The '''suspected sock puppets''' page is where [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedians]] discuss if a fellow Wikipedian has violated Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry|policy on sock puppets]]. Cases on this page are evaluated primarily on the basis of behavioral evidence, and the editors and administrators who look at the reports typically do not have the ability to determine what IP addresses Wikipedia editors are using. If you believe your case requires an IP check, please go to [[WP:RCU|requests for checkuser]].
'''''Alice in Wonderland''''' is a [[2010s in film|2010]] [[live action]] / [[motion capture]] [[fantasy film]] directed by [[Tim Burton]] and based on the novel ''[[Alice's Adventures in Wonderland]]''. [[Mia Wasikowska]] will portray [[Alice (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland)|Alice]]. The film is due for release on March 19, 2010.
Sometimes users who appear to work with a common agenda are not sockpuppets (one user, multiple accounts), but multiple users editing with the sole purpose of backing each other up, often called "[[WP:MEAT|meatpuppets]]." Meatpuppets are not regular Wikipedians who happen to agree with each other; they are accounts set up by separate individuals for the sole purpose of supporting one another. For the purposes of upholding policy, Wikipedia does not distinguish between meatpuppets and sockpuppets. Please see [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry]].
==Cast==
<!-- Please do not add without a reliable source. IMDB is user-contributed and unreliable.-->
* '''[[Mia Wasikowska]]''' as '''[[Alice (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland)|Alice]]'''<ref name=Mia>{{cite news | author = Gregg Goldstein | url = http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3ifb184e208a328349dfd5290665fa6854 | title = Tim Burton finds his Alice | date = 2008-07-23 | work = [[The Hollywood Reporter]] | accessdate = 2008-08-15}}</ref>
*'''[[Johnny Depp]]''' as the '''[[Mad Hatter]]'''<ref name=lucas/>
*'''[[Helena Bonham Carter]]''' as the '''[[Red Queen (Through the Looking Glass)|Red Queen]]'''<ref name=hathaway/>
*'''[[Anne Hathaway]]''' as the '''[[White Queen (Through the Looking Glass)|White Queen]]'''<ref name=hathaway>{{cite news | author = Borys Kit | title = Anne Hathaway books ''Alice'' | url = http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3i418b037a2c9b1c0f5354677b8e781544 | work = [[The Hollywood Reporter]] | date = [[2008-10-07]] | accessdate = 2008-10-07}}</ref>
*'''[[Matt Lucas]]''' as '''[[Tweedledum and Tweedledee]]'''<ref name=lucas>{{cite news|author=Genevieve Hassan|title=Comic Lucas reveals movie plans|work=[[BBC News Online]]|date=2008-09-22|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7629835.stm|accessdate=2008-09-22}}</ref>
*'''[[Eleanor Tomlinson]]''' as '''Fiona Chataway''', an unfriendly girl Alice knows before she falls down the rabbit hole.<ref>{{cite news|title=Beverley girl to star with Johnny Depp|work=Hull Daily Mail|date=2008-09-23|url=http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/news/Beverley-girl-star-Johnny-Depp/article-345561-detail/article.html|accessdate=2008-09-24}}</ref>
[[Michael Sheen]]<ref>{{cite news|title=Sheen joins Unthinkable & Alice in Wonderland|date=2008-10-01|url=http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=49257|accessdate=2008-10-01}}</ref> and [[Christopher Lee]] have unnamed roles.<ref>{{cite news|author="Juan Aneiros"
(administrator)|title= Tim Burton - Alice in Wonderland|publisher=[[Christopher Lee]]'s official forum|date=2008-10-01|url=http://www.christopherleeweb.com/forums/generalised-topics-cl/62941-tim-burton-alice-wonderland.html|accessdate=2008-10-01}}</ref>
==Production==
==Administrators==
Administrators please see [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Administrators]] for detailed instructions about how to determine sockpuppets, archiving, etc. for editing here at [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets]] (WP:SSP).
In November 2007 [[Tim Burton]] signed with [[Walt Disney Pictures]] to direct two [[3-D film]]s (a [[stop motion]] remake of ''[[Frankenweenie]]'' and ''Alice in Wonderland''). The script was written by [[Linda Woolverton]].<ref name=Graser>{{cite news | author = Marc Graser | url = http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117976106 | title = Burton, Disney team on 3D films | work = [[Variety (magazine)|Variety]] | date = 2007-11-15 | accessdate = 2008-08-15}}</ref> Burton said he will remain true to the "essence" of the novel, joking "[It is] like drugs for children." He further indicated that previous film adaptations were incomplete.<ref>{{cite news | author = Ian Spelling | url = http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=0&id=46213 | title = Burton To Respect Alice's Essence | work = [[Sci Fi Wire]] | date = 2007-12-11 | accessdate = 2008-08-15}}</ref>
==Reporting suspected sock puppets==
The original [[start date]] was May 2008.<ref name=Graser/> [[Torpoint]] and [[Plymouth]] will be used for filming from September 1—October 14. These will be scenes set in the [[Victorian era]]. During this time, filming will take place in [[Antony House]] in Torpoint, [[Charlestown, Cornwall]] and [[Barbican, Plymouth]].<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/homepagenews/Burton-brings-Hollywood-Cornwall/article-359753-detail/article.html | title = Burton brings Hollywood to Cornwall | accessdate = 2008-09-29 | date = 2008-09-29 | work = This is Cornwall}}</ref> 250 local [[Extra (actor)|extra]]s were chosen in early-August.<ref>{{cite news | author = Tristan Nichols | title = Plymouth in Wonderland | work = [[The Herald (Plymouth Evening Herald)|The Herald]] | date = 2008-07-31 | accessdate = 2008-08-15}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | author =Tristan Nichols | title = Historic house unveiled as location for Tim Burton's ''Alice'' film | work = [[The Herald (Plymouth Evening Herald)|The Herald]] | date = 2008-08-21 | accessdate = 2008-08-24}}</ref> Other production work will reside in [[London]].<ref>{{cite news | author = [[Army Archerd]] | url = http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=Variety100&articleid=VR1117984225 | title = 1958: Zanuck's ''Heaven'' visits Africa | work = [[Variety (magazine)|Variety]] | date = 2008-04-17 | accessdate = 2008-08-15}}</ref> [[Sony Pictures Imageworks]] will design the visual effects sequences.<ref>{{cite news | author = Borys Kit; Carolyn Giardina | title = Johnny Depp in deep with Disney | url = http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3id98c48e90371c1116d62e39a12dd69d2?pn=2&imw=Y | work = [[The Hollywood Reporter]] | date = [[2008-09-24]] | accessdate = 2008-10-05}}</ref> The film was originally to be released in 2009, but was pushed to March 19, 2010.<ref>{{cite news | author = Pamela McClintock | url =http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117981211 | title = Disney unveils 2009 schedule | work = [[Variety (magazine)|Variety]] | date = 2008-02-20 | accessdate = 2008-08-15}}</ref>
{{Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/000 Docs 000/000 Reporting 000}} <!-- This transcludes the section "Reporting suspected sock puppets", which is also displayed at "Wikipedia:Sock puppetry/Notes for the accuser". -->
==References==
==Open cases==
<!-- DO NOT ARCHIVE CASES MANUALLY, SIMPLY ADD {{SSPa}} TO THE CASE PAGE AND A BOT WILL ARCHIVE IT. -->
{{reflist}}
<!-- ADD CASES TO THE TOP OF THIS LIST, JUST BELOW THIS LINE. This tag indicates the top of the list. -->
<!-- ADD CASES TO THE TOP OF THIS LIST. This tag indicates the bottom of the list. -->
==External links==
*[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1062854/Tim-Burton-begins-filming-live-action-version-Alice-Wonderland.html Pictures of filming in Cornwall, England]
*{{imdb title|id=1014759|title=Alice in Wonderland}}
*{{amg movie|id=1:424944|title=Alice in Wonderland}}
*{{rotten-tomatoes|id=10009599|title=Alice in Wonderland}}
*{{mojo title|id=aliceinwonderland10|title=Alice in Wonderland}}
* [[Special:Prefixindex/{{FULLPAGENAME}}/|List of cases]]
[[pt:Wikipedia:Lista de sock puppets]]
[[Category:Alice in Wonderland derivatives and adaptations]]
[[tr:Vikipedi:Kukla şüphelileri]]
[[Category:Films directed by Tim Burton]]
[[Category:Disney films]]
[[Category:Computer-animated films]]
[[Category:3-D films]]
[[Category:2010 films]]
[[Category:Fantasy adventure films]]
[[Category:American films]]
[[Category:English-language films]]
[[it:Alice nel Paese delle Meraviglie (film 2010)]]
[[ru:Алиса в стране чудес (мультфильм, 2010)]]
Revision as of 03:10, 13 October 2008
This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.
The suspected sock puppets page is where Wikipedians discuss if a fellow Wikipedian has violated Wikipedia's policy on sock puppets. Cases on this page are evaluated primarily on the basis of behavioral evidence, and the editors and administrators who look at the reports typically do not have the ability to determine what IP addresses Wikipedia editors are using. If you believe your case requires an IP check, please go to requests for checkuser.
Sometimes users who appear to work with a common agenda are not sockpuppets (one user, multiple accounts), but multiple users editing with the sole purpose of backing each other up, often called "meatpuppets." Meatpuppets are not regular Wikipedians who happen to agree with each other; they are accounts set up by separate individuals for the sole purpose of supporting one another. For the purposes of upholding policy, Wikipedia does not distinguish between meatpuppets and sockpuppets. Please see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry.
The problem is current; if the suspected sock puppets have not edited recently, the case will likely be closed as stale. If the problem is not ongoing, just watch the user and report when you see a new instance of abuse.
You have strong evidence. To learn what can be evidence, see here. If your evidence is weak, then it will be nearly impossible to reach a determination of sockpuppetry. All your statements should be supported by diffs.
The sockpuppet account you suspect is not already blocked.
The sockpuppet account you suspect is not already reported. Look through open SSP cases for usernames frequently associated with your suspect. Both older and newer cases, many of whose accounts are now blocked, show up in the categories for sockpuppeteers, sockpuppets, and suspected sockpuppets.
Assume good faith, if possible. An alternate account that is not used for abuse does not warrant a complaint. Keep in mind that users may sometimes make mistakes, so in cases where an alternate account is largely used for legitimate activities, it may be appropriate to ask the user before making accusations. The problem might merely have been caused by a mistaken login or other absent-mindedness.
Fill in the names. Clicking "Start a case" with a new case name-or-number opens a fresh page, with a form ready to be filled in. The puppetmaster's name will be automatically filled in as the filename; if this is not correct, due to added numbers like "(2nd)", replace the {{SUBPAGENAME}} tags with the puppetmaster's username. Also replace the placeholder names SOCKPUPPET1 and SOCKPUPPET2 with the account names of the suspected puppets; add or delete these lines as needed. Always leave out the "User:" prefix.
Make your case. Now write up your evidence in the "Evidence" section. This should describe why you believe there's puppetry occurring, however obvious it might be. If this is not the first time the user is suspected, links to other cases you know about should be provided as well. The evidence should point to one or more instances of illegitimate use of the puppet account. Include the diffs to support your statements. Sign and timestamp your case with ~~~~ on the line below "Report submission by"; preview your report for any problems; and, when you're satisfied, save it.
To start a case report about suspected sockpuppetry:
Cases are created on subpages of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. To do so, add the username of the puppetmaster (the main account, not the sockpuppet!) -- and the number of the case, "(2nd)", "(3rd)", etc., if there were previous cases on that username -- into the box below. Leave out the "User:" prefix. Replace only the word PUPPETMASTER, leaving the rest as is.
Example: if there were already two cases about User:John Doe, the new case would be titled: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/John Doe (3rd)
Then click "Start a case". You will be taken to a page where you can fill out the report. After you've saved the report, come back to see the remaining instructions below this box.
List your case for review in the WP:SSP open cases section here. Add the line {{Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PUPPETMASTER}} (or PUPPETMASTER (2nd) or PUPPETMASTER (3rd), etc.) at the top of the list, just below the section header. (Again, remember to replace PUPPETMASTER with the actual account name, without the "User:" prefix.) Save your edit. Check to see that your report shows up at the top of the list, just below the "Open cases" header. If there's only a red link, check that the spelling of the username and the number match the filename you created.
Notify the suspected users. Edit the user talk pages (not the user pages) of the suspected sockpuppeteer and sock puppets to add the text {{subst:uw-socksuspect|1=PUPPETMASTER}}~~~~ at the bottom of the talk page. If this is not the first time the user is suspected, the most recent evidence page should be specified by adding "(2nd)" or "(3rd)", etc., after the user's name: {{subst:uw-socksuspect|1=PUPPETMASTER (2nd)}}~~~~ or similar.
Consequences. If the evidence shows a case of clear abuse, with no serious doubt, an administrator may block any sockpuppets, and take further action against the puppetmaster. In less severe cases, administrators may quietly monitor the account's activities.
Checking further. In some cases, where there is significant abuse and yet puppetry is not certain, it might be appropriate to use technical means to detect puppetry. See Requests for checkuser (WP:RFCU) for details.
Editing Turkey article, Tangomaan first added his proposed religion section to the article without consensus, then these IP addresses added his religion version. I checked the IPs and realized they are from London (Tangomaan is also from London).
Comments
That proves nothing, I have added my section as a consensus on the talk page, this someone is someone else, this is a personal attack, because of me adding you as a sock puppet of which you are of User:Ayça Leovinus, and over 30 others!!!. Unbelievable!!! I have not contributed to these articles, except Turkey. The page has been un-protected. Mohsin (talk) 22:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
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.
Please remember to notify all accounts listed as possibly linked to the sock puppetry in question (instructions).
Not really needed, since all four are indeffed, but I'd like to be able to somehow prevent new ones from popping up. Consider this a plea for help rather than a desire to know if they're the same person.
Conclusions
If they're all already indef blocked then there's nothing else that can be done at WP:SSP - the only possibility now would be to take it to a checkuser at WP:RFCU to see if there's an underlying IP that can be blocked. GbT/c 19:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. 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.
Editing Turkey article, Ayça Leovinus reverted my edits continuously, then suddenly Turkish Flame started revert my edits with the same reasons, and since then Ayça Leovinus has been in-active from 6-Oct-08 to 12-Oct-08 (Banned since). Now this user is currently active in the article, with same reasons for reverts. [1]
Comments
Please remember to notify all accounts listed as possibly linked to the sock puppetry in question (instructions).
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.
As for identity, it's the classic "I made that comment with the wrong account, so I better go change the signature strategy.
As for abusive sockpuppeting, they both participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HHN Records, (see this deleted edit for HHNRecordsPR)and it's pretty obvious that HHNRecordsPR had a pretty strong motivation for keeping the article and disguising his identity during the argument.
Comments
Please remember to notify all accounts listed as possibly linked to the sock puppetry in question (instructions).
HHNRecordsPR was banned from posting any more infomation on this site. Since that was everything I wanted to say, I placed my signature at the end of the comment. Also, since you are looking into the posting history, you can clearly see I placed my signature there after they were banned. Question, If I was HHNRecords, Why whould I disguise my identity if I thought I was posting the comment under the GhostDog21 user name? I know the person HHNRecordsPR, and just like me, they are not with the label either. I'm not sure why they picked that name, dumb idea. That person told me the reason they were banned was due to them having the label name in thier user name, and it seemed like they worked for the label, which is B.S. I noticed on the history of G-Unit Records and Shady Records that there are user names with the label in them, Heck, there is even an administrator with G-unit in their user name, and they make contributions to the label articles. • GhostDog21 (talk) 12:07:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Either way seems like puppetry (even if of the meat kind) which isn't allowed. And changing someone else's signature is stictly verboten anyway. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad someone notified me of this. Otherwise I would have known nothing about it and couldn't have defended myself or even ask questions. What I do recall is me stating that I would like to upload a proper article for HHN Records on wikipedia. After requesting GhostDog21 to send all his information on the company to me. I found out that you had the name blocked from recreation. I told you that I had no affiliation with the company and that I understood wikipedia's policies and guidelines on uploading an article on a business company, and to see if you would take the protection block off the name. I don't understand how that could make me a suspected sock puppet. I don't think there is really much I could do about being labeled a suspected sock puppet. I'm just going to try my best to get HHN Records a proper article and to become an established editor again. Thanks for those options on your talk page. ~ ~ ~ ~ BubbleGum Gang Leader (Talk|contribs) 18:54:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Conclusions
Blocked Ghostdog indef. Gonna AGF with BubbleGum and assume that he isn't a sock. ScarianCall me Pat! 16:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. 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.
The suspected puppetmaster, James Nancy, is currently unhappy with a CSD tag on his own company (William Bruce Agency), and has been removing it several times ever since. After getting his warning level up to level 4 it is silent quite a while, but suddenly a new user, Joseph Pomeroy, comes in and removed the CSD template. This account has been registered just 10 minutes before doing so, and has only editing the article in question. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Comments
Circumstantial evidence looks likely, such is the desire to make the article stick. My guess is that it's an inexperienced editor who is trying to promote business. JNW (talk) 20:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. 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.
Problem solved through prolonged inaction (not my favorite way to go). Persistent reversion of all edits seems to have made him stop.Kww (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Active again the next day via 219.79.42.150.Kww (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
And as 219.79.217.99.Kww (talk) 14:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
And yet more as 219.77.181.162.Kww (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Might be wise to file a RFCU to check if IP range block causes large collateral damage. OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
A simple whois reveals that it is registered to an address in Hong Kong [2]Vandalismterminator (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Netvigator is a large ISP. While I don't rule out socking, the opposite could also hold true. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I had given up on anyone ever doing anything about this. I have a tool that scans anonymous edits from a range, and evaluated the period of Sept 14-Sept 18 (current as of the time I ran it). His actual range of IPs is pretty narrow:219.77.128.0/18, 219.79.40.0/22 and 219.79.128.0/17 would block his edits. All edits from the 22 and 17 were from Brian Yau. The larger range was about 30% Brian Yau, and 70% other editors. I think blocking the 22 and 24 for a few weeks would have been appropriate. I just reran, and a small minority of the edits appear to have been Brian (6 edits, all from 219.79.162.3). This rangeblock would have been appropriate if applied in a timely fashion, but 5 weeks late? Doesn't seem like the appropriate way to go.—Kww(talk) 19:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Conclusions
Kww sums up pretty much everything. Case closed. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. 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.
This user is sock-puppet of over 30 other users, and has been identified in the article Turkey, who insults me about my edits the same way as the other previous sock puppets. Turkey history page comments[3]: Ayça Leovinus: 'Islamist, Berlinerzeitung: 'personal ideology (Islamism)', Gönülçelen: 'Stop removing content according to your personal ideology'
Conclusions
Inconclusive. Enigmamessage 21:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. 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.
These accounts, including the previously blocked accounts User:DMizaCBass and User:Dexter morse have all engaged in repeated and identical vandalism at Worcester Academy (among other pages) over the past several months. It may not be possible to identify the puppet master account from the puppets.
Freethebass blocked indef for vandalism. IPs are stale. Enigmamessage 21:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. 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.
Ongoing policy breaches by Valueyou relating to Noise (music) leading to comment by known sock puppet Tellus archivist here: Untrue! Semitransgenic has a grudge against me (see my edit history) Twinkletellu and Oidkdufjggd was another person working from my office (now gone) and had NOTHING to do with Tellus archivist. Tellus archivist is another person of another nationality that lives in the same city as I am in - in another part of town that I know who started the Tellus page on which I helped. Semitransgenic has been harassing me and thus discouraging me from contributing to wiki any longer and I want to report him/her as a negative force within the music wiki area. (s)He self described him/herself as a "policy nazi" (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Valueyou) and acts like a nazi. I don't see any constructive contributions by this person other than taking pleasure in posting ugly flag signs where talk on the discussion page would be just as good - no better - because these signs drive away users of wikipedia and makes it look half-ass and UGLY.Valueyou (talk) 12:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
User Valueyou describes himself on his talk page as an archivist as well in the discussion here: wow 2 archivists - so what - what does that prove? yes we are both archivists
Other overlaps evident. kinda vague - I should add that Semitransgenic removed my prior complaint against him/her from this page. nice nazi move. no?Valueyou (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC) you added a conclusion, not your place to do so. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC) So that gave you the right to censure my conclusion which condemns your actions?!? Valueyou (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
[21]OK, let's look at this one as it applies to any of the "evidence" (ha ha) listed here by Semitransgenic. Wiki user Taxisfolder, working from this office and thus this IP address, started the page. Taxisfolder no longer works here and is not anymore working on wiki. Taking over Taxisfolder's archival duties and following our employer's interests, I have improved the page. None of this has anything to do with Tellus archivist who has nothing to do with this office and only lives in the same city of the office.Valueyou (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
If this is the same user, or an associated group of users, they claim to be connected with one Joseph Nechvatal. A claim of being an employee of this person is made as well as a claim of having been an archivist for the Dia Art Foundation. There is a consistent expression of contempt for submission guidelines, reversion of tags is commonplace.
The issue is this: after a month of work I greatly improved the noise music page - providing wiki with an outstanding noise music page with extensive footnotes, some lacking only page # which I can provide in the near future (as previously explained a # of times), free of WP:OR & WP:SYN that stood - more or less - for a couple of weeks. Semitransgenic then imposed a WP:OR deadline on my providing those page #s and when I challenged that arbitrary deadline Semitransgenic falsely accused me of sock-puppetry with a friend of mine Tellus archivist who has entered his resistance to Semitransgenic's dictates. (see talk page at Noise music) This was done to me in spite and will not stand. I strongly condemn nazi Semitransgenic's tactics. Now Semitransgenic seems to be saying that I am a sock-puppet with non-existent defunct ex-wiki users from our office! Who elected him wiki god anywayValueyou (talk) 14:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
full details of dispute here. Valueyou and co. believe meatspace credentials allow one to bypass WP:OR policy.
NOT SO! Note date: 15 August 2008. Semitransgenic lies! This dispute was settled and complied with. By distorting the current dispute (as stated above) by fishing in the past - Semitransgenic dislays bad faith and dishonesty.Valueyou (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Are you an expert in this field? I am offering primary source information. This is differnt than a POV. They are important as a group not because some book said they are, but by their productivity - with which I am aware. This is a fresh and emerging history and I would think that a PhD who has worked as an archivist at the Dia Art Foundation could offer such a list without a book saying it is OK. Valueyou (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I have from the outset attempted to get the user to appreciate how Wikipedia works but advice has been persistently ignored. Citations were legitimately challenged see link for details. Semitransgenic (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Once again - By distorting the current dispute (as stated above) by fishing in the past - Semitransgenic dislays bad faith and dishonesty.Valueyou (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
this is a misrepresentation of facts. The article has never been free of WP:ORWP:SYN, tags were at one point removed because an assurance was given that citations would be forthcoming. At least six weeks on and there is still know sign of them, hence the continued presence of the tags. In this regard, nowhere has deviation from standard policy been applied by user semitransgenic, despite the vocal protestations of user Valueyou et al. There was no arbitrary deadline applied, and in light of the nature of the information submitted to the article, deletion may have been a more appropriate approach, yet user semitransgenic instead simply commented out the problematic citations and reinstated the requests. Semitransgenic (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
So, if I understand the tortured logic of Semitransgenic, the page was never free of flags except when there were none - until Semitransgenic decided time was up for the page #s. So there is a 6 week wiki rule that applies here that page #s be provided by that time -- and that time frame is not arbitrary. Right? I'd like to see that rule. Sounds like an arbitrary one to me. Valueyou (talk) 00:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Outside comment
I was asked to comment as I've had some interaction with related issues concerning visual art articles, particularly Joseph Nechvatal. I can't comment on the present trouble, but there were similar-sounding problems before. Users appeared and disappeared, some POV pushing/spamming etc. However, the material added did have benefit as it was filling in an area which would probably otherwise have been neglected. A firm and consistent response from other editors kept problems in check. My suggestion is that a similar response may prove the most productive one here. Maybe try to guide the editor(s) and help to make the most of their input. A bit of a confrontational situation seems to have developed, and getting some fresh eyes via WP:DR procedures or posting to relevant wikiproject would help. Ty 01:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Tyrenius for your opinion, but I am afraid that this issue needs more consideration.
I ask here for a Consensus that disciplinary measures be taken against Semitransgenic as he is a bully and self-declared nazi (see the top of my talk page – that is how he introduced himself to me). I may or may not be of the Jewish faith, but either way I find this kind of macho posturing repugnant. He also addressed me as “dude” later on in my talk page and as I am not of the male sex, I find that sort of address sexist. So, I am seeking a Consensus to out Semitransgenic from the music section of wiki as clearly he has no love of music or the artists who make it. I don't see any constructive contributions by Semitransgenic other posting ugly flag signs where talk on the discussion page would be much better because these signs drive away users of wikipedia by making the pages look half-ass. I suggest that he be asked to go work on the Nazism page and leave the music section to those who love music. Valueyou (talk) 10:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Outside comment
Please cool the personal attacks...Having observed many of these issues in the past; and having seen some of the work of Valueyou (talk·contribs) and several of the other accused names; I concur with Tyrenius (talk·contribs) in having seen beneficial, valuable and useful work from the accused. However these personal attacks should be toned down from both sides. In my opinion this person has been a useful contributor....Modernist (talk) 11:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Err, in light of the below and WP:Canvas, I withdraw any support offered above...but it takes two to tango and both need to cool it......Modernist (talk) 14:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I have never made a personal attack on this person. I have also told the person directly that I believe their contributions are useful but that WP:ORWP:SYNWP:POV is simply not constructive long term. For the record, above user (et al.) is throwing a tantrum becasue they don't like regulations. Issue starts here Long history of problematic behaviour, account swapping over 2 year period, see comment by clerk. User believes real world credentials overules policy.
Are you an expert in this field? I am offering primary source information. This is differnt than a POV. They are important as a group not because some book said they are, but by their productivity - with which I am aware.
This is a fresh and emerging history and I would think that a PhD who has worked as an archivist at the Dia Art Foundation could offer such a list without a book saying it is OK. Valueyou (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, please view my comments on the talk page of the user in question to confirm that I have done nothing more than attempt to communicate best practice. None of the points I raise, or requests I have made, deviated from procedure. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
NOT SO! Note date: 15 August 2008. This dispute was settled. The actual dispute is stated above. Semitransgenic is attempting to muddy the waters here. Please deal with the Semitransgenic abuse I have experienced. Valueyou (talk) 13:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I was unaware I was doing anything incorrect as I am a fairly recent editor here. The point is Semitransgenic continues to attempt to charge me with this false silliness. I am sure that Semitransgenic would like to see me kicked off of wiki as I dare oppose Semitransgenic's aggressive language and editing tactics. What a waste of time. Valueyou (talk) 13:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
That's a false charge. Kicked off? but you will simply change user. As clearly shown in the comments on your talk page I have consistently expressed that I believe your contributions are useful but that your comtempt for policy is not, yet you have engaged in flaming/canvassing, accused me of anti-semetic sentiment, and have generally behaved in an uncivil manner. Why do you believe this is appropraite behaviour for an editor on Wikipedia? Finally, this is not the place to vent your frustrations. If you have an issue please see WP:DR. Thanks. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
As stated above, various people come to work from this office over time and thus from this IP address. Stop making false claims against me. I will look into WP:DR. Thank you for the policy tip. Valueyou (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Conclusions
I think this has now run its course and should be considered concluded, unless anyone has a valid strong objection, as continuation will not gain anything for anyone or the project. There has been no provable abusive sockpuppetry. The positive aspect of this is that other users have been drawn in to help reconcile conflicting positions, and there is a better ground to move forward constructively for both/all parties. Ty 18:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Now closed. Enigmamessage 21:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. 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.
The article
Paul Gustafson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
was created on 3 July2006 by user Badeggbill. The article was then expanded and groomed by the suspected sockpuppets above, until by 18 March2008 it looked like this, a tour de force of overblown trivia. The edits have been consistent, with a characteristic style and tone, across the suspected sockpuppets. From the outset, other editors have expressed, particularly on the first third of
Talk:Paul Gustafson(edit | article | history | links | watch | logs),
their suspicions that Paul Gustafson himself, using these sockpuppets, was controlling the article. The article is now being considered for deletion, and the latest suspected sockpuppet has mentioned starting again should the article be deleted.
Comments
Might be worth noting the following, too:
Badeggbill has previously posted Mr Gustafson's address on the article's talk page, and his user name is (apparently) named after a character in Gustafson's book.
John Mason appears to be named after one of the schools that Gustafson teaches at.
This is really really really unfair. As I said before, I am not a sockpuppet, I have no knowledge of the schools at which Gustafson teaches or anything other than his angling, because I have (legally) his excellent, informative videos, available to purchase online.
Incidentally it is misleading to state that I 'mentioned starting again' - i hear it as presented here, sounding like a threatening threat. I assumed the article was being deleted so as the editors who so wished could rewrite it from scratch, it being so very flawed. I have no intention of doing so myself - one man's ceiling is another man's floor.
I expect to be fully exhonerated and I would like an apology. No-one appreciates me. I took a risk, a risk to attempt to add to the sum of human knowledge - during office hours!
This whole encyclopedia idea will be doomed to a watery grave (e.g. on the seabed, though obviously not literally) if such gross injustices of carriage are permitted.
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.
I believe the fact that he tried to scrub his user page after doing all this also looked suspicious.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Einsteindonut (talk • contribs)
Comments
Please remember to notify all accounts listed as possibly linked to the sock puppetry in question (instructions).
Conclusions
Add this user to the other case then, please. Superfluous reports slow down the already heavily backlogged page. ScarianCall me Pat! 17:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. 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.
Hmm... I see no edits by the suspected socks. It's okay for someone to have an alternate account as long as they don't abuse it. I'll have a talk with them, but I don't think we can take action here. Cheers! SunDragon34 (talk) 04:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Conclusions
This is very strange. I think we should just watch their talk pages and leave a note for each referencing this page. If trouble arises, it can be dealt with. JehochmanTalk 21:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. 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.
Hi, Snigbrook. Since you already seem to know a thing or two about the situation, would you mind posting some of those other suspected socks you mentioned onto the "Suspected sock puppets" list above, if they haven't been already? It'll make things easier for the investigators. Thanks. SunDragon34 (talk) 06:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Conclusions
Inconclusive. Enigmamessage 21:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. 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.
So you're here for sanity check or obtaining broader views? OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Either is welcome specially with respect to the article creator Aokeier. Actually, i followed up on the SSP tags by another user and decided to fill in the 'paperwork' as well. Since the block / autoblock it has become quiet, but Australia is also a different timezone and I am more or less off now for today. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Conclusions
I've temporarily blocked Words Australia and accidentally also Australian Reviewer per name confusion, so the latter which triggered an autoblock. --Tikiwont (talk) 11:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
All four accounts blocked indefinetely. User:Aokier is invited to continue to edit Wikipedia.
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.
All accounts involved are WP:SPAs which were created within one hour of each other today, and have been acting with the sole purpose of adding External Link entries which point to encyclopediaofalabama.org.
Note: I am not disputing the potential value of the link - especially if used within appropriate ref tags - this report is only about the way in which a group of accounts all were created for the purpose of adding the link to Wikipedia.
After the first set of additions I added the link to the revertlist of XLinkBot. The link may be of interest, and the users was pointed to that by Anetode and later by me, but I also blocked the first set of accounts for sockpuppetry (I could have used block evasion, which may have been more correct at that point). I also think that the link can be of interest to the wikipedia, but this way of editing is highly inappropriate. I added more possible socks (well, one) to the list above. I would also suggest that the editor chooses one main account, and use that to follow the suggestions given on some of the other accounts (i.e. discuss!). --Dirk BeetstraTC 11:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Comments
I believe (hope) that this is just a new user who is either confused or otherwise acting in good faith. They did post a question to the help desk, which is where I noticed that two similar usernames were involved. Ideally, I would recommend a soft-handed approach here; but they should be directed to use a single user account.
The alleged puppetmaster account was blocked due to an issue with WP:USERNAME, and the user encouraged to create a new account - so that account in itself should not be counted against the user. The issue here is specifically with the five user accounts that were created today (22ndstar, 22star, 22stara, 22staral, and 22starala).
Hello, you are correct on several accounts, I am a new user, I was only adding external links, and I was doing it from several different accounts. I have been advised by others on Wikipedia about common practices, and will be better behaved in the future. I plan on spending today contributing additions to all the Alabama county articles currently hosted, and see if I can fill textual gaps in other places. Also, I do not plan on adding any more external links, I will only be adding a new section to the talk page alerting others to relevant external links not already posted, and let the Wiki community decide whether to add them or not. That said, please let me know if there is anything else I should be doing differently. - Thanks 22star (talk) 15:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Conclusions
Blocked all accounts except 22star and left note with him. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. 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:Phenomenon8980 is circumventing a 72-hour block by editing with this IP (actually, just bad-faith reverting with no edit summary or explanation). This edit by IP 131.247.207.7 is identical to this one by Phenomenon8980 (and also subsequent individual edits). — TAnthonyTalk 15:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
IP 131.247.201.86 removed discussion here which goes against argument of Phenomenon8980; removal of talk is a typical tactic of this editor. Subsequent revert 1 and revert 2 following other editor good faith reverts. — TAnthonyTalk 21:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
In this editIP 131.247.244.191 IP pretends to not know Phenomenon8980 in response to sock warning at User:131.247.207.7, accidentally using this newer IP for the warning on previous IP's talk page. — TAnthonyTalk 05:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. 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.
The three accounts were created within the last two days and have only contributed to one article: DeLaSalle High School (Minneapolis). Specifically, they have attempted to remove or neutralize the controversy created when the school (the subject of the article) built a stadium over the objection of community groups. This is a low-traffic article, and therefore especially vulnerable to abuse. Here are diffs by these editors:diff1, diff2, diff3. Similar edits were made by three IP editors on the same day.
Comments
This link shows the notability of the issue.--Appraiser (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Please remember to notify all accounts listed as possibly linked to the sock puppetry in question (instructions).
Although this case is of little importance and has low visibility, the evidence suggests to me that a single entity, perhaps connected to the school itself, would like the facts to be obscured. Little time has transpired, but I think it is important that the perpetrator learn that Wikipedia articles cannot be shaped by any individual with a goal by using false accounts. --Appraiser (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Note that one of the IPs involved is registered to DeLaSalle. Eóin (talk) 01:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Conclusion
Quite obvious. I have blocked all three indef as they're all clearly socks or meats and are just SPAs made to influence the flow of the article to suit their own POV. ScarianCall me Pat! 16:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. 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.
Recreation of the Hadyn place hoax article with identical content.
Comments
Conclusions
All blocked. Vandalism-only accounts. Enigmamessage 21:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. 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.
Confirm A few weeks back I reverted a single disruptive edit by Max Mux and my User Talk page was immediately blanked by one of the IP 'sock puppets' above. Max Mux then started adding repetetive comments to my talk page expressing 'non understanding' while a number of pages I had built or edited were vandalised by the above suspected IPs. Max Mux appears to come into direct and acrimonious conflict with almost every editor he comes into contact with. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Max Mux was told as early as 15 September that mosdat had changed see User_talk:Max_Mux#Wikilinking dates and has been reminded by others since, but three weeks later he is still using his anonymous IP sockpuppets to add date wikilinks AND beligerently accusing editors of 'vandalism' when they correctly revert his incorrect edits. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 22:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Unsure I'm not sure about sockpuppeteering, but this editor does come into direct conflict with me, and several other editors. He has engaged in a talk page war with User:Jakezing, even when I had warned several times to stop. When I responded to Jakezing about Max, Max literally demanded to know what was going on, even posting more than once to find out. --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)-- 19:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Confirm: I confirm this report. See below. --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)-- 20:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Have I not the right to know a reason when people won't talk with me?84.134.86.74 (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey Max, don't forget to log in!!! I think his comment above is evidence that Max is not deliberately using sockpuppets - he's just a numpty that keeps forgetting to log in. Bazonka (talk) 12:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh no Bazonka, that is not true. There have been several occasions where he has alternated between logged in and non logged posts in the space of several minutes. His anonymous IPs have made statements in support of his logged in identity trying to imply that they are from other people. It was done deliberately and he has done it many times in several locations. However, I think it is beginning to dawn on him that the anonymous IPs are not as untraceable as he first assumed...hence the sudden rush of apologies 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Check the revision history of Treaty of Lisbon. Max Mux reverted 8 times an edit using various anonymous IPs. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
You may well be right, but it's exceedingly idiotic to post using an IP address to a page that's complaining about you using IP addresses. Bazonka (talk) 11:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
More evidence Check the series of edits in [[48]]. Anonymous IPs 84.134.xx.xxx keep reverting a user talk page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Some of the edits were made by me others not. Please accept my apologies if I have done something wrong also accept that I won't tolerate bad behavior from others.Max Mux (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
My thoughts as a (unwilling) participant in this saga - Hey guys, this user has been a problem for me in the past. Under the 84.134 IPs he would blank my talkpage and mindlessly revert my non-Kosovo edits. Ironically, I mistakenly thought that he may have been User:Jakezing, so I made a check user case which you can see here: [49] . I documented over 20 different occasions where the IP wikistalked me somehow. But keep in mind this activity occured over the summer. 84.134 IP/User:Max Mux was formally warned and he has not bothered me since. Since the summer I've haven't had a problem with him at all, but I do see him occasionally on some Kosovo talkpages using the IP addresses instead of his user name. However, now knowing that he is using the same tactics against others that he used against me makes me unsympathetic towards him, and I tend to be a bleeding heart on things like this. --Tocino 03:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I was angry at Tocino for his agressive pro-serbian and anti-Kosovo POV. But I have apologized because I know that bad behavior doesn't help against other bad behavior.Max Mux (talk) 07:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Why you are still angry with me about that? As I said I have long since apologized. Some of the above mentioned edits were not even made by me. Max Mux (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
"it wasn't me" dosn't cut it when they were in the same style, same ideal, same word style, same hatred, I doubt somebody else with essentialy your ip, would keep editing the same page and make comments in reply to replies and statements adressed to another IP.
Hell, he left undeniabl;e proof he is socking, look at my talk page history, 84.134.118.38 made a reply in the name of Max, but, this ip ias different from the ip he used to post here. That alone is a good reason to show he's being a naughty niaghty deutscher...
I support sock puppetitingp punishment for max, although his many ip's show banning him wont be easy. Second tocino... that was insulting tyhat you'd think i was the one being bad to you, i dont resort to petty vandalism--Jakezing (talk) 22:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
It does not cut it with me either. There is doubt all the sock puppet actions, vandalisms to my talk page and stalking my edits were done by one person in a very short timescale. Max can deny it all he wants, but the truth is out there 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't deny anything. I repeat it to express it clear: I have made most of the edits. I have treated Tocino the wrong way. His bad behavior is no reason for me to behave in such a way too and I have long since apologized for it. Before I didn't realize that I was rstricted to edit only when logged in. Now I'm very careful to log in every time I make an edit. I have tried to talk to User: Magioladitis but he has reverted my comments. I think thats not the way to solve a problem.Max Mux (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC) And I must add that the dates look much better otherwise.Max Mux (talk) 08:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Max, you LIEDabout it, you told us it wasn;'t you, know it was? You ABUSED the fact your ip changes, you VANDALISED on them, you'sve done enough to be BANNED justr for vandalism alone.--Jakezing (talk) 11:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I have not lied. I have more than one time clearly stated that MOST of the edits were made by me but SOME are not. Max Mux (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Just ban him for a few hours so he learns his lesson and we can close this! --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)-- 15:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I have already learned my lesson.Max Mux (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I actually think that you might have. Time will tell 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I see little attempt to conceal his identity. I don't think the problem in this case is socking; I think it's the way a number of editors have been interacting. Laying aside his content disputes on Talk:International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo, most of his contentious edits seem to be fueled by frustration (look at his periods of mass talk-page spamming). I think he wants to improve the encyclopedia, but he feels alienated and frustrated.
I see disputes and conflicts with other editors, and a period around three or four months ago of incivility (probably out of frustration, like I said), but from what I've seen I see no reason to take action against Max Mux for sockpuppetry other than to kindly remind him to log in when he edits and to observe WP:3RR. He's said several times here that most of the edits are his, and from my digging it seems that he's always acted like the same person whether logged in or logged out. I didn't find any edit where he actually referred to one of his other aliases as another person. If you think you have a diff where he is doing so, run it by me on my talk page and I'll look at it.
Further, I see that he has somewhat toned down in terms of being civil and wants to talk to other editors. While I agree that he has been a little too persistent in making edits like this (and the subsequent reversions), and that he needs to learn when to let something go, these can (hopefully) be addressed by politely discussing the issue with the user. I will try to talk to him.
I think we should keep an eye on him, talk to him about the conflicts he's involved in right now, teach him Wikipedia policy, and encourage him to be nice. And please, let's all be extra-nice to him. A lot of his frustration (and, consequently, his disruptive editing) is related to how he feels he is being treated. Please be nice to each other. I don't think he's a bad editor; I just think he needs someone to kindly teach him what's what and to help him in his interactions with others. For starters, I'll have a talk with him. If any of you have diffs showing him or his IPs making blatant references to each other as different people, or have anything that might help me better understand what's going on, send them to me on my talk page. Thanks. SunDragon34 (talk) 05:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Conclusions
Largely stale due to the suspected socks being IPs. Enigmamessage 21:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. 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.
Both editing tendentiously on Henotheism, both use similar edit summaries with full sentences and punctuation, both sign "Be Well," user VS backing up AF here [50] and identically here [51]
I don't have two modems, or even two computers for that matter! Anywho from my neighborhood or county or state or country who signs as "Be well" or "Take care" or anyone who supports my views - they are all my sock-puppets!!! BTW, you should know that Bach (User:Dbachmann) composes the symphony in the morning and issues rvs to look good and please so-called admins. He is also trying to become an admin. Then in the afternoon, he switches onto another modem and sock-puppets in as Ludwig Van Beethoven (User:Ludwigs2) to fight it out for Bach (User:Dbachmann) edits. Very well orchestrated. Both tendentiously pushing their views here Talk:Henotheism. Furthermore, admin User:Dougweller keeps insisting that no verifiablity is required and keeps pushing rvs based on "consensus". His edit comment on a recent Henotheism rv - "I have looked at the talk page, it is clear there is no consensus for this edit". Admin of "consensus" or "verifiability"? This place has become a sad joke. All this is obviously an admin trap to set me up for another block for no good reason. Check my history. I am a good faith editor. Wikipedia bureaucracy is a joke and should be dissolved ASAP. If nothing changes, Wikipedia admins will be nothing more than a digitized form of Nazism and you will be left with poor POV editors (admin boot-lickers) if the current form of Wikipedia bureaucracy remains. Be well and Take care. VedicScience (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Comments
Note: I have blocked User:VedicScience for one week. This follows not just his incivility here, but his numerous inappropriate responses to my advice on his talk page. Consider how much ADvaitaFan accomplishes in the next week in your analysis. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
From the technical it is certainly possible. VS only edits from a home account, and ADF edits from an office computer. However, the locations of the home and office are only about 20-50km away from each other in teh same metro zone so that's quite plausible for a developed country with a good transport system. He seems very up to speed with all the policies and the like, and if he talks with the same idosyncrasies as well....YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 03:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Conclusions
Quite likely. VS blocked for 2 weeks. Fan blocked indef. ScarianCall me Pat! 16:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. 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.
Both User:Kingmike99 and user:I wet the bed are borderline blockable anyway (both have been mainly used for vandalism)> I've just speedied two G10 articles, one by Kingmike99 (subject Jenae Hratko, of which the last line was "...WHO LOVES TO WET THE BED!") and one by User:I wet the bed (subject Michael Hratko). Same bad spelling and grammar in both. Seems much too much of a ccoincidence.
Comments
Please remember to notify all accounts listed as possibly linked to the sock puppetry in question (instructions).
I've notified the suspects. I can't see User:I wet the bed's contributions, as they've all been deleted. I noticed that User:Kingmike99 has been indef-blocked. Overall, the evidence seems to suggest socking. SunDragon34 (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. 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.
The editor made a series of changes to an article; most were fine however a few were questionable and I reverted them. I left a note on the editor's talk page explaining why I was reverting. A discussion developed, however the editor was then blocked for issues on this and other articles. At this point, the anonymous IPs listed above appeared, and carried on making the controversial change (marked as minor by both Rightandright and at least one of the IPs) that Rightandright had been trying to make. Rightandright is now blocked again, and one of the IPs has reappeared. Three different editors have now reverted either Rightandright or the anon IPs; I believe there is a clear consensus for Rightandright's change not being made, however I would welcome the chance to continue the discussion begun earlier in an appropriate venue, e.g. the article's talk page or a user talk page.
Although it appears there is an obvious connection just from the contributions, it may also be worth noting that the IP addresses both geolocate to Greece: [52][53] and that one of them shares the behaviour of User:Rightandright in placing "(minor)" in the edit summary (of controversial edits): [54] as done a number of times by Rightandright: [55][56]~ User:Ameliorate!(with the !) (talk) 05:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. 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.
Identical tendentious edits [57], [58] to those made by already banned sockpuppeteer. Borne out by continued harassment on my talk page[59], and by remarks on his/her own talk page [60]
Comments
Unblock accepted- don't abuse the rules of this site to enforce your viewpoint you intellectually dishonest fraud. Talk to me directly like a real person or leave me alone.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwalker400 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 5 October 2008
Jwalker: your account was created today[61]. Unless you have a valid argument, there's no reason to believe that you're not a sock. ~ Troy (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
A subsequent unblock request[62] by the still-banned puppetmaster confirms explicitly that this is another puppet. RolandR (talk) 07:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't doubt that he's a sock, but this situation strikes me as a bit strange. Hold up on blocking until he replies on his talk page. Master of PuppetsCall me MoP! :) 07:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
What is "strange" about this? S/he has been blocked for a month for "disruptive and tendentious editing", making an "utterly unacceptable edit", "plac(ing) a comment in the article", "edit warr(ing) over an "original, POV, unsourced addition (in a topic area already under ArbCom restrictions" and then "indulg(ing) in personal attacks" [63]. The blocked puppeteer then admittedly creates a new sock, which repeats all of the same behaviour. And s/he HAS replied, at length, on the talk page, leading another, previously uninvolveed, editor, to comment "Quit blubbering". This editor has made it clear that s/he has no intention of observing WP norms and peactices, and will continue with the same behaviour. Why has the sock not been blocked, and the IP prevented from establishing more socks? RolandR (talk) 08:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Primarily, I'm concerned that the editor has been almost tag-teamed by others. He was blocked for an inappropriate username, sure, but after that it all just turns into an overkill of templating regardless of what he says. I'm not surprised that he's frustrated. I don't agree with his POV pushing or personal attacks, but we took a new editor who did one wrong thing and punished him way too much (in my opinion). You have to realize that we're not training a dog; you teach a dog not to bite by smacking it. Good luck doing the same with a human.
Anyway, I realize that you feel he's done enough to deserve this but at least wait for him to reply to my prompt. Master of PuppetsCall me MoP! :) 17:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
If you bothered to read the comment just before yours, deleted by Avraham, you would realise that there is a whole swathe of "editors" whose intent is not to improve Wikipedia, but simply to introduce an extremely partisan POV, to abuse critics of Israel and Zionism, and to bully and harass me and other editors in the hope that we will retire in frustration from this peoject. And then you would not have the gall to accuse me of "tag-teaming" this vandal. The fact is, several anonymous or single-purpose editors (or, more likely, one editor using several accounts) have attempted to introc=duce the same offensive comments into Israel and the apartheid analogy -- including an attack on Black Africans for "stealing" the land in Sourth Africa -- and have been promptly reverted by many different editors who have been working to improve the article. On this occasion, after being teverted by me, by Fieldday-sunday, by J.delanoy and by Tarc, this editor commenced to harangue and abuse me on my talk page, and repeatedly replaced the comments after they were removed. S/he was blocked, and immediately created at least two sockpuppets (one with an inappropriate username attacking me) to continue with this edit war. Immediately after these were blocked, and while the IP was still blocked for a month, this new sockpuppet was created, and again continued with the same pattern of tendentious POV editing, harassment and abuse. Frankly, I am astonished that anyone should attempt to gloss over this, and could view this as simply "a new editor who did one wrong thing". This is a serial vandal and bully, who surely has no place in Wikipedia. RolandR (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Again, if he continues to introduce material against consensus and policy, then that's that and he'll be blocked. However, you don't exactly see anyone explaining why what he is doing is taboo (except the multiple templates and blocks that have been handed out). I'm not saying you're in the wrong, but I still think this could be handled more effectively. Besides, I haven't dealt with him before, so let's see what happens. Master of PuppetsCall me MoP! :) 21:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Conclusions
Leaving to MoP to decide. This one is a tad stale anyways. ScarianCall me Pat! 17:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. 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.
Two of the accounts being reported (Rambabudixit and Gyansinghparihar) were only created subsequently to the AfD debate being opened on the two articles listed above.
Comments
I don't know if these accounts should be reported elsewhere. If anyone has views on this, please let me know (and I'll hunt around too).
This is relatively time-sensitive since it involves vote-rigging and vandalism to two ongoing AfD discussions.
Conclusions
Probable. They're definitely meats at the minimum, quite possibly socks. Blocking socks indef: Master for 1 week. ScarianCall me Pat! 16:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. 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.
These meatpuppets have been attempting to discredit and disparage the subject of this biography of a living person: Belzebuub. In one of the links to a forum that the user Anton H has posted on the page, I have found another forum topic on a website (Gnostic Teachings - http://www.gnosticteachings.org/) where together the lot of them were plotting ways of undermining and attacking the subject of the article, ranging from blanking the page [72], posting defamatory and unreferenced material [73], to playing what they call ‘the wikipedia game’ to get their personal attacks through the system [74] – starting at post #12. I came across this after following a link to a ‘source’ they added from the above website, which was merely a public forum post with disparaging comments about the subject of the article and the organization he founded. As evidenced by their discussion of the edits they had planned and carried out, their names on this forum are Tenrai (Anton H) freedom is blessing, SillyChicken,Paul G, Nik, and the moderator: Son of Man.
All the above users have posted in the forum, which was also addressed by one of the moderators of the site, who has encouraged them to continue their personal attacks and to attempt to ‘play by the wikipedia’ rules so that the wikipedia community does not catch on.
I have removed their edits from the article, but wanted to bring this to your attention so that it is known what they are up to. Thank you.
Comments
I have added the user Rabicante as a suspected meat puppet. He has created an account just today and is defending Anton on the discussion page [75]. His appearance coincides with the deletion of the Gnosticteachings.org webforum I cited above [76] where a bunch of people, including a site moderator, were discussing how to delete and/or add disparaging content about the subject of this BLP. Note that I haven't notified Rabicante on his userpage, since he hasn't created one. Matt reltub (talk) 06:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Conclusions
Obvious. All socks blocked indefinitely as SPAs. Anton H blocked 48 hours. IPs are stale and cannot be blocked based on this report. Feel free to resubmit if you see further abuse. Enigmamessage 20:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. 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.
A few weeks ago, a self-declared sock account of an established user was created in order to request a check-user of User:Einsteindonut. This account was indef blocked as an improper sock account. It seems that the same editor who created that account in order to harass User:Einsteindonut is back at it again, this time as User:JIDF Threats. The new account has the same focus on the Jewish Internet Defense Force article, the same insinuations with regard to User:Einsteindonut, and the same modus operandi - the creation of a single-purpose sock account, to avoid linking the complaint with the master account. I believe this user account should also be quickly indef-blocked. In addition, I think it is proper to run a check user on this account, and block the master account for repeat violations of policy. (I thinkI know who the master of both accounts is, and will provide evidence, in private, upon request).
Comments
Please remember to notify all accounts listed as possibly linked to the sock puppetry in question (instructions).
I think a little empathy is appropriate. The JIDF has tried to "out" two editors — going so far as to publish a photo in one instance — and it has dug up and published detailed information about others. I can understand why an editor is reluctant to put her/himself on the line, especially when, as noted at ANI, "I have asked that oversight be applied to certain edits re my normal wiki account but as that has not happened so I create this ID". — Malik Shabazz (talk·contribs) 04:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I refer you to User:FayssalF's comment the last time this happened. It is simply not appropriate to violate WP policies by creating sock puppet accounts for this purpose. If the editor is reluctant to put her/himself on the line, they should not be making provocative comments against other editors, or useless AN/I reports about off-wiki groups. NoCal100 (talk) 04:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Malik here. The JIDF Threats puppet can be blocked without exposing who the puppetmaster is. I have the same objections to this as I did to attemtps to identify ED. Of course, the over-sealous might choose also to try to identify who you are given the evidence that your id was created as an anti-Calton sockpuppet.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
NoCal100 is entirely correct here, both in letter and in spirit. If the sockmaster had a specific idea about who ED was, and evidence, s/he could have provided it in private. In fact, NoCal100 is doing this in the best possible way: opening an investigation into a fishing expedition, but without himself naming who he thinks this person might be. Thus, if he provides private evidence and the results show him to be wrong, or are inconclusive, the innocent editor he suspected need not be embarrassed (and NoCal, also, won't be embarrassed). Anonymous socking harassment in the guise of fishing for violations is strictly prohibited. IronDuke 17:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Oops! My comment above is somewhat confused, because I came from User talk:Einsteindonut#Please run checkuser on Pedrito, O had it in my head that this was a CU request. Yes it's a sock - one of many operating in this area - that's gone beyong it's original self-imposed boundary by attacking ED.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The original post includes a CU request: "In addition, I think it is proper to run a check user on this account, and block the master account for repeat violations of policy." — Malik Shabazz (talk·contribs) 04:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Likely. JIDF blocked for 48 hours. Enigmamessage 20:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. 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.
The anonymous IP 69.143.57.71 starts being used after a final warning to User:Fumblingfoe. Similarly, User:Rhodesscholar appears after a final warning to 69.143.57.71.
Evidence that 69.143.57.109 is the same is less clear. May require WP:RFCU?
Comments
Please remember to notify all accounts listed as possibly linked to the sock puppetry in question (instructions).
Where is the diff where Pdfpdf called Fumblingfoe an ugly American? I'm having trouble finding it.
I'm looking into the case now. I'm getting a bit of a feel for what's going on. Let's all be especially nice to each other, and I think we can work this out. SunDragon34 (talk) 05:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC) 03:18, 14 October 2008 (signed after the fact)
Some material was on the page Divine Mafa which was deleted. Babakathy (talk) 07:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Conclusions
Evidence is apparent but inconclusive to suggest this is any more than just a new user with no idea on how to use Wikipedia. Enigmamessage 20:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. 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.
Not only have all four IPs made dubious keep or speedy keep reasons in all of the above AfDs to the point where they are likely violating WP:POINT, they also seem to be the exact same comments; for instance, this sounds exactly like this, and this sounds exactly like this. In addition, all three 63-range IPs have already been considered to be Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 63.3.1.1.
I came here after seeing this You Have Message thing when I came to edit Wikipedia and I have no idea who made the bulk of the edits on this IP. In any event, these are dynamic IPs that are obviously shuffled around multiple unrelated editors and whichever one(s) of those editors made the above cited posts has NOT used the IPs in a sock like fashion in the same discussions. Moreover, these posts are hardly any more dubious or pointed or similar in wording than all of the following and if anything seem to be made in frustration as a response to the following:
On a number of occasions I have had to deal with these IP's and if you look at the material that they tend to edit on, you will see a consistent pattern. When I opened the first sockpuppet case (click here), this person seemed to abuse multiple accounts and edit with one then going into revert other edits with another. The IP's, if you look at the sockpuppet list pertaning to the original account, you will notice that the first set of IP#'s were blocked multiple times. After consistent blocking, he or she began using a new set of patterned numbers. I think the most difficult problem when it comes to this sockpuppetry case is the dynamic IP issue. Soft blocking is usually the only way to deal with the issue, unless the harassment part plays a role. (click here to view the list of sockpuppet IP#'s) Good luck with this issue and I hope that everything gets sorted out. --Candy156sweet (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I would also like to add that this editor does like to post personal information. I've noticed this issue from reviewing the talkpage for 209.247.22.85talk. This user (if this is indeed a sockpuppet of the address mentioned) did the same thing with me on another IP address 12.40.138.185talk (Look at the block log on that IP#). Have you used WHOIS to determine the location of the IP# 209.247.22.85talk? --Candy156sweet (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
It is in a different location than the other three, but it still strikes me odd of the similarities of the IPs' edit histories and their edits. Meating, perhaps? MuZemike (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Could be possible. The only problem is that the other IP's, aside from 12.40.138.185talk and 209.247.22.85talk, are from similar internet providers. The internet connection is from Michigan, and 12.40.138.185talk is also a Michigan connection. 209.247.22.85talk is not congruent with the others. I would do some more checking to see if there are other connections aside from that. How did you come up with the possibility that this most recent address would be a suspected sockpuppet? Does this editor take up similar topics? I would review all of the sockpuppets on the link that I posted above, and do a comparison. I will do some checking as well. This editor tends to post to Michigan articles or on musical articles like Linda Ronstadt. This editor was so obsessed with the fact that I filed the sockpuppetry case against him, that he/she went to a public library in Michigan to post my personal information onto a Wikipedia article. I wish you luck. --Candy156sweet (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Compare the three diffs [141], [142], and [143], where both users explain that the articles in question are "unoriginal research" and that Wikipedia is a "collection of info." When commenting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyberathlete Amateur League (2nd nomination), I found the comment in question as the same as that of another IP response I saw several days before that. That's when I thought something was fishy. MuZemike (talk) 01:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I see the similarity. I guess you can consider that meat puppeting or maybe he's just emulating the other editor. I can definitely see what you mean now. --Candy156sweet (talk) 01:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Given the style of edits performed by these accounts, the type of arguments given at AfD, and the time frame when these accounts last became active in editing (the mid-to-end of Sept 2008), I believe these IPs are (mostly) being used by an editor who "vanished" per WP:RTV but hasn't really vanish. I shall not say more, but I'm sure that other experienced editors familiar with this past editor and editing style/pattern, and his/her (alleged) vanishing, know exactly to whom I am referring. I got to this page by seeing just one comment in an AfD (with a very strong feeling of deja vu), then looking at other edits performed by that account, and finally seeing this case report. I'm not necessarily agreeing that this user is meat/sock puppeting in the sense of vote-stacking, but is certainly not vanished as per WP:RTV and, arguably, is using IPs to avoid scrutiny. --Craw-daddy | T | 14:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I felt the same way when I compared the edits listed on this sock puppet case. Again, I have been exposed to this "user's" actions before. I have to say that this particular editor is a strong sock puppet with a dynamic IP. I don't really understand how this editor would be able to use a different internet provider like that unless he/she has someone else doing this editor's dirty work for him/her. The meat puppeting theory sounds more plausible than just a mere sock puppet case when it comes to the most recent IP# in question. Either that or this new user is emulating the vandal comments left by the original sock puppet. It seems that this issues goes from being a simple vandalism issue, to being a chronic nuisance. Voting or not voting this has got to end. I think that if more pervasive actions are taken with this sock puppet, the case will definitely have a positive resolution for a recurring problem. --Candy156sweet (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I think I know who exactly you're talking about (Hint: it has to do with Wikipedia's core policies). MuZemike (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment I'll chime in here. I agree with Durova that the person in question isn't likely to have engaged in these kind of technical measures to avoid checkuser, but I did get a strong sense of deja vu reading those comments. Imitation is possible, but the wording and stance are...unique. My bet is that it is him, but the IP is also used by many others. But if it is him, he will know that we know, as it were. Protonk (talk) 13:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I really think that this sockpuppetry case is a case of imitation. The newest IP# is from a different location, and I think it's highly implausible that this particular editor would go through that many hoops. I think that unless someone comes up with evidence that gives validity to this case, it should be concluded. I think that someone should reopen the original case to arbitrate the initial difficulties with this sockpuppet. That's just my opinion though. --Candy156sweet (talk) 09:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Anyone think that our old friend LGRdC is involved in this? Stifle (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
You’re way off course, so I’ll give you a hint, pick one of the following who also do not like TTN: [144], encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=Deletionist&diff=1997437584&oldid=1997437294, or lots of em here or other suspected users behind these IPs, such as [145]. And as I have never used different IPs in the same discussion, not really seeing "sockpuppetry" here anyway. --63.3.1.130 (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2008
I posted this on your talk page, but I think that it's relevant to this forum as well. Have you looked at the contributions for this IP# and other sockpuppet IP#'s and accounts related to this? If you think that there aren't any vandalism edits that come from this IP# or any of the other IP#'s within the sockpuppet list, then you are not checking the list or you just don't want to admit your guilt. They all come from the same general location in Michigan aside from the newest IP# out of Colorado. So unless there is a distinct explanation for all of these incidents, it will be considered sockpuppetry. Here is the list of relative sockpuppets. They're all related to one specific area, aside from the first one on the page. That one comes from am IP# in a public library. The same type of vandalism has shown up for all the those IP #'s including the responses that deal with AfD nominations. If you can find a way to disprove that information, go right ahead and present it. So far there is nothing there that clears you from any wrongdoing. --Candy156sweet (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, these IPs are used by some odd number of different users, but I am not seeing recent vandalism in the last month or so. And if none of us are using the IPs to revert war or vote extra times in those discussions, then we are not engaging in sock puppet behavior. These are just IPs used by multiple editors with the same range of dynamic IPs. They are no longer being used by any of those users for vandalism. I am sorry about whoever else has used these IPs that may have caused you grief in the past, but you shouldn’t let whoever that is ruin things for the rest of us who get these IPs. Can you point out any recent in the past couple of weeks actual article vandalism since this discussion was started? Can you point out any deletion debate in which two different IPs from the above list both voted in? If not, then what is the actual deal here? And yeah, I have edited here and there a long time ago and am someone who has concerns with that one guy who always nominates the same kinds of articles with the exact same lazy wording (yeah, it gets real old seeing the exact same wording on every single nomination, seriously none of those articles are different?), but I’m not the one some of you think and I can’t prove a negative anyway.--63.3.1.2 (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Here is one and here is another from 63.3.1.2 (talk). It's all coming from the same location. All of the listed sockpuppets other than this new one, and the one from the public library are coming from one central locale. It's concrete. The same internet provider for all of the numbers involved and one central location in Michigan. Do you have indisputable evidence to prove otherwise? If you don't want all this difficulty with dynamic IP#'s, then start an account with a username. This way there is no confusion when it comes this issue. --Candy156sweet (talk) 17:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
And I am not the one who gets these IPs who made those two edits. If I created an account it would still be tied to these IPs and whoever else edits from than anyways, so what's the point? If you would like to offer some specific way in which we could work together constructively, I am all ears, but I personally am not using these IPs when they come around to me for vandalism. I can't do anything about what the other users of these IPs do. And even if I started an account it would still show up as being with these IPs and so what I get accused of sockpuppetry then too? All I know is I have never used these IPs to help out in some edit war or to make multiple votes in any of the same deletion debates. Therefore regardless of whatever others who have used these IPs in the past have done, I am not using them as socks. --63.3.1.130 (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
You should get a username and take care of the problem altogether. If you use a legitmate account rather than the IP#'s, then any sockpuppeting issues would be ruled out in your case. If you continue to edit without an account, it will be hard for you to plead your case. You have no proof that you are innocent of these edits whatsoever. --Candy156sweet (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how it would, b/c if the username is checked then who knows if the others who use these IPs operate accounts to. In any event, you have no proof that anyone using these IPs is currently sockpuppeting. I have yet to see anyone show examples of vote stacking or helping out in edit wars and the one checky thing done on these was inconclusive anyway. Yeah, some of the editors who use these dynamic and shared IPs just like any IP used at a library, a school, or what have you gets the occasional vandals, but this board is for sock puppetry and I and as far as I can tell no one else is using these IPs in the same discussions (this one aside) or anything else that is actually what we call sockpuppetry. I have nothing to be guilty or innocent of. I and some unknown number of other users get shuffled around from these IPs. Some of those users make bad edits. Some make good edits. And as I wrote above, if you can offer some good project that we can work on with each other or what have you, hey I am glad to do that. --63.3.1.130 (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
A username will at least give you something to fall back on. Without that, you can't really prove that you aren't the vandal editor in question. I'm not pushing this case to be an incovenience, I'm simply trying to weed out the vandal or vandals. Having a username would make this issue much easier. You can choose to do that, or you won't. That's entirely your judgment call. Like I've explained, you have no proof right now. I would only work on articles with someone who has a username. It's just the way I roll, pardon the urban slang. --Candy156sweet (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
After looking on Geolocate and WhoIs, I really think that the AfD issue is unfounded. I think that this project page should be concluded. --Candy156sweet (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Per Candy156sweet's proposal, and since no one has edited this page in a week, I will close this debate in 24 hours if there are no objections or further comments. Thanks. SunDragon34 (talk) 06:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Conclusions
I can neither make head nor tail of this. Closing as inconclusive. ScarianCall me Pat! 16:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Use of this form is deprecated. Please use Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations.
Stale Shuppiluliuma (talk · contribs)
Unrelated Turkish Flame (talk · contribs), Ayça Leovinus (talk · contribs), per checkuser. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Likely YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 02:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
