Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Funk Junkie

User:Funk Junkie

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Funk Junkie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

71.62.27.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
87.196.166.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
87.196.225.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
93.149.194.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
87.196.159.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Swampfire (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Funk Junkie contribs [1]
71.62.27.39 contribs [2]
87.196.166.34 contibs [3]
87.196.225.43 contirbs [4]
93.149.194.172 contribs [5]
Funk Junkie's admission of guilt before returning to do it again using 71.62.27.39. His talkpage [6] My talk page [7] here is what it looks like combined for easier reading, but it can be verified on our talkpages. The discussion is collapsed below
Here is the first removal of {pop} by Funk Junkie on June 10, 2008[8]
Here is the last removal of {pop} by Funk Junkie on July 11, 2008 [9] Note: I did not include all the times he did it in between as Funk Junkie

I will be back with further evidence as I am going to compile it all in my notepad, and add it all of it at one time. Then will place this on the OPEN CASE page.

Comments

After being involved in an edit war over the use of adding the word {pop} to the genres part of Joss Stones page Funk Junkie was warned about edit warring. He then returned to the page using ip address 71.62.27.39 to once again remove {pop}. I actually had a converstaion with him and warned him about being a sock puppet on both mine and his talk pages where he admits that it was him and asks me if I will not pursue a sock puppet case against him and if i will forget about him doing it. He then returned again as the sock puppet IP address to remove {pop}. It is not a coincidnece that the very first edit this IP address ever made was to go to Joss Stone's page and remove the word {pop} from her page especially right after he was warned as Funk Junkie not to do it. He has also now tried to hide that the IP is him, by going to other pages and removing or adding {pop} or other genres. The thing is, the only pages he did it on is pages that he has been editting as Funk Junkie for 2 years. Then he signed in as Funk Junkie and reverted the IP's changes. If you look at the IP's contribs and Funk Junkie contribs you see that All of the IP's edits are on FJ's list. He did the exact same thing with the 2 newest IP's I added. Except at one point he logged in and removed the word, logged in with the other added it back, and did this back and forth with these to IP until he left it off. If you check the editting style and content. It is a dead giveway. All 3 turn up, and revert {pop} off of Joss, and make the same type edits on other pages. All of which are in Funk Junkie except 2 on 87.196.225.43 which both have to do with Nelly Furtado, which she is all over Funk's contribs. But you can clearly see the lil game he does to get around the 3RR and warnings. This is a clearcut version of sock puppetry.Swampfire (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need evidence that is a bit more concrete. For~example, for 71.62.27.39:

removal of pop [10]
second removal of pop, despite it being sourced, and removal of all sources on the section and of the piped wikilinks [11], followed by adding funk with no explanation or source [12]. Page was semi-protected due to this last change.

I suggest you add more concrete evidence and explain how this demonstrates that the user is sockpuppeting. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to be adding a lot more, especially all the [Pop] removals as well as the sock puppet accounts he made to make it look like he was figthing against himself so that he could eventually leave it off. There is a very clear pattern amongst all of the edits also the fact that the sock puppets seem to only do it on Joss Stone and then other pages that Funk Junkie edits. But since I haven;t added them all yet is why I haven't placed this on the OPEN CASE list yet.Swampfire (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, he removed pop from many articles, including an article talking about a Maria Careyh album [13]. That is plain against-reason hate of pop music category, someone block this guy --Enric Naval (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100%. Also if you check my talk page and his and check times you will see this convertsation ( I am going to complie the conversation from both) Here is the compiled converstaion. (draw you own conclusion) Funk Junkie talkpage [14] Swampfie talk page [15]

collapsed copied discussion for readability

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Do not log out to try and hide the fact, that it is you that removed pop, after you were warned. I have all the proof to have you blocked for being a wp:sock puppet after you were warned. So i think it would be best if you just left things as is. Because once you logged out to try to hide it being you. And yes they count trying to hide behind the IP, and your name as using 2 accounts. I could of immediatley started to process against you. But I really dont want to have you blocked. So please just give it a rest. She is pop as well and plenty of valid cites state it. Swampfire (talk) 01:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't me. My "IP user" is 200.138.194.254 (talk · contribs), and I haven't used it since I created this account. That wasn't a really nice accusation, I mean I'm not idiot at all. But perhaps you're right, this has gone way too far to the point of me being accused of sock puppetry. Funk Junkie (talk) 02:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice try, but the contribs busted you. Along with the fact the the first ever edit with that IP was going straight to Joss Stones page and removing pop. Not something that a first time user would do. Do you really want me t5o start the process? Because not only will the block the Ip that was used but they will block your account and you will lose funk junkie. Like i said I have all the evidence needed. You can try and deny it. But the evidence speaks for itself. In a sock puppet proceding the defense you make for yourself doesn't matter much. The edits do, And the mere fact that you have now came to my page and said it wasn't you. Hurts your case even more. So please just let it go. Swampfire (talk) 02:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I will ask you one question. Because with the evidence I have you will lose funk junkie. I see that you make alot of edits, and even though we have butted heads over a few things I would hate for you to lose all editting priviledges including having funk junkie locked. Do you really want me to start the process of a sock puppet case? Swampfire (talk) 02:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't. Why? Are you willing to forget about it all? Funk Junkie (talk) 02:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I am willing to forget about it. Just realize it does not hurt Joss to have pop on her page. And I would advise not doing it again, Because some people arent as kind as I am and would of went straight and started a case against you right after you did it. Which I didnt want to do, because some of your edits are useful. Swampfire (talk) 03:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Happy editing. Funk Junkie (talk) 03:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Same to you Swampfire (talk) 03:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

This was the conversation that happened before he returned to do it again using the same IP. It is a exact compilation of the discussion from the user pages of Funk Junkie and Swampfire links provided.Swampfire (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

relationship from User:71.62.27.39 to User:93.149.194.172 to User:Funk Junkie

93xxxx replaces "pop" with "hip hop" on Mariah Carey-related article [16]. 71xxxx has made the same change at least once [17], has removed "pop" from several articles, and added "hip hop" to several other where it doesn't belong [18][19] --Enric Naval (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And here he is as Funk Junkie involved in the same dispute [20] and here [21] Swampfire (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User characteristics

The user is easiliy identified by his edits to several pop artists where he removes the pop tag, adds the improper hip hop tag, and replaces one with the other --Enric Naval (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions