Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tyciol/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Tyciol

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


The talk page refactoring between these two editors are very similar. Tyciol was notorious for refactoring talk pages under the claim that they were "saving space" and was among the reasons the editor was eventually blocked.[1][2][3] Most telling is that Dictabeard also includes adding first level "year" headings to talk pages[4][5] just like Tyciol had done. —Farix (t | c) 13:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. I couldn't read that user compare thing you linked so I'm not sure what it says. Not sure how to defend, am I really the first guy to add years since him? DB (talk) 02:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do find it awfully coincidental that Tyciol just responded to a number of TheFarix's posts over on animenewsnetwork.com (neither are very regular posters), then I happen over here and see this topic come up via TheFarix's talk page which is on my watchlist. Shiroi Hane (talk) 04:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • He just "friend requested" me over on AnimeSuki's forums. I guess he is going to start staking me off Wikipedia now. —Farix (t | c) 11:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  •  Clerk declined - Sorry, Tyciol is a really stale account, so we can't run a CU. This'll have to be determined by behavior. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold – Pending investigation from the Arbitration Committee on this. –MuZemike 07:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Completed Accounts have been checked, and Dictabeard has been blocked. Relevant information forwarded to the Arbitration Committee. No further action necessary. Tiptoety talk 05:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
25 July 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Obvious sock is obvious. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


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

AwesomeCoffee is a  Confirmed match to Dictabeard (talk · contribs). TNXMan 19:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

02 September 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

This IP claimed to be a sock of Tyciol here: [6]. As Tyciol is indef'd per ArbCom, this is block evasion. ~ RobTalk 01:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


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

  • Dynamic IP, short block issued. Closing/archiving. Courcelles (talk) 04:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

12 July 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


The Editor Interaction Analyzer of Tyciol and Ranze: https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=Ranze&users=Tyciol&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki&allusers=on shows that they share the exact same interest in anime, paedophilia, wrestling, and bodybuilding - interests that only a small amount of people have. I suspect the only person who has all of these interests at once is the person behind these accounts. Not only that, but they share interests in rather obscure areas: "Calorie restriction" and "Neoteny" for one - Tyciol has long since had a interest in longevity and such and he's discussed neoteny in the past on off-Wiki blogs.

The Editor Interaction Analyzer of Ranze and ScratchMarshall: https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=Ranze&users=ScratchMarshall&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki&allusers=on shows that they have common interests: children's shows, anime, exercise (the "bench press" bit at the very bottom) along with gender related issues (both of them have edited the People v. Turner article: if ScratchMarshall is a sock, not only are they likely a sock of an arbcom-banned editor, but they're also violating their topic ban from gender-related issues if he's a sock of Ranze).

The Editor Interaction Analyzer of Tyciol and ScratchMarshall: https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=ScratchMarshall&users=Tyciol&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki&allusers=on - shows clearly that he has the same interests as Tyciol - wrestling, anime, paedophilia and exercise. They also share a interest in "Seiza", which, from what the history of that article informs me, isn't edited very much.

The Editor Interaction Analyzer of all three accounts: https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=Tyciol&users=ScratchMarshall&users=Ranze&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki&allusers=on - show that they have the same interest in articles like "I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry", "Encyclopedia Dramatica", and all have edited the "Kane" article talk page (referring to a famous wrestler here).

Tyciol, Ranze, and ScratchMarshall all share a habit of making a lot of redirects and articles - as far as I remember, Tyciol was a inclusionist and his other socks were too. This links them as well.

Tyciol, from what I've been able to tell, seems to have become alt-right - he signed up for Kings Wiki, a wiki that was formerly hosted by Roosh V. Tyciol was quickly banned. This fits with Ranze being blocked for 3 months for editing on GamerGate and gender related topics and ScratchMarshall being topic-banned due to conspiracy theorising on talk pages. Lolifan (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ScratchMarshall: Aye, I have a interest in the subjects myself - one can say an obsession with it, but I must strongly reject that Flyer22 Reborn is any "coach" of mine. While we share somewhat common interests, (human sexuality, paraphilias, etc) that doesn't make us in any way connected aside from me reporting my suspicions of sockpuppetry to her, as she's the one who often spots them. I, for example, would probably get along well with you on our favourite types of anime/manga, but this doesn't mean we're related. Lolifan (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I'm no puppet! "interest in anime, paedophilia" sounds like Lolifan's username. Did his coach notice? ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above evidence is pretty convincing. and I'm pretty sure I can add more later today when I have more time. ScratchMarshall and Ranze are almost certainly the same user.[7] - MrX 🖋 13:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Different users. User_talk:MrX/Archive/January-March_2018#I_require_some_clarification documents our previous interaction, you have a natural interest in burying the reputation of anyone with a valid grievance against you. ScratchMarshall (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One does seem to have picked up where the other left off: Ranze (17 June 2012 - 19 February 2017); ScratchMarshall (2 March 2017 - present). I noticed at the time that Scratch's comments at Talk: Unite the Right rally were more sophisticated than what we typically see from a new user. Taken together, the evidence is quite compelling. –dlthewave ☎ 15:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't a new user then, August 2017 is 5 months after March 2017. That's long enough to learn the importance of reading warnings at the top of talk pages like Biography of Living Persons policy. Apparently I wasn't sophisticated enough to interpret it adequately though, I'm indefinitely blocked from writing biographies, for very unmalicious and innocent reasons which I am not allowed to explain in detail under threat of being blocked. Proving the earth is round is apparently feeding a fire of conspiracy that it is flat. ScratchMarshall (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Whether Tyciol or Ranze (if those two are different people), ScratchMarshall is a sock. Like I stated in this ANI thread, "When ScratchMarshall was being disruptive at the Child sexual abuse article and by creating a WP:POVFORK on the topic and other POVFORKs, I called him out as a sock. He didn't respond, which further confirmed my suspicion. I contacted a WP:CheckUser about him. The CheckUser [ Berean Hunter ] was also concerned and ran a check, but it turned out that ScratchMarshall had recently been checked by a different CheckUser, which I think is because I'd identified ScratchMarshall as a sock. There are a few admins/CheckUsers, such as Berean Hunter, who are very much aware of the usual child sexual abuse POV-pushers who return as socks. These POV-pushing editors have other interests as well. So they don't simply focus on child sexual abuse topics. Anyway, ScratchMarshall was not tied to a previous account, but suspicion about him being a past problematic account remains. And just to be clear, at the time I became aware of ScratchMarshall, I did examine his edit history, from his very first sock-like edit (meaning his 'I need to turn this user page blue with whatever to blend in' edit) to his latest edit. Not a newbie." ScratchMarshall also recently thanked me via WP:Echo for this old 2016 edit at WP:My little brother did it; it was obviously his way of stating that he doesn't believe a little brother was involved and/or doesn't believe that I was innocent regarding my own sock blocks. It's the typical "but you socked too, Flyer" response I get from editors who either can't take the time to do their research on the matter (for starters, by reading and comprehending exactly what my block log states) or just don't care and want to make me look dirty too. Same type of mind game that Tyciol or Ranze would be up for. And as a response to ScratchMarshall's thank you, I point to what I stated when recently busting a sock (yeah, just scroll down to the end there). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Replying in parts:
    "I called him out as a sock. He didn't respond, which further confirmed my suspicion."
    If you sent me a message it's possible I might've read it and been too tired to want to engage you at that moment, and then forgotten, I wouldn't take it personally. When someone begins openly name-calling it isn't really an invitation to want to engage with them.
    "I did examine his edit history, from his very first sock-like edit (meaning his 'I need to turn this user page blue with whatever to blend in' edit)"
    I don't see how wanting to make a user page is any proof someone is a sock. Do you expect others to weight 8 years to make a user page like you? I noticed Ranze's name above was red when dlthewave linked it
    It's the typical "but you socked too, Flyer" response I get from editors
    I don't know whether or not you did. Your user page is interesting. A thank for your comma is not admitting guilt. Do you expect complete disinterest after leaving your suggestion and promise to your lolifan?
    "reading and comprehending exactly what my block log states"
    Your page protested so much about it, and now more, that's more interesting to me than whatever reasons are left in a block log summary. I know from my experiences in March with Acroterion and TonyBallioni that such summaries do not deserve inherent trust. ScratchMarshall (talk) 00:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't care less what you think, including with your idiotic "protested so much" claim. It's understandable why I would explain the matter on my user page when there are people like you who can't comprehend block logs. I'm not on trial here; you are. If you want to think that Alison and all the other admins lied for me and are still lying for me, you can go right on thinking that. But I was cleared. You are not yet cleared. And regardless of you being cleared in this case, it is evident to any long-term/experienced editor that you are a sock. Yes, it is highly unusual for a newbie to create a user page upon arrival, and especially with nothing but a damn dot or some silly comment. And then there are your other non-newbie edits. But go ahead -- feel free to keep claiming you were a newbie when first editing as this account. I couldn't possibly know what I'm talking about, what with all of the sock behaviors and antics I'm familiar with and with all of the socks I've caught. As for red-linked user pages, long-term editors with a red user page are in the significant minority. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And as for "A thank for your comma is not admitting guilt.", no one said anything about admitting guilt. I was clear that you thanked me there at that page (for an old edit that needed no thanking) to be antagonizing. You clearly did; so do not bother denying it. I've dealt with editors like you no telling how many times. Like I stated on your talk page, if you continue to thank me via WP:Echo, if you start following me or showing up at articles I significantly edit, you will find yourself at WP:ANI. Make no mistake about it, you will be reprimanded there if you continue. And just in case Alison wants to weigh in on Tyciol or the fact that she blocked me and later unblocked me, I've gone ahead and pinged her. But I doubt she will feel that she needs to justify herself to you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see the convenient "lolifan" accuser perfectly fits your criteria of not having a user page. I guess that means lolifan could not possibly be a sock puppet. Not suspicious at all how lolifan showed up in April and immediately make 15 edits, go inactive except for 2 token edits in May, and then decide to contact you in particular out of the blue for some reason. How much planning have you put into this? ScratchMarshall (talk) 03:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no criteria; only experience/knowledge (which includes knowing that socks sometimes try to throw off those who can identify them as socks). As seen on Lolifan's talk page, my experience/knowledge (or, more accurately, common sense) led me to identify Lolifan as a "newly registered account who appears familiar with the ins and outs of Wikipedia." I also called Lolifan suspicious. Lolifan isn't sweating it, though. Lolifan might be an illegitimate sock or an editor who has legitimately returned, or an editor legitimately using an alternative account. WP:LEGITSOCK does exist, after all. At least Lolifan is not claiming to be new. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note: For anyone who thinks it took me eight years to create a user page, it didn't. I created one after Elonka told me how important it is to create one to blend in since experienced editors respond a certain way (dismissively or warily) to red-linked accounts...unless knowing that the red-linked account is not a newbie. Experienced socks have learned this as well. In 2015, I had the history of my user page wiped, which is why the first 2015 edit summary states, "Revamp again." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additional evidence from MrX
  • Ranze and ScratchMarshall frequently pose novel theories about subjects, using speculation and original research, often containing questions: Ranze [8][9]; ScratchMarshall [10][11]Extensively documented here
  • Ranze and ScratchMarshall cited justice.gov in unusual contexts: Ranze [12]; ScratchMarshall [13]

- MrX 🖋 15:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

replies to MrX:

  1. Addressing the specifics of why (Personal attack removed) about my edits to Hogg's page would violate my topic ban. I think you are aware of that. A document titled "Meese" didn't make it clear who the name referred to, I was trying to figure out who it meant. Neither of these have anything to do with porn or the Donald Trump baby balloon.
  2. I was only repeating the link that Markbasset had posted here that you didn't realize this shows me you were not reading the entire conversation or perhaps "just don't care and want to make me look dirty" as your 2015 plugger would put it. ScratchMarshall (talk) 00:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Showing redacted diffs isn't possible, I remember the neutrality of what I wrote and the lack of neutrality in your accusations. This is an obvious pre-emptive pile-on to prevent me appealing that case in the future once the usual lurkers bore and there are fresh ears. ScratchMarshall (talk) 02:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Based on the CU logs and the behavioral evidence, I've blocked and tagged ScratchMarshall. The CU log of the master shows that SM edits from the same geographic area. The CU log for Ranze shows that SM is using two IPs in the same range as one Ranze used. I have not blocked Ranze because they haven't edited in a year and a half. If they resume, please reopen this case or contact me on my Talk page. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

21 March 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


This one's a ride. There's similar xwiki overlap as other socks (See also EphFan, blocked and locked but not tagged here), with activity covering en.wiki, en.quote, and en.source, all for a user with less than 50 global edits. Same recent preoccupation with the Christchurch shootings (EphFan didn't edit on Christchurch here, but did on elsewhere, Oranginger registered and immediately got involved in multiple Christchurch related discussion). Same preoccupation with far right politics generally. Then Oranginger shows up at q:Talk:Adolf Hitler and starts asking about issues with German translation, which is the same thing another previous sock ScratchMarshall was want to do. That Oranginger registered their account two hours and 36 minutes after the last sock was globally locked doesn't strike me as a coincidence either. GMGtalk 17:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


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

 Confirmed.  Blocked without tags. @GreenMeansGo: Wonderful presentation of evidence; thanks. @Ajraddatz: Can you please globally lock the account?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20 December 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Based on username and overlap in activity, Edit5000 is plainly the same editor as Edit5001.

The two main areas of overlap with previous socks are Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors, and Unite the Right rally (specifically regarding the Charlottesville car attack).

Tyciol and socks have edited the Legal status article periodically since at least 2009. Ranze in 2016 and 2017, and ScratchMarshall in 2018. PseudoAnoNym edited in 2010 There are others, as well, but you get the idea.

Edit5000 made changes to the Legal status article which were reverted and the article was protected. That account made no other edits. Edit5001's first series of edits was a long post the protecting admin's talk page defending these changes. Edit5001 has also edited this article directly, and its spinoff Simulated child pornography in the United States (which was later merged back). Edit5000 and Edit5001's edits specifically adjusts the paragraphs discussing United States v. Handley, which has long been a focus of these accounts.

Edit5001 has also edited regarding the Unite the Right rally and related articles. Edit5001's changes attempt to unduly imply that protesters and counter-protesters were equally responsible for violence. ScratchMarshall was disruptive in repeated attempts to whitewash the car attack that killed a protester and injured 19 others, for which the attacker was convicted of murder. Compare this edit from a sock, which attempts to present the attack as justifiable, to this edit from Edit5001 which misrepresents a source to similar ends. All of this is consistent with Tyciol's previous attempts to overwhelm this specific area of these articles with superficially relevant minutia to make the attack seem somehow justified. An example would be the attempt to rename the Charlottesville attack article to imply it was merely a "collision". The talk pages' archives include many, many more examples. Grayfell (talk) 07:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

@Oshwah and Bbb23: Sorry to butt in, but does this mean Tyciol hasn't been socking? I know this user has a long history of socking and trolling on other sites... EvergreenFir (talk) 05:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: I'm not sure I understand what you mean, but all I'm saying is that Tyciol has not been socking with Edit5000/1.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: ah, ok. I had misunderstood, thinking none of the socks were Tyciol's but rather Edit5000's. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this isn't Tyciol, what's the policy violation? Edit5000 did 5 edits on 17 September 2019, and never edited again. Edit5001 made edits only after that. That isn't abusing multiple accounts. Yes, he could have identified the previous account on his userpage, but maybe he's new and didn't know. In any case, he wasn't probably hiding this based on the similarity of the names. @Edit5001:, I suggest you appeal this block on your talkpage with the {{unblock}}-template (for some reason he wasn't given this instruction on his talkpage?) --Pudeo (talk) 10:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • @Oshwah: Edit5001 is Red X Unrelated to Tyciol. They edit from different countries.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bbb23 - Interesting... They were both created on the same day. What are you're thoughts regarding the two accounts? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Oshwah: I assume the two accounts are the same person. It's not like they tried to hide the fact. The other account is stale. In any event, they are not Tyciol. If you want to keep them blocked, fine, but I'd remove the tags.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bbb23 - I agree, and I appreciate the recommendation; I've removed the tags from both accounts. I'm also going to move this SPI report and set Edit5000 as the master. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:02, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oshwah I'm not sure what you think you're doing, but I reversed those moves. Please create a new SPI for the two users instead. Sro23 (talk) 05:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sro23 - Oh! Right... I moved all of the history when I did that, and a redirect isn't correct either, and... yeahhhh... Oops! That was my bad; thank you for reverting and fixing... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

03 February 2024[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

This IP editor reminds me of a previously blocked IP sock, 65.94.138.239 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Compare global contributions: [14][15]. gnu57 12:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some other IPs he used between 2022 and 2023:

gnu57 14:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tyciol/Archive&oldid=1211982943"