be abandoned: "in exactly nine days the name issue will be clearly resolved to your satisfaction."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benny_Hinn&diff=prev&oldid=163776552

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benny_Hinn&diff=prev&oldid=163284149

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Benny_Hinn&diff=prev&oldid=162829760

Comments

Conclusions

All these accounts have been indef blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:VideogamerAJ[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

VideogamerAJ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

204.124.28.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 22:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Videogamer AJ is a fourteen year old. The suspected sock is coming from a school. The two users have a similar use of exclamation points [251] [252] [253][4]. Also note that AJ used to edit Wikipedia:Cleanup, but the IP is recently vandalizing it. And not to mention, the IP claims to be him [254]. I suggest that VideogamerAJ is using his school as a proxy to vandalize Wikipedia while he, himself remains masked.

Comments

Conclusions

Same person, but no current reason to block; if the IP or the account keeps vandalizing, simply report to AIV. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:AdamFendelman[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

AdamFendelman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Happynesss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

ThuranX 21:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

AdamFendelman stopped editing on 3 September (contribs), the same day that Happynesss began. As evidenced by their contribs, bboth have edited the same pages, most notably HollywoodChicago.com, run by Fendelman. Similar curt edit summaries are used, as are citations of Fendelman's own interviews and repeated insertions of links to his website: happynesss inserts HollywoodChicago here and fendelman promoting text here, AdamFendelman often did the same, see here and here. Right down to the edit summary "Added Critic Quote" and "Added Rotten Tomatoes Critic Quote", it's the same self-serving editing he was warned about, and claimed to have left because of. ThuranX 21:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'd also like to bring to attention AdamFendelman's conduct based on the incident report found here (section called Here, SSP, or CU?). I would strongly suggest for his site to be blacklisted, considering that with the apparent validity of this sockpuppet report, an article like HollywoodChicago.com is clearly promotional. He has not learned his lesson about not using Wikipedia to solicite his site. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Clearly the same person, but there's no glaring violation of WP:SOCK. With the deletion of HollywoodChicago.com the accounts have no recent edits. No reason to do anything at the moment. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Abhayonline[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Abhayonline (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Katrina4u (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Keb25 10:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Katrina4u edits under similar pattern with Abhayonline. Both of them kept reverting edits on Katrina Kaif article. Since the first edit by Katrina4u, Abhayonline has never made any edit.

Comments

Silly 203.220.105.34 23:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I don't think so. 203.220.105.34 23:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was a revert war. Both blocked by another admin for 3RR, correct call here. Rlevse 16:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:VinceB[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

VinceB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Squash Racket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Tankred 22:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

All the evidence can be found at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VinceB (4th). Squash Racket was blocked indef as a sockpuppet of a banned user. But, later, The Random Editor decided to unblock him "on a probationary basis".[255]. This unblock only encouraged Squash Racket to resume his disruptive activities (he has launched edit war over several articles today) and patterns of VinceB's edits are now only more obvious. Please compare this edit by VinceB[256] with this edit by Squash Racket[257], this edit by VnceB[258] with this one by Squash Racket[259], this edit by VinceB[260] with this one by Squash Racket[261]. All of them concern quite obscure articles (about ancient noble families) and both VinceB and Squash Racket share the same, very specific POV: there were no Slovaks before 1918, only Hungarians, so there is no way these families could be Slovak. Since The Random Editor has left Wikipedia, I cannot ask him to block this sockpuppet again. That is why I filed this request. Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VinceB (4th) for additional evidence.

Comments: I've already clarified this, so please read the talk page of The Random Editor, I don't want to repeat myself again. Also please read my talk page, I don't want to repeat those facts either. And for the past false accusations of Tankred see[262]. The edits mentioned above are not identical, so please also check those. Thank you.; Tankred will get away with this every time he tries it? How many times will he try to associate me with a user who did not respect any WP rules without being held responsible? Please also look at his edits just after he posted this next accusation and also the edit summaries while reverting to a false statement[263],[264],[265]. I will have to call an RfC (see that one) every time he decides to act in an unacceptable way? That seems the only way to silence his constant POV pushing.; The Random Editor promised to follow my edits closely and when I yesterday asked him why he was not doing it[266], I found out he had left Wikipedia. That's when Tankred decided to attack me again. Squash Racket 05:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an established Hungarian editor since 2005 I would like to express my opinion that in this case Tankred tries to solve a content dispute with force and sockpuppetry charges, intimidating a relatively new user. I think WP:BITE but also WP:HAR should be cited here because this is not the first such attack against the same user. I think that Squash Racket is not VinceB. He is a Hungarian, who is obviously interested in Slovakia related topics (among others), but this not enough reason to call him sockpuppet. It seems to me that the real aim of these kind of constant sockpuppetry charges to make Slovakia related articles a no go area for Hungarian users and transform legitimate content disputes into "disruptive editing" which are actually not. Zello 23:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zello, you share Squash Racket's POV and that is totally cool with me. I do not know whether you genuinely believe Squash Racket is not just another sockpuppet of VinceB or you are doing this because of our recent disagreement or you are trying to protect a user supporting your POV. But the rules prohibit banned user to edit Wikipedia. As I know VinceB's style of editing and communication better than I ever wanted, I am certain he is VinceB. Several other editors agree with me[267][268][269] and other people are more than welcome to check the evidence. I encourage other editors to compare Squash Racket and VinceB and decide this matter. Tankred 23:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously anybody can make mistakes but I don't think that he is VinceB. He made many edits not related to Hungary or Slovakia. I don't remember that Vince was interested in the history of Catholicism, Izrael or car manufacturing. Squash Racket edited these topics and engaged into discussion with other users without conflict. Zello 00:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first two editors you mentioned have not voiced their 'agreeing' with you on that since they read my answer for your accusations on my talk page. They made those comments after reading your POV accusation without asking me. They thought you were acting in good faith. MarkBA is a user supporting your POV, so according to your remark above you won't accept his opinion on the matter. Squash Racket 04:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, VinceB and Squash Racket also share their interest in the Jewish history.[270] Tankred 16:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An IP address makes some wikifying in an article I never edited(!) and you even want to use that against me? Based on your next accusation anyone could be associated with anyone here, especially those from the same nation. Who do you think is disruptive right now? You still don't understand WP:HAR and you won't stop. What if we started to talk a bit about your similar editing patterns with banned user Juro?? You defend articles right now made up by this vandal!

Jewish Colonization Association (the article I never edited) focuses on Jewish people moving to America anyway, as I can remember all my edits on the topic are Israel-related, but check this one too. Squash Racket 04:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That IP was blocked because it belonged to VinceB. Tankred 15:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You still call those few little edits of that IP a 'shared interest in Jewish history'? You still want me to know about all IP address edits that were made when I wasn't even here in articles I never edited? You start to be ridiculous now. Once you say I only edit specific articles (nationalism), now your problem is having a wider range of interest. And you bring your 'evidence' for both. Squash Racket 16:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, look at banned user's contributions. Let's see some articles he was really involved in that I have not edited somehow: First Vienna Award, Vojvodina massacre, Ethnic cleansing, Fidesz - Hungarian Civic Union, 1944-1945 Killings in Bačka, Occupation of Vojvodina, 1941-1944, Slovenská pospolitosť - Národná strana, Busójárás, True Slovak National Party, Clash of Civilizations etc.
He edited a wide range of articles (and I know nothing about the IPs).
Should I mention all the articles that I have edited and he (at least his real account) did not? Squash Racket 17:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People can form their own opinion after seeing Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VinceB (4th) and this page. For me, all the similarities between you and VinceB can mean only one thing: If a bird looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's probably a duck. Tankred 19:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that is true, how do we know that you are not banned user Juro? You did not waste much time on analyzing the differences, even though you claim to be NPOV. People can form their own opinion after reading my talk page and The Random Editor's talk page, especially how this all started[271]. You did not answer if that 'duck' speaks German like me.

Also I would like to hear your theory about disruptive 'ducks' like Egapresu [272], Again444 [273], Again44 [274], and Bruce95bruce [275] who surprisingly jumped in recently supporting your POV without any previous edits on Wikipedia. Squash Racket 03:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, other sockpuppets of VinceB have used the same tactics as you - to attack me and other editors as a means of their defense. I am somehow not surprised you are doing the same. Since you suggest there is some connection between me and four other accounts you mentioned, I encourage you to ask for a checkuser. Both their and my logs are fresh enough. If you wish, I will be even happy to assist you with your request for checkuser. But this page is about you and your connection to a banned user. So, please do not try to divert the discussion. Tankred 04:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I denied your 'evidence' fair enough multiple times, so don't call me a sockpuppet neither here, nor in edit summaries, OK? Besides mentioning these 'new users', I defended my case in a number of ways, so please don't compare tactics here. I just wanted to point out that in obviously disruptive cases you did not report anything, while you can't stop abusing me.

As you said you knew everything about Vince, because you were here then. Don't you know if he spoke German? Squash Racket 05:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tankred, you posted this[276] at the 3RR board less than an hour after you asked me not to divert discussion and not to attack other 'editors' for my defense. Squash Racket 05:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

No conclusive evidence these two users are more than just interested in the same material. Is it possible Squash is a sock? Yes, but I'm not convinced of it. Random Editor changing his mind also make me hesitant. More solid evidence is needed to convince me. No tction taken at this time.Rlevse 16:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Sinh[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Sinh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

83.38.117.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Pedro82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Drjsveca 01:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Using IP to pretend to be two different people and then using two accounts to change the signature.[277]

Comments

One person pretending to be three different people.

There are people that live en the same home ¬¬ Sinh is my cousin and he has been living in my house for a year. I normally do not participate in Wikipedia, that edition was the first one. We wrote consecutively our opinions in the discussion page. Unsigned editions are mine when I was not registered or when I was not loginned. And Drjsveca also used his IP (71.127.212.103) in this article when he was not registered ¬¬ --Pedro82 14:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment by uninvolved non-admin) The scenario described by Pedro82 is pretty unlikely. An analysis of their contributions shows that, if what Pedro82 says is true:

October 3 (all times UTC)

21:25 - 21:35 Pedro82 comments on talk page as IP, self-described first edit to Wikipedia
23:48 Sinh comments on talk page as IP
23:49 Sinh logs in, changes sig on his IP comment
23:50 Sinh logs out, Pedro sits down, creates account
23:51 Pedro changes sig on his IP comment, logs out
23:53 Sinh logs in, makes minor spelling change to his comment

Further, on October 4

12:06-12:27 after Drjsveca changes their sigs back to the IP, Pedro82 logs in, changes sigs back
12:36 Pedro82 logs out, then leaves comment on Drjsveca talk page
12:58 Pedro82, a new user, finds the un-announced sock report and comments (still logged out)
14:18-15:32 Pedro82 logs in, fixes sigs from previous two posts, makes add'l comment

In addition:

Pedro82 is, so far, a single purpose account, editing two related articles that Sinh has been having conflicts in.
Both Pedro and Sinh occasionally use the strange character string ¬¬ in their edit summaries or comments
It should be noted that this sockpuppetry, or (at best) meatpuppetry is being used on Tekken 6 to avoid 3RR in a revert war.
It should be noted that Drjsveca, along with his previous IP address, has also violated 3RR on Tekken 6.

--barneca (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see [278] β^_command 20:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never had entered in Wikipedia. Sinh showed me Tekken 6 article, we didn't agree with the text and I edited it (I was not registered). I wrote my opinion in the discussion page, then Sinh wrote his opinion. Later, Sinh put its signature to avoid problems. He advised me and I did the same (I registered my user for that).

Since I am registered, I always enter with Sinh (also now). He showed me this page. It's difficult, we must change the user constantly if both want to participate. That day, the problem was these difficulty.

By the way, ¬¬ is a known emoticon like :-) or :-(. It indicates indignation or annoyance. I really don't use it, it was a Sinh's idea. He likes using emoticons. --Pedro82 20:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not violate 3RR. I created this account to make this report. Drjsveca 02:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You violated 3RR with your previous IP address (71.127.212.103) and with your new account (Drjsveca), three revert rule in current editing dispute.--Pedro82 03:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not break the technical rule of making more than three reverts in 24 hours. You were reverting edits made by at least two different people, including a sysop. Drjsveca 19:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

What convinced me that this is a sock case vice three people in the same house who just happen to agree is that just 14 or so hours after creating his account, Pedro82 just happened to find Sinh's sock case--this is virtually impossible for a brand new legit user. Pedro82 is indeed a sock of Sinh or if he is a legit user, Sinh was telling him what to do. Rlevse 02:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Umm killer[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Umm killer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

12.33.122.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 23:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Umm killer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly going on a crusade against User:Gravitan. He says he keeps deleting content and threatening him [279], but I see nothing. Making personal attacks at him [280] [281]. The IP is making the same edits to the same pages. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 23:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

He is most certainly a sock, IMO. He seems to be quite mad at me over my edits to Thomas R. Grover Middle School; but that is no excuse for making personal attacks. I have not threatened him. I templated him over his attacks, but nothing more. -- Gravitan^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you did threathen me you said you would block me and you have no right to delete items. plus, after i responded to you about why you would delete it you continued and once more without answering my complaint saying that you were deleting important info for visual learners. what did that ip adress person do and whats so bad about a sockpuppet? what i cant share the internet with a server?--Umm killer 00:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, first of all, you (User:Umm killer) are incorrect about pretty much everything here. Gravitan (who is not an admin) never told you that he was going to block you. He left you a template that stated if you continued to leave personal attacks, you could be blocked as it violates Wikipedia's policy agains Personal Attacks. As far as him reverting your edits on Thomas R. Grover Middle School, well, they were definitely appropriate reverts. He even told you why he was reverting them (see the edit summary). You appear to be violating a number of polices and/or guidelines including WP:NPA, WP:OWN, WP:ES, WP:SOCK. Please, relax. You should read through those articles. If you continue to violate Wikipedia policies, you could get blocked. - (Cross posted to User Talk:Umm killer) - Rjd0060 01:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iam not a sock pupet so stop spaming that on me thats abusive--Umm killer 00:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about abusive, you're making personal attacks to an innocent user. And can you provide any evidence you are not a sock puppeteer? Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 00:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LMAO YOU CALL THAT USER INNOCENT??? look at how he treated me and he keeps poting stuff about me and also my evience is that i am not a sockpuppet so stop spamming it on my talk page also tell gravitan to stop doing that to my user page or i will start doing that to his only admins are allowed to add the sockpuppet thing not a regular user because hes not an admin. Are you an admin?? if your not then leave an admin to do it its none of your buisness to put it there without an admin allowing you to. Your evidence is an assumption so stop doing that go get some hard core eviidence thank you--Umm killer 20:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~O.o i see your doing a wargames wiki project can i join?? it seems cool and i play alot of RTS games such as warcraft starcraft and other games--Umm killer 20:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

The personal attacks (which I removed) and irrelevant comments (which I struckout) are not necessary here. And, you do not have to be an admin to add "possible sockpuppet" tags. See WP:SOCK#Templates. - Rjd0060 20:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Umm blocked indef and IP 2 months, both by other admins, closing. Rlevse 01:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Peter Vogel[edit]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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.
Suspected sockpuppeteer

Peter Vogel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Though Peter Vogel may not be the one pulling the strings, all of these users continuously revert to the same WP:PLOT and WP:CRUFT revision of plot-by-plot paragraphs and abilities that was agreed to be removed on the main Dragon Ball character pages per consensus on WP:WPDB. Despite being warned several times, all of them do not respond to the warnings and keep reverting to the WP:PLOT and WP:CRUFT revisions without explaining so and/or leave personal attacks in edit summaries while reverting. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is a list of suspects and the warning diffs that follow. Since there are a huge number of edits most have done in almost rapid timing, some diffs will demonstrate the many times the user was warned about the same cruft reversions to each Dragon Ball-related page:

Peter Vogel - a "non-responsive cruft keeper", see this warning to Peter Vogel, a revert against Peter Vogel, another warning to Peter Vogel, another revert against Peter Vogel, an edit summary request to him, another warning to Peter Vogel. Regardless of the many reverts/warnings given, he doesn't respond to any of them and keeps re-adding the same WP:PLOT and WP:FANCRUFT elements that have been removed from time to time, see for example his talk page warnings and his recent contributions on the Goku history page

Lucky Mitch - the first and only user to bring up the dissaproval of cutting "junk" on WP:WPDB; while not being involved in these "cruft conpriracies", this user is the only one who admits the dissaproval, nonetheless

Ken shoryuken - another "cruft keeper", please take a look at some of this user's recent re-additions of blatant cruft and plot information to Son Goku (Dragon Ball) here, Piccolo (Dragon Ball) here, Vegeta here, Son Gohan here, and again at Son Goku (Dragon Ball) here. I am suspecting that 4.185.231.7 (or another related ip) created this account — Ken shoryuken recently called me a 'DBZROCKS' sockpuppet; he never associated himself with good faith editor DBZROCKS, leading me to think that 4.185.231.7 is still holding a grudge against him (see here) and created an attack account

BSDB - this newer account just happens to revert me after I reverted & warned Peter Vogel on the Goku history page, and happens to know of WP:UNDO at such an early wiki-start and uses it on me without explaining, see here. Another "cruft keeper", this user re-adds the same abilities list on the Goku page that was agreed to be removed by WP:WPDB

TimySmidge - another "cruft keeper", see first cruft revision (against Peter Vogel), second cruft revision (against DBZROCKS), third cruft revision (against Poetic Decay), fourth cruft revision (against Peter Vogel)

65.7.239.237 - another "cruft keeper", this anon does exactly like what others above are doing, see this re-addition of cruft, this one, and see this anon's talk page for warnings recieved regarding WP:CRUFT

4.184.255.145, 4.185.231.7, and 4.184.63.199 are obviously the same person. Please skim through their contributions respectively and notice the same immature personal attacks, as well the clear obsession with re-adding the same WP:PLOT and WP:FANCRUFT elements (editor mainly wars on the Future Trunks article)

222.106.235.128 - another "cruft keeper", see this revert, this revert, and this revert

Comments

I originally thought about filing a report on WP:CHECKUSER but if indeed these disruptive edits are so identical and are obviously all done by the same person utilising different usernames a different computer/ip range then what I've gathered up should be all that is needed. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TimySmidge has confirmed he is not Peter Vogel with proof. See User talk:Peter Vogel and User talk:Sesshomaru — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimySmidge (talk • contribs) (note: this comment has been refactored by EVula: [282])

BSDB appears to be a sockpuppet/single purpuse account created for the sole reason of reverting the changes in this pages, TimySmidge has already been blocked a abusive sockpuppet. Ken shoryuken has the exact edit pattern present that BSDB presented, I'm not sure about Lucky Mitch, his account has edited in a larger number of topics instead of being used as a SPA as was the case with the others. The three IP addresses that start at 4.185. and 4.184. are probably the same person under a dynamic IP, the other two are being used to edit war over the same thing as the registered account so chances are they belong to the same individual. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ken shoryuken continues to remove the sock tag from his userpage, see [283], [284], without providing counter-evidence (other than two incivil claims on my talk page, see [285], [286]) that he is not a sock editor. I'm not going to enforce him to keep the template on his page so I'll let him have his way for now. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 10:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into this, I can disqualify the the 2xx.xxx.xxx.xxx address, it edits at completely different times of day than any of the other accounts or addresses. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 23:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I'm closing this. The following are concluded:

Peter Vogel has been blocked indefinitely. (note that I did not block him)
Lucky Mitch is not likely a sockpuppet, Mitch's interests are too different for this to be likely.
BSDB was blocked briefly some time ago and has not edited since; it does not appear he/she will return.
TimySmidge has been indefinitely blocked. (again note that I did not do this)
The first four IP addresses listed has not edited recently, it is plausible that they are sockpuppets but there is not enough evidence.
The last IP address listed is not a socpuppet, it's editing patterns indicate that it is several timezones distant from the other accounts and addresses listed here.
Closing admin, RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 23:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Thrillmecd[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Thrillmecd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Thrillmecomposer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Crystallina 22:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User:Thrillmecd has been blocked for violating 3RR and repeatedly pasting a copyrighted press release into the Thrill Me article, but appears to be using this account to circumvent the block. The edits this account makes are identical.

Diffs:

Thrillmecomposer

Thrillmecd 1
Thrillmecd 2

This is not an isolated incident; this user has used IPs and possibly other accounts, for instance User:MeredithTOS.

Comments

Conclusions

I've blocked this account for block evasion as the edits are identical then the previous two users thus a confirmed puppet just as the other one. --JForget 00:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Linkegypt[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Linkegypt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Linkegypt2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Tckma 13:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Recreated Speedily Deleted advertising article Link egypt after being blocked for promotional username violation.

Comments

Conclusions

Blocked by SGGH, closed. Rlevse 16:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Velocicaptor[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Velocicaptor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

EmperorVelocicaptor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
SultanOfVelocicaptorXVI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

_{Folic_Acid | talk} 15:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User:Velocicaptor has been indef. banned, yet the two aforementioned users have been created and continue to edit in the same articles and with the same POV and style as User:Velocicaptor.

Comments

Conclusions

socks blocked by admin Mastcell, case closed. Rlevse 16:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:HarveyCarter[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

HarveyCarter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

28!!!! SEE:
User:HarveyCarter - the "Edits by User and Date" section

ElvisIsTheOnlyKing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

BingRules4Ever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

BingRules (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

JohnRobertsly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

London18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Rogersleigh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Granville1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Gibsonism (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Glades21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Chunda18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

DaveyJones1968 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

InLikeErrol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

BreckColeman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

LinkJones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

JohnWayneWasaNazi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

RealHero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

RealHeroes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

JWwasaRacist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

BillRodgers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Daer11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Stromboli2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

HaroldFranklin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

HaroldCartwright (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

SueBrewer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

DaveyJohnson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

SarahLover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

CarlRaymond (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Jediah27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

JJuliech (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

IP4240207xx 21:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Edits are the same;
DaveyJones1968=DJ DaveyJohnson=DJ
Created this (2007-09-30) account after User:SueBrewer was found out, check edits, they stop 15:30, 29 September 2007, DaveyJohnson's start: 20:17, 30 September 2007

If you look at the edits histories they are almost identical, in both articles and content.

Exhibit - SEE: User:HarveyCarter - the "Edits by User and Date" section

Comments

Why is this account still editing? It was established in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/HarveyCarter (4th) that User:HaroldCartwright is a SP of HarveyCarter, but yet he keeps on editing. The new accounts follow the same editing pattern as the old accounts. Parrot edits to Cary Grant, Gary Cooper‎, John Wayne, Marlon Brando, Dirk Bogarde‎.

This guy is just here for the RE-ACTION, he does care about making quality edits, he just likes flipping it. Best thing to do is NOT react to him, just REVERT, BLOCK, and move on.

Harvey Carter/Franklin/Cartwright (now all indefinitely blocked by other admins)/SueBrewer and now DaveyJohnson all start/end editing in time sequence and are all the same. The pattern of all four users is very similar, mostly Hollywood actors/actresses.

Please see [287] β^_command 04:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A new one today (October 7, 2007): User:JJuliech. Evidence at John Wayne talk page. Is this the proper way to report it? Monkeyzpop 21:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC) PLEASE BLOCK THIS GUY...!!!! IP4240207xx 21:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

JJuliech is confirmed as a sock, and has been blocked. Tag was added early in my view, please don't add the confirmed tag too early, wait til the userid is blocked ok? ++Lar: t/c 20:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks. Lets see if I have to play wack-a-mole anytime soon. IP4240207xx 05:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All accounts blocked as obvious sockpuppets. Pascal.Tesson 13:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Mclao[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Mclao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

w^L^{<speak·check>} 23:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Please see the all contributions to the Iglesia ni Cristo article. This editor is a POV pusher in favor of the Ang Dating Daan, a religious group who opposses the Iglesia ni Cristo. This editor has a record of adding stronly POV edits to the Iglesia ni Cristo article, each under a different username. At first, I let the edits go while neuturalizing them. However, the user began posting made up and/or tabloid stories about how ministers kill innocent people. This cause the Iglesia ni Cristo article to be semi-protected for a month. The latest edit was a page blank from a sleeper account. I feel this user is only here to disrupt the encyclopedia, and the style of writing, grammar and edit summaries lead me to the sockpuppetry suspicion.

Comments

All of the edit summaries appear similar, so I would say that is a start. More evidence is needed and as it may be hard to turn up, consider taking over to WP:RFCU. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 20:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Random Editor's suggestion of taking it to RFCU is that there's no criteria (unless this user continues to blank articles he doesn't like). I believe this user holds a serious liability risk to Wikipedia, and as such I would suggest pushing a community ban at the Community sanction noticeboard be more fitting? --w^L^{<speak·check>} 03:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with The Random Editor: the edit summaries are similar and the editing pattern (i.e. when the user edited, how many times, to which articles) is extremely similar among all accounts. This person has been using multiple accounts to try to win an argument. I would recommend to indef-block all accounts except for the most active one, Vinvinkid, and give that main account a two-week block with a stern warning not to act up again. Shalom ^Hello 19:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the editing of Eliseo Soriano for further evidence. I agree with permanently blocking all accounts, except the Vinvinkid one which should get a two week block and final warning. Disclosure -- I edit the Soriano article too, but examination will show that my edits have been to establish objectivity and NPOV. Moriori 23:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm. I hope you know that you can't block people you are in an editing dispute with. I've unblocked him as well as opened a community ban proposition at Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard#User:Mclao in order to finalize this whole thing.

I disclosed I edit the article too. I did NOT say I am in an edit dispute with him, nor am I in one. Moriori 07:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see [288] β^_command 05:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Closing with these results...Not blocking the IP because it's an IP and this case seems to be stale. Not blocking Mickey0000 because Wikileon removed his sock tag, it was created weeks before the other accounts, and the edit pattern is sufficiently different to make me unsure it's a sock. I think Mickey0000 is merely interested in similar articles. Of the remainder, Mclao and Vinvinkid are the mostly likely master accounts; the rest are obvious throwaway socks. I'm calling Vinvinkid the master because it was created a day before Mclao and still edits, Mclao has ceased editing for now. Vinvinkid gets a stren warning (since the case seems stale now) and Mclao an indef block. Chiesalvador, Pamiote, Sevillamindz, Bradjack, Hearty01, Keith92, and Beliveer4ever are indef blocked for being obvious socks and throwaways created at the height of this matter in mid Sep. Rlevse 15:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Angie Y.[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Angie Y. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

71.166.78.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.45.82.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 22:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Angie Y. is a fan of the series Code Lyoko. Recently, I have nominated the character articles for deletion. Angie's vote called me "an asshole" [289] (although this was changed to "fool" [290]) Then, an IP address with no prior edits voted with similar wording, then changed the vote to call me an asshole [291] as Angie did. Then another IP, starting with "7", and again with no prior edits voted. I had warned her it was against the rules, but with the arrival of a new, suspected puppet, I have made this case.

Comments

One of them, 71.166.78.214, is likely to be Angie as the wording they used was identical, however the other is unlikely since it was from a different state in America (and with a different ISP). Although I do find it fishy when ip's show up, take part in a deletion dicussion and don't make any other edits. Seraphim ^Whipp 22:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The first one was definetely Angie, the second one not so much, but Angie has a history of getting into fiascos. I wouldn't exactly put it behind her to use a sockpuppet to put delete. (Note vote, it is not a majority vote, but a discussion.). Thanks, Codelyoko193 _Talk Contributions 22:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I find it more alarming that JunKazamaFan, starts harassing TTN with no reason (having just joined the other day) and is backed up by Angie. I find it odd. Seraphim ^Whipp 22:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think JunKazamaFan and Angie Y. are the same, they edit different articles with different edit summaries, and he just changed his vote to delete. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 22:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I didn't mean that to sound like they were the same person. No, I think it's clear they're separate people. I was implying that it was likely to be canvassing...sometimes when I think of something in my head, I might write it down as if everyone else knows what I'm talking about and forget that there's only me inside my head :)...lol, I hope this makes more sense. Seraphim ^Whipp 22:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JunKazamaFan is a new editor and says that he was sticking up for his friend (I assume they must know of eachother off-wiki), so personally I'm now sure it wasn't canvassing, just loyalty. Seraphim ^Whipp 23:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is enough evidence to accuse one person. It could just be other people that are big fans of Code Lyoko and the characters. Or it could be another user. I'm not denying that it could be Angie, but I don't think it's enough evidence. Maybe they are also friends of Angie and are siding with her. This was the case for me. Plus, Angie tells me that this is not true. Since I don't know of any cases of Angie lying, I believe her. She could be lying, I won't deny this possibility. She tells me that she is not saying anything for fear of getting into more trouble. It is suspicious, I admit. I am not Angie Y. . We are two different people. I was just supporting her. I was informed of these things, so I decided to support her. I have apologized for my unacceptable behavior numerous times. We know each other on places such as Tekkenpedia and AIM. JunKazamaFan 18:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make my stance on this clear, even if one of them is a sock and it is Angie, a block would be punitive not preventative. In all, there's not really anything to be gained from this report. If it was Angie, I'm sure she'd never do it again. Seraphim ^Whipp 14:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think she wouldn't do it again? Offenses need to be punished. 71.255.87.220 20:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Angie should be blocked. She has not had a history of using socks, and doubt that she would again. Thanks, Codelyoko193 _Talk Contributions 22:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly a temporary block? Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 23:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what that would prevent. If it is her, then perhaps a stern warning would be better. Seraphim ^Whipp 11:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A block will show that the rules will be enforced.71.125.86.151 19:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I think that Angie's repeated attacks on JetLover warrant a short block (48 hours). Calling a user "asshole" once may be a heat-of-the-moment slip-up, but doing it repeatedly is a mark of incivility and should not be tolerated. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been on the edge of this issue - paying attention to the Afd page, watching this discussion unfold. I think the first anon probably was her, but not the second, and JunKazamaFan would appear to be a friend. Someone should give her a naughty, naughty — please don't do it again message. If this ever does happen again, she'll get a harsh swat. --Jack Merridew 14:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angie is block 48 hours for meatpupetteering and incivility. Closing case.Rlevse 14:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Italways[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Italways (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Hugh shakespeare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

WegianWarrior 08:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Suspected sockpuppet based on the extreme simularities in style and articles between this users edits and the edits of other sockpuppets of Italways:

List of Hahnian Organizations: edit by other known sock, and edits by this suspected sock.
Freemasonry: edit by other known sock and edits by this suspected sock.
Round Square: edit by other known sock, and edits by this suspected sock (well, at least he left the citation request in).

Comments

I'm reviewing, though I have to say I'm a bit confused what benefit there is in listing Italways (talk · contribs) as the "sockmaster" as that account has no contributions. It's a heck of a lot easier to investigate this stuff if the listed accounts actually have edits to review (and yes I see the provided diffs; I'm just saying additional "sock" accounts with contributions would help the investigation).--Isotope23 ^talk 17:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Per the duck test; this editor is pretty clearly tied to the above accounts and has been blocked accordingly.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Isotope23 wrote, both users are indef-blocked. A checkuser case is ongoing. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Ionas68224[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Ionas68224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

RightToAnonymity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Cheers, Lights (♣ • ♦) 21:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

RightToAnonymity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edited a comment by the currently blocked user Ionas68224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ryulong by changing Ionas' signature to RightToAnonymity's signature. [292]

Also did this at Talk:SHA_hash_functions [293].

Comments

Conclusions: Blatantly obvious, user indefinitely blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]; And the sockpuppeteer has been blocked for six months. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Wiki's Most Wanted[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Wiki's Most Wanted (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Wiki Fugitive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Rjd0060 19:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Obvious sock of an indefinitely blocked user. Sockpuppetry is evident from this Diff..

Comments

User claims to be making "good edits" now, however this is one of the edits that speaks differently. - Rjd0060 20:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Checkuser confirmed. Indefinitely blocked. Also blocked Compton G playa (talk · contribs). --Deskana (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Bite Me Rance11[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Bite Me Rance11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Bite Me Rance7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Bite Me Rance12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Bite MeRance17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Tckma 18:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Bite Me Rance7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has contributed repeated vandalism to several articles, using the same format:

"Tony, Hey Tony! (something) -- Roland Rance"

Bite Me Rance11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Bite Me Rance12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are making the same contributions.

Bite Me Rance12 was recently created, after the suspension of Bite Me Rance11 and Bite Me Rance7.

Comments

These are all sockpuppets of Runtshit; see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Runtshit RolandR 19:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just added Bite Me Rance17 --Tckma 19:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Obvious socks, all blocked. SSPs are only needed for the more complex cases. ~ Riana ⁂ 19:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:KingKull[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

KingKull (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Chiapetrock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

--Tenebrae 02:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

The very same blanket removal of a properly sourced and footnoted section of John Severin, for no reason he/she, despite entreaties, will discuss. User:Chiapetrock only registered today and has made only this edit — exactly one day after User:KingKull was warned that his/her continued blanking of this section constituted vandalism.

User:KingKull returned later the same day after User:Chiapetrock was blocked for vandalism. I ask and hope that this sock-puppet situation is resolved soon or this article may needed to completely protected. This has been going on for many weeks.--Tenebrae 16:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Striking similarity in account creation dates and times [294] [295] (five minutes apart).--chaser - t 04:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Conclusions

Socks. One blocked indef [296]. I will leave a message for KingKull.--chaser - t 04:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Avineshjose[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Avineshjose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Editorguy007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
59.93.25.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 09:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

The article Labour India (Deletion log: here) (or Labour india (Deletion log: here)) has been deleted multiple times for blatant advertising. These were created by User:Avineshjose. Now this article has re-appeared immediately after deletion and the author is User:Editorguy007. 59.93.25.229 has been involved in vandalising the user page User:Amarrg (which was related to tagging the articles for deletion) and also in edits to Labour India. Both User:Avineshjose and User:Editorguy007 also show interest in renaming the name of Bangalore in its article as seen in diff1 and diff2, a change which has been reverted by many existing authors -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 09:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

No, you are mistaken, both are using from the same IP address but interested in Labour India's project. We are a group of guys involved in s/w developments for Labour India. Therefore, someone may use the same address which doesn’t mean what you thought. I have no idea about who did this, probably my co-worker?... who knows? you do whatever you want...I'm not at all bothered…Because I am not as crazy as you… --Avinesh Jose 11:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice story -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 11:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More evidence

This deleted revision of Labour India has Editorguy007 recreating the article with these two images uploaded by Avineshjose. New users wouldn't stumble upon images like that a few hours after the article gets deleted for the second time. Coupled with Avineshjose's virtual admission above, this is sufficient evidence that this is the same person or two people working closely together.--chaser - t 04:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Editorguy007 blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. Avineshjose blocked 24 hrs.--chaser - t 04:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:MadDeafNut[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

MadDeafNut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

70.176.155.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Rjd0060 01:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Both accounts became active on October 12. The most recent edits indicating possible sockpuppetteering are the tag-teaming of edits on AJ Cooper. The page was created by the sockpuppeteer. When an editor wanted to redirect the page, the sockpuppetteer reversed the redirect. I reapplied the redirect, and the sockpuppet undid it. The redirect was restored again by ClueBot, but undone again by the sockpuppet.

It is evident from the contribution logs of the sockpuppetteer and the sockpuppet that they are the same person, due to the date of the first edits by both. In addition, both usernames have only edited the same pages (pages related to the Las Vegas TV show). - Rjd0060 01:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

They probably are the same person, but there's nothing yet that constitutes a 3RR violation. I suspect that the editor sometimes forgets to log in. Finally, this blanking is a common way that folks request G7 speedy deletions. Unless there's something else, I don't think there's anything here that requires admin attention. I suggest dropping a note at User talk:MadDeafNut to initiate discussion about the AJ Cooper redirect.--chaser - t 04:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if that address is mine but if it is I'm not trying to sockpuppet, although everytime I exit the window I don't always remember that it signs me off of Wikipedia. As for the AJ Cooper page, I was trying to add content to a page which only directed to another page. MadDeafNut 05:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is definitely a possibility that this was accidental, it is rather suspicious that the logged in account, and the IP account made edits within a 5 minute period. They even made the same edits. Obviously I was not there, but it is evident that logged in user reverted an edit, which I re-applied and IP user then did it again (twice). I suppose if the logged in user will stop using his IP, there will be no more problems. - Rjd0060 14:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I followed up on Rjd0060's comments on MadDeafNut's talk page [297]. Nothing more to do here.--chaser - t 03:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:EvanS[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

EvanS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

JimbobCountryBoy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
FloridaSurfer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Anastrophe 18:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

user EvanS promoted his cat photo to the lead image for article Cat based upon claim of consensus on page User_talk:EvanS/Cat/Lead photo. however, the edit history in the approximately one hour preceding this 'consensus' contains a burst of edits from an account which has only made edits to the page in question in an approx 20 minute interval, followed by 'vote' and comment in support of EvanS image by a new account with only that one edit. As well, the JimbobCountryBoy acct altered previously existing 'votes' that were only commentary, and marked them as Neutral - this being months after the fact. user JimbobCountryBoy also elided a vote because it wasn't signed.

Comments

i find the rapid burst of new edits by previously non-contributory editors troubling and suggestive of sockpuppetry. further, EvanS rapid acceptance - within half an hour - of the newfound 'consensus', from a page which had been in existence for a couple of months, to be further suggestive of sockpuppetry.

Conclusions

Sockpuppets blocked. --Eye of the minD 03:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Tamari369[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Tamari369 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Witchy369 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Nehwyn 19:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Basically, she said so. These diffs: [298] and [299]

Comments

Probably means no harm, but still.

Conclusions

I left a message about acceptable and unacceptable uses of multiple accounts [300]. Witchy 369 hasn't made any edit's outside userspace, so nothing else is required at this point.--chaser - t 00:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Grod028[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Grod028 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Gwendolope028 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Jorge028 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

VanTucky ^Talk 20:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

All three user accounts created today, Oct. 13th
All three accounts primarily, with the alleged socks exclusively, editing the Goldendoodle article.
All three accounts making identical edits to the aforementioned article, in the way of repeatedly adding the same images uploaded by the alleged puppetmaster.
Extremely similar usernames i.e. all names ending in 028

Comments

This case appears to show that the 3 users are indeed sockpuppets with a sock master, but my only doubt about this case is that who is the sock master? As Grod028 was the first to edit this article in this way, I will assume that VanTucky is correct. As the 3 accounts were all used to do the same thing to the same article, with similar usernames, I have virtually no doubt that they are sockpuppets. :-) Stwalkerster talk 20:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My supposition about Grod being the master is that his account has edited on various other subjects, while the two sock accounts have exclusively edited Goldendoodle. VanTucky ^Talk 20:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message [301]. ~~There's no 3RR or other policy violation yet~~, so a request that Grod028 use just one account is all that's necessary for the time being.--chaser - t 04:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly new to SSP, but isn't using socks to make it appear as if multiple users are in favor of a change, and to avoid violating 3RR, a violation? VanTucky ^Talk 04:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I'm sorry. I missed some reverts. I'll softblock the two socks. I think it's too biteish to block the main account, though.--chaser - t 05:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a satisfactory solution imo, a newcomer certainly deserves the chance to correct the behavior. It's easy to not realize how serious a violation socking is on Wikipedia. Thanks for your response, VanTucky ^Talk 06:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

The two socks have been indef-blocked, but the main account is not being blocked in accordance with WP:BITE. I support this result, and I will make the user aware of it. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Umpteee[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Umpteee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

AshevillePromise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.198.67.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
24.186.187.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Arx Fortis 16:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User contrib pages: [302],[303],[304], and [305]
Article talk page: [306]

Comments

As I stated in the GE article's talk page: Odd how these "many users" all seem to edit primarly ONE article....this one....and with a minor exception for Umpteee, all started editing the same article in the same month and have the same opinion of the link being discussed.

Basic tag-teaming using new accounts and anonymous edits.

Yeah, probably socks, but let's see if we can't get the same end accomplished through this request I just made.--Chaser - T 09:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lo and behold, we have a local spam blacklist. I will be happy to add the site myself if this nonsense continues. (The rules there are more restrictive, probably because it's undesirable to make that list too full.) Anyway, I've warned both accounts. I don't think a specific sockpuppetry finding is necessary, but I'll leave this open for now in case someone wants to just report here. Alternatively, my talk page.--Chaser - T 18:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See [307] β^_command 05:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

No determination required. If spamming continues, report to my talk page or WP:AIV to get the account blocked. Request that the site be added to the local spam blacklist if this continues.--chaser - t 04:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Jason Gastrich[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Really33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
CottonMather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Ronaldo847 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Nascentatheist 05:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Edit history of this "new user" is a pretty clear indicator given his reaction to events and the verbiage and tactics used, including the attempt to include a banned domain and a reference to "kudos" for getting it blacklisted. Some of the same verbiage is used at an off-site attack group managed by Jason as "Fraud Buster" [308] [309] [310] [311] See previous case as delineated and adjudicated here and note the standard flurry of accusations, as phrases very common to User:Jason Gastrich.

Rebuttal

This is a pathetic argument by assertion from a desperate boy. How do I and Mather talk like Jason? We are just supposed to assume that "Nascentatheist" knows Jason so well that he knows how he talks AND that he is so evenhanded that we should trust his judgment. Hahahaha. "Nascentatheist" is a troublemaker and all he really cares about is tarnishing Christian entries and Jason Gastrich's reputation. He's clearly Dave Horn [312] aka User:WarriorScribe, the same person who had an axe to grind against Jason and Christian entries and he still does. I suggest he be banned from mentioning Jason Gastrich's name AND that he be banned from editing Christian entries. Wikipedia would be a much better and fruitful place. --Really33 06:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

It would be easy to present still more evidence that Really33 is a sock-puppet of banned user Jason Gastrich, but it would serve no purpose. After Really33 posted the commentary that appears above and my Wikipedia user page was characteristically vandalized, I posted a Notice Board Incident report. An administrator has determined that Really33 is a sock-puppet and has imposed a block on the account. Jason's continued obsession with his boogie-man aside - an obsession that is being ignored - he has shown why his banning should remain in force. It is my theory that CottonMather is a sock of Jason's, based on an edit history that is characteristic of previous edit patterns demonstrated by Jason and his socks. Jason logged in to the account, discovered the placement of the template, and created Really33 for appearances sake. This tactic has never worked for Jason in the past, but he's not known for abandoning failed strategies, as his continued sock-puppetry and his retaliatory accusations of sock-puppetry and his references to his gossip group demonstrate. Regardless, the investigation into the issue of Really33 has been rendered moot by an administrator, and we are left with the activities of CottonMather, an account that is probably, at this point, an inactive sock and will likely remain so now that it has been discovered. - Nascentatheist 11:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ronaldo847, a new editor, removes two instances of a link critical of Jason, including from Arbustoo's page and from an archive of the Louisiana Baptist University talk page. This would suggest that the user account was created for that specific purpose and Arbustoo hasn't been active for quite some time. - Nascentatheist 15:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Really33 and Ronaldo847 are blocked. No opinion about CottonMather, which seems to be abandoned. Unless it starts editing disruptively, let's ignore it. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Kkkpower44[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Kkkpower44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

KKKPower55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
KKKpower6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

gorgan_almighty 14:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

The user has made no attempts to hide his use of sockpuppets, which he appears to use purely for vandalizing pages.

Example 1: His sockpuppets vandalizing the Navy article: [313] [314] [315]
Example 2: The sockmaster vandalising the Motorboat article, note the same characteristic type of vandalism: [316] [317] [318]
Example 3: One of the sockpuppets creating content on the puppetmaster's user page: [319]

Comments

Should be an open-and-shut case.
They are possibly all sockpuppets of KKKRules4Ever.

Yes, I agree, and I would recommend to indef-block all accounts. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Obvious. All blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:TyrusThomas4lyf[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

TyrusThomas4lyf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

75.34.18.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Myasuda 01:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User TyrusThomas4lyf was been blocked indefinitely in May for repeated personal attacks and edit warring, after numerous warnings and attempts to mediate. For a summary of this user's past behavior, see the RFC and his talk page User talk:TyrusThomas4lyf. This same user has also edited under the aliases IlliniPride and 68.253.206.119 in the past, as noted at [320] (see section "Problematic edits by IlliniPride / 68.253.206.119 / TyrusThomas4lyf"). Since his block, he has repeatedly attempted to subvert the block as demonstrated in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TyrusThomas4lyf, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TyrusThomas4lyf (2nd) and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TyrusThomas4lyf (3rd).

This time, he has used the IP address 75.34.18.170. Evidence that 75.34.18.170 is a sock-puppet for TyrusThomas4lyf include not only this user's editing of the same selection of articles (see e.g. [321], [322], [323], [324], and [325] (in this history, he edited under IlliniPride)), but also the introduction of the same edits in TyrusThomas4lyf's very distinctive multiple-edit per contribution style. Some examples include the following:

Only person to object to Baylor's inclusion on List of National Basketball Association top individual scoring season averages: [326] and [327] (both from TyrusThomas4lyf) and [328] (from 75.34.18.170).
Only person to insist upon insertion of starting center trivia in List of National Basketball Association players with 60 or more points in a game: [329] (from TyrusThomas4lyf) and [330] (from 75.34.18.170).
Continuation of edit war with User:Zodiiak in List of career achievements by Dwyane Wade: [331] (from 75.31.237.66 — sock-puppet of TyrusThomas4lyf per User:75.31.237.66 and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TyrusThomas4lyf (3rd)) and [332] (from 75.34.18.170).
Removal of the very same sourced 76ers information: [333] (from 68.253.206.119 -- a known alias for User talk:TyrusThomas4lyf), [334] (from Hoopsknowledge -- sock-puppet for TyrusThomas4lyf), and [335] (from 75.34.18.170)

Comments: Please see [336] β^_command 05:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at points 1 and 2 by Myasuda, as well as the general editing patterns with help from Betacommand's tool. The evidence is very strong. I'm not sure how long the IP should be blocked (not that I could block anyway; I'm not an admin), but if it's a static IP, one to two weeks seems about right. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's definately a sockpuppet of TyrusThomas4lyf, though I am not an admin. Zodiiak 14:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The delay in acting on this sock-puppetry case has resulted in greatly emboldening this blocked user. It is taking more and more time to keep his edit-warring in check. The only benefit of this delay is that it provides additional evidence collection opportunities. Myasuda 01:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Things have been progressively slower on Wikipedia. Any reports, submissions, cases, or even good article nominations take a lot of patience. Zodiiak 04:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Looks pretty clear that the IP is User:TyrusThomas4lyf. I've blocked the IP, but suggest consultation from an admin more experienced with range blocks than myself to see (1) how big the range would be and (2) whether it would be worthwhile to block it. -- Samir 00:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked to comment on the range blocks. It's probably difficult because it's a large US provider (Southwestern Bell) with large ranges of dynamic IPs, so you'd probably get massive collateral damage. You'd have to block several /20 ranges, I haven't checked how many exactly the ISP has, but it's a lot. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Elvispress3[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Elvispress3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Elvispress (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Elvispress2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Elvispress4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Elvispress5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Ashdog137 22:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

[337], followed by [338]; then searched for Special:Contributions/Elvispress3 just to check, and found several very recent instances of vandalism there (including a final warning) [339], which user subsequently blanked after tagged as a sock [340]. The edits by User:Elvispress4 and User:Elvispress5 were directly related, occurring on Grammar, then its talk page. User:Elvispress3's vandalism was discovered subsequently when I noticed the difference in usernames from the vandalism to grammar.

Added User:Elvispress and User:Elvispress2 -- both accounts were created around the same time as the remaining accounts, but have yet to be used; added to report based on user's propensity to account-hop for vandalism as detailed above, in suspicion that these would be used for the same.

Comments

Conclusions

All blocked indefinitely. Elvispress1 (talk · contribs) as well. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Scrooby[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Scrooby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Ouillah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.128.255.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.154.217.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.144.19.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

MarnetteD | Talk 23:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

There has been a dispute over an external link at the Eyes Wide Shut page with Scrooby. On October 4th the newly created Ouillah account put the link back in with this edit [341]. When the link was removed a new personal attack was added here [342]. It used some of the same language as had been used in attacks by Scrooby here [343] and in other spots. Both editors have also edited without signing in. Scrooby from here 86.128.255.67 and Ouillah from here 86.154.217.173. Both of which trace to London, England. It is possible that this is a meat puppet rather than sock situation.

This request for a sock puppet check is part of an ongoing situation that has been noted here [344].

As this is the first time that I have ever used this page please feel free to let me know anything that I have left undone or done incorrectly.

Tonight a further diatribe against me by Scrooby has been added here [345] which includes that argument that because of the items that I have listed on my talk page (which are only a small sampling of a much larger set of interests) I should be limited to editing in only those areas. This is very similar to this edit by Ouillah [346] which includes the claim that I should have my academic qualifications listed before I am allowed to edit articles. MarnetteD | Talk 01:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

To provide some additional background: the disputed link is to a website that belongs to User:Scrooby (by his admission). It was first added to the article quite some time ago - I don't have the diff, but it was by an IP that Scrooby assures us was not him. On October 2, MarnetteD removed the link as spam [347]. Scrooby reinserted it later that day [348]. Marnette D removed it again [349], at which time Ouillah appears and, as his first edit, restores it again [350]. He then makes a very hostile series of posts on the article's talk page [351] [352]. If these users are in fact one and the same, it's clearly an abusive use of socks since they're participating in exactly the same content dispute. Sarcasticidealist 23:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just in the few talk edits made by Ouillah/86.154.217.173, I've found the following similarities to Scrooby/86.128.255.67:

Generally similar manner of speaking.
Frequent lower-casing of W in Wikipedia. Scooby, Ouillah.
Correct usage of period and end parenthesis in a completely parenthetical sentence. Scooby, Ouillah.
Referring to MarnetteD's user page as "wiki page". Scooby, Ouillah.

Unfortunately, I didn't find more blatant slip-ups like one signing for the other, etc., so this probably needs a WP:RFCU. For the record, this is the first addition of the external link I could find. The IP is from Canada, not England, so I assume is unrelated. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The entry from Canada mentioned above was made on August 8, 2006. Upon doing a little further research it turns out that there was an earlier attempt to add the webpage in question. The first time it was entered was here [353] on July 4, 2006. CRCulver deleted it as linkspam (unfortunately it looks as though this member is no longer editing at wikipedia) and a brief edit war over including it ensued culminating in this [354]. You will note that the IP address is 143.167.143.177. This address tracks to Sheffield, England. When you combine that with this information [355] you will find that it is possible that Scrooby was involved from the start. The connection to Montreal will remain unknown, but, this new information needs to be noted here due to the numerous legal threats that this editor has made. MarnetteD | Talk 14:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A further thought to be added that this case may be a meatpuppet rather than sockpuppet and the research added above may further that thought. MarnetteD | Talk 15:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated Use of My Real Name By Two Wikipedia Editors

For the record, both MarnetteD and Sarcasticidealist have used my Real Name in various places on Wikipedia to make libellous and defamatory comments about me on the basis of purely circumstantial, if not fatuous, terms. Obviously this is serious because an administrator somewhere is hopping about making changes. This situation is absolutely ludicrous, but I feel I have to persist in getting the IP addresses of these two editors who have defamed me repeatedly on Wikipedia.scrooby 05:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the recored the editor above used his real name first in this edit [356] and in this one [357]. He repeatedly used his real name in his attempts to keep his webpage (which also uses his real name) as an external link and in his personal attacks on me. He is also breaching WP:NLT with edits like this one [358] and in his message above. MarnetteD | Talk 11:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It also needs to be noted that User:Ouillah used his name in this edit [359] and that Ouillah's IP 86.154.217.173 used it in several followup edits yet there has been no request for this editor to be censured nor are there any legal threats on his talk page. MarnetteD | Talk 11:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Well? What are the conclusions? Telling, that there aren't any.
That is because the process is not yet finished. MarnetteD | Talk 11:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am satisfied that sockpuppetry has occurred. Combined with the legal threats and single purpose of the accounts, Scrooby and Ouillah have been blocked indefinitely and the three IPs above have been blocked for one month. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:EndoExo[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer: EndoExo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Summerluvin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Bushcarrot ^Talk _{Please Sign!} ^{Let's go Lightning!} 01:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Evidence

The behavior seems to be very much the same as EndoExo's other sockpuppets. The user socializes, and only made one edit, which was to Heroin (Contributions to Mainspace, edit to heroin).

Comments: My userpage is made out of elaborate code, but I copied it from Dfrg.msc. So that must mean I'm a sockpuppet, right? Bug off and quit bugging Summerluvin. She's not a sockpuppet. Just because someone knows how to make userpages doesn't mean they're a bloody sockpuppet. † Tyler † ^{(talk/contribs)} 03:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

User:Polarwolf admitted to me that Summerluvin was her cousin via my talk page. Not a sockpuppet. I have already apologized for inconvenience caused. Bushcarrot ^Talk _{Please Sign!} ^{Let's go Lightning!} 02:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Mobile_01[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Mobile_01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Mobile 01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
203.49.235.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Travb (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User:Bobblehead "...I'd probably characterize the undiscussed nature of the removal as vandalism, especially considering the editor is probably User:Mobile 01, who has a history of edit warring over the article in order to remove negative content." [360],
User:Brusegadi "Thanks. I agree with that." [361]
User:AnonEMouse "the similarities are large, the contention has been going on for a long time, and the last edits should be recent enough." [362]

...suspect both editors are the same.

Both editors edit the same pages:

With Firestone Tire and Rubber Company‎ both editors have been in protracted edit wars. User:203.49.235.50 has gotten a 3RR and edit warnings for this page.[363][364]

User:Mobile 01 continues to deny that she is this editor as recently as September 17[365]Travb (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Please see this [366] β^_command 04:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page lists all edits of anon and Mobile 01. Travb (talk) 08:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I'd say it's quite likely that the IP and User:Mobile 01 are the same person, but I don't see any obvious violations of WP:SOCK. If the accounts have been used to jointly violate 3RR, double vote, or engage in protracted edit warring, diffs should be presented, and then I'll consider blocking. But at this point I don't see a reason to do so. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Opp2[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Opp2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

Wikimachine 15:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

We know sock puppetry is going on, but not sure who. I just listed all the possible ones. The links definitely show that Opp2 is a sock puppet master of the anon accounts. Wikimachine 15:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boldlyman

Opp2 - possible sock puppet master

Phonemonkey

LactoseTI - possible sock puppet master

Macgruder

- Talk:Liancourt Rocks
- Talk:Liancourt Rocks

Komdori

- Talk:Liancourt Rocks
- Talk:Liancourt Rocks
- Liancourt Rocks
- An Jung-geun
- Talk:An Jung-geun —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimachine (talk • contribs) 20:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sennen goroshi - possible sock puppet master

Erikkukun

- An Jung-geun
- Talk:An Junge-geun
  - his/her contributions clearly shows that this one is a trash account.

Gogo Dodo

- Liancourt Rocks

Northwest1202

- Talk:Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598)
- Liancourt Rocks
- Liancourt Rocks
- Liancourt Rocks
  - This list of contributions shows that this is a trashaway sock puppet account.

All the annon accounts are trashaway accounts (click on contribs). They basically have 1 or 2 edits on reverts.

Further analysis - account creation

It's as if a lot of these accounts were created in masses over the course of several months just for the purpose of being sock puppets able to participate in disputes. They usually begin with the user page creation or one or two edits & then they don't do anything for basically 2 months. And then they have 1 or 2 edits & then they're inactive again (best example is Erikkukun & Northwest1202). It's as if they're being furnished to look like a normal account w/ no specific POV aims/interests. This furnishing business goes best with Gogo Dodo - I'm very curious about why s/he would only do these cleanup works (for one year, there's nothing else except cleanup, rvv, etc.) The first thing that s/he does is install popups on his/her monobook. It's as if s/he joined Wikipedia just to do that... wait, where & when did s/he get to find out about the monobook & popups to begin with? It just looks weird, & that one edit, where s/he masked a POV dispute edit as a vandalism (using popups) is where s/he gets caught. Note that Boldlyman does the same, although s/he starts much later since her account's creation. It's like, they want to make the accounts look legit by having edits other than ones on POV disputes & the easiest way to keep many accounts at once is to have their accounts perform those "redirects" and "rvv" and "spelling" corrections. And for Macgruder, his/her account began in December 2004 but w/ only 1 edit nothing happened for 4 months. Then s/he immediately strikes Liancourt Rocks page. And then Macgruder spends billion edits on Liancourt Rocks whenever there is a dispute. Wow. Either Komdori or LactoseTI is controlling Macgruder. Definitely. Also, I think that, as I've said in the arbitration case, Komdori is not a Korean but he says he is (but all his edits are pro-JP, which he excuses w/ Wikipedia's NPOV policy.) Again, this should bring some light into his mal intention, & little reason to doubt that he's not related to this sock puppetry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimachine (talk • contribs) 20:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This not to say that Opp2 is the sockpuppet master of all of these accounts. It's just that I'm not sure which are which. It's my guess that Macgruder is a sockpuppet of LactoseTI. Opp2 controls all the anon accounts in addition to Boldlyman. Accusation on Gogo Dodo is very weak, since he edited Liancourt Rocks only once, but he usually makes clean-up, minor edits - I don't know why he'd ever participate in the Liancourt Rocks dispute (w/o discussion). It may be that someone like user:LactoseTI are furnishing/creating a "clean account" (i.e. 3rd opinion). It may also be that Phonemonkey is a sock puppet of Komdori or Sennen goroshi. Sennen goroshi seems to control Northwest1202 and Erikkukun.

In summary, I suspect not only Opp2, but also Komdori, LactoseTI, and user:Sennen goroshi of being sock puppet masters, and the rest as sock puppets. (Wikimachine 15:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

In conclusion, I suggest that there be a WP:RFCU in tandem with this discussion. That'd clear out the ambiguities. (Wikimachine 20:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Comments: There is a related arbitration case pending at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks. If there is any substance to this request, it should be addressed in the arbitration. Newyorkbrad 14:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed temporary injunctions of this report into Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks/Workshop, because this report includes three involved parties of ongoing arbitration and was submitted by proposer of the arbitration. This report should be suspended. --Nightshadow28 15:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nightshadow, explain further. I'm not sure why this report should be delayed. The arbitration should not deal with sock puppets to begin with & half of the guys are not in the arbitration anyways. (Wikimachine 20:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The arbitration is the best place for you which solves this dispute, including "socks matter". As the one who requested the arbitration you'll have to take on the responsibility of resolving dispute via that place. But, in fact, prepareing of next "silver bullet"[367] shows that this report is very unreliable, doesn't it? --Nightshadow28 16:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding it hard to have faith in wikimachine and believe that these accusations are not just a ploy related to the Liancourt issues. oh and...of course I'm not a sock puppet or a sock puppet master, wikimachine do you honestly think I care so much about editing a page that I would go to the trouble or creating alter-egos just to win an internet argument? Anyway, anyone who can be bothered to can checkuser me, compare my IPs, or do whatever other devious checks they require - I do not control any sock puppets, neither am I a sock puppet of any other user.Sennen goroshi 18:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I don't find this compelling at all. It looks like you've just scooped up everyone who has edited Liancourt Rocks and tagged them all as sockpuppets, including at least one administrator. I've removed some of your SSP userpage tags. I think you need to present more compelling evidence, such as linguistic and behavioural evidence and/or a positive Checkuser before you can expect people to maintain sockpuppet tags on their userpages. The SSP tags are reputation damaging and it just isn't fair to slap them around based on what looks to me like pretty flimsy evidence. If you come up with compelling evidence, I will happily go and restore the tags, but I notice on the RfArb there is a motion to suspend this SSP and in light of that, it would seem particularly unfair to maintain these tags on their userpages indefinitely. Sarah 22:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really, I thought that Wikipedia recommended this before WP:RFCU. Who's the administrator who's been tagged? (Wikimachine 03:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Please see [368] β^_command 20:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I'm closing this, because all requests for investigation of alleged sockpuppet activity should be part of the arbitration case. Furthermore, as Sarah notes above, the evidence presented here is not compelling, and even if the arbitration were not ongoing I would close this case with no action. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Dob4lifeo[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Dob4lifeo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Sneebly07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

-- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 11:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Comments

Sneebly07 seems to be editing the same articles that Dob4lifeo vandalised, usually making references to Sean Snee

Conclusions: Unlikely see [369] β^_command 04:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'd say it's quite likely. But these are throwaway vandalism only accounts, so who cares? --Akhilleus (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Mightyms[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Mightyms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

76.204.176.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Accounting4Taste 19:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User:76.204.176.148 is making edits to Luca de Alfaro, an article up for deletion, that are very similar to edits made very shortly before by User:Mightyms, who is under a block for his/her behaviour with respect to a different article.

Comments

This is the first time I've ever reported a suspected sockpuppet so if I have acted inappropriately, or neglected to do something that needed to be done, I'd appreciate guidance; I'm acting in good faith.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Accounting4Taste (talk • contribs)

Everything about this report is correct; you did a fine job, Accounting4Taste. This IP is almost certainly Mightyms, since it started on many pages right where Mightyms left off [370] [371] [372] [373] [374]. That said, the block achieved its preventative purpose of stopping the soapboxing on the AFD. Although block evasion is a serious matter, I'd be inclined to warn about block evasion rather than reset the block, as I think resetting would probably just inflame the situation. Since I'm involved, I'll ask for another admin's input.--chaser - t 08:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reset and increased the block to 48 hours due to block evasion. Mightyms blatently just disregarded the block and carried on where he left off with his IP which is out of order. Ryan Postlethwaite 08:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I now note that Mightyms has been blocked indefinitely for himself being a sockpuppet of a banned user, SallyForth123. I don't know if this needs to be noted here, but I thought I'd try and make things plain for any administrator who comes along and see this. Accounting4Taste 20:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Mightyms blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of a banned editor.--chaser - t 20:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alinob77 (2nd)[edit]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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.
Suspected sockpuppeteer

Alinob77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Devonshirep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Ogilevye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Rollistong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Improbcat 18:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Alinob77 for users previous four socks. Previous socks were banned & user received a 2 week block early this morning.

Two new socks were created and immediately edited the same discussion as the previous four socks[375] [376] (deletion review for an article Alinob77 is trying to get restored).
Suspected socks use same writing style as Alinob77 & previous socks, and one sock removes strikeouts through previous sock comments & multiple votes by Alinob77.

Comments

All socks have been blocked by admin. IMO, the sockpuppeteer (User:Alinob77) should have his block extended because he obviously did not learn from his 2 week block this morning. - Rjd0060 18:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, it was extended already. See the block log. - Rjd0060 18:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Yeah, I had an interruption before I extended the block. This can be archived by someone who knows this process' system. GRBerry 18:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alinob77[edit]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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.
Suspected sockpuppeteer

Alinob77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Rubesnsteinh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Ogradyr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Goldberg32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Jacksons1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Rjd0060 23:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

All four of these accounts were created with 60 minutes of each other. See the user creation logs: Rubesnsteinh , Ogradyr , Goldberg32 , and Jacksons1.

The only contributions from any of the four accounts, are contributions endorsing the sockpuppeteers opinion (to undelete an article) on a Deletion Review discussion for the Ronald A. Carson article here.

Notice all three comments from the sockpuppets have similarities with each other, as well as with the sockpuppeteer.

Comments

Conclusions

All accounts blocked. · AndonicO ^Talk 02:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Motorrad-67[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Motorrad-67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: 76.201.144.34‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

— Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 20:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

The puppeteer has a problem with User:Liftarn, vandalising his talk page[377], and has also complained about Liftarn's actions on his own talk page[378]. The IP has vandalised Liftarn's user page, essentially making the same complaint[379]. I believe the use of the IP is intended to allow vandalising of the page while avoiding sanctions. Checkuser requested

Comments

Perhaps it wouls also be an idea to do a checkuser with Jeff dean (talk · contribs). Same attitude regarding the images and an interest in BWM motorcycles. // Liftarn

The IP is probably Motorrad, though it could be an impersonator. I don't think you'd get a checkuser for this fairly minor vandalism. We have to watch out for privacy policy concerns in revealing someone's IP address. Anyway, this was minor vandalism that has stopped, and Motorrad-67 seems to have left the project. I've semi-protected User:Liftarn. I don't think any further action is required at this time.--chaser - t 07:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

No sockpuppetry determination necessary.--chaser - t 07:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:dominik92[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

dominik92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

24.64.106.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
24.64.112.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
24.64.105.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
24.66.196.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
24.64.126.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
24.64.125.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

--Lepeu1999 13:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

All URL's trace to the same small town in western Canada. All users above have made the same, specific vandalism to the article Saving Private Ryan with the most recent occurring today (adding the word 'propaganda' to the introduction.

Comments

Puppetmaster and socks have made numerous destructive edits including blanking my userpage. Puppetmaster has made some constructive edits as well as some of the socks but all have vandalized the article mentioned above as well as other.

Conclusions

The IPs are quite clearly the same person, since Dominik92 says he lives in Canada and has made the same edit calling "Saving Private Ryan" a propaganda film three times [380] [381] [382] both before [383] and after [384] that range (btw, Calgary's no small town). I'm not going to block any of the (probably dynamic) IP addresses, but I'll consider any other POV-pushing like this from that IP range to be coming from Dominik92 and will block accordingly. In the meantime, I've semiprotected User:Lepeu1999. I'm not semiprotecting Saving Private Ryan because the vandalism is currently too intermittent to justify it. If there's a sudden spate of vandalism, anyone may request semiprotection at WP:RFPP.--Chaser - T 18:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Anoshirawan[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Anoshirawan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Rudaki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Raoulduke47 12:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

The Rudaki account started editing the Ahmad Shah Massoud article([385]) a short while after Anoshirawan was blocked ( [386]). He has made the same kind of edits as Anoshirawan on this article:

Replacing "Afghan" with "Afghanistani": [387]. Anoshirawan frequently makes this kind of controversial edit: [388], [389]. He has been blocked three times for edit warring on this question( [390], [391], [392] ) .

"Rudaki" has also changed "Afghan" to "Khorasani": [393], [394]. This is a slight variation from the above, but is consistent with Anoshirawan's earlier attempts to change History of Afghanistan to "history of Afghanistan(Khorasan)": [395].

After his block expired, Anoshirawan made exactly the same kind of edit to the Ahmed Shah Massoud article: [396].

"Rudaki" has exchanged messages with only one user, User:Beh-nam, who is a long-term associate of Anoshirawan ([397], [398]).

It is my impression that Anoshirawan created the Rudaki account in order to evade his block, and to be able to engage in edit wars without breaking the WP:3RR rule. Could somebody please confirm this? --Raoulduke47 12:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Of course merely having different IPs is not dispositive, one may well have access to different routes to the Internet at home, at work, at a friend's house, at a public library or Internet Cafe; not to mention IP address spoofing. Even if Rudaki is not a sockpuppet of Anoshirawan, Anoshirawan and Rudaki could both consider tempering their edits with advice from knowledgeable administrators. Will they (or she/he) get some good advice in this process? --Bejnar 23:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I wouldn't be surprised if this User:Rudaki was actually User:Bejnar who tries to get User:Anoshirawan banned due to his differences on certain articles. I advice any Admins to be careful with this case as this trick has been done before to others. -- Behnam 03:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's a common tactic in this area, this case should probably be sent to WP:RFCU. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a common tactic. It's just a baseless accusation against Bejnar, a respectable user whose only fault is to have contradicted Behnam. Raoulduke47 16:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before accusing me go and check my IP. I only have one account on wikipedia and this is a mistake. I was also accused of being Tajik a few months ago. --Anoshirawan 23:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoshirawan (talk • contribs)

Conclusions

Rudaki is obviously either a disruptive sock or impersonator of someone and I have blocked the account indefinitely. Newbies don't usually learn how to create userpages in their first diff [399]. If future incidents like this come up, a checkuser request may be warranted.--Chaser - T 07:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anoshirawan , has been changing numbers of Kabul province and Afghanistan ethnic percentage. I have clearly stated that the numbers on the map do not equal the site which has been used but its been ignored till this day. The numbers have been taken from AIMS.ORG.AF BUT IT DOES NOT MATCH THE MAP AT ALL. ALSO I have recently changed the ethnic percentage for Kabul province with more reliable source which is MRRD Government ran website which states Kabul province 60% Pashtun speakers and 40% Dari speakers. This will be changed soon by Anoshirawan to old numbers which has never been reliable nor any reliable source been provided to proof those numbers.Shikab--Shikab (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Rogue Gremlin[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Rogue Gremlin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Posah-tai-vo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

JerryGraf 16:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

1. Rogue Gremlin, since the creation of his account, has contributed to some 20 articles. Posah-Tai-vo has, since the creation of his account (within one month of the creation of Rogue's), contributed to exactly six articles including Burt Reynolds, Okefenokee Swamp, Kadee Strickland, and Hugh Hefner. Four of these were articles also contributed to by Rogue Gremlin. The odds against these coincidences are astronomical and an investigation is warranted based on this alone.

2. In the four articles in which they both happen to be contributing, they always share the same view, using the same arguments. In the following example, they each argue for Georgia as the birthplace of Burt Reynolds despite the absence of a single other editor’s agreement. Rogue Gremlin edit, Posah-tai-vo edit

3. The language used by Rogue Gremlin and Posah-Tai-Vo are remarkably similar. The most obvious fingerprint is that each of them uses the highly irregular phrase: “not to mention” often in their writings. Here are three examples of Rogue Gremlin using this phrase (there are many more.)

Ex1

Ex2

Ex3

4. In September, Rogue Gremlin became embroiled in an edit debate with me regarding Hugh Hefner. On 9/25/07 Posah-Tai-Vo came in to (vigorously) support Rogue on the Hugh Hefner talk page. In using this suspected Sockpuppet for this reason, Rogue violated Wikipedia rules forbidding the use of Sockpuppets for “voting and other shows of support.” He uses the same exact arguments and the same phrasing as Rogue Gremlin, including the matched fingerprint “not to mention.” Posah-tai-vo edit

Later the same day Rogue Gremlin then (of course) alludes to the “support” he has garnered for his argument:

Ex4

Finally, Posah-Tai-Vo then panders to Rogue in a manner completely consistent with Sock Puppetry

I believe there is probably cause to suspect that Posah-Tai-Vo is a sock puppet of Rogue Gremlin.

Comments

According to Wikipedia rules, in cases of accusations of sock puppetry, the suspected Sockmaster must leave notice on his talk page for at least ten days. Rogue Gremlin removed the notice within 23 minutes. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARogue_Gremlin&diff=161597563&oldid=161592414 JerryGraf 19:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

The evidence is very strong. I have blocked the sockpuppet indef, and the master for 3 months. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 01:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just reset the block after catching an additional sock Dead_velvet_elvis (talk · contribs) Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:PPG2007[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

PPG2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

WizaJoanna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
85.221.140.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Mimi09875 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
PPG2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
PPG345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User:PPG2007 has been blocked for sockpuppetry [400]. One of this user's behavior was to repeatedly add disputed material to List of characters in Camp Lazlo, to the point where a full-blown edit war ensued, prompting full-protection of that page. Protection is still active. Some of edits PPG2007 performed are:

[401]
[402]
[403]

There is more, which should be available at the history, but I am using these examples to illuminate the users persistence in adding material to "Squirrel Scouts", which has been (consensually) considered irrelevant. Once the article in question went into full-protect, this user posts on the talk page demanding that they be allowed to add this same material:

[404]

What causes me to consider the two accounts as sock puppets of the blocked PPG2007 user:

User:WizaJoanna recently created a new (and now-redirected, but not by me) page List Of Bean Scouts in Camp Lazlo, and edited the template Template:Camp Lazlo to include not only this "new" page, but adding a "Squirrel Scouts" link (which doesn't exist) [405].
At the same time, User:85.221.140.91 edits the "main" Camp Lazlo page to add a link to the (non-existent) "Squirrel Scouts" article.

The time-frame is within minutes of each other:

04:04 - User:85.221.140.91 edits Camp Lazlo, introducing two new links: Bean Scouts, and Squirrel Scouts. At this point, neither of those articles existed. [406]
04:13 - User:WizaJoanna creates the Bean Scouts article (which was redir'ed at 04:18, by another editor, probably someone who was on NP patrol) [407]
04:16 - User:WizaJoanna edits Template:Camp Lazlo for to include links for both of these articles [408].

The time involved makes me think that User:85.221.140.91 and User:WizaJoanna are the same person; the material involved, all centered around "Squirrel Scouts", makes me suspect that they're puppets of User:PPG2007 (who's history appears to be highly focused on the "Squirrel Scouts"

added User:Mimi09875, based on contribs Special:Contributions/Mimi09875, forking Main Characters in Camp Lazlo to circumvent full protection on List of characters in Camp Lazlo.

Comments

I looked carefully at some of the evidence. The time-frame coincidence makes it certain that the account and IP listed as suspected sock puppets are the same person. Whether these are the main account is less clear to me, but I would say it's a safe guess. I'll ask User talk:Persian Poet Gal what she thinks; she blocked the main account and would recognize the pattern. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 01:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Sorry I didn't get to this sooner! I have blocked all the suspected sockpuppets listed due to the correlation of editing the Camp Lazo articles and creation of the article fork. User:WizaJoanna and User:Mimi09875 have been block indefinitely. The IP address has been blocked for a week.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. 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:Polygamy4[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Polygamy4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Polygamy4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Polygamyx4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Polygamist times 4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Polygamistx4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
203.87.127.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
203.192.92.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Dtm142 21:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

All of them have identical styles of writing, interpreting Wikipedia policies, and contributions such as to Family First Party, Talk:Transsexualism, and some Australian Christianity articles. The IPs are both blocked due to edit warring and abusive sockpuppetry. Polygamy4, x4, and istx4 linger on inappropriate username as well.

Comments

Yawn. (It's 10:30 PM where I live right now.) It's painfully obvious that these are all the same user, based on the similar usernames and editing patterns. All accounts should be blocked indefinitely. The self-identification of this person as a polygamist is a borderline violation of username policy, and if this person ever returns, he should create a name that does not involve polygamy. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whats wrong with that, you dont have a problem going around telling everyone your are a jew? Its old accounts that stopped working because of passwords screwing up. I just have one account this one and only use one at a time. If you persectute me, ill just have to change ips (takes about 5 minutes) then odviously create a new id completely different(Hiding myself) instead of being open (which is not a sock puppet) then I wont be able to go to certain pages so will have to work on ones I really dont care about and just give up on contributing worth while editing this blog site just for fun and justice--Polygamistx4 03:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your IP sockpuppets are both blocked (block evasion, which is against the rules). It would still be ban evasion. And Wikipedia is not a blog. Dtm142 03:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but if you delete an account which im contriubiting with because of you funfair and biased against me, what can i do. Your choice.--Polygamistx4 04:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

First let me say that there's nothing here (other than perhaps evading 3RR) that constitutes forbidden sockpuppetry. That said, I am blocking Polygamistx4 as almost all of his contributions are to talk pages, and he admittedly is treating Wikipedia as a discussion/debate site instead of an encyclopedia. There are legions of other sites that do serve that purpose. Wikipedia does not. As to the other accounts with forgotten passwords, I won't block those unless they begin editing again. Just drop a note by my talk page, please.--Chaser - T 08:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]