Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dream out loud (talk | contribs) at 17:06, 20 September 2007 (→Open cases: added Bijanse). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
The administrators instructions list for this page has been rewritten due to the archival bot's presence here. Administrators, please have a read over the new instructions as it will help with the bot's tasks. Also, the new process for the bot is at the talk page. |
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
General | |
Articles and content | |
Page handling | |
User conduct | |
Other | |
Administrators' (archives, search) | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
343 | 344 | 345 | 346 | 347 | 348 | 349 | 350 | 351 | 352 |
353 | 354 | 355 | 356 | 357 | 358 | 359 | 360 | 361 | 362 |
Incidents (archives, search) | |||||||||
1137 | 1138 | 1139 | 1140 | 1141 | 1142 | 1143 | 1144 | 1145 | 1146 |
1147 | 1148 | 1149 | 1150 | 1151 | 1152 | 1153 | 1154 | 1155 | 1156 |
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search) | |||||||||
463 | 464 | 465 | 466 | 467 | 468 | 469 | 470 | 471 | 472 |
473 | 474 | 475 | 476 | 477 | 478 | 479 | 480 | 481 | 482 |
Arbitration enforcement (archives) | |||||||||
313 | 314 | 315 | 316 | 317 | 318 | 319 | 320 | 321 | 322 |
323 | 324 | 325 | 326 | 327 | 328 | 329 | 330 | 331 | 332 |
Other links | |||||||||
The suspected sock puppets page is where Wikipedians discuss if a fellow Wikipedian is in fact a sock puppet. The conclusion of the discussion can be one of following:
- the user has engaged in sockpuppetry (in a manner disallowed by Wikipedia policy on sock puppets)
- it is not evident whether the user engaged in sockpuppetry (and is sent to Requests for checkuser (WP:RCU))
- the user is legitimate and has not engaged in sockpuppetry
The process of reporting a suspected Sock puppet can be found below.
Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policy on sock puppets (WP:SOCK) before opening a case.
Sometimes users who appear to work with a common agenda are not sockpuppets (one user, multiple accounts), but multiple users editing with the sole purpose of backing each other up, often called "meatpuppets." Meatpuppets are not regular Wikipedians who happen to agree with each other; they are accounts set up by separate individuals for the sole purpose of supporting one another. For the purposes of upholding policy, Wikipedia does not distinguish between meatpuppets and sockpuppets. Please see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry.
Administrators
Administrators, please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Administrators for detailed instructions about how to determine sockpuppets, archiving etc for editing here at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets (WP:SSP). This has recently been updated and therefore administrators should read over the minor changes that have happened.
Closed archives
Reporting suspected sock puppets
Before creating a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets (WP:SSP), please be sure that:
|
- Assume good faith, if possible. An alternate account that is not used for abuse does not warrant a complaint. Keep in mind that users may sometimes make mistakes, so in cases where an alternate account is largely used for legitimate activities, it may be appropriate to ask the user before making accusations. The problem might merely have been caused by a mistaken login or other absent-mindedness.
- Fill in the names. Clicking "Start a case" with a new case name-or-number opens a fresh page, with a form ready to be filled in. The puppetmaster's name will be automatically filled in as the filename; if this is not correct, due to added numbers like "(2nd)", replace the {{SUBPAGENAME}} tags with the puppetmaster's username. Also replace the placeholder names SOCKPUPPET1 and SOCKPUPPET2 with the account names of the suspected puppets; add or delete these lines as needed. Always leave out the "User:" prefix.
- Make your case. Now write up your evidence in the "Evidence" section. This should describe why you believe there's puppetry occurring, however obvious it might be. If this is not the first time the user is suspected, links to other cases you know about should be provided as well. The evidence should point to one or more instances of illegitimate use of the puppet account. Include the diffs to support your statements. Sign and timestamp your case with ~~~~ on the line below "Report submission by"; preview your report for any problems; and, when you're satisfied, save it.
To start a case report about suspected sockpuppetry: Cases are created on subpages of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets.
To do so, add the username of the puppetmaster (the main account, not the sockpuppet!) -- and the number of the case, "(2nd)", "(3rd)", etc., if there were previous cases on that username -- into the box below.
Leave out the "User:" prefix. Replace only the word PUPPETMASTER, leaving the rest as is.Example: if there were already two cases about User:John Doe, the new case would be titled:
Then click "Start a case". You will be taken to a page where you can fill out the report.
Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/John Doe (3rd)
After you've saved the report, come back to see the remaining instructions below this box.Use of this form is deprecated. Please use Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations.
- List your case for review in the WP:SSP open cases section here. Add the line {{Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PUPPETMASTER}} (or PUPPETMASTER (2nd) or PUPPETMASTER (3rd), etc.) at the top of the list, just below the section header. (Again, remember to replace PUPPETMASTER with the actual account name, without the "User:" prefix.) Save your edit. Check to see that your report shows up at the top of the list, just below the "Open cases" header. If there's only a red link, check that the spelling of the username and the number match the filename you created.
- Notify the suspected users. Edit the user talk pages (not the user pages) of the suspected sockpuppeteer and sock puppets to add the text {{subst:uw-socksuspect|1=PUPPETMASTER}} ~~~~ at the bottom of the talk page. If this is not the first time the user is suspected, the most recent evidence page should be specified by adding "(2nd)" or "(3rd)", etc., after the user's name: {{subst:uw-socksuspect|1=PUPPETMASTER (2nd)}} ~~~~ or similar.
- Consequences. If the evidence shows a case of clear abuse, with no serious doubt, an administrator may block any sockpuppets, and take further action against the puppetmaster. In less severe cases, administrators may quietly monitor the account's activities.
- Checking further. In some cases, where there is significant abuse and yet puppetry is not certain, it might be appropriate to use technical means to detect puppetry. See Requests for checkuser (WP:RFCU) for details.
Open cases
- 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:Bijanse
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Bijanse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
83.13.213.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
–Dream out loud (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Bijanse was previously reported as a sock puppeteer of World Wide Woman, and the latter account eventually blocked. The IP 83.13.213.18 has made many edits to the user pages of both Bijanse and World Wide Woman, and is a suspected IP sock puppet. Bijanse's account has been blocked several times, including an indefinite block, which was later removed, however the user has not made any recent edits despite having the ability to do so. On the other hand, 83.13.213.18 has been making many edits lately, including edits to User:Bijanse.
- Comments
Did you report the wrong IP? There are no edits from the IP since April, and none from Bijanse since June.--Chaser - T 22:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Case appears stale as IP has been inactive for quite some time, as has the named account. Please re-report if these accounts become active in an abusive fashion. MastCell Talk 19:09, 24 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[1]. 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 [2] (making links usually takes new users a while to figure out).
- Then, he undid an archive[3] (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 [4].
- 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[5] and gave a parting salvo to me[6] 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[7] 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, [8]
- Then, today, he filed a sockpuppet accusation [9].
- 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:Jama juma jima
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
- Jama juma jima (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Click_here_if_u_r_a_basturd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Pervez_should_be_sent_to_jail (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Pervez_is_a_basturd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Gscshoyru 20:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Users have made the same edits to the same articles, continually changing usernames.
- Comments
- Conclusions
Another admin indefinitely softblocked "Click here..." due to the username and indefinitely hardblocked the others due to sockpuppetry.--Chaser - T 15:31, 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: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 [10]
- This user has edited only those pages where Reneeholle is involved [11]
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 [12]
- 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 [13]
- 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 [14]
- 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 - [15]
- Started making edits without consensus, which was reverted by admin IPSOS - [16]
- 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 [17][18] 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: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 ([19])
- 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:Creepy Crawler (3rd)
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Creepy Crawler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Powerofjuju (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
- Evidence
Look at his contrib list, [20]. As in Creepy Crawler's first and second reports, This user continues to make category - actor by Comic book Movie. Like the previosu socks, this editor unilaterally acts in moving pages and such. He use his User page for creating 'dreamcastings' of movies that may or may not exist [21], and so on. ThuranX 03:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
I note that this account was created after I initiated Creepy Crawler's 2nd report, but after the pages were tagged as socks, so if this is him,he knows to make sleeper accounts now, and probably has a large number of them. Would it be worth suggesting to him that he get a LiveJournal or Blogspot account for such Drea-casting, and leave Wikipedia, as this isn't a hosting service? ThuranX 03:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- From past sock reports on this guy, we know that records don't go back far enough to confirm directly as Creepy Crawler. You need to look at the chain that has been put together of the sockpuppets since then. See User_talk:EJBanks#Confirmed_sockpuppets. List of evidence from a previous report appears at User_talk:Creepy_Crawler#Copy_of_previous_evidence_for_the_history. Wryspy 06:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
The MO seems like a match. I have blocked this account indefinitely as an apparent sockpuppet of User:CreepyCrawler. MastCell Talk 19:15, 24 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 [22] and suspected sock puppet [23], 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.[24] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quartet (talk • contribs) 20:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
Burgz33 (talk · contribs) was blocked [25] 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: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: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 [26] 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:Mclao
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Mclao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Vinvinkid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
121.1.53.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Chiesalvador (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Pamiote (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Sevillamindz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Bradjack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Hearty01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Keith92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Believer4ever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Mickey0000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
wL<speak·check> 23:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Please see the all contributions to the Iglesia ni Cristo article. This editor is a POV pusher in favor of the Ang Dating Daan, a religious group who opposses the Iglesia ni Cristo. This editor has a record of adding stronly POV edits to the Iglesia ni Cristo article, each under a different username. At first, I let the edits go while neuturalizing them. However, the user began posting made up and/or tabloid stories about how ministers kill innocent people. This cause the Iglesia ni Cristo article to be semi-protected for a month. The latest edit was a page blank from a sleeper account. I feel this user is only here to disrupt the encyclopedia, and the style of writing, grammar and edit summaries lead me to the sockpuppetry suspicion.
- Comments
All of the edit summaries appear similar, so I would say that is a start. More evidence is needed and as it may be hard to turn up, consider taking over to WP:RFCU. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 20:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with Random Editor's suggestion of taking it to RFCU is that there's no criteria (unless this user continues to blank articles he doesn't like). I believe this user holds a serious liability risk to Wikipedia, and as such I would suggest pushing a community ban at the Community sanction noticeboard be more fitting? --wL<speak·check> 03:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with The Random Editor: the edit summaries are similar and the editing pattern (i.e. when the user edited, how many times, to which articles) is extremely similar among all accounts. This person has been using multiple accounts to try to win an argument. I would recommend to indef-block all accounts except for the most active one, Vinvinkid, and give that main account a two-week block with a stern warning not to act up again. Shalom Hello 19:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Have a look at the editing of Eliseo Soriano for further evidence. I agree with permanently blocking all accounts, except the Vinvinkid one which should get a two week block and final warning. Disclosure -- I edit the Soriano article too, but examination will show that my edits have been to establish objectivity and NPOV. Moriori 23:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm. I hope you know that you can't block people you are in an editing dispute with. I've unblocked him as well as opened a community ban proposition at Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard#User:Mclao in order to finalize this whole thing.
- Have a look at the editing of Eliseo Soriano for further evidence. I agree with permanently blocking all accounts, except the Vinvinkid one which should get a two week block and final warning. Disclosure -- I edit the Soriano article too, but examination will show that my edits have been to establish objectivity and NPOV. Moriori 23:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Closing with these results...Not blocking the IP because it's an IP and this case seems to be stale. Not blocking Mickey0000 because Wikileon removed his sock tag, it was created weeks before the other accounts, and the edit pattern is sufficiently different to make me unsure it's a sock. I think Mickey0000 is merely interested in similar articles. Of the remainder, Mclao and Vinvinkid are the mostly likely master accounts; the rest are obvious throwaway socks. I'm calling Vinvinkid the master because it was created a day before Mclao and still edits, Mclao has ceased editing for now. Vinvinkid gets a stren warning (since the case seems stale now) and Mclao an indef block. Chiesalvador, Pamiote, Sevillamindz, Bradjack, Hearty01, Keith92, and Beliveer4ever are indef blocked for being obvious socks and throwaways created at the height of this matter in mid Sep. Rlevse 15:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User: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[28][29][30] IP Is now using IP address to avoid ban that Real77 has (style of writing is the same)[31]
- 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:Aidan Work
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Aidan Work (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (banned user)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Paisleyite1976 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (indef blocked because of being banned)
- 124.197.16.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 202.180.98.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 202.180.72.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Numismaticman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
- ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 21:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional puppets added by Hu 23:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Numismaticman, and the result was Likely. Another editor also noticed the similarity of edit patterns.
- Comments
Even though I listed Aidan Work and Paisleyite1976, only actions against (if it is the conclusion) Numismaticman is needed. The other two are already blocked. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 21:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see now. The folks at checkuser think (without hard technical evidence) that Numismaticman is evading a permanent ban, and they may well be right about then. The only question is whether anyone wishes to enforce the ban and take responsibility for getting this right. Shalom Hello 02:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also noticed the same patterns: writing style, interest in numismatics, focus on former British Empire jurisdictions, weird use of linking day numbers and months in dates, links in section headers, and more. One key part of the pattern is incivility, as evidenced by this comment [32], left on my Talk page. Hu 22:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
I think there's strong evidence in the things presented above that this is a ban-evading sock, and I concur with the checkuser that, even absent hard technical evidence, this is a compelling case. The comment on User Talk:Hu certainly doesn't help his situation. I'm going to block User:Numismaticman as an apparent sock of User:Aiden Work. MastCell Talk 19:19, 24 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. [33]
Their talk page comments are of exactly the same nature. [34],[35],[36]
Their edits to Black hole are over exactly the same issue, and pushing exactly the same POV. [37], [38]
- 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: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: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 [39]
- Deleting talk page comments re cleanup and image sourcing [40]
- Deleting cleanup tag [41]
- Deleting cleanup tag again [42]
- Removing tags on unreferenced sections of Salamis Island [43]
- Deleting talk page comments again [44]
- Deleting notification of this report [45]
- 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 [46] (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: [47] (TyrusThomas4lyf) and [48] (Hoopsknowledge)
- Unusual obsession with "game score" (no other editor has supported this inclusion): [49] (TyrusThomas4lyf) and [50] (Hoopsknowledge)
- Unilateral removal of same cite tag (identical act of vandalism): [51] (Hoopsknowledge) and [52] (TyrusThomas4lyf)
- Identical commentary: [53] (Hoopsknowledge), [54] (alleged sock-puppet account 68.253.192.48), and [55] (established TyrusThomas4lyf sock-puppet account 68.253.216.115).
- Same claim inserted [56] (Hoopsknowledge) and [57] (IlliniPride -- a known alias for User talk:TyrusThomas4lyf).
- Removal of the very same sourced 76ers information: [58] (68.253.206.119 -- a known alias for User talk:TyrusThomas4lyf) and [59] (Hoopsknowledge)
- Same claim inserted [60] (Hoopsknowledge), [61] from (IlliniPride -- a known alias for User talk:TyrusThomas4lyf).
- Familiarity with an admin well-known to User talk:TyrusThomas4lyf: In the diff [62], 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. [63] 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: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"[64][65]. Repeatedly tried to insert weasel words into article reflecting his point of view[66][67][68]
- Talk page blanking [69][70][71]
- Various race-related:
- Blatant vandalism to Heidi Klum [72][73]
- Interest in Dysgenics. Has repeatedly inserted a controversial bullet point in Societal collapse that claims miscegenation will lead to global collapse[74]. Has tried to insert similar info in other articles such as Human[75] and Human evolution[76].
- Interest in the Jessie Davis case[77][78][79] He repeatedly tried to insert a picture of Bobby Cutts in Miscegenation[80]. He also inserted a picture of Bobby Cutts in Black people[81]
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[82][83][84]
- Racist vandalism[85][86]
- Dysgenics[87][88]
- Talk page blanking[89][90]
169.229.207.56 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
128.32.77.32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- Heidi Klum[94]
- Marvin Heemeyer[95]
- Racist rant in Talk:Kevin Alfred Strom[96]
128.32.185.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- Societal collapse[97]
128.32.77.96 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- Societal collapse[98] 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[99]
69.107.82.187 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
69.107.81.83 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
69.107.86.61 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- Societal collapse[104]
69.107.81.62 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
69.107.77.43 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- Marvin Heemeyer[110] - Auno3 has attempted to add the Colorado template before[111][112]
- Heidi Klum-type vandalism to Jessie Davis[113]
- Heidi Klum[114][115]
- Weasel words/POV edit praising neo-Nazi figure [116]
128.32.77.42 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
69.107.50.185 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- Edit to confirmed sock P.W.Lutherson's user page[119]
- Dysgenics[120] Auno3 uses the term "prima facie" in other edit summaries[121][122]
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[125]. 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[126][127]. 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: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 ([128]. 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]
- 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: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 [129] [130], 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: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[131]. 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[132]. 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 [133] and Antiskku also made unreasonable edit on Sungkyunkwan univ page at Antiskku's very first log-on[134]. 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: [135] 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: [136]. 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: [137]. 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.[138]
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). [139] and Antiskku made the its first log-on as shown in the table[140] 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: [141] 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)' [142]) 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: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. [143] [144]
- Comments
Yeah, almost certainly, the use of unsigned comments with section headers in the RFA is a dead give-away.[145] [146] 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]
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: [147] And especially here: [148] 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: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 [149] 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: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: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: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:Dr.trees
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Dr.trees (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Trailcat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
72.67.215.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Bullcrappie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
35mm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Bizgals (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (possible)
- Suspected sockpuppets/meatpuppets
Funonline (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
74.99.247.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)*
2times8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Eagletrust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Marchisdamon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
76.170.245.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
35mm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Saffie7 07:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
- All are new users with very few submissions/edits, yet all on or about David Bortolucci (see above user's contrib pages).
- - Includes comments on pages of movie where he had a part. i.e. contributions: 35mm on 12:29, 23 August 2007 Talk:Gardener of Eden
- Users have numerous reverts and undoes -
- - i.e User:Trailcat, who made 3 rapid undoes (Special:Contributions/Trailcat) and then looks to have converted to IP User:72.67.215.25 to continue undoes [[150]].
- These new accounts continually adding back in false and/or unverified information and or listing unreliable sources on David Bortolucci [[151]].
- Repeatedly changing and reverting same information, i.e., DOB, and without ever discussing on talk page. [[152]]
- Continual theme/reference of an alleged "cyber-stalker" or "mental case". Users mention and back each other up on this topic in the article, article history edit notes[[153]], and talk page as well as on delete discussion[[154]].
- - user:76.170.245.52 On David Bortolucci talk page unsigned, useless comment backing up comments by 2times8 & 35mm on 22:51, August 26, 2007 [[155]] (see bottom of page)
- Experienced editors note/comment on the sockpuppeting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Bortolucci. Please read all comments on that page.
- i.e.:"Comment: Before deleting, someone ought to note all the various single-purpose accounts screwing around with the article: the article history until recently -- and even now -- looks like a battle of sockpuppets. --Calton | Talk 00:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)"
- ===David Bortolucci Sockpuppet Theatre===
- (See also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dr.trees.)
- 12.150.243.153 (talk · contribs) - 1/20
- 2times8 (talk · contribs) - 3/3
- 35mm (talk · contribs) - 12/18
- 72.67.215.25 (talk · contribs) - 3/3
- 75.50.154.130 (talk · contribs) - 2/2
- Billycookie (talk · contribs) - 1/1
- Bizgals (talk · contribs) - 1/1
- Bullcrappie (talk · contribs) - 2/2
- Claudbabie (talk · contribs) - 2/2
- Davidyboy (talk · contribs) - 5/5 (vandal)
- Dpbvs (talk · contribs) - 22/22
- Dr.trees (talk · contribs) - 13/13 (message to de.wikipedia)
- Eagletrust (talk · contribs) - 1/1
- Funonline (talk · contribs) - 2/2
- Getinfo (talk · contribs) - 17/17
- Italcan (talk · contribs) - Article creator - 41/41
- Levelwave (talk · contribs) 1/1
- Marchisdamon (talk · contribs) - 1/1
- TOrocks (talk · contribs) - 3/5
- Trailcat (talk · contribs) - 8/8
- Saffie7 16:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- These are clearly sockpuppets and/or meatpuppets.
- Although it appears most edits/adds are coming from one person, I would guess that there are at least 2 camps in these postings, one in Los Angeles and one in Canada who are all clearly working together.
- - Suspect main LA address (if not all) will be 72.67.215.25.
- Possible additional sockpuppet/meatpuppet IP addresses:
- - 76.81.49.231 (Los Angeles, Road Runner.com)
- - 75.34.225.215 (Los Angeles))
- Believe 35mm may be posting from both Canadian and Los Angeles IPs.
Location of known IPs:
74.99.247.214 (TORONTO, ONTARIO, CANADA/Etobicoke)
76.170.245.52 (LOS ANGELES, CA)
72.67.215.25 ((LOS ANGELES (Venice), CA)
note: *User of IP address 74.99.247.214 became IP address 66.46.48.5 on 9/8/07
- Conclusions
- Clear sockpuppetry (or meatpuppetry), but the accounts appear to have been abandoned after the deletion of the promo article, the activity is stale, and I don't see a strong reason to hand out blocks. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:05, 30 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: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: [156]
- User:LKSJND created on September 7, 2007. Performs identical edits to List of characters in Camp Lazlo. Diff after my revert: [157]. 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.[165].
- Regardless of your attacks against myself[166]. Guess what i have never ever attacked him that's why he has no links.
- [167]
- here he starts a deletion process of an article i have writn just by saying: Not in accordance with WP:BIO [168] 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.[169]
And its usually plain and simple lies
- Enough already! Your continuing to claim that you address the issues does not make it so[170].without discussing it on the talk page [171]. By all means, look at the talk page. I don't really see you "heavily" using the talk page as you claim [172]. Furthermore, he keeps claiming that he does utilize the talk page. I haven't really seen that [173]. -->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 [174]. #[175] #[176] #[177]
- doesn't even bother to say what he thinks is wrong, just piles up on other users to delete it. [178]
- [179] while i labored day and night to address all concerns here is the last verison[180].
- Doesn't even feel important to say one word just piles up and says per above[181]--יודל 21:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just reverts everything that i edit
- in silence [182]
- or just screaming reverted stupid edits [183]
- or simply calls my edits vandalism [184] [185] [186] [187] [188] [189].
- or edits are extremely controversial[190]
Even though other user agrees with me
He spams wikipedia pages with comments to other users
calling me a vandal to get me blocked [191] or Please see the article and talk page for yidisheryid's edits and POV pushing [192]. user yidisheryid is trying to push his POV across and I've had to have the page protected twice already [193]. I think YY just has an axe to grind with anything that smacks of any chassidishe sect supporting Israel [194]. -->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: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: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: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 [195] 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 [195] 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: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.[196]
- 81.152.188.27
Contacts me[197] 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 [198] removed [199] (and improper) article categories (something he's been warned about [200] [201])
Implies this is a static IP.
- 81.157.172.208
Identifies[202] 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, [203] [204] [205] [206] [207] 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. [208]]
- 81.151.200.60
This IP performed the edits defended above. Categories are "Fictional bisexuals", "Supervillains", "Fictional dictators" [209] [210]
- 81.157.172.208
Defense of above categorizations. While not self-identifying as YourLord, continues to advocate/rant for YourLord's obsessions. [211] Then restores same defense from IP 82.27.103.3 (see above) with odd signature [[Anon]] [212]
- 81.145.240.65
Troll-ish remark on same Stewie Griffin argument. [213] 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 [214]. 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. [215]
- 81.145.240.39
Self-identifies as YourLord, continues request to have {{socksuspect}} notices removed. [216] Current edit history for this IP address resembles the two "atypical" histories above.
- 81.145.241.75
Deleted purported YourLord comment from this page.[217] 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: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
[227] and [228] 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:Myth1727
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Myth1727 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Burton372 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Edges273 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Rogerh38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Alan283 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Step287 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Yolfvivd888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Casesvoice88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Roland988 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Issh288 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Rangeitem87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Hairsongs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Helpentry88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Porchthis22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Role281 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Herryf288 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Oursroute28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Cited83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Poet8827 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Zulu1882 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Upon237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Visitshear88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Edwardramis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Validmore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Whomseems (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Yourthink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Unitsactor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Shiphurry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Turnoffer88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Occurtook (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Alderney18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Jonathan288 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
CCorward (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Copy328 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Frank3827 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Roger882 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Edcolins 23:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Same types of usernames, same types of interests in articles relating to UN officials, UN-related articles or Cuba (Davide Stefanini, Bruno Geddo, Skye Wheeler, David Gressly, Rana Jawad, Eliane Duthoit, Head of the OCHA Office, Central African Republic, Cut and Paste Officer, Marie-Sophie Reck, Dominique Ferretti, Jean-Charles Dei, Manuel Aranda da Silva, Oluseyi Bajulaiye (deleted and re-created), Nicolas Rost (deleted and re-created), Bhutan Travel Bureau, Stuart Poucher, Breshna Orya, Versailles (café), Oxford International Forum - and deleted article: Yuanita Yuanita).
Disruptive multiple votes in Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davide Stefanini, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marco Tronchetti Provera and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laetitia Zonzambé. Disruptive creation of articles with disputable notability.
Disruptive personal attack in Ylva Lindberg [229]: "In 2006, Lindberg revealed that she was a lesbian, along with fellow hockey player Erika Holst. This clarified, a decade later, why she never accepted the advances of many male students during her times at Oxford.".
Maurizio Giuliano may possibly be an article about the contributor himself. It seems central in the contributions...
Possible lack of neutrality: [230], [231], [232], [233], Centre for Social Studies (CESOC), Centre for American Studies (CEA) ...
Further evidences:
- Rogerh38 creates the article Ehud Bandel (# 14:32, September 7, 2007 (deletion log) (Restore) . . Ehud Bandel (←Created page with 'Rabbi Ehud Bandel is the leader of the Israeli Masorti movement.'). The article is deleted. A complain about the deletion [234] soon comes from Copy328 and the article is re-created by Copy328 [235].
- Comments
- I know some of these subjects related to Oxford and Cuba, and there may be some degree of possible "lack of neutrality", but the information is accurate and I think mostly relevant. Anyway, please note that the alleged "personal attack" (lesbian issue) was added in August 2006 by User:Tabercil, and not by any of the above suspected sockpuppets. So, the above issue only concerns the fact - in my view - that among the creation of numerous good articles, in good faith, the suspected sockpupeeteer has also created a small number that may be of little relevance or poorly referenced. CCorward
- This user has only seven edits, all made on September 11, 2007. It may be a sockpuppet of Myth1727. --Edcolins 19:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]
- I think I know the sockpupeteer, which explains my interest in some subjects as I mentioned above, but I am not the same person. There is more than one person involved in Oxford and Cuba and using Wikipedia, and I am also interest in Judaism like the sockpupeteer. -- CCorward 18:34, 12 September 2007
- Wrong, the sentence "This clarified, a decade later, why she never accepted the advances of many male students during her times at Oxford" was added by Upon237 on September 6, 2007, see [236]. The personal attack did not consist in adding that she is presumably lesbian (I have removed this first assertion due to the lack of multiple reliable sources for supporting it, not because it was a personal attack). The personal attack consisted in adding the second, above unsourced statement (and somehow original research) which may indicate a personal link with the person, and is, IMHO, quite inappropriate on Wikipedia.
- The issue is not the notability of the articles (which can always be discussed - I have now removed the sentence above about the notability issue which is not really the matter here, indeed), but the use of several accounts for advancing a cause, and the personal attack. --Edcolins 19:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I think that using multiple accounts is not only disruptive and wrong, but also confusing in many ways and detrimental to the user community, and we must find a way to stop this practice. I suggest that sockpupeteers should be forced to come out of their shell and use just one name, if there is a way technically to enforce this. On the issue of personal attack, the sentence which you clarified above, seems to be very inappropriate and irrelevant but not a personal attack, so I suggest you re-word it to "inappropriate sentence" or something like that. If sockpupeteering is solved, I think the other issues are therefore resolved or surpassed. -- CCorward 18:34, 12 September 2007
- Conclusions
- I haven't looked at all of the edits by all the accounts listed here, but it's clear that there's sockpuppetry here. The accounts seem to have been abandoned, however, and since they're mostly throwaways I don't see the point of blocking them. If any of them return to editing disruptively, or if new accounts begin similar behavior, then it would be entirely appropriate to block. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]