Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tecmobowl

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:Tecmobowl

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Tecmobowl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Blacksoxfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
El redactor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.56.117.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.56.127.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

IrishGuy ^talk 00:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

71.56.117.42 first and only edits were to add added cardpricer.com to the Baseball card article.

Twenty minutes later, Blacksoxfan arrived (having never edited this article) and reorders the links slightly. He then adds that same link to other articles: [1] [2] [3] etc.

Blacksoxfan's main motive is to add his own site Blacksoxfan.com to articles [4]. Later Wolverinegod is created. He, too, adds cardpricer.com to articles. [5] [6] He later changes his name to Tecmobowl and continues to argue for the inclusion of Blacksoxfan.com in articles [7] as well as just add it himself [8] [9] [10]

Tecmobowl claimed that the owner of the site was Blacksoxfan. Blacksoxfan had his talk page blanked by 71.56.127.218 (the page was filled with warnings for constantly adding his own site to articles). 71.56.127.218 went on to add Blacksoxfan.com to articles and later admitted to being Tecmobowl. Tecmobowl even went so far as to remove references to Blacksoxfan spamming on an article talk page.

The IP Tecmobowl was using is out of Atlanta, Georgia as was the original IP 71.56.117.42...and the owner of Blacksoxfan.com is also from Atlanta, Georgia.

While Tecmobowl was on a 48 hour block, El redactor appears and his first edit is to add Blacksoxfan.com back to the Shoeless Joe Jackson article. He added it once more after it was deleted and then made a few more useless edits for the day and promptly disappeared. These other edits were pointed to by Tecmobowl as an alibi for it not being a sockpuppet [11]

Tecmobowl later left an edit summary which stated: here's some info for you "sockpuppetry" claim - most edits (if not all) from me and BlackSoxFan are from the same IP!! How could that be??? head scratcher huh.[12]

Checkuser came back Unrelated for User:El redactor and User:Tecmobowl Miss Mondegreen talk 06:41, June 14 2007 (UTC)

Comments

There is further discussion about El redactor's similarities to Tecmobowl at this checkuser request page: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tecmobowl and its talk page Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tecmobowl. Baseball Bugs 13:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have some experience in dealing with sockpuppets, and this one fits the bill. They usually do wait a little while after their main account is blocked, and then make a point of pretending to be new, yet zeroing in on a particular item they are passionate about. The longer they stay on, the more their normal editing attitude comes to the fore. El redactor became contentious and defensive very quickly, and used similar editing rationales, so to speak. Also, as with other sockpuppets, he seemed to know his way around very well for a "newbie". These are not just my thoughts, they are telltale signs as pointed out in the wikipedia sockpuppetry guideline. Baseball Bugs 00:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tecmobowl decided to warn El redactor...unfortunately, he warned El Redactor not El redactor (note the caps). Magically, El redactor came to my talk page will the full knowledge of a conversation he shouldn't have any knowledge of. El redactor is an obvious sock of Tecmobowl. I have blocked him accordingly. IrishGuy ^talk 19:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Miss Mondegreen I'm copying over some of my comments from the request for checkuser talk page and replying to some stuff as well:

Wait, I'm sorry--someone thinks that Tecmo is using a sock puppet and chose the name "El redactor" when he was busy chopping ELs? Sorry, but the irony there is dreadful.

Also, I just can't swallow this one--while El redactor doesn't have a lot of comments, they sound nothing like Tecmo's. The language style and everything is completely different, his edits appear to be of the gnomish variety, and he sounds new.

This is a copy of a comment El redactor made at WP:ANI:

"WHAT THE HELL? This is like following a treasure hunt. I go from one talk page to another to another and boom, I end up here. The same guys that have been argumentative and mean spirited. IrishGuy - I just left you a friendly message on your talk page and I have got to say that you are one of the most confrontational people I have seen on here. By the looks of your talk page, Baseball Bugs' talk page, and the comments above about Epfleche, I would say you guys are the sockpuppets. I made my first contributions on Wednesday night before I went to bed, then some more on thursday. Baseball Bugs then edited most of the pages I edited. From what I can tell, you accuse anyone who does not agree with you and get into fights all the time. And aren't you an admin IrishGuy? Aren't admins supposed to be level headed and polite? Maybe you should have that removed. El redactor"

these are two of his edit summaries:

00:57, 12 June 2007 edit to Will Ferrell (removed reference to his birthday, Baseball bugs is following me around)

00:58, 12 June 2007 edit to Shoeless Joe Jackson (→External links - second time - Baseball Bugs is following me around - link is good)

Baseball Bugs is following me around in edit summaries? You guys are the sockpuppets? Maybe you should have that removed (like being an admin is a failed organ)? He sounds like a newbie through and through and he probably wouldn't even be getting to pages like ANI or here etc... is because Irishguy and Baseball Bugs and Epeefleche are all commenting on each others talk pages and ANI on the wikiproject page providing each other with diffs on anything that pops into their heads. half a dozen diffs are exchanged every time someone sneezed, and because El redactor's first edit was on Shoeless Joe, he's been dragged into this whole thing.
<text removed> Miss Mondegreen talk 09:58, June 12 2007 (UTC)

Pretend these are both sockpuppets. Tecmo is blatant with blacksoxfan and then leaves himself notes? And then, waits over a day to get said note and then upon logging in, makes three other edits, two with the edit summaries "Baseball bugs is following me around" and then goes to Irishguy's page...only to comment on the Shoeless Joe section first and then comment on the section that has his sockpuppet's name? How quickly Tecmo has learned and yet he still left the message for the wrong person. If he was trying so hard to be subtle wouldn't he have realized that he'd left the message for the wrong person when he logged in and he had no new messages? Perhaps, just perhaps, El redactor noticed Irishguy at the Shoeless Joe talk page or got sick of baseball bugs "following him around" and went to his contributions and noticed he'd commented on a section called "shoeless joe jackson" on irishguy's page and went to comment there too and then noticed a section about himself. I'm sorry, but this El redactor thing is a serious stretch. Pretend for a second that there was a new editor who started out on that page. Might not the edits that he has look a lot like the ones that he has now? Miss Mondegreen talk 22:43, June 12 2007 (UTC)

The first edit yesterday from El redactor was to the Shoeless Joe talk page and somehow he already knew about me and my edit history in removing that link from articles. Please tell me how he knew to look exactly 100 edits deep into my contribution history to find evidence that I removed those links from other articles. Tecmobowl knew I removed them, but why would El redactor have known to look for it if they are different people? Odd, no? Additionally, the only two days that editor has edited were when Tecmo was under a block. That's one hell of a coincidence. Why does he only appear when Tecmobowl is blocked? Like I said, he either magically knew to go 100 edits deep into my edit history to find where I removed the link from other articles...or he just happened to go to those articles and look in the edit history...which isn't likely since he has never edited those articles. And the only two days he has edited are when Tecmo was blocked. El redactor first edited when Tecmo was blocked. His first edit was to add that link back into the article...then he made a series of pointless edits and promptly disappeared. Tecmo pointed to those same pointless edits as an alibi that it wasn't him using a sock. Convenient. Then Tecmo gets blocked again and magcially El redactor becomes active again. IrishGuy ^talk 23:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you yourself keep pointing out, he edited the Shoeless Joe Jackson article. While your edits to article may have been waaay down in YOUR contributions, there weren't way down in the article history, a place he probably would have gone to revert things. You also commented on the talk page, as did he. The simplest answer is often the best. While I'm not saying that there aren't things that aren't suspect, I see nothing that damning, and the fact that you and Epeefleche etc. keep pointing to things that are either wrong or that are too convoluted for words aren't very convincing. You want to look at the times...ok, let's look:

June 6

21:38, 6 June 2007 - Tecmo's last article edit that day

21:43 - Tecmo was blocked

23:16, 6 June 2007 - Tecmo's last edit of the day (talk page, after block)

June 7

22:00, 7 June 2007 Tecmo blanks his talk page

22:22 - El redactor's account is created

22:26 - El redactor edits shoeless joe

22:30 - El redactor edits will ferrell

23:54 - tecmo blanks a talk page message that he got at 23:52

June 8 and 9

07:52 - 08:12 - El redactor has five edits

21:51 - Tecmo's block expires

22:57, 8 June - 11:24, 9 June - Tecmo has 47 edits

June 10

07:09 - Tecmo starts editing and goes until....

17:32 - Tecmo's last edit before being blocked

17:39 - Tecmo gets blocked

20:16 - Tecmo's last edit of the day (talk page, post block)

June 12

00:54 - 01:44 - El redactor makes eight edits

05:52 - 07:32 - El redactor makes nine edits

12:04 - El redactor gets blocked

12:08 - Tecmo gets blocked

16:14 - Tecmo replied to 12:07 block notice posted on his talk page the block notice is the first edit to his talk page since his blanking of it on the 10th

Comments on timeline

While it does look suspicious that El redactor has only edits from periods of time when Tecmo has been blocked, if you look at them individually, they both show real signs of normal editing patterns. When Tecmo is blocked, he quickly responds to something on his talk page, but if nothing happens, nothing happens. But he knows when his block expires and is ready to come back.

El redactor doesn't have a lot of edits, but his edits have all been in a ten hour timeframe 22:22 - 8:12.

I just don't look at the timeframe and see sockpuppet. I look at those edits and say--"that should probably be looked at". But I don't see much evidence that this really has been looked at--I keep hearing how obvious this is and that bothers me. Miss Mondegreen talk 01:12, June 14 2007 (UTC)

Not to stick my nose where it doesn't belong, but

the issue of the links alone make it obvious sockpuppetry. If that's not obvious enough, though, take a look at all of the edit summaries made by User:El redactor:

10:32, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Will Ferrell (getting pointless citation out again and added a note, baseball bugs - please leave me alone.)
10:30, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tecmobowl (→Tecmobowl)
10:27, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Will Ferrell (→Date of Birth)
10:25, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Roy Lichtenstein (→citations)
09:05, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:Three-revert rule (Help Requested)
08:59, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tecmobowl
08:58, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Will Ferrell (Date of Birth)
08:57, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Will Ferrell (can someone address this? the editor is simply reverting my edits to create a problem.)
08:52, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Shoeless Joe Jackson (putting back in the link - how does one stop this type of behavior? please help)
04:44, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Roy Lichtenstein (citations)
04:38, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tecmobowl
04:30, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tecmobowl
04:25, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (→Tecmobowl and possible sockpuppetry)
04:18, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Baseball Bugs (→Note)
04:13, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Irishguy (→User:El redactor - forgot my signature)
04:13, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Irishguy (→User:El redactor)
04:11, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Irishguy (→Shoeless Joe Jackson)
03:58, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Shoeless Joe Jackson (→External links - second time - Baseball Bugs is following me around - link is good)
03:57, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Will Ferrell (removed reference to his birthday, Baseball bugs is following me around)
03:54, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Shoeless Joe Jackson (comments)
11:12, 8 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Bravo's The 100 Funniest Movies (wiki links - will do more later)
11:05, 8 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (Quotes)
11:01, 8 June 2007 (hist) (diff) m Top Chef (passive to active change)
10:56, 8 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Nirvana (band) (changed passive voice)
10:52, 8 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Shoeless Joe Jackson (→External links - Sorry about that, still learning the format - replaced my format with old format for link.)
01:30, 8 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Will Ferrell (why source a birthday???)
01:26, 8 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Shoeless Joe Jackson (→External links - - my first edit!!!!! I read discussion on the talk page. This looks like a good site to me.)

You'll notice that I bolded several of the edit summaries. Now check out User:Tecmobowl's surprisingly similar edit summaries (note that all of these were made over a two day span):

1. Style of edit summaries (e.g., hyphen-speak, discussion style, argumentativeness):

23:16, 10 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tecmobowl (just in case your watching IrishGuy - here's some info for you "sockpuppetry" claim - most edits (if not all) from me and BlackSoxFan are from the same IP!! How could that be??? head scratcher huh.)
23:04, 10 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tecmobowl (blanked again - I'm gonna wait it out and give you a few days to let all your pretty evidence "build up" - great job of bettering the content btw!!!!)
22:56, 10 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tecmobowl (get some sense and stop instigating things - your are the poorest admin i have ever come across - don't worry, I'll address your sockpuppetry bs soon enough.)
15:05, 10 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Kevin Youkilis (→Major League career - removed versatility comment - a batter isn't versatile simply b/c of batting position and there was no context given with the link.)
15:03, 10 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Kevin Youkilis (expunged Mel Gibson info - it's not relevant to the article, reworked section, removed rank information - doesn't seem practical to include, removed bogus link)
13:19, 10 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Babe Ruth's called shot (removed - this has already been discussed) (top)
10:14, 10 June 2007 (hist) (diff) m 1919 World Series (template use - see talk page discussion)
09:46, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Rickey Henderson (shortened infobox information - it's a summary not a massive list.)
03:44, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) USA Today All-USA high school baseball team (created article - going to add the players table next.)
03:33, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Kevin Youkilis (removed a statement that just didn't seem to fit - his ethnicity/religion don't really have anything to do with his nickname, alpha sort links, removed links (ask on the article page if need be))

2. "Passive voice" concerns:

20:24, 10 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Lewis Hamilton (rewrote intro, added sources, links, removed passive voice)
10:36, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Homer Bailey (incorporated content into the introductory as it is more appropriate there. removed passive voice and made it encyclopedic.)

3. "wiki links"

10:10, 10 June 2007 (hist) (diff) 1919 World Series (wiki link fix)
05:04, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) m Chris Marrero (wiki link & USA today team) (top)
04:54, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) USA Today All-USA high school baseball team (wiki linked the high schools)

4. Oh, and this one is cute:

16:20, 10 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Miss Mondegreen (Nom for Admin)

Regarding the issue of the checkuser: this guy is a serial sockpuppeter who has proven that he knows how to use proxies [13] [14]. Running a checkuser is a waste of time.

Frankly, I'm annoyed that anyone has to justify taking action against what is obviously a highly disruptive editor. And FYI, my opinion is coming from the peanut gallery here. Caeculus 20:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Of course, upon his return from his block, he spammed his website back into numerous articles [15] [16] [17] [18]...and then blanked a warning not to continue. IrishGuy ^talk 21:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except for Shoeless Joe Jackson, which he can't yet because it's protected. A millisecond after it's unprotected, his spamlink will go back there, too. Baseball Bugs 00:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I'm not sure what remains to be done here. The evidence above makes it clear that the named accounts and IPs are being used by the same person, and some of the accounts have already been blocked for sockpuppetry. User:Blacksoxfan hasn't been used in ages, so doesn't need to be blocked. The IPs haven't been used in awhile, so they don't seem worth blocking. Given the arguments above and on WP:ANI, I suppose it's worth having an independent assessment that 1) this is a clear case of sockpuppetry and 2) further disruption from User:Tecmobowl or any sockpuppet should result in a lengthy block. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]