Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Archive/September 2007: Difference between revisions
Archiving |
Archiving |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
__TOC__ |
__TOC__ |
||
{{Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Float954}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TyrusThomas4lyf (2nd)}} |
{{Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TyrusThomas4lyf (2nd)}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Patriotmissile}} |
{{Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Patriotmissile}} |
Revision as of 05:45, 23 September 2007
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Float954
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Float954 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
PKIOPADDE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Gordonofcartoon 13:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
There is a long history of disruptive edits related to Salamis Island articles by a user previously reported and indefinitely blocked as User:Float954 (aka User:Dikd, User:Dsjgfwutvgeyxg U, User:DCBMSNB and User:Skarth). The edit pattern is to create articles on Salamis topics which need serious cleanup (English is clearly not his first language), then defend them by deleting cleanup tags and templates placed by other users, without fixing the problems. See history at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greece#Salamis-related articles.
A new user PKIOPADDE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has created the article Salamis Naval Base. I suspect he's a Float954 sock on the basis of the sole topic interest, style of English, habit of tiny incremental edits without summaries, and repetition of the obstructive edit pattern:
- Deleting talk page comment re cleanup [1]
- Deleting talk page comments re cleanup and image sourcing [2]
- Deleting cleanup tag [3]
- Deleting cleanup tag again [4]
- Removing tags on unreferenced sections of Salamis Island [5]
- Deleting talk page comments again [6]
- Deleting notification of this report [7]
- Comments
- Conclusions
- Seems like a match, but in any case PKIOPADDE is editing disruptively. PKIOPADDE is indef blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:TyrusThomas4lyf
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
TyrusThomas4lyf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Hoopsknowledge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.253.192.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Myasuda 03:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
User TyrusThomas4lyf was been blocked indefinitely in May for repeated personal attacks and edit warring, after numerous warnings and attempts to mediate. For a summary of this user's past behavior, see the RFC and his talk page User talk:TyrusThomas4lyf. This same user has also edited under the aliases IlliniPride and 68.253.206.119 in the past, as noted at [8] (see section "Problematic edits by IlliniPride / 68.253.206.119 / TyrusThomas4lyf").
Supporting evidence that Hoopsknowledge is indeed a sock-puppet for TyrusThomas4lyf include not only this user's editing of the same selection of articles, but introduction of the very same edits. For example:
- Identical edit: [9] (TyrusThomas4lyf) and [10] (Hoopsknowledge)
- Unusual obsession with "game score" (no other editor has supported this inclusion): [11] (TyrusThomas4lyf) and [12] (Hoopsknowledge)
- Unilateral removal of same cite tag (identical act of vandalism): [13] (Hoopsknowledge) and [14] (TyrusThomas4lyf)
- Identical commentary: [15] (Hoopsknowledge), [16] (alleged sock-puppet account 68.253.192.48), and [17] (established TyrusThomas4lyf sock-puppet account 68.253.216.115).
- Same claim inserted [18] (Hoopsknowledge) and [19] (IlliniPride -- a known alias for User talk:TyrusThomas4lyf).
- Removal of the very same sourced 76ers information: [20] (68.253.206.119 -- a known alias for User talk:TyrusThomas4lyf) and [21] (Hoopsknowledge)
- Same claim inserted [22] (Hoopsknowledge), [23] from (IlliniPride -- a known alias for User talk:TyrusThomas4lyf).
- Familiarity with an admin well-known to User talk:TyrusThomas4lyf: In the diff [24], Hoopsknowledge seeks out an admin in an attempt to retaliate against my identification of him as a sock-puppet. But why does Hoopsknowledge select Kafziel out of the hundreds (if not thousands) of available admins? The answer to this apparent mystery can be resolved by examining the contents of User talk:TyrusThomas4lyf. There, it becomes clear that Kafziel is one of the admins that User talk:TyrusThomas4lyf knows very well -- in fact, Kafziel instigated several blocking actions against TyrusThomas4lyf. The fact that Hoopsknowledge would seek out this particular admin of the many ones available (no one claimed TyrusThomas4lyf was a bright guy) is compelling evidence in and of itself.
TyrusThomas4lyf is using active deception to subvert the Wikipedia community's decision to block his harmful activity. Failure to act now will only encourage further sock-puppetry in the future.
- Comments
I do find it interesting how they all get rid of the piece they're editing and then they re-insert it after they have edited it. [25] Also, adding and removing the same info from the same articles seems a little too suspicious to be a coincedence to me. Guitarman051392 4:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC) — Preceding comment signed as by Guitarman051392 (talk · contribs) actually added by 12.217.240.86 (talk · contribs) -- Jreferee (Talk) 16:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Obvious sock. Blocked indefinitely. Kafziel Talk 16:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Patriotmissile
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Patriotmissile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Goldenapex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Antiskku (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Brincos 06:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
While discussing on this topic, Patriotmissile clearly seemed to have used the user's sockpuppet Goldenapex to make someone else to support his own opinion[26]. Furthermore, Patriotmissile clearly seemed to have used the user's sockpuppet Antiskku to do an absurd edit on Sungkyunkwan_University which I was interested in to distract me during discuss[27]. Goldenapex and Antiskku had logged on Wikipedia almost at the same time, especially, Goldenapex left comment to support Patriotmissile's opinion just once after Goldenapex's very first log-on [28] and Antiskku also made unreasonable edit on Sungkyunkwan univ page at Antiskku's very first log-on[29]. However the user is still denying such a sockpuppetry.
Here are evidences:
1) I was very suspicious of the user's sockpuppetry, so I just mentioned I knew you all Patriotmissile, Goldenapex, Antiskku were in the same region, then the user replied as follows: [30] The user said, "just because those users are from similar areas and similar times, you can't conclude those are the same users, right?" i.e, the user seemed to have grudgingly admitted Goldenapex, Patriotmissile, Antiskku were in the same region.
2) The user was under the illusion that I had such a computer hacking technique to be able to find a user's IP (although I replied I had no idea about such a high technique like hacking) so the user commented as follows: [31]. The user said, "you clearly stated that you found the IP address for three users were the same" although I just mentioned "the same area", not "IP". The user seemed to have thought that he was caught due to the hacking technique which does not exist, in fact. Consequently, the user confessed that Patriotmissile, Goldenapex, Antiskku used the same IP address, not just in the same region.
3) The user was starting to make excuses as follows: [32]. The user mentioned "there's lot of computer open to the public, so many people can use the same computer" and others so I showed this table to the user.[33]
User ID | Time | Date | Page |
---|---|---|---|
Goldenapex | 21:22 | 10 September 2007 | Talk:SKY (schools) |
Patriotmissile | 21:30 | 10 September 2007 | User talk:Brincos |
Patriotmissile | 21:32 | 10 September 2007 | Korea university |
Patriotmissile | 21:34 | 10 September 2007 | Korea university |
Patriotmissile | 21:41 | 10 September 2007 | Korea university |
Patriotmissile | 21:59 | 10 September 2007 | Talk:Sungkyunkwan University |
Patriotmissile | 23:03 | 10 September 2007 | Korea university |
Antiskku | 23:04 | 10 September 2007 | Sungkyunkwan university |
Patriotmissile | 23:43 | 10 September 2007 | Korea University |
Patriotmissile | 23:50 | 10 September 2007 | User talk:Brincos |
Patriotmissile | 23:59 | 10 September 2007 | Talk:SKY (schools) |
The table above shows the traces of Patriotmissile, Goldenapex, Antiskku. The user already almost confessed Patriotmissile, Goldenapex, Antiskku were using the same computer having the same IP. Therefore, the user used the same computer only 8 minutes later than when Goldenapex used it. Furthermore, Antiskku used the computer only 1 minutes later than the user's use of the computer. Goldenapex made the first log-on just 4 hours ago (this is just the 2nd log-on after the very first). [34] and Antiskku made the its first log-on as shown in the table[35] Antiskku made the unreasonable edit attack on Sungkyunkwan_University in which I was very interested at the very first log-on during the discuss between I and Patriotmissile and then left. Patriotmissile had known my interest on Sungkyunkwan_University. This looks unreasonable.
4) I warned the user that sockpuppetry can be a reason to ban the user from Wikipedia and the user replied as follows: [36] The user said, "You know, I don't even have to be here in Wikipedia". The user seemed to have admitted the user's sockpuppetry.
5) The user insisted, to the last, I hacked something :-/. (You can easily find it in the evidence talk page 'Talk:SKY (schools)' [37]) However, in other words, it proves my guess was correct. That is, I squared my guess with the fact the user was a sockpuppeteer.
- Comments
- Conclusions
- Possible that these accounts have been operated by the same person. But I don't see a violation of WP:SOCK, and certainly nothing to warrant blocking. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:86.156.75.117
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
- 86.156.75.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Wing Kraft (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Bushcarrot Talk Please Sign! Let's go Lightning! 00:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]
- Evidence
Very minor evidence, but the user has replaced the article Waste container with BIN BIN BIN, etc ([38]. And, if you can view deleted contributions, Wing Kraft creates BIN (supermarkets) and adds BIN BIN BIN BIN, the same thing as Waste container.
- Wing Kraft also vandalised the Waste container page, the act being two minutes before and after similar acts by 86.156.75.117. This made reversion a more confusing task and some of the vandalism went unnoticed for some minutes.Wavehunter 00:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Conclusions
- This is trivial vandalism that isn't worth bothering about. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page has been blanked as a courtesy. |
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Deep Jatt
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Deep Jatt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
ShimlaIND (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
JasleenS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
69.230.107.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Smashville 04:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
They are making the same disruptive edits here: [39] And especially here: [40] In the second one, they haven't just made a disruptive edit, they've attempted to completely change the context of the page to an entirely separate subject.
- Comments
I have no idea who the bottom 3 users are!!!! But i am not a sock puppet. I love wikipedia and love adding new articles. Please remove my name of the list Deep Jatt UTC 11:17
- Conclusions
- Quite possible, but accounts seem to have been abandoned. With no current activity, there's not a pressing need to take action. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:AnYoNe!
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
AnYoNe! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
AnYtWo! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
AnY3! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
AnY FOUR! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Johnny Au 21:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Similarity in name and in contributions. The user uses numerous profanities in his edits, as the user is a troll according to the sock puppeteer's account.
- Comments
This person was suspected of sockpuppeting before and I noticed that there is another sockpuppet: AnY FOUR!.
- Maybe. Note, in addition to the similarity of name, that AnyFOUR began editing on July 20, just ten days after Any2 and Any3 were indef-blocked. Note that everyone other than AnyFOUR is already indef-blocked. Shalom Hello 02:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- This is fairly obvious block evasion, but the new account seems to be attempting to be constructive, so I'll let it go for now. If there's any evidence of disruption feel free to block as appropriate. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Mary divalerio
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Mary divalerio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Gigilili (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Liddydivalrio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
24.107.80.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Katr67 23:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Contribs:
Users, most of whom have registered within a few days of each other, are all commenting and chatting on talk pages relating to "gross" anatomical pictures, and to each other in a similar style (lots of !!!!! and the mention of "common interests" for example). One username very similar to the main one. New user who is unclear on how to use Wikipedia?
- Comments
Dear Katr67,I belive you accused me of sock puppetry. Let me explain. Mary divaleriois my user name . Liddydivalrio is my little sisters username and my moms username is gigilili. since we all use the same computer, sometimes another username is already logged in when we start to do our homework.(the reason all of our accounts started at the same time was because school started)!!!! also the "commen intrest mail" was actully a prank on my little sister.Trust me, as you can tell from my spelling mistakes, (I'm sure I have quite a few)I 'm just a kid that uses "wikipedia " for homework. By the way our computer is having diffucultly editing the evidence page so I was wonndering if you could add this message to it--Mary Di Valerio 16:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Katr67"
- Well the accounts have been trolling a bit [41] but I didn't see any edit that looked particulary disruptive, certainly inmature but not to the extent of being considered vandalism, alternate accounts are allowed as long as they aren't used in a disruptive manner, I wouldn't personaly block them yet seeing that the user has already admited the accounts are shared by the same PC, now seeing that the edits are basically what is often encountered on new users unfamiliar with the project's policies I would recomend mentorship. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
I think the user/s have got the message. I'll remove the sock tags from their pages. Katr67 15:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No current activity; if users become active again and there's further disruptive activity, blocks may be appropriate. --Akhilleus (talk)`
- 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:Pacman123
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Pacman123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Pacman124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Y4kk 23:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Similar user names, editing dates and nature of vandalism [Pacman 123 edits] new account after blocking([[42]])[Pacman 124 edits]
- Comments
- Conclusions
- Obvious, blocked. This kind of obvious sockpuppetry can go to WP:AIV in the future. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Everyriver
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
- Everyriver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Oughtbegan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Orderadded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Endeddaily (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Radioends (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Boardextra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Shifttrain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Spokenames (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
— Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 08:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
identical and continual vandalism to User:Riana and User talk:Riana, including admitting sockpuppetry in the Edit Summaries
- Comments
- Conclusions
- All blocked already. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:AlanSteele (2nd)
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
AlanSteele (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Bopann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Orlady 04:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
This diff of Bopann's only edit is identical to the previous edits performed by User:AlanSteele and his sockpuppet User:Iorgos.
- Comments
The target article is semi-protected. Bopann was registered last week and edited shortly after Alan Steele's previous sockpuppetry case was closed out.
- Conclusions
- Block evasion by an indef blocked user = another indef block. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Duty2love
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Reneeholle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Duty2love (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Reneeholle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Rushmi 14:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
- Duty2love comes out suddenly just to support statements made by Reneeholle.
- User was suspected for sockpuppet when first edit was made [43]
- This user has edited only those pages where Reneeholle is involved [44]
Duty2love user is created only to support contribution's done by Reneeholle
- Comments
If they are same person, using sockpuppet only to support claim made by one ID to another, then both ID's should be blocked as per wikipedia policy. as in this case [45]
- RESPONSE
RESPONSE BY RENEEHOLLE: This case is so far from the truth that it's laughable. Please check writing styles for one and check the IP addresses for two and you'll see we are two completely different persons with absolutely no linkages or personal relations or even knowledge of the other. This case is plain harassment and bad faith by user:Rushmi, and I request he be sanctioned for it.
I do assume Duty2love is a member of the Sahaj Marg group (based on his/her posts) but there are over 300,000 members of the group, so it makes sense that at least one other member would find Wiki and be an editor. User:Rushmi claims Duty2love follows around my edits but I clicked on Duty2love's contribs, and it looks like he's edited only on Sahaj Marg and SRCM pages. There was one edit on IPSOS's page where he clarifies his status and the fact that he is not a sockpuppet. If you click on my contribs, you'll see that I've devoted an enormous amount of time to Wiki on many different sites, have been active in responding to RFCs for spiritual topics, and have been working in good faith as a neutral editor.
Now, on to the real problem. User:Rushmi is a single purpose account with the sole purpose of pushing a negative POV against a group called Sahaj Marg. He has engaged in tendentious and hostile editing toward me while "pretending" to be a brand, new naive user (he's amazingly facile with the templates, the policies, the procedures for a newbie).
For these and many other reasons I strongly believe he is a sockpuppet of User:Shashwat_pandey, who vanished after an RFC/user was filed against him (I was one of the persons who filed it so he holds great anger toward me). I was hesitant to "blow his cover" to see if he would ever engage in reasonable editing, but instead he continues to escalate the attacks toward me and has posted complete nonsense on the Sahaj Marg talk page, using up many editors time.
I will make a file for sockpuppetry on him and outline my case there. I request he be admonished for repeated harassment and frivolous claims. Thank you, Renee --Renee 19:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Update: Here is the sock report filed for Rushmi. Renee 00:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response by Duty2Love
This accusation is completely baseless and it is in direct response to my attempt to stop vandalism on Sahaj Marg discussion page. Here are my arguments against evidence posted by Rushmi.
- Counter Evidence
- Duty2love comes out suddenly just to support statements made by Reneeholle.
- This is absolutely false statement, please view my contributions since I joined and decide for your self if they are only to support Renee's statement. I know Renee from the discussions on Sahaj Marg or SRCM and I see her as a reasonable person, willing to weigh in an argument before making an opinion, also she has helped me with newbie tips.
- User was suspected for sockpuppet when first edit was made [46]
- Yes this is true but look at my response my response and then IPSOS' response
- This user has edited only those pages where Reneeholle is involved [47]
- Yes this is true but in no way an evidence for sock puppetry. This is true because I am a new user and Sahaj Marg and SRCM are the first articles those I have started with, but certainly I am interested in learning from and possibly contributing to other areas of my interest, e.g., Meditation, Spirituality, NLP, Information Extraction, Quantum Mechanics etc.
I am not sure geographically where Renee is from, but there's gotta be a way for Wikipedia to run tracert on mine and Renee's IP to make sure that we are from different regions and that should clear up this case for sure.
Now here are some of my observations about user Rushmi:
- Appeared on Sahaj Marg discussion page on Sept 1 and from the beginning started questioning everything - [48]
- Started making edits without consensus, which was reverted by admin IPSOS - [49]
- Accusing another new user of Sock puppetry, without any prior communication or verifications.
And all of these with in just 19 days. I am not sure what can be done to prevent this misuse of a Wikipedia account/policies. I am looking forward to getting some help from other users on this. Thanks!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duty2love (talk • contribs) 21:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a very impressive report. The only evidence of similarity I see is starting talk page comments with "Dear ____" on its own line [50][51] which is maybe enough to file a checkuser request. If Rushmi wants to file one, he can. Requests to "prove your innocence" are declined. The other thing I noticed is that Duty2love makes minor grammatical errors that suggest he/she is not a native English speaker. (I don't mean to be insulting in making that comment and I apologize if I come across that way.) Reneeholle doesn't make the same errors in the talk page posts I've seen. I don't think they're the same people.--Chaser - T 06:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since I blocked Rushmi, I opened an RFCU here.--Chaser - T 08:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a super weak retaliatory suspected sock report. And to boot Duty2love has not engaged in any controversial or POV pushing editing patterns. So, super-duper weak report. And to double-boot, Duty2Love had 15 posts prior to this report? Super-duper-pooper-scooper-lame. Sethie 22:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't helpful. If you have evidence or analysis to contribute, please do so.--Chaser - T 07:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
The checkuser was declined, as sometimes happens when the evidence is very weak. With little evidence connecting these two editors and some evidence indicating they are different people, I'm comfortable saying that Duty2love and Reneeholle are different people. Case closed.--Chaser - T 04:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Chubeat8
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Chubeat8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Swapant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
212.12.160.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
216.198.139.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
213.166.128.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
MezzoMezzo 15:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
On Abd-al-Aziz ibn Abd-Allah ibn Baaz:
Edits by User:Swapant
Edits by 212.12.160.47
- 04:02, 5 September 2007
- 04:56, 8 September 2007
- 10:40, 8 September 2007
- 04:05, 9 September 2007
- 11:08, 9 September 2007
- 11:15, 9 September 2007
Edits by 213.166.128.39
Chubeat8 admitting to being at least 216.198.139.38 in edit summaries
It doesn't end there. There's more on Talk:Abd-al-Aziz ibn Abd-Allah ibn Baaz:
216.198.139.38 signed comments as "Chubeat8"
- Comments
This originally started on the Abd-al-Aziz ibn Abd-Allah ibn Baaz article and it's talk page about two months ago with the same issues; however, User:Proabivouac, User:Itaqallah, and myself let him/them know that such behavior wouldn't stand and they seemed to give up at the time. The consequences of that argument still makes up the bulk of this article's talk page. We assumed it was over but that doesn't seem to be the case. In addition, I have had to warn one of the IP addresses about the three revert rule this morning and they have even been Wikistalking me onto other articles as may be seen on the talk page in the current discussion. I feel this has gone on quite long enough and would really like some help on this, because it is becoming very tiring; otherwise helpful edits could be made to this article and the others he/they has/have stalked me on to (yes, they're actually reverting my edits on unrelated pages now) can not be made due to this disruption. Please advise.
- Conclusions
I am really quite confidant that this is a legitimate case of sockpuppetry. Please see to it that something is done soon and if at all possible I would like to call Proabivouac and Itaqallah as witnesses to what has been going on. Thank you for any help that may be given in this situation.MezzoMezzo 15:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious case. The IP also purported to be several other individuals, including "KAWAKIBI" and "Jean-François Lafleure." He's probably already figured out why that doesn't work (same IP in the history,) but puppetry with named accounts continues, and I assume will get worse in this zero-enforcement anarchic environment.Proabivouac 01:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A similar IP address, 213.166.130.78 (talk), is also now Wikistalking me on the same exact articles and inserting the same exact disruptive edits for no readily available reason. Normally I would assume good faith but i'm not so sure at this point. This has really gone on long enough, it would really be helpful if I could get someone to look into this. MezzoMezzo 14:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response
MezzoMezzo claims that I use sockpuppet tactics in his said article. Here is my defense against that wishful accusation:
IPs he mentioned to not make sense to link
click here to verify yourself:
- The IP address 212.12.160.47 is assigned Saudi Arabia
- The IP address 216.198.139.38 is assigned to Canada
- The IP address 213.166.128.39 is assigned to Saudi Arabia
- The IP address 213.166.130.78 is assigned to Germany
Does any one believe this nonsense by MezzoMezzo!! I hope there is one. Chubeat8 01:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- According to an actual WHOIS search, 212.12.160.47, 213.166.128.39, and 213.166.130.78 are all in Saudi while 216.198.139.38 is in Canada. I would also keep in mind that: "For the purposes of upholding policy, Wikipedia does not distinguish between meatpuppets and sockpuppets." Please cease with this disruption. MezzoMezzo 02:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This user has now Wikistalked me through the use of both his accounts and the above IP addresses across the articles for Abd-al-Aziz ibn Abd-Allah ibn Baaz, Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani, Wahhabism, Qutbism, Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and Salafism; the harassment has included (but is not limited to) accusing me disruptive edits the page history clearly shows were done by other editors, intentionally inserting spelling errors, reverting grammatical corrections I made, demanding I scan copies of references already linked to in the footnotes, citing amicably solved differences of opinion i've had with other users to attack my integrity as an editor, citing an instance four months ago (!) on a completely unrelated article (!) where I reverted one of my own edits because I felt I had let my own POV slip through to attack my integrity as an editor, accusing me of deleting images that were deleted by completely different editors to attack my integrity as an editor...the list goes on. I don't want to cause too much of a stink over this, but when will this finally be addressed? I've brought this to the admin's noticeboard for three revert rule violations, contacted three separate admins - who due to legitimate real life commitments have not yet been able to devote their time to the issue - sought third party mediation through a number of other editors (comments from these other editors on the talk pages of some of the above articles also confirm the sockpuppet suspicion), and have even directly asked this person non-rhetorically what they wish to accomplish via all these personal attacks on me. I understand that there are many open cases going on but how long will this be allowed to continue? It's to the point where I can't even attend legitimate issues on other articles out of fear that this person will bring the conflict over to those said other articles as well, as he has already openly admitted to going through all the contributions I make daily. What am I supposed to do? I can't even edit now. MezzoMezzo 04:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User MezzoMezzo have wikistaked me in the first time I participated in the article of [Ibn Baz] and followed me and placed a speedy deletion in the Wahabi Controvecial Fatwas article. In the discussion page of the mentioned article or -if eventually- the first archive on that discussion page, he deleted along side with two other users of similar edit history all my contributions. First accusing me of sockpuppetry and disruptive edits which now he changed to meatpuppetry. You can see in the discussion page how he abused wikipedia laws against the intergrity of wikipedia. Not only that, he traped me to the 3RR and wikistaked me. He often attack the person and not the argument and uses threats of wikipedia laws. The proof of my good faith is that I never vandalized edits, I abided by working out in the discussion page before editing and stopped editing while requesting just a tag. MezzoMezzo ,and as shown in the accusation list that should be here probably, in the talk page of [Ibn Baz] has used many tactics and still unable to prove good faith. I do not want to bring in the Basket of proofs here waiting to see if I am supposed to or not. Finally, Wikipedia allows me to edit any where I want under the condition that I respect the rules. If some one is afraid of other edits or arguments in the talk page than he must be afraid of admin involvment. In any case, I would appreciate if someone can tell me what not to do here in specific in this particular case where I press for my participation at leat on the talk page level in -coincidently or not- the issues that are of interest to MezzoMezzo.
I also need a proof of disruptive edits in any article displayed here so I can defend my self.
so basically here what MezzoMezzo should bring:
A- All proofs of diruptive edits by ME so I can reply on that. B- Explain how he links me to people in Germany, Saudi Arabia and may be even Britain. c- Proof that I have bad faith.
In response, I will provide my defense plus the proof of his bad faith and a detailed historic of his meatpuppeting and abuse of the system.--Chubeat8 04:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would expect from Proavobiac to state his proofs and stop joining attack on me just to make a push comment for MezzoMezzo. If Proabivouac who is already on probation wants me to defend myself against him, I will analyse his records and come back here with a list of accusation and let the admin take dicision for or against me. FYI Proabivouac--Chubeat8 05:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Side comment user Proabivouacwas discovered sockpuppeting and was blocked. That same user has similar edits like MezzoMezzo and always backed him with reverts in Ibn Baz article, backed him in argumets at talk page and even here with a comment. So there is a big question of credibility and good faith here that be shown even more if MezzoMezzo and his friend do not stop accusing me and attacking my person in the talk page.--Chubeat8 05:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your "Wahabi controvercial fatwa" article deletion speaks for itself; it was an attack page made solely to disparage it's subject (you actually put a slur in the article title!). As far as me stalking you, please check the official policy: "This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy". Also, the issue on this project page isn't disruption, it's sockpuppetry.
- As for Proabivouac, please don't be dishonest; you had to have searched his page to find that so you know he was blocked for edit warring, not for sockpuppetry, as his other account was a doppelganger account, not a sock. That's why it hasn't been banned. Please stop wasting time with this, as his writing style isn't anywhere close to mine (unlike that of Chubeat/Swapant/uss-cool) and, unlike the three of you, we didn't create counts within days of each other with the express purpose of arguing the same point on the same article. Lastly, please don't spam this page with more of the typical weak personal attacks that you do on Talk:Abd-al-Aziz ibn Abd-Allah ibn Baaz. MezzoMezzo 14:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, since you seem to have ignored me earlier, three of those IPs are in Saudi and one is in Canada; none of them are in Germany or the UK. And, as you seem to have ignored earlier, for the sake of Wiki policy sockpuppets and meatpuppets are treated as the same. MezzoMezzo 14:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusion
- Ugh. What a mess. A Checkuser might help here; Abd-al-Aziz ibn Abd-Allah ibn Baaz and its talk page are a mess of edit warring by SPAs and anonymous accounts. It's quite clear, though, that Chubeat8 has used 216.198.139.38, User:Swapant, and User:Uss-cool in an attempt to create an illusion of greater support for his position. I'm unsure about User:Arawiki and the other IPs listed above; it's interesting, though, that one of User:212.12.160.47's edits is to proxy server.
- In addition to the general disruption caused by pretending to be several different people, Chubeat8 and Uss-cool broke the 3RR at Abd-al-Aziz ibn Abd-Allah ibn Baaz on September 13. If User:212.12.160.47 is connected to this (which seems quite possible), there's another 3RR violation on September 9.
- I'm indef blocking Swapant and Uss-cool. Chubeat8 and 216.198.139.38 will be blocked for 48 hours. Further use of multiple accounts should lead to more substantial blocks. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:151.199.250.29
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
151.199.250.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
192.122.250.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Leman123456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Patrick Vo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
151.201.156.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
orlady 01:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
This is a group of persistent vandals, focused on Madison University and its talk page, who appear to be the same person. Note: The choice of account to list as puppetmaster was completely arbitrary. Evidence of their relatedness is the similarity (yea, even identical nature) of their edits. Furthermore, the three IPs are all in Pennsylvania (one is a corporation, presumably a workplace, and the other two belong to an ISP). The purpose of these accounts seems to be to annoy/harass other wikipedians (i.e., me), but they also aim to remove negative statements to the effect that Madison University has been called a diploma mill.
Some diffs from the article (there are many more like these):
- most recent edit of the article (removal of sourced content), by 151.199.250.29
- identical change, a few hours earlier, by 192.122.250.250
- in-article complaint about the article content that most of the other edits are concerned with, by 192.122.250.250
- similar edit to the above, by 151.199.250.29
- in-article complaint about the same content, but with different wording, by Leman123456
- edit on 14 August, to modify the same statements that most of the other edits are concerned with, by Patrick Vo
- earlier edit to article, similar to many of the others, by 151.201.156.180
Some diffs from the talk page:
- first comment in response to my creation of talk page, signed Exmarine, not signed by actual contributor, posted by Patrick Vo
- reply by 151.199.250.29 - Interesting features are removing "Patrick Vo" from my comment and addition of some paragraphs that later were added to article
- Extensive revision of the "Exmarine" comment originally posted by Patrick Vo; also adds text (same text later added to article by multiple users) to the effect that the user had made a phone call to determine that the article's source is wrong, by 151.199.250.29
- Removed "Patrick Vo" from my comment, by 192.122.250.250
- Comments
There have been several additional edits to Madison University by User:151.199.250.29 since this case was started.--orlady 19:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User Patrick Vo apparently has changed his name to Patrick Vorkapich --Orlady 17:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- It's reasonable to think that all of these accounts were used by the same person, but since the activity is stale, I don't see much point in blocking. If disruptive activity resumes, then blocks would be an option, but semi-protecting the article might also help. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Auno3 (2nd)
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Auno3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Paruta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
169.229.207.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
128.32.77.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
128.32.185.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
128.32.77.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
69.107.82.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
69.107.81.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
69.107.86.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
69.107.81.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
69.107.77.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
128.32.77.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
69.107.50.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
169.229.207.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
L.R.Booker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
JScott06 15:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Tendencies in Auno3's edits:
- Interest in Marvin Heemeyer. Apparently views him as a "hero"[52][53]. Repeatedly tried to insert weasel words into article reflecting his point of view[54][55][56]
- Talk page blanking [57][58][59]
- Various race-related:
- Blatant vandalism to Heidi Klum [60][61]
- Interest in Dysgenics. Has repeatedly inserted a controversial bullet point in Societal collapse that claims miscegenation will lead to global collapse[62]. Has tried to insert similar info in other articles such as Human[63] and Human evolution[64].
- Interest in the Jessie Davis case[65][66][67] He repeatedly tried to insert a picture of Bobby Cutts in Miscegenation[68]. He also inserted a picture of Bobby Cutts in Black people[69]
Similar trends observed in suspected sockpuppets:
Paruta (talk · contribs) (note the similar complaint of "liberalism" on user page)
- POV edits to Marvin Heemeyer; same "heroism" talk[70][71][72]
- Racist vandalism[73][74]
- Dysgenics[75][76]
- Talk page blanking[77][78]
169.229.207.56 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
128.32.77.32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- Heidi Klum[82]
- Marvin Heemeyer[83]
- Racist rant in Talk:Kevin Alfred Strom[84]
128.32.185.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- Societal collapse[85]
128.32.77.96 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- Societal collapse[86] Tries to give false impression of multiple support in edit summary. This edit was done while Auno3 was blocked for 3RR on that very article.
- Marvin Heemeyer[87]
69.107.82.187 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
69.107.81.83 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
69.107.86.61 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- Societal collapse[92]
69.107.81.62 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
69.107.77.43 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- Marvin Heemeyer[98] - Auno3 has attempted to add the Colorado template before[99][100]
- Heidi Klum-type vandalism to Jessie Davis[101]
- Heidi Klum[102][103]
- Weasel words/POV edit praising neo-Nazi figure [104]
128.32.77.42 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
69.107.50.185 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- Edit to confirmed sock P.W.Lutherson's user page[107]
- Dysgenics[108] Auno3 uses the term "prima facie" in other edit summaries[109][110]
169.229.207.19 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
L.R.Booker (talk · contribs)
- Joined on Sep. 6, when Auno3 was on block. Immediately began the usual racist/dysgenics-related edits[113]. Note the similarity in name to confirmed sock P.W.Lutherson.
More of the same:
- 169.229.13.91 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 128.32.77.53 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 128.32.77.17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 128.32.185.214 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 169.229.13.100 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 128.32.77.106 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
All IP's are from the San Francisco Bay Area.
- From Will Beback
I was asked to intervene in this case previously. I identified P.W.Lutherson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a sock of Auno3 and blocked the account. On further investigation I identified these IP accounts as likely instances of the same editor:
- 68.167.207.77 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 69.107.112.94 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 69.107.32.121 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 69.107.33.184 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 69.107.35.37 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 69.107.43.173 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 69.107.50.93 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 69.107.54.251 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 69.107.56.122 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 69.107.57.209 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 69.107.63.177 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 69.107.64.15 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 69.107.64.176 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 69.107.67.164 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 69.107.68.4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 69.107.71.252 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 69.107.76.254 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 69.107.77.205 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 69.107.77.43 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 69.107.78.146 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 69.107.79.162 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 69.107.80.101 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 69.107.80.104 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 69.107.81.139 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 69.107.81.62 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 69.107.81.83 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 69.107.82.187 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 69.107.82.73 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 69.107.84.0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 69.107.84.160 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 69.107.85.4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 69.107.86.61 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 69.107.87.136 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 69.107.87.47 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 69.107.89.190 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 69.107.89.200 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 69.107.90.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 69.107.91.43 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 69.107.92.238 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 69.107.94.143 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 69.107.94.171 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 69.107.94.186 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 69.107.94.241 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
This user has, as JScott06 has described, clear editing style and interests. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also note the numerous complaints and warnings on the IP talk pages. If these ahd been accumulated on a single account it most likely would have been blocked for increasingly long periods. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other recurring topics of interest include:
- Vending machine and related articles
- Resident Evil 4 and related articles
These show up frequently in the edits of the IPs. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
I initiated the first sockpuppet allegation about User:Auno3 and User:P.W.Lutherson, and the two of us have had edit conflicts in the past. While I agree that the editors listed here seem to have similar obsessions interests, the use of the phrase "nigger lover" and "race traitor" to describe Heidi Klum is much stronger than anything User:Auno3 has written. Also, the suggestion by one IP editor that Jessie Davis "got what she deserved for being a nigger lover" seems inconsistent with User:Auno3's expressed attitude toward her. Perhaps the anonymity of an IP address emboldened User:Auno3. On other subjects, however, the edits seem almost identical to User:Auno3's. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Am I God? You've sure made it seem that way. If I am able to make that many edits with that many accounts, I must be editing 24/7 every day and spending such effort to conceal myself behind a network of accounts that I might just get a call from the local hackers Inc. Or perhaps all of you must realize that many Americans share my views, and that I am only part of the silent majority who prefers not to take drastic action such as burning American flags, say Bush is a terrorist, or even more absurdly that 9-11 was planned. Even more unaccepted among most Americans is that miscegenation is a natural phenemenon. The actual record shows that miscegenation, white guilt, and lies against America has been forcibly drilled into the minds of most Americans starting in Public school, making it trendy among the liberalist elements of society. So far, members of this vastest sector of Americans has been banned from this site due to their legitimate views. What is non-POV is mainstream America, and a minuscule part of this mainstream America runs in my red, white, and blue veins. What has happened on this site, and what is still happening to this site, is the allowing of the most leftist views to run rampant and infest the minds of many of our nation's children. May God Bless All.Gold Nitrate 04:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Auno3 has in fact used the term "race traitor". And although "nigger lover" may sound harsh, the editor who used it still has the similar San Francisco IP and virtually identical edits to Marvin Heemeyer[114][115]. All of the IP's edits were made on one day. JScott06 23:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- There's clear evidence here that Auno3 has used sockpuppets to evade his 48 hour block of September 5. Since this activity is relatively stale I have blocked Auno3 for a period of 1 hour; if the activity had been more current I would have blocked for 72 hours. As an aside, any user who inserts phrases like "race traitor" into a BLP is having a problem understanding what Wikipedia's about, and I'm surprised that Auno3 has so few blocks on his record. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Danny Daniel
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Danny Daniel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
LKSJND (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Kaghsd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Pokasfs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Calahjas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Yngvarr 22:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
- User:Kaghsd created on September 6, 2007. A total of four non-productive edits performed on List of characters in Camp Lazlo. Two reverts, and two warnings were placed on User Talk:Kaghsd with no response. Diff in question, after my revert: [116]
- User:LKSJND created on September 7, 2007. Performs identical edits to List of characters in Camp Lazlo. Diff after my revert: [117]. No discussion attempted. Also, while I was in the process of creating this submission, user created Where's Raj? and Edward vs Lazlo, following said pattern.
- Comments
User:Squirepants101/Danny Daniel contains a history of this puppetmaster, and edits for the above two users follow the same pattern: incorrect information is added to articles, but written in such a way to keep spambots from noticing; non-responsive to attempted discussions.
- I've recently noticed that a new user named User:Sikjhad recreated the hoax De-Animated, which was originally created by a Danny Daniel sockpuppet. The page was recreated three other times by other Danny Daniel socks. I've also reported the incident to WP:ANI. I believe that it is too early to tell whether this is a sockpuppet or if this is just an impersonator who just happened to read some of the Danny Daniel hoaxes. I am waiting until the user makes more edits, and if those edits fit the editing style of the typical Danny Daniel sockpuppet, I will request a block. Pants(T) 18:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding Pokasfs: I am adding User:Pokasfs based on Special:Contributions/Pokasfs. This one isn't as obvious as the previous, but the operation is similar enough for me to suspect it and add it here. Two of this editor's newly created arts have been posted to AfD, but as I said, these edits got my attention. Yngvarr 13:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding Calahjas: Adding User:Calahjas, again, based on Special:Contributions/Calahjas. Two edits to a Camp Lazlo article, adding hoax material. Created School_Hero. All fits the pattern. Yngvarr (t) (c) 21:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- All the named accounts have been blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Yidisheryid
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
- Yidisheryid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- IndependentConservative (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- RabbiAdam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Yossiea (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
User seems to be a sockpuppet of YY. He follows YY around just to vote on AFD's that YY is against. IC's page was also edited by YY and this just seems to be a creation to stack votes.
To Codify Further:
- Both IndependentConservative and RabbiAdam appear to be SPA accounts, and are new users whose only contributions are to AfD's.
- AfD Debates in which IndependentConservative and RabbiAdam take the same position as Yidisheryid:
- Comments
I strongly deny this accusation, i never follow nobody, and i request this user to be warned not to spread false acusations against me--יודל 15:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we do a checkuser to clearly and easily see if this is the case? This is a suspected case, not a certain case. I suspect you, that doesn't mean that I believe with 100% certainty. That is why we have this process. Yossiea (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that suspecting evil in others with a false unfounded accusation that i follow another user around, is indeed against the assuming good faith wiki principle and i would like u to be warned so that we can take your contributions in full perspective. Thanks--יודל 15:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Warn me for what? In addition, isn't odd that you post a welcome message on two users page and the only contributions from these brand new users are votes that you are following? Yossiea (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A warning not to disrupt wikipedia to make a point, and to assume good faith, and to sieze reporting for the admins as somebody who must be blocked, due to edit wars while i was not at any time involved with any user in an edit war, i do use the talk pages, and overall seize your constantly unfounded accusations on me on my talk page which i erase, i may take down unfounded warnings from my talk, if its not from an admin and with blatant unfounded accusation, It is also a lie that i welcomed 2 users, i sent 4 welcomes to suers i saw the talk red, some of those are long standing some of those are new. Yes did i recognise their red ink to a vote page, absolutely. I post welcome messages to everybody i am interested to get them invested in our project. Thanks--יודל 16:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Warn me for what? In addition, isn't odd that you post a welcome message on two users page and the only contributions from these brand new users are votes that you are following? Yossiea (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that suspecting evil in others with a false unfounded accusation that i follow another user around, is indeed against the assuming good faith wiki principle and i would like u to be warned so that we can take your contributions in full perspective. Thanks--יודל 15:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This does seem slightly odd to me. Usually new users don't jump straight into AfD's, and the fact that all of those AfD's follow Yidisheryid is odd. Not sure that it's enough to request a checkuser, but then I'm not too familiar with that process. Full disclosure: I've particpated in AfD's with Yidisheryid before (although I haven't consistently help the same opinions in said AfD's). --Bfigura (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Those afd's involve was evidently heated and there is more then one user who voted there as their only edits in a very long time, this only says that we can consider allot of people sock or meat puppets, this does not in any way raise suspicions against me, i would like my name to be cleared of this by all means.--יודל 17:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, is RabbiAdam (talk · contribs) also a sockpuppet maybe? IZAK 20:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, it would fit the pattern described above (in the sense that it was a new user who's page was only edited by Yidisheryid, and who has only participated in debates with Yidisheryid. No real proof there, but it is suggestive. --Bfigura (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again i have edited more then this 2 users pages, the reason was simple i did not like the red color their vote represented, it should not make the impression of one side against the other side, i believe a check user on my name should be done against all fellow voters not only those 2 mentioned above, and if i am found to vote 2 times block me from ever entering this project for life.--יודל 21:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yossiea, it is rather ridiculous that you've lowered yourself to this lame form of action against people who support Messianic Jews. That's what this really is about. You dislike Messianic Jews and you're trying to discredit all who support them. I am not a Messianic Jew. I am a Christian who runs the blog http://www.independentconservative.com/ see my bio at http://www.independentconservative.com/about/ . Notice my blog name matches my user ID. I am not a "sock puppet" of a Messianic Jew although I love them as brothers and sisters in the Lord. That Lord being the Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God. God who was on earth in flesh, born of a virgin, died for the sins of mankind and resurrected to sit at the right hand of the Father in Heaven. All who beleive on Him shall be saved.IndependentConservative 17:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- RabbiAdam I am me, and no one else on this board. I was previously registered on here, but I suspect the management deleted the registration when they sided against the real CTOMC (http://ctomc.info) with the people who attempted to hijack the organization and presented the management with faked legal documents to support their case.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RabbiAdam (talk • contribs)
Evidence to the contrary By accused user YY
Since all names involved have already proclaimed their innocence and have declared this argument of following others around as faulty and unconvincing i will try to proof why this whole accusation is happening and the motives of who reported it to show that User:Yossiea is indeed the puppet here who has opened a witch hunt against me and this report he submitted here is indeed garbage and has no merit and part of his bigger agenda to disrupt wikipedia with personal unfounded unlinked attacks on other users:
He constantly attacks me personal
His accusations against me has no links
- it seems that YY is going against any chassidishe sect that is supposedly supportive of the State.[125].
- Regardless of your attacks against myself[126]. Guess what i have never ever attacked him that's why he has no links.
- [127]
- here he starts a deletion process of an article i have writn just by saying: Not in accordance with WP:BIO [128] while i labored days and nights to create that, here u have it the last version since a gentile user deleted it on his word.[129]
And its usually plain and simple lies
- Enough already! Your continuing to claim that you address the issues does not make it so[130].without discussing it on the talk page [131]. By all means, look at the talk page. I don't really see you "heavily" using the talk page as you claim [132]. Furthermore, he keeps claiming that he does utilize the talk page. I haven't really seen that [133]. -->Guess what i have addressed every singe detail ad-homonym on that talk page.
- ruined this article with your edits, if i ruined it how come nobody has any problem with and nobody wants it changed?
- from articles that you have created yourself' guess what i never created that article all i said was that its not a speedy deletion since he is indeed notable!
He is actively involved and most of his edits is busy deleting articles i have heavily edited
- he does not even feel important to say one word just delete and finish [134]. #[135] #[136] #[137]
- doesn't even bother to say what he thinks is wrong, just piles up on other users to delete it. [138]
- [139] while i labored day and night to address all concerns here is the last verison[140].
- Doesn't even feel important to say one word just piles up and says per above[141]--יודל 21:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just reverts everything that i edit
- in silence [142]
- or just screaming reverted stupid edits [143]
- or simply calls my edits vandalism [144] [145] [146] [147] [148] [149].
- or edits are extremely controversial[150]
Even though other user agrees with me
He spams wikipedia pages with comments to other users
calling me a vandal to get me blocked [151] or Please see the article and talk page for yidisheryid's edits and POV pushing [152]. user yidisheryid is trying to push his POV across and I've had to have the page protected twice already [153]. I think YY just has an axe to grind with anything that smacks of any chassidishe sect supporting Israel [154]. -->simply because i don't agree with him,
doesn't do anything else here lately but follow me
only reverting by his robot some minor edits.
Support messages other wikipedians have left me during this ordeal against me
My Conclusion
I don't want him blocked i believe his POV if we deal with it, (and i am ready and able to handle him) and balance it can contribute greatly to our encyclopedia, but i want him exposed for what he is, and take his accusations with a grain of salt. and perhaps a check-user on me and on him will show all his names to block them as seen fit which names he was a puppet under. --יודל 15:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your evidence to the contrary is not evidence to the contrary. Yossiea (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- wait a day and i will finish providing all my evidence, its hard and very long process, but i will expose u in the end.--יודל 19:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The goal of this is not to expose me but to defend yourself against the sockpuppet claim. Yossiea (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct but one of the means to achieve this goal is to see what lays behind this accusation and its background, and everything will be crystal clear, that is i will be exonerated and cleaned and u may not be blocked but definitely exposed in the end of the day, so your future accusations will be taken for what it is worth.--יודל 20:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Suit yourself, but attacking me is not the way to defend yourself. Yossiea (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not attack u i just bring your words be my guest in deleting offensive language, i don't hate u and i do not love u i just believe your actions here has a lot to with the case at hand.--יודל 20:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yossiea has to be the liar in all of this. Because I am not a sock puppet, but Yossiea has falsely accused me of being one. It appears I am not the only one who has been accused and had to note the assertion is false. Yossiea is upset that YY has supporters who have come to verify his (YY's) group, because it is more significant a cause than Yossiea cares to admit. I think for his false accusations it would be appropriate to block Yossiea. Because Yossiea has obviously begun a biased effort, that even results in false accusations against new Wikipedia users and that does not promote the growth of Wikipedia. I'm all for a "check user". It will show the ISP I use and I will be happy to submit the bill from that ISP with my real name at the top, upon request from Wikipedia administrators. I've already e-mailed Wikipedia once in opposition to the false claims that I'm a sock puppet. That e-mail also shows the ISP that I use, given it was sent from my e-mail account with that ISP. I'll even submit a cheek cotton swab, to have my DNA compared with YY's to prove we are not the same person. I've got nothing to hide, but as a new Wikipedia user I feel people who make these false claims and debased efforts against innocent groups should not be tolerated and such people like Yossiea should be blocked. Given my earlier comment was made on the Sabbath, it should only further prove I'm not YY.IndependentConservative 02:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am also ready to submit my online dsl bill for every admin who seeks to finalize this. And i also am urging and requesting a check-user be done on my name, and i would further request a check-user be done on Yosia's name although i disagree on the action, he should not be blocked if he was found to be a sock puppet, since he is an asset to our encyclopedia, and evidently is active here, but he should definitely be exposed for his vendetta against me, so like this new users will not be afraid of any shenanigans if they would see what lays behind it. Thanks beforehand.--יודל 12:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yossiea has to be the liar in all of this. Because I am not a sock puppet, but Yossiea has falsely accused me of being one. It appears I am not the only one who has been accused and had to note the assertion is false. Yossiea is upset that YY has supporters who have come to verify his (YY's) group, because it is more significant a cause than Yossiea cares to admit. I think for his false accusations it would be appropriate to block Yossiea. Because Yossiea has obviously begun a biased effort, that even results in false accusations against new Wikipedia users and that does not promote the growth of Wikipedia. I'm all for a "check user". It will show the ISP I use and I will be happy to submit the bill from that ISP with my real name at the top, upon request from Wikipedia administrators. I've already e-mailed Wikipedia once in opposition to the false claims that I'm a sock puppet. That e-mail also shows the ISP that I use, given it was sent from my e-mail account with that ISP. I'll even submit a cheek cotton swab, to have my DNA compared with YY's to prove we are not the same person. I've got nothing to hide, but as a new Wikipedia user I feel people who make these false claims and debased efforts against innocent groups should not be tolerated and such people like Yossiea should be blocked. Given my earlier comment was made on the Sabbath, it should only further prove I'm not YY.IndependentConservative 02:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not attack u i just bring your words be my guest in deleting offensive language, i don't hate u and i do not love u i just believe your actions here has a lot to with the case at hand.--יודל 20:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Suit yourself, but attacking me is not the way to defend yourself. Yossiea (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct but one of the means to achieve this goal is to see what lays behind this accusation and its background, and everything will be crystal clear, that is i will be exonerated and cleaned and u may not be blocked but definitely exposed in the end of the day, so your future accusations will be taken for what it is worth.--יודל 20:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The goal of this is not to expose me but to defend yourself against the sockpuppet claim. Yossiea (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- wait a day and i will finish providing all my evidence, its hard and very long process, but i will expose u in the end.--יודל 19:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- Clear meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry. Yidisheryid is blocked for 24 hours, the other accounts are indef blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:MultimediaGuru
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
MultimediaGuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Bellagio94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
WelshAspie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
MikeBourne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Buridan 12:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
These nicks have been constructing some interesting relationships between jonathan bishop, social network service, and social network. when asked to document them properly for verifiability, a new nick appeard bellagio94 and reverted. bellagio94 may be attempt to irritate another user bellagio99, who works on social network and social network services.
on social network's history the nicks MultimediaGuru and WelshAspie coordinated to continually revert changes removing undocumented references in regard to jonathan bishop and circle of friends.
These users may in fact be Jonathan Bishop or close colleagues promoting an unsupported pov that promotes Bishop in an unverifiable manner, which would be al WP:COI issue.
- Comments
I am not Welsh Aspie, though I felt the Bellagio94 edit was humorous. I think you'll find the histroy of Social Networking is taught to many students like me at Gloucestershire University and I feel its a shame I've had to get embroiled in this battle when I originally joined Wikipedia to edit pages on contemporary media theory. I know I am right about the Circle of Friends and Web of Contacts, would Gloucestershire lecturer Nina Reeves be lying to her students? --MultimediaGuru 23:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- Possible, but I don't see severe enough disruption to hand out blocks. Activity seems stale anyway. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:NORDKAPP (2nd)
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
NORDKAPP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Reikon 21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Kalisthenics (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
80.102.220.xxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
80.102.248.xxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Kalimocho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Huthillor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Vent del Pla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 10:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Continuing with Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Returnofthevogons and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/NORDKAPP. I already asked for a more acurate investigation and the solution proposed was to ask for a page protection. However, Barcelona has been blocked for 2 weeks and not long after finishing the block, 2 new users continue vandalizing the article. This users have just 1 contribution, so they are created specialy to vandalize. And every day they there is a new user... I will ask also for the block of the page, but I'm affraid (s)he will continue attacking just after finishing the new block, and it's a pitty that, for just one vandal, nobody else can contribute in the article.
- Comments
After suggestion in Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Barcelona_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29, it has been made a Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/NORDKAPP.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 11:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
After the checkuser, which came back as "likely", WJBscribe blocked all the named accounts except for Kalimocho and Vent del pla. These editors, with three edits between them, don't pose any kind of a threat, but I'll ask WJB to block them for the sake of consistency. Shalom Hello 02:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. WjBscribe 02:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- After the checkuser, TV3 (Catalonia) is still being attacked. It seems the range of ip's weren't blocked to create accounts (and I think this is the most important thing). So, I ask to 1) Protect TV3 (Catalonia) for newbies 2) block the new account Andromina kick her out (talk · contribs) and 3) Block and not allow to create accounts to the 2 range of ip's involved (80.102.220.xxx, 80.102.248.xxx) 4) Block NORDKAPP indefinitely: as I have repeated several times, this account is just "one more" of the several accounts created by this two ip's, not a sockpuppet master. Therefore, it should be blocked also as all the other "ghost" accounts. Thanks.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 12:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All the named accounts are blocked. I'm reluctant to do any kind of range block on the IPs, since there's a good possibility of collateral damage. TV3 (Catalonia) is semi-protected now, if that doesn't moderate the edit warring then we'll have to see what we can do about a range block. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:YourLord
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
YourLord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
81.145.240.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
81.145.240.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
81.145.240.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
81.145.241.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
81.145.241.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
81.145.241.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
81.152.188.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
81.157.172.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
82.27.103.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
edg ☺ ★ 09:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
All these IP addresses have edited within the past 2 weeks, except for 82.27.103.3 (last edit 2007-07-13) and 81.157.172.208 (last edit 2007-06-20). All but three have edit histories of over 8 months.
Several of these have their own tendentious edit histories, and all appear to be YourLord, a banned user evading block. YourLord acknowleges (post-ban) a history of IP editing.[155]
- 81.152.188.27
Contacts me[156] self-identifying as YourLord. Asks to have {{socksuspect}} template removed from other IP address Talk pages since he is no longer re-creating deleted pages.
While not capable (as an anon) of the behavior he was banned for, he is currently resuming old tendentious behaviour around restoring [157] removed [158] (and improper) article categories (something he's been warned about [159] [160])
Implies this is a static IP.
- 81.157.172.208
Identifies[161] this as the 2nd IP address from which he currently edits. Implies this is a static IP (not sure about subsequent addresses).
- 81.145.240.57
Self-identifies in the above message while posting from this account.
YourLord edits subjects relating fictional characters with super powers. Distinquishing behavior is adding certain categories to none-too-appropriate subjects, [162] [163] [164] [165] [166] typically continuing to do so after others' objections.
- 82.27.103.3
This IP self-identifies as User:YourLord to defend similar categorization to the article Stewie Griffin. [167]]
- 81.151.200.60
This IP performed the edits defended above. Categories are "Fictional bisexuals", "Supervillains", "Fictional dictators" [168] [169]
- 81.157.172.208
Defense of above categorizations. While not self-identifying as YourLord, continues to advocate/rant for YourLord's obsessions. [170] Then restores same defense from IP 82.27.103.3 (see above) with odd signature [[Anon]] [171]
- 81.145.240.65
Troll-ish remark on same Stewie Griffin argument. [172] Edit history is atypical, less dominated by comic book style subjects, but general resembles YourLord if avoiding such subjects.
- 81.145.241.148
Edits previous YourLord comment in Stewie Griffin [173]. Edit history, while including typical YourLord topics, branches out into British media, sport and music subjects, which are common on the two IPs with atypical edit histories (81.145.240.65 and 81.145.241.241, immediately above and below).
- 81.145.241.241
Also avoids usual comic book style subjects. Typical YourLord categorization, again with Stewie Griffin. [174]
- 81.145.240.39
Self-identifies as YourLord, continues request to have {{socksuspect}} notices removed. [175] Current edit history for this IP address resembles the two "atypical" histories above.
- 81.145.241.75
Deleted purported YourLord comment from this page.[176] Similarly disruptive edit history, albeit with mostly UK topics rather than comic book topics.
- Comments
I think the report is correct. If YourLord were innocent of sockpuppetry with these IPs, he would not have edited to say "These are not me" in a very suggestive tone: he would simply have ignored it. These IPs are guilty of many instances of vandalism and trolling.
Only two IPs are sufficiently active as of this writing to warrant blocks, and since I'm not an admin, I can't block them anyway. But if they flare up again, please do block them. Shalom Hello 15:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, Shalom darling I stated that the suspected sockpuppets were not me because I didn't want people thinking they were. Notice that only two of them were me and I actually admitted that they were. Now if I'm the dishonest scoundrel that you#re making me out to be, why would I do that? Furthermore I am not a sockpuppet. A sockpuppet is a person who maintains several ccounts simultaneously. I maintain no accounts. I just per chance have two IP addresses. Believe what you will. And just to set the record straight I am not actually a comic book fan. I just have an interest in fantasy and science-fiction among other things. I don't want you thinking I'm some sort of comic book geek. In any case I'm going to stop editing now until my block is annulled if ever so this shall be my last edit. Cheerio.
User:YourLord - (just signing my name like that so you know who I am) 17:412 07/09/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.143.88 (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- Some self-admission, and it seems quite possible that all the IPs were used by YourLord. Since he's indef blocked, this is block evasion. However, the IPs are dynamic, and don't appear to be currently disruptive. At this point, blocking would prevent constructive users from contributing. Keep a watch on articles that have been affected, and report back if disruptive activity begins again. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Basketball fan24111
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Basketball fan24111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
64.229.16.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
We hate Iran and India (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
The Evil Spartan 23:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
- This clearly shows that this user is 64.229.16.238: he picked up an autoblock on the IP. The same shows the same IP is We hate Iran and India. It's quite obvious that the edits by the IP are by the same person who is We hate Iran and India, as evidenced by their style: a simple perusal of their short number of edits will confirm as much (e.g., use of all caps and exclamation marks, as well as using the terms gay and fat ass). However, it seems equally obvious that the IP is the same person as Basketballfan. Basketballfan has edits almost exclusively to articles about basketball players (not surprisingly)... as does the IP. The IP has vandalized Yao Ming, which Basketballfan has edited. Basketballfan has shown a proclivity for poor editing patterns and grammar that seems to be common among young people, with whom vandalism is equally common. What's more, no one has edited from either this IP or either of these accounts before a few days ago, making it highly unlikely it's a shared address. To be honest, I was fairly annoyed that anyone granted this user an unblock at all for the autoblock; I don't think users should be able to get away with vandalizing under other accounts, and then having a good cop account against it (please note baskeballfan handing out "warnings" to users for vandalizing the same article that the IP vandalized). The Evil Spartan 23:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
I spent about fifteen minutes looking at this case. I agree with the sentiment behind The Evil Spartan's report. It is plainly obvious that "We hate Iran and India" is the same as the IP, and it seems likely that the IP is the same as basketballfan, and that this is not a coincidence of an IP domain - but I cannot be certain enough to recommend an indef-block. Unfortunately, because the suspected IP address is already known, we probably cannot do a checkuser.
Regarding the comment that the autoblock should not have been lifted: it was not an obvious case of sockpuppetry, and with the volume of unblock requests I think the admins made the right decision. That being said, the request for unblock is the strongest available evidence that basketballfan might have created an indef-blocked sock. Shalom Hello 19:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I am a sock. I am here to come clean. I am going to reveal everything I am hiding since April. I did create those sock and used the IP. I am a sockpuppet of Brave warrior which is a sock of Busy Bee which is actually a sockpuppet of Safwwefe(and all the suspected socks of Safwwefe and more. But, Safwwefe wasn't even the original sock. There are several socks before Safwwefe. I been on Wikipedia since March 2007 and has since created about 20 socks and used the Ips as a sock. I mainly caused disruption and was lying about my sockpuppetry. However, I once realised that this is causing disruption and made over 800 positives edits on this account, Brave Warrior and Busy Bee. But, I got bored and decided to vandalise using a bad hand account again. I am revealing everthing I am hiding and I am Safwwefe and there was accounts before Safwwefe. You administrators can give me everything I deserve and block all my socks. I just want to come clean today because I really want to tell the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basketball fan24111 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- All blocked. There's an ANI post about this somewhere. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:AlanSteele
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
AlanSteele (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Iorgos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Orlady 13:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Carlb posted a "suspected sockpuppet" flag on Iorgos' user page, but apparently did not start the case. I had been suspecting the same thing, so I am starting the report.
AlanSteele is a single-purpose account established to edit Concordia College and University. When AlanSteele was blocked, Iorgos (an account registered several months earlier) showed up to edit the same article. Iorgos also has edited only this one article, and Iorgos' edits are identical to those by AlanSteele. (Just compare the contributions pages: Special:Contributions/Iorgos and Special:Contributions/AlanSteele)
- Comments
Also see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Concordia_College_and_University --Orlady 14:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Iorgos was indeed registered several months earlier, but only to make one edit to Concordia College and University at that time, placing the same or similar content as appears on this fake page. This account has never edited any other page in Wikipedia; content has always been the same. If Uncyclopedia is claiming to hold a patent on Patented Nonsense™, this user is clearly infringing that patent. --carlb 15:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Looks like both names have been indef blocked. GlassCobra 14:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:70.143.68.157
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
70.143.68.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Gtown05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Bmccarren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
209.233.180.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
67.175.73.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 18:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
- Special:Contributions/70.143.68.157
- this account continues to edit in close proximity (time wise) to 70.143.68.157 Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 21:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Posts to User talk:Jmfangio
[186] and [187] both show significant signs of "similarity" both in content and in location. Each was added at the top of the TP and not the bottom. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 22:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Potential others
- These are others that have shown at least one similar edit - but show signs of significant contributions elsewhere.
- Special:Contributions/209.233.180.44 - this edit
- Methodology
- Multiple accounts used for edit warring.
- Comments
- All edits are related to inserting statements about Michael Vick and the Bad Newz Kennels dog fighting investigation and almost all users edit Clinton Portis, Deion Sanders, Stephon Marbury and a handful of others.
- Defense - I have no idea who those other guys are. This is completely ridiculous. It's clear that other people think that those statements belong on these guys' profiles. Just because you are in the minority here now you are going around starting sockpuppet cases against people... totally ridiculous. Face it: these statements belong on these guys wiki pages. You are in the wrong here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.143.68.157 (talk) 21:36, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
- Defense from the Other - I have done no edits to Clinton Portis or Deion Sanders. Your kindly allowance of a mention of Marbury's defense of Vick, on Marbury's page now, is cited from MSNC from Newsweek and is incomplete. I got my info from the Associated Press, the full quote as it appeared in the Sports News section of my homepage. Sorry if I wasn't familiar with "sockpuppetry" but I did improve your edit and then you removed the content altogether. Now it's back and incomplete. You should mention that Marbury retracted his statement the following day if you care about factual. Look at the story on AP. Never again will I copy and paste my own well written FACTUAL info back into a page; I'll just re-write it. That is something I learned from this ridiculous episode at least. Your accusation of me as a "sockpuppet" is out of line. Michael Vick has been a d*ck in my book since he flipped off the Atlanta fans. He's never been as good as expected and now we know where he was diverting his attention.Bmccarren 01:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All these athletes who support Vick's actions, especially now that Vick has admitted to EVERYTHING, deserve to have this note, particularly due to the the bits about electrocuting and hanging the dogs, on their Wiki pages. Keep crying wolf about sock puppeteers but some people are passionate about animals and sports and that's all they care to comment about. As you obviously did not notice, this "story" has created quite a bit of interest in the country. . Bmccarren 00:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems possible, but activity seems to have died down. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Strothra
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Strothra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Dcandeto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Blublublub 17:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
The following diffs show that the user Strothra and sockpuppet have been tag teaming on the Princeton University article. Strothra has engaged in an edit war, but each user name has made the exact same revert exactly 3 times in 24 hours to avoid the 3RR. Strothra has also accused me of 3RR (an accusation which has been resolved, since I have been trying to reach a consensus on the article talk page, and Strothra not) and both user names have edited my IP user page and the 3rr case page. The diffs are below.
Princeton University revert diffs by sockpuppeteer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Princeton_University&diff=prev&oldid=154909224 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Princeton_University&diff=prev&oldid=154930023 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Princeton_University&diff=prev&oldid=155035486
Princeton University revert diffs by sock puppet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Princeton_University&diff=prev&oldid=154786156 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Princeton_University&diff=prev&oldid=154850686 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Princeton_University&diff=prev&oldid=155148330
This is clearly avoiding the 3RR. Also, although it is only circumstantial evidence, both user names have also edited the following pages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:68.49.28.218 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:68.49.28.218_reported_by_User:Strothra_.28Result:_24_hours.29
- Comments
In the interest of full disclosure I am the IP who has been constantly reverted by this user and his/her sock puppet. I created an account to have access to making this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blublublub (talk • contribs)
- This is absurd and a clear violation of WP:POINT potentially on a slippery slope to becoming harassment. User is trying to get some sort of revenge for a 3RR report made against him for which he was blocked only to be unblocked because the article was subsequently protected (per my own request). User:Dcandeto and myself are established editors on Wiki and have long contrib histories, neither of which are related in substance or topics. Further, I could hardly be the puppeteer when I was the one who stepped into the preexisting edit conflict between Dcandeto and the unregistered user. My edits came second. Note that simply because two editors agree on inclusion when you are the only dissenting opinion does not make them sockpuppets, but simply that consensus is against you. This editor, being new to Wikipedia, should realize that such accusations are offensive to established editors with positive contribution histories. The internal disciplinary processes of Wikipedia are not intended as conduits for revenge. Such use is an abuse of Wikipedia.--Strothra 18:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I have opened up a checkuser request at [188] in order to deal with this expediently. --Strothra 18:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it fits the suspicious behavior of sock puppeteering, it should be looked at. And two (or one?) against one is hardly a consensus, especially when one of the "consensus" admittedly goes to the school the article is on and has a clear bias. You were constantly making reverts and showed no willingness to discuss the issue. If you are not sock puppeteering you have my apologies, but you can hardly blame me for suspecting considering the evidence. 68.49.28.218 20:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Two editors cooperating on a single article are simply in agreement - not sockpuppets particularly when their edit histories are quite different. That's where the WP:AGF policy kicks in. You might want to use your registered username to edit Wikipedia from now on. Editors are generally far more acquiesced to discuss edits with registered editors than with anons. --Strothra 20:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it fits the suspicious behavior of sock puppeteering, it should be looked at. And two (or one?) against one is hardly a consensus, especially when one of the "consensus" admittedly goes to the school the article is on and has a clear bias. You were constantly making reverts and showed no willingness to discuss the issue. If you are not sock puppeteering you have my apologies, but you can hardly blame me for suspecting considering the evidence. 68.49.28.218 20:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I have opened up a checkuser request at [188] in order to deal with this expediently. --Strothra 18:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I assumed good faith, but after six reverts with no reason or willingness to discuss the section it seems reasonable not to.68.49.28.218 21:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You were constantly reinserting text that served no purpose but to push a particular point of view. Accusing me of being a sockpuppet is laughable. I'd like a CheckUser, but it looks like neither Strothra nor I can request one to show that we aren't the same person. Stop violating WP:POINT and other policies. This is why we can't have nice things. dcandeto 01:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The text served just as much purpose as any other ranking included in the article, and was relevant to the section it was in. It had been there for months (including before and after a major re-organization of the article). There is nothing POV about the text. There is something POV about removing it or editing it with false information. I was open to discussion, but instead you just reverted it constantly and added false information to the article. You may want to review WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT 68.49.28.218 06:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The sock puppet dispute is resolved, all parties have commented, this isn't the place for the discussion you're trying to start. sirmob 11:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification - this is not resolved so much as everyone has commented. My main point was that this is not the place for a POV discussion. sirmob 11:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The text served just as much purpose as any other ranking included in the article, and was relevant to the section it was in. It had been there for months (including before and after a major re-organization of the article). There is nothing POV about the text. There is something POV about removing it or editing it with false information. I was open to discussion, but instead you just reverted it constantly and added false information to the article. You may want to review WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT 68.49.28.218 06:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The checkuser was denied and dcandeto isn't speaking here, so I will in his defence. While I cannot assert that Strothra is not a sockpuppet of dcandeto, having never heard of the second person before, I can certainly assert that dcandeto is not a sockpuppet but a honest-to-god flesh and blood human being who I consider my friend in the real world - which you could have discovered by looking at his and my user pages! And as Strothra has thousands of edits, the good money is on him existing as well. What you describe as "sock puppet" behavior is probably the result of a habit I have seen in dcandeto of erring on the side of "okay, I'm just going to fix this" when he is busy and/or when a change seems obvious. "Obvious" is admittedly subjective! I can only hope that the parties accused find this as hilarious as I do - but this is doubtful. Whoever resolves these things - this is ridiculous, resolve it please. sirmob 23:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He should not be erring on the side of "okay, I'm just going to revert this and add false information with no discussion" just because he is not comfortable with the facts presented in the text. That is not "fixing it." 68.49.28.218 06:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
There is no evidence of sockpuppetry here. Strothra and Dcandeto are long-term editors with lots of edits. Sockpuppets with such long-contribution history would be expected to have supported each other in past discussions or share characteristics like similar misspellings or phrasing particularities. No such evidence has been presented. Based on the evidence here, the only evident conclusion is that two editors are in agreement about the same article.--Chaser - T 07:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Zuminous (3rd)
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Zuminous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (3rd)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Gangreene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Talya88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
RolandR 11:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Making very similar edits to Barry Chamish as several previously banned sockpuppets, including editwarring without accurate summaries or Talk page comments
- Comments
- Conclusions
All three blocked indef.--Chaser - T 07:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Sarvagnya
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Sarvagnya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Mbrdnbry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Gnanapiti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Wiki Raja 12:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
- As of Sep. 6, 2007 Sarvagnya has removed our WikiProject template from over 30 talk pages here while Gnanapiti removed our templates from 14 talk pages here. Strange enough, another user called Mbrdnbry continued removing our templates from over 70 talk pages here back to back. Also, this username was recently created as of Sep 7, 2007. Wiki Raja 12:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Both users Sarvagnya and Gnanapiti have engaged in edit wars and numerous reverts in which when one user does three reverts, the other username will take over. ex: here. Wiki Raja 12:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Total BS. I dont need a sock to clean up your hoax. I can, will and have done it with my own account. Also, what is the point of this rfcu? did I or Gnanapiti help mdnbry(or whatever) evade 3rr or anything? I request that admins throw this nonsense out. Thanks. Sarvagnya 01:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah right. We used our own accounts to remove template from 40 odd pages but had to create a sock account to do the same thing from 70 other pages. LOL :D Gnanapiti 17:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- Mbrdnbry may well be a sock, but there's no evidence to tie him to the other users named here. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Daniel Morales
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Daniel Morales (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
72.40.136.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Daniel Morales is verging on a vandalism only account. The violation of policy is attempted vote fraud. On Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Barneca, the IP featured above attempted to vote against Barneca. Just under two hours later, Morales also voted against him in a similar fashion. Not to mention he also cited the IP. It should also be noted that the two both edited (one edit was vandalism) Winter Park High School. [189] [190]
- Comments
Yeah, almost certainly, the use of unsigned comments with section headers in the RFA is a dead give-away.[191] [192] combined with the similar interest in an article and a single RFA. The prior edits are not productive I'll block indef.--Chaser - T 23:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- With the named account blocked, it doesn't seem necessary to do anything to the IP. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Deedstar (2nd)
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Deedstar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Henry Marple (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Gareth 1985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Yksin 17:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Henry Marple (talk · contribs) is a new user with one edit, to ESADE, the same article which puppetmaster was shown to have interest in in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Deedstar already. Henry Marple's edit added identical text to that added by confirmed sock ESADE Class of 89 (talk · contribs) yesterday, by sock As Tidies She (talk · contribs) before that, and by Deedstar before that.
Gareth 1985 (talk · contribs) is a new user with four edits as of this writing, all of them to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dreadstar, the user it was shown in the prior case that Deedstar had a particular grudge against. Deedstar made an oppose vote to this candidacy yesterday; suspicion about Deedstar's allegations led directly to the original charges of him/her being a puppetmaster last night. Gareth 1985's oppose vote specifically mentions the prior vote & activities of Deedstar with a tone of mock disapproval (other edits were to change wording & to replace automatic bot signing with his/her own signature). Gareth 1985's first edit was also similar to Deedstar's votes yesterday in being placed in the wrong place in the RfA, so that another editor had to move it. (Deedstar actually placed it wrongly twice [193] [194], with other users moving it each time to the correct place.)
It looks from here as if this user has gone from being a single purpose to a dual purpose sock, with one purpose being to continue to focus on ESADE, & the other to harass Dreadstar, or at least to disrupt Dreadstar's RfA -- as I predicted in the previous sock case would probably happen. --Yksin 17:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Conclusions
Yup; both indef-blocked as socks. MastCell Talk 17:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Deedstar (3rd)
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Deedstar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
This is Gareth 1985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Yksin 23:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
See also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Deedstar and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Deedstar (2nd)
Another new account, this time identifying him/herself as being the same as Gareth 1985 (talk · contribs) who earlier today got an indef block as a sock of Deedstar (talk · contribs). By extension, then, this new user is also a sock of Deedstar. I am Gareth 1985's one edit is again to Dreadstar's RfA; this user removed the strikeout of Gareth 1985's vote that blocking admin Pascal.Tesson earlier placed. I am Gareth 1985 also states "I resent the false inference that I have anything to do with Deedstar - evidently I am unfortunate in sharing the same Internet provider but since the Spanish market is virtually a Telefonica monopoly, there is little I can do about it." Interestingly, no one had said anything about the internet provider used by any of these socks, or made any assertion about where Deedstar or Gareth 1985 were located. But perhaps a check is in order? --Yksin 23:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
The RfA that Deedstar & associated socks was attempting to disrupt closed yesterday (17 Sep 2007). Activity on the one other item Deedstar & co. are interested in, ESADE, has been slow, perhaps because it was semi-protected until Oct. 5 as a sock target. So, we may not be hearing from this sock group again until then. --Yksin 21:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Nothing more to do here for now.--Chaser - T 21:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Plautus satire
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
- Plautus satire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- SteakNotShake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
ornis (t) 15:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
They both appear to use the same photo. [195]
Their talk page comments are of exactly the same nature. [196],[197],[198]
Their edits to Black hole are over exactly the same issue, and pushing exactly the same POV. [199], [200]
- Comments
- Conclusions
Both accounts are indef blocked from editing. Navou banter 20:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Real77
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
- Real77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- 66.65.119.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
— Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 16:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
IP has edited the comments of Real77 in an attempt to improve grammar[201][202][203] IP Is now using IP address to avoid ban that Real77 has (style of writing is the same)[204]
- Comments
Note: Unable to edit User talk:Real77 as the page is protected due to continued abuse of it by Real77.
- Conclusions
IP and user are both indef. blocked. M.(er) 05:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Archifile
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Archifile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Tallum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
ExtraDry 01:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
This diff [205] shows Tallum forgetting to log out of his account and into the puppetmaster account by commeting as the puppetmaster he then attempets to hide it by removing his comment and then not edditing from the 5th to 17th of September. His edit on the 17th of September was to reinsert a non notable person that the puppetmaster added that had been reverted.
- Comments
The article & related articles that they both edit is a school in australia and the school has had a proven history of using sockpuppets to add what ever infomation they can notable or not.
- Conclusions
Clear case of sockpuppetry. Indefinitely blocked the sock account. 72 hour block for the sockmaster. Vassyana 06:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:144.134.81.186
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
144.134.81.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Durryman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Aflumpire 21:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Has recently made an account of vandalism on an article. Then minitues later, Durryman has done the same thing. Not on the same page, on another random article but both cases of vandalism had the following. 'èÀŢ ṢĤîŤ Ň ḌǐĚŅŞŴ èÀŢ ṢĤîŤ Ň ḌǐĚŅŞŴ' and kept going on with that. I do suspect a sock puppet as the IP was on last warning then Durryman did the same.
- Comments
I have a 95% belief that IP user 144.134.81.186 is Durryman
- Conclusions
Durryman blocked indef, IP blocked yesterday; no further action required.--Chaser - T 05:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Burgz33
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Burgz33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
HuStL MO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Quartet 20:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Please refer to edit history of puppetmaster [206] and suspected sock puppet [207], which excluding edits to the Jordin Tootoo page (though HuStL MO still adds Tootoo to another page), show nearly all the same pages being edited.
User has also admitted to being Burgz33 on my talk page.[208] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quartet (talk • contribs) 20:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
Burgz33 (talk · contribs) was blocked [209] in April for extended personal attacks and incivility towards myself and other editors and administrators, after multiple warnings and a first block. Recently, HuStL MO (talk · contribs) appeared on a page on my watchlist and it became evident to me after a quick look that in my opinion, this user is the same individual. Currently Wikipedia's blocking policy states that an administrator may reset the block of a user who intentionally evades a block, and may extend the duration of the block if the user engages in further blockable behaviour while evading the block. User accounts or IP addresses used to evade a block may also be blocked. Burgz33 continues to evade the original 6 month block through the use of additional accounts and IP addresses, with HuStL MO being the latest alias.
- Conclusions
Pretty obvious case what with the incivility and similar article interests, including hockey, St. Louis, La Coka Nostra, etc. Plus the virtual admission on the talk page. Sock blocked indef. Puppetmaster's six-month block reset, starting today.--Chaser - T 09:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:MatthewPerpetua
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
MatthewPerpetua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Mondeo Popsicle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Dweller 09:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Apparently clumsy vote-stacking at AfD ([210])
- Having seen him make a similar mistake at my talk page, I think he might just be cut and pasting other's comments for format and then typing over most of them. On this basis, I'd like this request Speedy closed, please. --Dweller 10:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Conclusions
False alarm.--Chaser - T 05:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Rushmi
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Shashwat_pandey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Shashwat_pandey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Rushmi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Renee 21:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
"New" user:Rushmi appears to be a sockpuppet of Shashwat pandey. Shashwat pandey was involved in many edit wars over the Sahaj Marg and Shri Ram Chandra Mission pages. User:Shashwat pandey vanished after thisRFC/user was filed on him.
Several weeks later user:Rushmi appeared and presented himself as not knowing anything about Wiki. He asked to be adopted after he performed several functions that indicated a strong familiarity with Wiki. Since that time, he has used a variety of templates (e.g., two RFCs, sockpuppet), archived his page, left notices on various boards (how would new users know about these boards), and engaged in advanced forms of editing including links, font changes, and reference templates.
Here is some specific evidence.
- His very first edit was to request that the Sahaj Marg protected page template be removed[211]. How does a new user know even to do this? Wouldn't they go to a talk page first and ask what's up?
- Then, he edited an article and provided a link to a source [212] (making links usually takes new users a while to figure out).
- Then, he undid an archive[213] (how does a new user know enough to do an "undo"?).
- For these first several edits he used edit summaries, which normally new users do not use until someone points them out to them.
- After all of this (check the dates and times), he then presented himself as not knowing how to use Wiki and asked others what to do [214].
- He even went so far as to request "adoption" and then only half-heartedly engaged in "practice," yet went on to simultaneously make very advanced edits. This is a serious abuse of good faith for the editor who agreed to adopt Rushmi.
- When myself and user: Bksimonb gave advice, he at first acted very nice (in line with his super sweet emails to other editors), and then deleted our posts[215] and gave a parting salvo to me[216] more consistent with his angry Shashwat pandey personality than his innocent and sweet Rushmi identity.
- As a supposedly "new" user, Rushmi has an inexplicable anger towards me beginning with his earliest posts. The simplest explanation for this anger is that he is user Shashwat pandey and his true personality is emerging. Specifically, back in his early days he posted this on another user's page[217] saying he "noticed" that I had done two RFCs (mind you, he would have to know how to search "contribs" and go back hundreds and hundreds of posts to find these).
- Turning his attacks personal, he filed a vandalism warning against me,turned down flat
- Then he filed an ANI report here,
- Then he sanitized his archive so none of this was reflected on it, [218]
- Then, today, he filed a sockpuppet accusation [219].
- User:Rushmi's language, spelling, and "stream of consciousness" writing style are all identical to User:Shashwat pandey's writings. For example, see the identical spelling of appritiated/appritiate -- by Rushmi here and by Shashwat here. I can think of no one else in the world who spells "appreciate" in this manner.
- Finally, user:Rushmi is engaging in the same type of extreme negative POV talk as user:Shashwat pandey did (again, see Shashwat's RFC/user for diffs).
- Here he changes a category tag on the Sahaj Marg page (again, how would a new user know to do that), which his adopter points out could be seen as vandalism.
- Just yesterday, he posted an RFC and question on the "reliable sources noticeboard, asking intentionally misleading questions that have already been answered by admin Jossi. Specifically, he posted this and this, which falsely present the issue. The real questions are:
- can a newspaper article found defamatory by a trial court be used as a Wiki source?
- can a court judgment that has nothing to do with the article topic, and pertains to a procedural/jurisdictional issue, a good source.
- Admin Jossi already responded to Rushmi's question here.
Besides the intentional misleading of other editors, how would a supposed new user know (a) where to go to post all of these things, (b) know how to use the code to post all of these things, (c) be bold enough to ignore all of the opinions on the talk page (usually new users are a little tentative), and (d) have such facility and knowledge of templates, categories, and other meta-message things?
I have reason to believe other users believe Rushmi is the sock of Shashwat, see the edit tag to this recent reply to Rushmi. (User:Sethie had much experience with Shashwat on the Sahaj Marg page so is in a good place to make a judgement about this user.)
- Comments
Both of these users should be permanently banned per Wiki policy. Sanctions should be taken against new User:Rushmi for harassment, abuse of good faith of his adopter ("pretending" to be a new user), and tendentious posting of original research. 01:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Reneeholle (talk • contribs)
It's 99% certain Rushmi is not new to wikipedia, Renee has detailed well how that is just not the case, yet he pretended to be.
His syntax, spelling, odd moments of excitement ("Let's see what other neutral parties think!") and even quirky use of words are identical.
Like Shashwat, Rushumi has somewhat of a wiki vocabulary, yet he consistently uses the words differently from other wiki users- as if they have learned the words from watching others, use them, but don't quite understand what they mean. Sethie 01:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
This is solid evidence that the two editors are the same person. Evidently, Shashwat moved to the Rushmi account to avoid scrutiny from the User RFC. Checkuser data may be stale by now, but I don't think it's necessary. I've blocked the Shashwat account indefinitely and Rushmi for 48 hours.--Chaser - T 07:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Daruhl
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Daruhl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
170.148.33.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Cheers, Lights (♣ • ♦) 19:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Daruhl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vandalized Nickname ([220],[221]). Shortly after it was reverted, 170.148.33.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) undid the vandalism reversion.
- Comments
- Conclusions
Probably correct, but it's not technically a 3RR violation (only 2RR), and it appears to be a first offense. I'll warn the user not to do it again, and we'll leave it at that. Shalom Hello 00:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Deedstar
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Deedstar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
83.41.21.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Nelorippalenga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
As Tidies She (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
ESADE Class of 89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Yksin 01:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Single-purpose sockpuppet focusing on the article ESADE, apparently using socks to evade blocks. First edits were as an anon IP 83.41.21.10 (talk · contribs), with this last edit. After reversion by Dreadstar (talk · contribs), the suspected sock created Nelorippalenga (talk · contribs), & restored the revert, & then again, a third time, a fourth time.
Given a 3RR warning by Dreadstar, Nelorippalenga then apparently created new account Deedstar (talk · contribs) in apparent parody of Dreadstar's username, & commenced readding the same problematic edits, the first time even parodying Dreadstar's edit summaries. Here's another reversion. After that was reverted again, Deedstar switched tactics and added different material. As it came from a self-published source, Dreadstar removed it; but Deedstar reverted all except the citation itself; then reverted a third time. At this point, Navou (talk · contribs) protected the article. On Nauvou's talk page, Dreadstar explained Deedstar's activities.
Deedstar's next activity was to post an oppose vote on Dreadstar's RfA. Subsequent questions about Deedstar's activities led Jaranda (talk · contribs) to block Deedstar, apparently for the disruptive parodying of Dreadstar's username.
Meanwhile, back at the ESADE article, protection had expired. Following the block of Deedstar, a new user As Tidies She (talk · contribs) reverted to the last version by Deedstar (here's the actual difference between Deedstar's last & As Tidies She's version; nonidentical parts are due to intermediate edits by an uninvolved editor). After that version was reverted by WarthogDemon (talk · contribs), new user ESADE Class of 89 (talk · contribs) restored it, with a somewhat mocking edit summary apparently aimed at WarthogDemon. I myself reverted, stating in the edit summary my suspicion of single-purpose sockpuppetry.
All involved accounts have edited only on the ESADE article or the account's own talk page, with the exception of Deedstar, 3 of whose 11 edits were to Dreadstar's RfA, in an apparent attempt to quash Dreadstar's candidacy. The first three user accounts also received warnings about policy violations from Dreadstar. Some of these accounts would say "see [article] talk page" in edit summary, but none of these accounts actually said anything at Talk:ESADE.
Given this user's history, it seems likely s/he will continue to create new accounts for the purpose of disruptively editing ESADE, and possibly for continued harassment of Dreadstar.
- Comments
Looks good. All clear socks. The initial edits were disruptive, and where there were sources, they didn't well support many of the contentions (for example, I can't find a source indicating that ESADE spearheaded the forum, though they were involved). The initial disruptive editing strikes me as too little for an indef block of an established editor, but if someone is starting like that, I don't see much problem with a hardblock. I left a note on Jaranda's talk page saying as much. I'm off to try to fix some of the POV problems in this article.--Chaser - T 03:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Duck test. Navou banter 03:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing more to do here. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Vankalai1
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
- Vankalai1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Vankalai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 22:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Obvious sockpuppet of User:Vankalai who was blocked for repeated spamming yesterday. This account is adding the same spam links to Wiki articles.
- Comments
- Conclusions
Both accounts are already blocked. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Meaganmurphy
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
- Meaganmurphy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- PatMurphy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
—EncMstr 20:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Edits same articles in similar way. I bet the IP address matches.
- Comments
- Conclusions
- Obvious block evasion. Meganmurphy is indef blocked, I'll extend PatMurphy's block. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Arisemodel
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
- Arisemodel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Coastyards (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Learntruck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Tiptoety 15:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Attacking the same editor within 30 seconds of each other, once first account was blocked user went to second (then third) and vandalized (made attacks on) the same page with the same vandalism. User:Learntruck blanked this page, then went and vandalized the same user page.
- Comments
- Conclusions
- Coastyards has already been blocked. Learntruck's contribution pattern looks odd for a new user, and his username is similar to Arisemodel and Coastyards, but I don't see enough evidence to tie him to those accounts. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:JJonathan
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
- JJonathan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Disconyc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 96.224.166.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 96.224.41.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 63.3.22.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Kurt Shaped Box 21:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
See WP:LTA#JJonathan for the full story behind this repeat vandal/hoaxer. User:Disconyc recreated Category:Lyric sopranos and the IPs proceeded to populate it, as well as adding other unsourced vocal range info/false 'new album' stuff/factual errors as per JJonathan's usual pattern.
Just a small selection of the type of edits in question this time: [222], [223], [224], [225], [226], [227], [228], [229], [230], [231]
Also note that User:63.3.22.129 has previously been blocked numerous times as a JJonathan IP. This edit was also made at the same time as the current vandalism spree.
- Comments
- Conclusions
- Named account is already blocked, the IPs are dynamic and there's little point in blocking them for a lengthy period. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Mospeada
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Mospeada (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
206.110.66.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Zedla 20:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
anon account used to vandalize. Blanking of user talk page, user and anon-ip are in same general area (Alameda County, California)
- Comments by Neil916
I can't see any violation of WP:SOCK, even though though it is apparent that these are the same user. Wikipedia does not require a user to log in, and neither account has been blocked, so there is no block evasion. Neil916 (Talk) 23:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- I agree with Neil, there's no evidence of a violation of WP:SOCK here, and therefore no reason to do anything but close this case. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Ridwan Haq
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Ridwan Haq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Ridwanlikeshorses (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
— Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 03:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
both accounts mainly vandalising User:Michellecrisp
Ridwan Haq: [232]
Ridwanlikeshorses:[233] [234] [235] [236]
- Comments
probable that both accounts are sockpuppets for a user that has a disagreement with Michellecrisp but can't find evidence of which user.
- Conclusions
- Both already blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:RaulAndHorstCensored
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
- RaulAndHorstCensored (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- RAHC2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- RAHAGC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Raul654Censored (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- RHGJC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- R208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Thedjatclubrock :) (T/C) 13:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Same user name abbreviations. Similar types of issues committed. Edits concerning the same page El Hormiguero . [237] [238] Vandalized this page. See [239]
- Comments
Report from AIV
- RAHC2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - actions evidently indicate a vandalism only account. Block evasion by user:RaulAndHorstCensored, see contribs and name for evidence. . Gscshoyru 13:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not only are new accounts continuing the pattern, but they're becoming increasingly abrasive in their edits, e.g. referring to "ignorant admins" in an edit summary. [240] —C.Fred (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- All the listed accounts are indef blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Proticalson
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Proticalson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Proticalsons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Yannick 02:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
User:Proticalson vandalized Polar Bears and was warned. A similar user ID, User:Proticalsons then repeated some of the same vandalism on the same page.
- Comments
- Conclusions
- Obviously the same user, but there's no reason to do anything. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Bucketdude
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
- Bucketdude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Pailman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
► DRTïllberġ ◄Talk 04:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Same drivel about Chewbacca as several recent vandal edits by User:Pailman
- Bucketdude edits:Skull Metric system Taco Bell Azerbaijan Potato Androgenetic alopecia Pi Pi
- Pailman edits: Pi Asbestos Tire iron Fire extinguisher Root beer MacGyver
- The usernames are plays on one another -- one is a bucket, the other is a pail -- the vandalism by Pail ended at Pi and about the same time the vandalism by Bucket started at the same page. And they are writing about the same thing -- Wookies and Chewbacca. It seems pretty obvious that the bucket account was created to continue vandal edits while avoiding a block on the older Pail account. ► DRTïllberġ ◄Talk 16:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd also be interested to know the rationale behind the delay in acting on this report.► DRTïllberġ ◄Talk 20:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Please try and provide some evidence (e.g. diffs) of these supposed edits so we can see a more clearer version of what's going on with these two. Sebi [talk] 04:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bucketdude Diff and Pailman Diff
Same text:
The average Wookie knows pi to one hundred and fifteen places; Chewbacca knows it to five hundred and twelve, because he is very smart.
Thedjatclubrock :) (T/C) 14:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- With the diff, this is obvious. Bucketdude is indef blocked, Pailman is blocked for 1 hour, and is welcome to make constructive edits if he wishes. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Auno3
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Auno3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
P.W.Lutherson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
— Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 21:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
- Similar edits at Miscegenation, especially the need for "balance" by inserting a photo of accused murdered Bobby Cutts, Jr.
- User:Auno3 on June 24 [241], [242], [243]
- User:P.W.Lutherson on September 6 [244]
- User:P.W.Lutherson on September 7 [245]
- User:P.W.Lutherson on September 8 [246], [247], [248]
- Similar edits at Human evolution
- Similar edits at Societal collapse
- User:Auno3 on September 1 [253] (compare with User:P.W.Lutherson at Human Evolution on August 31)
- User:Auno3 on September 5 [254], [255], [256], [257], [258]
- User:P.W.Lutherson on September 6 [259]
- Tag-team editing, especially while User:Auno3 is banned
- On August 29, User:Auno3 commented on fact that User:KillerPlasmodium, an editor with a philosphy similar to his, had been blocked
- User:Auno3 made no edits on August 30 and August 31
- User:P.W.Lutherson was registered and made edits on August 31
- User:Auno3 made edits on September 1 and September 2 and was blocked on September 2
- User:Auno3 made edits on September 5 and was blocked again that day
- User:P.W.Lutherson made edits on September 6, September 7, and September 8
- The only edits made by User:Auno3 after September 5 were at User talk:Auno3
- Comments
I spent 5 minutes looking at this, thinking I'd help out, only to discover that it was already resolved back on the 8th: [260]. Live and learn; next time, I check the block logs first. Anyway, I hesitate to put the {{tl:sspa}} tag on a report that doesn't have any conclusions by an admin on it, but this can be tagged and archived. --barneca (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- Already dealt with. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:WOverstreet
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
WOverstreet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
161.253.37.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Cmprince 03:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
The IP and the account WOverstreet have been editing the University of Florida article with substantially identical content. The accounts have been used to "back-up" each other's edits:
[261] [262] (IP reverting to and supporting edit of WOverstreet)
[263] [264] [265] [266] [267] (WOverstreet reverting to and supporting an edit by the IP)
First suspected when after warning the WOverstreet account for ignoring Manual of Style guidelines, the IP started to make the same edits:
[268] [269] [270] (WOverstreet style edits)
[271] (My warning to WOverstreet about the MoS)
[272] [273] [274] [275] (IP reverts after the warning)
Furthermore, both WOverstreet and the IP have replaced the User talk:WOverstreet page with identical nonsensical text:
[276] (IP) [277] (WOverstreet)
- Comments
Full disclosure: I have warned the WOverstreet account for perceived violations of WP guidelines, and have been involved in content disputes with both accounts. Cmprince 03:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by outside non-admin: Very obvious sock. Edits to same obscure biographical articles, and very similar, very odd disruptive behavior on User talk:Cmprince and User talk:WOverstreet today; seems they're no longer trying to hide anything. I've stuck my nose in and left what I consider a "final warning" on WOverstreet's talk page, about this sockpuppetry, but also personal attacks and impersonating other users. Further misbehavior is, I'm quite confident, going to result in a block. However, an admin may come along and review this and issue a block anyway, for the sockpuppetry. --barneca (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Yes, the IP is clearly the same user. The IP was already blocked for 24 hours by another admin. Given the wide range of misbehavior exhibited by User:WOverstreet, I've blocked the named account for 24 hours as well. If there are ongoing issues with the IP, the block there could be extended. MastCell Talk 23:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Cgkimpson
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Cgkimpson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
CamKimpson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
--JForget 00:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
The account, as well as User:Ckimpson, is a block evasion of User:Cgkimpson who was blocked indefinitely for providing incorrect and false information or modifying correct information into incorrect ones in weather related articles (no National Weather Service or other weather office sources supporting it - often overestimating the Fujita/Enhanced Fujita Scale of a tornado). The initial puppet (Cgkimpson) was blocked but then User:Ckimpson was created and did similar editing to several weather-related articles (in July) and was temporarily blocked indefinitely before being unblocked. However, then came in August User:CamKimpson who've made this edit thus modifying again a sourced element [278] into incorrect info without providing a source for his change. It was reverted later by another editor as vandalism and the user also made what look like test edits in the December 20-21, 2006 Colorado Blizzard article which was reverted also. Of course, the biggest suspicion about the account is the user name that is very similar to the initial puppet and that both users have edited Colorado weather-related articles as well.
- The two accounts also share an interest in That's So Raven (see this edit by CamKimpson; various articles about "That's So Raven" appear frequently in the Cgkimpson logs). --orlady 00:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
I originally went to CamKimpson's talk page (before ending up here instead) to post a complaint about the addition of bogus references (using pseudo-URLs) in the article Columbia Middle School(Aurora, Colorado) (currently an AFD); see the last version of the page as created by CamKimpson before anyone else touched it. I concluded that the references are bogus because they are about a school with an International Baccalaureate curriculum, but this school does not have an International Baccalaureate curriculum.--orlady 00:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
While the accounts are clearly one person, he cannot be labelled a sockpuppet by any of our definitions, just a user with an annoying habit of vanish and reappears after a few weeks and with a new account. He cannot be called a sock puppet since he never 2 accounts concurrently. Besides, I warned him twice upon his returns. There is no "suspicion". Circeus 04:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious block evasion; CamKimpson is indef blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Centstrust
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Centstrust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Mavericks12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Sebi [talk] 07:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
They both edit roughly the same articles. Centstrust tends to make his edits more profane and abusive ( [279] ), and Mavericks' edits are mostly just "[so and so] were here" or "[so and so] pwns" ( [280], [281], [282] ). But in this edit in a series of edits to Jagex, Centstrust adds rather offensive language ( [283], [284] ) and then ends with "Love, Mavericks and SgtBodyBag", which is often mentioned in many of the other edits. Sebi [talk] 07:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Seems pretty blatant to me. Basically admitted in the diffs shown. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- I've blocked both accounts as vandal-only. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Seaver11171944
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Seaver11171944 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Jimfandango (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
70.113.76.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Gullucum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
ZimZalaBim talk 02:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
IP has longest history of introducing uncited and erroneous content to University of Notre Dame, University of Michigan, Joe Montana and other sports related articles. User seems to be switching between accounts, all with the same MO.
- Comments
- Remark: Should be noted that the SSPs and the suspected sockmaster have each made edits to various other articles. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Jimfandango and Gullucum seem to be sockpuppeting as Notre Dame football fans (a WP:LAME edit war, but that's neither here nor there). Seaver has not made the same edits. I'll ask Durova if she wants to indef-block Gullucum, who has been blocked once before and has caused nothing but problems for Wikipedia. Otherwise, I think the status quo should hold. Shalom Hello 19:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Jimfandango (talk · contribs) is most likely an attack on my user name. I have run into these accounts in the past and do believe they are problematic. JmFangio| ►Chat 19:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- Dealt with already. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Eauilwehnfsajkl
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Eauilwehnfsajkl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Adsfgbdfyjsdg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
60.240.55.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Rgsgsefr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Loopla 11:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Edits by each of these accounts are very similar. Each of these accounts have received one warning, therefore user seems to be avoiding a block by starting new accounts. Diffs by users: Diff1, Diff2, Diff3, Diff4.
- Comments
- Conclusions
- Probably sockpuppetry, but no edits from these accounts in a week, so I doubt blocking would accomplish much good. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:SummerThunder
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
- SummerThunder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Tastetrees (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Bastrain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Sxme12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Poelmean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Maigad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
--Dynaflow babble 05:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Edits match MO of problem-user and sock-puppet edit warrior SummerThunder per his LTA subpage at Wikipedia:Long term abuse/SummerThunder. High degree of similarity between each of the listed accounts' edits and previous SummerThunder socks. Gestalt from all the contribs lists looks and sounds like a duck. For some relevant diffs, see ANI thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Possible new SummerThunder sock (long-term abuse case).
- Comments
- Sxme12 and Tastetrees seem like obvious socks to me, so I've blocked them. Bastrain blocked by C.Fred and Poelmean blocked by Ginkgo100. Maigad is not so obvious to me, so I'll let another admin have a look. ~ Riana ⁂ 06:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
All accounts are blocked. Shalom Hello 14:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:CrossCrusader
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
- CrossCrusader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Gallant Ninja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- The Norse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 00:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
New account immediately starts revert warring on identical topics, with the same reverts. Potentially a few more, but not sure about them.
- Comments
- Conclusions
Checkuser linked all three accounts to the same IP. Crosscrusader and Gallant Ninja are indef-blocked, and User:CBM has decided to give The Norse a second chance. Shalom Hello 14:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Acorah's Anti-vandalism Unit
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
- Acorah's Anti-vandalism Unit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Derek Acorah Smells Of Flora (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Blue-Eyes Gold Dragon 00:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
made the exact same edit
- Comments
- Conclusions
- Both accounts are already blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:I went 2 harvard
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
I went 2 harvard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Adawootharvard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Dawootsafi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.189.75.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
66.189.171.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.189.11.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.189.95.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
66.189.165.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
orlady 00:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
There are similarities in the names of the 3 named users in this group ("harvard" and "woot"). Most of these users contributed to Southside A, a fictional creation that had no other contributors except for my PROD nomination and related edits. They have edited in no articles other than Southside A (edit history), Antioch, Tennessee (edit history), and Nashville, Tennessee (only one of these edited in Nashville, and only once). Most edit summaries by 68.189.95.185 and 68.189.70.20, as well as some by Adawootharvard, start with "I" ("I added," "I deleted," "I just added," etc.).
- Comments
The alleged puppetmaster I went 2 harvard was blocked.
All members of this collection of users have been active in revising Antioch, Tennessee to create an alternative reality for this community. Antioch is a suburban area of Nashville that is part of the consolidated municipality of Nashville-Davidson County, but these users have invented census data for Antioch, have identified it as the center of a metropolitan area, have altered data in the article, and have added statements about alleged issues of immigration (sometimes kurdish, sometimes hispanic, sometimes other groups), crime, etc. Additionally, most have recently contributed to the creation and editing of the spurious article "Southside A", which seems to be their made-up nickname for Antioch.
Another vandal with an interest in Antioch, TN, is 68.52.35.118
User:Dawootsafi removed the PROD template from Southside A (see diff), which had not been edited by Dawootsafi but had been edited by the other users in this collection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orlady (talk • contribs) 00:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- All the named accounts are blocked and the affected articles are semi-protected. The prod tag has been replaced on Southside A. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Philipdarby2
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
- Philipdarby2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Philipdarby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Philipdarby3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Freshacconci 14:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Regular vandalism from three almost identical user names, Philipdarby, Philipdarby2 and Philipdarby3, all for one edit to The Beatles. At least two accounts have been blocked and the vandalism continues. To avoid 3R rule, he now switches between the three accounts.
- Comments
- Actually, User:Philipdarby is the first account--I made the report based on the last bit of vandalism which was through User:Philipdarby2. Not sure if it matters, or if it needs to be changed to make User:Philipdarby the sockpuppeteer. Freshacconci 14:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- Obvious sockpuppetry like this can be reported directly to WP:AIV for quicker response. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Charles669
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Charles669 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
70.68.179.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 21:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
They both edit the same articles, but the IP is causing a lot of problems. See here. the IP tried to blank his talk page (for the second time), after the edit was reverted, Charles669 blanks it himself. The IP was also persistently removing the AFD tag from Peter Schonemann. It is very highly suspicous that this is a disruptive IP sock. Let's also note that he's making [285] legal threats. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
Almost certainly the same user based on Charles669 continuing a thread started by the IP here. But the IP does something Charles doesn't, which is edit outside the Peter Schonemann article. That gives me pause about any future blocks for either. I'm getting ahead of myself, however, as what's happening so far just seems to be POV editing. Oh, and someone hitting both folks over the head with the 'show preview' button is not a bad idea.--Chaser - T 22:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC) I left them both messages about the show preview button. There's nothing here that constitutes abuse of multiple accounts so no further action is required.--Chaser - T 22:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's what concerns me though. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kind of old news, no? The IP was blocked when whoever it was didn't stop, and the AFD is over...--Chaser - T 22:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But he still did it, isn't that what matters? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see anything that constitutes abuse of alternate accounts. It's common that new editors will do things with multiple accounts or with an account or IP because they aren't aware of sockpuppetry concerns. Unless there's a clear violation of the policy, nothing needs to be done.--Chaser - T 00:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He just got blocked again for "disruptive editing." He is also making legal threats. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see anything that constitutes abuse of alternate accounts. It's common that new editors will do things with multiple accounts or with an account or IP because they aren't aware of sockpuppetry concerns. Unless there's a clear violation of the policy, nothing needs to be done.--Chaser - T 00:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But he still did it, isn't that what matters? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kind of old news, no? The IP was blocked when whoever it was didn't stop, and the AFD is over...--Chaser - T 22:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- No further action seems necessary at this time. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:KKKRules4Ever
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
- KKKRules4Ever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Sdsddsdfsdfs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Wikidudeman (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
- Comments
- Conclusions
Both blocked indefinitely for various reasons. No other determination required.--Chaser - T 21:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Zingostar
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Zingostar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
88.151.83.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
217.209.116.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
John Hayestalk 07:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
These IPs seem to be almost exclusively used for furthering Zingostar's agenda on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charley Kazim Uchea. I can't be 100% sure they are this user, but they use very similar grammar, and identical arguments, hence I wanted them checked. I was hesitant about reporting them, as I have a conflict of interest in that I support the deletion they oppose, but a number of other editors (whose opinions I trust) have also suggested that they may be sockpuppets.
- Comments
Well one is obvious. The other IP isn't so clear, but AFD is not just a head-count and SPAs are routinely ignored, so don't fret too much.--Chaser - T 22:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, I hadn't even seen that. John Hayestalk 22:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- No further action seems required. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:ColScott
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
ColScott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Mrawesomeguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
ChrisStansfield Contribs 03:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Has yet to make a contribution to the mainspace, but has appeared on the Talk:Shoot 'Em Up page to reiterate allegations previously made by sockpuppet User:Muckrakerius. Meanwhile has posted private information about Wikipedia editors on his own talk page, and threatened legal action and mischief, both common practices of the numerous sockpuppets/meatpuppets of User:ColScott.
- Comments
It's getting routine to ban sockpuppets of User:ColScott, especially since he has a popular message board where he frequently asks members to "give him new email addresses" with which to engage in sockpuppetry and also regularly implores members to dig up information about Wikipedia editors.
- Conclusions
Let's nip this one in the bud BEFORE it escalates into more of a mess.
- Sock blocked, page protected, all done already, not sure why we need an SSP, seems unnecessary ~ Riana ⁂ 03:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahem
Mr Murphy has already been in contact with me. There's nothing to suspect here, it's pretty obvious, methinks. ~ Riana ⁂ 03:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:69.150.85.224
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
69.150.85.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
69.150.84.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.157.162.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.94.92.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.91.213.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
70.143.30.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.149.142.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
70.253.173.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
IPs after report report was filed:
68.91.215.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
NrDg 00:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Exact same vandalism to different accounts. Leaving obscene comments on Miley Cyrus' article and talk pages. The more recent IP's have also begun to attack Emily Osment's page. Each IP has been blocked but moves to different IP to continue.
- Comments
All obviously related. You don't need a suspected sockpuppetry report for this. You need semi-protection. I've done that for you.--Chaser - T 22:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Article talk page semi-protected.--Chaser - T 22:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am closing this case; no further action is needed. Shalom Hello 18:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:129.120.244.214
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
129.120.244.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
69.181.174.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Tenebrae 18:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Registered a few moments ago to make the same Hulk (comics) edits, consistently removed by several editors, as that of an anon IP who has just been reported, independently by two editors, for WP:3RR. The original anon IP continued his rvs after being warned of WP:3RR, then stopped and this new anon IP began.
- Comments
The apparent sock puppet was given a warning on his talk page.
- Conclusions
The 129.etc account was blocked at the time by Spartaz and has not resumed editing since Sept. 3. The 69.etc account also edited only on Sept. 3, so there is nothing to gain by blocking him now: blocks are preventative, not punitive. Shalom Hello 19:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Venom-smasher
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Venom-smasher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Movieguy999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
The Filmaker 12:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Venom-smasher had previously made massive edits to the reaction sections of the Star Wars prequel trilogy films, namely Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace. He engaged in revert-wars, broke 3RR, and repeatedly argued and edited against consensus. His opinion changed over the course of the argument, but consistently said that he believed that the Reaction sections were to negative towards the films. He would repeatedly make accusations that were not based on assuming good faith, believing that all those who edited the articles did not like the film and were merely trying to bias the reader's outlook. He eventually left, returning briefly six months later and then leaving again. User:Deckiller issued a warning for revert warring and uncivil edit summaries. He had generally argued and edited against consensus and refused to civilly discuss his edits. Now User:Movieguy999 has appeared with the same arguments over weasel words, massive removal of cited information, dislike of the Razzies and information on a RiffTrax on the film and many more of the exact same arguments. He has revealed a decent understanding of how to edit Wikipedia and again has many of the exact same rationales of "Rules of Wikipedia", often stating that it his right to make "these edits". Other smaller notes include his style of capitalizing the section headers of all his messages on talk pages and the way he refuses to discuss changes until forced to, at which he makes accusations, to which I reply, to which he simply circles make his original argument and accusations without actually responding to my rebuttal. You may see Venom-smasher's and Movieguy999's very similar comments at Talk:Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace/Archive 1, Talk:Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, Talk:Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones, Talk:Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith/Archive 04, User talk:Venom-smasher and User talk:Movieguy999. The Filmaker 12:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- How is this a violation of WP:SOCK? --Akhilleus (talk) 23:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that Movieguy999 is very obviously a sockpuppet of Venom-smasher. The fact of him being a sockpuppet is a violation in the first place, Venom-smasher is using to avoid being blocked per Deckiller's warning of his history of revert warring against consensus and blatant border walking of the 3RR. The Filmaker 23:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- There's no overlap in editing times between these accounts; Venom-smasher stopped editing in May 2007, Movieguy999 started on August 16 2007. The accounts can't be jointly violating 3RR or any other form of tag-team editing. Venom-smasher was blocked once, for 24 hours, but otherwise was an editor in good standing, so Movieguy999 is not evading a block or ban. In short, there's no prohibited use of multiple accounts here. If Movieguy999 is editing disruptively in some way you'll have to address that through some other process. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Bormalagurski
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Bormalagurski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
TheWriterOfArticles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
--Kaster 07:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
- Editing articles: Malagurski, Marta Malagurski, Mała Góra
- allowed Bormalagurski identity (serbian)
- Comments
I confess. It's true. I only wanted to write a few articles about my heritage. --TheWriterOfArticles 19:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- Confirmed by the suspected sockpuppet. See above. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- TheWriterOfArticles is indef blocked, Bormalagurski's 1-year ban is reset. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Dino Renzo
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Dino Renzo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
81.159.121.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.135.133.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.149.36.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Big D Productions (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Dean 'Big Dean' Woodward (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Dino Antonio Renzo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
FFB Recordings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Fieldrecords (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Forest fields park (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Forest fields Recordings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Forestfields (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Rascalpatrol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Rascals (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Rascals Mob Recordings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Simone Wentworth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
T-Rex Entourage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Renzo Family (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.152.10.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
-- Jreferee (Talk) 16:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
This is a two month on-going, recurring problem of one or more editors dodging deletions and blocks by using user pages to host a website in Wikipedia about the fictional gangster gangs "The Rascal Mob" and " T-Rex Entourage" as a way of expanding the website Dino Renzo and Co. Note how Dino Renzo and Co includes a link to Wikipedia. This same person/group also appears to be involved in posting articles on non existent or nonnotable musical label/group efforts.
The article Dean "Big D" Woodward was speedy deleted between May 17, 2007 and May 22, 2007.[288]. The article FFB Recordings was deleted five times between May 17, 2007 and June 21, 2007.[289] The article Nott's City Stand Up was speedy deleted may 18, 2007.[290] The article Dean Harry Woodward was speedy deleted four times on May 22, 2007.[291] The article Big Dean was speedy deleted May 25, 2007.[292] The article Forest Fields Boy was speedy deleted May 25, 2007.[293] The article Return of the Don was speedy deleted May 25, 2007.[294] The article Forest Fieldz Boyz was speedy deleted June 2, 2007.[295] The article Dino Renzo was speedy deleted June 8, 2007 and June 14, 2007.[296]. Per Special:Undelete, Rascals and 81.159.121.52 were involved in this article. The article Rascal Mob Recordings was speedy deleted June 14, 2007 and June 15, 2007.[297] The article Dean 'Big Dean' Woodward was speedy deleted June 15, 2007.[298] The article Rascal Mob was deleted June 20, 2007.[299] Per Special:Undelete, Rascals, 81.159.121.52, and Rascals Mob Recordings were involved in this article.
On June 24, 2007, it was noted at AN that similar pages were being created as user pages.[300] On August 28, 2007, it was noted at UAA that similar pages were being created as user pages.[301] The above noted users are listed at UAA as being involved in this fictional gang effort. In addition to attempting to avoid detection by using user space rather than article space, these editors are branching out to name variations to avoid watches over deleted pages. For example, the user page User: Dino Antonio Renzo was created after several deletes of User:Dino Renzo. Here is a list of pages that may be created in furtherance of this effort by Dino Renzo: Alberto Renzo, Damon Dales, David Chapman, Deanna Jones, Denzil Smith, Dino Renzo, Franklin Coles, Fredo Caan, Jacob Street, James Thornton, Lee Quoins, Leon Atkins, Mark Alexander, Roberto Renzo, Ryan Buzz, Simone Wentworth, The Rascal Mob, T-Rex Entourage, User:Alberto Renzo, User:Damon Dales, User:David Chapman, User:Deanna Jones, User:Denzil Smith, User:Dino Renzo, User:Franklin Coles, User:Fredo Caan, User:Jacob Street, User:James Thornton, User:Lee Quoins, User:Leon Atkins, User:Mark Alexander, User:Roberto Renzo, User:Ryan Buzz, User:Simone Wentworth, User:The Rascal Mob, User:T-Rex Entourage. Rather than continue to delete the created user pages and temporarily block Dino Renzo, I propose that each page be tagged as being operated by a puppetmaster to prevent recreation of these user pages. A checkuser may be warranted as well. Also, salt where needed.
- Comments
I've added User:Renzo Family and User:86.152.10.22 above. --- RockMFR 01:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- All the named accounts are indef blocked, except for User:Rascalpatrol, which seems unrelated (and hasn't edited since Jan 2007 anyway). The IPs are portable, so it's not worth blocking at this point. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Loask
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Loask (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Thepeanut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Humjosh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Pekaak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
— iridescent (talk to me!) 13:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Four accounts with a history of tag-teaming on goatse.cx. The four accounts are now multiple-voting "keep" on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weasel Thomas (patent hoax article created by Loask)
- Comments
- Conclusions
- Obvious, and all the named accounts are indef blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Dewarw
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Dewarw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Wrawed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Lurker (said · done) 10:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
For starters, Wrawed is Dewarw backwards. This guy isn't even trying to conceal sockpuppetry.
User:Wrawed pops up on a couple of Harry Potter AfDs to agree with a comment made by User:Dewarw: [302] and [303]
On the Andy Murray article, Wrawed pops up to support Dewarw (Dewarw and Wrawed are editing against consensus in this article and manage to resurrect an edit war that I for one hoped was dead). Here Dewarw issues an unjustified vandalism warning against an editor on his talk page, then Wrawed issued a similar warning on the articles talk page a few minutes later (the editor in question, an IP, was editing in favour of consensus)- before removing Dewarw's warning from the editor's talk page.
Minor stylisitic similarity- both editors have user pages that are redirects to talk pages (or had before I edit then to add sock tags)- Wrawed, Dewarw
- Comments
- Conclusions
I've indefinitely blocked User:Wrawed as a disruptive sockpuppet. I've asked User:Dewarw for comment; I think it's fairly obvious he's the sockmaster, but would like to hear what he has to say before applying any remedies to that account. MastCell Talk 18:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Zephyr99
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Zephyr99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
71.111.0.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
70.104.174.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
4.242.186.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) likely
- Report submission by
Check-Six 06:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
- Identical edit remarks, use of auto post, same POV edits of D B Cooper article...
- Comments
- Please also revert edits by sockpuppets or user
- Conclusions
Yes. Page semi-protected to prevent editing by IP socks. Zephyr99's block extended again. MastCell Talk 18:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Roosterrulez
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Roosterrulez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Bobbyisalegend 143214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Amazingalistair (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
richi 23:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
- After User:Carlossuarez46 speedily deleted a page (I believe Aurora Rose Levesque) the master complains, closely followed by the two suspected puppets.
- The puppets were recently created and have made no article edits (although one of them did give the master an "award").
- Comments
- Possibly meatpuppets, but in any case blatantly not the type of behaviour we should suffer ... richi 23:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Agreed these are fairly obvious sock or meatpuppets. Puppet accounts blocked indefinitely; Roosterrulez blocked for 24 hours. MastCell Talk 18:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Daniel575 (7th)
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Daniel575 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Eidah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
IZAK 16:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Unfortunately Daniel575 (talk · contribs) has had a long history of abusive editing leading to multiple blocks and bans, subsequent use of sockpuppets, bans and blocks, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Daniel575 for at least six prior proven sockpuppets that have been blocked.
Many editors familiar with Judaic topics on Wikipedia know that User:Daniel575 has returned as Eidah (talk · contribs) but have been afraid to confront him (pathetically, one admin has taken it upon himself to even "protect" him), see comment by User:Yossiea in this regard: "We all know he is (Daniel575), but he has an admin friend, Y (talk · contribs). When I pointed out one of Daniel's sockpuppets, I got yelled at for going on a witch hunt. We know he's Daniel, he's Dutch, check out his edits. It's getting to the point that nobody wants to edit Jewish or Israeli articles anymore because they are not in the mood of getting involved with Daniel and his tactics. If you look at his talk page, Y gives tacit approval of the knowledge that he is indeed Daniel." [304] [305] [306] [307] [308] So much for that.
The main issue revolves around Eidah (talk · contribs)'s abusive language and violation of Wikipedia's rules on a gross scale that mirror exactly the behavior of Daniel575 (talk · contribs). He has taken it upon himself to be the "St. George" of Haredi Judaism's "anti-Orthodox" wing slaying the "dragon" of "Zionism" in all its forms in order to save the "maiden" in this case anyone who agrees with his radical POV. User:Daniel and his sockpuppets can be recognized in many negatives ways. One is the curses he throws at those who oppose him. Thus in a recent CFD User:Eidah accused those who oppposed him as:
- "Zionist heretics who are being controlled by the Soton [309]
- "the despicable yetzer horo of supporting the impure Zionist lie" [310]
- "you have sold out to the disgusting traitors and you are working to defend the reshoim" ("reshoim" means "wicked") [311]
- "All of the groups in this category are VIRULENTLY anti-Zionist"
- "impure Zionist state and praying for it to be dissolved"[312]
- "Zionism of any type, religious or secular, is completely false"[313]
- "the transgression of the so-called 'religious Zionists' is even worse than that of the secular Zionists, because through their actions they aim to justify the acts of the Satan."[314]
- "'religious Zionists' will face their punishment for that in Gehinnom"[315]
A simple review for July and August of 2007 of User:Eidah's talk page shows his total disregard for Wikipedia's culture of simple co-operation and his willingness to be blocked for his brazen actions. He functions like a Kamikaze:
- Advice from User:Meshulam: "Careful about the language you use, especially on talk pages...The problem is that your message is easily dismissed if you use inflammatory language to explain your edits." [316]
- Blocked by User:PinchasC (admin) for 31 hours: "in regards to this post[317], please review Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point" and Violating of WP:POINT abuse of editing privileges. [318]
- Warning from User:Avraham about insults: "For example [319]" [320]
- Warning from User:Meshulam: "...you're perceived as being a pain, you'll never win an edit war. And a 24 hr block means that everyone gets free reign on the articles in question until you're done. And then if you go back to edit warring, they'll just block you again..." [321]
- Blocked for 24 hours by User:MastCell: "for violating the three-revert rule at Neturei Karta." [322]
The above is but a small example of what has gone on in less than two months, and the list could go on and on as one rummages through his edits. ALL the subject areas edited by User:Eidah are exactly the same ones that User:Daniel575 and all his sock-puppets sat on. They are one and the same and should all be blocked. IZAK 16:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Daniel575 and his latest sockpuppet User:Eidah make life miserable for anyone he opposes. His primitive curses and wild non-compliance with any rules smack of cyber-terrorism. He must be blocked and banned to the fullest. IZAK 16:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we really have to do much other than to point to his edits, and point to his 6+ other sockpuppet cases. This has gone on long enough. Yossiea (talk) 17:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
I don't have much to say about this subject. I am only responding because I was quoted. If you look at the greater context of all of my statements on this user's talk page, you will see that I was giving him (what I thought were) helpful pieces of advice, not warnings. He and YiddisherYid are equally guilty of edit-warring. With respect to Y's "support" of this user: the only evidence that has been brought is the innuendo and accusations of other users.... there isn't a single quotation from Y brought above that demonstrates his dedication to protecting Eidah. Eidah has a lot to say, and is a wealth of information. He has not threatened any users. He has written abrasively, but all of the comments brought above are sweeping condenations of Zionism, not individual editors. I do not think that condemnation of Zionism is against Wikipedia policy. With respect to the accusation that he is a sockpuppet (which is the only accusation that matters in this context): All that IZAK has managed to say about that one is that he is Dutch and an Anti-Zionist. IZAK has also stated (in underlined text, which I guess is supposed to add credibility) that "everyone knows" that he is Daniel575. If that is the case, then it remains to be seen what grounds "everyone" has for "knowing" such a fact, given the utter dearth of evidence. He may indeed be Daniel, after all. But there simply isn't enough evidence for anyone to eternally block this user on those grounds.--Meshulam 17:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be fairly simple to check. He is evading a community ban by reincarnating himself. How many followers of Dushinsky originally from Holland do you know editing Wikipedia? Yossiea (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not having been to Holland lately, I can't answer this question. But this comment is no different from IZAK's "case in chief." Rhetorical questions are not evidence. I can tell you do not like this user, but there is no evidence other than that he's dutch and anti-Zionist. --Meshulam 18:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- EVERYBODY KNOWS that this person is who he is. He's completely upfront about it. I remember the "community ban" discussion on ANI or whatever when he was first indefinitely blocked. Whether or not that was justified then I do not express an opinion on, but I am not willing to enforce it again. Some other admin may if he wants to, I suppose. I am not protecting him in any way - I have done nothing whatsoever to protect him and I don't understand in what way I am involved with this. -- Y not? 19:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It would seem that IZAK is right. I think that I personally recommended to the user to simply find another hobby rather than getting obsessive about WP. But it's one thing about being obsessed and another thing about being aggressive, something that is usually reduced over time in balanced people. Maybe facebook could be expanded with Daniel's expertise or something. --Shuki 20:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As somebody who has had edit wars with him this last week i find his work very valued to our enciclopedia, from correspondence i had with user Izak i can see why he wants to get rid of use Eida, but eida should not be blocked for Socpupetry he did not try to hide his identity and hasn't used 2 names to influence any consensus. Please make him talk with one name and lets make it about the issue not about the user. Izak has tried to delete his category and it failed so he goes after this user. Please lets not fool ourselves, lets be honest we don't like his view but if he is right with the facts we should not try to win our view by simply blocking him on technicalities of sockpupetry which he is not guilty in the real sense of the word.--יודל 22:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- יודל: Eidah's behavior goes way beyond the acceptable bounds of normal editing. When any editor says something Eidah does not like, he is liable to utter the weirdest and cruelest curses and launch into edit wars and revert articles wildly-- something that Daniel575 and all his other sockpuppets did in the exact same way, so they are all coming from the same source. That kind of behavior is dangerous and not normal and does not belong in a community that is devoted to building a rational encyclopedia. I have nothing against the subject matter that so fascinates Daniel575/Eidah, and he does bring some good information when he writes. However, very sadly and unfortunately, the negatives outweigh the positives in this case. When he turns his attention to edits on his watchlist (as he instantly does when edits are made to "his" articles) he then goes on what can only be called rampages and tirades to swing the totality of his interests into only one direction (his "anti-Zionism" mantra.) That is what is called an obsession and it is dangeous and destructive as he lets no-one and nothing get in his way, and he thinks he is being so clever and righteous in doing so. How sad and pathetic. Daniel575/Eidah has a lot of growing up to do and when he can somehow prove that he is capable as functioning as an adult and completely avoid any sort of tantrums and especially those curses, threats and destructive edits, then he can come back sometime in the future. For now, he must be put back into his cage. IZAK 11:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As somebody who has had edit wars with him this last week i find his work very valued to our enciclopedia, from correspondence i had with user Izak i can see why he wants to get rid of use Eida, but eida should not be blocked for Socpupetry he did not try to hide his identity and hasn't used 2 names to influence any consensus. Please make him talk with one name and lets make it about the issue not about the user. Izak has tried to delete his category and it failed so he goes after this user. Please lets not fool ourselves, lets be honest we don't like his view but if he is right with the facts we should not try to win our view by simply blocking him on technicalities of sockpupetry which he is not guilty in the real sense of the word.--יודל 22:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It would seem that IZAK is right. I think that I personally recommended to the user to simply find another hobby rather than getting obsessive about WP. But it's one thing about being obsessed and another thing about being aggressive, something that is usually reduced over time in balanced people. Maybe facebook could be expanded with Daniel's expertise or something. --Shuki 20:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- EVERYBODY KNOWS that this person is who he is. He's completely upfront about it. I remember the "community ban" discussion on ANI or whatever when he was first indefinitely blocked. Whether or not that was justified then I do not express an opinion on, but I am not willing to enforce it again. Some other admin may if he wants to, I suppose. I am not protecting him in any way - I have done nothing whatsoever to protect him and I don't understand in what way I am involved with this. -- Y not? 19:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not having been to Holland lately, I can't answer this question. But this comment is no different from IZAK's "case in chief." Rhetorical questions are not evidence. I can tell you do not like this user, but there is no evidence other than that he's dutch and anti-Zionist. --Meshulam 18:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The admin who confirms that Daniel575=Eidah also curses and condemns those who wish to expose him to trolling by revealing his previous compromised identity:
See Category talk:Orthodox Jewish Anti-Zionism#Question for Eidah: are you blocked User:Daniel575?: "I am aware that is user is a reincarnation of Daniel. It's not exactly a shock to anyone. Everybody knows. However, I have done literally nothing to protect his user, not as a user, and certainly not with my administrative privileges!! If you would like to submit a recall petition, you may do so. It will be fun, actually. As for running around revealing what I attempted to conceal, you have my intense contempt, and you have committed a grievous aveirah bein odom lechaveiro, for which you will have to answer in two weeks. -- Y not? 20:03, 30 August 2007" [323]
- How dramatic of you, IZAK! -- Y not? 12:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dramatic? I have only quoted you verbatim without adding one word. Your words also affirm User:Yossiea's statement above that "We all know he is (Daniel575)...We know he's Daniel..." Al Pi Shnei Eidim O Al Pi Shlosha Yakum Davar ("two or three witnesses establish a fact")... you should know that. IZAK 12:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- This looks like a match, and Eidah will be blocked, but if it is necessary to create Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daniel575 (8th), please do a better job of presenting the evidence next time. There's actually nothing in the evidence above that shows Eidah is Daniel575; I had to conclude that on my own by looking at their contribs. What's here is a bunch of complaining about Eidah, combined with many assertions that everyone knows who he is. Well, folks, the admins who deal with this page may not know who Daniel575 is, and don't see any obvious connection between him and the suspected sockpuppet. So make it easy for us by presenting some clear evidence. Also, next time please do not include an acrimonious, off-topic dialogue. Thank you. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Hungrywolf
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Hungrywolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
203.212.203.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
202.177.251.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Blackbeard2k7 19:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
[324] The suspected sock puppet removes a cited source of disputed material.
[325] The user Hungrywolf actually replaces the suspected IP with his username (doh!)
[326] Another suspected puppet has removed comments from Hungrywolfs talk page.
- Comments
The user is evidenced here as performing sock puppetry for malicious intent. He was previously blocked for engaging in an edit war on the same article (Field Commander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) over other disputed material. If you look closely at the history of this article, as well as M.U.L.E. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) you will notice that this user clearly has a problem. Additionally, the user has since removed the sock puppetry case warning from his talk page and continues to revert all of my edits even with reliable cited sources, ignoring all admins and third opinions. He has been blocked for this type of activity in the past. --Blackbeard2k7 (talk · contribs)
If we assume good faith, the evidence suggests that Hungrywolf made an edit, which did inappropriately remove someone else's comments, then realized he wasn't logged in and fixed his signature.
There is nothing wrong with removing comments from your own talk page. Even if the other IP is his, there is no malicious intent in the third diff. --Onorem♠Dil 13:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- This looks like an instance of the user forgetting to log in (or perhaps his browser had a hiccup). No evidence of violation of WP:SOCK. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Returnofthevogons
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Returnofthevogons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Loco Teacher Spree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Pro Mice Creator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
80.102.220.xxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
80.102.248.xxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
NORDKAPP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
SERRALONGA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Serrallonga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
etc, etc, etc...
- Report submission by
Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 01:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
There is a pattern on the users vandalizing some Barcelona-related pages (Barcelona, TV3 (Catalonia), ESADE, ...) in which they only add non sourced crap just to degradate the articles. I already explained it in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/NORDKAPP but the solution was not exhaustive. It seems this user is changing regulary his identity. Look: (almost) all users have nothig nothing neither in User Page not in talk page. Some of their user names are ALL IN CAPITAL LETTERS, some other follow a pattern of 3 words (as the ones blocked in the last request). Nothing to say about "Returnofthevogons"... All of them have very few contributions and they are all to make this vandalizing. This time I ask to go to the root of the problem and try to find who is the master, protect the pages, block all the range of ip's... I don't know, but if you see the history of this pages, you can see this annoying regular "contributions" from a recent created account, and this is exhausting for the regular users. By the way, some of them have been already blocked for different reasons. Let's notice that when they have been blocked, they haven't even answered, argued or protest. Of course, it is not a problem: just have to create a new account...
Please, I hope this time the problem is studied a bit deeply. Thank you in advance.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 01:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
Added days later: Huthillor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). And (s)he continues... I wonder how many users will (s)he create...--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 14:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- I'll block some of these as vandal only accounts, but when throwaway accounts are vandalizing a handful of articles, the best thing to do is ask for page protection. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Gtadoc
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Gtadoc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Allgoodnamesalreadytaken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
203.34.164.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Fmehdi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsharvy (talk • contribs)
- Evidence
Allgoodnamesalreadytaken and Gtadoc are supporting each other, e.g [327]. Allgoonames's Talk page consists entirely of complimentary exchanges between Gtadoc and himself. Allgoodnames created his account 10AUG at 20:54, and Gtadoc's first comment on his Talk page was at 21:00 (6 minutes after the account was created)[328].
203.34.164.71 forged a complimentary comment on Gtadoc's Talk page, signing it "Stephen."[329] Gtadoc then edited the signature to make it a wiki-link to the Talk page of editor Stephen [330]. Stephen later asserted the comment was not his, at which point Gtadoc deleted the entire section.
Gtadoc has a history of other fradulent activity, e.g. deleting user comments from a Talk page and then accusing the user of deleting them.Bsharvy 16:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I should add that Allgoodnames and Gtadoc post on the exact same themes: medical research and complaining that nobody respects their expertise [331] (this is Allgoodnames commenting on Gtadoc's Talk page, another case of supporting each other). IP addresses should not generally be considered sockpuppets; I sometimes forget to sign in before posting. However, in this case the IP posting is represented as someone other than Gtadoc (it is supporting him), and it involves forging a signature of another editor, which strikes me as serious.Bsharvy 21:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I added User:Fmehdi as this user and Gtadoc contributed to the disruption, nasty tone, and the ultimate abandonment of all editors from making any attempt to improve the Che Guevara article. I suspect User:Fmehdi because this account was used between July 19 to August 8, mostly to support User:Gtadoc in his point of view on the Che Guevara article talk page and to attack User:Zleitzen. The only user talk page posts from that account are one to me [332] and some to User:Zleitzen, one of the longtime editors of the Che Guevara article,[333][334][335]and supporting posts to User:Gtadoc on that subject. [336] There are also some posts to the Talk:Che Guevara.[337][338][339][340]
- Other than these, there are only a few other edits from this account and none since August 8 when this account gave User:Gtadoc a barnstar "For your work on several science pages, like amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and for improving pages dealing with medical and graduate education".[341] Fmehdi did not edit any of the pages mentioned in the barnstar. --Mattisse 01:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum - User:Gtadoc did accuse me of defending User:Zleitzen thereby causing the uproar that occurred on the Che Guevara page.[342]. In fact, I did make a post about Zleitzen to Fmehdi's page and to Gtadoc's not to defend Zleitzen but to explain him as the attacks on him were unnecessarily nasty, given the situation. [343][344] I made no posts about Zleitzen on the Che Guevara talk page. My first post to the Che Guevara talk page was July 29. I will add that I thought the interaction between Gtadoc and Fmehdi strange at the time as they were both new to the Che Guevara article but neither posted to other editors than Zleitzen of the article, and both seemed angry at him. Mattisse 12:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am adding the comparison between Gtadoc and Fmedhi on Kate's Wannabe: Gtadoc [345] and Fmedhi.[346] I believe Fmedhi was used primarily to give a false sense of support to Gtadoc on Che Guevara talk page and to attack User:Zleitzen. Mattisse 13:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
I am new to this part of Wikipedia, so I may be wrong. I think the comments made after the initial report are supposed to go here, in the "Comments" section. I will move them if there is no objection. (Moved comments)Bsharvy 21:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for vandalizing my user page. To respond, I looked at Gtadoc's talk page that bharvey mentions, the IP address is actually seems to be from where he lives, along with the one singing it. Kind of funny that he's here accusing someone else of it. I'm pretty sure Gtadoc himself left WP because it was a waste of time for him (as would be, say, me trying to teach molecular genetics to a monkey)...since I work with him/sit 10 feet from him he asked me to comment on a page relating to radiation as its my field of research. I have no idea who fmehdi is, but it seems she made mattisse angry at some point...though I find it amusing that her edits seemed to be about indain fashion...lol. I'm more than happy to prove who I am, or for that matter prove where I work and my share my CV with you, since you are trying to assert you know something about radiation sickness on the one page I commented on I would wonder if you are willing to do the same?? In any event, I'd appreciate it if you both (or whichever of you did) quit vandalizing my page (or in Bsharvey's case) quit making childish comments on talk pages to me. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 02:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - None of User:Fmehdi's edits were about Indian fashion as stated about by Allgoodnamesalreadytaken above. Other that the above edits, User:Fmehdi has made 2 edits to Palestine, 2 to Israel, ⋅2 to Phrenology, and 2 to Mansehra. --Mattisse 01:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you're right; the comment (which you didn't mention) was about bollywood; I assumed it was fashion, but its the indian movie industry...lol...'pats mattise on the back' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allgoodnamesalreadytaken (talk • contribs) 12:27, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, to edit my above, I actually checked and the IP address 203.34.164.71 is signed elsewhere as Andrew73 and Stephen and is located at a university in Syndey Australia (according to RBL) and previously (it must be shared) to an address in Oregon...hmmm...a long way from minnesota. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allgoodnamesalreadytaken (talk • contribs) 02:39, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, to dig deeper; this is funny, IP address 203.34.164.71 has it origonal post about plants...which upon some investigation is also a primary topic on a page linked from bsharvy's user page...lol. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 02:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Allgoodnamesalreadytaken has intensified his support of Gtadoc, and attacks on me, with a thoroughly dishonest complaint on the administrator's notice board [347]. Gtadoc/Allgodnames, you need to be careful about your accusations. I followed the Wikipedia steps for a suspected sockpuppet. One of the required steps was to put a sockpuppet notice on your User page. I wouldn't use complaince with wiki-policy as a basis for slinging around accusations of vandalism.Bsharvy 04:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I reported you because already having been here a whole 3 or 4 days you've been entirely disruptive on the page you've been trying to ruin and unlike others I wanted to see if you would be put to the a proverbial tree and hung by the community (who says scientists have no sense of humour?) or if editers like you are welcome here, in which case it will simply confirm the commonly held perception that wp has no standards for its editers/material. And, posting notices all over the place and trying to hide behind some policies you just read today is still vandalism, though, imho that term applies to most of the posts in your contributions page. Funny though that you feel free to accuse others of everything under the sun yet get offended when others call you on your actions. To bring a touch of logic to the conversation (don't worry, just a touch) if I was gtadoc's sockpuppet there would be no point for me to post anything here as I would just go create another account and continue posting on my merry way. BTW, I'm willing to prove who I am and what my "credentials" and "expertise" are...what about you? No worries, I already looked at the webpage you linked to your userpage and I see that you have none, yet make accusations against others as if you did...I don't think WP:CIVIL allows me to post here what I think about that...lol. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 04:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're busted. You don't know how to spell "editor." You spelled it "editer." In an amazing coincidence, Gtadoc also does not know how to spell "editor." Even more amazingly coincidentally, he spelled it "editer." Here is one of his edit sumaries: "removing diatribe per WP:NPA also leaving warning on editer Wtmitchell|Boracay Bill talk page)"[348]. (Of further note, in that same edit, you deleted my comment from a Talk page, and later accused me of deleting it.)Bsharvy 05:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, you're a two year old; I don't know how to spell anything, and I can't do math in public. Though, speaking of busted...you accused Gtadoc of adding a comment to his own page, the IP address 203.34.164.71 actually maps to somewhere in SE asia...hmmm...where might you be? Seems like a case of meatpuppetry/wikistalking/strawmanpuppetry to me...did I spell all those right? Oh, by the way, I can't knowledgable either, but then, neither can George Bush...gosh, I must be him too! Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 05:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, keep it Civil. Comments like you're a two year old are not helpful. --SXT4 13:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If this isn't simply to retaliate / antagonize User:Allgoodnamesalreadytaken, then, there should be {{Socksuspect}} tags on the other involved parties, for one. For two, User:Allgoodnamesalreadytaken: This isn't a forum about other's conduct. There is a time and a place for that, and, this isn't it. I understand, that this is likely very frustrating, but, you need to keep your cool. When you don't, it can make it appear to some, that you're enraged at being "caught" or "outed". To me it doesen't appear that User:Fmehdi is a sock, at least, not here. It does smell an aweful lot, like User:Allgoodnamesalreadytaken and User:Gtadoc are, however. Same topics, on the same article, focusing over the same editor, on the same part of the article. Of course, there's also [349] User:Allgoodnamesalreadytaken claiming to attend school at the Mayo Medical School, and, User:Gtadoc seems to be very familiar with that particular article, too. I suppose, it could all just as easily be some sort of massive coincidence, however. But, I digress. Even if these users are socks, are they Violating WP:SOCK? If not, I don't see the problem. If so, evidence should be compiled, and, forwarded to WP:RFCU. Anyhow, that's my opinion on the matter, and, you know what they say about opinions... --SXT4 06:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, in my very first post I told everyone in the article that I work with gtadoc, he sits right accross the hall from me, we attend the same school, and he asked me to comment on a page because it was in my area of research and not his. I told him I would write something brief as I kind of view wp discussion pages as a waste of time, and I wrote something brief. As for Bsharvy he was actually the user harrassing other people in that page and he immediately started on me after my first post, and, unlike others, I have very little desire to placate childish behavior...its not as much being enraged by anything, rather amusement. As already pointed out, if I was a person who wanted to go around sockpuppeting I wouldn't have any reason to post here, I'd just make a new puppet and be on my way. In any event, there is already an admin action pg for Bsharvy, hopefully he can be dealt with there. In my admittedly limited experience with WP it seems one of its major limitations is the inability of expert users to make contributions that can't be trashed by blowhards.Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 17:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- His/her very first post: "I went ahead and checked per the request of one of the editors and am weighting in on Gtadoc's side, I don't know if the issue is still at hand but his edits were accurate, which I can't say for some other editors..." Talk:Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Request_for_comment. The point about "editer" is not that it is a spelling a mistake. It is a very specific spelling mistake. Out of the millions of words they could both misspell, and the thousands of ways each could misspell it, each misspelled the same word, in the exact same way.Bsharvy 21:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies, it was my second post; which in relevent part said "Ignoring childish comment; and yes, we work at the same institution...what about you? "...note, the childish comments were from none other than Bsharvy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allgoodnamesalreadytaken (talk • contribs) 12:23, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
- Question Even if these accounts are linked, how is WP:SOCK being violated? --SXT4 13:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer - In the case of User:Fmehdi it is not a huge deal and it may be more of I guess what you call meatpuppet(?). User:Gtadoc may have asked someone he knew to join Wikipedia to support his position on the Che Guevara article. The result was that the article, which was a FA, has not been edited since User:Gtadoc left as the talk page became very heated and all involved editors have withdrawn. It probably will not be edited in the foreseeable future because of the turmoil. Also, a person who was a very good editor in the past, (17,000+ edits) and who has now retired, was further alienated by being repeatedly attacked in an already ugly situation. However, perhaps none of this is important enough -- I understand that. I do think that, although User:Fmehdi may not be a sock puppet, that the account was pretty much a single purpose account. But you probably know the definitions of what qualifies more than I do. --Mattisse 13:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The comment I quoted above is faked show of support: Allgoodnames "weighted" in on the side of Gtadoc in a disagreement. He later reiterated that he was siding a certain way in the disagreement (against me), and it was the same side Gtadoc had previously supported. In the same Talk page, he defended Gtadoc's comments against another editor's criticism that we were using the page for personal disagreements. All this is on the Talk page for the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the only entry Allgoodnames has ever edited. Both he and Gtadoc have taken sides on various issues discussed there, creating the impression that there are two "votes" for those positions instead of one. Fake support on User Talk pages is probably less serious, but it still creates a false impression of sentiment on Wikipedia re the discussed issues. He/she/they have routinely complained about the uninformed, rude (insert various insults about rectums, dicks, and whatnot, here) editors in their "mutual" experience, and since their only "mutual" experience is the one Talk page, it is pretty clear whom they "mutually" criticize (me). All of these insults are propped up by the sockpuppetry. They are a fake show of support for one editor's view. Finally, the mere creation of this report prompted Allgoodnames to open a complaint about me on the admin incidents page. The gist of that is siding with Gtadoc (his "colleague") in claims that I am distruptive, etc. Again, fake show of support, this time in a complain to admins. "It is a violation .. to edit as IP, rather than logging in to your account, in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest (a legitimate interest excludes wikistalking) in reviewing your contributions." It's hard to prove the forged signature from the IP address was Gtadoc, but Gtadoc did edit the signature to make it a wiki-link to the User's Talk page. When the User (Stephen, an admin, I think) wrote that it wasn't his comment, Gtadoc deleted the whole thing. The fake comment from the IP address was, of course, a show of support (against me). So the basic violation is faking shows of support, deceiving other editors about editor sentiment, and outright attacks in the name of defending the "other" editor (sockpuppet). I can't comment on the Fmehdi claim, since I didn't participate in that discussion.Bsharvy 22:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- Gtadoc and Allgoodnamesalreadytaken say they know each other in real life, and Allgoodnamesalreadytaken states in this very case that Gtadoc asked him to comment on an article. These are exactly the sorts of circumstances that point to a violation of Wikipedia policy on meatpuppets (if not sockpuppets), but I don't see any evidence of an actual violation--for instance, there's no evidence of joint participation in AfDs or other types of "voting". Therefore, there's no reason to block either account.
- I don't see any compelling evidence that the IP or User:Fmehdi is a sock.
- If both Gtadoc and Allgoodnamesalreadytaken continue to edit, they should take care to abide by WP:MEAT. In particular, I strongly advise them to avoid jointly participating in controversial discussions. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Ygraj
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
- Ygraj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Mike4lyf5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
✬Dillard421✬ (talk • contribs) 05:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
- Comments
- Conclusions
- No evidence that the alternate account is being used abusively. No action needed. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Jereiaki
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Jereiaki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
CodyCoker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.196.247.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
74.170.166.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Baconfish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 01:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
This case is close to being too old to post here; I admit that I had mostly forgotten about it. I posted an incident in WP:ANI on the 20th about a very persistent vandal called Cody Coker, which can be found here. Coker and a host of IPs also claiming to be him created several vandalism pages, removed CSDs, and vandalized many pages, including my user page.
This case is also unusual in that the sockpuppet(s, if you count the IPs) have already been banned, so now it's more of a whodunit. It turns out that before the vandalism spree, I had CSD'd the first article called Cody Coker, which had been created by User:Jereiaki (see the user's talk page). I mentioned on the ANI report, but it never went anywhere. So forgive me for rambling a bit, and I apologize if this whole thing is in the wrong place, but I'd just like to find out if Jereiaki is behind Coker and all the vandalism.
New: User:Baconfish is also Cody Coker, according to his edits on this very case.
- Comments
It's too hard to draw any conclusion. Keep in mind that CodyCoker made his first edit on 20 August, whereas Jereiaki edited once in 2006 and again in 2007, on the same day CodyCoker made his appearance. Since Jereiaki has no other acts of vandalism on his record, and has not edited since August 20 anyhow, I believe the safest course of action is to assume good faith and leave well enough alone. Shalom Hello 23:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- All socks, and all the named accounts are indef blocked, IPs blocked for various periods. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Ramdrake
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Ramdrake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- 24.37.123.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Jeeny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
--MoritzB 21:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Ramdrake breached WP:3RR in the article race and intelligence undoing the actions of MoritzB and other editors and removing content five times between 12:57, 26 August 2007 and 20:17, 26 August 2007. See:
I gave a message of this violation to Ramdrake. [355]
Ramdrake then performed an edit in which he restored my version of the article. [356]
However, 3 minutes after this edit IP address 24.37.123.58 reverted the article back to Ramdrake's version. This is suspicious because the location of the IP address is in Montreal, Canada. (Confirmed with http://www.geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm?GetLocation)
Ramdrake states on his talk page that he lives in Montreal. See: [357]
The contribution history of 24.37.123.58 indicates that this IP address has been used to make edits related to Quebec, white people and race and intelligence. The contribution histories of Ramdrake and this IP address are in all respects very similar. [358] [359]
Ramdrake denied that he owns this IP address after I inquired about it. [360] Thus, I suspect him of mala fide use of a sockpuppet to circumvent the three-revert-rule.
MoritzB 21:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeeny and Ramdrake have similar edit histories and times [361] [362], identical positions (ex: See how Jeeny backs up Ramdrake: [363] Many more examples can be given...) Recently Jeeny retired [364]. Less than 2 days later, so did Ramdrake [365]. Then Jeeny returned, claiming a Wikibreak: [366]. So did Ramdrake, exactly same day! [367]. And of course they returned from the break together: [368] [369]. KarenAER 22:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
I would just like to point out, for the record, before anyone starts on any chase, that these four changes do not revert to the same point at all, and one isn't a revert at all, as nothing was removed, and the additions were all original, so 3RR wasn't broken to begin with.--Ramdrake 22:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about the "evidence" in question, but in my opinion it is circumstantial at best. I do feel obliged however, to say that the user MoritzB merely made this page as a reactionary response to charges brought against him by the user in question.[370] Whatever the case may be, Ramdrake has done nothing as far as blatant disruption since he/she was merely reverting the apparent vandalism and strongly suspected sockpuppeting going on. Also, the only reason he got the idea was through an apparent instigator who has noted edit disputes with Jeeny[371], a user who warned him on his talk page about 3rr. The bias imo is apparent as the user even tries to connect Jeeny with Ramdrake, which is totally unfounded, and MoritzB merely compartmentalized it, and is trying to make an entire case out of it.[372]Taharqa 22:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- KarenAER wrote on my talk page that Jeeny is Ramdrake's sockpuppet, too. I didn't make that claim. Could you stop your pointless accusations, please?MoritzB 22:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Karen and Moritz, if you do not agree with a number of editors, that does not mean they are sockpuppets. In my opinion this is a complete waste of time. Before making accusations of sockpuppetry I recommend doing adequate research on the parties involved. In fact both of you have recent accounts, hmmm??. Muntuwandi 23:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The request for checkuser was declined by User:Deskana with the following statement:
The privacy policy generally prohibits releasing IPs. It's obvious that the IP is him, anyway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Ramdrake MoritzB 02:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Ramdrake is the ip. A few days off are warranted. The situation was very tense but I do not condone what was done. I do not know everyone very well to comment on Jeeny and Ramdrake. They seem to be different people but you never know. On the 3RR, I initially thought no harm was done, but upon careful inspection, there was a violation. Brusegadi 05:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've had dealings with both of these editors and there is absolutely no indication that one is a sockpuppet of the another. Indeed the only substantial evidence presented here is that Ramdrake may have broken the three revert rule by making a revert while not logged in to his account. This may not be acceptable behaviour for sure, but this is surely evidence that RAmdrake and Jeeny are not socks or even Meatpuppets. If Ramdrake and Jeeny were sockpuppets why would be not just revert with his sock account? Why would he use an IP address? The evidence of sockpuppetry is nonexistent. If ramdrake reverted from his IP address then give him a warn, it's what is usually done surely? Alun 11:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am afraid Brusegadi is off-base. MoritzB and KarenAER have been pushing an extreme fringe POV on the article for several days with very little support, and in frustration have turned to (independent, no doubt) attacks on Ramdrake's character as well as Jeeny's very existence. The weakness of his argument is evident in that he has to combine it with a non-existent 3RR violation (the five edits concern two different matters, and the first set of edits really is rather trivial, mainly a dispute over what goes in a citation and not the actual removal of a view or content from the article) that is in any case unrelated to the charge of sock-puppetry. You know, I often agree with Jeeny and Ramdrake and often edit at the same time. I am surprised MoritzB or KarenAER have not accused me of being a "sleeper sockpuppet" - you know, four years before he set up his own account, Ramdrake created me just in case. The issue is simple: these editors are part of a tiny minority and several editors who are more familiar with the current research disagree with him. Instead of acknowledging that his in the minority, MoritzB can only imagine that everyone who disagrees with him is a sockpuppet. This is reckless POV warrioring at its worst. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not said that Jeeny is Ramdrake's sockpuppet and Ramdrake is the one who has seriously broken Wikipedia policies with his IP sockpuppet. This is a very simple case of a dishonest editor. Content disputes are irrelevant.
- MoritzB 16:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's all very well, but it doesn't explain why you posted information purportedly showing that Ramdrake has broken the 3rr rule. This page is supposed to present evidence of sockpuppetry and not evidence of breaches of 3rr. The IP account listed has only four edits, so it is obviously not being used as a sock account. Possibly it is Ramdrake, and if it is, it certainly is a foolish thing to do, but it does not represent a persistent attempt to circumvent Wikipedia policies. If Ramdrake made a mistake, even if this mistake was engaging in an edit war using an IP, then this is a different thing to having a specific sockpuppet account for nefarious purposes. Let's remember to assume good faith. Also it's worth taking into account the essay regarding wikilawyering. All the best. Alun 17:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The purpose of the sockpuppet was to circumvent the 3RR. It is specifically forbidden to use sockpuppets to circumvent policies.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Circumventing_policy
- MoritzB 17:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have modified my statement and apologize to you for my error. The fact remains that Ramdrake has done nothing wrong. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ramdrake did broke the 3RR both with his account and the sockpuppet. See: [373]
- MoritzB 17:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see this SSP report as a way to get back at Ramdrake (talk) for a RFCU case filed against MoritzB (talk) by Ramdrake (talk). Also, it would be nice if MoritzB would assume good faith when dealing with other editors. nattang 16:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how Ramdrake's previous (baseless) reports excuse his use of sockpuppetry to circumvent 3rr.
- MoritzB 17:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Will someone please close this case so I can get rid of the trolls harrasing me? Please do a check user on me and Ramdrake. Sheesh- Jeeny Talk 19:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
I'm going to leave the case open, but my provisional conclusion is that Ramdrake should not be blocked. I add a couple of notes:
- Ramdrake's block log shows two blocks for 3RR long in the past, one specifically regarding "race and intelligence." That causes people like me to become suspicious.
- MoritzB is clearly making a counterattack from Ramdrake's accusation against him two days earlier. That makes me suspect a bogus accusation.
- It's possible that the IP is Ramdrake. There's no way to be certain because of insufficient evidence. It is equally possible that the IP was some other fellow patrolling recent changes, who evaluated a diff and decided "Ramdrake was right." I have made such an evaluation doing RC patrol at least once. The nature of the 3RR violation, if there was one (counting the IP edit), is also questionable. If it comes to a question of whether there were three reverts or four, and maybe one of them wasn't really a revert, and maybe one of them was from a disinterested IP, and the whole dispute goes far beyond the bounds of this accusation, etc. etc., the best course of action is not to block Ramdrake.
That being said, it would be nice for everyone involved (especially MoritzB, the plantiff) to cool down, and for Ramdrake to be extra careful to avoid even the appearance of 3RR, given the past history.
The claim that Jeeny is related to these two editors is patently ridiculous and does not merit further comment. Shalom Hello 19:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is now certain that the IP was Ramdrake, (confirmed with RFCU).
"Having discussed with Deskana privately, I believe that the privacy policy is not intended to protect the IPs of users when it is the IP itself that is being used for abusive editing. In this case it is a clear Confirmed. Dmcdevit·t 23:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Ramdrake[reply]
- This matter has already been dealt with through the checkuser case linked above. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:MoritzB
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
MoritzB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Franz V (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 211.72.213.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 128.241.111.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Runtshit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 82.181.92.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
--Ramdrake 20:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
FranzV has only two edits, both of them to revert to a previous edit which MoritzB had made and which had been reverted in the meantime. One of the edits has no summary, while the other only has "MoritzB is right", so these look suspicious.--Ramdrake 20:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- User is currently using sockpuppets to violate 3RR. Need confirmation of sockpuppet status. Edit histories are pretty clear that these are single-purpose edit-war sockpuppets. --Strothra 13:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
^Indeed..
As pointed out by Strothra, the banned sock puppet IP of user "runtshit" is connected to a sockpuppet of MoritzB, 211.72.213.93, who made the exact same edit as MoritzB and used precisely the same exact summary as 128.241.111.213! They supposedly log on and make their first edit ever merely to revert to MoritzB. [374] [375]
Observing the commotion hands on, I feel extremely confident that these are sock/meat puppets (they have to be). Also, from another article where MoritzB was restricted due to 3rr, another suspected sock/meat puppet pops up, blindly reverting to MoritzB not long after MoritzB sent a message to Ramdrake pleading to have the page reverted due to 3rr. Mind you, this is the first edit by this Ip as well, and the single purpose was to revert for MoritzB it seems. [376] [377]
MoritzB: [378]
Suspected sock Franz V with the same exact edit on the same page, during the same time period, of course, reverting conveniently to MoritzB. [379]
It isn't a matter of anyone "liking his edits", since most of the editors in question despise them. It is mainly about him causing disruption and apparently using sock puppets to avoid responsibility, not to mention that he is likely Runtshit and has been banned, in which case the user shouldn't even be allowed to edit.Taharqa 21:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
Franz is not my sockpuppet and I don't know him. Obviously some guy who appreciates my edits, though. MoritzB 21:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's obvious that my edits are popular and I cannot help if non-established users agree with me.
- MoritzB 15:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/MoritzB MoritzB 21:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that usercheck doesn't tell us anything about your case as a whole as you're strongly suspected as being Runtshit.. The admin from the checkuser conceded that it is in fact possible that you indeed are the banned user in question, but they didn't elaborate on the IPs.Taharqa 21:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Give me a break. Runtshit made 5 edits all of which said: "Yes, but Roland Rance is an extremely smelly piece of shit". Look at his contribution history. Any reasonable person can see that it is extremely unlikely that I am "Runtshit". LOL.
- MoritzB 22:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Runtshit's IP is connected to one of your other sockpuppets, also from identical edit summaries on the same exact article you edited, reverting to the same exact thing around the same time period. The odds of these IPs not being you is low. Not to mention the other IPs addressed.Taharqa 22:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- However, none of those IPs are mine which was confirmed by an admin.MoritzB 02:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
^Nothing has been confirmed by an admin, that's not true at all. You were only checked for one username and it can still be a meat puppet, the same admin states that you may be connected to Runtshit and/or his ips, along with the others.Taharqa 17:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This attempt to connect me with Runtshit is desperate and ridiculous. Runtshit was a banned random vandal who made five edits saying: "Yes, but Roland Rance is an extremely smelly piece of shit".
- MoritzB 17:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
I think there is strong evidence that Franz V and MoritzB are tag-teaming, even if checkuser can't prove it.
I also think that the suspected link to banned user Runtshit should be left out of the conversation. Runtshit happened seven months ago, and did not directly impact in the current dispute. It will not be possible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that MoritzB is Runtshit: the checkusers left it as a "maybe."
KillerChihuahua blocked MoritzB for 24 hours for his role in the ongoing dispute - especially, as best I understand, for violating 3RR. The remaining question is whether to levy a block on Franz V.
I will leave this discussion open, as for Ramdrake above, but I believe that, with checkuser results already received, it is time to proceed to other steps in dispute resolution. Shalom Hello 19:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've blocked Franz V as a probable sockpuppet of Hayden5650 (talk · contribs). Picaroon (t) 00:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Franz V is a sock of Hayden5650, and unrelated to MoritzB. Checkuser found that MoritzB and 211.72.213.93 are unrelated (211.72.213.93 is now blocked as an open proxy). 128.241.111.213 is blocked as a sock of User:Runtshit, but there's no evidence that MoritzB is connected to that account. Therefore, this report provides no evidence that MoritzB is involved in sockpuppetry. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]