Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Archive/June 2008

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:The Callipygian

Suspected sockpuppeteer: The Callipygian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Das Callipygian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 76.246.39.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

The user name is a pretty obvious sock, evading a 24 hour block, after the user evaded the block by editing as an IP, pretending to now be a "new" editor [1][2] to continue being contentious.

Comments

Conclusions

Couldn't be more obvious. Sock account indefblocked, IP blocked 24 hours. The Callipygian's block reset ... I was thisclose to indef'ing him, but given the limited number of contributions, indef would have been overwrought. Blueboy 96 12:39, 30 June 2008 (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:Diamond Joe Quimby

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Diamond Joe Quimby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

Evidence

(From Discospinster)

Thomasalazar is a prolific contributor to articles about New Mexico subjects. While many of the contributions are useful, he has a habit of removing article maintenance tags, removing legitimate warnings from his talk page soon after they are placed, ignoring attempts to communicate, and leaving uncivil comments on others' talk pages. This habit appears to be afflicting other editors of New-Mexico-related articles.

Before any suspicion of sockpuppetry had occurred to me, I had logged a Wikiquette alert against Thomasalazar user in April: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive44#User:Thomasalazar. I later mention another user that I suspect of being a sock puppet (EVHS (NNYDL), who stopped editing after I brought it up).

The entry underneath it is from Diamond Joe Quimby making complaints against me. It is interesting to note that I had never come in contact with him/her prior to the Wikiquette alert being logged, leading me to believe that Thomassalazar is a sockpuppet of Diamond Joe Quimby (or vice versa).

Also, another user raised a Wikiquette concern about Diamond Joe Quimby just the day before mine here that indicates similar behaviour.

(From WikiDon)

I also accuse thomasalazar (talk · contribs) or resorting to sockpuppetry to remove tags:

75.88.237.163 here here here
76.113.50.208 See: History of talk page, BLOCKED: on 16:46, 23 May 2008 by Kinu (talk · contribs) (Block: 48 hours). He gets warned by multiple users and just removes, ignores, and goes on. ~
207.155.113.123 Used sockpuppet IP to vote on article for deletion here here and here. (along with IP 76.113.50.208)

If you look at the edit histories of both BradlyRM and Thomasalazar (as well as Diamond Joe Quimby, EVHS (NNYDL), Evhs00, and the IPs; at least 20 IPs that I know of) you will see 95% similarities in both pages edited and content of the edits. Both like to upload images of same high school sports and association logos. The both receive the same warnings about 1) images, 2) removing tags from articles, 3) warnings about reverting articles, and 4) etiquette.

Both handles start their pages in very similar fashion:

21:52, 10 February 2007 — Diamond Joe Quimby — (←Created page with ' Welcome To Diamond Joe Quimby's User Page Hello and welcome to my user page I am Diamond Joe Qui...')
03:01, 10 March 2008 — Martinez07 — (←Created page with 'Hi Eric Martinez is my name. questions...comments..? Help us by improving our community school EVHS')
16:16, 22 March 2008 — User:BradlyRM‎ — (←Created page with 'Hello My Name is Bradly')
04:08, 2 April 2008 — User:Thomasalazar — (←Created page with 'Hello I'am Thomas Salazar Nice to be on here at Wikipedia :])

Additionally, if you look at some of the edit time+date stamps you'll see a nice pattern:

25 & 26 April 2008

BradlyRM starts at 03:55 on the 25th and edits through until he gets warned by PMDrive1061 (talk · contribs) several times around 01:01 to 01:24, deletes warnings and retires at 01:45 of 26th

Thomasalazar starts at 18:13 on the 26th and stop at 19:26; and retires when he is warned by Discospinster‎ (talk · contribs)

28 April 2008

Thomasalazar starts at 00:33; removed a Wikiquette alert from discospinster (talk · contribs) and stops

BradlyRM starts at 02:03 and ends at 02:06

Thomasalazar starts at 02:16 and ends at 02:19

Neither accounts edits until - May 2

2 May 2008

BradlyRM starts at 00:30 and ends at 03:25

Thomasalazar starts at 03:36; Makes this interesting remark against discospinster (talk · contribs) and stops at 05:30

ETC, ETc, Etc, etc,.....

BradlyRM never edits again after this point on May 2.

Since accusing Thomasalazar of being a sockpuppet, he has stopped editing (last edit 15:46, 2 June 2008). ~ WikiDon (talk) 23:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing today under: 76.113.50.208 (talk · contribs). All edits revereted. IP4240207xx (talk) 02:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Today, 12 June:

Diamond Joe Quimby -> 03:31, 12 June 2008 to 04:06, 12 June 2008
76.113.50.208 -> 04:28, 12 June 2008 - to - 21:49, 12 June 2008
Thomasalazar -> 21:55, 12 June 2008 (Removed warnings from user page.)

Today's user compare. IP4240207xx (talk) 03:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Violations

Using sockpuppets to evade being banned for removal of tags and notices
Violating the Wikipedia three revert rule (3RR) by using sockpuppets
Violating the Wikipedia Civility rule
Wikipedia Sockpuppetry to evade a block
Changing his user name (PoliticianTexas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)) to avoid this case and being banned

IP4240207xx (talk) 03:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC) ~ WikiDon (talk) 23:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Looking at the results of Usercompare, it seems very evident that Thomasalazar is a sock puppet of the primary account, I see 75 edits by it to Ben R. Lujan, 4 by User:Diamond Joe Quimby. The same with this article, User:76.113.50.208 has been also used quite a bit as well, as has User:75.88.237.163, User:207.155.113.123, and User:75.88.237.163 has also been used. I see a lot of combined edits by all the accounts, I'd add a link to the UserCompare results, but the tool seems to not be saving the results correctly. I can send the results to any administrator if they ask for them. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 21:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't stop with Thomasalazar, please block:
Diamond Joe Quimby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
BradlyRM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
EVHS (NNYDL) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Evhs00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Martinez07‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
::Thank you. IP4240207xx (talk) 02:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, lots of things going on here. Let me first say that I appreciate the several months of discretion and restraint by User:Discospinster who has been a model Admin in many ways. I also want to say that Thomasalazar is generally a benign but naive editor. He recently added a table itemizing every single state championship ever won by Los Alamos High School which was clearly lots of work. Mr. Salazar's big flaw is his stubborn insistence on his own way even in defiance of wikipedia convention and consensus. For instance, he keeps posting that copyrighted images of Sparky the Sundevil as if it were part of his school's logo. This type of activity is annoying for the people that have to deal with it. This needs to stop. But I believe that we can talk to him and make him a team player because I think that when he plays by the rules he does the community good.

I haven't (and won't) examine all of the umpteen alleged sock puppets. From what I've seen I believe that most of these probably are cases of sockpuppetry. Some cases may just be friends of Mr. Salazar or possibly other students from EVHS. I haven't had much experiences with sockpuppetry so I wouldn't know how to distinguish between the two. Greg Comlish (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a bad experience with the BradlyRM sock. In my experience, single-purpose accounts with one-track minds on obscure subjects of little general interest tend to be some of the most POV-pushing users on the site. He got all over my case for tagging for deletion a NN article about his school's rivalry with another. Greg hit it on the nose. The guy is generally benign, but woe onto he who reverts an edit of his. As far as distinguishing between the socks, it seems unlikely to me that he could recruit so many meatpuppets dedicated to topics on New Mexico and his high school. There's also a great deal of similarity on the user pages with the presidential candidate userboxes (some for John McCain, others for Barack Obama), the personal descriptions and the call to help the site. I don't want to see this guy banned per se, but if he stays, it's with the agreement that he sticks to a single account and stops with the POV-pushing and incivility. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PoliticianTexas:

This appears to still be open, so I think it's worth noting that today, Diamond Joe Quimby changed his username to PoliticianTexas. Anyone surprised that one of the first things he did post-rename was remove the sockpuppet warnings from his talk page?

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

Oh, and he once again nominated himself for bureaucratship (poorly), which has already been reverted. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 23:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

21 June

Back again with several new accounts:

AlbuCrazy‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Joe Diamond Thomas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
TexasPolitician (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
EVHSalazar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

New user name, same old sock puppet. ~ WikiDon (talk) 07:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
with additions by Dori (Talk • Contribs) 21:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and again Dori (Talk • Contribs) 00:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other IPs that have been used:

IP4240207xx (talk) 03:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admission of Sock Puppetry:

This is good:

adds Sockpuppet tag to one of his sockpuppet accounts!

Does it again!

Translation: "Please ban me"

(at least I got a laugh out of those, and the request for adminship) ~ WikiDon (talk) 00:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Steve provided the results of the usercompare, and the editing patterns confirm that Thomasalazar is a sockpuppet of Diamond Joe Quimby. Thomasalazar has thus been indefinitely blocked by me (log). PeterSymonds (talk) 23:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Addendum Diamond Joe Quimby, now known as PoliticanTexas per a request for rename, has now been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry (log). Further intervention by a checkuser is probably unnecessary, but if further confirmation is needed then it's still open. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DJQ was renamed to PoliticianTexas. All the named accounts were confirmed at RFCU as socks of someone, so all are blocked and tagged. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:13, 28 June 2008 (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:PoliticianTexas

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

~ WikiDon (talk) 23:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Diamond Joe Quimby

Violations

Using sockpuppets to evade being banned for removal of tags and notices
Violating the Wikipedia three revert rule (3RR) by using sockpuppets
Violating the Wikipedia Civility rule
Wikipedia Sockpuppetry to evade a block
Changing his user name to avoid this case and being banned

Comments

User had his account deleted and renamed in a attempt to avoid the sock puppet case and the possibility of being banned, to evade a block. ~ WikiDon (talk) 23:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

DJQ was renamed to PoliticianTexas. All confirmed as socks at CU. All blocked and tagged. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Flyhead

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Flyhead (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Motorhead12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Motorfanatic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Motofan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 20:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Several edits of Motorhead12 are very similar to edits made by another sockpuppet: Motofan. [3] and [4]. Plus Motorhead had been a little too insistent that he is not a sockpuppet, with consistent removal and editing of the {{Sock]} tag. Motorfanatic also seems to be a sockpuppet - had started editing again not very long after Motorhead12 being temporarily blocked, as well as suddenly reverting Motorhead12's user page to an old form.

Comments

From analysis of contributions I would say it's likely that all four are the same. Flyhead and Motofan are linked by edits they made on June 12, and the others are linked to Motofan by similar usernames and interests. Just to be sure, I'll request a checkuser. Yechiel (Shalom) 23:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the checkuser result has come back, with Motorhead12 and Motorfanatic being confirmed as sockpuppets of Motofan, and Propeller driven as a new sockpuppet of Flyhead. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 10:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Sockpuppetry confirmed by checkuser (and pretty obvious in any case). All accounts blocked indefinitely. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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:Ramblinmindblues

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Ramblinmindblues (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

CinnamonCowgirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

Buddha24 (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Both accounts have exact same editing pattern on kobe. Buddha24 (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I need to create a separate page for this report. (Note to self.)

Normally I would say there is not enough evidence linking the two accounts. However, this is really weird: the first edit on User talk:Ramblinmindblues is from Ramblinmindblues himself, saying "Thank you for your comments." [5] The first edit on User talk:CinnamonCowgirl is from CinnamonCowgirl herself, saying "Thanks for your help and comments." [6] I don't know what that means, but it looks suspicious. I'm ready to send this to checkuser. Yechiel (Shalom) 04:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now I understand. These newbies are thanking other people for comments they will leave on the user talk page. That makes sense, but it's still a little unusual, so my suspicion stands. It would be equally odd, based on the discussion about "Removing uncited material" at Talk:Kobe Bryant, if they were the same person because they speak in two different tones, the way I read it. So I'm really not sure. Yechiel (Shalom) 04:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion: Suspicious also because Ramblinmindblues only had a few edits til April/May then got active, then CinnamonCowgirl starts and they both stop on the same day, June 12. I'm blocking CinnamonCowgirl and leaving the other one open. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:16, 28 June 2008 (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:Kossack4Truth

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Kossack4Truth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Fovean Author (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
WorkerBee74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.31.80.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
70.9.72.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
70.9.18.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.85.92.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

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

Report submission by

LotLE×talk 00:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Kossack4Truth June 2 3RR:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:3RRNB#User:Kossack4Truth_reported_by_71.130.194.163_.28talk.29_.28Result:_48_hour_block_.29

Kossack4Truth May 20 3RR:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive73#User:Kossack4Truth_reported_by_User:Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters_.28Result:_blocked_24_hours.29

Fovean Author May 26 3RR:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive73#User:Fovean_Author_reported_by_User:Bobblehead_.28Result:_24_hour_block_.29

Fovean Author restoration of Kossack4Truth material after 3RR block of latter:

Accounts make identical edits on Barack Obama, and nearly exclusively on that page, generally as soon as one reaches 3RR limit. When one is blocked, the other takes up the edit war. Kossack4Truth was recently blocked (for second time) for 3RR on that page, at which time Fovean Author restored the material Kossack4Truth was 3RR'd for.

Kossack4Truth indicates on his/her user talk page that s/he is traveling today, and so allegedly unaffected by block. Traveling (if true) also makes it likely that s/he is using a different (temporary) IP address at that remote location. Traveling comment diff

WorkerBee74 is a new account added June 1, that also edits exclusively on the Barack Obama (talk) page, and that "argues" for the positions of blocked Kossack4Truth and Fovean Author, including stating the intended poll votes of those blocked accounts.

68.31.80.187 has only made edits supporting "polls" on Talk:Barack Obama. Other IP addresses all follow the same pattern of only having edits that are votes on polls on same article talk page.

Comments

Checkuser request (excluding Fovean Author and Andyvphil): Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kossack4Truth2

Any reason to not tie that request to the ForveanAuthor and 64.45.236.60 accounts, blocked for sock puppetry? Wikidemo (talk) 08:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kossack4Truth. While I still think it was likely an inconclusive result, Fovean Author was just blocked for 6 months for sockpuppetry using another IP address, in any event. The prior checkuser request did not request checks of all the other possible socks of K4T. I wish I would have had a better sense on the checkuser request procedure a month ago; but this seems like the right thing to request now. LotLE×talk 08:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note that in addition to Forvean Author being blocked for sock puppetry (is there a link to anyplace where that action is explained?) there are two other new reports, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Improve2009 and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/216.153.214.89. That makes a total of four SSP reports and two confirmed sockpuppet operators on the Obama page in the past several days. It's only natural to wonder if some of these are related, and whether a narrowly focused checkuser might miss some of the connections. Maybe it's best to ask for guidance from a seasoned admin / checkuser operator. With two confirmed sockpuppets on one of the most important articles in the encyclopedia at the moment, I think there's a good case to be made for sorting it out once and for all in an orderly way. Wikidemo (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As the initiator of this report, I do not belive that Andyvphil is a sockpuppet of Kossack4Truth. He has a similar range of opinions, but neither edit history nor tone on talk page indicate to me that it is the same person. LotLE×talk 05:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That IP editor, like Workerbee and Kossack4Truth coins a group insult for those objecting to disparaging information: this time the "Whitewash Brigade"[7]. Wikidemo (talk) 06:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WorkerBee74 seems fishy. Brand new account, in first edit creates userpage with"So how do I get started?"[8]. Yet a few edits later is fully in the fray, participating in polls and talking about BLP and the BLP noticeboard.[9] Fast start indeed. Wikidemo (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the Obama campaign talk page Workerbee74 claims to invent term "Obama campaign volunteers" to describe people opposing insertion of derogatory material into Obama article, and repeats the term (and sometimes, "campaign workers") many times. Kossack4Truth takes the term as well. Both make many comments about wanting to include the term "unrepentant terrorist" in the Obama article in connection to William Ayers, and take up related causes with similar arguments in similar laguage. At the minimum, WorkerBee is a possible meatpuppet. Kossack4Truth also engaged in possible canvassing, and at a minimum widespread notifications, of people to participate in a a poll on how much about Bill Ayers to put into the Obama bio article. As vociferous participants in the vote (the vote has its own issues), if these are meatpuppets or sockpuppets this runs the risk of slanting and degrading an important article. Wikidemo (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I have just notified the three accused accounts. In the future, if you start a sock puppet report you should give a courtesy notice to each accountholder, e.g. {{subst:socksuspectnotice|1=Kossack4Truth}}. - Wikidemo (talk) 23:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andyvphil, long time contentious editor (4 blocks since December, 2 on Obama article), using similar language, making edits in support of same material, has also adopted phrase "Obama campaign volunteers".[10] Makes accusations of administrator dishonesty similar to Fovean Author (see below). If not sockpuppeting, this would seem to be meatpuppeting or some other game.Wikidemo (talk) 10:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. We just agree that you're POV pushers, probably volunteers for the Obama campaign, editing disruptively and tendentiously, and distorting Wikipedia policy. That's all. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added two more IP accounts that are being used for voting purposes on Talk page polls. There is obviously a ton of politically motivated garbage going on with this article. My proposal: do a checkuser, block whatever turns up, and then fully protect the article until after the Presidential election. An encyclopedia is not a current events blog anyway. Life.temp (talk) 13:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Fovean Author (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked 48 hrs. Next incidents of edit-warring could trigger escalating blocks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reply top comments made on user talk pages, the block was made on the basis of what seems a block evasion attempt. Even if a WP:RFCU is performed and results are inconclusive, the block is warranted as the Fovean Author was making the exact same edit reversions, while the other user was blocked. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, you have never held any Obama supporter to this standard - why is that? Fovean Author (talk) 13:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Kossack4Truth and FoveanAuthor are not the same. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am frigging sick of this bs by Obama apologists to go after anyone who tries to put information that they don't like on the Obama entry, and the slavish attitude of admitted left-wing Wikipedia administrators who support them.

If you think I'm a sock puppet, then look at my IP address, which is NOT the same as K4T's. Specifically, it is 64.45.236.60, which is static.

By definition, if K4T's account is IP blocked, then if I were a sock puppet of his, then I would be blocked as well, as I would have the same IP.

What I would like to see is some integrity on the part of ≈ jossi ≈ (God forbid), and some penalty for the non-stop harassment that K4T, Andyvphil and I receive from talk and other Obama apologists.Fovean Author (talk) 02:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While we're on the subject - Kossack4Truth was created on 14:42, 15 March 2008 [11]

I've been through this crap myself. An IP picked up reverting a POV atrocity after I left off and we were both blocked, along with the 6RR violator, as sockpuppets of each other. When it turned out that we were 700 miles apart the admin, nothing fazed by that or a lack of any evidence for his hypothesis, asserted that I might have recruited a meatpuppet. And that block on bogus grounds is repeatedly advanced as an argument as to why I ought to think it true that I'm a bad editor. What it's really evidence for is of course the existance of a plethora of bad, arrogant, admins. Anyway, 64.45.236.60 (Fovean) is in or near Sebring, FL. 68.31.80.187 is in Indianapolis. Kossack? Andyvphil (talk) 10:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that even as I was adding the above comment, Wikidemo was further abusing process by adding my name to the list of sockpuppets. As I said, I've experienced this form of admin abuse before [12] and am absolutlely unrepentant about sharing Fovean Author's views on arrogant admins and editors acting as Obama campaign volunteers. I long since stated, however, that I am in Pacifica, CA, which is a long way from either Indiana or Florida, and the accusation that I am a sockpuppet is so void of any plausible excuse for belief that AGF cannot possibly requre that I write as ifbelieve Wikidema an imbecile rather than a liar. He's abusing process for the purposes of harassment. What rebuke will you administer to him? Well... I have no doubt admin solidarity will trump any other consideration, so I'm not expecting anything. Andyvphil (talk) 10:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My account was created before 00:45, 29 June 2007 [13]

So, I guess when he created my account as a sock puppet, he employed Mr. Peabody's Wayback Machine? Fovean Author (talk) 03:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking Fovean Author because he agrees with Kossak4Truth in reverting the deletions performed by the Obama fans is an arrogant abuse of admin power. As usual with those for whom an admin bit is an opportunity to stoke their ego by making unaccountable decisions, Jossi is uninterested in any evidence that he has fallen into error, and is prone to careless falsification of the record. As to the former, [14],[15] -- Fovean is clearly not a sockpuppet of Kossack. And as to the latter, although Fovean was reported as a potential sock and Jossi says above that that was the reason he blocked him ("the block was made on the basis of what seems a block evasion attempt... the block is warranted as the Fovean Author was making the exact same edit reversions, while the other user was blocked") he is unwilling to put such a disprovable assertion into the block log, but instead falls back on the all-purpose unprovable and undisprovable "edit warring without actually violating 3RR", ignoring the requirement in policy, apparently a dead letter, that if editors are to be blocked "even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period" it is to be done only "if their behavior is clearly disruptive"(emphasis added). Arrogant and unaccountable admins have taken this language allowing exceptional action and converted it to a licence for arbitrary intervention in content disputes being carried on within the rules. If Fovean "edit warred" without 4/24 reverts then the editors who have deleted the material from the page and repeatedly reverted its restoration have also "edit warred". Yet only Fovean's block log has been stained, and it will be used against him in the future by admins equally incurious as to the facts but eager to boost their fagile egos by pissing on any non-admin "peon" handy. Andyvphil (talk) 10:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is my beef right there - the admins are clearly not neutral. They're going to let the Obama apologists break whatever rules they want to with no consequence, then create a new standard for the rest of us. This article should ALREADY be listed as 'solved' and in fact there needs to be repercussion against LuluOftheLotusEaters Fovean Author (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sock puppetry is reasonable on the face. Certainly a community of users may share some POV and pick up, from each other, similar language, so without checkuser, it's true that the users might be independent. But cooperating in edit warring may be treated similarly to sock puppetry, and gross incivility is displayed above and in Andyvphil's edit record, and is blockable on its own. My summary: the admin block above, even if in error -- I'm not judging that --, was reasonable, and the above attacks on administrators who reasonably block and who protect articles against edit warring (as was done with Bill Moyers due to Andyvphil edit warring, demonstrates an ability to assume good faith that indicates he is not yet prepared to participate in editing the encyclopedia. Given that he has been warned many times and blocked four times, it's time for more serious remedies. From the behavior, Andvyvphil, I would conclude, is likely a throwaway account, essentially daring Wikipedia to ban him. This is one desire we should satisfy, and if he ever decides to contribute constructively to the project, his path is clear and easy. After a decent pause, start a new account, don't attack other editors, seek consensus, and don't edit war. Treating 3RR as if it were a permission to revert three times simply based on personal opinion is, again, another sign he is unsuitable for the editorial privilege. This has nothing to do with his political position, nor with mine or that of administrators who, in good faith, enforce, ad hoc, Wikipedia policy subject to review. If Andyvphil disagrees, he has available to himself the full range of dispute resolution process. Except that it would probably be a waste of time, and he probably knows that. ~~Meanwhile, checkuser may be appropriate and useful.~~ (Checkuser has been done with other two accounts, not Andyvphil, "unrelated." Probably not worth doing just for Andyvphil.)

Advice for any innocent user who might have been tossed into this SSP report: don't take an SSP report as an attack. I've been reported and checkusered and, honestly, it doesn't hurt, and the possibility of a false positive from it is remote. Very remote, I've not heard of it happening. More likely, it turns up negative or inconclusive even if editors are connected, if precautions have been taken, and, of course, it cannot detect meat puppetry. --Abd (talk) 14:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take it as an attack. Not a very welcoming bunch here. I heard on the news that Obama is the nominee, I come to Wikipedia and look him up, I click on the tab across the top of the page that says "Discussion" (duh), and I see that there are a couple of surveys inviting input on the article content. If you don't want any new users like me showing up, restrict access and don't make it so user friendly. Scjessey and Wikidemo are two of the most hostile people I've ever encountered on any Internet site that is allegedly moderated, and I've been surfing the web for 10 years. Fovean Author, Kossack and Andy are no doubt reacting out of frustration from having had to deal with these jerks on a long-term basis. Scjessey and Wikidemo could use a long cooling off period. About a week or two. 70.9.18.59 (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Throwaway acount" here. 1,000 edit a year for 2.5 years.[16] IP70.9 (Battle Creek, MI, btw) has it exactly right: The Jeremiah Wright story received four times as much news coverage as as any other story in the primary campaign[17] and the obvious relevance to Obama's life that his church was, as reported in the New York Times, "Afrocentric" and "unusually political" caused me to add an anodyne note to that effect six months ago. It was promptly and repeatedly edit warred off the page by the resident clique with AGF-eviscerating arguments like "You can't use the NYTimes -- sites where you have to register are discouraged" and "This article is about Obama, not his church", eventually culminating in my being called a racist, and reporting it[18], without garnering any admin admonishment of the jerk who said it. Said jerk then displayed great chutzpah by dumping an undigested list of my edits on the 3RR Noticeboard immediately after he, not for the first time, actually committed 4 reverts in 24 hours, and I logged on to find I'd been blocked for a week. My pointing out that I'd actually only made two reverts in 24 hours was met with admin dismissals as "wikilawyering" (I'd been accused of breaking a rule, for crying out loud). Andyvphil (talk) 01:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect that is an absurd comment and your personal attack invalidates your point. If you have ten years of experience on the Internet then surely you can take a look in the mirror and realize that your personal beliefs about politics can distort your perception of people. At the Obama article we have a small group - those who were accused of sockpuppetry here - ganging up to taunt, call names, and ignore process to try to force in a biased political point they wanted to make. That's standard operating procedure on most unmoderated Internet forums, but we have stronger rules here. It is frustrating for everybody here, particularly the ones who want to honor the encyclopedia's rules and purpose and resist partisanship. But we all must agree to follow the rules and not bash each other. Insulting volunteer administrators isn't any worse tan insulting anyone else, and in fact they are expected to have thick skins, but it's not going to win anyone to your position.Wikidemo (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, it seems to me that it's yourself and your friends that you're describing, not me. The surveys say you're in the minority. I've clicked on the links and read the policies you've cited, and you're misinterpreting them to serve your agenda. Because we voted against you, you're trying to get us banned for some fictitious offense. You should be ashamed of yourselves, and you are the ones who should be banned for your false accusations and your misrepresentations of website policy. 70.9.18.59 (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec with below) Wikipedia is not run by survey. At this point you're simply siding with problem editors and taking up their behavior. If you're truly new to Wikipedia you're getting off to an awfully fast bad start, antagonizing people and calling them names in your first days here. As you may note, the person you think you're defending has just called me an "imbecile" and a "liar", and accused administrators of more or less the same. That's awfully silly over an issue so trivial as wanting to tag a political candidate's biography with another instance of a minor campaign controversy that's already covered at least two other places in the encyclopedia. You would do well to concentrate your energies for constructive contributions to articles, not choosing sides to take. Wikidemo (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP editors don't get banned, they get blocked temporarily. Register an account, after the block expires, and a blocked IP experiences very little consequence. When IP editors cooperate with abusive editors, who are being blocked, it's common that the IP gets blocked too. Sometimes, I'm sure, this is a bit unfair. But it is temporary, and surely, if this IP editor had a shred of ability to look at things from a community project perspective, he or she would see the necessity of it;. This assumption that everyone is involved here vindictively is highly offensive, and itself violates Wikipedia policy, assume good faith. I'm pretty familiar with policy and guidelines, and I haven't seen one violated here, but, surely, I could miss something. However, as Wikidemo points out, attacking just about everyone in sight isn't going to win friends and influence people. Someone who has been here long enough and has been active enough to become an administrator has seen it all, and, ultimately, has only so much time to devote to answering contentious editors. There is administrative abuse, sometimes, but it's not going to be fixed by attacking the administrators. Rather, point out the alleged abuse, following dispute resolution process. It is quite possible to point to abuse without violating WP:AGF, because abuse describes the effect, not the intention. Got proof of bad intention? It better be much stronger than a bunch of unsubstantiated personal attacks.--Abd (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see, the IPs listed have not been blocked, so that when 70.9 refers to getting "us" banned, my suspicion increases that this is IP for one of the blocked users. --Abd (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Andy and Fovean, but based on the edits Kossack4Truth is clearly an SPA. I can see Kossack being a sock of one of them, though I doubt both. Wizardman 18:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another note, the 3 IPs seem to clearly be coming from the same area, possibly the same computer even. Granted, I don't think it matters where the IPs are from since they've made to few edits, and only to the talk page. Wizardman 18:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The two 70.9's are both Sprint dial-ups, one in Battle Creek, MI and one in Lebanon, In. Lebanon is near Indianapolis and could be the same individual as 68.31.80.187. But have they cast separate votes in the same poll or done anything else to indicate that not identifying as one individual would constitute misrepresentation, even were it true? 69.181.166.177 (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC) ...Oh, and that was an accidental demonstration that 69.181.166.177 is me. Which is a change. Last time this bogus accusation came up I was 24.23.229.223 which was somewhat mysteriously reported to be located in Pinole, not Pacifica. Daly City is even further from Florida, Michigan and Indiana, tho. Andyvphil (talk) 05:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they both voted in this poll, for the exact same option...[19]

No. 4 is the only appropriate choice .... 68.31.80.187 (talk) 22:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No. 4 is closest to acceptable, .... Andyvphil (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No. 4. ... 70.9.18.59 (talk) 12:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Odd that you didn't notice, considered your vote falls right in between them. Life.temp (talk) 05:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's extremely odd that I didn't notice a post that wasn't there when I posted. And 70.9.18.59 is the one in Battle Creek. 70.9.72.38 is the IP near 68.31.80.187. So the answer is: you found no misrepresentation. Andyvphil (talk) 07:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, you stopped reading anything on the Talk page after you posted? Stop wasting our time. The total number of IP's that voted in that particular poll is 3. What an amazing coincidence that they all voted for the exact same choice--out of four different possibilities.

No. 4. A good and concise list of choices. ... 70.9.72.38 (first edit by this IP address)

No. 4 is the only appropriate choice .... 68.31.80.187 (only contribution by editor is vote in polls on this page)

No. 4. ... 70.9.18.59 (talk) 12:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC) (has made few or no other edits outside this topic.)

And in an other poll, again that amazing coincidence, so specific that both even specified a preference beginning with opinion #5 [20]

No. 7. Anything less than No. 5 is a whitewash.... 68.31.80.187 (has made few or no other edits outside this topic.)

No. 5, No. 6 or No. 7. 70.9.18.59 (has made few or no other edits outside this topic.)

Life.temp (talk) 08:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's this whole allegation of sockpuppetry that's a waste of time, as well as the cause of an act of administrative arrogance against Fovean_Author. No, it's not surprising that all three IPs voted for one of the four options. Were the votes randomly distributed the probability would be 1/64. But they weren't. 8 of the 14 votes were for #4, #3 got no votes, #1 got 1 vote and #2 got five. And it's the precise problem of this article that its editors contain an unusual concentration of Obama hagiographers, resulting in overrepresentation of #1/#2. It's not at all surprising that the random visitor would select the only reasonable option, #4. Andyvphil (talk) 11:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of them is in Lebanon, Indiana. The other one is in Battle Creek, Michigan. Mapquest.com tells us that the two cities are 237 miles apart. I live far, far away from either one of them, and the previous RFCU proves it. Fovean Author doesn't live in either one of them or in the same city as me, and the previous RFCU proves it. Andyvphil has just proven that he lives about 2,000 miles away from either one of those two cities. Aside from the fact that there are several people (spread all over the United States) who disagree with your efforts to whitewash the article, you've got nothing except speculation. Speculation is not evidence. You're beating a dead horse. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it should be noted to all those who are arguing the IP's are diffrent, that it is quite possible to mask and change ip addresses. Various users have been doing it for a long time to get around account blocks on a myriad of forums/wiki's/games/etc. Also, another easy way to change an ip, is to log into some where completely diffrent and then continue the edit war. There are also various programs that can mask or change IP addresses. For some quick and interesting reading here is an interesting article IP address spoofing. Brothejr (talk) 11:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andyvphil has been blocked by Mastcell for a month: [21]. The checkuser request filed was for the other two editors, but if there is a puppet master here, it would more likely be Andyvphil. I'm not sufficiently exercised to file another checkuser request myself at the moment, I've got a real life, but it would make sense to do it now, rather than wait for Andyvphil's block to expire, because then the CU evidence would be gone. If a checkuser request involving Andyvphil comes up negative, that would complete and close this case. (The block did not depend on sock allegations at all, though Andyvphil's behavior here was apparently part of the cause.) --Abd (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are enough seasoned administrators watching the issue that if a checkuser is warranted they'll run one with or without a rcfu. I'm a little confused as to what was done, and whether Andyvphil would have been picked up as an account linked to Workerbee74, ForveanAuthor, and Kossack4truth if a checkuser were run on the three of them. There is usually no hurry to do a checkuser because if there is sockpuppetry, any delay just gives them more time to do their deeds and thereby leave evidence.Wikidemo (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The RFCU was filed before Andyvphil was added to this SSP report. I am also unclear whether or not the report would have found an Andyvphil connection, if one existed. Sometimes CU reports pick up socks not previously seen as connected, but I don't know that this is reliable, i.e., if the checkuser always looks for those. Given that the other two accounts are not blocked, it might be appropriate to check now; and it could slip through the cracks, everybody is busy. But no biggie. If I thought it was very important, I'd file the request myself. One thing is strange and should be noticed. Andyvphil's behavior was so outrageous lately that it seems he was trolling to be blocked. That could mean he's got other accounts. --Abd (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The RFCU said they're unrelated technically, but it also talks about behaviorial issues. I feel there are serious meatpuppeting issues. Advise the named parties to be wary of meatpuppeting, tag-team editing, etc and other parties to report future problems to the appropriate board. I have posted a linked to this diff on the talk pages of named parties. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:56, 27 June 2008 (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:Bald Eeagle (3rd)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Bald Eeagle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10: 35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

The first and second cases resulted in blocks to three accounts; this is block evasion to continue fighting the same argument. Grandscribe's account was created eight days after the last indef sockblock, and immediately jumped into the same dispute, editing exclusively within the context of the current Linux-GNU/Linux naming debate. Grandscribe's idiosyncratic writing style has gradually gotten closer to that of the previous SPAs, most evidently on Talk:Linux, with a spat on Talk:gNewSense. Particular red flags are the latching onto WP:JIMBOSAID as official policy (Grandscribe: [22] [23]; blocked sock Lightedbulb: [24] [25]) and the bizarre conspiracy theory that opposing editors are working on behalf of the Linux Mark Institute (Grandscribe: [26] [27]; blocked sock Midnightcrow: [28] [29])

Comments

Left this for a good long time before reporting because Grandscribe appeared less interested in edit warring or in flagrant personal attacks than the previous personas. However, they've converged, and the conspiracy theories have started being trotted out again.

User Chris Cunningham (Thumperward) has been constantly provoking meWP:BITE, a new user because I do not agree with his point of view. It is all documented in the archives of the discussions. I have not broken any of wikipedia rules. On the other hand it can be shown that user Chris Cunningham has been aggressively provoking me with threats of suck puppetry. He is engaged in a heated discussion on the linux talk page where arguments from all sides are expressed. Both give comments that may heated at times. Chris Cunningham targets me because I have been on the other side of the dispute over the naming of the OS that uses the GNU system and the linux kernel. There is no reason or justification for blocking me from access to the site. Again I have not done anything that merits that.I have respected all wikipedia policies. I ask all serious and honest administrators to watch this and rather to take actions against this user Thumperward for his obvious self serving attacks against users that do not share his Point Of View.--Grandscribe (talk) 12:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had asked kindly [30] back in 20th May to consider other articles as I wanted to see if there was any hope (I *love* RMS, have actually emailed him twice on suit-level licensing issues and I have a bias towards using GNU/GPL) but...not a chance. All Grandscribe has done is chat lots, kick off 1 x revert edit war on Linux (I warned them [31]), and 1 x revert for what I think is WP:POINT here [32]. That's it - Since march around 200 edits, all to talk except 4 reverts. Grandscribe is awfully quick with the Wikilawyering but slow with tangible article space edits. Ttiotsw (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can show the evidence that Ttiotsw did not ask me kindly anything. He simply did come to my page with to provoke. All administrators can see he is doing that even on this page.WP:BITEI did not start any edit war.--Grandscribe (talk) 05:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should also read WP:AAGF. Facts are that your first set of edits in article space (i.e. not the talk space) in the two months or so since you joined were for 3 edit/reverts within 1 day to Linux. I wasn't part of that little revert war so I felt OK in using the 3rr template on your talk page. If you do not like what it says then complain on the user template page as those words are templated. My previous note to you was to kindly look at editing other Linux related articles as you were just all talk. OTOH, what I say back to you on my own talk page is up to me and WP:BITE is for *NEW* users having problems with articles and stuff. You've been editing for a few months now. You are NOT a new user. (note to self: must see the vet about this horse as it's not moving very fast.).Ttiotsw (talk) 10:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is Grandscribe accused of? I don't know if one person controls both accounts. I've never really considered it, but putting that possibility aside for a minute, since Bald Eagle hasn't edited since Feb 15th, what would it matter if the guy who controlled Bald Eagle back in February is the guy who now controls Grandscribe? Gronky (talk) 09:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Errr, have you even read WP:SOCK? The previous accounts were blocked for contentious editing and flagrant personal attacks. You don't get to just pick a new user name and jump back in if your account gets indefinitely blocked. Both me and Ttiotsw gave Grandscribe a chance and requested that, given his history, it might be a good idea to avoid contentious editing and ludicrous personal assaults, to be treated to wikilawyering about WP:BITE and a complete failure to change tack. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Thumperward never sent me any request. From the day I gave my comments with a position contrary to his POV he started the WP:BITE in the discussion page. User Ttiotsw came to my page to provoke WP:BITE. I have not done anything wrong. On the other hand if any admin looks at the archived comments he will see that some editors who share Thumperward's POV constantly use inappropriate language. They never received a single warning or request to change their tone. --Grandscribe (talk) 08:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the 20th May I said [33] where I commented that you should edit some articles. I linked a few policies I said I wouldn't have bothered but I noted that on the 1st April you had said this. That to me indicated a reasonable awareness of "RFC" and "consensus" (your words) only 4 days after you posted your first talk post to Wikipedia on Linux. New users don't usually do that. New users pick some articles, do some edits, sometimes OK, sometimes not, then settle down to a pattern of edits to talk and articles according to their interests. I think my waiting 6 weeks of watching you edit one article's talk space only is enough delay for you to not be deemed a new user. Ttiotsw (talk) 09:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(replying to Thumperward) That doesn't answer my question. The only link here about a ban is the link showing that "Midnightcrow" has been blocked from making new accounts. So, if the person who used to use that account is the same person who now uses the Grandscribe account (we'll leave that to be determined later, if necessary), can you link to something to show that the person who owned the "Midnightcrow" account (rather than the account itself) is never allowed make accounts on Wikipedia ever again? (I'm not saying such doesn't exist, but you haven't linked to any evidence of such, and I can't find it and I would find lifetime bans very strange if they existed in Wikipedia policy.) --Gronky (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I should add that I don't see any of the accounts you mentioned on the Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users. (The difference between a block and a ban is worth noting) --Gronky (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Tiotsw shows again that he is here only to provoke WP:BITE and to try to link me to a banned user. I am NOT a sock puppet. And I have NEVER done ANYTHING to be banned. The only reason for these false accusations is that Tiotsw is trying to silence an editor who does not agree with the unjustified massive removal of the GNU and GNU/linux from wikipedia. Something he clearly supports. There are editors who defend those removals who have even used VERY offensive and coarse language. Tiotsw or Thumperward never complained against those editors simply because they share the same Point of view.--Grandscribe (talk) 12:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I waited 6 weeks before I advised you to look at WP:SPA. I think over a month and a half is a reasonable time period. I have read WP:BITE; it really only applies to users who actually edit articles. You don't. That is the problem. Be bold!. Ttiotsw (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but think that Grandscribe would be damned if he did. He's damned now he don't. Paul Beardsell (talk) 01:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we assume good faith then a change in behaviour is the best possible answer. Why doesn't he just look at changes or missing ?. It's easy to find stuff to edit. Ttiotsw (talk) 05:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, of course. Were Grandscribe disposed to prove his good faith he should easily be able to do so. But there is no obligation on him to do so. To the contrary, the obligation is on us to assume good faith. Now, possibly GS could post in a way that would help us a little more to do that but I don't see that he has crossed any behavioural lines in a particularly serious way. And others happily provoke him (back?): I don't understand why the testiness and intolerance and intemperance of some editors here is allowed on the basis that they do good work elsewhere on the encyclopaedia. I would prefer all just behave well (and better than me). I'm with you: I would prefer it if Grandscribe were a contributor to scores of articles, and who knows, maybe he is :-) Paul Beardsell (talk) 06:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea whether anyone is or is not a sock puppet. Grandscribe has, on occasion at Talk:Linux, been intemperate but he is hardly alone. Grandscribe has not yet done anything to deserve a ban. I suggest we WP:AGF for the time being and back off. Paul Beardsell (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that about sums up my position on the matter. —mako ๛ 20:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I'm just leaving a note to say I've read the discussion above. I'll need to review some diffs and logs before I decide whether to request a checkuser. It looks like some people want to AGF and leave well enough alone, and I'll sleep on that. Yechiel (Shalom) 04:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this for checkuser, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bald Eagle. Whenever there is evidence that a blocked user has returned with a new account, please request checkuser. Jehochman ^Talk 15:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The checkuser case returned Stale on 26 June. (There is no remaining data on Bald Eeagle to compare to, which is logical since this is the first time a CU was requested, and Bald Eeagle has been indef blocked since February). I hope anyone who is watching this report who thinks further action is needed will jump in here. If anyone thinks that an open-and-shut case for Grandscribe=Bald Eeagle can be made using behavioral data, this is the moment. EdJohnston (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as inconclusive. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:33, 27 June 2008 (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:Voldemore

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Crevaner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
OldRightist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
AmeriCan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Deaniack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Thefreemarket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Cenarium ^Talk 15:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Most of them have similar userpages and userboxes, none of them have voted in a mfd before and have literally jumped on this mfd: [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] . They also have similar center of interests as shown by the subpages of Voldemore, userbowes and contributions. Cenarium ^Talk 15:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that two users had problems signing, see these diffs: [40] and [41]. Cenarium ^Talk 15:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional evidence, albeit circumstantial; with the exception of that bundle of edits, have not actually contributed since. Ironho lds 15:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: Look at the timing for their edits: 0:17, 0:50, 0:57, 1:12 and then 3:39 and 3:49 respectively. Ironho lds 15:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'd advise asking someone with the Checkuser ability to find if they've been editing from the same/similar IP addresses. Ironho lds 15:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deaniack's userpage is not similar at all with the others. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the recommendations from WP:RCU, posting a CU request would be premature now. Indeed, the profile of Deaniack is not that similar, and the user has no deleted contributions. Note the creation log however, 1 may 2007, while 30 April 2007 for the FreeMarket and 29 April 2007 for Voldemore. Cenarium ^Talk 15:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The contributions are similar, for example, some are related to MSNBC, diffs: [42], [43], [44], or Fox news, diffs: [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], etc. Cenarium ^Talk 15:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous! OldRighist, Voldemore, Thefreemarket, Deaniack, and AmeriCan are all friends of mine. I introduced them to Wikipedia. A few of them tell each other about articles that need some editing that's all. Voldemore emailed us about the userpage/subpage issue and asked for some help. -- Crevaner (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if that's true it's still a no-no; you've all posted edits biased by your friendship with Voldemore, posting a particular viewpoint regardless of its validity and thereby disrupted a wikipedia procedure. Ironho lds 18:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I for one didn't know that was a violation of rules. OK, I'll tell the others. We won't do something like that again. At least, I won't be a part of it. -- Crevaner (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's common sense! Articles for Deletion is based on people with neutral points of view debating it. If anyone was allowed to call in all their friends with a wiki account to vote nothing would ever be done fairly. Ironho lds 18:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Assuming Crevaner is telling the truth (and not just Voldemore trying not to be banned) i suggest a formal warning to the accounts involved about neutrality and so on, and the dismissal of the case. I'll be keeping an eye on the accounts involved for a few months just to check, and i've also requested their votes be discounted from the deletion since they obviously cant be trusted as even having read the page involved. Ironho lds 18:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for the others. But I did read the userpage involved and I genuinely believe it is not a violation of policy. Just out of curiosity, is there an official policy on collaborations with regard to deletion votes? -- Deaniack (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm posting on WP:AN/I about this, as admins should sort this out (and it will get more attention there). The discussion may be found here. 5:15 19:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant pages are WP:MEAT and WP:CANVAS. In this case, since the users weren't recruited specifically to stack the votes, it's not a particularly egregious violation, but canvassing your wikifriends for extra votes is not that cool, especially if you know them IRL. Since the matter has already resolved itself, and since I think the users in question really didn't realize they were doing anything inappropriate, I'm inclined to just let them know this sort of thing is frowned upon, and leave it at that. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also don't think any further measure is needed at this point, but the users are warned. Using stealth canvassing in an attempt to sway consensus in a community debate is against our policies. Cenarium ^Talk 23:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not appropriate to talk of meatpupetry in this case, the users are not new, but have edited for a while. The possibility of sockpuppetry cannot be definitely discarded but assuming good faith, the explanation given is acceptable, so I'm probably going to close this after a reasonable period of time. Cenarium ^Talk 23:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its probably a good idea for an admin to warn them on their talk pages. 5:15 00:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I, or another admin, may warn them at some point, but in lights of new information, assuming good faith is not an option any more. It doesn't seem to be an isolated incident, so a checkuser will be filled soon. Cenarium ^Talk 01:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the users are seperate meatpuppets who have been warned before rather than suspected sockpuppets will checkuser help? After all, they could be posting from completely different IP ranges. Ironho lds 02:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cenarium has filed a checkuser case at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Voldemore. EdJohnston (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Checkuser confirmed that the users have the same IP, as well as Trojanian (talk · contribs) and Reid1967 (talk · contribs). All users have been bocked indefinitely. Cenarium ^Talk 13:01, 26 June 2008 (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:210.194.40.149

Suspected sockpuppeteer: 210.194.40.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

ScienceApologist (talk) 00:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Same old same old.

Comments

In other words, sockpuppet of banned user Davkal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I agree with this, per the similar edits by another user reported earlier today by ScienceApologist with the same editing profile. Yechiel (Shalom) 01:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The account is consistent with other Davkal socks, and this time it was successful in getting SA blocked, which appears to be his current goal. PhilKnight (talk) 01:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I gather the Community doesn't mind Davkal and his two (three given recent events) enablers continuing to disrupt talkpages? Shot info (talk) 06:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

To EdJohnston: The other SSP case was for Clarityschmarity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[50]

Will blocking the IP do any good? Maybe. The risk of collateral damage seems low because it has never edited before. I'd suggest blocking for two weeks to a month and tagging the userpage as a Davkal sock. I think the link between the IP and Clarityschmarity is solid. Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 04:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm persuaded. I've blocked the IP one month and tagged it as a Davkal sock. Closing this report. EdJohnston (talk) 05:13, 26 June 2008 (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:Threop

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Threop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Stem Pressure (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (account created by Threop, Scibaby sockpuppets have a well-known habit of creating new sock accounts with his old sock accounts

Report submission by

Oren0 (talk) 02:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Identical to previous Scibaby socks: [51] [52] [53]

Comments

Conclusions

Raul654 indef-blocked them both. I concur that on behavioral evidence Threop is acting like Scibaby. I guess Raul654 has not quit on the Scibaby affair after all. :) Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 04:44, 26 June 2008 (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:Ryan2845

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Ryan2845 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

TJones05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
170.252.248.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
64.136.205.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
63.77.95.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Grey Wanderer | Talk 22:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User:Ryan2845 became involved an edit war at Kansas Jayhawks. After performing four identical reverts: (1, 2, 3, 4) on June 20th he was warned about 3RR by myself ([54]). Fourteen minuets after I warned him and eleven minuets before he removed the warning on his talk page ([55]) an anon (64.136.205.87) performed the same revert ([56]). Several editors undid this reversion causing another anon (User talk:63.77.95.90|63.77.95.90) [57]. the anon edits were reverted again then one more anon 170.252.248.203 makes the same rv. This was also reverted. Finally User:TJones05 was created and performed the exact same rv as the anons here. This was TJones only edit.

Comments

Yes I admit that a couple, but not ALL of those are me. Others are simply KU fans that are fighting this unnecessary edit to this page. You simply do not understand the situation. This typical sports rivalry bullsh*t. Fans of Kansas State University like rub in that KU is on probation to make us angry or to put down our university. He has cleverly deceived you to make it seem like this information belongs on this page.

Those edits do not fit the page whatsoever. The page is a list of accomplishments of the university's teams. Not a rap sheet! No other sports articles such as this include the MANY NCAA offenses.

I have never purposefully sockpuppeted before, and won't again. I'm washing my hands of this situation and moving on.

Ryan2845 (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an argument about the edit war/page content, I don't have a particularly strong opinion about that. This is an argument about whether or not you violated Wikipedia's sockpuppetry and 3RR rules, and by your own admission above you did.Grey Wanderer | Talk 23:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, my apologies. What is my penalty here? I'm hoping not a ban on those IP addresses, because one is my place of work (aka several thousand people on that IP)

I do not plan on breaking the rules again now that I am aware of the consequences.

I'm not sure what an admin will decide, but usually all involved accounts are banned for a certain period of time. However since you've shown remorse an admin might take that into account. As far as you being aware the consequences, perhaps not, but you were certainly aware of the rules. That said I think you're genuine in your apologies, so some advice, when editing it has been my experience that being logged is generally helpful. Editors treat you with less suspicion and your edit history is freely available. When involved in controversies, edit wars, and consensus forming you should probably always uses the same account, ip address, or at least disclose your multiple identities relationships. Anyways, at Kansas Jayhawks I understand your defense and I'm not totally disagreeing with you, but since several editors have expressed complete disagreement an reverted your edits, its best to use the talk page, before reverting, especially if you've already been warned about the 3RR. Grey Wanderer | Talk 23:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I gladly accept your constructive criticism and will be sure to heed your advice in the future. I just got a little hot headed and wasn't thinking straight.

Once again, my apologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan2845 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that a user with ip 99.10.87.254 has just removed the material involved in the edit war again. I just want to state for the record that it was NOT me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan2845 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say to the admins that while I admit I broke the rules, I was only doing so because I was attempting to protect the page from what I STILL see as vandalism. I've been protecting that page from vandals for months. None the less, I know I broke the rules and will accept whatever punishment. Again, my apologies. Ryan2845 (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I quote from the blocking policy:

"Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. (Footnote: Blocks are not punitive in the sense that they aren't retribution. Blocks sometimes are used as a deterrent, to discourage whatever behavior led to the block and encourage a productive editing environment.)"

"Blocks should not be used solely for the purpose of recording warnings or other negative events in a user's block log. The practice, typically involving very short blocks, is often seen as punitive and humiliating."

Based on the letter and spirit of the policy, I see no reason to block Ryan2845. He acknowledged his mistake, and to the best of my knowledge, from reviewing his logs, this is his first offense. I will leave this page open for another few days to make sure that no further shenanigans occur on the Kansas Jayhawks page, then assuming that settles down, I or an administrator will close this page with no further action. Yechiel (Shalom) 02:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm closing this report per Shalom's recommendation. If problems recur with this editor, or strange editing happens on the Kansas Jayhawks article, the report can be reopened. EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 26 June 2008 (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:McSaucePaste

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

SauceClone1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
SauceClone2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
SauceClone3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
SauceClone4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Enigma ^message 18:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

[58] User not even attempting to hide that he's a sock.

Comments

I reported to AIV, but they won't block. This is clear block evasion. Checkuser may reveal additional sockpuppets (see User:Sandlaeors, for example), the previous RfCHU didn't really go anywhere.

I just added Sauceclone2, 3 and 4 in the list of suspected sockpuppets above. Of these, only 2 has made any edits (I believe they are unconstructive but don't know anything about Dragon Ball so can't be sure). --Bonadea (talk) 07:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Permablocks all around. The rest of the Canpop (talk · contribs) meatpuppets remain unblocked. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:34, 25 June 2008 (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:Clarityschmarity

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Davkal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Clarityschmarity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

ScienceApologist (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

This is another Davkal puppet. You may wish to do a checkuser to get the proxy under which he is editing too: otherwise he's liable to start a new account.

Comments

I'm not familiar with Davkal, but this looks like somebody's sock/SPA from the way it posts immediately on Fringe theories with no prior edit history. Yechiel (Shalom) 23:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Obvious, disruptive sock. Clearly not a new editor, and this account is being used disruptively and uncivilly to influence an ongoing policy discussion. Blocked indefinitely. I think Davkal is likely the puppeteer, but it's largely academic. MastCell ^Talk 21:55, 23 June 2008 (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:Klaksonn

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Ten months ago, Klaksonn was blocked due to his persistent incivility and disruptive editing. He had a penchant for editing topics that were controversial between Sunni and Shi'a Muslims, pushing the Shi'a point of view, and had quite a short fuse. This was due to winners such as religious slurs against other Muslims, and telling users to eff off amongst other things over simple editing disputes; this came in addition to the editing by a number of IP addresses signing as Klaksonn and editing the same articles, though i've been unable to look through the four months worth of material for it, also throwing out religious/ethnic slurs against Jewish people as well. The above examples are just some of his more foul mouthed rants, but what he was really distinguished for was his pointed wit which was quite apparent.
So he was blocked, and flash forward to now. A number of anonymous IP addresses as mentioned began with a similar biting comments about other Muslims began appearing. My eyebrow was raised, however, when the new account mentioned started up with similar biting comments and multiple insances of throwing out the same religious slur. Theguy further went on to make comments to an admin involved in the editing disputes that, among other things, my entire time on Wikipedia has been spent here pushing a hatefull Wahhabi POV as is evidence in my contributions and user page history. How is this ostensibly new user so familiar with my editing history and user page history, and using the same type of writing mannerisms as Klaksonn?
I have only posted a few diffs for the sake of space here. I feel those alone are sufficient, however the editing histories of Klaksonn, NAccount, and the IP addresses serve as further evidence as well. Just take a few moments to peruse; not only his edit summaries but also his talk page comments contain the same passive aggressive tone, the same tired religious slurs, and the same fixation on my edits. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Relevant discussion at

→ WP:AN#Al-Azhar University vandal

The first available administrator is requested to do the following:

Indef-block User:NAccount. He is clearly a disruptive POV pusher who makes personal attacks. The contribution log strongly suggests he is a sockpuppet as alleged. I can go into more detail if it's necessary.
Semi-protect Al-Azhar University, a favorite target of this editor. If other articles need to be semi-protected, please list them. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom, could you please give more details? I have actually been looking at the history of Al-Azhar University, and the anon's edits there do not seem to be that out of line. I agree that there is some disruptive behavior, but I'm seeing that on the part of MezzoMezzo as well, so I want to make sure that we are not just "blocking an opposing view". Also, MezzoMezzo, could you please post a link to this SSP page, at the talkpage of all of the above accounts, including Klaksonn? Yes he's blocked, but others may be watching his talkpage, who would be interested in this report. Thanks, El on ka 17:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Elonka. If you look carefully at Special:Contributions/NAccount, you can see the first few edits:

16:34, 2 June 2008 (hist) (diff) N User:NAccount‎ (←Created page with '{{userpage}}')
16:34, 2 June 2008 (hist) (diff) N User talk:NAccount‎ (←Created page with 'Leave a message.')
16:35, 2 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Al-Azhar University‎ (NPOV; stop pushing your agenda, your intentions are very clear)
16:39, 2 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Aziz al-Abub‎ (stalking me now, Wahhabi?)
16:41, 2 June 2008 (hist) (diff) 'Amr ibn al-'As‎ (maybe you should read the source first before imposing your hateful POV)
16:41, 2 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Ali Atwa‎ (stalking me now, Wahhabi?)
16:41, 2 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Hassan Izz-Al-Din‎ (stalking me now?)
16:45, 2 June 2008 (hist) (diff) 'Amr ibn al-'As‎ (→573? – 610: Early Life: added material from the source you like so much)
16:45, 2 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Ibrahim Hussein Berro‎ (stalking me now, Wahhabi?)
16:46, 2 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Ghaleb Awwali‎ (stalking me now, Wahhabi?)
16:46, 2 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Imad Mughniyah‎ (NPOV)

These edits were followed by a half-hour break. The first two edits, in the same minute, were intended to create blue-links for the userpage and talk page. I know that sockpuppeteers do this because I did it myself last year. This is viewable only to admins, but Elonka, you're an admin so you can see it. Last year when I was suffering from mental illness I created a number of sockpuppets, as I later explained here. One of those sockpuppets was Dodo Gogo (talk · contribs) to impersonate administrator Gogo Dodo (talk · contribs). I started randomly reverting good edits, but before I did that, I made a meaningless edit to my userpage so that my username would show up as a blue link in the recent-changes, and people would not be suspicious why a redlinked username is reverting lots of edits. It didn't take long for an admin to catch me anyway. I learned in my months doing sockpuppet investigations that other sockpuppets think alike, and will turn their userpages and talk pages into blue links in order to avoid the curious questions of "Who is this new user?" That's evidently what NAccount was thinking. Then, one minute after creating his userpage and talk page, NAccount edits Al-Azhar University with a personal attack in the edit summary. In five of the next edits, all within a 12-minute period, NAccount leaves an edit summary of "stalking me now, Wahhabi?" or "stalking me now?" It is plainly obvious that this user arrived with an agenda and immediately came to push forward that agenda. He is not an innocent new user. My experience from welcoming new users on recent-changes patrol is that all truly new users arrive with some degree of tentativeness. Even User:CreepyCrawly, who was mistakenly blocked as a sockpuppet because he didn't appear like a new editor on the global warming article, showed signs of not knowing exactly how everything works, and edited at a reasonably slow rate in his first hours here. This editor, in contrast, makes 11 edits in his first 12 minutes on the site, all with a very clear agenda. He should be blocked as a sockpuppet without regard to who the sockpuppeteer might be. I think, based on the pattern of personal attacks, that this is the same person as most or all of the IP addresses cited above, but I have not checked this rigorously so I am not certain. Regardless, semi-protection seems warranted for any articles frequently targeted by this guy. Only Al-Azhar University has been edited in more than one of these contrib logs, so I can't think of other articles to semi-protect, but others who are more familiar with the situation might have suggestions. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 22:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't think that the account was created to be deceptive. I had actually asked the anon to create an account,[59] rather than bouncing from IP to IP, so it would be easier to communicate. That's one of the reasons why I wouldn't like to immediately block the account as a sockpuppet. Even if it does turn out to be Klaksonn, that account has been blocked for several months. It is my opinion that if NAccount is willing to moderate his behavior, post in a civil manner, provide reliable sources, and stick to using one account, that it may be worth giving him another chance. So far his behavior has been (slowly) improving, which is why I'd like to make a sincere effort to work with him. However, I do agree that if he's just going to pop in and be uncivil and make unreasonable reverts though, then I would have no trouble with blocking him. --El on ka 23:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it really is Klaksonn, take a look at his block log. I'm not completely comfortable with letting this guy return through a back door without owning up to what he did. However, if you think you can take control of the situation, I trust you to give your best effort. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His last comments regarding this issue were to call me a pusher of "9/11 Wahhabi Islam". I'm personally a bit offended by that and wouldn't call it an improvement. That's not the kind of language that should be tolerated on here, especially from an editor that is obviously not unfamiliar with site policy. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I too have been on the receiving end of NAccount's abuse under several of his anonymous IPs, and I've had a chance to see his handiwork up close. I've also reported his disruptive activities twice on the Adminstrator's noticeboard. Here's a quick summary of some of his antics:

1)Inserting inflammatory POV material without bothering to support it with any reference(s).

2)Tacking on a bunch of unrelated, dummy references behind a slanderous POV phrase to lend an air of credibility to said POV phrase (see my analysis on how I know those sources are bogus here).

3)Mocking fellow editors.

4)Altering sourced material so that it reads differently but still looks sourced, and reverting subsequent edits other editors have made to those initial changes -- all with no explanation.

5) Removing wanted terrorists from Wiki categories that identify them as such. Here is yet another example of this. NAccount did this quite a few times.

And that's just the half of it. There's more info on this user's shenanigans on the Al-Azhar University talk page and here.

I'd also like to point out that in most of my dealings with this user, I've addressed him, based on the similarity of edits on different but related pages, as though it were a forgone conclusion that he was all of the aforementioned anonymous IPs, and not once did he bother denying this. I think that, in and of itself, is very telling. Given all of the forgoing, I also strongly recommend an indefinite block on User:NAccount, and page protection on the Al-Azhar University and 'Amr ibn al-'As pages in particular. Causteau (talk) 08:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Causteau, I agree with you that the anon has made some questionable edits, especially as regards removing the Terrorist category from a couple articles of known terrorists.[60][61] However, the anon was also removing that category in good ways as well, such as removing the category from biographies where there were no solid sources that the individual was ever called a terrorist.[62] Especially when dealing with BLP subjects, removing such a category is absolutely correct to do,[63] and it's actually disruptive for people to put the category back, as MezzoMezzo did,[64] since that is a violation of BLP. As for the edits at Al-Azhar University, yes there was an edit war, but it went both ways. For example, Causteau, you too were removing sourced information, and doing so with inflammatory edit summaries.[65][66][67][68][69] where you were making personal attacks and accusing someone of "slander". Do you see the irony in your edit summary here,[70] where you said, "quit trying to make this personal; you just replaced a sourced, direct quote for some ambiguous, unsupported statement and tacked on a bunch of worthless, unrelated sources behind it; see talk page"? or "my POV? you've got some nerve; you post a bogus, unsupported, inflammatory statement, and when called on it, cite a bunch of sources that don't even support your initial bogus statement! see talk page" So it's a bit WP:KETTLE for you to be accusing the anon of being the disruptive element here. Please, I'd like everyone to calm down, and as FayssalF said, remember WP:BITE and WP:AGF. --El on ka 13:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're getting at Elonka. I've already clearly admitted to you to having been uncivil at times toward that anonymous guy. Where have I denied it? What I did do was point out on your talk page that NAccount was the first to address me in a rude fashion, which I'm of course right about since time stamps readily prove it.

He was the first to turn the discussion personal on the Al-Azhar University history page:

1) no, actually they do; read them again and don't push it (date: 13:40, 30 May 2008 -> he drew first blood)

2) stop pushing your POV; they say "Saladin removed the Shiite Fatimids from power and restored Sunni Islam in Egypt" (date: 13:50, 30 May 2008)

3) fixed; your intentionally disinformative version implies that Azhar became Sunni by choice, and gradually (date: 14:10, 30 May 2008)

4) you're pushing it; see talk (date: 14:46, 30 May 2008)

5) get a life (date: 17:24, 30 May 2008)

6) talk about POV; I'm sure the administrators are wise enough to actually check the sources instead of listening to you (date: 06:22, 1 June 2008)

7) rvv; stop pushing your POV and respect the source, which is Encyclopedia Britannica; also, I don't remember reaching a consensus (date: 23:50, 1 June 2008)

8) NPOV; stop pushing your agenda, your intentions are very clear (date: 16:35, 2 June 2008)

He was also the first to introduce incivility on the talk page:

Egyptians were Shi'a Muslims and when Saladin removed the Fatimids from power and restored Sunni Islam, they became Sunnis. Doesn't it mean that he converted them? Do you know the meaning of convert? (date: 13:53, 30 May 2008)

In short, NAccount was the first to be rude and uncivil in our dealings; it was he that opened up that particular can of worms. He is not a victim in all this since he initiated that very behavior. His rudeness also wasn't just confined to the Al-Azhar University history or talk pages either, but can be found on other Wiki pages as well. Call me crazy, but I refuse to be spoken to like that by anyone. And what about NAccount's attitude toward Mezzo? When he referred to Mezzo repeatedly (1, 2, 3, 4) as "Wahhabi" -- is that not a religious slur? Does that not count for anything? You also write that I replaced sourced material in my reversions of NAccount's edits. That is not entirely accurate. I only twice (1, 2) reverted sourced material; the rest of the time, I was removing untrue POV statements backed by dummy sources, as I've already fully explained on the Al-Azhar talk page. I don't know if you've been reading my posts on your talk page or not, but I've already addressed this matter there too: literally one sentence differentiates NAccount's latest version of the Al-Azhar University page from mine, and that sentence is a direct quote. So what we have here is NAccount repeatedly (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) replacing a sourced, direct quote I put in simply because it didn't fit his agenda with statements that were more to his liking, nevermind the fact that a) my direct quote was drawn from a source that he himself picked out, b) it was in place well before it ever occurred to him to include his own properly referenced direct quote, and c) both Mezzo and I also consider that version far preferable to his. Lastly, the "slander" I was referring to was the fact that NAccount repeatedly attempted to insert a blatantly untrue POV statement about Saladin -- a statement which NAccount also happened to have personally authored -- charging that "Saladin converted Egyptians by force to Sunni Islam". NAccount did this a record of 6 times on the Al-Azhar University page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

He first did this without even bothering to include a source i.e. pure original research. Then, when I called him on it, he began tacking on a bunch of unrelated, dummy sources after the phrase to create the illusion that what he was saying was factual instead of the the POV it was and is. And I know his sources for the above statement are bogus because I followed up on them and posted a report on the talk page.

Administrators who are reading this: Please do not take this matter lightly. This isn't just some silly content dispute, and MezzoMezzo, Shalom and I are not all wrong. NAccount's edits are every bit as disruptive and ill-intentioned as they appear to be. Also, do not be fooled into thinking that he is a newbie. His facility around Wikipedia and his methodical, rapid posting style belie that notion. Please re-read Shalom's post for confirmation of this. If, in his haste to remove all reference to acknowledged terrorists, NAccount may also have happened to have removed reference to one or two folks not yet identified as such, that's great... but it still doesn't excuse his relentless POV edits, provocation, and attempts at concealing the identities of wanted terror suspects. Causteau (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, to be clear:

If someone else is rude, this does not give you the right to be rude back. Neither does it give you the right to ask for the first person to be blocked since "they were rude first". From an administrator's point of view, as soon as both parties are rude to each other, both parties are equally in the wrong. Lesson here: Don't take the bait
In terms of sockpuppetry, I do not believe that all of the above listed IPs are being controlled by the same person, especially because they're coming in from different continents. So it would be wrong to block one person, for actions taken by a different one. First we need to sort out who is who.
Regarding the edit-warring at Al-Azhar University, I am not seeing anything worth blocking the anon for. Instead, I see multiple accounts who were reverting each other, deleting each other's sources, and being equally rude to each other. If I were to block one account, to be fair, I should block them all (including Causteau and MezzoMezzo). But I think that would be excessive.
Blocks at this point would serve little purpose, as blocks are supposed to be preventative, and not punitive. Right now, since NAccount and the anons are not editing, a block really wouldn't do anything. If edit warring starts up again though, then blocks or page protection may be an option.
What this comes down to in terms of this SSP report, is trying to determine whether any of the accounts listed, were used by Klaksonn. So far I've been seeing evidence that the accounts were occasionally disruptive, but that's not proof of sockpuppetry. What I'd like to see instead, is evidence like, "Klaksonn was disruptive on article X,(diffs) and the anon was disruptive in the same way on article X"(diffs). Or "Klaksonn used the following language,(diffs) and the anon used the same language.(diffs)"
In summary, since there was inappropriate behavior all around, what I'd like to do is wipe the slate clean at this point, and move forward. If there's name-calling, or edit-warring, I would ask those who are capable of moderating their behavior, to not respond in kind. Instead:
- Stay civil
- Do not revert, ever, unless you are dealing with truly blatant vandalism or policy violations.
- If you see someone remove something, do not add it back unless you have a source.
- If you see someone add sourced information, and you feel that the sources have been misinterpreted, don't revert. Instead, change the edit to something more appropriate.
- If you see someone add unsourced information, don't revert it, instead, modify it, add your own source, or tag it with a {{fact}} template. If they don't provide a source in a reasonable amount of time, then the information can be deleted,
- Stay civil
- Keep edit summaries very calm and neutral
- Keep talkpage comments very calm and neutral
- In both edit summaries and talkpage comments, avoid using the words "you" and "your". Stick to discussing the article content, instead of the editors involved. There are venues for discussing disruptive editors (such as user talkpages, administrator noticeboards, and SSP reports). But article talkpages should be reserved for discussions of article content.

With the above guidelines (and especially with the more emotionally mature editors staying civil), it'll be much simpler to stabilize things, and identify any truly disruptive elements. Hope that helps, El on ka 17:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I have watched the Al-Azhar dispute from the window and I must say that there was no such real disruption except the edit warring. I have no opinion on the matter of the dispute but it seems that administrators, mainly Elonka, are not being sure if this IP/editor is really a disruptive sockpuppet or not. That is part of assuming good faith and not biting the newbies and I appreciate that.

Well, since sockpuppetry drains much energy from everyone, and due to the report filed above, I run a checkuser. Note that I have no conclusive idea if Klaksonn is running all the accounts. I have no IP information on that since no prior Klaksonn CU has been done before. What is concluded in this case is the fact the IP/NAccount is part of a set of 5 accounts. Only the IP and NAccount have edited Al-Azhar. 2 other accounts edit other areas. The rest (2 others) edit Lebanonn-related articles and one of the accounts violated WP:BLP policy once.

Please prepare a formal request for CheckUser in order to have official confirmation. I'll leave the administrative decision to the admins since they know more details about this case. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updates

I thought I was done but Elonka's last comment re IPs above made me think about it again. So I went to review again the findings of yesterday though I already knew that 63.216.X.X. has been used as a proxy ("Beyond the Network"). 71.x.x.x. is not related.

Back to 63 and 77. In fact they are based on different countries but one is used as a proxy. There are a dozen of accounts. The all share the same set of IPs, the same agent and they edit the same set articles. In fact, I would categorize those areas as following:

Al-Azhar and Saudi Arabia Grand Mufti;
Shia-related articles;
Lebanon politics;
Pakistan-related articles, mainly politics and religion;

While we can argue that it is legitimate to have 4 (or 3 if you'd consider the first two ones as one) separate and different accounts to edit the different areas above, having 12 accounts goes beyond simple violations of sockpuppetry especially when the accounts are used to circumvent Wikipedia policies.

Almost all of these accounts were created recently -- one was created a year ago, some a couple of months ago and the rest a few days ago including 2 that not being used. Everytime I clicked on the check button I thought it would be the last. In fact, there may be other accounts but I got really tired at this stage. Probably another CheckUser can help at the RFCU page.

Again, I cannot make any relationship between all the accounts and related IPs with that of Klaksonn. However, and regardless of Klaksonn, we have here a serious violation of WP:SOCK.

I'll be provinding info on the accounts once a RFCU is opened. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My observations at the time when Klaksonn was at his peak in abusive behaviour (just prior to his indef block) was that he was also using addresses in both Lebanon and US. There were a few times when he would edit anonymously (either intentionally or due to not logging in) although I can't quite remember now, which articles they related to. However, as it was pretty evident who it was, there was no need to raise the SOCK issue (and assuming good faith that it was mostly not intentional). Looking at the current editing tactics and having reviewed many of the edit summaries, I would tend to agree with MezzoMezzo that it is Klaksonn. I would've suggested that after all this time, maybe it would be worth giving him another chance but given the behaviour, if it can be conclusively proved that it is Klaksonn, would suggest a more stringent ban. → AA ^(talk) — 13:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The CheckUser results could not prove that there is a connection with Klaksonn. There might be a connection if behaviour is similar but now after all this process we can guarantee for sure that any disruption similar to that of Klaksonnn can lead to a ban. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updates 2

I have just received an email from the editor is question. In the email, the user is recognizing the fact that he has been operating multiple accounts, with no mention to Klaksonn, and where he feels sorry for the reciprocal incivility which he promises he will refrain from engaging in. He also apologizes and promises not to do it again.

In my answer to the email, I reminded him as I reminded MezzoMezzo twice that NPOV and CIVIL should be observed all the time.

Now, apart from the SOCK policy prohibiting using open proxies and, for protective and transparency reasons this editor has been informed that will be also prohibited from using regular IP editing. The user will have separate accounts for each main area: Naccount for Islam, one for Lebanon and another for Pakistan-related articles as noted above. There are also other areas I got to discover while digging further (please see more details and rationale below). For privacy reasons, the only person, probably other CheckUsers and some admins, entitled to know about the usernames of these accounts is me. I'd let Elonka know if she has no problems in keeping an eye on the situation especially that both sides believe she is a neutral admin on this issue.

I will be blocking (two have already been blocked) the following accounts:

Abanza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (an account created solely to harass opponents)
Bonizus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (zero edits - no need for it)
Carticus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (Shi'a articles)
Clombo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (Lebanese bios)
ForVandalism (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (as it sounds)
Kartikus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (a déja vu - re Carticus)
Lccn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (articles already touched by other accounts)
Nasrulana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (this account made some decent edits but edits the same area as one of the oldest accounts)
OtherAccount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (uselss and resonates so bad)

Please note that the block rationale is independent from the extra but needed comentaries in parenthesis.

There are 2 constructive accounts left. One is mainly dedicated to music, sports, popular articles and AfDs. No disruption and I must say that it is a very constructive and satisfying account. There is another one which has made no more than a few edits including the creation of an Iranian biography stub that has little to do with politics or religion in the real sense. I personally see no reason to block these accounts. However, I will not hesitate to block any of them in case they interfere with the editing of any of the three main areas described above; Islam, Lebanon and Pakistan topics.

I will now assume good faith and go on but make sure that administrators and myself will be watching from a distance. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on this FayssalF, and yes, feel free to keep me in the loop. My email address is elonka@aol.com --El on ka 16:09, 6 June 2008 (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:IconoplastDesignsInc.

Suspected sockpuppeteer: IconoplastDesignsInc. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

MasterPlaster. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Report submission by

_{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 18:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

IconoplastDesignsInc. blocked for username. Not yet unblocked and this was not the name s/he applied for. New account with fishy name based on industry began contributing to Iconoplast Designs, see here. Suspected sock currently blocked 12 hours for spamming the same information, sock secondary. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 18:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I can't see deleted revisions. Based on what I can see, it appears likely that these are the same person. Yechiel (Shalom) 22:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and the silence from the main account while the IP is blocked for 12 hours following the second's spamming speaks volumes. We shall see when the block expires in six hours. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 00:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Iconoplast... is indef-blocked as an inappropriate username and for behavior. MasterPlaster has been blocked twice. The more recent block expired on June 19, and he has not edited since. I would say this is his last chance: any more spam, and he may reasonably expect a very long block. Yechiel (Shalom) 03:14, 23 June 2008 (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:Hearsomeinfo

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Hearsomeinfo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Babaloo40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

_{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 16:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

See discussion here as well as here.

Comments

TravelingCari has indef-blocked Babaloo40 and blocked Hearsomeinfo for 24 hours. This makes sense to me. I considered that Babaloo40 might be the same as Babalooo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Babalooobabalooo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but there is no evidence to support this. Yechiel (Shalom) 22:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and I'm happy to report that Hearsomeinfo has not resumed his/her spamming once unblocked. Only one of the company's articles is salted, glad it was all finally made clear. I don't think there's any question of this sockpuppetry though. Hope s/hell stick to one non-spamming account. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I support Travellingcari's decision. Babaloo40 is indef-blocked, but Hearsomeinfo is free to edit. Yechiel (Shalom) 03:11, 23 June 2008 (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:Truthdemon

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

SensibleSam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
38.112.113.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
76.105.214.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
67.42.148.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
67.42.148.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.61.185.255 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
99.163.241.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

neon white talk 16:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mysterious Universe seems to be plagued by ip and new accounts with few or no other edits making far too similar comments showing little understanding of afd, deletion or general wikipedia policy. Possible sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry?

Comments

I am at 99.163.241.82 today and the inclusion of that IP above is nonsense. I commented to point out an apparent misunderstanding on the part of another commenter on that page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.163.241.82 (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think AFD closing administrators are familiar with how to handle situations like this. The votes by these users are all related, either by sockpuppetry or off-wiki communication, and for the purpose of answering the deletion request it makes little difference. Judge the arguments, not the numbers. I will be commenting in the AFD. Yechiel (Shalom) 23:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know how to fight this, and frankly don't care. Truthdemon is the only login I use for wikipedia. I sign in from work and home, thus the different IP addresses, I guess. I have never signed in under a different username. I have no idea who sensible sam is. I may have forgotten to sign in, and edited the wiki without signing in, but I can't be certain. Some of those up there could be me, but tried to sign in every time. Franky, accusing me of sockpupetry, or whatever, seems a lame excuse for disregarding my comments. I only created the account to keep the Mysterious Universe Wiki A)updated and B) fairly evenhanded, since someone, initially Thekloofy and now DestroHolmes seemed to want to whitewash (and now delete) the entry. If you wonder who I am, I am Gatorbobo; I was Gatorbobo at Mysterious Universe (before the Forums were deleted) and I use the same username in other forums as well. I'm easy to find, if you want to verify my existence. Truthdemon (talk) 04:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Gatorbobo[reply]

Conclusions

The AFD was closed as delete. The question of sockpuppetry is academic. I see SensibleSam is a second named account, but Truthdemon claims innocence, so I'll assume good faith and let it pass. Yechiel (Shalom) 03:09, 23 June 2008 (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:Eurofinishusa

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Eurofinishusa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Eurofinishusa2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Harvard2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

_{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 15:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Repeated distruptive editing on Seesmic _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 15:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same pattern, new account. Going to file RFCU to ferret out others, whack a mole getting old. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 01:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

RFCU filed _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 01:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser confirmed all accounts listed here are socks of Eurofinishusa. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Sockpuppets are blocked. Main account is free to resume editing but has not done so. Yechiel (Shalom) 02:56, 23 June 2008 (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:GENIUS(4th_power)

Suspected sockpuppeteer: GENIUS(4th_power) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Tratos the Great (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Bill_Dingabridge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

Tombomp (talk/contribs) 16:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Similar userboxes[71][72]
Almost identical talk page headers that AFAIK aren't used by anyone else[73][74]
Genius last edited at 03:36, 15 June 2008, due to his block. Tratos started on 01:17, 18 June 2008.
Awards pages which start with hello even though they didn't have any awards yet[75][76]
First edit of Tratos was making a userpage[77]

Comments

Hey, you ever thought about the fact that maybe people are like each other? I made my awards because i am very close to getting one due to my efforts against vandalism, helping out other users, and by helping clean up pages. My userbox was actually copied from a user, i just made edits to it (unfortunatly i cannot seem to recall that users name, but i know it wasnt Genius). Some of the userbox is still in liking to the other user, i havent gotten to editing that. What does AFAIK mean? And yes, the talk page header i got from another user (no Genius) which i am looking up rite now as a matter of fact, ill keep ya posted. And i started editing after i created my account which was on about June 18th when i was at my friend Josh's house ( he has an account and convinced me to join and help since i used Wikipedia alot for school). And i made a userpage because i sort of need one, if thats not obvious. K, im now going to find that user who i copied the userbox from and the other user who i copied the talk page header from. Bye>|< (p.s- this is Tratos>|<)

Hey I found it

For my talk page template, i used Stwalkerster's to copy and paste. After that, i just made it look pretty. Still looking for the userboxes, though. Ill keep ya posted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tratos the Great (talk • contribs) 17:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

All of the accounts are indef-blocked. I support this decision. If the accounts had not yet been blocked, I would have recommended blocking them because the contribution profiles are very similar. Yechiel (Shalom) 02:22, 23 June 2008 (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:Zosimo Montez

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Zosimo Montez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

ZMontez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
ZRMontez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Kevin McE (talk) 11:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Identical user pages This is Zosimo "Zosy" R. Montez.This is my first account. This is my user page and you can leave me a comment in my talk page. Enjoy!

Apparent admission (although not realising that the practice is frowned upon) here.

This does not appear to be malicious, and may have come about through dodging blocks related to a suggestion (the accuracy of which I cannot vouch for, except that both seem interested in Philippine radio stations) that this user is linked to User:Pinoybandwagon.

Making appeals against be blocked, all in capitals, as ZRMontez has done was identified as a characteristic of Pinoybandwagon

The accounts seem to be being used in series (Zosimo Montez 28-31 May, ZMontez 1-5 June, ZRMontez on 7 June).

I have not had time, nor do I have knowledge of his areas of interest, to check whether the user's contributions are constructive. Maybe an admin can help the user: chastisement may not be called for. Kevin McE (talk) 11:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'd say this is a pretty clear-cut case: All we need is an admin and I'd say this is sorted...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 17:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The contributions of this user are identical to User:Pinoybandwagon on topics covered, articles edited, user page, specific edits, behaviour, messages, ownership of the same articles, etc., see the evidence I gathered at this ANI thread, and the sock case. The only change is that he is not moving the articles to the brand names anymore. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the light of his plea of innocence below, could ZRMontez please comment on this allegation. Kevin McE (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I have 3 accounts is because User:Orangemike blocked my first 2 accounts for no reason! ZRMontez (talk) 04:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you claim on all three accounts that it is your first one? Kevin McE (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

All above accounts now blocked indef as sockpuppets. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:12, 8 June 2008 (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:Miyokan

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Miyokan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Ilya1166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

While the checkuser case came back unlikely, some recent ArbCom cases (e.g., Giovanni33 and SevenOfDiamonds) have shown that fooling a checkuser is not entirely impossible. I can also attest to this myself, as most of the IPs I come on through (and there are a lot) are off by a few hundred, sometimes a few thousand miles. Additionally, the new editor has edited quite a bit since the checkuser case, and additional evidence continues to present itself that a WP:DUCK comparison is quite likely. If this is not an obvious case, I would hate to see one that is obvious.

1. Immediately below I have presented the same articles edited by the two editors, and User:Ilya1166, a self-admitted sock [78]. For certain articles, it makes sense both would edit them (e.g., Moscow); for others, it is extremely questionable (e.g., Indian MRCA Competition). Additionally, you will notice that the locus of edits is on the same articles

Article¶	User:Ilya1166	User:Miyokan	User:Berkunt
Russia‎	809	1224	37
Talk:Russia	79	218	20
Ukraine‎	2	129	2
Israel	0	1	1
Moscow	0	6	1
Poland	0	2	1
Template:Largest cities of Russia‎	0	29	3
Template talk:Largest cities of Russia‎	0	29	1
Russia national ice hockey team‎	0	2	4
Serge Lifar	0	6	1
Nikolai Gogol	0	6	7
Grozny	0	5	2
Battle of Poltava	0	7	1
Ukrainian language	0	1	2
Ilya Repin	0	8	1
Soviet war in Afghanistan	0	11	1
Dmitry Medvedev	0	11	1
Siege of Leningrad	1	4	1
Iraq War	0	2	5
Eastern Europe	0	1	2
Indian MRCA Competition	3	0	1
Sukhoi PAK FA	2	0	5
Template:Russia topics	4	0	3

2. User:Berkunt is clearly somebody's sock: his very first edits are vandalism reversion, with the proper syntax and all: [79]. He is awfully knowledgeable of policy for his third day: [80], and second month: [81].

3. The two users both have a surprisingly good grasp on the English language for a Russian.

4. The two users both edit exclusively (or nearly so) articles dealing with Russia, Eastern Europe, and related politics, in that order, with a heavily nationalistic Russian bent, for which the user is willing to edit war.

5. Both editors make extensive arguments in edit wars in their edit summaries.

6. Both editors use very similar language:

Article¶	User:Ilya1166/ User:Miyokan	User:Berkunt
"self revert" in edit summary	[82]	[83] [84]
"see talk" in edit summary	[85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91]	[92] [93] [94]
frequently uses word "consensus", misspelt as word as "concensus"	[95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101], etc.	[102] [103]
referencing Encyclopedia Britannica in an edit war	[104] [105] [106] [107] etc.	[108]

Also cf. edit summary 1 vs. edit summary 2

7. Same edits across different ac

a. Berkunt takes umbrage [109] with removal of material added by Miyokan [110]

b. Berkunt knows this has been discussed before, despite it being his first edit here, probably because Miyokan was the one adding it before

c. Removal of Ukranian spelling: [111] [112]

d. Edit warring over images on Grozny: [113] vs. [114] [115]

e. The primary rationale for invading was Iraqs alleged possession of WMDs: [116] [117]

f. Edit warring to insert the same economic figures in Poland: [118] [119]

g. Exactly the same edit war with the Ukranians on Nikolai Gogol (both editors have 6-7 edits).

h. ... and on Serge Lifar (this makes 3, with c and g)

i. edit warring over use of term "Ukraine": [120] [121]

j. I will not bother with similaries on Russia: there are too many edits, and I believe the similarities listed above are enough.

8. General editing similarities, "intangibles", if you will. Both editors are obviously intelligent, and usually smart enough to avoid a block.

Comments

Convincing. Add to this the very similar habits in uploading serial copyvio images, as discussed recently on User talk:Moreschi. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I am Miyokan, why didn’t somebody just ask me? I don’t know what exactly I’ve done wrong? I created a new account to have a fresh start. I haven’t been involved in any edit warring on this account - check my contributions for yourself. I did not read the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry so I didn’t know there was anything wrong with creaing a new account, but now I see Moreschi is worried about a provision called Wikipedia:Sock_puppet#Avoiding_scrutiny. I see there is also something called Wikipedia:Sock_puppets#Clean_start_under_a_new_name. The Evil Spartan wrote:

Edit warring over images on Grozny: [122] vs. [123] [124]- What edit warring?

Edit warring to insert the same economic figures in Poland: [125] [126]- What edit warring?

Edit warring over use of term "Ukraine": [127] [128]- What edit warring?

My main work has consisted of fighting vandalism. When my contributions get reverted in almost all cases do not bother to revert them back, and in the rare cases when I do, I usually go to the talk page before. After that I do not bother with a third revert. --Berkunt (talk) 12:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Okay, identity established. I note that in one sense Berkunt is right: It in fact would have been appropriate to first simply ask him. (That step seems to be forgotten all too often in these SSP cases). However, the "clean start" justification is not really applicable, because that implies a complete change in editing patterns. If you fail the duck test, the start wasn't really so fresh. Nevertheless, a change of account, especially now that it's out in the open, is generally tolerated. That leaves us with a finding of block evasion during the first day of Berkunt's editing, but that is stale now. Berkunt will of course be under closer scrutiny in the future than he would otherwise be, given the substantial block logs on his earlier accounts (and I'll leave it to other admins to determine if there's a pattern of concern), but I don't see grounds for a sockpuppetry block as such at this point.

However, one formal sanction that's clearly necessary: For a persistent pattern of copyvio image abuse, Berkunt/Miyokan is banned, until further notice, from making any image uploads. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Additionally, I've annotated Berkunt's block log (by blocking him for one second, autoblock disabled) to include links to the block logs of his two prior accounts. This can probably now be closed. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:34, 21 June 2008 (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:Andreaonline

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Andreaonline (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Wikiprompt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

_{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 05:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

All admin only for deletions but see the two users' deleted contribs as well as the histories of 1 Andrea Concepcion, Andrea Aquino Concepcion, Andrea aquino concepcion and ANDREA AQUINO CONCEPCION.

Comments

Conclusions

Both accounts are blocked indefinitely. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 12:58, 22 June 2008 (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:Jvolkblum (11th)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

KevinMcAllister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Hanae Mori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
202.95.157.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
ConcertoNo.888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
~~Signal52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)~~
DueAmici (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Hayes E Recollection (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Mintjulip52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

BlueAzure (talk) 22:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

KevinMcAllister was created at 17:14 on 30 May 2008, an account with the same name was created on the commons at 01:33 on 31 May 2008. The account on the commons was blocked due to this thread, the account was not mentioned in the thread before the block and had made no edits so the account must have picked up by a checkuser. Their first edit was to create a user talk page with a welcome template. Many of their edits have been to articles related to Westchester County. They have used mathematical symbols in many of their edits summaries (a few examples [129] [130] [131] [132]), a common Jvolkblum trait.

Adding Hanae Mori. This account was created 09:13, 6 June 2008, and its first edit 3 minutes later was to lecture a long-standing editor regarding Wikipedia policy.[133] Subsequently, it proceeded to edit articles in which Jvolkblum puppets have had a continuing interest. Along the way, it created a user page that looks remarkably like others created for Jvolkblum puppets. --Orlady (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Jvolkblum as you have claimed. My activity is specific to the Guilbert and Betelle article because I was searching online for that topic in particular when I saw the copyrighted text within the article. I signed up for an account to point out this issue. The original article had the following : Guilbert and Betelle was an architecture firm that was a prolific designer of schools and architectural buildings throughout the East Coast of the United States, notable for its adaptation of diverse styles to create a new American "Collegiate Gothic" style of school architecture. The firm was a partnership of Ernest F. Guilbert and James Oscar Betelle.
this is the same text from the website 'http://www.vineland.org/history/landisschool/architecture/architecture.htm' which reads: The firm of Guilbert and Betelle, architects of Landis School, were prolific designers of schools and architectural buildings throughout the East. James Betelle specialized in adapting diverse styles to create a new American style of school architecture
also, the article originally read: After Guilbert's death in 1916, Betelle became the owner of the firm. He was architect for hundreds of schools in five different states and a consultant on many more. Two of these schools, Greenwich High School in Greenwich, Connecticut and the Radburn School in Fair Lawn, New Jersey are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Betelle's organization was architect for such buildings as the Essex County Hall of Records, Newark, New Jersey, Hotels Robert Treat and Alexander Hamilton, Chamber of Commerce Building, Essex Club (now the New Jersey Historical Society) and a half dozen banks, also in Newark, New Jersey.
The same website 'http://www.vineland.org/history/landisschool/architecture/architecture.htm' reads: After Mr. Guilbert's death in 1916, J.O. Betelle became the owner of the firm. He set its policies, controlled its business, obtained the work and managed the entire organization. He was architect for hundreds of schools in five different states and a consultant on many more. Two of these schools, Greenwich High School in Connecticut and the Radburn School in New Jersey are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Included in the firm's work, his organization was architect for such buildings as the Hall of Records, Newark, New Jersey, Hotels Robert Treat and Alexander Hamilton, Chamber of Commerce Building, Essex Club and a half dozen banks, also in Newark, New Jersey.
I added an image of a school to the article because I found it available on the Wikipedia site already. I did not find any other photographs available. The other photograph on the website seems to have copyright issues as well which have been pointed out. I would appreciate it if I could be removed from this list. Thank You. --Hanae Mori (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also adding IP 202.95.157.17 (registered in Indonesia) that I am sure is Jvolkblum using a proxy; edits are to Beechmont, New York (recently created by a Jvolkblum puppet) and articles on related topics. --Orlady (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding User:ConcertoNo.888, a sleeper account that has not yet edited here. This account was created on June 3 at 09:18 (a few minutes before several already-blocked socks of Jvolkblum). A user by the same name uploaded several images of New Rochelle (some already deleted; all with doubtful status) at Commons (see Commons contributions log). Some of those images were inserted into articles here by IP 202.95.157.17 (noted above). --Orlady (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding User:Signal52: registered on 1 June; only edit so far was to an article in Jvolkblum's neighborhood (this diff). The edit added fairly trivial content (a hallmark of Jvolkblum) that was sourced to two NYTimes articles that cannot be found on the comprehensive NYTimes website (one of Jvolkblum's practices is to supply plausible-sounding nonexistent sources), with reference callouts improperly formatted in the same manner as many others I have seen from Jvolkblum. --Orlady (talk) 22:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I am not sure if this is the correct place to communicate this, but I am not Jvolkblum and do not know who he is. The two New York Times articles I linked to are legitimate. They are in the New York Times archive -- on the New York Times website you have to change the search box to search pre-1981 articles. Though you do need to pay to access the full article, the previews of the articles are available at http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10913FA355B1B778DDDA90994D0405B838BF1D3&scp=1&sq=A+Strategic+Retreat+for+Headquarters+of+Washington&st=p and http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60C11F9395410728DDDAB0A94DE405B8084F1D3&scp=1&sq=A+Washington+Memorial+Renovated%2C&st=p. I appreciate your vigilance, but please remove the sockpuppetry accusation from my account. Signal52 (talk) 22:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've stricken the statements. --Orlady (talk) 23:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Yeah, it's probably him. At this point, I'm almost tempted to just let him be and pretend we don't notice, as if to say, "We know it's you, so stop creating sockpuppets and we'll leave you alone." On second thoght, though, it's probably better to block and wait for Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (12th) which is evidently not too far in the future. (Can anybody talk to this guy? He's obviously a student in the New York area...) Yechiel (Shalom) 01:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with that plan is that Jvolkblum and puppets can and do create major messes in the encyclopedia (and at Commons), including inserting deliberate errors in articles, uploading numerous copyvio images that they claim to be self-made, de-wikifying articles, and harassing other users by posting nuisance templates on articles. (What am I forgetting?) It requires an enormous amount of user effort just to reverse the changes and add deletion templates to the bad images, and that doesn't even include explaining the situation to other users who are skeptical about assertions that the Jvolkblum content is bad (for example, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Rochelle (Zip-Code Areas), New York and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Castle, New Rochelle). --Orlady (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hanae Mori is pretty likely to be a sock based on their editing. In this edit they added a photo of New Rochelle High School (one of their main articles of interest) to Guilbert and Betelle, it also appears part of their promotion of New Rochelle as they moved a picture that was already in the article down to the bottom of the page. Most of their edits were to Guilbert and Betelle, which another Jvolkblum sock focused on the same day. DueAmici was created at 04:50 on 6 June 2008. Their only edits have been to list Image:Great-neck-hs.jpg as a possible copyvio, the image appears on Guilbert and Betelle. In this edit they appended their signature to a comment by 85.219.9.3 (talk · contribs). That IP address is from spain and the only other edits from that IP address were to revert the reversion of Jvolkblum socks [134] [135].

Hayes E Recollection was created at 05:47 on 7 June 2008, three minutes later they created a user page. Their first to articles edit were to a Sarah Lawrence College related article Fawaz Gerges [136] [137], which I had edited the day before. The rest of their edits have been to List of Sarah Lawrence College people which has been edited by many Jvolkblum socks recently. In two of their edits summaries they used a mathematical symbol (>) [138] [139], the same one was used multiple times by KevinMcAllister [140] [141] [142] [143]. In this edit they inserted in commented out form the most recent version of the article contents as edited by a Jvolkblum sock (that IP address was blocked as an open proxy). In the comment out section they claimed " this article keep getting vandalised". A previous sock Fajnzylberg101 (talk · contribs) had made an edit reverting the article back to Jvolkblum's version with an edit summary claiming that the reversion of Jvolkblum material was vandalism. BlueAzure (talk) 23:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted a RFCU today. The results confirm several names listed here, plus some others. --Orlady (talk) 02:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jvolkblum (scroll down). Kevin McAllister and Hanae Mori are confirmed. I haven't checked the others. Anyone want to block them? Yechiel (Shalom) 23:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the names in this report have now been blocked based on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jvolkblum results, together with several additional users. Specifically, blocks were applied to:

KevinMcAllister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
DueAmici (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
MattHeffernan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Serbenica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
BuckWestonJr. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
MarwahKarsah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I'm Afraid I Must Go (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Glo-DEAN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hanae Mori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am adding User:Mintjulip52 to this report; this new user's only edits have been restoring an article version created by Serbenica, a Jvolkblum sock and added a "citation needed" template in a seemingly random location within an article that is sourced but has no inline citations (this type of edit is typical of the Jvolkblum socks). --Orlady (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Blocked all that weren't already blocked (except the one crossed out). I'm sure we'll see report 12 on him soon. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:01, 22 June 2008 (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:Workplaceinfo

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

--Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Both accounts have only one contribution each: the creation of the attack page Larkined it.

Comments

Admin assistance is needed to view deleted edits. Yechiel (Shalom) 01:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Yes, one edit each to the same article. Both vandals, blocked as vandals. Prob throwaway accounts. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:53, 22 June 2008 (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:Gogetaki2008

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Gogetaki2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Gogetaki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Gogetaki2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 75.24.248.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 75.24.247.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Cenarium (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

The contributions are all related to Soukgogon, a non notable "new anime", without sources (see prod), just a page on youtube.

Comments

Soukgogon has been created and deleted several times, see the log and is now protected against recreation. The other pages have been deleted as well. Cenarium (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's half the job well-done. The other half is blocking all of the accounts except for one. Anyone want to volunteer? Yechiel (Shalom) 01:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Blocking two socks indef, main open 48 hours. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:47, 22 June 2008 (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:Hdayejr (2nd)

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Hdayejr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Been in Checkuser?	IP/User Info	Date added
Yes	68.29.177.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Yes	68.31.102.232‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Yes	72.60.209.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)	23:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes	99.205.236.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)	23:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes	70.14.87.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)	23:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes	68.29.201.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)	01:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes	70.9.243.200‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)	01:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes	72.59.120.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)	02:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes	99.205.195.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)	23:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes	70.9.23.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)	00:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes	68.29.192.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)	04:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes	65.31.32.222‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)	16:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes	70.9.237.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)	00:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes	99.201.216.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)	02:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes	74.249.0.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)	05:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes	98.192.44.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)	21:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes	71.62.241.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)	20:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
	68.31.223.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)	00:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
	68.31.248.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)	05:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
	99.201.240.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)	03:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
	99.205.219.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)	19:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
	72.60.131.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)	00:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Report submission by

Jaysweet (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

First edit was pure vandalism, next six edits were undos of User:Dayewalker ([144] [145] [146] [147], oh I'm tired of copying links), who Hdayejr has been stalking due to username.

Hdayejr is really persistent, please do not close the SSP case as was done with Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/User:Hdayejr. He's jsut going to keep coming back and we need a centralized place to add his new IP socks.

Comments

Struck my request above to keep this case open, as per a conversation I had with R. Baley. Future "simple sockpuppetry" by Hdayejr will be reported to ANI. Thanks, and feel free to close! --Jaysweet (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

For all the good it will do, I've blocked the IP for 31 hours for ban evasion and disruption. R. Baley (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to leave this open for a couple of days because Dedalus asked me to reopen the old case: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/User:Hdayejr. Yechiel (Shalom) 23:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing per above. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:44, 22 June 2008 (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:Leedryburgh

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Dgtsyb (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Direct evidence of sock puppetry:

Additional external link spamming and confict of interest activities of IP sock puppet:

Additional puppet master activity:

Comments

The IP sock puppet is used repeatedly to add external link spam pointing to the puppet master's commercial websites, removing and vandalising competing and existing links. The puppet master avoids adding link spam but, instead, adjusts, positions more favorably, corrects, and defends in talk pages, the links added by the IP sock puppet. Note that although the puppet master has claimed to be Lee Dryburgh, the author of a recent book on SS7 (to which all of these articles are related), neither the puppet master nor the IP sock puppet have contributed any content to the articles.

Comment by Dgtsyb

The puppet master has used the IP sock puppet to avoid scrutiny and hide conflict of interest for the purpose of repeated external link spamming, deletion and other vandalism for commercial gain or advantage. The puppet master and IP sock puppet accounts should be blocked for the appropriate period. --- Dgtsyb (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Counter

The above claim is completely false. It is with much regret that user Dgtsyb persists in harmful actions and time wasting of others. My full response to the claim above can be found here Talk:Signaling System 7#third_opinion. Unless there is a reason not to, I suggest that the conversation be continued there since that is the place where the above claim originated. LeeDryburgh (talk) 22:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally please note that another user posted "first, I think accusations of sock-puppetry are unnecessary, here. I don't see any indication that the anon edits were in bad faith, particularly since Leedryburgh mentioned them outright." (see start of Talk:Signaling System 7#third_opinion) before Dgtsyb made the accusation here. This suggests that Dgtsyb may not have good intent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leedryburgh (talk • contribs) 22:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Shalom

In my capacity here, I review the question over whether two user accounts are the same person or two different people. That question is not in dispute. Leedryburgh has admitted that he edits from the IP address listed above. The edits by Leedryburgh and the IP address complement one another: there is no evidence, as far as I can see, of a deliberate attempt to conceal this connection or to pretend that these were two users in such a way as to win a content dispute. In other words, there is no violation of the sockpuppet policy. It is permitted for users not to login if they prefer to edit anonymously: I have done this myself many times.

The dispute here needs to be resolved by other means. I am no expert at dispute resolution, but I will try to mediate if I can help. I can see at the talk page discussion that two mediators, Ludwig2 and Athaenara, are already making progress to reach a compromise or understanding. Yechiel (Shalom) 04:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to Athaenara's question over there: I see no evidence to link Leedryburgh to any previous user account. Yechiel (Shalom) 04:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on this clear attempt to avoid scrutiny by concealing conflict of interest through use of an IP address. Why does Leedryburgh refer to himself as "someone else"? In this case, if other editors knew that the IP address and Leedryburgh were one in the same, the conflict of interest would have been apparent instead of concealed. This seems to fit the very definition of the policy of avoiding scrutiny: the edits would have been inappropriate from the single user, and Leedryburgh conceals his connection to the IP address that would have made editors aware of the conflict.

If this is not sock puppetry, please tell me how it is acceptable so that I can begin using this technique to my own advantage with anonynmous edits and external link spam placement. I too wish to be told that it is okay to use a dialup IP address to place an otherwise conflict of interest external link to my personal and corporate websites, and then bless those additions with Dgtsyb edits, sufficient enough to make the original IP address addition impossible to revert simply. Because if this practice is okay, I can surely use it to my own advantage too. — Dgtsyb (talk) 05:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you make a good point. I did not notice that particular trick, and it is not allowed for the reasons you say. Now I won't punish Leedryburgh because there's not much I can do. (Even I were an admin, which I'm not, blocks are preventative, not punitive.) It would be appropriate for him to acknowledge that lying is wrong.

This should have no effect on the substance of the dispute, but like I said, lying is wrong. And it looks like Leedryburgh lied. Yechiel (Shalom) 00:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you giving the evidence additional consideration and for clarifying this instance for me. I cannot speak to the application or duration of blocks as I have no experience in that regard. It is enough for me that the placement of links in this fashion is acknowledged as deceitful. In the matter of the dispute, I have agreed to abide by Ludwigs2's proposed resolution on Talk:Signaling System 7#third opinion, so I will now withdraw from this matter as well. Thank you. — Dgtsyb (talk) 01:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Athaenara

With regard to "Athaenara's question over there" (on Talk:Signaling System 7#External Links) mentioned above by Shalom:

After I asked this question:

"To Leedryburgh (talk · contribs): Are you also M i t r a (who is 38.99.84.14 - e.g. here) and Ad99sl? — Athaenara ✉ 00:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

the reply was:

"No, why do you ask? Leedryburgh (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

I asked because, like user Leedryburgh, they exhibited some or all of the following:

adding new posts to top of page
dating with false timestamp or none
signing at top of post
signing with nonexistent userpage link
promoting external links, with similar arguments

For example:

63.204.19.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

20:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC) signed "Mitra [ [[User:M_I_T_R_A|Mitra]] ] 9 Nov 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
20:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC) signed "Mitra [ [[User:M_I_T_R_A|Mitra]] ] 10 Nov 2006"[reply]

ad99sl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

16:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC) added at top of page, signed "ad99sl 22 Nov 2006 (UTC)" at top of post[reply]

m i t r a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

09:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC) signed "User:m_i_t_r_a 25 November 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
10:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC) signed "User:m_i_t_r_a 26 November 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
20:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC) signed "User:m_i_t_r_a 27 November 2006"[reply]

38.99.84.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

02:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC) signed "User:m_i_t_r_a 26 November 2006"[reply]

(Userlinks and diffs posted for clarification.) — Athaenara ✉ 18:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's very interesting. It's certainly possible that these are the same user, but there is no way to prove it. You can suspect it, but you can't prove it. Checkuser doesn't go back to 2006, and even if it did the user would probably have changed his IP address since then, so we don't have that option either. Yechiel (Shalom) 00:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find it interesting, but it takes all kinds to make the world up! As I said in the first instance it has zero connection with me. And the talk about "false stamps" was simply because I did not know you could use 4x~ to do it automatically. Leedryburgh (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The emphasis in the comparisons is not so much on the "falsity" of timestamps (though the falsity of some sigs is significant) as on the similarities. — Athaenara ✉ 16:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth, I do not think that these are sock puppets of Leedryburgh and that is why I did not list them. Linkbit and bittech's interests appear orthogonal. Similarities are likely due to the later emulating the former unpunished behaviour. Expect more of the same, as Leedryburgh has now shown others that variations and protestations will avoid punishment.

Leedryburgh performed a variation of the above in several ways:

The 63.204.19.188 address resolves to Linkbit Inc: 80.108.90.135 resolves to some broadband access in Austria. My suspicion would be that Leedryburgh seeing 63.204.19.188 getting caught in his anonymous COI external link spamming decided on additional indirection to avoid the same detection. (And it worked for longer than a year.)
Leedryburgh immediately admitted to the address upon detection, feigning the injured party. This is now an easy way to avoid repercussions that others can use with cookie cutter accuracy.

Expect more to come in the way of emulations and copycatting of this behaviour: the barn door is swinging wide. Dgtsyb (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by EdJohnston

I agree with Shalom that this report doesn't show a violation of WP:SOCK, and I suggest that it be closed without action, as soon as the discussion is finished. The account named as the puppet, 80.108.90.135 (talk · contribs), has made only four edits in 2008. It appears that Leedryburgh and the IP are likely the same editor. Now that he has a named account, Leedryburgh has stopped editing with the IP. There was a brief overlap period where the misleading edit summary about 'someone else' was made. The replacement of sigtran.org with sigtran.net with a deceptive edit summary was abusive in my opinion, and is getting close to a block. If Leedryburgh persists in adding links against consensus, I suggest that a report be made to the spam authorities, who are more suited to this kind of complaint. If User:Dgtsyb is satisfied with the compromise arranged by User:Ludwigs2 at Talk:Signaling System 7#third opinion then it might be best to leave things as they are and not request any further admin actions, either here or at the spam noticeboard. I am adding some pages to my own watchlist to be sure that things go straight from now on. EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Closed with no action, per the discussion above. I checked with the submitter, User:Dgtsyb, and he does not object. EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2008 (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:Nimbley6 (3rd)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Nimbley6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

Kevin Forsyth (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

As previously shown in WP:Suspected sock puppets/Nimbley6 (2nd), this user — also known to administrators as User:Bennet556 — keeps coming back to make low-quality edits to Kilmarnock and its environs, as well as add information about himself. In this case he has created User:Kristopher James Owen Nimbley and made his user page look like an article about an actor.

Comments

Look at the username! It is definitely a sockpuppet, I should know! StewieGriffin! • Talk 17:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the contribs of the accounts but not the IP addresses. They seem to match what we already know about Nimbley. I think it's reasonable to block these guys, deleted the userpage of Kristopher James Owen Nimbley, and semiprotect Kilmarnock for a while. For future reference, please do not reveal the real names of contributors if you can avoid it (although simply saying that the username is identical to the real name is okay). Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. My (misguided) intent was to call this user out, but naming him undoubtedly plays into his desire for self-aggrandisement. That said, can someone please put these blocks in place? He's back again, and creating new accounts as quickly as we can identify them. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another user with a similar username and an identical user page to one already listed here: Kristopher J Nimbley (talk · contribs) [148]. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 22:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And another: Kris (Quiz K) (talk · contribs) -- Kevin Forsyth (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And another: Robert5564 (talk · contribs). Different style username, but created 109 Bluevale street (East End), which I believe was already created by another of the socks and subsquently deleted. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 17:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another anonymous: 78.148.71.24 (talk · contribs). Attempting to reintroduce many of the same edits to Kilmarnock. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add another anon: 78.150.157.91 (talk · contribs). Seriously, this is becoming a bit of a joke at this stage. The kid has a couple dozen socks. Can a range block please be placed? Thanks. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 19:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another possible, but not yet 100% certain: Doorspiteweekscrazy (talk · contribs). Typical inappropriate cut-and-paste additions from other pages ([149]), and the usual fascination with Kilmarnock ([150]). Kevin Forsyth (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another: Music4545 (talk · contribs) More cut-and-paste additions from other pages ([151], [152]), heavy typos and the same subjects in Kilmarnock edits [153]. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

All named accounts blocked indef and tagged. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:31, 22 June 2008 (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:Tennis scores 2

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Tennis scores (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Tennis scores 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 19:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

The username is exactly the same. A possible single purpose account as both users have used there userspace as a tennis scores record. Wikipedia is not a webhost. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 19:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, as Wikipedia isn't a webhost, that has nothing to do with Wikipedia, I know. But the fact that these are the same person is definite (i think). StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 19:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Dragonfly67 gave an interesting reason in his block log for Tennis scores. [154]

+250 edits to userpage and 1 edit to an article = not a useful contributor

Regardless of the merits of this rationale, the same rationale applies to Tennis scores 2. He has just two edits to Alexander the Great, and all other edits are to his userpage. The similarity in names complements the similarity in behavior. These are one person.

That being said, since at least some admins would disagree with Dragonfly's original block, I will seek an outside opinion. My suggestion is that the block is valid and a block-evading sock should not be allowed to continue editing in the same behavior pattern that got him blocked in the first place, but I'm open to a dissenting opinion. Yechiel (Shalom) 03:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I add, as an aggravating factor, that both of Tennes scores 2's edits to Alexander the Great were reverted by established users on that page. Apparently he introduced an unreliable source. So the net result is that he has zero useful article edits so far. Yechiel (Shalom) 03:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sockpuppeteer and sockpuppet were reversed, so I corrected it. Enigma ^message 04:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we still need one of them blocked. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 15:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reports at SSP do not get immediate attention, so patience is what is required. Enigma ^message 15:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Very obvious. Indef'd. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:14, 22 June 2008 (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:Cookie81910

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Cookie81910 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - indef-blocked. Yechiel (Shalom)

Suspected sockpuppets: Cookie81927 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Yngvarr (c) 22:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Very few contribs thus far, just blanking another users page and editing some children show articles. The username similarity is just too much for me to overlook.

Comments

These are likely the same user, but I am not certain.

Two questions:

Do you want a checkuser?
Do you want me to rollback all edits by Cookie81927? Yechiel (Shalom) 03:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not confident that they're the same, then a checkuser would be in order. I'll leave that up to you; my personal opinion, just based on observation, that contribs and the username are too similar for coincidence, is that they're the same.
Cookie81927 doesn't have many edits, several of them have been audited by other people, so you probably don't need to do that. Given the low number, it should be easy to check and verify. Thanks Yngvarr (c) 09:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Pretty obvious to me. Indef'd. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:03, 22 June 2008 (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:24.125.45.154

Suspected sockpuppeteer: 24.125.45.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

24.155.110.67 68.19.218.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 70.109.2.198 71.92.113.47 71.139.175.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 74.129.50.173 84.90.212.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

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

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

Report submission by

NuclearWarfare (talk) 04:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bongwarrior&action=history

Comments

Conclusions: 4chan/ED/Grawp vandalism by random IPs. Reports should be made to WP:AIV in the future. Mr.Z-man 03:55, 21 June 2008 (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:90.201.150.194

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

90.201.150.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
90.201.150.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
90.201.150.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (later discovered by Smjg (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)) 90.199.49.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (currently blocked for 1 week for block evasion and vandalism}} Gwernol 18:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Report submission by

Smjg (talk) 23:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Targeting a number of the same articles with the same kinds of edits that are contrary to policy, for example:

Take It Or Leave It (game show) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Deal or No Deal (UK game show) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Deal or No Deal UK special episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Comments

The behaviour coming repeatedly from these IP addresses includes:

Changing articles on UK-centric topics from UK to US English
Changing articles on UK-centric topics from UK to US date formats
Removing {{cn}} and other maintenance templates without addressing the issues
Allegedly introducing subtle factual inaccuracies and copyright violations
Reinstating edits that were reverted because they fell under points 1 to 4
Never filling in the edit summary
Never participating in talk page discussions

I'm willing to confirm this. The IP addresses are all in the same range and they all edit the same articles. I think semi-protecting those articles is probably the best response. Yechiel (Shalom) 03:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm this too, however he does (very very very slowly) seem to be getting the message. Nzseries1 (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions: Dynamic IP abuse. Seems to have passed. Report to WP:RFPP if it starts up again and semi-protection is reqired. Mr.Z-man 03:50, 21 June 2008 (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:160.36.198.242

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Willking1979 (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Rapeseed article vandalized by two IP addresses that came back to the University of Tennessee. Vandalism occured within a matter of minutes. Puppetmaster has been blocked.

Comments

Conclusions

He's probably not at the computer anymore. Let it pass. Yechiel (Shalom) 22:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Run-of-the mill IP vandalism, reports of this should be made to WP:AIV where it might get attention while still relevant. Mr.Z-man 03:46, 21 June 2008 (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:24.125.45.154

Suspected sockpuppeteer: 24.125.45.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

NuclearWarfare (talk) 04:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bongwarrior&action=history

Adding on to previous report.

Comments

Conclusions

Alison semiprotected User talk:Bongwarrior. That should take care of problems. If it doesn't, ask her for an IP check. Yechiel (Shalom) 22:30, 20 June 2008 (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:CycloneNargisSUCKS

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Evidence

This account may have been blocked indef, however, the name is similar to User:HurricaneKatrinaSUCKS. Evidence is that both are vandalism only accounts, and both are named after a devastating tropical cyclone. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Account mentioned is blocked indef by Woohookitty, just seeing if it can be proven a sockpuppet.

Conclusions

More than likely that these are sockpuppets, but since they're already indef-blocked, it's academic. Yechiel (Shalom) 22:27, 20 June 2008 (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:Control room a

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Control room a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Control room b (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Gazimoff ^Write _Read 00:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence: Both inserting vandalism into WTAE-TV in the same kind of style. Also, it smells like a WP:DUCK.

Comments

Conclusions: Very obvious case. Both have been blocked by east718. I've reverted their edits. Seems dealt with, for now, but wouldn't hurt to check back and see if they crop up again. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2008 (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:Fovean Author

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Fovean Author (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Shem^(talk) 02:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Back in March, User:Fovean Author and the IP address User:64.45.236.60 both voted delete on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A More Perfect Union. Fovean Author's first vote was worded innocuously [155], while the subsequent IP vote was extremely uncivil [156] ("What, every time he farts in an elevator, you want to make a Wikipedia entry?"). Fovean Author's IP vote drew immediate suspicion, but there was no evidence to act upon.
Today, in a discussion at Talk:Barack Obama, the IP address returned to vote in a content poll; two minutes later User:Fovean Author signed in to claim the vote as his.
Between March 19th and March 22nd 2008, User:Fovean Author edited A More Perfect Union, an Obama-related article, with both his account and his IP address. During this time period, he edit-warred on his IP address over controversial insertions with administrator User:Bigtimepeace [157] [158], who's tried to mediate Obama-related disputes more recently. While using his IP to insert negative material, he used his account to delete positive material.

Comments

User:Fovean Author's been a fundamentally disruptive partisan editor, leveling the worst personal (userpage vandalism with personal attacks) attacks ("your messiah Obama") of the recent flare-ups at Barack Obama. He's now inadvertently outed his past sockpuppetry, and should be banned for disruption, personal attacks, incivility, and all-around tendentious editing. Shem^(talk) 02:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

User blocked for 6 months for abuse of editing privileges via sockpuppetry, disruption, personal attacks, incivility, and tendentious editing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, the IP address is blocked for 6 months. Yechiel (Shalom) 22:22, 20 June 2008 (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:Seanmccoy91

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Seanmccoy91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Seanmccoy16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

role^player 02:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Comparison of contributions leads to the conclusion of either sock or meat, similar username makes it kind of obvious

Comments

Conclusions

These accounts are obviously the same person, but no violation of policy has occurred. (Anyway, if he was trying to hide anything, he wouldn't use a second account with such an obviously similar name.) I'll tag the userpage of the alternate account as such, and leave it there. Yechiel (Shalom) 21:20, 20 June 2008 (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:Improve2009

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Improve2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Fixedit1980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
76.121.222.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Scjessey (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Identical edits to various articles. Examples include:

Comments

User also uses IPs to edit. This one, for example. I know user has edited under other IPs, as well. Tomdobb (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the issues is that the user is using different accounts to edit war, as well. See Barry Bonds and the edit history there. Enigma ^message 04:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to look into this. Checkuser says

Confirmed, as well as:

Okay2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

- Alison ^❤ 07:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on a careful analysis of the contribution logs, it is clear that all three are the same person. I state this without proof, but I will provide details if requested.

I do not think it is acceptable to edit biographies of living persons using multiple accounts. This user must choose one account, and if he won't choose, we'll choose for him. I am not willing to allow users to use multiple accounts when editing BLPs such as those listed above: this was what got Privatemusings in trouble, and his mistakes should not be repeated. I don't mean to pick on Privatemusings, whom I greatly respect, but if we can learn anything from his case, it's abundantly clear that sockpuppets on BLPs are a recipe for trouble even if no explicit abuse has been demonstrated. Yechiel (Shalom) 04:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that this individual is using sock puppetry to make repeated, and often tendentious edits to WP:BLP articles as a way of getting around WP:3RR. The violations continue despite warnings at all corresponding talk pages. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Sockpuppeter and socks, indef-blocked. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2008 (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:PIO (4th)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Indefinitely blocked User:PIO [159] has a history of sockpuppetry, User:Agazio and User:Jxy being proven cases.
User:Ciolone has appeared since PIO's indef block, canvassing on PIO's behalf [160][161]
Editing the same articles as PIO [162][163] ; [164][165]
Using an identical edit summary as PIO, the word integration [166][167][168][169]
Canvassing on behalf of User:Luigi 28 [170], the subject of the as yet unresolved Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PIO (3rd)

Comments

Conclusions

Yes, I agree. Likely sock or meatpuppet. Blocked indefinitely. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:17, 16 June 2008 (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:Rreagan007

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Rreagan007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Newshounddog (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Some good contributions, but "Good hand, bad hand" accounts (see respective talk pages) for warnings. Common edits include, but are not limited to, North Raleigh Christian Academy, Raleigh Christian Academy, Cary Academy, North Carolina Tar Heels, (year) ACC Men's Basketball Tournament pages, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Rameses, Atlantic Coast Conference, Tyler Hansbrough, Silent Sam. Also edits to university articles adding "(Latin)" or English translations to the motto field of infoboxes. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill featured article page yesterday is interesting also. Newshounddog (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Conclusions

It is very obvious that these are the same user. I could go back further in time than this past week, but it is not necessary. The contribution logs for June 12, 2008 complete each other perfectly.

Rreagan007

15:48, 12 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Rameses‎
15:26, 12 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Rameses‎
15:13, 12 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Rameses‎
15:11, 12 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Rameses‎
15:06, 12 June 2008 (hist) (diff) North Carolina Tar Heels‎
15:03, 12 June 2008 (hist) (diff) North Carolina Tar Heels‎ (→Men's Basketball)
15:02, 12 June 2008 (hist) (diff) North Carolina Tar Heels‎ (→Football)
15:02, 12 June 2008 (hist) (diff) North Carolina Tar Heels‎ (→Baseball)
14:46, 12 June 2008 (hist) (diff) North Carolina Tar Heels‎ (→National championships)
14:41, 12 June 2008 (hist) (diff) North Carolina Tar Heels‎ (→National championships)
14:32, 12 June 2008 (hist) (diff) North Carolina Tar Heels‎ (→External links)

Anonymous user

15:46, 12 June 2008 (hist) (diff) m Rameses‎ (→Origin)
15:45, 12 June 2008 (hist) (diff) m Rameses‎ (→Origin)
14:59, 12 June 2008 (hist) (diff) m University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill‎ (→Traditions)
14:34, 12 June 2008 (hist) (diff) m North Carolina Tar Heels‎ (→Rivalries)

These two user accounts edit North Carolina Tar Heels within two minutes of each other (14:32 and 14:34), then an hour later they again edit Rameses, an unrelated article, within two minutes of each other (15:46 and 15:48).

Now of course it is permitted to edit without logging in, then login and logout as you please. The question is whether there's any "good hand, bad hand" activity. Both users have clean block logs, but there are some warnings on the anonymous user's talk page, and no warnings on Rreagan07's talk page. I think because of Rreagan's seniority we should go slow on this and await his explanation for the edits that earned him those warnings. If he can explain what happened and apologize if he did anything wrong, and commit to resolve the issues that led to those warnings, then I see no need for a block. However, if he is unresponsive, it might be best to consider soft-blocking the IP so that Rreagan is forced to be accountable for the edits he makes. Again, this is a delicate situation, so I won't suggest any formal response until I hear from the Rreagan, and also from Newshounddog. Yechiel (Shalom) 03:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my question at User talk:Newshounddog. Yechiel (Shalom) 03:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not deny that I sometimes edit from that IP address instead of logging in, but I do not do that for bad purposes. Usually I either just forget to log in, or I have several different browsers open and I'm logged in on 1 browser and just don't remember to log into the other 1. I have looked at the talk page for the IP address and I do see the negitive stuff you are referring to. But none of the vandalism from this IP address was done by me. I did not even start editing wikipedia articles at all until January of this year, and the vandalism I saw was all from before that. I'm also not familiar with how IP addresses work, but it might be possible that more than 1 person shares this IP address. Again, I have never intentionally vandalised any wikipedia page, and none of the edits from this IP address could have been done by me before January 2008. If you have any questions about this for me please feel free to ask. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am satisfied by this answer. I was not asserting that the entire edit history from that IP address belonged to this user; in all likelihood, as he says, this is not true. I was only saying that the recent edit history, for example from June 12, was from this user. The warnings on the IP address talk page were for minor mistakes, not outright vandalism, so I see no intentional effort to do "good hand, bad hand." I suggest to Rreagan007 to try to stay logged-in when he edits in order to avoid this type of confusion in the future. Otherwise, I am closing this case and saying that Rreagan007 has done nothing wrong according to the sockpuppet policy. Yechiel (Shalom) 21:02, 20 June 2008 (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:Arrowoftime

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Handc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
NewborneBaebe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Castle of Mirrors, created by Arrowoftime, defies all attempts at verification. In the AfD, Arrowoftime makes no appearance, arguing on the talk page instead. Two SPA accounts, Handc and NewborneBaebe appear to support the case, both from unverifiable personal experiences.[171][172]

Arrowoftime previously created several other hoax articles Paradox of the Purse, Kolika, Hold On To My Button and Prince of Jellies. Handc was also flagged for creating Kolika, Hold On To My Button and Prince of Jellies.

Arrowoftime has a history of extensive edits to articles related to Stanford University, but has never said anything about being from Stanford (though I mention that fact in the AfD). Newbornebaebe says, "I'm also a student at Stanford University,"[173]. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest new account User:Elmerfike be added to the suspected socks, following this edit and this edit to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Castle of Mirrors. T L Miles (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Hey guys, I don't get it. I've made all sorts of contributions to wikipedia. Can we all just agree to disagree? I have no idea who these other users are by the way, however I'll make you all a deal. And I have to admit: this is a really crackerjack deal. For every ten real articles I write, I get to write one fake one. Guys, this is a really good deal for everyone. Arrowoftime (talk) 22:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would need to see deleted edits to make a better evaluation. It looks like these accounts are either sockpuppets or off-wiki friends; I'm not sure which. I would stop short of blocking the sock/SPAs, but maybe an admin will disagree and block them anyway.

I would emphasize to Arrowoftime that it is totally unacceptable to create hoax articles no matter how many good articles you write. I have created about 300 good articles, and that doesn't give me the right to create hoaxes. It's just not allowed. Yechiel (Shalom) 20:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Maybe they're socks used to support the (now admittedly) hoax articles. Maybe they're meatpuppets used to support the (now admittedly) hoax articles. Maybe they're meatheads making up stuff to support hoax articles. Are any of those not good reasons to block them? Is it really so horrible to do the right thing for the wrong reason?

At the very least, Arrowoftime is an admitted, repeated and unrepentant hoaxer in need of a nice, long block. The alleged socks are vandalism-only accounts that justify permenant blocks. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And as a note, Arrowoftime has not created one hoax for every ten articles. He's created at least four elaborate hoax articles, vandalised Scientology, and created TWO stubs for Juicebox and one of his professors at Stanford. T L Miles (talk) 13:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions: Arrowoftime blocked for sockpuppetry and disruption, NewborneBaebe, Elmerfike, and Handc all blocked as disruptive sockpuppets (based on the edits to their userpages, the AFD, and their deleted edits). Mr.Z-man 17:29, 20 June 2008 (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:Totophi

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

142.167.119.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
142.167.118.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
142.167.126.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - added by Yechiel (Shalom)

Report submission by

Nrswanson (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

All of these editors are arguing the same point on the Talk:C (musical note)#C4 etc. page which is in contest because of concerns of false claims/original research. They all also have a similar hostile conversational tone which result in direct personal attacks on editor nrswanson based on his personal background (found on user pages) such as education and religion. They also have very short edit histories and appeared right around the same time. The liklihood that three such individuals would appear simultaneously on an article that is not edited often is too much of a coincidence.

Comments

We have here a case of WP:NPA, WP:COI and WP:SOCK violations. I would like to see a permenant ban on Totophi and the various 142.167.*.* accounts that he uses.

I cannot determine for certain whether the IP addresses are Totophi, but based on their tone of voice I think they are different people. For the record, I think the three IP addresses are one person, but Totophi is a second person. That doesn't mean Totophi's side should "win" by majority; KieferSkunk's comment in mediation seems to prefer Nrswanson's side of the content dispute. (I am unfamiliar with the subject so I cannot evaluate the content dispute.) If I thought it would help, I might request a checkuser, but I think the solution is roughly the same whether or not they are the same user. Basically, the normal rules of dispute resolution apply.

That being said, comments such as this are completely unacceptable:

Totophi wrote at 10:17 on 12 June: "My respect for you and your accomplishments has come to an end. Do you realize how deluded your own statement is? The issue of contention does NOT concern finer points of music theory! In addition, you pompously accuse me of insults where I have stated none. You, on the other hand, are revealing more and more the fine talent of talking a lot while saying little. Do you still claim to uphold the values on which Wikipedia is based? Give it up, you miserable hypocrite. Oh, and that's not an insult, by the way." Et cetera.

That should earn him a block for incivility, but not for sockpuppetry. I'll ask KieferSkunk about that. Yechiel (Shalom) 21:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comments were uncivil, but as with most civility disputes, we would prefer to see you guys work it out amongst yourselves, and I do not believe that a good-faith effort to resolve the dispute has occurred yet. Please refer to WP:DR for help on dispute resolution methods. The content dispute earlier did lead to incivility, which I will officially warn Totophi for, but I do not see evidence of a long-standing history of abuse on his/her part that would warrant a block at this time.

I also do not agree that there is compelling evidence of Totophi and the IP addresses are one in the same. This doesn't necessarily validate Totophi's arguments or attitude, but I do believe that this is not a case of sockpuppetry. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Checkuser filed by Nrswanson: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Totophi. Yechiel (Shalom) 21:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is Confirmed by Thatcher that Totophi and the anon are the same user. For incivility and abusive socking (see my comment at the RFCU), Totophi should be blocked for a month. Maybe that's harsh, but I think it's justified. Yechiel (Shalom) 14:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave the blocking action up to another admin, then. I've already given Totophi a civility warning and asked him to work constructively on the article, and to try to work things out with Nrswanson. If another admin believes that a block is still warranted, I will let him/her override my actions. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have proven socking and gross incivility here. I can see both actions, block and leave as warned. Tough call here given the circumstances. But I going with a one week block on the master and all three IPs. Tagged all too. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:15, 19 June 2008 (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:Fonez4mii

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Fonez4mii (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

84.13.166.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (This one was already admitted by Fonez4mii, who openly stated it was him as soon as was asked when the case was brought against him)(Fone4 Me 21:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Wikipéire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (The checkuser has proved negative on this)(Fone4 Me 21:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Report submission by

Jack forbes (talk) 06:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User Fonez4mii and ip 84.13.166.40 (talk) began a discussion at talk Scotland on the 14th of June using exactly the same arguments. This was user Fonez4mii's first edit for over a month and was the ip's first edit ever. I became suspicious as time went on and when I spotted this diff alarm bells rang. When the very argumentative discussion was brought to the attention of an admin and he mentioned a check user may be in order, the ip, other than one comment, never returned.

referring to the IP as a 3rd person diff
referring to the user as a 3rd person diff
Fonez4mii @ 18:15 then 84.13.166.40 @ 18:19 responding to the same person twice within 4 minutes and both with critical comments and starting new sentence each time also I would ask the admin looking at this to run a check on the talk:Scotland page to see if it throws up any more socks.--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 20:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I referred to the IP in third person was because there were two IP addresses, and in order to specify which one I was talking about, I gave the exact name of the IP. At no point, did I refer to myself as if I was two people however. Fone4 Me 08:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was a post to GoodDay in an attempt to convince him "several" people were calling me a troll and questioning my conduct, when in fact it was only Fonez4mii and his IP account. A clear case of using a sockpuppet to try and influence another editor. Jack forbes (talk) 08:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was a reply to an admin using his IP accusing me of using an IP in an attempt to deflect attention away from himself. He did not own up to using an IP until this case was brought against him which I believe was an attempt to avoid a checkuser. As he said on this page "But there isn't any need to do a checkuser. I've admitted the IP was me as soon as was asked". Jack forbes (talk) 08:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a diff of him asking for something to be changed as he could not do because he was an IP. This is the diff of Fonez4mii changing it. So, with one account he asked someone to make an edit, and with the other he did. Jack forbes (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I swear I already answered this. What just happened to my reply?? Anyway, I will answer again. No, I asked for something to be done on my IP address, after I tried to do it, and I found I couldnt because the page was protected. I thought the page was fully protected, and that I was still logged in, so I asked someone to go do it for me. Then, I realised that I was logged out, so I tried logging back in to edit, and found it was only semi-protected. So point countered. And seriously, where has the comment I just left about this gone?? Fone4 Me 19:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To quote from the diff "Can someone please revert that, since I, as an IP, cannot". He knew he was not logged in. Jack forbes (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What need would I have for deflecting a checkuser? I told you the truth, and the checkuser has confirmed this. The reason I questioned you was that if the IP was yours, it was being used to pretend to be two different people. I did not use the IP to pretend to be two different people, as already explained countless times. Fone4 Me 08:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The user is very aggressive and tries to create momentum by forcing straw polls then claiming that 9-6 vote on a controversial issues indicates that everyone agrees with his/her. Lots of POV accusations including generic ones without much evidence. It seems a similar style to other Sock puppets on the UK related pages. I think its worth looking into. --Snowded (talk) 08:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the user was being aggressive or trying to push a POV and it is clear that you are WP:ATTACKing all the editors on the UK talk page who don't agree with you. He/she was not even trying to claim the straw poll is consensus and was engaging in discussion which you were not participating in and just kept posting the same views constantly. I would think it is worth looking into that you are accusing anybody who does not agree that Scotland is not a constituent country is a sockpuppet. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 15:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say both editors certainly have similar editing habits and a similar style. I don't want to accuse anyone of anything but I definitely think it is worth looking into. The above provided diff certainly does seem to be a tell tale sign. --Cameron (T|C) 13:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? What is this? The IP address was me. I accidentally got logged out. I never denied it was me. I haven't used it to sockpuppet or inflate any votes. I even said myself on the discussion at Talk:United Kingdom that no IP addresses should be allowed to vote. That other account is not me though. I don't know why you could not just have asked me to be honest? Fonez4mii (talk) 15:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be [this diff] that was worrying. Would you care to explain it? --Cameron (T|C) 15:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well after I had accidentally got logged out once and started to engage in conversation with GoodDay, I kept logging out to get to my IP's talk page to contiue the conversation with him. I then forgot to log back in for the main discussion, so i had written "my talk page" from my IP address, even though I was trying to say the talk page of my account. So i logged onto my account and corrected it. Sorry if any inconvenience has been caused. I must say though, it really would have been more helpful to have just asked me in the first place. Fonez4mii (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a further notice, i find the "aggressive" description above a personal attack, simply because I am fighting for a NPOV (along with the now clear majority of contributors there). Fonez4mii (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this was a bad faith nomination all stemmed from a long discussion on Talk:United Kingdom. The nominator has a different view than the accused over a contraversial subject. Above the accused admits the IP is his/hers and was editing whilst logged out. There has been no votestacking with the IP and has not been used to avoid a block or the 3 revert rule as far as I know. All in all pretty bad faith tbh. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 15:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the discussion on the Scotland talk page. Jack forbes (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't tell us anything. I told you the IP was me. I told you why I logged out to use it - to talk to GoodDay after i accidentally got logged out the first time - not to inflate any votes, and if you notice, I have not used my IP to vote on anything. I consider you try to make it look like I'm doing something "wrong" simply because i am opposing your POV at the United Kingdom. Fonez4mii (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's all the same thing, you are just spreading it around wikipedia when it should be centralised discussion on Talk:United Kingdom. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 15:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the fact that JackForbes went round to every single other user involved to tell them about this case, yet did not tell me, shows that there is a clear indication that he/she was more interesting in trying to tarnish my reputation than actually see if I was a sockpuppet or not, and therefore, lower my opposing quality against his POV on the UK page. This is unnacceptable behaviour, and certainly done with some level of bad faith. Fonez4mii (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On top of that, the fact that a non-existant user was added to the suspected sockpuppet, simply to make it look on appearance that I had been editing with an account, is also clearly done for the reasons above. I have explained the reasons for why I was using my IP address:

I accidentally got logged out first of all.
I then engaged in conversation with GoodDay with my IP.
In order to continue the conversation with GoodDay, I had to log out to get to my IP talkpage.
I did not user my IP to inflate any vote, and in fact was the person who wrote on the vote that no IPs were allowed.

I think this case is done, and an eye should be kept on JackForbes's actions, per this and his behaviour on the UK talk page. Cheers. Fonez4mii (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't even try that. you do not say when the case is done. When the admins come in, they decide. Jack forbes (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no need for further comment on this page, as I have given the reasons why my IP was used. You are however in the wrong, for:

Accusing me of being a sockpuppet of an account with no basis (I am not talking about the IP address), showing you had alterior motives.
You went round informing everyone else of this page, except for me.
You appear to be using this simply to combat the fact that I have repelled your POV at the UK page.
You continue to argue even after I am done. This discussion needs no further debate, as I have already told you the IP address was mine.
The fact you came here straight away without even asking me if the IP was mine, shows, again, other motives.

As I said, I am done with this discussion. Fonez4mii (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Camerons page you will find that he told me I should place a Template on your page and I found it difficult to figure it out, so he kindly did it for me. Do you remember on the Scotland talk page you accused me of possibly using a sockpuppet? Strange how it turns out. I suspected you from an early stage and believe I will be vindicated. Jack forbes (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me, when did you let everyone know you were using an ip? Was it when you were accusing me of trolling within a few minutes of each other? When? Jack forbes (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On this page, after Cameron had the decency to inform me of what you were suggesting. As soon as I saw, I instantly remarked that it was me, and I never denied that it was. You are clearly using this as a means of attack, and I am not going to participate in your games. Cheers. Fonez4mii (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And here was me thinking there were two people with the same opinion and it was just you all along. It was also strange that after the admin said there might be a case for a checkuser there was only one comment from the ip to say you suspected me of sockpupperty and then nothing. Did you suddenly have no problems logging on? Jack forbes (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Please let's all assume good faith. It was me who told Jack to inform the users who were involved in the discussions. Further, I took the liberty of informing you when he forgot. I also advised him to add the template. When he was unsure about it's placement, I placed the template for him. I take full responsibility for any actions I have made. --Cameron (T|C) 16:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have nothing to be responsible for Cameron, I was the one who was unsure of the procedure. Jack forbes (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) To be honest, I'd be disinclined to assume good faith on Fonez4mii's part. After the comment about the talk page, I noted here to what I thought was simply an anon that he should probably make an account himself instead of accusing others of using anon addresses. At that stage, he could have cleared up who he was. That wasn't done, and as such I would hold the view that the anon account was simply being used in an attempt to show there was more support for a position than there really way. It's not votestacking, of course, but it is in clear violation of WP:SOCK. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 16:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Schambo is one of the few editors, along with JackForbes and Snowded who is opposing us on the UK page. I have explained the reasons why I used my IP address. I never once denied the IP being mine. Fonez4mii (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone's position at the UK talk page is irrelevant. The simple fact is that you were using an anonymous IP address to attempt to advance your own viewpoint, and you've only admitted such after being pulled up here about it. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 16:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untrue. I did not use my IP to advance any kind of viewpoint. As stated already, I accidentally got logged out (I closed my browser) and I started engaging in a conversation with GoodDay on my IP's talkpage. I then realised and logged in again to continue discussion, logging in and out to continue to talk to GoodDay. However, I forgot to log in several times. If I was trying to enlarge my vote, I would have been "talking to myself" using my IP and my account on the discussion page, which I did not do. I have not mentioned the IP thing since because I have since then ensured I was constantly logged in, and even wrote on the page that no IPs should be allowed to vote.

And in some ways it is certainly interesting that all those who are pushing the POV on the UK page are here trying to pretend I have done something wrong. Point made. Fonez4mii (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were using your IP and your account to make it appear there were two people rather than one with your opinions. You don't have to talk to your IP to do that. You have not answered the question, why did you tell an admin that you would not be surprised if I was using an IP in the same discussion, when you were doing exactly that, and did not own up to it till you came to this page? Jack forbes (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because there was a difference. You were actually talking to the IP address. Myself however, did not use the IP to inflate any kind of oppinion. I am becoming tired of your constant refusal to get the point on both here and on the UK page. Fonez4mii (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is rather interesting, also, to look at JackForbes' contributions. The whole last page seem to be primarily on his sockpuppetery accusation, and has not made a single constructive edit since. Fonez4mii (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are now clutching at straws. Jack forbes (talk) 16:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, please reply with a better response. Fonez4mii (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(deindent) Ahem. The irony in your assertion that only those who hold opposing viewpoints to your own are trying to question your credibility is quite brilliant! Using your IP, you yourself accused Jack Forbes, someone with whom you didn't agree, of using a sockpuppet, here, therefore implying that the 'other side' was breaking the rules in their arguing of their case. You've already done what you're accusing us of doing. Point made. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 16:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read my point above. Point made. Fonez4mii (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you can stop making baseless allegations. If you believe Jack Forbes was using another IP address, then make a sockpuppetry case. If not, then drop it. Second of all, you were attempting to blacken the credibility and opinion of a user holding a different opinion to yours. You did it using a different anon account. That alone is in breach of WP:SOCK, as deflating the opinion of the other side is just as bad as inflating the opinion of your own side. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 16:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did no such thing. I at no point denied those edits were me. Fonez4mii (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you never denied they were you, that's because you never admitted they were you in the first place! --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 16:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was never asked. Please try and use an ounce of logic. -.- Fonez4mii (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:SOCK. If you use two accounts, the onus is on you to make that clear, not on us to find out: "If someone uses alternative accounts, it is recommended that he or she provide links between the accounts in most cases to make it easy to determine that one individual shares them and to avoid any appearance or suspicion of sockpuppetry". --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 16:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not used two accounts. I accidentally got logged out. There is a difference between doing that and clearly making another account to pretend to be two people. Fonez4mii (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you did pretend to be two people. Do you not understand that? You engaged in the same debate using two accounts. Regardless of whether you got logged in or logged out, that gives the appearance that more people support a position than actually do. And that's sockpuppetry, my friend. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 16:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only if I used my IP address to inflate a vote or oppinion. This way, all I did was talk as if I was one person (which I am). So sorry to disappoint you, but I have not sockpuppeted. Cheers. Fonez4mii (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are you where pretending to be two different people [174] --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 19:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that one! I think that just about confirms it. Jack forbes (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does that source show me in any way pretending to be two different people?? Fonez4mii (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In your own words 84.13.166.40 is certainly not a troll for bringing up a valid point. 84.13.166.40 being yourself of course, and responding to someone twice using your account and ip Fonez4mii @ 18:15 84.13.166.40 @ 18:19 sockpupperty--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 19:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I ask again, how does that show me pretending to be two different people? All it shows is that I am showing I was bringing up a valid point. Deary me, please read. Also, if you would like to accuse me of any more sockpuppet allegations, why dont you go over to Talk:United Kingdom right now, where I accidentally got logged out again. Go on... you know you want to; I mean, Jack Forbes has obviously sat here all day simply on this page, since this is the only thing he has even contributed to recently. And its strange isn't it, how all the people who accuse me of having done something wrong are the exact same people that we have been fighting off for pushing a POV at the UK discussion. Fonez4mii (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won't go near the UK talk page and try to compromise with someone who uses a sockpuppet. Jack forbes (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated, I have not used a sockpuppet. In fact, I am the one who wrote on the poll, that no IP addresses should be allowed. You are tiring me now, and you are embarassing yourself. Fonez4mii (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read none of the evidence given against you? Admins will certainly read everything, then make their decisions. So we shall wait for that. Jack forbes (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

move indent You where clearly pretenting to be two different and where caught out with the Goodday comment as the above diffs clearly show [[175] this one] you say you confirm you are brining up a valid point then why not say that then why refer to the IP address as a third person ? and these two Fonez4mii @ 18:15 84.13.166.40 @ 18:19 say it all responding to the same person twice within 4 minutes and both with critical comments and starting new sentence each time --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 19:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I was pretending to be different people, I would have said things like "yes, fonez4mii is right". However, I did not, and simply spoke as one person. If I was using it as a sockpuppet, I would have denied it. However, I completely admitted it was true the moment I heard people asking, so don't give me any rubbish about how I was using it to pretend to be someone else. Fonez4mii (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well you said the was IP right, the IP of course being yourself there is no difference. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 19:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did not say "the IP" - I gave the name of which IP it was, since there were two IPs, just to clarify. You don't have an argument to stand on, and it is increasingly clear that your primary aim is to accuse me of sockpuppetery for opposing your non-neutral POV on the UK page, and I am quickly tiring of your immature behaviour. We are here to build an encyclopaedia, not to thrash petty insults at eachother and to try pretend eachother has done something wrong. Fonez4mii (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But why give the name of the IP when it was yourself, you never at any point said that the IP was yourself intact you did the opposite and its you and your IP alter ego who was throwing around the petty insults, and even more references to the IP as a third person diff!

I don't think you're listening, and it is becoming repetitively boring repeating myself. I referred to the exact name of the IP address so it was clear which IP I was talking about. And I behaved identically with both my account and my IP. Fonez4mii (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You said "84.13.166.40 is..." which is a synomym in the minds of most people for "the IP is...". Why are you trying to defend this? Why would you refer to an account you were using as if it were a completely different person who was behind it? You are the one who doesn't have an argument to stand on here.
Yes you referred to the name of the IP, but you didn't feel like dropping in "oh and by the way I may be talking as if this IP is another person, but it's actually me after getting logged out", did you? --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 20:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already explained, there were 2 IPs, and referring to the exact one clarified. I, at no point in the conversation, made no attempt to name myself as a different person. Fonez4mii (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Checkuser will quell any concerns. The innocent will be exonerated 'or' the guilty will be blocked. Case closed -eitherway-. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But there isn't any need to do a checkuser. I've admitted the IP was me as soon as was asked. Fonez4mii (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry (I didn't read the 'entire' discussion). Hmmm, well seeing as you've admitted ownership of the IP address? I recommend (at talk: Scotland) scratching out your IP address postings or re-naming them with your Username. Also, I see no reason (IMHO) to apply a 'block'. Please, understand my reasoning insn't because I support 'constituent county'. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry GooDay, he can't scratch out his IP address, this is evidence in this case. Jack forbes (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should I do this now? Fone 4 Me 20:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A block should be given the user pretended to be two different people. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 20:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it should not, since i did not pretend to be two different people, and openly said I was the IP address when asked. The only reason you wish for me to be blocked is because you wish for there to be one less oppose against you on the UK page. Fone 4 Me 21:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Fonez4mii: Don't rename or change anything until the case has been reviewed by an admin! --Cameron (T|C) 20:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Fone 4 Me 21:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse my lack of clarification Fonez (and everybody else). Only if Fonez is found innocent, he could fix his IP postings (better yet, put his Username next to the IP address. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But he wont be found innocent he has admitted he made the IP postings, the point is he was making out that the IP was not him when making those posts as the evidence clearly shows something he is denying now. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 21:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But I did not use the IP to:

Evade blocks or bans
Inflate polls
Avoid 3RR

Meaning, I am innocent of sockpuppetry, wether you like it or not. Fone 4 Me 21:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about this particular case. It seems, if Fonez gets blocked? possible charges of 'political censurship' might be laid (considering the high emotions at United Kingdom). But, if Fonez is 'let go'? then charges of injustice will come. GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with politics. It is a straightforeward case of, is he a sockpuppet user or not? Anything else means nothing, Jack forbes (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there. And since I have not used my IP for any of the 3 points above, I am clear of sockpuppetry. Fone 4 Me 21:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well people, the case is in the hands of the Administrators. They'll make the ruling. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY or to edit anonymously without logging in to your account — in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 21:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he was trying to confuse or deceive anybody intentionally and being logged out is an easy mistake to make for users not yet fully to grips with Wikipedia. I think you are assuming bad faith here with no serious evidence of any bad intentions on Fonez4mii's part. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 21:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you think accusing me of using an IP account as a sockpuppet whilst using one himself was showing good faith? Jack forbes (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a wild and radical idea! Why not simply ask for an apology? He has no proof so I am sure he can see he was in the wrong for saying that. I am sure you yourself have already learnt that the talk page of Scotland is a dangerous place and it's not easy to keep one's cool. I think there has been a huge amount of assuming bad faith by many people. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 22:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed a dangerous place and hard to keep your cool, but that is no excuse. I think Barryob could be right about more socks, we will have to wait and see. I'm sure you would not have made the accusation yourself, never mind using an IP to do it. Jack forbes (talk) 22:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry but what ? have you seen the evidence he was clearly pretending to be two different people with the back to back replies to Jack forbes within the space of four minutes come its blatant and the new users knowledge of other polices suspect me to believe there may be more socks --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 21:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it difficult to WP:AGF at this point where the user has been pretending to be two separate people and finds nothing wrong with that ! how you can keep defending him is beyond me. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 22:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could I point out what a wonderful editor some people are defending, look at this post to GoodDay [176]. Note that he says I am being accused of trolling by several people. Guess what, it was him(the IP) and Fonez4mii, yep, he was using a sockpuppet to imply more than one person was calling me a troll. Not such a nice thing to do is it? I would just like to point out that GoodDay wanted nothing to do with it as shown [177] Jack forbes (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Seriously, can anyone now defend this editors conduct? Jack forbes (talk) 23:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go along with whatever the ruling is. GoodDay (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got this message from admin Bencherlite on my talk page. Looks like a checkuser is in order. Jack forbes (talk) 02:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To summarise, I haven't used my IP to:

Inflate a poll. And in fact, I actually wrote on the poll itself that no IPs should be allowed to vote.
Evade a block or ban.
Evade a 3RR.

I don't see how you can even suggest a block. The logging out at first was accidental, and i simply kept logging out to get to my IP's talk page to continue the conversation with GoodDay, and I forgot to log back in a couple of times.

I also must point out, it is significant that all the people who are pretending I have done something wrong, are the ones opposing my (and the majority's) views on the UK page. They are clearly expressing this view in order to lower the opposition.

Fone 4 Me 07:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take a look at the "this page in a nutshell" section on WP:SOCK.

Do not use multiple accounts to create the illusion of greater support for an issue. Check. Remember, this doesn't mean simply voting: you replied to someone twice in four minutes, trying to show more people disagreed with him than really did.

No, I did not mention the same points. I didn't go "oh, I agree with Fonez4mii". Fone4 Me 09:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not use multiple accounts to mislead others. Check. You certainly mislead me into thinking you weren't using a sockpuppet on a talk page.

Well that's your fault, not mine. I openly stated I was the IP as soon as I was asked. Fone4 Me 09:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not use multiple accounts to artificially stir up controversy. Check. You stated that "several" people thought Jack Forbes was a troll, when in fact it was just you and your sock.

No, I was not in fact referring to that. I was referring (if you cared to read what I wrote) to the other incidents where JackForbes had been trolling through looking through the archives. Additionally, I am starting to have even more doubts about Jack Forbes now, since looking at his/her contributions, not a single constructive edit recently has been made, and all recent edits are about me, and nothing else. Fone4 Me 09:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not use multiple accounts to aid in disruption. While you might call the above diruption, I'll say no here since most of your contributions are as valued as anyone else's.
Do not use multiple accounts to circumvent a block. No.

So that's three from five you've hit straight on. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 09:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So no, I don't agree I did any of them. Fone4 Me 09:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly was the point of the checkuser? Fonez4mii has already stated (from the beginning) that he did use the IP. Unless there's any more "evidence" to review, then I think we are going round in circles. Let's stop arguing and await an administrator's verdict. = ) --Cameron (T|C) 11:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to reiterate that he stated he used the IP only when this case was brought against him, not when he was using it. Jack forbes (talk) 12:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is because no one asked before, and it was rather obvious who I was, since I stated using my IP that I wanted something to be reverted on the Wales page, and then I did it with my account. I at no point denied who I was, and therefore, have not sockpuppeted. If I had denied who I was, or purposefully made myself appear as two separate people, then I would somewhat agree, but as it stands, I did none of those things. Fone4 Me 12:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the diff stating you wanted something reverted on the Wales page. Exactly who were you asking to do it for you? Yourself? Jack forbes (talk) 18:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, first of all, when I tried to edit the page, I realised I couldn't. I presumed this was because it was fully protected, so I asked for someone to go revert the change that someone had made. However, I then realised that I could log in and that it was only-semi protected. So no, I did not "ask myself". Fone4 Me 19:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you not read WP:SOCK? I said this up there, and I'll say it again. The onus is on you to declare if you are using more than one account, more so if you are using two accounts in the same conversation: "If someone uses alternative accounts, it is recommended that he or she provide links between the accounts in most cases to make it easy to determine that one individual shares them and to avoid any appearance or suspicion of sockpuppetry". You gave the appearance that your IP and your real account were two different people. If you had done it once, then maybe it would be an accident. But you repeatedly did it, so yes, you did make yourself "appear as two seperate people", as you say. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 17:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain, again. I first of all got logged out by accident. While I was on my IP, I engaged in a conversation with GoodDay on my talkpage. In order to get back to this conversation, I kept logging back out to get to my IP talkpage. However, I kept forgetting to log back in on the main conversation. But I at no point denied the IP was mine, and made no attempt to have a "conversation with myself". Fone4 Me 19:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(indent) One other thing that I think needs to be checked. This user's first edits appear around the same time as Wikipéire was banned as a sock puppet. The signature style is identical (three colours etc.) and the confrontational approach to removing any reference to national identity is the same. The user also has a history (although deleted on the talk page) of editing other people's material and received one gentle warning form an Admin. This could be a complete red herring, but we have suffered so much from sock puppets with aggressive POV agendas that a little bit of paranoia is justified. The protests on this page are similar to Wikipéire's early protests as well and the editors knowledge of Wikipedia process is very advanced for someone who started editing a couple of months ago. --Snowded (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, yet more accusations. Checkuser me all you want. This is starting to fringe on harrassment now however. Fone4 Me 19:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Troll" here, (See talk:Scotland#Alright, enough.), feeling somewhat deflated and a bit disgusted. I agree that Wikipéire does indeed have a passing resemblance. (We also had our run-ins in the past). Things like this make me realise what an idiot I am for wasting time on this site creating articles, editing articles, designing, adapting and posting images, and generally discussing article content, which in truth, despite the occasional accusation of being a "troll" and countering with the odd "dry-up mate" in response, I genuinely enjoy. Reading this catalogue of abuse of good faith sickens me, frankly. Sad, very sad. For the sake of my own faith in human nature I hope the accusations are proved to be unfounded, but I have a hunch I'll be disappointed in that respect. It is this type of behaviour which made me pack my bags first time around. Guess I'll be off again for a while if a "guilty" verdict is given. Watching with interest... 80.41.245.87 (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is highly interesting that every single person on this page who has suggested I have done something wrong, has been opposed to me on the UK pages. And that isn't anything generic either, since there were only a tiny proportion of people there that opposed me. And just go ahead and checkuser me. I am sick of you adding more and more to the list. Just do them all at once so I can carry on editing without having to reply at this page every 5 mins. Fone4 Me 19:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you behaved more reasonably, assumed good faith and engaged with people's arguments you would get less of this. You need to realise (assuming you are not Wikipéire, and I really hope you are not by the way) that there has been a lot of grief on these sites and people have lots of scars. You have entered this space on a single issue since May with no previous engagement on any of the pages. Winning trust is part of editing here.--Snowded (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well from what it seems, I have gained trust with most of the editors, as the majority have followed my support. Only a small POV pushing minority are still arguing against. Fone4 Me 20:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that this is very difficult for you, but please stop saying that anyone who disagrees with you is pushing a POV. I am very pleased that you are not Wikipiere, but I really wish you would stop behaving like him. Assume Good Faith. --Snowded (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It becomes difficult to maintain assumption of good faith, when

The only recent edits Jack Forbes have made have been all about me, in the entirity of the last 2 days!
I am accused of being multiple differing people.
The people that are accusing me are, incidentally, all the same people that are opposing me on the UK page.
When Jack Forbes went around telling everone about this case, he made sure to tell everyone except myself.
People are refusing to listen to the fact that I did not do anything intentional to make myself look like two people.

I have now come up with what I consider to be a great alternative on the UK page, if anyone is interested, rather than watching this page all day. Fone4 Me 21:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember whether Fonez4mii and I agreed about the underlying discussion at Talk:United Kingdom, so I hope this isn't taken the wrong way by anyone. Given the evidence, it really could go either way. You can look at as an intentional effort to deceive or as an accident. In the latter event, Fonez was wrong not point it out immediately in some way. What upsets me as an editor is that he created this impression, intentionally or not, but has been unwilling to simply say, "I was wrong not to bring this to everyone's attention when I figured it out and will do so if it ever happens again". This unwillingness to back down you are wrong or have done something wrong makes participating in this project less wrong. I have been an ass from time to time and have apologized for it. Once you step back and take a deep breath, it's not that hard. Having said that, I think it is a close enough case that it would be wrong to punish. Instead he should be reminded to assume good faith both because of his lashing out at those who disagree with him and because of his Troll allegation. -Rrius (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser result

I don't normally like associating IP addresses with accounts but feel it's warranted in this case, given the extensive evidence. And in this case, it's

Confirmed - Alison ^❤ 05:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already told you the IP address was mine! Fone 4 Me 07:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In order to quell growing concerns; perhaps it should be determined if Fonez is or is not Wikipiere. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fonez4mii (talk · contribs) is

Unrelated to Wikipéire (talk · contribs) - Alison ^❤ 20:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phew! GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for getting it done so fast. I am now able to continue editing normally, without being ~~accused~~ harrassed every 5 minutes about another potential sockpuppet. Fone4 Me 21:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I've read some of this long discussion, but there's not much I can add. Based on the tone of the arguments, and without looking at the original evidence because we "already know the answer", it appears that Fonez4mii did nothing wrong and that Jack Forbes was a little too eager in suspecting him of ulterior motives. Nonetheless, I want to assume good faith on both sides and ask everyone to leave this aspect of your dispute in the past. Yechiel (Shalom) 02:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, I have retired, but I need to come back one last time to comment on this farcical decision. You are a disgrace! You say you read some of the discussion. SOME? You could not read all of it? I thought that's what you were here for. You also did not read the original evidence. WHAT?. This means you did not read any of the diffs proving he is a sockpuppet, this really takes the biscuit. Why did I and others put forward evidence if you could not be bothered to read it? I hope you show more dilligence in your day job than you do here, otherwise you would be fired for incompetence. If you are typical of admins and wikipedia in general I am well out of here. you have just made wikipedia a laughing stock! Good luck to all the decent editors out there, you will certainly need it! Jack forbes (talk) 07:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, next time you want to win an argument or besmirch someones name, use a sockpuppet, then when you are brought to account for it confess, pretend you did not mean it, despite all the evidence which won't be read anyway, and hey presto! All is forgiven. Check that,you will be told you did nothing wrong and it was the bad man who accused you who is at fault for bringing it up. Jack forbes (talk) 10:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am overruling the close on this one. There clearly was abusive sock puppetry, where an editor used an alternate account deceptively. [178]

[179] [180]. I will now study the evidence further and decide what to do about it. Jehochman ^Talk 14:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I am going to warn the user and watch their talk page. If there is any further trouble, the result will be much less lenient. Jehochman ^Talk 15:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I note here that I support Jehochman's decision; see my comments at User talk:Jehochman. Yechiel (Shalom) 23:07, 23 June 2008 (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:Amacmunn

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Amacmunn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Allisonmacmunn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Report submission by

_{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 20:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

see denial of unblock for spamming; COI; etc. Suggestion to review policies. New account created, editing the exact same articles. Suspected sock indef-blocked; block on orginal account upped for block evasion. Appears clear-cut here _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 20:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Conclusions

Travellingcari handled this case correctly. The sockpuppet account is now blocked, and Amacmunn, her block now expired, is free to edit but has not done so. I was encouraged by the tone of her unblock request. Yechiel (Shalom) 04:12, 19 June 2008 (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:WizetWiz

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

NotYouHaha! (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

He has advertised the SAME website on my user talk page using his sockpuppet, as the website he advertised using his original account on the Runescape talk page, and many other pages.to avoid his block for "spamming links to your website and vandalism".

Also, on my talk page, he mentioned that "wizetwiz has a new acc!!!", which shows that he has created a new account.

Comments

Conclusions

Blocked indef by NawlinWiki. Yechiel (Shalom) 04:06, 19 June 2008 (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:Davkal

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Davkal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

67.215.226.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
65.173.104.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
65.173.105.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

ScienceApologist (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Check evidence.

Comments

Of course it's fucking me. I'm signing the fucking posts for fuck's sake. BTW, the reason WUP is not me is because, as he so perceptively pointed out - I have no interest in UFOs. And the reason all those other users aren't me, is that I don't finish every sentence with 20 exclamation marks and question marks?????!!!!!???? I also learned the use of CaPiTaL letters when I was about six. Now block this account, unblock WUP cos he's not me, and block all those other fuckers, even tho they're not me, just because they're obvious pricks. Peace and beads - davkal 67.215.226.80 (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC) <<< see signing signing hello hello[reply]

And do it quick before I give you another taste of my editorial braggadocio davkal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.215.226.80 (talk) 23:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you also check User_talk:65.173.104.109? Notice that another IP on the same range, User_talk:65.173.105.243, has also been blocked as a Davkal sock --Enric Naval (talk) 00:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the two IPs mentioned by Enric Naval to the header of this report. At this moment 65.173.104.109 remains unblocked. Davkal above (if that is truly him) disclaims interest in UFOs. Jehochman has blocked *.243 as a Davkal sock. Is anyone familiar with the evidence? EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

The accounts are now blocked as socks. Jehochman ^Talk 19:34, 18 June 2008 (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:M.V.E.i.

Suspected sockpuppeteer

M.V.E.i. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

MaIl89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
79.183.110.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
79.178.15.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Papa November (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Having read Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/M.V.E.i. and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/M.V.E.i. (2nd), and received another editors opinion on the matter, I think there's some strong evidence for block evasion going on here.

MaIl89 signed post by IP, strong evidence that they are the same user: [181] (note - this isn't proof of M.V.E.i.'s sockpuppetry, only evidence that the IP and MaIl89 are the same editor. Papa November (talk) 11:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Many of the blocked user's editing patterns are present:

Strong focus on articles relating to ethnic Russians. A quick look at the contributions lists confirms this
Distinctive pattern of unusual spelling/grammatical errors, including:
- Strings of the letter 'h' repeated at the start of sentences; a very unusual construct: M.V.E.i. 79.183.110.85
- Lower case personal pronoun ('i' instead of 'I'): MVEi, MVEi, 79.178.15.123, 79.183.110.85, MaIl89
SHOUTING in edit summaries M.V.E.i., MaIl89 and in discussions M.V.E.i., 79.183.110.85
Starting unnecessary/bad faith admin action requests: (see first sock case for M.V.E.i. examples), MaIl89, MaIl89, MaIl89, 79.178.15.123

Chronology of account use

This may also be useful to consider:

2007-10-07: User:M.V.E.i. blocked for 1 year
2007-10-13: User:M.V.E.i. block timer reset for block evasion
2007-10-31: User:No Free Nickname Left created
2007-12-22: User:No Free Nickname Left blocked as sockpuppet
2007-12-22: User:M.V.E.i. block timer reset for block evasion
2008-01-11: User:Schpakovich created
2008-05-10: User:Schpakovich blocked as sockpuppet
2008-05-10: User:M.V.E.i. block timer reset for block evasion
2008-05-23: User:MaIl89 created

Comments

I'm not this user. A. I'm interested in Russia. And? many are are all of them one user? B. When a user doesn't know how to complain about a problem he goes to the incidents page. I'm not the only one there. C. I CANT SHOUT BY WRITTING!!! I outline what i want to say this way. I'm lazy to put this things. And i'm not the only one to do that. For now all i did was good. For example returning the Belarusians talk page which was exidentaly deleted by an administrator and now it was returned. I want to the administrators notice board for that. S*** on me!!! How could i do that? Ah, because i'm not an admin and couldnt restore it myself. Just for the record. This Melesse who complained about me to the user that complaines here has exelent reasons to lie on me. On the Russians talk page she lost an argument to me. Same think User:Papa November. I simply started a vote, which i won. On them i couldn't say they know to loose with honour. P.S. What was she doing in the Russian talk page?? Is she MVEi? How did she know about him anyway? I havent heard of him till now. The reason i signed with my IP and then later changed it to my nickname is because for a few days i couldn't remember my password. When i remembered it i switched it so people could also answer me. This MVEi is an old editor as i see so he did it just because he was lazy to sign in probably. MaIl89 (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:SHOUT - use intelligent discussion rather than capital letters and bold text to emphasise your meaning.
Talk:Belarusians was a broken redirect page. The discussions were not deleted - it still existed at Talk:Belarusian people, and an admin wasn't required to fix it. If you don't know how to do something, it's fine to ask for help, but you stepped way over the line by describing the deleting admin's actions as "absurd" and stating your temptation to "delete everything written on that administrators talk page" You need to assume good faith - the admin made a minor mistake, and didn't deserve the response you gave. Papa November (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Regarding the insinuation of User:Melesse's sockpuppetry, M.V.E.i. has a previous pattern of launching unsubstantiated "counter-attacks". See this frivolous case launched in response to M.V.E.i.'s first sock case. Papa November (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I havent known those stuff thats why i thought it was an admins deletion. I havent known the capitel letters thing. Oh cmmon. Soon you'll say "And MVEi used English, just like you". Really! Your saying too general things. You blame me for something i'm not. MVEi was blocked and i dont know why but i guess he did something to get it. What did i do? I'm confused why i'm being blamed and for what. Did i vandelise anything? Were i edit-waring? We had an argument? I did a vote. A fair vote and you have seen yourself i had a fair argument with you responsing to all you say and giving you respect! Could you please explaine me what have i done and why am i blamed to be this MVEi? I say again, i'm not. MaIl89 (talk) 12:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - P.S. The "bad faith" edits were later removed by me because i started a vote and decided that unless she will start a revert war even though loosing a vote, then i'll complain. Till then no need. MaIl89 (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no issue with the vote at Talk:Russians, this case is being presented because there are very specific similarities between your editing style and those of a blocked editor, which have been listed above. Creating a new account to evade a block is not permitted, and that is why your account has been reported. Papa November (talk) 13:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not permitted, but why should i care? I were never blocked. It's my only account. I dont know MVEi. MaIl89 (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still chasing up checkusers to see if we can get a definitive answer. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

No, we don't need CUs. I've just noticed the IPs: they geolocate to Israel. That's good enough for me. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, this time I've made the block on M.V.E.i. indefinite. He's banned. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have reviewed the discussion here and I support Moreschi's conclusion. Well done! Yechiel (Shalom) 03:43, 19 June 2008 (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:Jjonjonjon

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Sandyche3kzl0l (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Joojoobee39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Moomooocow8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Kellykettles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Maryslambchopdinner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Kerrylionberry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

_{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Significant disruption at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heather Dylan, usure at this point whether it's sock or meat puppetry.: adding Kerrylionberry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), while she's not a pure SPA, there is something bizarre going on as evidenced here where she reverted herself for vandalism and then 'complained' about it. Something's fishy. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 04:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional evidence: It appears that the accounts of User:Sandyche3kzl0l, User:Joojoobee39, User:Moomooocow8, User:Kellykettles and User:Maryslambchopdinner were all created between 19:02 and 19:28 on the 4th of June. In each case, a keep !vote was made to the Afd, which TravellingCari has stated above, within the first two edits of the new accounts and, in a lot of the cases, within the first few minutes of the accounts. Each of the accounts suspected made a keep !vote all within the same forty or so minutes even though the Afd had gone live for five/six hours and yet only four !votes were made in those first few hours. All of the new accounts, with the exception of User:Kellykettles created their userpage the edit before or the edit after their !vote was made.; After I had made a comment, in a discussion with User:Joojoobee39 on Talk:Heather Dylan about how Heather Dylan redirects to Dylan Bierk on imdb.com, a few hours later User:Jjonjonjon adds a PROD tag to the Dylan Bierk article, with User:Kerrylionberry adding a support PROD tag less than a half an hour later. And then on various talkpages, User:Jjonjonjon and User:Kerrylionberry have removed parts or even blanked out comments made by others especially comments which question the reliablility of sources of the Heather Dylan article. AngelOfSadness talk 11:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

As I've stated in the talk (discussion) page for TravellingCari, I am not a 'puppet'. I will defend my revert by stating that I was experimenting with my preferences, and clicked on some gadgets while not knowing what they were. I think the gadget is called Tickle or something like that, it marked my edit as vandalism. I took a quick glance at it, and thought TravellingCari marked my addition as vandalism. So I undid it. I will apologize for any confusion involving this, but as I said I am new to the gadgets and I am sure that's what caused it. Please take me off of this list. Thank you! Kerrylionberry (talk) 05:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked Jjonjonjon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)} for 12 hours, not for puppetry but for repeated vandalism and personal attacks, etc. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gwen Gale indef-blocked Jjonjonjon on June 6. None of this editor's suspected socks have been blocked, but none have edited since June 5, so we don't know if they are still active. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kerrykettles and Kerrylionberry both made attacks on the same user, almost simultaneously ([182] and [183]). I've warned them both, but IMO this is definate sock-puppetry. — Pek, on behalf of Tivedshambo (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up. Following further abuse from Kellykettles, I've switched to my admin account and indef blocked this user. — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 14:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All appear to have an obsession with herpes, which was the master's favorite form of personal attack/vandalism. They all but confirmed socking with your last two diffs. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 14:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've now blocked Kerrylionberry for sockpuppetry as well. — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 14:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what's next, how does this proceed, or does it. Socks have mostly quieted save for the initial burst. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 14:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep this page open for a while, in case anyone else has anything to say. Also, I've got my eye on another account, that may be related, but until I have firmer evidence I won't name for the time being. — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 15:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, got it. Please let me know if there's anything else you need me to do. I am watching the page. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 16:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Based on contribs, it's evident that all of these accounts are sockpuppets or single-use accounts. I don't think they will edit again, but I believe in formalities, so I will ask Travellingcari to finish the job. Yechiel (Shalom) 14:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since all the accounts listed here have been blocked, and the evidence appears strong, I'm closing the report. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2008 (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:87.194.248.39

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Grawp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: 87.194.248.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

ThreeDee912 (talk) 00:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

replaces articles with "HAGGAR??????"

Comments

Conclusions

IP blocked by Bongwarrior. Yechiel (Shalom) 11:58, 18 June 2008 (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:Galaxyangelnew (2nd)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Newonces (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Galaxyangelme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

MythSearcher^talk 07:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Galaxyangelnew All of these users keep creating pages containing an inexisting game and does not include any source even when an official site could simply prove that hoax game does not exist. Furthermore, if the game really exist, it would not have so many different names. Newonces was blocked as a sock puppet already but for record's sake I have included it here as well.

Comments

Conclusions

All users are now blocked indefinitely. Yechiel (Shalom) 11:55, 18 June 2008 (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:PIO (3rd)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Luigi 28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User:PIO has been known to use multiple socks since his block (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PIO) and had previously admitted to using many sockpuppets [184]. PIO's rotating IP is in the 151.67 to 70 range - evidence: PIO editing from his IP address arguing to be unblocked [185] [186] and this discussion User_talk:DIREKTOR#IP_151.67... during which 'Luigi' gets confused about whether he's 151.67 or 151.70 [187].
A previous SSP report by User:AlasdairGreen27 has been inconclusive due to lack of evidence as to User:Luigi 28's editing pattern (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PIO (2nd)). Since then, however, the User's pattern has emerged as an one identical to User:PIO's:

This "new" User's first ever edit was to restore a fact tag that PIO had added. [188]
User:Luigi 28 edits on virtually the same articles as User:PIO and his socks, i.e. on controversial Dalmatia-related articles [189]. Including: Istrian exodus, Dalmatian Italians, and Istria (edited with his one of his IPs, 151.70.113.217), which were PIO's favorite revert-battlegrounds. Just like PIO, he also claims to be of Dalmatian origin, living in Venice.
Without User:Luigi 28 being mentioned, PIO's sock Agazio was telling us, without being asked or the User being mentioned to him at all, that he had "no connection" with Luigi 28. (see User_talk:Agazio)
When the controversial article Istrian exodus was semi-protected against PIO's socks and IPs, User:Luigi 28, supposedly "new" to Wikipedia, was there within hours of the protection's expiration to add census data to it [190], which, strangely enough, had been User:PIO's favorite topic [191].
User:PIO apparently found a new way to alter his IP to a degree, as the checkuser did not provide conclusive results. Which is strange considering the facts: he admitted (here [192]) that he wrote this [193] and this [194], where he apparently got confused about which IP he was using. From this it follows that he also wrote this [195], and this [196], and this [197], and this [198], and all these [199][200]. There's also a remarkable similarity between this [201], this [202], and this [203] where he was 'Nemo', and this [204] where he was 'Agazio'.

However, even if we disregard the fact that his IP falls well within PIO's "range" (see [205]), the remaining evidence, coupled with User:Luigi 28's apparently strong convictions in the Dalmatian conflict (identical to PIO's) is more than conclusive in my view. The guy also decided to use what appears to be his his real-world name and info as some kind of "proof", though he could, of course, be simply lying. (Finally: thank you Alasdair, for formulating most of the evidence :)

My defence

My name is Luigi Vianelli (here you can read something; I'm an expert of Holocaust denial: [206][207][208]), I'm Italian and I speak a terrible English: I'm very sorry for that. My family comes from Losinj (Lussino). The family of my wife comes from Rijeka (Fiume). I read more than 300 books in four languages (Italian, French, English, German) about the Adriatic. This is my point of interest from more than 20 years.

I wrote here in Wikipedia in voices:

a. Italia irredenta
b. Italian Mare Nostrum
c. Istrian exodus
d. Andrea Antico
e. Sanctorius
f. Roger Joseph Boscovich
g. Rijeka
h. Cres (town)
i. Krk
j. Mila Schon
k. Veli Losinj
l. Missoni
m. Dalmatian Italians
n. SMS Szent István
o. Gabriele d'Annunzio

It's simply and completely false that they are the same articles as User:PIO. The User:PIO from all the above articles, wrote only for:

a. Istrian exodus
Here the link from the personal PIO's page:[209]

I repeat: only one of my articles!

From my first message here in Wikipedia, I was accused to be a sockpuppet:

When I wrote my first message: [User:AlasdairGreen27] wrote immediately a request for checkuser[210]. Only few minutes ago (in Italy are the 03.28 in the morning - Saturday 06.07.2008) I've seen that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luigi 28 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here:[211] User:AlasdairGreen27 wrote that I'm the banned User:PIO
Here:[212] Alasdair insinuated that I'm the banned user Agazio/alias PIO: seem pretty conclusive to me that Agazio and Luigi 28 are one and the same
Here:[213] Alasdair confirm that I'm PIO: I'm getting together an RFCU now
Here: [214] Alasdair wrote that I'm the banned user PIO: they're indeed the same person
Here: [215] User:DIREKTOR wrote that I'm the banned user PIO: they're the same person allright, the grammar mistakes are identical. When one listens to him long enough, one gets used to PIO's distinct "style" of expression. I have the PIO's style of expression!
Here: [216] DIREKTOR wrote that I'm the banned user PIO, and call me Venetian irredentist radical. Venetian irredentist radical !!!
Here:[217] ">DIREKTOR reverted my contribute without any explanation, except: reverting unreferenced info added by banned User:PIO
Here:[218] DIREKTOR reverted for the second time my contribute, without any explanation.
Here:[219] DIREKTOR reverted my contribute for the third time without any explanation, except: you're banned from editing remember?
Here: [220] DIREKTOR wrote that I was another guy, named PIO: What are we going to do about PIO? He's a real fanatic, this one. Please, note the word fanatic, wich is for me, 'cause he thinks I'm PIO.
Here: [221]User:AlasdairGreen27 is trying to insinuate that I'm that banned PIO
Here: [222] DIREKTOR wrote that I'm the banned Pio: Yep, you're PIO alright
Here: [223] DIREKTOR wrote that I'm the bannedo PIO
Here: [224] Alasdair wrote another time that I'm PIO and others banned contributors.
Here: [225] Alasdair insinuate that I'm PIO: If you click on the IP addresses, then at the user contributions screen click on WHOIS at the bottom left of the page, it tells us they are all the same and the others banned contributors.
Here: [226] DIREKTOR wrote that I'm PIO: I know, you're Luigi. Your Wikipedia name was PIO, though...
Here: [227] Alasdair insinuate that I'm another one: Yes, Luigi, you know who you are. Your problem is that everyone else also knows
Here: [228] DIREKTOR insinuate that I'm that banned PIO
Here: [229] DIREKTOR wrote that I'm PIO (hi PIO) and reverted my contribute without any explanation
Here: [230] DIREKTOR reverted my contribute without any explanation
Here: [231] DIREKTOR reverted my contribute without any explanation

User:DIREKTOR says that:

"he admitted (here [232]) that he wrote this [233] and this [234], where he apparently got confused about which IP he was using. From this it follows that he also wrote this [235], and this [236], and this [237], and this [238], and all these [239][240]. There's also a remarkable similarity between this [241] and this [242] and this [243] where you were 'Nemo', and this [244] where you were Agazio."

From the above, I wrote only:

This: [245]
and this: [246]
(the first two messages)
no more!

USER:DIREKTOR wrote:

(see [247]), the remaining evidence, coupled with User:Luigi 28's apparently strong convictions in the Dalmatian conflict (identical to PIO's) is more than conclusive in my view.

Well, if you read carefully, all my words are a long quote from Francesco Bruni[248][249][250], professor of Italian Literature at the University of Venice. Here you can read my Bruni's quote, in the original link:[251]. Now: a very famous Italian professor is like User:PIO? A Venetian Irredentist? Please, if you understand the Italian language, read the Bruni's quote: the primary source is an old book of Giovambattista Giustiniani...

The User:DIREKTOR and another one, the User:AlasdairGreen27, persecute myself, I don't know why.

The User:DIREKTOR was punished for Edit warring:[252]

Please, look my talk page here[253], where I try to explane to User:DIREKTOR who I'm, why I'm interesting in history of the Eastern Side of Adriatic Sea, and finally that I'm not that PIO!

I'll be very happy if someone check all my messages, also with checkuser, or as you want
--Luigi 28 (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PIO, you misunderstood a lot of my points, and links... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The last provocation from User:DIREKTOR: I'm not that PIO! You misunderstood all my words, from the first one to the last one. You misunderstood me.--Luigi 28 (talk) 01:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Luigi firmly states above that the only article that he has edited that PIO also edited is Istrian exodus. That is not strictly true, as PIO also edited Dalmatian Italians [254][255] --AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What really bothers me is how did he not notice this? I mean, is he stating his non-involvement with articles based on a check of the History page, or simply on memory. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My answer: I'm not User:PIO and I've read the edits of User:PIO, on the History page. I've not seen the edit of Dalmatian Italians. So:

It's simply and completely false that they are the same articles as User:PIO. The User:PIO from all the above articles, wrote only for:

a. Istrian exodus

b. Dalmatian Italians

Here the link from the personal PIO's page:[256]

I repeat: only two of my 15 articles (13.3%)!
--Luigi 28 (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another one personal error: I wrote also for:

p. Nazario Sauro

So I have to repeat:

It's simply and completely false that they are the same articles as User:PIO. The User:PIO from all the above articles, wrote only for:

a. Istrian exodus

b. Dalmatian Italians

Here the link from the personal PIO's page:[257]

I repeat: only two of my 16 articles (12.5%)!
--Luigi 28 (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luigi, the mile-long "defense" does not really address the matter at hand. If I call you PIO, that's not a personal attack. Even if it were, this discussion is about your sockpuppeteering, nothing else. Please Refrain from huge explanations with no real bearing on the matter. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted many time my edits[258][259][260][261][262][263][264][265][266][267], without read one word, only because you think that I'm that PIO. This is only a personal attack. You reverted my edits simply for a personal attack. I'm not a sockpuppet and your statement against me is completely false. All your words against me are personal attack: you wrote that "edits on virtually the same articles as User:PIO and his socks": this is false. You wrote about my error (one voice / two voices): "his non-involvement with articles based on a check of the History page, or simply on memory": this is a personal attack. I'm not PIO and I'm not a sockpuppet, and that's all.--Luigi 28 (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calling you PIO is not a personal attack, if I want to call you Johnny I am perfectly within my rights to do so. Reverting your unsourced edits is also not a personal attack. Just WP:SHOUTing you're not a sock is not going to prove anything, PIO, if I created a sock I really wanted to keep I would do the same. Your identity is quite obvious for all the reasons plainly stated above. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: Reverting your unsourced edits is also not a personal attack.. This is completely false. For example: I wrote a list of the City Mayors of Rijeka[268], every one with one or two sources: you reverted[269]! Another example: I changed a part of the voice Istrian exodus with two sources[270]: you reverted[271]! You made a personal attack against me. Your words are false. You were punished another time for Edit warring:[272]--Luigi 28 (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this WP:PA. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were punished another time for Edit warring[273]: it's simply a fact.--Luigi 28 (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a 24 hour block, while you on the other hand were banned completely. Ok, please stop with this nonsense. This page is intended for discussing your sockpuppeteering, not some imaginary policy breaches of yours. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm never banned, because I'm not a sockpuppet. This is another simply fact.--Luigi 28 (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may or may not be a sock (the check user report will determine that) but you have now edited this report 53 times [274]. What's that all about? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because I make too many mistakes writing in English (so I'm trying to correct something) and I don't know how to edit the page: have a look to my edits! I'm new in Wikipedia, even if you do not believe: I learned the words sockpuppet and checkuser only one or two days ago. This is another fact! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luigi 28 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That makes perfect sense, PIO is a noob. Apparently this sock is the main attempt... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luigi, you say "I'm new in Wikipedia", but unlike other newbies, you know enough about Wiki that your very first edit was a fact tag [275], and your second was a properly formatted external reference [276]. Come on buddy. Can we agree that you are not as new as all that? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man: you made more or less the same with your second edit[277], and your guy User:DIREKTOR - the young student [name redacted] - create his own page the very second day of active Wiki-life, with a complicate tag! Boys: are you perhaps two socks?--Luigi 28 (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luigi, now this is getting a little more serious. In line with WP:OUTING, you may not post personal information about any other person, an editor or not, on Wikipedia, outside of material relevant to an article. Leaving all other questions in this discussion aside, please bear this in mind. Thank you. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man: I read: Posting another person's personal information (...) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself. I have read this name here:[link redacted]. Have you obliged User:DIREKTOR to write his name or he wrote voluntarily?--Luigi 28 (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That makes only perfect sense: you make a personal war against me, without interest to what I write. You reverted many times my edits[278][279][280][281][282][283][284][285][286][287], also fully documented and sourced, without any kind of explanation, only because you think I'm PIO.--Luigi 28 (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I always pick on new guys on Wikipedia. In fact, that's all I ever want to do with my time... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about other guys: I know that with me you are conducting a personal war, from my first edit.--Luigi 28 (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, boys I suggest we all keep up a dignified silence on this from now on. This discussion is leading nowhere. Hopefully the CU will be in fairly quickly. Then we'll see. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addenda

Only today I've seen this:[288]. Th User:DIREKTOR "is subject to an editing restriction for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. If he exceeds this limit or fails to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below."

He reverted my edits 10 times in a week:[289][290][291][292][293][294][295][296][297][298], without any discussion on the page's talk page. He exceeded the limit!--Luigi 28 (talk) 07:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're a sock of a banned user, your edits are "obvious vandalism". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...'re already preparing your defence?--Luigi 28 (talk) 08:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addenda 2

Today, User:DIREKTOR and USER:AlasdairGreen27, wrote that they reverted my edits, because: You are not aware perhaps that under WP:RSUE you should use English language sources wherever possible, because this is the English Wiki. Where no English language sources of the same quality exist it is permissible to use foreign language sources, but you should provide a translation of the relevant part of the text as a footnote. If you just use an Italian language source with no effort to find an English source or translation, especially in controversial articles such as Istrian exodus, there is a good chance this material may be challenged and removed.[299], and because your sources are biased. We can't allow you to simply add controversial info with sources of doubtful verifiability, and in another language.[300].
Please look for the voice Istrian exodus. This is my contribution: [301]. In the talk page I wrote a complete explanation of my change, in English with regular translations: [302].
I wrote also a list of City Mayors of Rijeka, completely sourced in Italian, Croatian, French and English:[303], Well:User:DIREKTOR reverted in 4 minutes:[304]!!
The question is: why User:DIREKTOR and USER:AlasdairGreen27, continue to lie about my edits?--Luigi 28 (talk) 13:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luigi, I'm a little confused as to your belligerent post accusing me of lying, so please help me.
1. I did not write that I reverted your edits for the reason you state above.
2. I used Istrian exodus as an example, so if we are talking about that article, what about this [305]? There are also other examples from other articles, such as this [306] and this [307]. I'd be grateful if you could, in future, be a little more civil. Many thanks in advance. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well: your example was wrong: but you are a little confused. And I just wrote to you [308] that the voice Istrian Exodus has 32 notes: 11 in Croatian, Italian or Slovene (more than 33%). Why did you speak only about my edits (three notes), that here are completely sourced with regular translation in English? Look for the others editors, please, and change completely the voice! Make your work with another one voice: Dalmatia - for instance - has 10 notes: 6 only in Croatian. What do you think to do with that?--Luigi 28 (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, PIO/Luigi_28 stop this nonsense! This page is NOT intended for a general discussion on your problems with Alasdair and me, please post only data that is relevant to your sockpuppeteering report. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The very first time you call me with my correct name! I hope that someone can read all the discussion here, and your personal war against me.--Luigi 28 (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look this[309]. Incredible funny: he wrote an edit only to change my nickname: Luigi ---> PIO/Luigi!--Luigi 28 (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addenda 3

User:AlasdairGreen27 wrote to me: I would ask you to strike through your comment accusing me of lying. I would also suggest that it may be better if you toned down the belligerent nature of your posts. Thank you in advance.[310]. After three hours, he re-wrote: I will ask you for the second time to strike out the accusation of lying[311].

So: When User:AlasdairGreen27 wrote that my edits were reverted, because: "You are not aware perhaps that under WP:RSUE you should use English language sources wherever possible, because this is the English Wiki. Where no English language sources of the same quality exist it is permissible to use foreign language sources, but you should provide a translation of the relevant part of the text as a footnote. If you just use an Italian language source with no effort to find an English source or translation, especially in controversial articles such as Istrian exodus, there is a good chance this material may be challenged and removed", while my edits of Istrian exodus were well sourced in English, he doesn't lie. It was simply a mistake. I'm sorry to wrote the word "lie", wich is my mistake. I apologize with User:AlasdairGreen27.--Luigi 28 (talk) 18:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brief summary of the evidence, as requested at Administrators' noticeboard

1. PIO is an indefinitely blocked user [312] with a history of sockpuppetry. See User:Jxy and User:Agazio.

2. PIO's last known IPs were in the 151.67 range. See [313] [314] [315]

3. On 9 May User:DIREKTOR reverted edits at Foibe massacres and Istrian exodus by various IPs in PIO's range, sparking minor edit warring at both articles. See [316] and [317].

4. This caused me to point out to him on his talk page that he'd been dealing with PIO. See User_talk:DIREKTOR/Archive_5#IP_151.67...

5. This thread was joined by an IP signing himself 'Luigi' [318], who realised he was being discussed. In a highly revealing post, he notices that his IP has jumped from 151.67 to 151.70 [319] saying "OOps! I am not 151,67, but 151,70… however my message remains valid. Luigi".

6. When asked directly [320], Luigi confirmed that he was responsible for the posts at User_talk:DIREKTOR above [321].

7. There is thus a direct link between PIO and Luigi 28 via thir IPs, that a WHOIS check says are the same anyway.

8. Luigi, like PIO, sees Wikipedia not as an encyclopedia but as a battleground, almost exclusively editing articles about Istria and Dalmatia, removing references that Italians may have been born in Istria or Dalmatia [322][323][324], arguing vehemently [325][326] and so on.

AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brief summary of my defence

I don't know Pio nor Agazio
From my firs edit User:AsalsdairGreen27 called for a check[327], only because he think I'm User:PIO. Obviously, that chek stated that There's not a lot of evidence here, to be honest, but all of these are actual Unlikely
In my second edit[328] I added a neutral picture in the voiceRoger Joseph Boscovich : the Boscovich's signature. User:DIREKTOR reverted my edit only because he thik I'm that User:PIO, without any kind of explanation. He reverted that voice another one time, without any kind of explanation[329]
So began a long series of insinuations about me, only regarding my supposed sockpuppering: User:DIREKTOR and User:AlasdairGreen27 harassed me saying every day the same thing: I'm User:PIO. Only some examples:[330][331][332][333][334][335]
In the same time, User:DIREKTOR reverted all my edits. Only some examples: [336][337][338][339][340][341]
Note that he reverted all my edits, including all the sourced edits (I wrote only very few edits without a source. Please, have a look for my edits)
Before my registration in Wikipedia, I wrote all those:[342]. Only those!
I've NEVER removed references that Italians may have been born in Istria or Dalmatia. I remove only two things (seven words) in ALL (I repeat: ALL) my edits:

That Andrea Antico was of Croatian birth [343]. After some discussions, the User:Antandrus - who wrote more than 60% of the voice - stated - according with me - that I'm reporting what Martin Picker, the world expert on Antico, wrote in the New Grove. Beyond that I can only speculate. What was Antico's native language? I don't know, and it is probable no one knows. The best we can do is report where he was from: and since throughout his life he was "da Montona", and seems to have made a big deal of his origin, it is reasonable to do it the way Picker does. The first thirty years of his life are a blank'[344]. Now User:Antandrus changed the voice Andrea Antico (he changed the voice!), wich stated that Antico was of Istrian birth[345]. For me that's perfect (and many thanks to User:Antandrus)!
That Agostino Straulino was Croatians of Italian descent[346]. He never was Croatian, never had the Croatian passport. If you want, I can send to you a complete history of Agostino Straulino, who during the war was also volunteer in a Italian Special Force.

Regarding other famous people, I simply added (added: never removed):

That Mila Schon was born in Trogir [347], and added her name between the famous Dalmatian Italians, like her brother Nino Nutrizio, founder of Italian newspaper La Notte: [348]
That Ottavio Missoni was Mayor of Libero Comune di Zara in Esilio (an associations of Dalmatian Italians) and his mother named Teresa de' Vidovich[349]

That's all, regarding the Dalmatian Italians!

In my last edit, I added that the territory of Kastav (Castua) doesn't were given to Italy after the WWI[350]. The User:DIREKTOR changed my voice, because he don't want Italian names in the voice[351]. Thera are other 25 Italian names in the voice: Monte Zaro, Monte Serpente, Monte Ghiro, Monte Magno, Monte Paradiso, Monte Rizzi, Monte Vidal, Monteserpo, Lungomare, Quarnero, Porta Gemina, Valle, Bagnole, Barbanna (it's a mistake: the Italian name is Barbana), Brioni, Fasana, Gallesano, Lisignano, Medolino, Pomero, Promontore, Sissano, Stignano, Altura, Dignano[352], but User:DIREKTOR erased only the single Italian name I added! Very strange...
I think that User:DIREKTOR and User:AsalsdairGreen27 are conducting a personal war against me, only because they think I'm User:PIO
User:DIREKTOR "is subject to an editing restriction for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. If he exceeds this limit or fails to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below."[353]. He reverted my edits more than ten times in very few days.
I need an help from an Admin, 'cause they harassed me from days and days--151.70.102.18 (talk) 19:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry: I wasn't logged in!--Luigi 28 (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Hehe, Luigi forgetting to log in just gave the game away. The IP is almost the same as, and is geographically identical to, another PIO sock, the IP listed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/PIO, which obviously was PIO. Ergo, Luigi is PIO, ergo, he is indef blocked. Which I have done. Cheerio! Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheerio yourself, thanks for your time :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:24, 16 June 2008 (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:BDF123

Suspected sockpuppeteer: BDF91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: BDF123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Magioladitis (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Same user name style, created the same day, both accounts are vandalism only accounts and vandalished the same single article. Check [354]

Comments

Who is the suspected sock puppet here? Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 01:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently it's BDF123. I've added it above. Yechiel (Shalom) 01:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BDF91 should be blocked as a formality, but it's only made 1 edit and is not particularly likely to return. BDF123 should be treated on its own merits. I agree that this user's edits are not positive. Yechiel (Shalom) 01:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the results are clear here, Please see the results of the UserCompare tool.. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 01:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Blocked BDF123 indef as vandal only. Left BDF91 alone since it's only one edit, warned. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:34, 15 June 2008 (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:Navagation

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Number1edit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Deadly∀ssassin 05:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User Navagation created autobiography Navneel Chandra after final warning for removal of CSD tags and creation of inappropriate pages single use account Number1edit removed CSD tags again. It's clear that the subject of this article has created the account for the purpose of being able to remove the CSD tags.

Comments

Conclusions

Deletion logs confirm this. Blocked sock indef, master 72 hours for tag removal. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:52, 15 June 2008 (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:Dcshoes

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Amalthea (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User User:Dcshoes is a PR guy for the company of the same name. When I reverted his edits to the company page DC Shoes, he stated that the current information is wrong. After lengthy discussions on his user page, where I gave him at last a final warning not to edit the page again, a new user named User:Wrongapedia changed the page again, with the same content as it had before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC_Shoes?diff=217162575&oldid=217157236

Comments

I realize that this is probably not strong evidence, but I guess that a simple IP check should be enough in this case if I'm right.

Ok, so he has pretty much admitted to it on his puppet's talk page, might have been in good faith after misunderstanding Conflict of Interest. I try to explain it to him, this case can then be closed. Amalthea (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest blocking Wrongapedia as a formality. Amalthea seems to have the situation under control. Yechiel (Shalom) 23:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dcshoes has already been asked to change his username, due to the connection with DC Shoes. I can see how the situation might be puzzling to him. I agree with Amalthea's opinion about the COI editing, and I hope the editor will be able to figure things out. He may need some more assistance, but he seems cooperative. EdJohnston (talk) 04:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I'll ask EdJohnston to close this just to get a second pair of eyes. A week later, it's evident that the accused user has abandoned the Wrongapedia account and basically created it by mistake. There are some unresolved issues with COI editing that go beyond the scope of this particular noticeboard: for example, I have misgivings about whether the userpage of User:Dcshoes is permitted by policy. But I'll defer to Ed on that. Yechiel (Shalom) 04:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked the sock, advised main account to change name. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:48, 15 June 2008 (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:Spectacular1234

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Spectacular1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

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

Report submission by

Kafka Liz (talk) 11:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Newly created single-purpose accounts working on Timothy Haylen, an apparent hoax with spurious citations. The accounts remove speedy deletion tags and attack editors who restore them.

Both User:Blushmagazine and User:Spectacular1234 do not sign their posts on talk pages properly with tildes, but add their own signature which points the talk link at the ir user page. LittleOldMe (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I have some doubts about Blushmagazine being the same, as they talk a bit differently, and, Blushmagazine signs their posts, while Spectacular1234 does not. They also don't seem to agree all the time. Also, the times on edits made from those two are a bit close at times (it's rather difficult to get an edit in, within 1min, while logging out, logging in, etc) The IP, yeah, probably Spectacular1234. SQL ^{Query me!} 18:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be rather difficult to sign in, edit, sign out, and sign back in as someone else but, it is simple enough to simply have two browsers open at the same time and be logged in with separate accounts on each one. No opinion either way on this specific case just want to make sure things are looked at fully. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Spectacular1234 has been blocked for 55 hours, and none of the the accounts have edited since. Kafka Liz (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin assistance requested Please look at the timestamps for deleted contribs by these users and for the deleted article Timothy Haylen. Based on the contrib logs available to non-admins, there's a lot to suggest sockpuppetry.

Edits by Spectacular1234

Deleted edit at 12:39 SQL ^{Query me!}

12:38, 28 May 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Spectacular1234‎ (←Blanked the page)

12:35, 28 May 2008 (hist) (diff) User:Bonadea‎

12:34, 28 May 2008 (hist) (diff) User:Kafka Liz‎

Deleted edit at 12:31 SQL ^{Query me!}

12:28, 28 May 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Spectacular1234‎

12:19, 28 May 2008 (hist) (diff) User:Spectacular1234‎ (←Blanked the page)

12:18, 28 May 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Spectacular1234‎

12:16, 28 May 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Bonadea‎

Deleted edit at 12:14 SQL ^{Query me!}

12:12, 28 May 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Spectacular1234‎ (←Blanked the page)

12:11, 28 May 2008 (hist) (diff) User:Spectacular1234‎ (←Blanked the page)

12:11, 28 May 2008 (hist) (diff) User:Kafka Liz‎

12:10, 28 May 2008 (hist) (diff) User:Kafka Liz‎

12:08, 28 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets‎

12:03, 28 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Spectacular1234‎ (←Replaced content with ' ----

')

12:01, 28 May 2008 (hist) (diff) User:Spectacular1234‎ (←Blanked the page)

Deleted edit at 11:50 SQL ^{Query me!}

Deleted edit at 11:49 SQL ^{Query me!}

11:46, 28 May 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Spectacular1234‎ (Undid revision 215476640 by Kafka Liz (talk))

Deleted edit at 11:35 SQL ^{Query me!}

Deleted edit at 11:24 SQL ^{Query me!}

Deleted edit at 11:06 SQL ^{Query me!}

Deleted edit at 11:03 SQL ^{Query me!}

Deleted edit at 11:00 SQL ^{Query me!}

Deleted edits from 09:58 - 11:00 SQL ^{Query me!}

Edits by Blushmagazine

11:43, 28 May 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Blushmagazine‎ (top) [rollback]

11:42, 28 May 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Blushmagazine‎

11:41, 28 May 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Blushmagazine‎

Deleted edit at 11:31 SQL ^{Query me!}

Deleted edit at 11:29 SQL ^{Query me!}

Deleted edit at 11:22 SQL ^{Query me!}

11:19, 28 May 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Blushmagazine‎

11:14, 28 May 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Blushmagazine‎

Deleted edit at 11:07 SQL ^{Query me!}

Edits by Spectacular1234

11:04, 28 May 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Spectacular1234‎ (←Blanked the page)

11:02, 28 May 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Spectacular1234‎

This looks pretty strong to me. It's not likely to be a coincidence, but I'd need to see deleted revisions to be sure, and not being an admin, I need to ask someone else to check that. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filled in what I could from the deleted edits for you, HTH. SQL ^{Query me!} 12:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SQL, that does help. I think it confirms a link between these two accounts. I suggest blocking Blushmagazine and asking Spectacular1234 not to repeat the mistake. Yechiel (Shalom) 01:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

They only edited on 28 May. Blocked two named accounts as SPAs. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:04, 15 June 2008 (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:Grawp

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Grawp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

RedThunder 12:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Uggh.. More Grawp sockpuppets. All made edits to the Template:Infobox Flag page, with messages saying "This page brought to you by Grawp. Got HAGGER?"

Diffs:

Comments

Conclusions

Already all blocked. Rudget (logs) 12:09, 15 June 2008 (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:Willy Wheelson

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Willy Wheelson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

ju66l3r (talk) 07:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Comments

Conclusions

User Blocked indef --Chris 08:35, 15 June 2008 (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:207.189.99.134

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Itelligence (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
DSTinctive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Pimpin23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by Justinm1978 (talk) 20: 58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

The IP was edit-warring with me on Delta Sigma Theta, injecting the same incorrect information repeatedly. They were reverted twice by User:Miranda and four times by me (I'm aware I violated 3RR), as shown here:

1st revert: [359]
2nd revert: [360]
3rd revert: [361]
4th revert: [362]
5th revert: [363]
6th revert: [364]

I submitted a 3RR report, and we were both blocked for 24 hours. After the block was up, the IP continued to edit war, and we were both blocked for 48 hours.

[365]

My block was recently lifted, and I noticed a brand-new account that not only re-injected the incorrect content, but also deleted the commented explanation as to why that was incorrect:

Itelligence change #1: [366]
Itelligence change #2: [367]

Not more than two minutes later, another new account comes along and corrects the goofs that this previous account made

DSTinctive change #1: [368]
DSTinctive change #2: [369]

An ANI thread was opened on this by User:Miranda who first reported the 3RR. I also submitted the reasoning for my reverting there, as well as in my edit summaries and on the talk page of the IP.

Another new editor, Pimpin23, added to the article today, making the exact same edits as Itelligence and DSTinctive:

Pimpin23 #1: [370]
Pimpin23 #2: [371]

Comments

Since if I touch the article again, I'm sure it could be interpreted as an edit war, I would like to see if this is the same user doing this. I have a strong feeling it is, since they are inserting the exact same material repeatedly.

Conclusions

This is extremely obvious. Not being an administrator I can't block, but these two users have no other contribs at all, and have made the same edit in the same edit war as another editor who has violated 3RR. This is grounds for blocking the main account for at least a week. I commend Justinm1978 for having the composure to step back from the edit war and present evidence in a coherent manner. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My recommendation is to semiprotect the page. miranda 02:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/207.189.99.134. Thatcher confirmed a link, and East718 indef-blocked all three named accounts. Yechiel (Shalom) 04:36, 15 June 2008 (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:Thelegendofvix

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Thelegendofvix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

After thelegendofviz received a 3RR warning on Greek (TV series), an account that has gone unused for almost a year suddenly begins doing the exact same edits to the article.

Comments

Collectonian entered into an "edit war" with myself and now has accused me of sock puppetry in order to "win" the argument. I have one account, thelegendofvix. The accuser has not listed what other account(s) that I allegedly have created/activated. Just an accusation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelegendofvix (talk • contribs) 20:37, May 28, 2008

I have not entered into an edit war with you, you were already in one with five other editors over inappropriate content. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs)

You still have not given any evidence that I have engaged in sock puppetry. And you did revert several of my reverts.Thelegendofvix (talk) 01:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is above. An admin will determine the rest. I reverted your inappropriate and continued edit warring with multiple other edits. You are the only one edit warring here and displaying heavy ownership issues. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check the IP addresses. Also, if you look at the log this account went inactive way before my (only) account went active. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelegendofvix (talk • contribs) 01:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An admin will do the investigating. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know. And you will do the accusing, no?Thelegendofvix (talk) 02:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is funny that I get accused of sockpuppeteering from someone, but when I try to do the same thing I get no "due process." The circumstances are the same for both users (Collectonian and myself) even though the alleged motives are different. Interesting how her sockpuppet case was removed and mine was not. Concordantly, I also think it is funny/pathetic/sad that Collectonian cannot stand it when someone makes a valid point that is contrary to hers. She will throw every weak argument in the book at you to prove you wrong even going as far as to accuse you of sockpuppeting. If you look at her editing history, on her 20K+ so called "contributions" you will see that rather than taking a neutral and academic stance she frequently deletes anything that is contrary to her wikipedia ideology offering no respect for users out there who hold different viewpoints and opinions out there. If you want to see an example of this take a look at her precious award winning Meercat Manor. If she, the wikiGod, does not approve of what goes into the content, precisely how it reads, or its literary merit, she will remove it. If it does not flow with what she feels is true and accurate it is gone. Sounds more like a wikiBully obsessed with being right and winning internet arguments all under the guise of finding just the right statement (while ignoring the ones that are contrary) on wikipedia's vast array of guidelines. All in all, I know that I can be stubborn but wow...I have never seen anything linke this! You win the Dundie Thelegendofvix (talk) 23:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I have not used or logged into this account in ages because I don't need to edit pages and whatnot. I made this when I was younger and completely forgot about it until now. I decided to just log in one day due to curiosity of if it still existed, etc. Due to my own laziness, I kept my account logged in. I don't know who edited that page for sure, but I am almost positive that it was my younger sister. This case should be closed because it is just made up of false accusations. I don't even know Thelegendofvix. Thanks. -- Preshuzz

Sorry Preshuzz, I don't think you can be excused yet, as there is little evidence to move this case along. I'd still like to comment that most of Thelegendofvix's edits are for Greek (TV).

I'd also further like to note that most of Preshuzz's edits don't suggest that he is a sockpuppet for Thelegendofvix. They also support the story he/she claimed, so I'd like to suggest that maybe we look at this case only in ANI. Yojimbo501 (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I intend to send this to checkuser. A simple check of contribs reveals no simultaneous editing before the end of May 2008. Thelegendofvix started editing on 29 June 2007; Preshuzz stopped editing on 18 June 2007, having started in February.

For bookkeeping purposes, the diffs of the alleged 3RR violation are:

First revert (This added material which was then removed; Stannered's edit summary was "re-adding deleted hearsay and POV is not a 'minor edit'")
Second revert
Third revert
Fourth revert
Revert by Preshuzz

If checkuser links these accounts, then Thelegendofvix has some explaining to do. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Thelegendofvix. Thatcher says these accounts are unrelated. Yechiel (Shalom) 04:33, 15 June 2008 (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:Caspian blue

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Caspian blue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Caspian blue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Blueshirts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Flying tiger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

-- Documentingabuse (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a sockpuppet report but a meatpuppet report WP:MEATPUPPET

Evidence

Following related to a persistent Three-revert rule violation on Comfort women (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) of a group exercising de facto WP:OWN.

All editors have been reverting to identical revision, Blueshirts and user:Caspian blue gaming, avoiding discussion etc making any change or develop of article impossible.

Blueshirts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Caspian blue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Flying tiger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Blueshirts and other contributors are all reverting to his previous version of: 19:27, 12 June 2008
As of this date, I have developed the article to this version and placed in use tag: 14:46, 14 June 2008

Please bear in mind that my very first edit was on 16:41, 12 June 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.42.252.111 (talk)

1st revert: 18:20, 12 June 2008
2nd revert: 19:25, 12 June 2008
3rd revert: 09:24, 14 June 2008
4th revert: 09:50, 14 June 2008
5th revert: 10:08, 14 June 2008
6th revert: 10:10, 14 June 2008
7th revert: 10:19, 14 June 2008
8th revert: 10:38, 14 June 2008

Identical WP:3RR eversion to own his version

Additional identical revision without discussion

Identical revision by forth contributor Jaysweet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

9th revert:18:51, 12 June 2008

Identical reversion by second contributor Caspian blue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

10th revert: 17:08, 12 June 2008

Continued gaming by unblocked second user Caspian blue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

17:03, 14 June 2008

Identical reversion by second contributor Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

11th revert: 14:15, 14 June 2008

Identical reversion by third contributor Flying tiger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), (see Youtube contribution [372])

12th revert: 14:29, 14 June 2008
13th revert: 16:40, 14 June 2008

Comments

I consider Jaysweet was acting in good faith and do not include him.

Please see discussion on my user page, here [373]. My ISP provides dynamic IP address each time I dial up.

I am making NO effort to be a sockpuppet. This is beyond my control. Previous IPs given was 222.150.193.111

In order to file this I was required to create a long in and so chose Documentingabuse.

I have no wish to and make no efforts to avoid blocks.

Comment LOL, meatpuppet? You're using abusive sockpuppeting and then evade your block sanction. I guess this false accusation should be deleted and "indefinite block" should be very suitable for the abusive sockpupper.--Caspian blue (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weird accusation from an user who looks he has edited for same days under 222.150.193.35 [[374]], 60.42.252.111 [[375]] and 60.42.252.205 [[376]] and now, even blocked, as Documentingabuse....One interesting point is that it sounds impossible to really discuss with him. For example, he has made the same kind of edits on Slavery in Japan and Japanese war crimes. On the later, when I made the effort to keep some of his edits without doing a completer Rv, he simpy reversed all the edits I had done. [[377]], [[378]]

Maybe 222.150.193.35 also considere user:Blanchardb part of the "conspiracy" ?[[379]] --Flying tiger (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Regarding the meatpuppetry issue: the very definition of meatpuppetry is new users creating an account to edit war, not established editors reverting. Regarding the report filer: I find it rather offputting that we have a report from someone who has hopped IPs frequently (and yes, this is frowned upon in an edit war) instead of creating an account, has warned others for 3RR violations when s/he's on about his 6th revert, and is currently block evading. Good point or no, the best way to go about this is to file an RFC if you think the page is being WP:OWNed, as I can attest sometimes happens. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I find the accusation of my being a sockpuppet quite amusing. I've been editing on my own since August 2007 and have well over 5000 mainspace edits to my name. I've started 15 new articles, a bunch of redirects, a passel of dab pages, added major new material to some 40 articles, brought a 3RR user to being blocked and performed a very demanding GA review. I've uploaded over 175 images. I've smacked down a ton of vandalism and now I have rollback privileges. I'm teamed with several WikiProjects and have coordinated wiki public relations efforts with outside organizations. There's a hole in the sock... Binksternet (talk) 23:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Bad faith filing. Blocking submitter indef (first edit was this report) and the IP his user page redirects to for three months. See ANI case too: [380]. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:00, 15 June 2008 (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:92.13.23.18

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

92.235.1.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
81.20.176.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
77.96.60.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Willking1979 (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Vandalism on Randalstown by Sockmaster (which has been blocked) and sockpuppets minutes apart. MAY STILL BE ACTIVE. Edits include attacks and profanity.

Comments

Could be same person or group of people. This must be investigated ASAP.

Conclusions

Based on timestamps, it's overwhelmingly likely to be the same person, who can somehow access separate IP ranges. I'll make a request for semiprotection on the Randalstown article: that should solve the problem. Yechiel (Shalom) 19:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Randalstown was semiprotected by Discospinster. The question of sockpuppetry per se is academic. Yechiel (Shalom) 22:50, 13 June 2008 (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:Wikigiraffes

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

dorftrottel (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User:Wikigiraffes was recently indef blocked after repeatedly inserting WP:BLP violations. All of the account's actions were centered on the article about Julian Baggini, with subsequent attacks against User:SlimVirgin.

User:NoPointofView has now, as their first edit, added this to the Workshop page of an ongoing ArbCom case, where Wikigiraffes had earlier posted very similar 'evidence', in an imho strikingly similar style and with the exact same content. There can be no reasonable doubt that NoPointofView is a sockpuppet of someone, and normally I wouldn't mind. But if it is indeed Wikigiraffes circumventing their indef block, I would remove the NoPointofView edits from the Workshop page as disruptive trolling and inappropriate forum shopping, utterly unrelated to anything in the case. Moreover, Wikigiraffes has not demonstrated any insight into the wrongness of their BLP violations and is thus prone to repeat that behaviour and should not be tolerated. dorftrottel (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly agree. While it would have been better for someone other than sv to have indef'd wikigiraffes, the indef was earned. I'm not sold that it's wikigiraffes's sock, but certainly a sock of a user unfamiliar with arbcom hearing styles and format, as well as basic policy considerations. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I wasn't going to make a big fuss about this, but basically Dorftrottel appears to be correct. I'll request a checkuser. Yechiel (Shalom) 20:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wikigiraffes. Yechiel (Shalom) 22:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Confirmed by Thatcher and blocked by East718. Yechiel (Shalom) 22:47, 13 June 2008 (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:Fangusu

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

59.183.8.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
59.183.13.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (questionable if this counts as sockpuppetry: comments section)

Report submission by

--Icarus ^(Hi!) 23:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

The sockpuppeteer is currently blocked (for the second time, due to continued vandalism following the first block), but attempting to evade the block by editing anonymously. I initially went to report it at WP:AIV, but I saw that another sockpuppeting allegation had been reported there and an admin had directed the reporter to post it here, so I'm coming here instead (though I'll make a report at WP:AIV as well if the anonymous IP editing does not stop).

On 4 June, the anonymous editor removed a prod from Captain Underpants and the Brainy Bamboozle of Black Cheetah Man‎ diff, an article that Fangusu had initially created [381]. The history of this article is a bit convoluted, making this far from conclusive evidence, but the IP's next two edits clearly establish that it is the same user.

The IP's next edit was to Doomguy diff, an article commonly edited by Fangusu. Compare that edit to this one by Fangusu: [382]

The final edit was to Bite diff, a frequent target of Fangusu's vandalism. Compare the IP's edit to these edits by Fangusu, in which Fangusu also repeatedly removes the reference to human biting, and finally attempts to add the same copyvio image from the Doom game as the IP address had: [383][384][385][386][387][388][389][390].

From these patterns, I believe it is clear that this anonymous IP is in fact Fangusu attempting to evade the block.

Update: Based on Fangusu's reply on her talk page, however, duplicated below in "Comments", it sounds like she might not have known that to edit from an anonymous IP while blocked is considered sockpuppetry, and is not allowed. I have informed her of this on her talk page now. Due to the apparent misunderstanding, I believe that any consequences for sockpuppetry should be deffered, pending future sockpuppetry. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 03:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

How did you know it was me all along?--User:Fangusu^{(User_talk:Fangusu)} 8:25,5 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: due to the block, I informed Fangusu that any replies to this case that she posted on her own talk page would be copied here, since as long as she was blocked she would not be able to edit this page (as far as I know, at least). This is the reply left [391][392]: I was not doing sockpuppetry, honestly.--User:Fangusu^{(User_talk:Fangusu)} 8:12,5 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.22.242 (talk)

I added another IP to the list based on a comment that User:Icarus3 left on User talk:Fangusu. The additional IP account has been given a 24-hour block. None of the three accounts has added any improper images since June 7, so possibly this editor has now got the message. EdJohnston (talk) 04:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because Fangusu was not blocked at the time of the new IP's edits, it is my understanding that it does not count as sockpuppetry since there is no rule against simply not signing in. Only against doing so to circumvent a block. Sorry if that wasn't clear in the warning I left on the IP's talk page. It was not my intent to warn the IP for sockpuppetry, simply for the same sort of vandalism that Fangusu has a history of in general. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 05:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is (at most) block evasion. But we hope that the problem has now stopped. EdJohnston (talk) 05:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Thanks to Icarus and EdJohnston, this case has been dealt with properly. Fangusu has been warned. I will leave a follow-up message to her. Yechiel (Shalom) 20:19, 12 June 2008 (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:69lolz7

Suspected sockpuppeteer: 69lolz7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: 69lolz4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

»xytram« talk 11:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Repetedly removing AFD tags on article - see [393] for evidence.

Comments

Yeah, this is obvious. An admin should block one account but not both. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

69lolz7 is indef-blocked by Persian Poet Gal. 69lolz4 is not blocked but is unlikely to edit anyway, and besides I said to block only one account. Yechiel (Shalom) 20:12, 12 June 2008 (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:Fraberj (2nd)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

AvantVenger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.114.30.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.114.9.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.114.45.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

SteveBaker (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User:AvantVenger became exceedingly abusive in edits to Talk:Self-replicating machine. After a complaint to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts,[394] AvantVenger was blocked for 24 hours - but continued to be abusive (see User_talk:AvantVenger. Looking at other places where this user may have been spreading problems, I discovered that this user is almost certainly the real-world person Charles M Collins (See:User_talk:AvantVenger#Is_AvantVenger_really_Charles_Collins.3F) - and he has been engaging in some fairly severe WP:COI violations[395]. Looking back through the edits of Self replicating machines - we observe that the edits concerning machines known as 'F-Units' (a particular concern of real-world Collins) were made by User:Rattler2 - who was in turn a sock of notorious sock-puppetteer User:Fraberj...who was in turn also frequent editor of Self replicating machines before his indefinite ban. This might just be a coincidence - but if we cast our eye down the list: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Fraberj, we discover a great number of Verizon IP addresses in the 71.114.*.* range - and guess what? The IP address of AvantVenger is User:71.114.30.158 (notice how 71.114.30.158 has been happily maintaining AvantVenger's account for him and edits pretty much the exact same set of articles?). Also we see mixed edits where AvantVenger forgets to login [396] that involve other 71.114.*.* addresses.

I noticed that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Independent operability contains a long rant that reads much like those of AvantVenger - and to my complete surprise, it's signed as by "Charles Micheal Collins" - and (less surprisingly) the edit history shows it was posted by Fraberj - so Collins is Fraberj and Collins is AvantVenger and AvantVenger is Fraberj.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

THE FOLLOWING RABID ATTACK ON CHARLES MICHAEL COLLINS IS CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT WIKIPEDIA IS A NEFARIOUS CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.40.113 (talk) 09:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have here a case of WP:NPA, WP:COI and WP:SOCK violations. I would like to see a permenant ban on AvantVenger and the various 71.114.*.* accounts that he uses. SteveBaker (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you work hard at it? GOOD! All your talk about the "evil" Charles Michael Collins. Bo hoo hoo with two shoes! Collins is in self-defense mode. Who would blame that, considering? You certainly cite what's been done to him as motive, like any railroading cop would... forgetting who transgressed first. Don't you? If all of this were true where's the "evil"? The fact that you diabolically did all that research and quite lucidly gleamed all the nuances and left all of them out that speaks for the Collins side of the story bespeaks the criminal and thief that YOU are: The thief of intellectually property rights through media manipulation amongst all the other thieves Freitas, Merkle, Adrian Bowyer, Hod Lipson. And lets remember, look at the dates, you never even heard a word from the modest Charles Michael Collins until that criminal who stole his invention at NIAC FREITAS wrote his rat's nest of lies: [397]

Who cares who carries the message, and here's what the whole business is about. These other cowards are JEALOUS of the F-Unit system, and steal it far and wide. That is all the stinking putrid liberal is, a coward and a thief like you Steve and all your affirmative action speak. So are the liberals who find their chosen "protected class" to lie and prove they invented it instead of Charles. As you do the greatest evil deed in history, steal the most important event since the dawn of time. Go back under your rock where you belong and stay there with the rest of you stinking putrid liberals.

P.S.: Why was fraberj blocked in the first place? FOR REPORTING A HACKING! It was called a "legal threat". HORSE S! That's not what your silly Wiki rules allow. Typical liberals fanatically bending the rules trying to vilify. And who STARTED the Wikipedia "Self-replicating machine" (stupid name) article in the first place? It was Charles Michael Collins, called the proper scientific name "independent operability" which was instantly deleted and restarted (idea stolen) by little pieces of liberal media trash like you who keep him blocked out of the picture.

So there Check and Mate. But you will still continue to censor and block, won't you? Nefarious cowards! Any more trash talk you nut jobs got? AvantVenger (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Collins point of view, which you block in violation of your own silly rules has a right to be here. Despite you who hate him out of cowardice. That is clear. AvantVenger (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I notice that AvantVenger not only uses similar language characteristics [398] and personal attacks (e.g., "little pieces of liberal media trash like you" - you might know, BTW Charles, that I am by no means a fan of the liberal media either but I know how to express it civilly), but he does not deny the connection. Open/shut case. The Evil Spartan (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User also claims to be a "public figure", seemingly in the context of the issues at hand. _{1 != 2} 15:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some more IP's that are popping up with comments that clearly come from AvantVenger. You can observe these in action on his talk page history. SteveBaker (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I concur with SteveBaker's assessment, ~~and can add 71.114.45.254 as another Verizon address used by this editor~~ [edit: I see SteveBaker's added this above]. I too strongly suspect him to be the Charles Collins who hosts this site, which many of the edits by the above accounts include links to - a clear COI concern. The editor is clearly very upset and extremely sensitive about the injustices he believes have been done to him, but is apparently incapable of understanding that our purpose is not to right wrongs, or expose villainy... and abusive behaviour and sockpuppetry are just about the most counter-productive things he can do to advance his case. I see no benefit in permitting this individual to continue to waste the time of productive editors, and support the blocks asked for (including a rangeblock on 71.114. if someone with checkuser can see if that's feasible). Disclosure: I issued the recent block on his User:AvantVenger account. EyeSerene^talk 16:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also note he uses the same IP range as Rattler2, a more obvious sock blocked after Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fraberj. At this point I've blocked AvantVenger; any objections? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None. Same user, same personal attacks, etc. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support the indef block of AvantVenger, believing him to be a sock on the behavioral evidence. I suggest keeping the report open for a little while to see if we can get a checkuser result. Before the report is closed a decision should be made on blocking the 71.114 IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 01:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The checkuser has come back positive. What's the next step to getting 71.114 blocked? SteveBaker (talk) 03:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AvantVenger has already been blocked indef. I blocked the three 71.114 IPs listed above for two weeks each. They are probably throwaway dynamic IPs so longer blocks might not do much good. This editor is nasty but not so destructive that we need to block a large range for him. We can keep on reverting his Talk comments as they appear. Remember WP:RBI. Articles attacked by IP socks can be semi-protected. EdJohnston (talk) 04:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fraberj returned a "confirmed" from Thatcher. Luna Santin blocked AvantVenger indef. Fraberj is already blocked. Yechiel (Shalom) 19:46, 12 June 2008 (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:Olahus

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Xasha (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User:Olahus has been recently been blocked for 48 hours for violation of revert parole.[399]. The IP began editing today, every edit being essentially a revert to Olahus' last version of the respective page: diff 1 diff 2 diff 3 diff 4.

Comments

Conclusions

Tariqabjotu has confirmed the suspicion and has blocked both Olahus and the IP for 72 hours. Yechiel (Shalom) 19:48, 12 June 2008 (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:Ant jo

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Ant jo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

PeTom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Daniel Milton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Agatha Crispies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Karl Agathon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Agony Agatha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Agatha's Breast Reduction (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Yopie 12:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

All puppets are new, with edits only in article Order of the Collar of Saint Agatha and were used as reverters and/or editors in POV of their master. Yopie 12:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Added Karl Agathon and Agony Agatha - names are very close to "Order of st. Agatha, and "Agony Agatha" is stalking me, after sockpuppet reporting.Yopie 19:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I find this accusation outrageous. My name is Daniel Milton, I was e-mailed about the discussion and editing of the article about the Order of St. Agatha from a friend, and I have nothing to do with any of the other users mentioned here. I have never heard of any "Karl Agathon" or similar.Daniel Milton (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, read WP:MEAT Yopie 14:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments

The users listed in "sock puppets" are likely all the same. I am less certain about the link to Ant jo. If you could provide diffs where different accounts make similar edits, that would help. Checkuser might also help, if you can establish that these accounts tag-teamed in an edit-war (which you assert without citing the evidence explicitly). Yechiel (Shalom) 03:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, take a look at of article about Order of. St. Agatha. Puppets edits only this article. Of course, Agatha's Breast Reduction (talk · contribs) and Agony Agatha (talk · contribs) stalking me in many articles, for example Duchy of Oels, House of Rosenberg, Carpatho-Ukraine, Talk:Z Vlašime, Armorial of the Holy Roman Empire. With time, this user is more vulgar and aggressive, see [400] - "CUNT" .

Connection to user Ant jo is certain, because he make POV edits in article Order of the Collar of Saint Agatha, and after discussion with me and Robert Prummel (talk · contribs) begin "sock puppet war", and this war graduated from discussion to stalking and unexplained reverts. Yopie 14:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agatha's Breast Reduction (talk · contribs) looks like another, with similar name and the users contributions consist of undoing edits by Yopie (talk · contribs) without explanation, it is almost certainly a sockpuppet whether it's the same user or not. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 12:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, sockpuppetry refers to the same user abusing more than one account. If it's not the same person, then it's meatpuppetry. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: Agatha's Breast Reduction (talk · contribs) looks like a user who is already involved in a dispute or edit war and has created another account for disruption/harassment (reverting another user's edits indiscriminately), and is almost certainly the same user who has created at least some of the accounts already named here (one of which is Agony Agatha (talk · contribs)) but not necessarily that they are all the same user. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 20:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Since Daniel Milton claims innocence, and I am not a big supporter of blocking meat puppets who are not actually sockpuppets, I think the best thing is to request checkuser. Please wait. Yechiel (Shalom) 23:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser filed: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ant jo. Yechiel (Shalom) 23:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the checkuser case: two people apparently control all the accounts between them. All are blocked by Rudget. Yechiel (Shalom) 19:38, 12 June 2008 (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:Finaldrive

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Finaldrive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: BKCinfo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Harry the Dog WOOF 16:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User:BKCinfo appeared after User:Finaldrive was blocked, and the only edits made were to the article that User:Finaldrive created and which he was blocked for creating.

Comments

First time on Wikipedia. I'm on the Final Drive band mailing list and they sent out a message about helping them get on Wikipedia. So, figured I try out the editing process with this band since most bands on wikipedia already have all their info and there's not much more to contribute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BKCinfo (talk • contribs)

Note: BKCinfo was created three hours before Finaldrive's block. SQL ^{Query me!} 18:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On further review, I don't really think these users are the same person. The times, and the dates, are off as well, as the nature of the edits made. Also, I am concerned with that page being deleted under WP:CSD#G5, "Creation by a banned editor", which, may not be appropriate, as User:Finaldrive is blocked, not banned. SQL ^{Query me!} 18:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's not a G5. Maybe a G4 for recreating deleted content, but (and this is really starting to annoy me) I can't see deleted revisions. It's possible, based on the revisions I can see, that these users are two different people. What needs to happen is that Finaldrive should be unblocked and should be allowed the chance to comment in a deletion review. I'll post to ANI to get the ball rolling on that. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, by his own admission, it's meatputtery ("I'm on the Final Drive band mailing list and they sent out a message about helping them get on Wikipedia.") Harry the Dog WOOF 12:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

If it's just meatpuppetry, then our problem is solved. Since the article under dispute is deleted, these users have no contribs since May 27. No further action is neede. Yechiel (Shalom) 23:45, 11 June 2008 (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:Xenetic

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Xenetic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Penopete (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Vinh1313 (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Was warned for posting links to Julia Bond's website with referral codes under Xeneter.[401] Penopete posts address[402] that redirects to official website with the same referral code, Xeneter, and does the same thing with Charlie Laine article[403] and Anita Dark article.[404]

Comments

Conclusions

I'm going to let the warnings suffice for this. It's possible that these are two different people, though not likely, and anyway they have both received final warnings and can be blocked if they repeat the behavior. That's good enough. Yechiel (Shalom) 23:26, 11 June 2008 (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:Ceauntay

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

--Snigbrook ^(talk) 14:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User and user talk pages are being used for creating articles. Ceauntay (talk · contribs) had a similar user talk page[405] and was blocked for using multiple accounts with a warning for using Wikipedia as a personal web hosting service.[406] The first two do not have user pages but their usernames and contributions are similar to some of the other socks that are already blocked, for example Special:Contributions/Ceauntay36. More information on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive381#User:Ceauntay and socks using userspace and user talk space as hosting service. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 14:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I think that the usernames which are practically identical, are a big giveaway, but the UserCompare results are here, anyway Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 14:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance this is not abusive sockpuppetry. It's just somebody who is using our system in such an unusual way it is hard to figure it out. I'd say it was innocent if it weren't for the fact that the indefinite block of User:Ceauntay back in March seemed to make no impression at all. He hasn't paid enough attention to notice that others are unhappy with his activities. I left him a note at User talk:Ceauntay43. Of course, if he wants to work on several article drafts at the same time he can use subpages in his user space. There is no need for separate accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's clearish that the account's aren't abusive, I'm just stating that they almost certainly belong to the main account. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 15:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They may be "article drafts" but they are not notable or verifiable, and would be deleted if they were in article space. These pages are not going to be valid encyclopedia articles. Also the user has been blocked before and has created the new accounts for block evasion. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 16:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(In addition to the block for use of multiple accounts, another account Ceauntay13 (talk · contribs), has been blocked for hoax articles.) --Snigbrook ^(talk) 16:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I just noticed Snigbrook's posting of the previous ANI thread, in the Evidence section. Also Ceauntay's RFCU, helpfully linked from 'rfcu,' above. I'd support an indefinite block of all these accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Blocked 39-44 for sockpuppetry. 37 and 38 may have valid contributions, and weren't used for the "Jane Hoop" nonsense. Someone else may want to check those more closely. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All accounts are indef-blocked, including 37 and 38. Yechiel (Shalom) 23:22, 11 June 2008 (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:Davkal

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Davkal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

66.197.250.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Davvvkal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

ScienceApologist (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

See contributions. Pretty standard stuff.

Comments

Same pattern. Also a Whois looukup reveals the IP again originates from Pennsylvania. Finally there is enough user page vandalism to justify a block anyway. PhilKnight (talk) 00:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is a proxy or a zombie computer. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Currently blocked for 1 week - longer blocks can obviously be applied if needed. PhilKnight (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, PhilKnight. Note that Davvvkal was indef-blocked. Yechiel (Shalom) 23:18, 11 June 2008 (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:Thatmilkthing

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Ultra! 09:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Both have the same text on their user pages.[407][408] Ultra! 09:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewers please check the deleted contribs now. Ultra! 09:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I noticed these when patrolling usernames as pages meant for offending someone named Krista Gorman. Both pages are on MfD right now. Ultra! 09:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Since currently both users have zero non-deleted contribs, the case is moot. I am closing without asking for any blocks. I wonder if Xxkgxx is a slightly confusing username, but it's probably okay for now. Yechiel (Shalom) 23:15, 11 June 2008 (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:Galaxyangelnew

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

122.53.166.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Galaxyangelwork‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

MythSearcher^talk 15:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User creating hoaxes about a non existing game called Galaxy Angel Eternal Lovers Shooter Version and hijacked the page Galaxy Angel Eternal Lovers which is a Love adventure and 3D Real Time Simulation game according to the offiical site.(Official site showing no trace of the said game as well) And the page content the user is altering claims that the game contains units from 3~4 different game series from different game companies and music from a single composer that is in about 7 game and anime series, also by different companies. The only external link given at first is a deleted vandalism page in the wikia project exactly the same as the hijacked one.(Google cached page) After a final warning of the original user page, the user used an ip address listed as above and a newly created account to revert the page.

Comments: The two accounts are fairly obviously the same person, WP:DUCK. No idea about the IP. I have blocked both accounts as vandalism (blanking) /hoaxing only accounts. I will keep an eye on the page, and re-semi/block new accounts as needed. - TexasAndroid (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

The IP address is also that same person. It edited at 15:05 and Galaxyangelwork edited the same page at 15:09 on the same day to the same article. I'm letting it pass without a block because I'm not an admin and it's not worth the bother: semiprotection is an effective approach. I will notify TexasAndroid if he wishes to act further. Yechiel (Shalom) 23:12, 11 June 2008 (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:General poopie

Suspected sockpuppeteer: General poopie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: General *oo*ie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Mm 40 (talk | contribs) 18:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

They have both vandalized Libertarian Party (United States). In addition, they almost have the same nickname. If I did this incorrectly, blame it on the IRC channel #wikipedia-en-help . They told me to do it.

Comments

Hey I didn't tell you to do it; plus the IRC is off-wiki, you can't blame us, also I told you to tag not start a case. Anyways there is obvious proof they are the same user.

[409][410][411] Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 20:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also If you don't want to get the blame; I'll add my name to the report submission, just tell me. Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 20:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

These are obviously sockpuppets of each other, and were both blocked before this report was filed. Yechiel (Shalom) 23:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PPPPPPPPOOOOOOOOOOOOOPPPPPPPPPPPIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE :P HAHAHAHAHAHAHA I FARTED

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:Codyfinke

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

CodyBestFoods (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Solidgoldtvseries (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Choice of username and edit patterns to children's television programming.

Comments

Tried to report it to AIV but was directed here.

Follow-up: CodyBestFoods has been blocked, but Solidgoldtvseries remains active.

Conclusions

Looks as if this is resolved. The second sock has been blocked.

All accounts are blocked. Yechiel (Shalom) 23:05, 11 June 2008 (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:Editor652

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Editor652 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Kww (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Same editing pattern, changing the number of black Hondurans to unsupported figures, combined with an interest in South American airports. Compare to

Honduran72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
MTA254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
MTA25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Music14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Lacoste2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Loving10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Loving152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments

Conclusions

Blocked 1 month with account creation disabled, as a likely sock farm of Editor652 (talk · contribs). - auburnpilot talk 20:20, 9 June 2008 (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:Cavanrunner

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

86.45.99.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Bailieborough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

--Finngall ^talk 16:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Original username had been indef blocked for repeated recreation of non-notable biography T.P. Callaghan (now salted, along with T.P.Callaghan) and linking this bio in Bailieborough. Block was intended as an attention-getting measure--there's no apparent malicious intent here, but user has so far taken no notice of repeated messages, numerous warnings, or the AfD discussion on this article.

The IP sock re-added the link to T.P.Callaghan in the Bailieborough article (diff), and the newly-created Bailieborough username tried to repost the original bio at Talk:T.P.Callaghan (now deleted).

Comments

Admin assistance requested to view deleted contribs. If the evidence is what Finngall says it is, then block the socks. This is a simple case. I'm sure some RFA candidate will have to answer when it is appropriate to use an "attention-getting block." I guess it made sense here. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

IP blocked two weeks. Sock indef. Master already indef. I suspect the master is a sock of someone else. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:01, 9 June 2008 (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:Copperchair (7th)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

190.10.0.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
IAMTrust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Raoulduke47 (talk) 12:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Both accounts appear to be socpuppets of the same user. They make exactly the same edits: [412] and [413] ; [414] and [415]. 190.10.0.20 has been making the same kind of edits as other sockuppets of Copperchair(Casavette or 24bh3s): minor disruption and infobox-tinkering on "War on terrorism"-related articles and templates. Also, his IP is very similar to 190.10.0.36, that was also blocked as a sockpuppet of Copperchair. I don't know much about IP ranges, but it doesn't look like a coincidence. Raoulduke47 (talk) 12:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Why should I bother to defend myself if you've accused seven other people of being sockpuppets of the same user, and you've blocked them all? 190.10.0.20 (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the IP: Implying that administrators block who they feel like is not going to help your case. Tell us that you're a different person from the others, and give a little background about who you are and what you like to edit, and then we can talk.

All right. I'm a different person from the others (wasn't that clear by my previous post?), but I know you won't believe me, because you're on a withchunt. I come from a military familiy (my greatgreatgrandfather, greatgrandfather and my grandfather were in the Armed Forces) and I have recently volunteered as a reservist. Therefore, I like to edit articles about ongoing wars. Movies are my hobby and that's why I collect DVDs (especially boxed sets of movie series). 190.10.0.20 (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To reviewers on this case: I think Raoulduke47 makes a strong case. I am not familiar with Copperchair's history, but I looked at his block log, and it's quite long and ugly. If the allegation here is true, and I think it is, I'll ask to extend Copperchair's block to indefinite. He's had enough second chances. IAMTrust meets my arbitrary "three-month" test: he's edited Wikipedia for more than three months, so extra care must be taken in considering a block on him.

I'll ask User talk:Thatcher to look at this. He's a checkuser, so he can use the tool if he needs it, and he's also one of the admins in the block log, so he knows the specifics of Copperchair's history. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 01:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

looks conclusive with the IP, not sure about IAMTrust. Please see the results of the UserCompare tool.. β^{_{command 2}} 16:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no choice but to request checkuser. I think these are sockpuppets but I am not able to prove it. The shared interests showed by Betacommand's usercompare tool are interesting, but maybe random. So here we go: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Copperchair. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked indef per CU. Tiptoety ^talk 04:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If someone could please block the IP and close this case, it would be appreciated. The Evil Spartan (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I was checking my watchlist today, I saw with surprise that Copperchair's acccount has become active again[416]. I find it rather surprising that he is allowed to edit freely, as this case shows that he has been using sockpupets in order to evade his block. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 19:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Named accounts already blocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:52, 9 June 2008 (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:Foxhunt99

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Foxhunt99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Edits are all substantially similar to those of Foxhunt99 and his sock puppets. That same user and his socks are frequent commenters on the talk page of this user and they have all tried to assist each other in advancing their POV on Tibet, Serfdom in Tibet and War in Darfur. This account was created following the edit war on War in Darfur by User:38.96.165.251. This user has pursued their POV across several articles and insists upon removing statistics related to Chinese human rights abuses, which again is substantially similar to the edits made by Foxhunt99. Chenyangw's broken english matches that of Foxhunt99 and this user registered at approximately the same time as Foxhunt99 and all of his sockpuppets. Please see the earlier case for more information. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

There is a strong correlation in editing times between Chenyangw and other sockpuppets of Foxhunt99 on May 21, 22 and 23. Those accounts that edit on those days do so within the same two or three hours on those days. This supports the evidence presented by Cumulus Clouds. Yechiel (Shalom) 03:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I agree with Shalom's conclusion, and have blocked the account indefinitely as a very likely sock of Foxhunt, and independently disruptive in any case. MastCell ^Talk 21:50, 8 June 2008 (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:Cheergirlyy

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Cheergirlyy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Cheerleaderr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

DigitalC (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User page is extremely similar, as is user name. DigitalC (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Conclusions

It is ok to have more than one account on Wikipedia as long as you don't abuse it (avoiding 3RR, !voting multiple times, etc.) Can you identify any abusive behavior? --Selket ^Talk 17:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, these are obviously sockpuppets, but I am willing to let it pass because this is a new user who is unaware of policy and did not violate policy anyway. Yechiel (Shalom) 20:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still no more edits by either user. Nothing to see here. Yechiel (Shalom) 03:51, 8 June 2008 (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:Dingbat2007

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Dingbat2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Note: These are just the socks created since March 1 2008; there are nearly 60 others that can be included upon request.

Note: The following are socks created before March 1 2008. All named accounts have been indef blocked; IP accounts could still be used. There is a pattern among named accounts that the vandal uses again and again.

Report submission by

dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

May 29 2008 as User:76.195.180.84

Inside Edition 20th Century Fox Television UPN Kids

May 24 2008 as User:Word76

WMYA-TV Dr. Gangrene KXAS-TV

May 22 2008 as User:76.212.130.232

KVRR

May 13 - May 14 2008 as User:Texasboy11

List of Telefutura affiliates List of America One affiliates - station does not exist per FCC

April 27 - April 29 2008 as User:76.216.112.82

KAMR-TV - station does not user NBC Weather Plus Sony Pictures Television Template:Lubbock TV - station does not exist per FCC

April 27 - April 28 2008 as User:Word67

Template:Tucson_TV - station does not exist per FCC Template:Green Bay TV - station does not exist per FCC WFAA-TV

April 25 2008 as User:76.212.143.107

KECY-TV - Station does not exist per [417] Template:Imperial Valley TV - station does not exist in market per [418]

April 23 2008 as User:Word61

K34HO KESE-LP - Category does not exist

Comments

This puppetmaster has been vandalizing Wikipedia since July 2007, having created nearly 80 socks in addition to his master account. All accounts have been blocked at one time, except the first account listed. Named accounts have been indefinitely blocked. His typical m.o. is to change dates by one year, to create articles for fictitious television stations, to add NBC Weather Plus and cable networks (often Disney Channel) to DTV subchannel lists, to create fictitious former affiliations, usually as "Independent" with a phony date range, and to add fictitious city names as the station's location. Typical activity is to edit 15-20 articles in a session, although he used to edit 50+ articles in earlier sessions. Most sessions will include a station from the Amarillo TV market; Yuma/El Centro is another common target.

I'll have a look, see what i can find. Steve Crossin (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the results of the UserCompare tool. They're rather conclusive. Steve Crossin (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK - where do I go from here? User:76.195.180.84 is still not blocked, and when someone reported him as a vandal, he and I both got chewed out by an admin for not reporting him here. I just want this account blocked before the vandal returns, as he did last night. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An administrator has been requiring this page to be linked to any WP:AIV report, so the remainder of the socks have been added. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

All registered accounts blocked; can't do much about the IPs except block them as they come. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 05:07, 5 June 2008 (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:Jvolkblum (10th)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Rochellean'58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
BonChicBonGauche (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Orlady (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

BonChicBonGauche was created at 09:36, 3 June 2008, ten minutes after previous sock User:Fajnzylberg101. Rochellean'58 was created 3 minutes after BonChicBonGauche at 09:39, 3 June 2008. The only edits by BonChicBonGauche were formatting changes and other minor tweaks to an article for a high school near New Rochelle that had earlier been edited by previous sock User:Pongo101. The only edits by Rochellean'58 were to restore Jvolkblum's reverted changes to the New Rochelle High School article. Checkuser request has been submitted. See previous Jvolkblum sock cases for details on the behavior patterns.

Comments

Conclusions

Jvolkblum was banned the other day for exactly this. If there are any other suspected socks, revert them on sight and make further cases here or alternatively (for a swift response) request assistance at AIV referencing the fact the suspected master is a banned user, different from a blocked user. Both blocked indefinitely. Rudget (Help?) 15:15, 4 June 2008 (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:Dad's Money

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Dad's Money (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Dad' Money (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Ironho lds 16:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

created by each other with near-identical names? doesnt get more obvious.

Comments

Hello Ironholds,

Well, you've taught me a new word. I had no idea there was another kind of sock puppet till you pointed this out.

You're right, I registered Dad's Money and Dad' Money. This is because I tried to register Dad's Money and the page crashed. When I tried to register again, the page went through but it said Dad's Money was taken. So I registered Dad' Money. I then couldn't work out how to delete the account. If you could tell me how to do that, I'd be very grateful.

Anyway, I hope you can see I've not done this in order to sock puppet anyone. I've done it because I'm clueless. Can you help me out, please?

Thanks very much, Richard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dad's Money (talk • contribs) 18:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Okay, this was obviously a misunderstanding as the accused user explains above. I'll leave messages to that user and to Ironholds. Nothing to see here. Yechiel (Shalom) 01:26, 6 June 2008 (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:Myhomeireland

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Myhomeireland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

Ironho lds 19:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

similar username and redirect

Comments

Conclusions

This report is incomplete. There is no evidence of disruptive editing by Myhomeireland other than the creation of a userpage, since deleted, for Myhome.ie, which apparently was his old username. No action appears necessary. I'll leave a note for Ironholds in case I missed something. Yechiel (Shalom) 01:21, 6 June 2008 (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:Serafin (25th)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Old Moonraker (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Comparing edit histories with User:Ppole, blocked puppet of banned user Serafin

Edit history of User:Ppole Special:Contributions/Ppole

Edit history of User:Nnedass Special:Contributions/Nnedass

Edit by User:Ppole on Bureaucracy here

Edit by User:Nnedass on Bureaucracy here]

Comments

Conclusions

Please strike this entry: User:Nnedass blocked indef for block evasion by User:Serafin --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing per above. User is already blocked by Ckatz. Yechiel (Shalom) 01:17, 6 June 2008 (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:Oingoboing69

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Oingoboing69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Joysticks747 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Triplegreen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
CHINAwoMAN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
ROBINHOODMIT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
JETTALUV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
DCHU2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
99.237.127.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

DoubleBlue (Talk) 11:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User:Oingoboing69 has recently been concerned by an AfD on Nelson Chan, a music video director.

Today, a new account, User:CHINAwoMAN, created a userpage by copying the userpage of User:Eastmain, !voted in a AfD, then vandalised the Canadian Wikipedians Notice Board by changing the spelling of wikilinks to AfD debates.

Immediately following that, User:Triplegreen was created and created a userpage by copying the userpage of User:DoubleBlue.

Immediately following that, User:Joysticks747 was created a userpage by copying the userpage and User talk page of User:Ms2ger, then created a copyvio article for Nelson Chan sandisk, an Executive Vice President of SanDisk and then User:Triplegreen altered the AfD of Nelson Chan to this new article.

The rest of their contributions continue the evidence.

As well, users created today: User:ROBINHOODMIT, User:JETTALUV, User:DCHU2008, and User:99.237.127.188 together vandalising Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Canada [419], [420], [421], [422]

User:DCHU2008 vandalised the Nelson Chan AfD.

User:JETTALUV created a userpage by copying User:DoubleBlue.

Special:Log/newusers: 24 May 2008

09:31 . . Joysticks747 (Talk | contribs) New user account

09:25 . . Triplegreen (Talk | contribs) New user account

09:16 . . CHINAwoMAN (Talk | contribs) New user account

08:55 . . ROBINHOODMIT (Talk | contribs) New user account

07:45 . . JETTALUV (Talk | contribs) New user account

07:20 . . DCHU2008 (Talk | contribs) New user account

Follow-up: Following this report, User:99.237.127.188 vandalised my and User:Delicious carbuncle's user pages with phony sockpuppet notices.

Comments

I do not like the way User:CHINAwoMAN copied my userpage, complete with barnstar. Even if this user is not the same person as User:Oingoboing69, a block for the vandalism might be appropriate. --Eastmain (talk) 17:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

This is plainly obvious. The account creation log shows all six or seven accounts were created in the same three-hour period. They also all edited in the same period, and only then, starting at 07:01 and ending at 10:34 UTC. The first available admin is requested to indef-block all of these accounts. Thank you. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP one week, master two weeks, socks indef. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:06, 4 June 2008 (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:Super World Champions

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Super World Champions (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Da D00d Uploader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
UltraNintendoEntertainmentSystem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
King of America (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
NintendoDSKing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Kariteh (talk) 08:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Note: Apart from NintendoDSKing, these accounts are actually already blocked per an older sockpuppet case (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/King of America). Because of this, the evidence I'll show are from 2007. However, NintendoDSKing had managed to pass "below the radar" the previous time and wasn't listed in the case nor blocked as a result of it, and he has started to edit again since January 2008.

The evidence for NintendoDSKing being a sockpuppet are the same as those given for the other accounts in that old case:

American bias shown by replacing European video game cover arts with American cover arts:
- [423]/[424]
- [425] (I can't really see the image he reverted to but I remember it - an admin could check it)

Edit warring on the same articles as User:A Link to the Past:
- [426] [427]

Unrelated articles which possibly show similar editing interests (between most of them for the most part):
- Wrestling articles (WWE video games)
- Virtual Console-related articles
- 200X in video gaming
- List of Wii games
- Touch! Generations-related articles

Personality:
- Focus on video game articles
- Often swears
- Rude tone (recent edits: [428] [429])
- Anti-IGN, anti-GameSpot tone

Comments

This looks right. I think an admin should block NintendoDSKing. The reason he slipped under the radar is that his first edit, on July 12, 2007, was two days after a previous sock was blocked. An edit on that day was cited as a diff above in continuing a revert war. That alone is sufficient to justify an indefinite block for a block-evading sockpuppet. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Agreed and done. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:04, 4 June 2008 (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:Jvolkblum (9th)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Gumba56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
213.151.171.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
221.120.250.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
210.86.28.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

219.53.248.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
221.120.250.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
121.92.53.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
221.120.250.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Gluconate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
LaurieBurton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

83.46.248.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
217.9.231.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
82.139.5.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Fajnzylberg101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Orlady (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Gumba56 has not edited recently, but earlier was a prolific uploader of images that had copyright problems or were claimed to be self-made and turned out to be copyvios, all of subject matter closely associated with the Jvolkblum sockpuppet collection. The 3 IPs that I listed are non-U.S. IPs that have been used recently and whose edit pattern closely resembles the work of Jvolkblum.

Comments

210.86.28.151 has been blocked as an open proxy. --Orlady (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now all of the first three IPs have been blocked. I just listed four more IPs, for the same reasons as the others. --Orlady (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gumba56 has not edited since 3 January 2008, so the account is stale at this point.

I have added two more suspect sockpuppets to the list, Gluconate and LaurieBurton. Gluconate was created at 13:40 on 2 June 2008, four minutes later they made their first edit. That edit reverted an article to the last version by Jvolkblum sock Werkmamawerk (talk · contribs). One of their others edits was place multiple fact tags in an article. One of their edits summaries was "removed unsourced and opinion based data (including many specific name references which have no encyclopedic value)", Jvolkblum sock CedricRobinson (talk · contribs) used the very similar phrase "opinion based info/information" in three edit summaries [430] [431] [432]. LaurieBurton was created at 22:21 on 2 June 2008, four minutes later they made their first edit. All of their edits have been Jvolkblum area of editing. One of the edits was to Amanda Burden, which has been recently edited by Jvolkblum through open proxies. In this edit they added forced sizes to the images in the article, which Jvolkblum socks have done many times. BlueAzure (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser requested at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jvolkblum. BlueAzure (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added three more IPs to the list. All have also been reported at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies. 217.9.231.214 restored some changes made by another Jvolkblum puppet and posted on my talk page in the Jvolkblum manner, before making a series of vandalism edits (possibly by a different user exploiting an open proxy?). 83.46.248.62 made a follow-up comment (clearly from the same person) on my talk page -- that is this user's only edit. The only edit by 82.139.5.55 (an IP in Poland) was to add an embellishment to one of Jvolkblum's pet articles in New Rochelle. --Orlady (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added another suspected sockpuppet to the list. Fajnzylberg101 was created at 09:26 on 3 June 2008. Their two edits so far have been to revert my reversion of Jvolkblum, within 30 minutes of me making the original edit [433] [434]. BlueAzure (talk) 23:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Gluconate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
LaurieBurton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Fajnzylberg101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
CreativeSuite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
ANGLE-TELLA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmed and blocked. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:50, 4 June 2008 (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:Hdayejr

Confirmed sockpuppeteer

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

Sockpuppets

Suspected/Confirmed	Status	IP/User Info
Suspected	blocked indef.	Ampm2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected	blocked indef.	Dennyg2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Confirmed	blocked indef.	Dgems (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Confirmed	blocked indef.	Harvey1976 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected	blocked indef.	Hd3576 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Confirmed	blocked indef.	Leon harrison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected	blocked indef.	SteveGavazzi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected		24.172.152.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected	blocked temp.	65.31.33.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected	blocked temp.	65.31.34.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected	blocked temp.	66.240.237.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected		68.24.192.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected		68.29.160.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected		68.29.216.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected	blocked temp.	68.31.42.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected	blocked temp.	68.31.53.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected		68.31.140.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected	blocked temp.	68.31.168.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected	blocked temp.	69.4.238.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected	blocked temp.	69.61.231.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected	blocked temp.	69.89.118.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected		70.9.59.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected		70.9.91.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected		70.9.182.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected		70.9.237.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected		70.157.148.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected		70.210.32.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected	blocked temp.	70.210.53.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected		70.210.57.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected	blocked temp.	70.210.117.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected		70.210.82.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected		70.212.70.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected	blocked temp.	71.72.172.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected		72.59.76.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected	blocked temp.	72.59.99.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected		72.59.114.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected		72.60.130.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected		72.60.177.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected		72.60.219.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected	blocked temp.	72.60.234.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected		72.60.244.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected		72.60.254.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected	blocked temp.	75.185.202.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected		75.185.202.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected		75.218.15.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected		75.218.243.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected		96.15.43.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected		99.201.142.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected		99.205.216.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected	blocked temp.	140.106.192.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected	blocked temp.	207.10.234.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

— Dæ dαlus^T@lk / Improve 17:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

The contributions for every user, along with the firefight between Hdayejr and TPIRFanSteve on Steve's talk page.

Comments

All of the user accounts have been indef-blocked. As for the IP addresses, they're not in the same range, and some are inactive. A range block is out of the question, and there's no specific target page so semi-protection cannot be considered. It looks like our hands are tied. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least for now. As more surface, I'll add more to this page.— Dæ dαlus^T@lk / Improve 18:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added 99.201.142.207 to this list per this edit. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added Dayewalker to the list, as it's an obvious sock case. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, have since removed Dayewalker from the list and added two new IPs. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 05:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Organized the list a bit so block information can easily be seen regarding ips, i.e., whether they are blocked or not. I just feel it saves from needlessly clicking on the block log to see if they have been blocked.— Dæ dαlus^T@lk / Improve 07:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After 65.31.34.185 (talk · contribs) went on a revert-spree, I blocked the IP and added it to the list above. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added another ip and sorted list again so that classification or information is easier to see.— Dæ dαlus^T@lk / Improve\ ^Contribs 23:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reading Leon harrison's contributions, I have to call shenanigans on that. It's pretty obvious to me and to anyone else who'd read that page that he is NOT an Hdayejr sockpuppet. I believe that he should be unblocked immediately and his name removed from the list, as I can see no standing for it to be there. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He remains on that list until a checkuser clears him, like they did with Dayewalker. Neither of us has CU powers, and we can't just assume the best or the worst. Wait for a CU case, then if it finds he is innocent, he shall be removed.— Dæ dαlus^T@lk / Improve\ ^Contribs 20:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I think Leon harrison is a sock puppet, but I am not certain. At the risk of making exactly the same mistake I roasted others for making with CreepyCrawly, it looks like this user is here to disrupt. Like other Hdayejr sockpuppets, he posted to WP:RFPP on his second edit; one of the socks posted to ANI on the first edit. There are also common edits to Game Show Network, as Betacommand's usercompare tool would show. ~~I'll request a checkuser.~~ Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hdayejr came back positive, so Leon harrison shall remain blocked. I'll archive this case because the known accounts are all blocked. If disruption continues, please start a new case. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:15, 4 June 2008 (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:Icecreamarmageddon

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

BanditoLoco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
UDAcommander (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
WLU-is-gay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
DeadlySniper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

BigDunc^Talk 20:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

My first interaction with this user was when I reverted them here and left a warning on their user page here. I then warned this editor a further 3 times [435] and informed them they had been reported to WP:AIV which can be seen in the previous diff. This user was then blocked and requested unblock. Notice the use of the round brackets in this diff here where I told them to use the curly brackets. My page was then vandalised here by UDAcommander, which was reverted by User:WLU here. My page was then vandalised here by BanditoLoco (talk · contribs). I gave a warning to this user here I warned this user again here for further vandalism and reported him to WP:AIV and this user was blocked here User:BanditoLoco the requested unblock here notice the use of round brackets in the unblock request. This user then claimed here that editors were conspiring against them. This IMO confirms that the 3 users are the same as the only interaction I had with User:WLU was when they reverted vandalism on my page by UDAcommander (talk · contribs)

BanditoLoco vandalised my page yesterday and it was kindly reverted by BigDunc as can be seen on this diff. Me and BigDunc are the only users that BanditoLoco vandalised this time round to the best of my knowledge. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 22:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Based on their comments and editing patterns, I believe User:WLU-is-gay (yay, I've a sock named after me!) and User:DeadlySniper are also socks of this sockmaster. WLU (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I've been asked to look at this as checkuser (see my talk page), I'm not sure there's much to do here as all accounts have now been blocked - Alison ^❤ 17:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so further investigation shows a number of similar accounts, targeting User:FisherQueen. I ran a check and checkuser shows all the above as being

Confirmed. However, there are dozens more socks, most of which are already blocked and some of which I just blocked. Sockmaster appears to be User:Icecreamarmageddon. I'm applying a soft rangeblock to the ISP (AO/ACB) as almost all accounts on here are vandalism-only and new accounts can filter through the account request process. There should be few, if any - Alison ^❤ 17:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Thanks, Alison. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 22:55, 3 June 2008 (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:David Justin

Suspected sockpuppeteer

David Justin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Spiro Keats (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Editor David Justin (real-life David J. Hanson) has a history of using sock puppets – see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/David Justin and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/David Justin (2nd) and Talk:David J. Hanson.

A single-purpose account Harlanjackson appeared on 23 May 2008 making these edits on alcohol, David J. Hanson’s specialist topic. All the edits below use text from Hanson’s site.

This edit on Intermittent Claudication is a straight lift from Hanson's site Alcohol And Health and References Alcohol: Problems and Solutions (Ref #89)

This edit on cognitive decline and dementia is a slight rewording of the text on Hanson's site Alcohol And Health and References Alcohol: Problems and Solutions (Ref #87)

This edit is a slight rewording of the text on Hanson's site Alcohol And Health and References Alcohol: Problems and Solutions (Ref #29)

This edit draws on Hanson’s pages References Alcohol: Problems and Solutions (Ref #56) and HEART ATTACK … (Ref: Mukamal) and Dietary Recommendations Food Guide Pyramid to Change (Ref: Koppes) and Drinking Alcohol Reduces C-reactive Protein (CRP) (Ref: Albert) and Drinking Alcohol… (Ref: Baer) and Drinking Alcohol … (Ref: Catena)

This edit and this edit on Metabolic Syndrome are a slight rewording of the text on Hanson’s page Moderate Drinking Reduces Metabolic Syndrome.

This edit on the Respiratory System is a rewording of Common Cold and References (Ref: 88)

Given David Justin’s / David J. Hanson’s history of sock puppetry and that all these edits are from his site, the balance of probabilities is that Harlanjackson is another of his sock puppets. Spiro Keats (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I think your conclusion is correct: David Justin = Harlanjackson = real-world identity. I am not sure what to do about it.

It may seem "obvious" to block Harlanjackson, but he is not the sockpuppet of an indef-blocked user, since (surprisingly) David Justin has a clean block log. David Justin has not edited under that account this year, and (this is major AGF) he may have forgotten about his old account and started a new one, which is allowed. As a general principle, we should encourage editors who can be bothered to cite journal articles to edit Wikipedia. He obviously has a conflict-of-interest and a biased point of view, but we have processes for responding to that without site-banning an accomplished scholar. Let's not repeat the mistakes we made with Moulton.

This issue needs wider community input. I'm not sure whom to ask. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Amazing that DJ wasn't blocked before. I've blocked him and am leaving the HJ account open with warnings on socking and COI. If someone wants to file at WP:COI I certainly won't object. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:41, 3 June 2008 (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:PLIERS89

Suspected sockpuppeteer: PLIERS89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

Ziggy Saw dust 21:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

recreating same deleted article over and over and over

Comments

Conclusions

Wrong forum; message to be left for Ziggy. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 22:32, 3 June 2008 (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:Aimulti

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

75.83.214.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Cantstopthefaith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
76.194.235.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.183.185.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

RetroS1mone talk 05:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC) Toddst1 (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Aimulti has self-identified himself as Mark Hanau and is vociferously defending the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Hanau including at least 1 and 2 instances of campaigning.

Note WP:SPA 75.83.214.6 (talk · contribs)'s contributions during the gap in Aimulti's contributions and the similarity in that editor's comments about perceived vendettas with Aimulti.

Cantstopthefaith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is also a spa user that has only edited attacks and borderline attacks about perceived vendettas on talk pages related to editors working on Mark Hanau.

76.194.235.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a SPA that accused Mark Hanau editors of SPA, tried to erase his Los Angeles IP after the changes and deleted personal attacks by Aimulti. [436] RetroS1mone talk 12:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

71.183.185.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has edited several favorite topics of Aimulti. Compare [437] with versions by Aimulti [438] and [439]. Compare 71.183.185.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) [440] to Aimulti's quoting from didik.com [441]. This user is not a new user, familiar with some Wikipedia techniqes but clumsy like Aimulti. Likes to get into edit wars [442] like Aimulti did regularly on his autobiography Mark Hanau now deleted. Plagiarism was a problem with Aimulti too, this user plagiarises from [www.didik.com/3d_hist.htm], Aimulti on Peace News and others. Aimulti did alot of frivolous RfCs on AIDS denialism, this user did one on lenticular printing minutes after I reverted plagiarism, and got the template wrong. RetroS1mone talk 05:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I agree that this behavior is worrisome. It's hard to handle misbehavior during AfD debates. Blocking the culprit in the midst of the debate seems too strong, because then they can't participate in the discussion any further. I suggest you might add your own Comment to the AfD, listing everything you think is amiss, and linking to this sockpuppet report. That way the closing admin will at least get a good summary of the misbehavior to take account of in his closing. EdJohnston (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of other users' potential puppetry collapsed as it is off-topic here

THE REAL sockpuppets are quite clear: -

This attack is retribution for a heated debate in the 'AIDS Denialist' section and is simply an attack thus motivated. Look at the history (or lack of history in one case) and TALK pages of the people asking for this article to be deleted (or editing it out of spite) and the true motives will become quite clear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RetroS1mone

Only editorial work on Wikipedia. AIDS Denialism and attack on aimulti.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Keepcalmandcarryon

Almost every editorial contribution (hundreds) are attacks on aimulti.

BOTH JOINED WITHIN ONE DAY OF EACH OTHER. BOTH CLEARLY OBJECT TO aimulti on political grounds.

THIS IS BULLYBOY TACTICS NOT IN THE SPIRIT OF WIKIPEDIA Aimulti (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DIRTY TACTICS

The following from the deletion page shows the dirty tactics being used against aimulti......

Very strong delete - Per WP:AUTO, WP:COI, WP:Personal information, WP:MUSIC, WP:VER and WP:NOTMYSPACE. Also, see Mark on AIDS Myth Exposed, planning covert operations[1] against wikipedia. (http://groups.msn.com/aidsmythexposed/activism.msnw action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=34105&LastModified=4675672689297989029 )—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nocontroversy (talk • contribs) 19:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC) COMMENT ON ABOVE. Your link shows no such thing. Aids Myth Exposed does not even have a member with that name. I checked. Aimulti (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Aimulti and Nocontroversy, please restrict your comments to discussion of this article. What Mark said under what pseudonym where is irrelevant here. Thank you, Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I note you (Keepcalmandcarryon) started the thread referenced above. QUOTE: -From: keepcalmandcarryon (Original Message) Sent: 4/26/2008 11:44 AM I'm sure y'all have noticed that, despite its claim to maintain a "neutral point of view", Wikipedia's articles relating to AIDS dissidence are biased (see for example the entry on Celia Farber). In honor of Rethinking AIDS day I am going to make time to do some editing and adding of needed references, and I encourage others to do the same! THIS WHOLE THING IS BEGINNING TO STINK MORE AND MORE. Aimulti (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment from IP involved: The ip 71.183.185.125 is the general IP used by Verizon for lower Manhattan, Brooklyn and Staten Island. Probably 500,000 people or more use Verizon in NYC. I have no idea who Aimulti or Mark Hanau or anyone else mentioned is. I have noticed however that very good information that I posted seems to have been deleted by someone refered to as RetroS1mone and I feel that this persons actions are wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.185.125 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 3 June 2008

It is the only time the IP is used at Wikipedia. Plagiarism is not very good information. I have noticed 71.183.185.125 makes same mistakes like Aimulti like apostrophe missing and mis-spelling and punctuation plus starting out at Lenticular one of Aimulti's projects. Sorry if I'm wrong it looks very suspicious. RetroS1mone talk 11:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I looked carefully at this. The AFD problem was resolved two weeks ago, and the article was deleted. We now want to know whether 71.183.185.125 is the same person as Aimulti. I can't prove that it's not, but the evidence linking them seems fairly weak. In particular, if I can trust that IP saying that he's from New York City, and one of the previously listed IPs is from Los Angeles, it's very unlikely that these are one person. Also, even if they are one person, no violation of policy has occurred. It is permissible to login and logout and edit at will: in the worst-case scenario, that's all that happened. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:26, 3 June 2008 (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:89.243.181.115

Suspected sockpuppeteer: 89.243.181.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

Lemmey talk 17:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248#Request for unbanning by User:Iamandrewrice

As stated 89.243.181.115 indeed may be a sock puppet, after the following ip: 78.149.186.121, was banned he decided to use ip:89.243.181.115 for the unbanning of his former account: Iamandrewrice. This can all be seen in proof:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/89.243.181.115 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/78.149.186.121

69.113.203.57 (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC) Comments, questions, bans, my talk 69.113.203.57 (talk)![reply]

Comments

I don't want to review this. I feel it should be okay for a user to request unbanning from a dedicated IP or alternate account if the unban discussion is taking place outside his user talk page. If he's actually doing vandalism or other problematic behavior, let me know and I'll take this more seriously. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I'm closing this case. The IP has not edited since May 31 and is not likely to return. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:47, 3 June 2008 (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:Nyannrunning (2nd)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets: Debbiesvoucher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 69.234.176.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Dooyar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Earlier related IP puppets: 76.93.74.76 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)); 76.81.204.238 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)); 76.81.222.92 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)); 164.67.44.73 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)); 209.78.98.26 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Report submission by

Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Adding and re-adding the same material, based on a discredited book, to the Jim Morrison page, Nyannrunning (talk · contribs) added a controversial section to the Jim Morrison page here. It was removed by User:Faithlessthewonderboy with good rationale. At that point, User:Nyannrunning inexplicably launched a personal attack against User:Wildhartlivie, who was in no way involved in the article or the addition, here. A few hours later, the anonymous IP 69.234.176.245 returned the same material here, which again was removed by User:Faithlessthewonderboy. The material was once again returned, somewhat edited but using a large amount of the same material, by User:Debbiesvoucher here and noted on the Morrison talk page here.

After the personal attack was made on the Morrison page, the anonymous IP 69.234.176.245 posted this on User talk:Wildhartlivie.

A sockpuppet inquiry was launched in November at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dooyar, the results of which were a bit confounded by the holidays and the abrupt departure of Dooyar during the Thanksgiving holidays. Confirmation of puppetry at that time was also confounded by the use of public internet access points (see IPs above) that are located at UCLA, Los Angeles Public Library, and LAX airport, as well as a number of internet cafe-type locations.

A disgreement on the Johnnie Ray article, forced another editor, User:Pinkadelica and myself to request a dispute mediation, with the username at the time, Dooyar. When the mediation wasn't going in her desired direction, she simply disappeared, and the mediation was closed. On February 27, User:Dooyar re-appeared and attempted to reinitiate changes that were under dispute the previous month. I broached re-opening the mediation, as the mediator had offered to do if Dooyar returned. Within a couple days, Dooyar disappeared again. User:Nyannrunning reappeared and took up the identical arguments and an identical specific source, on March 21. It was then that we asked the mediator to get involved again. User:Nyannrunning contended that the article which appeared on the magazine website was vastly different than the printed one. The source was Midwest Today and I contacted the publisher's office to get a copy of the magazine. It was then that we discovered that the material that User:Nyannrunning was attempting to use was fabricated and not in the article at all.

During a discussion regarding a dispute on the Johnnie Ray talk page, User:Nyannrunning made a comment regarding User:Wildhartlivie's vision disability.diff - 2nd paragraph This fact was disclosed by Wildhartlivie months ago when User:Dooyar was in a dispute with us on the (now archived) Karyn Kupcinet talk page - diff, a dispute that Nyannrunning was not a part of. This comment was not disclosed again anywhere on Wikipedia.

Nyanrunning also made two comments about "interlibrary loans" diff and an uncivil comment that Wildhartlivie should "get help" diff. Both comments were made towards Wildhartlivie by Debbiesvoucher on her talk page regarding the Kupcinet dispute 2008 diff diff back in January. Another dispute that Nyannrunning was not a part of. Dooyar was blocked in November for the same "get help" suggestion and other incivilities, diff diff and also pressed the interlibrary loan issue at the Karyn Kupcinet dispute resolution diff.

Results from Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nyannrunning that Possible that Nyannrunning and Dooyar are related.

After the Jim Morrison exchange, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nyannrunning was initiated by IP4240207xx, with the conclusion of "Please see the results of the UserCompare tool.. I'm pretty sure that Dooyar is a sock."

A brief discussion between myself and IP4240207xx regarding the attack and developing the sockpuppet case prompted the anonymous IP 69.234.176.245 to post this on my talk page.

The obscure but very similar material relating to a talent agent that has no WP article, added to the Kim Cattrall page by User:Debbiesvoucher here and by User:Nyannrunning here.

Definite confirmation by User:Nyannrunning that he/she is the same person as 69.234.176.245 on the Richard Calvin Cox page at this diff, on a page that had no edits since December 16, 2008, the IP is in the middle of a series of edits by User:Nyannrunning. No changes have been made on the page since.

Comments

This has become a constant pattern of editing, contentiousness when attempts have been made to resolve editorial disputes, with the use of the sock puppets to bolster or support the position of the other socks on articles. The sockpuppets are used to avoid scrutiny, as well as the more recent use of the anonymous IP edits that violate WP:GHBH by being the "good guy" who protested the connection on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nyannrunning added unsigned comments here.

Because of the pattern of disruption, uses of puppets to bolster and support additions and positions, and continue contentiousness, over a period of appr. 6 months, willful disregard for WP policies and guidelines, deliberate avoidance of proper channels of dispute resolution, such as with the Johnnie Ray article, and misrepresentation of material discovered during that mediation, I believe that this myriad of accounts should be indefinitely blocked and new creation of accounts restricted. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also comment that there may be other, undiscovered identities, that have edited unrelated pages and that when questions were raised about alternate accounts, one or another username might not be used for a period of time. This is the case with the User:Dooyar identity, which stopped being used in late February following the abandonment of the Johnnie Ray dispute mediation. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please note that the first sock puppet case Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dooyar was opened on 15 November 2007, and User:Dooyar logged on and left a series of comments on his/her talk page and responded to the sock puppet notice here before logging off. Dooyar again logged in and commented on two talk pages, the last one here at 00:56, 17 November 2007. The User:Nyannrunning identity was created 7 minutes later, at 01:03, 17 November 2007, and User:Debbiesvoucher was created 01:36, 17 November 2007, 27 minutes later. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As the user who opened the first SSP case against this user along with the checkuser report, I think I should at least comment on this. I fully agree with Wildhartlivie's findings and suspicions. Both of us have dealt with this user several different times and both of us have noticed the all too similar methods of editing, long edit summaries, and attempts to get around or manipulate consensus when they don't get their way. We have both been dealing with this user since late 2007 when all of the identities popped up during the Karyn Kupcinet dispute. Since then, we've dealt with the user on several other rather obscure articles and the MO is always the same. She/he pops up, inserts questionable material that is (almost always) poorly sourced or synthesized. When he/she can't get away with adding the questionable material, they either demand that a dispute resolution be opened (because, apparently, they "don't have the Wikipedia authority to open it) or start and edit war and, natch, disappear if consensus isn't going their way. We've been through that with them TWICE (on Karyn Kupcinet and Johnnie Ray). Since their last attempts to insert questionable material was basically squashed before it got started, he/she has been laying low. Most recently, User:Nyannrunning attempted to recreate a section on the Janis Joplin article that User:Dooyar initially added. (first discussion here). Eventually, it was agreed that the section was too POV and was removed and/or edited significantly. After seeing the similarities between the two (or more) users bringing up the same issues on the same article and after a semi-conclusive checkuser report, I left a note on the Joplin talk page addressing the user and their striking similarities. Naturally, neither Dooyar nor Nyannrunning responded. A few days later, User:Nyannrunning left a snide comment on the Jim Morrison talk page (which have since been removed) about Wildhartlivie who has never even edited that article. The comment was nothing more than ramblings similar to that User:Dooyar left on the the Johnnie Ray mediation page mentioning Rock Hudson and his ex-wife, etc. There are also other instances of the user exhibiting the same uncivil behavior with mentions of McCarthyism, interlibrary loans (whatever those are), etc. I understand that there might be difficulty in connecting all these users since User:Dooyar has not edited in quite awhile, but I'm confident that they are all related. The fact that the user also edits the same fairly obscure articles (Dorothy Kilgallen, Johnnie Ray, etc) is pretty telling. Since this (and another) sockpuppet report has been opened, I'd be willing to bet good money that the user disappears for awhile until the heat is off in hopes of not getting caught. He/she has relied on that method of non-detection in the past and so far, it's worked like a charm. Pinkadelica 08:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I'm looking into this. Nyanrunning and Debbiesvoucher made their first edits on 17 November 2007 within an hour of each other, and Dooyar also edited the same day, all in the period between 04:00 and 07:00 UTC. There are other days when two or all three of these users edited. I've collected the data, but I will need some time to analyze it. That will have to wait because I need to sign off for tonight. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think these are sockpuppets. There is abundant statistical evidence to support the circumstantial evidence based on extraordinarily detailed edit summaries, which I have never seen to that extent from any other user, and based on the patterns described above and in the previous SSP report last November. I ran an offdays analysis on these three users. All of them were active during the interval from November 17, 2007, until February 29, 2008. Nyanrunning edited on 14 of those days, Debbiesvoucher on 9 days, and Dooyar on 33 days. The probability, based on random distribution of edits during that 104-day interval, that all three users should edit on the same day is 0.004, which is very close to zero. At most, it might happen that they edit once on the same day by a serendipitous fluke. Yet they all edited twice on the same day. The first time was on November 17, 2007, the day Nyanrunning and Debbiesvoucher first edited. Wildhartlivie and I have already given the details. (Just to clarify, Wildhartlivie's times are offset to UTC-4.) The second time was December 19, 2007. Debbiesvoucher and Dooyar also both edited on December 20. The time-stamps of these edits are dead giveaways.

19 December 2007

Nyanrunning at 21:30 (He made three more edits, ending at 21:38]
Debbiesvoucher at 21:24
Dooyar at 21:08

20 December 2007

31 December 2007

The chance of this happening randomly for three unrelated users is vanishingly small. I'll suggest giving these users a couple of days to explain away these facts, and if no explanation is forthcoming, block them all. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant work by Wildhartlivie and Shalom. Blocking all named accounts indef and the one IP 3 months. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:24, 2 June 2008 (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:Nyannrunning

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets: 69.234.176.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Dooyar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Debbiesvoucher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

IP4240207xx (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

After an [edit war] in the Johnnie Ray article, then another [edit war] in the Janis Joplin article with Wildhartlivie (talk · contribs) the contributor posted this long attack on Wildhartlivie here: Talk:Jim_Morrison#New_chapter_about_Morrison.27s_relationship_with_Thomas_Reese on the Jim Morrison talk page. Just after that 69.234.176.245 (talk · contribs) posted this on Wildhartlivie talk page

I didn't attack Wildhartlivie. I alerted her to an attack on her. Please read what I said on her talk page.

Further evidence: User_talk:Faithlessthewonderboy#Jim_Morrison and User:Wildhartlivie/Sandbox

Comments

I suspect, by looking at the edit summary's of Nyannrunning (talk · contribs) that they look familiar with a former banned user. (I am not sure which one, my old friend RMS125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs) maybe. I would have to study them further.)

How do the Edit Summaries look familiar?

Additional evidence

The obscure but nearly identical information added to the Kim Cattrall page by User:Debbiesvoucher here and by User:Nyannrunning here.

Definite confirmation by User:Nyannrunning that he/she is the same person as 69.234.176.245 on the Richard Calvin Cox page at this diff, on a page that had no edits since December 16, 2008, the IP is in the middle of a series of edits by User:Nyannrunning. No changes have been made on the page since.

Finally, results from Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nyannrunning that Possible that Nyannrunning and Dooyar are related.

What I want to know is what will be done about this? Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Please see the results of the UserCompare tool.. Im pretty sure that Dooyar is a sock, the others are debateable. β^{_{command 2}} 17:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This report is superseded by Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nyannrunning (2nd) which resulted in blocks for all three user accounts. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:31, 3 June 2008 (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:Omeomi

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Cyber Shepherd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

VanTucky 23:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User:Cyber Shepherd is a newly created single purpose account that is defending the position held by User:Omeomi in the May 23rd deletion review for the article ZuluPad. Cyber Shepherd entered in to this long and complicated debate exactly echoing the position of Omeomi and "suddenly" finding a years old newspaper article that Omeomi has presented as his primary source in the argument, but was enable to provide. He also claims academic credentials, and the chance that a univeristy professor would happen on a several days old deletion discussion having made not one edit outside the discussion (except for a user page edit asserting his credentials), is extremely unlikely. In the face of mounting endorsement for my deletion of the ZuluPad article, this single purpose account regurgitating the position of the most desperate defender of one position is highly suspect. VanTucky 23:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought I'd mention--in addition to my comments below--that while you may have mounting support for the deletion of the ZuluPad article, you have nearly no support for the removal of applications without pages from the Personal Wiki article, which is what got us here in the first place. --Omeomi (talk) 19:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This looks very suspicious. If it's necessary we could do a checkuser. Basically there's no way we can consider Cyber Shepherd to be truly independent based on his editing history. For all intents and purposes he is a proxy or sock of Omeomi. I will note this at the DRV. [443] Note also that these two accounts edited the DRV within 30 minutes of each other. [444]. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I had the source for the article, why wouldn't I have just posted it rather than coming up with some sort of elaborate scheme of having a fake university professor post it. Go ahead and do a checkuser, whatever that is. I don't know Cyber Shepherd aside from his postings here. --Omeomi (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Shalom, now looking at some external links to ZuluPad forums and such, it looks like it may just be a case of canvassing. That might explain why the opinions align so closely and why a new contributor went straight for the DRV. However, I don't think a checkuser should be totally ruled out. VanTucky 18:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - So, you didn't bother to read everything posted on the Deletion Review page before accusing me of Sock Puppeting? Maybe you should at least do your research first? Like I said, go ahead and do a checkuser. In fact, please do, because right now you're accusing me of something without having any evidence for it whatsoever. --Omeomi (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, look! VanTucky posted within 5 minutes of me just now! Maybe we're the same person. That would certainly be an odd plot twist, wouldn't it? --Omeomi (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meatpuppet, and currently single purpose account, yes. But User:Cyber Shepherd has declared an intent to expand his Wikipedia activities on his user page (and no one has bothered notifying him on his talk page of this). Frankly, it doesn't smell of sock puppetry to me; the behaviors are distinct enough and Omeomi doesn't strike me as someone who would make this style of sockpuppet. The forum is sufficient, IMO, to explain this.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have participated on the DRV, and I agree with Prosfilaes' assessment above --Enric Naval (talk) 22:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see from the timestamps, I opened this before the evidence of canvassing showed up, and at this point I'd also agree with Prosfilaes. Besides, since the DRV is over and we're looking to prevent malicious editing on the subject (not be punitive), there's little point in exploring the matter further. VanTucky 22:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so you did. But you didn't notify either party (as per Wikipedia Guidelines) so neither of us knew that you'd filed this report. Let's see what that page has to say about reporting sock puppets:

Before creating a report...please be sure that...you have strong evidence. You provided no strong evidence, just your own theory.
All your statements should be supported by diffs. You've provided no diffs.
Assume good faith, if possible. Goes without saying. You told me I wasn't assuming good faith when I suggested that you may have an ulterior motive, so I dropped it. Not sure why you don't hold yourself to the same standards.
Notify the suspected users. I got no notification, and as Prosfilaes notes above, you didn't bother to notify Cyber Shepherd either.

And YOU'RE the ADMINISTRATOR? Isn't this the sort of thing administrators are supposed to know how to do properly? --Omeomi (talk) 00:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't understand why I'm getting this hostility from VanTucky. Maybe VanTucky is just openly hostile to anyone who disagrees with him, but seriously, I've played by the rules, and I've done nothing to warrant being accused of Sock Puppeting from someone who didn't even bother to read the entire debate first. I've used the Wikipedia review process, and it seems reasonably clear that I'm going to lose that debate. That's fine. A number of administrators have mentioned that it wasn't the proper place to bring such a debate, but I didn't know that, and it seems that a lot of people didn't know that. It doesn't change the fact that the I'd rather help to improve the Personal Wiki page by consensus than to have VanTucky just randomly deleting entries, and that there is no Wikipedia policy that says that any entry on a page must have a corresponding Wikipedia article. Or that unsourced articles, like DidiWiki are a reason to believe that an application is more notable than applications that have no article at all. --Omeomi (talk) 22:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

It's very plausible, even probable, that these are two separate people. The fact that Cyber Shepherd was a single-purpose account, regardless of whether he was a sockpuppet or not, was known to whoever closed the DRV. No further action is needed, and I assume good faith and will consider these accounts as two separate users. I suspect that Cyber Shepherd will not return.

To Omeomi: please calm down. We investigate these cases precisely because we don't want to jump to conclusions. When we see two users with very few edits voting in the same discussion, we get suspicious. Sometimes these users are the same person. Sometimes they're not. We don't know until we do an investigation.

If you feel VanTucky treated you unfairly, please talk to him about it. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:43, 3 June 2008 (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.

Koov (3rd)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

Ha! (talk) 00:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

For 71.249.144.88

The edits made by 71.249.144.88 changes the same material that User:Koov and the other IP socks he's used did, or uses a similar comment style. (71.249.144.88 [445], Koov [446] [447]) (71.249.144.88 [448], Koov [449]) (71.249.144.88 [450], Koov [451][452])
71.249.144.88 is a New York Verizon account (same as a previous sock)
See Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Koov#User:Koov, Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Koov_(2nd), the reasoning is the same

For 68.161.114.146

68.161.114.146 is a New York Verizon IP, as was a previous sock 70.23.72.175
68.161.114.146 is trying to remove the same material from Srđa Trifković [453] that Koov was [454] [455] and the same material from Template:Foreign relations of the Soviet Union [456] that the above IP I also suspect as a sock (71.249.144.88) is trying to remove [457]

For 68.161.102.240

New York Verizon IP
Edited only the same articles that Koov edited
Same changes (doesn't like the image in Isabel or frontpagemag in Srđa Trifković)

For

see reasons below in "comments"

For 68.161.68.66

New York Verizon IP
The articles edited by 68.161.68.66 are the same as the ones edited by Koov, except for one
Same edit summary style when an edit summary is left (e.g "please", okay and exclamations)
Removing same information of the Russian Federation&diff=214700376&oldid=214591655 as Koov of the Russian Federation&diff=206761015&oldid=206666623 was on Template:Presidents of the Russian Federation and leaving identical (and unique) edit summary of the Russian Federation&diff=prev&oldid=214700376 as Koov of the Russian Federation&diff=206761015&oldid=206666623. and as a previous sock of Koov of the Russian Federation&diff=210805795&oldid=210776704. This is either Koov or someone taking the time to go find his previous edit summary way down the page and copy and paste it when leaving their own edit summary.

For 70.23.72.190

New York Verizon IP address
Editing same articles that Koov did (Template:Presidents of the Russian Federation) and the 68.161.114.146 sock above did (Template:Supreme Soviet Chairmen). The other article edited is Template:United Russia Leaders which neither Koov nor any already identified other sock of his edited, but is the same type of article Koov edits (he has firm ideas on the use of flags and seals in articles and templates)
The first edit summary of 70.23.72.190 of the Russian Federation&diff=prev&oldid=214930464 identifies this IP as Koov "I have told you guys several times already. Please remove these now!!!. Only show the current Presidents. Not the Vice Presidents or the Acting Presidents ever!!!". a) I've told you before means Koov or his 68.161.x.x or 149.4.x.x range has told us before, not just in this article but in others b) the exclamation marks are an indication it's Koov c) the words used are the same as Koov ("told" [458], "guys" [459], exclamations [460]). Also the use of "now!!!" is the same.

Note that there's not really anything to be done with respect to this IP. Template:Presidents of the Russian Federation has already been protected. I'm just adding this to demonstrate (because I don't think he'll be stopping anytime soon) that he uses the 70.x.x.x New York Verizon IP range as well as the 68.161.x.x NY Verizon IP range and 149.4.x.x range already established

For 68.161.64.237

New York Verizon IP address
Same articles (only 2) that Koov and his socks edited
Similar edit summary commenting syle (exclamations)
Wants the same 3 political parties removed from Template:Russian political parties that his other socks did (see the article history and check the diff of each 68.161.x.x (including one already proven Koov sock) and 149.4.x.x IP)
Wants the russian flag rather than presidential standard of the Russian Federation&diff=206761015&oldid=206666623 in Template:Presidents of the Russian Federation, which is a comon theme of Koov's (one example is of the Russian Federation&diff=208352033&oldid=208137349. There are many more though)
Doesn't want acting presidents in Template:Presidents of the Russian Federation [461]), another common theme of Koov's (one example is [462])

Comments

So far I don't see anything truly nasty or silly in the edits of the two named IPs. From actual sockpuppets of Koov wouldn't you expect something worse than this? My quick inspection of Superpower suggested it might need semi-protection, but I imagine that others will request that if it's needed. This doesn't rule out the possibility that your diffs show nationalistic edit-warring. Sometimes people who aren't sockpuppets and have strange views just agree with one another. EdJohnston (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, it is all fairly circumstantial. I should have waited until it got worse. Ha! (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly sure in my own mind that the 68.161.x.x range of IP's that are editing the same articles he edited (or his 149.x.x.x socks edited) are him. An example is 68.161.116.144 (compare it's comment starting "Hey Quarl" with any of Koov's that start with "Hey", and the common articles Isabel, Srđa Trifković, Template:Foreign relations of Russia Superpower and the common changes (with Koov or with the 149.x.x.x range) on those articles). There are more and the combination of New York IPs, same articles, some of the same type of commenting and the same material removed is enough for me, but as you say, the edits aren't particularly silly or agressive and it's possible they're not him. Also, just because he's blocked doesn't necessarily mean any edits he might do are bad. I'd say I've jumped the gun with this SSP. Ha! (talk) 02:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ha! Thanks for the new data. On the strength of it, I'm going ahead and blocking the two 68.161 IPs that were most recently active. I suspect he starts over with a new one in the 68.161.* series every day, so we'll need to be patient. It also means we don't have to block the old ones; they probably will not be used again. I semi-protected three of the templates that he frequents. EdJohnston (talk) 02:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though I see that new IP accounts keep being added to the header of this report, I doubt that it is useful to keep blocking them. (They are used at most one day each). It makes more sense to keep on semi-protecting the articles and templates that Koov takes an interest in. This can continue unless the local editors feel that the semi-protection is too intrusive. EdJohnston (talk) 00:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should I request semi protection (for Foreign relations of the Republic of Kosovo and maybe Diplomatic missions of Russia, edits by 68.161.68.101) here or at WP:RFPP? Ha! (talk) 04:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both are now semi-protected. EdJohnston (talk) 04:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I'm closing this case. It looks like EdJohnston has concluded there is probably sock-puppeting by a banned user, which can be dealt with by semi-protecting the affected pages. If this needs to stay open longer, please reopen it. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:10, 3 June 2008 (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:Editor652

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Editor652 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Loving152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Kww (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Same obsession with changing the quanitity of blacks in Honduras as shown by previous socks, combined with the classic first edit edit summary of "I'm not a sockpuppet".

Honduran72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
MTA254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
MTA25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Music14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Lacoste2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Loving10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments

Conclusions

Blocked as obvious sock. - auburnpilot talk 20:35, 2 June 2008 (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:Darkest-Link33

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Darkest-Link33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Thetriforcehero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
GoldenWolfy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

ShadowJester07 ►Talk 10:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Darkest-Link33 has been engaged in an edit war with several other editors in an attempt to add material despite the general dissent of other editors. The user made several reverts to the List of characters in The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess. The edits typically insinuated that two character pertaining to the article were involved in an relationship; basing the claim on either speculation or YouTube. Examples:

After Darkest-Link33 was banned, another account, Thetriforcehero, surfaced. The user has re-added the exact same, if not similar content to the article, as well as engaged in edit-wars with other editors before being temp banned for violating 3RR. (examples, as taken from 3RR Incident Board)

Furthermore, (while not a strong argument), all three users are prone to using similar styles of grammar and spelling. GoldenWolfy has yet to edit the actual article, though has left various comments that support my previous statement on the article's talk page.

It is also worth mention that similar disrupted edits have been caused by Anons, See latter portion of history, all of which I have confirmed (according to whois.net) share the same ISP. GoldenWolfy, has [previously posted under 69.238.196.8 [467], which shares the same ISP as the aforementioned IP addresses.

Comments

First of ty for the accusation because u katrieh and kryten are all the same person its obvious because i notice u all appear at different times, One day its Kryten, GASP he dissapears luckily for him his buddy katrieh was here and wait whats this katriehs gone? Oh here his buddy shadowjester magicicly pops up. Its obvious your not all around at the same time because your using different computers, Yet the accused and I ussually argue around the same point and yet we all have different IPs —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenWolfy (talk • contribs) 14:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can easily change their IP; whois.net can determine ISPs, which cannot be changed. The claim that Kariteh, user:KrytenKoro‎, and I are all the same person is absurd - using the same logic I could further incriminate you for sock-puppetry based on the fact that none of the accused users have ever appeared at the same time, and only began appearing after one account was blocked. -- ShadowJester07 ►Talk 14:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If your going to lie at the very least make it believable. The only way i could change my IP is if i edited it in wikipedia which could easily be researched on history otherwise its impossible to change ones IPGoldenWolfy (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)Tera[reply]

Not much i can add at this point lol ill just let u 2 work it out —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetriforcehero (talk • contribs) 23:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Shalom: Thetriforcehero (TF), Darkest-Link33 (DL) and GoldenWolfy (GW) are definitely the same. In addition to the circumstantial evidence based on participating on the same side of a localized dispute, they edited twice within minutes of one other.

23 May

28 May

30 May

These users write with the same immature tone. If this is the same person, as I strongly suspect, then that person has been blocked three times for edit warring and has lied to administrators by claiming to stop edit warring, then edit warring under a sock puppet three minutes later. The extremely inappropriate accusation against the user who reported this case does not help convince me of this user's understanding of what he has done wrong. I'm willing to jump a few steps in the dispute resolution process and call for an indefinite ban of this user, but I'll request checkuser to make sure I've got the facts right. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

All three plus a fourth user confirmed by RFCU case. Blocked and tagged. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey speak of the devil another sock puppet funny how random people appear out of nowhereGoldenWolfy (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Tera[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:Ppole

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Old Moonraker (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Contributions of alleged puppetmaster, blocked user Ppole here

Contributions of suspected puppet, Ttssr here

User Ppole's reverted edit to Bureaucracy, here

User Ttssr's reverted edit to Bureaucracy, here

Comments

User Ppole is in turn a puppet of blocked User:serafin.

Conclusions

Strike this entry, please: User:Ttssr blocked indefinitely for block evasion (banned user serafin)

Already blocked. Tagged. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:08, 1 June 2008 (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:AI Shawn

Suspected sockpuppeteer

AI Shawn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

--brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

AI Shawn (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account that created Adjusters International. [468]. At a subsequent afd for this article, where AI Shawn !voted to keep[469], User:Judywolf also !voted to keep[470]. Judywolf has two edits. One at Adjusters International [471] and another at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adjusters International [472].

Comments: The times that they were on, do somewhat match up. However, Judywolf was created at least a day before the AfD, so I'm hesitant to believe it's an account, only here to throw the AfD. They aren't making the same edits at all, either. In fact, Al Shawn actually reverted Judywolf. I don't really believe that this is abusive sock puppetry, merely a coincidentally interested user, whom registered to edit an article. SQL ^{Query me!} 18:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Judywolf: Sorry, I'm a separate individual who simply doesn't know the system well enough to do anything other than cut and paste other people's code when commenting (system's not super user friendly). You can ignore my vote if you want. My main question remains, though -- if we have a notable small company, how do we make the entry work? Even if it's an individual inside that company acting as the author, is that relevant as long as it's done along wiki guidelines and to wiki standards? Does anyone help the author out, or do we just delete the entire thing? Seems to me that a collective effort is in order, if more experienced folks are willing to help make it right. 15:51, 28 May 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Judywolf (talk • contribs)

Conclusions

These are probably two different people who are both connected in some way to the company whose article they have edited. I will note this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adjusters International, and that should be enough. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probable coincidence. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:03, 1 June 2008 (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:Jimboss69

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Jimboss69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Jrsmcmillan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 216.191.213.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

- Diligent Terrier (and friends) 13:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

After I reverted what appeared to be vandalism on the suspected sockpuppeter's userpage,[473], he left a note on my talk page, threatening to report me to an admin.[474]

Here are the suspected sock's diffs: [475] [476] [477] [478] [479] [480]

Comments

Looks like the two accounts have been block permanently (for harassing users, not meeting the username policy, and using a sockpuppet); the IP has been blocked temporarily. Can someone please checkuser the account to check for other possible socks, and also delete the sockpuppeter's userpage? - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 14:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And just minutes ago one of the suspected socks posted this on the talk page[481]. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 15:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why checkuser is needed. Do you want an IP block? Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, I just don't know if there's any more accounts out there he's operating that are doing the same thing. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 16:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Nothing more to do here. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:59, 1 June 2008 (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:Tellus archivist

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Tellus archivist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Twinkletellus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Oidkdufjggd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

freshacconcispeaktome 21:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Extensive edits on Tellus Audio Cassette Magazine and the related Joseph Nechvatal. Twinkletellus removed tags (for primary sources and NPOV on Tellus Audio Cassette Magazine). After a warning, the edit was undone by Oidkdufjggd a new, single-purpose (and seemingly quickly named) account which was apparently created to remove the tags (with claims of being a neutral third-party). Tellus archivist appears to be the main account.

Comments

This is pretty clear to me. There's no way that three different people happened to edit the same article which one of them created just two days ago, and these users haven't established any distinct identity outside this article. The gibberish username could be blocked as a username violation, and Twinkletellus should be blocked as a single-purpose account that's likely to be a sockpuppet. Tellus archivist, as the article creator, should be treated as the main account. No block for him, but he should be warned. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Two seperate people have tried to improve the article working from the same office on different computers. The accusation is false. I have just added two outside references to the article so as to improve it.

Twinkletellus (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oidkdufjggd (talk • contribs) 08:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If not socks, they're meats. Socks indef'd, master 48 hours. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:19, 1 June 2008 (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:Erwin Morland (4th)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Erwin Morland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Siderate3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

RolandR (talk) 10:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Further self-confessed[482] sock of multiply-banned disruptive and racist vandal

Comments

Conclusions

Obvious sock. Blocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:13, 1 June 2008 (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:Jlcruse

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Jonboy322 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
64.56.90.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
72.13.146.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
72.13.146.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

LostOldPassword (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Strikingly similar history of editing "secret society" related articles in the general area of North Carolina. Also Collegiate secret societies in North America‎, Alpha Gamma Kappa‎, and the totally unrelated (I think) Podiatry. Also a similar history of uploading possible copyvio images claiming PD (self). See Image:Gorgons head lodge.jpg and Image:DiPhi_house.jpg. The Jonboy322 user also created an article Cruse (name)‎ which seems a little too coincidental, given the assumption that the other user is likely called J.L. Cruse....

Comments

Could you please provide us with some diff's to show how there editing is in fact similar. Tiptoety ^talk 18:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try, but looking at the contributions list is probably more telling. It's a rather unusual combination of articles. The two images I listed above have identical non-standard descriptions as a start. LostOldPassword (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How about this: Jlcruse uploads a photo Image:Gorgons head lodge.jpg at 02:35, May 29, 2008 ( [483]) and then Jonboy322 creates a page titled "Order of Gorgon's Head" afterwards, at 03:04, May 29, 2008 ([484]). LostOldPassword (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This these are the common article space edits:

	Jlcruse	Jonboy322	64.56.90.134	72.13.146.28	72.13.146.49
Alpha Gamma Kappa	X	X	X		X
American Podiatric Medical Association	X				X
Barry University School of Podiatric Medicine	X		[485]		X
Canadian Pointer			X		X
Collegiate secret societies in North America	X	X
Cruse / Cruse (name)		X		X
David Garrard		X		X
Dr. William M. Scholl College of Podiatric Medicine	X				X
East Carolina University	X	X	X	X	X
East Carolina University Greek Life		X		X	X
Kappa Alpha Order			X		X
Kevin Williamson (screenwriter)		X		X
Lisa Foiles		X	X
Order of Gimghoul	X	X
Order of Gorgon's Head		X		X
Para Rabbi		X		X
Podiatry	X	X	X		X
Robert Burren Morgan		X		X
Scott Thomas (district attorney)		X		X	X
Secret and honorary societies at the University of North Carolina		X		X
Sporting Group			X		X

- LostOldPassword (talk) 00:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Garrard ([486], [487]), Williamson ([488], [489]), Morgan ([490], [491]), and Thomas ([492], [493], [494]) were all claimed to be members of the "Society of the Seven" a supposed East Carolina University secret society whose page has been recreated and deleted ([495]) many times (see also here for Jlcruse's reference to it [496]). I'm guessing a look at those deleted pages would probably be conclusive. LostOldPassword (talk) 02:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This edit ([497]) by Jlcruse may be conclusive given the diffs immediately above as it matches the style of those by Jonboy322 and the IP addresses and adds unverified information about the "Society of the Seven".LostOldPassword (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the results of the UserCompare tool. β^{_{command 2}} 17:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jlcruse and Jonboy322 have been Confirmed by checkuser, see here. LostOldPassword (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Two named accounts already blocked. Blocked IPs 1 month. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]