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.
Editing same article with the same nonsense as the banned user.
Comments
Conclusions
Very likely, especially Limabean123 was speaking to CanadianLinuxUser on behalf of Nevadascrewedme. Nevadascrewedme was blocked indef for violating username policy. Limabean123 is also blocked indef due to vandalism-only editing pattern. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:16, 30 April 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.
Surfer-boy94 adds (then edits) a comment to a closed AfD (diff 04:23, 21 April 2008; diff 04:24, 21 April 2008) which is removed one minute later by Motion-In-The-Ocean (diff 04:25, 21 April 2008)
Both users appear to have edited from the same ISP (AAPT in Australia):
IP edits Surfer-boy94's user page, adding a template Surfer-boy94 created to his "Articles I Created" list (diff 12:32, 24 March 2008)
IP !votes in an AfD (diff 13:41, 25 April 2008); signature changed by Motion-In-The-Ocean one minute later (diff 13:42, 25 April 2008)
Multiple instances of !vote-stacking in AfDs (when there is more than one edit in the same AfD, I've only included the first by each editor):
Surfer-boy94 (diff 05:59, 22 January 2008) / Motion-In-The-Ocean diff 06:26, 22 January 2008)
Note that this is Motion-In-The-Ocean's very first edit—!voting "keep" in an AfD for an article created by Surfer-boy94
Surfer-boy94 (diff 08:02, 14 April 2008) / Motion-In-The-Ocean (diff 05:05, 15 April 2008)
Note that Motion-In-The-Ocean copy-and-pasted Surfer-boy94's signature but initially forgot to change the timestamp, returning to fix it (diff 05:06, 15 April 2008)
Surfer-boy94 (diff 12:34, 25 April 2008) / Motion-In-The-Ocean (diff 13:04, 25 April 2008)
Surfer-boy94 (diff 12:37, 25 April 2008) / Motion-In-The-Ocean (diff 13:42, 25 April 2008)
As noted above, in this instance the second !vote was by an IP, then the signature was changed by Motion-In-The-Ocean.
Surfer-boy94 has claimed on my talk page (part 2) that Exclusive 474 is his brother, Motion-In-The-Ocean is his cousin (who only edits when he is at Surfer-boy94's house), and Piece-of-Me-08 is his "best mate". He claims to not know who Insomniatic_999 is. —Hello, ControlHello, Tony 11:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I have dealt with Exclusive474 and Surfer-boy94, and believe the claim that they are distinct people, even if they share an IP address. Both of them have shown to be responsive to correction ... if I point out the reason that I have reverted or changed one of their edits, they understand and comply in the future.
My recommendation is a meat-puppeting warning: explaining that if they both have an interest in an AFD or similar discussion, that their relationship makes them suspect, and, in general, only one of them should comment. If they feel compelled to comment on the same thing, they should be explicit about their relationship.Kww (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser has confirmed all of the accounts, and identified an additional one: Girls alouds biggest fan. I would be inclined to believe that both he and his brother edit, but Surfer-boy94 was not forthright about everything, disclaiming knowledge of Insomniatic_999 and not bringing up Girls alouds biggest fan. Either the bulk of the accounts are sockpuppets or they're meatpuppets. I don't know what to recommend—stretching good faith to its limits, I would say that publicizing their relationships to each other on their user pages should be mandatory, as well as forbidding future participation in any consensus discussions or contentious edits by more than one of the group. It would appear that all of the accounts need close monitoring (some more than others) and make similar disruptive edits/errors. There are good edits by all, for sure, but the question is whether the good outweighs the bad. —Hello, ControlHello, Tony 16:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Surfer-boy94 Has claimed that his "inexperienced" family are editing wikipedia. I am inclined to agree with him in part however I am worried this may be a cover story? I recommend that, as he is new to wikipedia, all of the accounts be cautioned, and asked to give evidence that they are not sockpuppets. I'm not sure if this will work, but it's my only suggestion. If this is sockpuppetry, then I would recommend an infefenite block, at least, until an agreement can be reached. Britishrailclass91 (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see how you can get them to prove that they are not sockpuppets? As far as I'm concerned (given my comments below), these sockpuppets were originally created to try and influence an AFD, and it seems highly suspicious to me that that is their only purpose. An indefinite block on the socks and a temporary block on Surfer-boy94 is my suggestion. ~~ [Jam][talk] 16:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the AFD for "Vanessa Hudgens Second Studio Album" clearly shows how these sockpuppets arose. Given that new sockpuppets have been identified (following the Checkuser), it clearly shows that some of these accounts were created merely to try and influence that AFD (Piece-of-Me-08 was created only a few minutes before it voted on the AFD; same with Motion-In-The-Ocean). I personally feel satisfied that this is a clear case of sockpuppetry to influence AFD voting (despite, it appears, the various sockpuppets voting against each other!) ~~ [Jam][talk] 16:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they all !voted the same but Surfer-boy94 changed his !vote towards the end of the AfD. —Hello, ControlHello, Tony 17:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up there - I thought it was a bit odd that Surfer had a different vote to the rest. ~~ [Jam][talk] 17:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm quite inclined to agree with you there. ~~ [Jam][talk] 12:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
Works for me. All socks blocked, main account warned. GBT/C 17:15, 27 April 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.
The user either represents or has an interest in Malaguti article. His initial efforts at adding corporate links and unsourced (probably true) information were reverted. He has now started making the same edits (Adding company website under references and adding names of two people as owners within the article). Persistent messages at his talk page here have not met with any response. This edit by User:Scootercrazy and this edit by User:Malagutiltalia are the same edits - removal of a Martin from the article. This edit by User:Scootercrazy and this one by User:Malagutiltalia are essentially the same - addition of AD-SPAM.
Comments
Conclusions
Main account blocked. IP hasn't edited for a few days. Although editing the same article, there's not enough to go on to block Scootercrazy. GBT/C 17:18, 27 April 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.
Surfer-boy94 adds (then edits) a comment to a closed AfD (diff 04:23, 21 April 2008; diff 04:24, 21 April 2008) which is removed one minute later by Motion-In-The-Ocean (diff 04:25, 21 April 2008)
Both users appear to have edited from the same ISP (AAPT in Australia):
IP edits Surfer-boy94's user page, adding a template Surfer-boy94 created to his "Articles I Created" list (diff 12:32, 24 March 2008)
IP !votes in an AfD (diff 13:41, 25 April 2008); signature changed by Motion-In-The-Ocean one minute later (diff 13:42, 25 April 2008)
Multiple instances of !vote-stacking in AfDs (when there is more than one edit in the same AfD, I've only included the first by each editor):
Surfer-boy94 (diff 05:59, 22 January 2008) / Motion-In-The-Ocean diff 06:26, 22 January 2008)
Note that this is Motion-In-The-Ocean's very first edit—!voting "keep" in an AfD for an article created by Surfer-boy94
Surfer-boy94 (diff 08:02, 14 April 2008) / Motion-In-The-Ocean (diff 05:05, 15 April 2008)
Note that Motion-In-The-Ocean copy-and-pasted Surfer-boy94's signature but initially forgot to change the timestamp, returning to fix it (diff 05:06, 15 April 2008)
Surfer-boy94 (diff 12:34, 25 April 2008) / Motion-In-The-Ocean (diff 13:04, 25 April 2008)
Surfer-boy94 (diff 12:37, 25 April 2008) / Motion-In-The-Ocean (diff 13:42, 25 April 2008)
As noted above, in this instance the second !vote was by an IP, then the signature was changed by Motion-In-The-Ocean.
Surfer-boy94 has claimed on my talk page (part 2) that Exclusive 474 is his brother, Motion-In-The-Ocean is his cousin (who only edits when he is at Surfer-boy94's house), and Piece-of-Me-08 is his "best mate". He claims to not know who Insomniatic_999 is. —Hello, ControlHello, Tony 11:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I have dealt with Exclusive474 and Surfer-boy94, and believe the claim that they are distinct people, even if they share an IP address. Both of them have shown to be responsive to correction ... if I point out the reason that I have reverted or changed one of their edits, they understand and comply in the future.
My recommendation is a meat-puppeting warning: explaining that if they both have an interest in an AFD or similar discussion, that their relationship makes them suspect, and, in general, only one of them should comment. If they feel compelled to comment on the same thing, they should be explicit about their relationship.Kww (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser has confirmed all of the accounts, and identified an additional one: Girls alouds biggest fan. I would be inclined to believe that both he and his brother edit, but Surfer-boy94 was not forthright about everything, disclaiming knowledge of Insomniatic_999 and not bringing up Girls alouds biggest fan. Either the bulk of the accounts are sockpuppets or they're meatpuppets. I don't know what to recommend—stretching good faith to its limits, I would say that publicizing their relationships to each other on their user pages should be mandatory, as well as forbidding future participation in any consensus discussions or contentious edits by more than one of the group. It would appear that all of the accounts need close monitoring (some more than others) and make similar disruptive edits/errors. There are good edits by all, for sure, but the question is whether the good outweighs the bad. —Hello, ControlHello, Tony 16:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Surfer-boy94 Has claimed that his "inexperienced" family are editing wikipedia. I am inclined to agree with him in part however I am worried this may be a cover story? I recommend that, as he is new to wikipedia, all of the accounts be cautioned, and asked to give evidence that they are not sockpuppets. I'm not sure if this will work, but it's my only suggestion. If this is sockpuppetry, then I would recommend an infefenite block, at least, until an agreement can be reached. Britishrailclass91 (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see how you can get them to prove that they are not sockpuppets? As far as I'm concerned (given my comments below), these sockpuppets were originally created to try and influence an AFD, and it seems highly suspicious to me that that is their only purpose. An indefinite block on the socks and a temporary block on Surfer-boy94 is my suggestion. ~~ [Jam][talk] 16:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the AFD for "Vanessa Hudgens Second Studio Album" clearly shows how these sockpuppets arose. Given that new sockpuppets have been identified (following the Checkuser), it clearly shows that some of these accounts were created merely to try and influence that AFD (Piece-of-Me-08 was created only a few minutes before it voted on the AFD; same with Motion-In-The-Ocean). I personally feel satisfied that this is a clear case of sockpuppetry to influence AFD voting (despite, it appears, the various sockpuppets voting against each other!) ~~ [Jam][talk] 16:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they all !voted the same but Surfer-boy94 changed his !vote towards the end of the AfD. —Hello, ControlHello, Tony 17:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up there - I thought it was a bit odd that Surfer had a different vote to the rest. ~~ [Jam][talk] 17:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm quite inclined to agree with you there. ~~ [Jam][talk] 12:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
Works for me. All socks blocked, main account warned. GBT/C 17:15, 27 April 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:Rldavisivresponded to a cluebot warning for blanking two articles by stating that he/she had started these articles. Article histories (here and here show that both articles were begun by indef-blocked user Daynal, who is using his/her talkpage for a WP:SOAPBOX of one sort or another. Pastordavid (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
I gave the original user the opportunity to rename his account by unblocking him per his unblock request. Instead of filing for a user name change, he continued editing articles that are directly connected to his publishing company, Daynal Institute Press. In all likelihood the user could have resumed his editing with minimal objection, but now it appears that, after my reblocking him for the aforementioned actions, he went ahead and created a new account for himself. I do not see it as typical sock behavior, as there is some transparency, but his philosophical disagreements with how we work, which are completely absent in his private correspondence with me, are here evident, and suggest that he may choose to operate under his own rules and disregard the community's agreed-upon policies and standards. I'm uncertain how to respond to him now, as I feel completely deceived. For now, I intend to make public any further email correspondence of his with me for the sake of transparency; he would do well to instead correspond with all Wikipedians within the same framework as the rest of us. - CobaltBlueTony™talk 21:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse CobaltBlueTony's comments, especially regarding Daynal's potential for ignoring our community norms. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A sock puppet is an alternative account used deceptively.
Although not common, some Wikipedians also create alternative accounts.
It is recommended that he or she provide links between the accounts.
Blocked accordingly. GBT/C 15:51, 27 April 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 Grapefruit2008 introduced pages on a non-notable website "Poonmovies" and has been warned a number of times about removing CSD tags and recreation of deleted content. User GrapefruitFuture has begun a similar pattern of creating articles (currently just a redirect) about the same website.
It could be that the user wanted a fresh start, however the same pattern of action is beginning to emerge of creation of articles about "Poonmovies".
Comments
Conclusions
Although probably linked, there's no real breach of policy going on. Treat them as separate accounts, warn and report to WP:AIV accordingly. GBT/C 15:47, 27 April 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.
All have vandalized Kyle Petty in the past few days, one of the accounts (PhillipGarisson) stated directly that it was Felipe Garcia. The other two accounts' only contributions have been vandalism edits to the Kyle Petty article.
Comments
Conclusions
PhillipGarrison blocked and tagged. There's no evidence the other two are linked to Felipe Garcia, although they may well be linked to each other. Treat them as separate accounts, warn and report to WP:AIV as appropriate. GBT/C 15:45, 27 April 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.
S.p.p.g.c.f.block has requested me to unblock Robot666, a confirmed sockpuppet of Kirbylevel4, here: [3], and seems fixed on this, as he later repeats the request here: [4].
Taking a look at S.p.p.g.c.f.block's contributions, they are all either on his talk page, my talk page, or other users' talk pages. He only has one main edit which hasn't been deleted, which is to Ness's entry at List of Earthbound characters. Ness, is a character from the Super Smash Bros series, one that Kirbylevel4 was also interested in editing. Coincidentally, both of their first contributions were to this article, under the same section (Kirbylevel4's edit:[5], and S.p.p.g.c.f.block's edit:[6]). The only other mainspace contribution that he has was a page which was speedily deleted, Charlie and the candy moutian, a page which Robot666, also created once (see:[7]).
Comments
After checking through the diffs and the contributions of the suspected sock puppet, the evidence seems very clear and strong. The fact that an "uninvolved" user would protest an administrator to unblock another user, while editing the same section of an article, seems far too coincidental here, and the suspected sock displays similar traits to the puppet master's other sock puppets. This seems like a rather open/shut case to me. Steve Crossin(talk)(review) 09:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
Blocked and tagged. GBT/C 15:17, 27 April 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.
Treat 'em as different users - if they carry on as they are then one of them'll end up blocked. If the other one then carries on, it too could then be blocked. As it stands, although annoying, there's no denial that it's the same person, but there's no significant disruption, no good-hand bad-hand editing going on, and no block evasion.
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.
Treat 'em as different users - if they carry on as they are then one of them'll end up blocked. If the other one then carries on, it too could then be blocked. As it stands, although annoying, there's no denial that it's the same person, but there's no significant disruption, no good-hand bad-hand editing going on, and no block evasion.
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.
I was approached on my talk page to look into these three editors and their relationships, if any. There seems to be evidence that Abdullah bahajri is Egyption 4eva. However, I do not think there is any clear evidence about Lebanese heart. Regardless, I wanted another set or two of eyes on this before any further sanctions are performed, if necessary. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 04:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the edits of the user "Egyption 4eva" don't appear to be soapboxing, and in fact seem to offer a fairly cohesive, reasoned argument. Are one of the socks and indef banned user or in some way violating policy? - Arcayne(cast a spell) 05:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe WP:SOAP comes to mind. Also, the nest of links at the bottom is an issue. Regardless, only one account should be used to edit these articles; sockpuppetry is not allowed even if the arguments are reasoned, I am afraid. -- Avi (talk) 05:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I get that. However, out of the different kinds of soapboxing, only the second kind
"Opinion pieces on current affairs or politics."
seems at all close to the point of the edit. However, were we to apply SOAP to every article discussion (and not article) to that litmus, the articles about Iran, Anti-(insert nationality or ethnic group here) Sentiment articles, or about disputes involving regional disputes would be empty. The post in question does not violate SOAP in that while it is a post the history of a term, it doesn't offer opinion. It offers facts. That it is posted in two different articles that are currently deep in discussion of precisely the nomenclature issues that the post addresses is immaterial. That it is presented fairly, reasonably and intelligently is.
Of course, if the user is editing inappropriately through several accounts and backing up their own edits or is secretly an indef banned user, we have no choice but to block. I would like to suggest that if this is a user mistake, that they be given the opportunity to drop the other ads and edit through one account and one only. I have no tolerance for socks, but most of that intolerance comes from sock trying to abuse the system for an advantage. That doesn't appear to be the case here. - Arcayne(cast a spell) 05:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(<-)If this is a mistake and not a banned user, then only the puppets will be indef blocked, and the master may either be short-blocked or warned. -- Avi (talk) 05:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed this user's soapboxing tonight, so I did some research of my own on the history of the pages this user seems interested in, and I found a banned user Arabistani(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log) with near-identical interests and editing scope as the suspected sock puppets here. --Sia34 (talk) 06:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I added the blocked troll (from Sia34's post) to the list of suspects. I personally don't see any connection to the "interests and editing scope" from a 5-day troll from over a year and a half ago. SSP is not a fishing expedition. - Arcayne(cast a spell) 17:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
I took a look with CheckUser, based on a request. Confirmed Abdullah bahajri = Egyption 4eva = Lebanese heart. They appear to be using open proxies. (Arabistani is too old to check.) Dmcdevit·t 01:44, 26 April 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.
Neither of the accounts have any edits, deleted or otherwise. GBT/C 14:26, 27 April 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.
Not sure if this is grounds for action yet, but I figured it was worth a shot since Rattler2 doesn't look like he wants to congenially discuss matters and come to a consensus. Then again, I'm going to keep assuming good faith and see if that gets us anywhere. I should note that Rattler2's other edits seem innocuous enough, though I find this diff interesting. -FrankTobia (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely looks like it. Nice catch, I'm sorry I didn't find it first. -FrankTobia (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
Does not actually matter whether they are a sock. They are pushing Collin's POV which has long been discredited here. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:48, 25 April 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.
Quack. Blocked. GBT/C 09:35, 25 April 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.
Confirmed independently by checkuser and checked further. Same user is also likely to be Matrixbucra (talk·contribs), Forza Deano (talk·contribs) and Barryisland (talk·contribs) and a bunch of BT dynamic IPs plus one or two statics. Some underlying IPs are softblocked, all accounts but one are blocked and Fadiga09 himself warned. FT2(Talk | email) 00:47, 28 April 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.
Continual vandalism of Walking with Monsters and List of episodes in Prehistoric Park is EXACTLY the same as all of his previous accounts, with him insisting that it has to be the way he puts it because "people will get confused".
Comments
Continously removes any comments in his user talk page, insisting that he "has to be a loner". Of course, the REAL reason is because he doesn't want to be found out, but that is not going to happen. Whilst I am aware that users are allowed to blank their talk pages, and it is their right to have what they want, Komodo Lover does not, in my book, get these privliages, because in the past he has abused them strongly. I think a page protection would also be of benefit as a result.
Conclusions
Blocked indefinitely. GBT/C 14:19, 27 April 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.
Both users created the Philippines Hot 100 page, a hoax article on a nonexistant chart. Given the similar edits between both users (Philipine musical hoaxes), I have a feeling that these users may be in cahoots.
Comments
Conclusions
Quack. Indefinitely blocked. GBT/C 14:13, 27 April 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.
Sockpuppet returning to vandalize St. Margaret's C of E High School, Liverpool, deleting portions of article and adding the same block of text for which the puppeteer was blocked yesterday, as seen here (Encore08) and here (Encore07).
Comments
Both usernames now indef-blocked, so this is moot
Conclusions
Closed as no further action required. GBT/C 14:11, 27 April 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.
MrWP registered recently, and placed a help tag on his talk page, claiming not to understand how Wikipedia works. SimpsonsFan08 replied (diff) no more than a minute later.
SimpsonsFan08 then made this edit which appears to have been intended for creation under the MrWP account, since this edit was reverted and replaced by MrWP with this edit. MrWP proceeded to give SimpsonsFan08 a barnstar (diff) and nominate him for adminship here
Comments
Obvious socking here. Reccomending indef block of MrWP and 6 months for SimpsonsFan08. MBisanztalk 20:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This message was intended for another user. It was as a thank you, as I forgot, to say thanks for the credit for my barnstar graphic design. SimpsonsFan08talk 20:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, I have no authority over MrWP. I liked to be thanked. Block him if you want. SimpsonsFan08talk 20:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would support the six month ban for SimpsonsFan08. The "misplaced post" argument is not convincing, as the message never showed up anywhere else. It seems more likely that the poster forgot which account he was editing from at the time. Kafka Liz (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant sock, the messages were 2 mins apart and word-for-word the same (except for a bit added to the beginning) - a 6 month block sound good, no need to wait and see what the autoblock does. --Tango (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the more egregious examples of WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT puppetry I've come across. The block on MrWP stands. Endorse that completely. However, surprisingly, I don't support 6 months for SimpsonsFan though. While completely subverting the system, I think he feels/felt his position as an admin would be beneficial. I suggest a month. I trust after that expires there will be no motivation to do anything like this again. Dishing out the barnstars is eyerolling as well. Wisdom89(T / C) 00:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The autoblock has caught Simpson by the way. Yet, I do think this is an example of gross stupidity, not anything malicious. I really don't think it warrants a 6-month block. It hasn't been used to vandalise articles, nor has it been used really for disruptive edits; only for a naive and doomed to fail attempt at vote-stacking. If Simpson owns up to it then a week should suffice. Woody (talk) 20:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I am rescinding my 1 month recommendation. I think 72 hours would be more appropriate now, as I am assuming good faith on his contriteness. He's learned. Wisdom89(T / C) 20:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
72 hours, a week, doesn't matter, I'm fine with whatever. This ended a lot better than it could have, especially for the first time I've ever reported suspected sockpuppetry. — scetoaux(T|C) 20:52, 26 April 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.
Apparently sockpuppets have been used to avoid the 3RR rule on multiple articles; see evidence.
Conclusions
Creation of report unnecessary. Some one will pick up the case at RFCU. Greman Knight. 19:04, 26 April 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.
Setanta747 is an editor who edits from an extremely disruptive and biased loyalist perspective. There were regular edits such as this where he changed the birthplace of someone born before Northern Ireland existed from the correct Ireland to Northern Ireland. He was also heavily involved in the edit wars where loyalist editors claimed the Ulster Banner was the flag of Northern Ireland, when it isn't and has no legal status. As a result of this he was threatened with probation from the Troubles ArbCom case here. The account Setanta747 hasn't edited since December, since then the editor has been editing from IP addresses which given his contentious editing past is not a permitted use of sockpuppets per WP:SOCK as editors have a legitimate interest in reviewing his contributions, and in addition doing so is avoiding the possibility of probation being imposed.
Setanta747 editing anonymously was first discovered as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kremlin (bar) being notified on his talk page here. 90.197.80.97 !voted to keep the article at the AfD here, and after a further review of the IP's contributions it was clear it was in fact Setanta747. As Setanta747, he repeatedly tried to remove well-known and frequently cited quotes that show Basil Brooke, 1st Viscount Brookeborough was a sectarian hatemonger, for example see here, here, here, here and here, which was even reverted by a Unionist editor. Editing anonymously, he then tried to whitewash the article by removing the remaining quote (including a summary that it should be on WikiQuote, which Setanta747 previously said in a summary on two occasions; see previous diffs), here and here.
The IPs are not only linked together by common edit theme, there's also edits to List of countries by compactness that show they are the same person. 90.210.214.15 made this edit to the article, which was then repeated by 90.197.80.73 this edit. Similarly with Portal:Northern Ireland/Intro above, where 90.197.80.73 made these edits which 90.197.80.66 made again. There's also edits like this edit which shows this editor is clearly not a "brand new" editor, as it was Setanta747 who originally created WikiProject Northern Ireland in the first place. And similarly this edit reverting a bot tagging WikiProject Belfast as inactive, another WikiProject that Setanta747 created in the first place. The various IPs have frequently been adding banners for the above WikiProjects to articles, which isn't really typical behaviour of IP editors but it is typical behaviour of Setanta747 - examples [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]. There's also this where he chastises another editor for inadvertantly removing a WikiProject banner, originally tagged by Setanta747.
To sum up. There's the exact same type of biased edits to the same range of articles, WikiProject tagging for two virtually inactive WikiProjects Setanta747 set up, involvement in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kremlin (bar), same edit summaries etc etc. There's plenty more if needed, I wanted to try and keep it relatively concise. One Night In Hackney303 13:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Is this covered by sockpuppetry rules? I could be wrong, but none of the evidence that I can immediately see shows that the user has edited using IPs at the same time in order to avoid detection or attempt to demonstrate a faux consensus. I'm not being trite, more a genuine inquiry.Traditional unionist (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative accounts should not be used to edit in ways that would be considered improper if done by a single account. Using alternative puppet accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors cannot detect patterns in your contributions. While this may occasionally be legitimate (see below under legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts — or to edit anonymously without logging in to your account (emphasis added) — in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions.
Given his editing history, there's plenty of editors with a legitimate interest in reviewing his contributions. One Night In Hackney303 16:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think there may be right to vanish issues here.Traditional unionist (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I take it that's an admission you believe it's the same editor then? One Night In Hackney303 16:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite a combative way of putting it now isn't it? I think the evidence suggests that it is quite likely.Traditional unionist (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I certainly didn't intend it as aggressive and don't see how it could be construed that way, but ne'er mind. One Night In Hackney303 16:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The IP addresses look like they are dynamic. They come from the same ISP, and none of the edits are in the same time period, as for User:Setanta747, this user has not made an edit for a while, and the last one was blanking the user page, so it looks like they are no longer contributing. KipKip 00:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly the point. Editors cannot simply abandon their account and continue disruption using dynamic IP addresses if editors have a legitimate interest in tracking their contributions, especially if they have been threatened with probation from an ArbCom case. To do is a violation of the sockpuppetry policy. One Night In Hackney303 00:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To my eyes, its certainly a violation of the spirit of the policy. Given that editing restrictions have been placed on those articles by ArbCom, scrutiny is important, and editors are afforded less freedom than they is normally available. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
I'll help out will this tomorrow. Have to dash for now. Rudget 19:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find that there is sock puppetry here. However, the main account has been abandoned and the user IP hops. Blocking will have no lasting effect and probably won't even be noticed by the user. Therefore, I am going to propose a short community ban at WP:AN.[25] That way if they reappear as an IP, their edits can be reverted. JehochmanTalk 13:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Waiting for results of community consultation on case, as proposed by Jehochman. Rudget 12:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result of that discussion was that we should apply the probation to this user, including any IP socks they may use. They have evaded probation by gaming the system. JehochmanTalk 13:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find that there has been a violation of WP:SOCK and WP:GAME. This user was properly warned about the general sanctions in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. [26] Due to the IP hopping, blocking the IPs is unlikely to stop them and may cause collateral damage. I am going to block the main account for two weeks, place them on probation and issue a warning that any further IP socking may result in an indefinite block. JehochmanTalk 19:18, 25 April 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.
One of Black Rhino Ranger's defining features was not using a signature, and instead writing his user name (sans links) at the start of his messages. He also tended to use excessive amounts of caps, and often made blocking threats. This style is shared by users Snakezilla and Komodo lover (note talk pages). They also have edited the same articles, made highly similar personal attacks, and were banned for roughly the same reasons.
As a new development, Black Rhino Ranger has admitted to making multiple accounts to evade blocks here.
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.
Contribution history of both shows a fairly clear correlation. Pay particular note to the articles and talk pages of Editors, Scotland and Wales. Has been used in polling (this diff being a good example of the relationship between the two users).
I'd also like to say that I've raised this with the use in question here.
Comments
Conclusions
I'm convinced, particularly as there's more than one occasion where Melvo has been used to back-up Wikipeire's views such as here where Melvo pops up 20 minutes after Wikipeire, in support of his suggestion, and I'm also not particularly impressed by this edit. Sock indefinitely blocked. Master account blocked for 72 hours for disruption. GBT/C 12:43, 24 April 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.
MJD86 is a user who kept adding trivia about Homer Simpson saving Abe Lincoln and JFK in an episode [28]. Rather than let it go, he kept readding trivia, edit warring and eventually got blocked. He then started using socks to readd the trivia and a suspected sock puppet report was filed, which resulted in a lengthier block for MJD. One of his user names was Homer, Lincoln, & JFK. The main connection between this user and MJD is the user name although he has edited several articles relating to topics that MJD edited. I decided to leave a small warning on his talk page because I wasn't positive, and one of his replies pretty much confirmed it. -- Scorpion0422 02:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
The name is a bit of a giveaway, but I can't see that there's any overlap between the contributions? Possibly there's been circumvention of the block, as the edits by Homer saves Presidents on 2 April are (just) within the 1 week block Rudget imposed on MJD86 for the first SSP case. Can you please provide diffs to the articles both accounts are editing? GBT/C 11:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was that they had similar patterns, Homer saves Presidents has edited several articles relating to topics MJD used to edit and has periods where he makes minor corrections to random articles (like MJD). -- Scorpion0422 15:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
Sorry, but there's not really enough to go on with enough certainty to merit a block of Homer saves presidents. He's editing random articles - that some of those random articles are in some way related to the random articles which MJD86 edits isn't really strong enough evidence at this point. Feel free to monitor the situation and relist, or leave me a note on my talk page if you like. GBT/C 12:49, 24 April 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.
Zeq has been blocked for a year for disruptive behaviour, including attempting to recruit scores of meatpuppets in order to influence the content of Wikipedia; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby campaign. This account is one of them; see comment in related correspondence "I edited an article about Paul McKenna. I found a slight grammatical error and fixed it. I also updated information on his US television appearances. There was a place where I indicated that it was a minor change and then a box where I described the changes I made" and diff [29].
Comments
Properly speaking, this editor, assuming s/he is the individual in those emails, is not a sock puppet, but a person who was recruited by an e-mail campaign to edit on behalf of a pressure group. Given that he has made exactly two minor edits, and we all know now to keep an eye on him, I see no purpose in any type of sanction. Even if we were to permanently ban him, which would anyway be capricious and excessive, he could just create an new account and there'd be nothing to tie him to those two little edits. So there's no point. Maybe he'll become a helpful and productive editor despite the way he was recruited. (There's a quote from Wayne's World about monkeys that I'd like to use here, but that would be going too far.) <eleland/talkedits> 09:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
No action at this point in time. GBT/C 12:53, 24 April 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.
All are SPA or near-SPA accounts for Jordin Sparks (and associated albums, singles, etc.).
All have changed various sales figures contrary to the cited sources for those figures, despite repeated warnings. The following diffs show the same source used to indicate a long string of increasing sales figures. All three accounts were repeatedly warned for unsourced contribs along the way.
(After Jordin Sparks (album) was semi-protected on 4/10/2008, Moneyman202 briefly picked up 121.1.53.56's edits. Trialing was registered 4/13/2008 and took over the edits on that article on 4/17/2008. On 4/22/2008, I notified Trialing that I had taken their edits to AIV. Moneyman202 then picked up the edits, continuing after Trialing was blocked.)
No edit summary use bany any of them.
No responses to TALK requests.
All frequently use and/or add "+" to sales figures.
Pretty confident to conclude that those 3 are sockpuppeting. Trialing and the IP are blocked for 6 months while Moneyman202 is blocked indef. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:38, 25 April 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.
Each of these users has been repeatedly changing the Kyle Petty page to state that his nationality is Mexican, rather than American (which is where I first observed this pattern). A quick look at the edit histories of each of these users suggests that each user has been making similar edits, getting blocked, and then similar edits begin from a new account. On the Kyle Petty page the first edit was byFelipe Garcia but I cannot be certain if that is the original puppetmaster, or if this is a sock of another puppet master and I've simply found the first time that he/she edited on the Kyle Petty page. Other users, including AngelOfSadness have been active in reverting his/her changes, and may also be able to provide additional information.
I am here providing a list of users and diffs on the Kyle Petty page, but there are probably other examples of a similar pattern as well:
Also most of the suspected sockpuppets have been inserting pro-ACLU/pro-Latino/pro-Mexican/anti-racist remarks into their attacks/threats on other editors for example:
Some of the users, once reported to AIV or even reverted in some cases, would replace their report with a report with the other editor's (who filed the original report or reverted their edits) name:
Also all of the users mentioned in this report have edited Pokemon-related pages in the same manner/fashion i.e. changing the origin of the series to Mexican and changing the names of the voice actors to IndyCar and NASCAR racers such as Bobby Labonte and Kyle Petty
All blocked. Just need tagging with {{sockpuppet|confirmed|Felipe Garcia|evidence=[[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Felipe Garcia]]}}. Rudget. 19:23, 23 March 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.
Because accounts are disrupting an AFD, as well as an article, I have blocked them all. Please note there is an ongoing OTRS ticket regarding this article. ⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender 19:27, 23 April 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.
EddieMonsoon appears to be one of the most recent set of accounts being used by Jvolkblum to evade blocking. This account was registered a few days ago and started editing actively at just about the same time that User:15ParkRow (one of the sockpuppets on the 3rd Jvolkblum sockpuppetry case) was blocked for sockpuppetry. His first edit, a couple of days earlier, was to create a user page identical the one 15ParkRow had, which happens to have been a copy of a subpage of my user page (nothing wrong with copying, but I don't think the choice of content was a coincidence). EddieMonsoon's other contributions so far have consisted primarily of (1) placing a personal note on 15ParkRow's talk page and (2) adding "citation needed" templates to articles about schools and suburbs near (but not in) New Rochelle, New York, which is Jvolkblum's favorite community (for example, see this diff, this diff, and this diff. There is nothing wrong with identify facts needing reference support, but in the last few days before the account was blocked, 15ParkRow's edits consisted largely of adding reference-improvement templates to articles about (1) other suburbs and schools near New Rochelle (for example, see this diff) and (2) other United States communities appearing on the edit logs for other users who had recently reverted 15ParkRow's edits or added reference improvement templates to content inserted by 15ParkRow or other Jvolkblum puppets (for example, see this diff).
Based on Jvolkblum's history, I expect that additional accounts will be discovered soon.
Comments
Conclusions
Clear cut. Blocked. GBT/C 12:21, 24 April 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.
Uses a blog called "Theprominence" as source for his/her edits. See [98].
They both have the same subject of editing: TV ratings in the Philippines. --HowardtheDuck 02:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Conclusions
Quack. Blocked. GBT/C 12:17, 24 April 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.
One edit does not constitute proof.... but the edit is at least disruptive.
Comments
Conclusions
WP:DFTT - treat it as a completely separate user, warn accordingly. Opening up a WP:SSP case after one edit is not, really, the way to go. GBT/C 21:28, 23 April 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.
Waterboyrocks left vandalism messages on Aleta's talk page, I reported the user and Waterboyrocks was blocked. Here the user admits to being able to change the IP address within 10 seconds. The user constantly reverted edits by Mears man. Waterboyrocksagain has an obvious similar name and vandalized the blocking admin talk page, as well as mine. User was blocked. Boobybooshay left the same "ROFL" vandalization comments on mine and Aleta's talk pages. User was blocked. 123.242.230.161 left antagonizing comments on my talk page. The user constantly reverted edits by Mearsman. 79.72.86.243 leaves this comment on Waterboyrocks' talk page. 123.242.230.161 mentions this on my talk page. User235 replaced my talk page with a graphic porn picture and said he has down syndrome. I reported the user and User235 was blocked, but kept asking to be unblocked by playing dumb. 84.16.230.15 leaves vandalizing comments on mine and Jayron32's talk pages and talks about down syndrome and not feeding the trolls (in a sarcastic manner). The user also comments on Anberlin (this is explained below). Ther user is blocked and on their unblock request they say "block unwarranted, did not harass anyone. Blocked without the first warning, and did not harass ANYONE for that matter." User:Wilhelmina Will comments on the user's page about down syndrome. After I had reported User235, Wilhelmina (who I've never talked to before) began leaving messages about how the user wasn't a sock and talking about the user having down syndrome (this is the main reason I suspect this user...that and the timing of their post on the IP's page...Jayron32 mentions there's something odd going on between Wilhilmenia and this IP), defending the sock in a looong discussion that ran over to WP:AIV (I was reported for removing messages that was left after I politely asked Wilhelmina to stop posting on my page) and WP:ANI (When the block was decline, Wilhelmina reports me here. Wilhelmina continued to leave messages like this (after admins told Wilhelmina on ANI to stop leaving me messages or it would be considered harassment) admitting it was a form of retaliation and attack. 207.218.231.219, 66.240.236.15, 66.240.236.60, 64.15.157.49, 64.15.157.54 and 64.15.157.52 all revert edits on Anberlin. 217.20.127.243 vandalizes Jayron32's talk page, leaves warning on Mears Man's page and reverts on Anberlin. 217.20.127.223 leaves the same vandal message on Jayron32's page, as does 123.242.230.165. Jayron mentions this on ANI.
Most of these IPs are obviously SOCKS. IMO, Wilhelmina's comments on mine, Jayron32, and other talk pages imply he/she is all about mind games and sarcastic comments (like leaving the down syndrome comment after ALL of this stuff was discussed on ANI, my talk page, her/his talk page, etc. Jayron is suspicious as well, with good reason. Wilhilmenia has now cleared his/her userpage for some unknown reason. On a side note, there was a userbox on his/her userpage (before deletion) that said "The sanity of this user has been disputed." That's a direct quote. Also, Wilhilmina left these messages on TTN's talk page. With phrases such as "Please, TTN, I'm really scared now!" which is similar to the language left on User235's talk page by User235.
Comments
Defense: This is a lie! I am not a sockpuppet! I have been consistently on this account I am on, for the last nine months! I have always been a diligent contributor to Wikipedia, never doing something I thought was seriously wrong until I learned in February how important civility is to other users. I have since tried to behave myself when speaking, with this AgnosticPreachersKid ordeal being the only slip-up since then. I've already said to you that I promise to leave you alone; why do you still bug me? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 07:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After posting this case, Wilhelmina left this comment on ANI claiming I'm somehow against women and repeatedly mentions being a female. IMHO, it's a way to cast doubt that she/he could have made the first few usernames mentioned in this case. If it's not that, then it's just an excuse to tell people they're anti-woman. Also, since completely wiping out his/her userpage, Wilhelmina has replaced it with this message and this edit seen below. I don't know if it's too come across as more religious or what. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 07:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is all coincidence, I say! ALL coincidence! Oh why did I ever speak to you! I should have known better! I should have seen it ahead of time! Ah, my dear grandmother. What would you have done? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 07:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll prove to you all that I speak the truth, in the one way no one except those who don't fear The Lord would ever deny. "Let God strike down all those Wikipedia editors I've ever interacted with, including myself, before April 10th if I am indeed a sockpuppet!" Wilhelmina Will (talk) 07:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, cos asking God to strike down people you don't like always works. :rolls eyes: - Darkson(Yabba Dabba Doo!) 11:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I mean including all the ones I like. :rolls eyes back: 20:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilhelmina Will (talk • contribs)
Comment I don’t believe this was pointed out above, but 64.15.157.52 left this comment on my user page after I got my talk page semi-protected to cut down on the attacks from IP’s in relation to the Anberlin article. Among other things, it contains religious overtones, which seems to be a popular theme in many of these user's edits. —Mears man (talk) 12:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could it not be that I'm not the only religious person on Wikipedia? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The same IP left this message. Notice "What good would blocking an IP range do? I can make my IP adress what I want, and when I want with all completely new numbers." AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That person was wrong. An IP address will always remain the same. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not true. IPs can be changed somewhat easily, although I personally can't remember how. Even then there's the possibility of using a proxy server and all kinds of junk like that. Lastbetrayal (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' I have to reguarly update my IP, since the older ones after a time stop working. For me it's as simple as unplugging the cord and turning the power completely off. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to add 123.242.230.163 to the list of suspected sockpuppets, but I wasn't sure if I could just add it to the list at the top (I haven't had too much experience dealing with sockpuppets, so please forgive my ignorance). This IP commented on Anberlin's talk page, left a vandalism warning on my talk page, and reverted an edit I had made to Hairspray (2007 film). This seems to follow a similar pattern set by some of the other IP accounts. Additionally, the IP is in the same range as some of the other suspected sockpuppets, furthering my suspicions. —Mears man (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and add it to the list. Anyone is free to add additional socks as they pop up. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So anytime there's ever a sock puppet account on Wikipedia, it's mine? Grow up. I'm going to take a wiki-break, for a time, and I suggest the rest of us do the same. There has to be something better to do than act out Alice in Wonderland here. G'day. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 06:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He added it because it's a similar IP to the one already listed that vandalized Jayron32's page. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 06:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing you said that just before I caught my flight, so to speak. But I think, from your basis at the top of this page, you've said that one of the socks kept reverting edits by another user? Well look what you did with mine on your talk! How do I know you're not the real sockpuppeteer here, and you've set this up to shift the blame? Can you defend yourself on that? I've got three extra tickets for wiki-breaks, I'll let this whole thing go and give you one of them if you're willing to let the thing drop. It's frankly getting ridiculous, as I believe even Jayron said. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 06:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, Jayron said your actions were getting ridiculous, not the sock inquiry as evidenced by his comments on this page. It doesn't matter if you let it go and want me to do the same thing. The case has been filed because of reasonable suspicions by me and others. Accusing me of being a sockpuppeteer is getting desperate, especially since there is absolutely no evidence of me being one or having a reason to be one. You're trying to point fingers because you've been accused. If you're innocent, then there is nothing to worry about and all this will be sorted out during your 'vacation.' Lastly, comparing me to the sock when I reverted your harassment edits (which you were told to stop, but you kept on, much like the other users and IPs listed)) is also desperate. Enjoy your flight? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 06:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At first, I took Wilhelmina at face value. Then, once I started receiving unusual interlaced postings from Wilhelmina and some abusive IPs, it became clear that something was amiss. It should be noted that here: [99] I arrived at the conclusion that shenanigans were going on quite prior to APK's initiation of this SSP report; given that multiple people have heard this quacking going on, something is clearly amiss. I would recommend a checkuser to check this out, given the suspicious nature of these edits... I fully endorse the evidence that APK has provided above. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stop; I have sworn myself to be true. What good comes of sockpuppeting here, anyway? I promised I would let the incident with AgnosticPreachersKid go, and I have for the most part. He however, felt it necessary to soil my good name with this slanderous filth. "Wilhelmina Will" is my actual name, in life, and I've always thought it silly not to use your actual name in your account. Besides, take a look at User:The Chronic and User:Tha Chronic. They were completely different people, and look how similar were their names. Also, look at my contributions, from start to finish. Looking at the contribs of those listed users, much of what they've done to articles on Wikipedia is vandalism. I have never vandalised a single page. I may lose my temper to other users at times, even now, and I may harp on them long past the limit, but vandalism is one shame I can never hold to my history. Plus, at least two of those users has claimed to have had down syndrome, which I do not have. How can a grade A student in school have down syndrome? Cool it, APK. I promised to leave you alone, and requested you do the same, how can I fulfill my end of the bargain if you don't call this whole nonsense off? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "I promised I would let the incident with AgnosticPreachersKid go, and I have for the most part. You forgot to mention those attack pages that were deleted. You know, the ones that mentioned my name. You added my name to that attack page even before I posted this case. I was in the middle of typing all this and all I had to do was follow your contribution history to find out the info stated above. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is well known that a common ploy of disruptive users is to use "good hand" and "bad hand" accounts, whereby they keep one account "clean" will maintaining shenanigans with all of the others. It is also not uncommon for an editor to switch quickly from one account to another to make it seem as though they are two different people, or even to have the "good" account reprimand the "bad" account. That Wilhelmina Will account has not vandalised means little; the compelling evidence here is the unusual "knowledge" that Wilhelmina Will has over the actions of the IP addresses in question. The pattern of edits shows that Wilhelmina "knows" what the IPs/socks do before anyone else, and rushes to their "defense", often apropos of nothing... That unusual pattern of edits clearly shows something fishy here, and is, as yet, unexplained. Perhaps checkuser seems warrented at this point?!?--Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well excuse me for trying to be kind to other users. When I interact with another user, or after I edit an article, I always add it to my watchlist. My watchlist is something I look at a lot, and therefore I often notice these things happen as they happen. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just for the record, Wilhelmina Will has been a respected user on the Land Before Time Wiki [100] for a while now, and I haven't seen evidence of sockpuppetry or anything. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWhether or not WW is a respected user on that Wiki, his/her actions on this site point in the other direction. Harassment (and a previous block for it), nonsense comments on ANI and this page, etc. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation: So AgnosticPreachersKid is mainly suspecting me because of what I said about the user he reported. Look, I have reported vandalizers on AIV before, and as I said, if I edit something, I put it on my watchlist. This was one of those cases. I then noticed this happen, and I often like to read reports; don't ask me why. Then I noticed he said this user was a sockpuppet, and I read his example. It didn't seem to me like the user was admitting to sockpuppetry, and I told him this. He then said I was defending the guy, and on no basis did he say that. After this went on for a while, he told me not to post to him again. I just wanted to say before the discussion closed that I was not "defending" him; I merely don't like it when people blame others for the wrong things. I investigated the users contribs, and I saw that he had performed a lot of vandalism, and I thought this was the right reason to block him. I do not want vandalistic editors free to roam Wikipedia, and I said this. APK has every right to do as he wishes to his userpages, of course, but when he removed that comment, I felt he didn't consider my opinions important, and I felt insulted, so I reported him. I don't even remember all that happened after that, except that other users started saying nasty things about my userpage, so I removed all but the one thing I hold close to heart; the images of France. Now this has happened, and I am saying what I've said. This was all a misunderstanding. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You guys are nuts. Wilhelmina is a nosy, irritating, immature and offensive busybody of an editor with a penchant for harassing other editors and damaging South Park articles in a misguided attempt to elevate her beloved South Park Wiki above Wikipedia, but she's no sockpuppet of any of the IP's listed above. I've examined their diffs and they're nothing like her editing or commenting style. They may be socks of each other, but WW doesn't fit in there anywhere. This entire report stinks of payback for her offense of sticking her nose into something she had no business with, and for her continuing to push APK beyond a tolerable level on his user page. I'm no fan of Wilhelmina Will, and perhaps I have no place sticking my own nose into this, but this attempt to sanction her is misguided at best and anathema at worst. Take your own advice, guys, and do what you've told her repeatedly to do: let it drop. You're shooting at the wrong target. -- Captain Infinity (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ever heard of WP:NPA? We're nuts and WW is all the things you mentioned? If she's not a SOCK, then yes, we'll let it drop and the real SOCK will be discovered. Until the case is settled, I'd take your own advice as well and don't stick your nose into this. Thanks. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Yes, she violates WP:NPA, and when she does she should be blocked. Yes, she's all those things, and when she is she should be blocked. But no, she's not a sock and this report is a mistake, as anyone with a bit of common sense who peruses the diffs will see. And this case, like all such, is open for comments from any editor. I don't like Wilhelmina Will, but even though I've had problems with her I've never tried to retaliate by accusing her of being something she's not, like you are doing. -- Captain Infinity (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Um, I was pointing out your personal attacks in your previous comment. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apology I apologize if I have hurt your feelings. -- Captain Infinity (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why has an RFCU not been filed? — Rlevse • Talk • 02:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because this isn't a real sockpuppet situation, but just elaborate retaliatory harassment. --Captain Infinity (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, seriously. Mind your own business. I haven't filed it because I didn't know that was the next step. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Speaking of NPA, mentioning the 'side note' of WW's userbox ("The sanity of this user has been disputed") and the clearing of her UserPage in the evidence seems rather unprofessional and gives credence with Captain Infinity's conclusions -- that this report is purely retaliatory. As far as I can see, it has nothing to do with this case and should be disregarded. Why was it even bought up? --Is this fact...? 19:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you think my mentioning of the userbox was an attack, then that's your prerogative. But you're mistaken. More than one user found WW's actions suspicious and you didn't witness what all took place that day, so I'm not sure why you're even commenting here. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Don't try to dismiss me like that. Wikipedia was designed for anyone to edit -- including me. You assume that I didn't read it from the sidelines. I could have. Whether I went through the details or not is not relevant to you right now.
You said that 'more than one' person found WW suspicious. What other users, specifically? All that all adds up to hearsay.
Besides, there are about 107 users with this userbox. Should we all suspect them of Wiki-trolling? And why is it any of our business what another user does with his or her userpage? How does blanking one's own page automatically constitute as Sockpuppetry?
As for her motive, there's no great mystery involved. In the page's history, Will said herself that it was because "Other Wikipedians don't like it." Apparently, the same attitude that I'm addressing now is what caused her to eliminate the page in the first place. --Is this fact...? 00:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stop trying to argue. If you want an example of another user, read Jayron32's comments above. I'm not sure what your agenda is on this page, but you weren't an involved party and I don't know why you're choosing to argue about this. The case was filed (for reasons stated above) and a checkuser was performed. Let the issue drop. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no hidden agenda nor am I wanting an argument. I'm here to point out that mentioning how a user decorates her page is rather weakening to the case in general. If you toss that kind of dirt you'll start to lose ground. --Is this fact...? 09:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for your "opinion." Bye-bye. APKyada yada 09:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hey AgnosticPreachersKid, It appears that all users involved, including you, were not following WP:AGF guidelines: "If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but it is never necessary or productive to accuse others of harmful motives.". If you suspect someone is a sock puppeteer, get the facts first through a checkuser at WP:RfCU. If an admin agrees with you, he'll give you the confirmation you need. Otherwise, all you are doing in here is helping overload the RSP system. Jrod2 (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
RFCU result was "Inconclusive No technical evidence connects Wilhelmina Will, who is on a well-behaved residential IP, with the rest of these editors. They are clearly related, but have been editing from a mix of confirmed open proxies and possible proxies." The named socks in this case have already been blocked, so they're a moot point. As the IPs are proxies, nothing left to do here. If more solid behavioral evidence arises, file a new case. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:06, 23 April 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.
The two accounts were previously identified as Jvolkblum sock's during the previous sockpupperty case. 15ParkRow (talk·contribs) was not blocked because the checkuser run at that time was inconclusive due to exclusive use of open proxies. Smurfette143 (talk·contribs) was not blocked because no edits had been made by that account. A subsequent checkuser has confirmed both accounts as socks.
69.86.92.251 (talk·contribs) is the ip address that Jvolkblum is using to edit logged out. At 18:53 on April 19, 69.86.92.251 made this edit with the edit summary "Undid user vandalism/ deletion of notable alumni + citations >> ( information is ACCURATE and citations are credible". Eight minutes later 15ParkRow made this edit with the edit summary "Undid user vandalism/ deletion of notable residents + citations >> ( information is ACCURATE and citations are credible". The address's whois and traceroute match 24.215.173.132 (talk·contribs) which was previously Jvolkblum IP address, indicating that Jvolkblum was able to get a new ip address from their isp. The new IP address like the old one appears to be static.
Comments
BlueAzure has described the situation accurately. After the most recent checkuser results were returned, these users were inactive for a while. In the last few days, thought, 15ParkRow started editing actively. Most of his/her contributions appeared to be responsible, causing me to temporarily assume in good faith that s/he was turning over a new leaf. However, I have been dismayed to see that familiar old behavior has resumed on the 15ParkRow account, such as uploading File:NRLelandCastle.JPG and claiming it was a personally made photo (it was a blatant copyvio of a photo from the New York Times) and this edit on City School District of New Rochelle, in which a reference to a school district brochure was identified as being a Wall St. Journal article. --Orlady (talk) 01:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence looks very persuasive to me. The connections between the accounts are logical and strong. I considered writing a conclusion and blocking the accounts but I'm somewhat unfamiliar with the process and didn't want to muck it up doing it. Pigman☿ 04:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
I'm convinced...both accounts indefinitely blocked as it appears the master account has no desire to turn over a new leaf. GBT/C 12:04, 23 April 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's first and seemingly only edit was to an AfD discussion about a non-notable band, Chaos Prevails. A gentle warning on my part has led to a rash of abuse on the part of the sockpuppet who claims that the account was opened "months ago" and that he's chosen "not to edit" until now. The sock has recently made a legitimate edit to an article about a local radio show. The IP's only edit was to add an abusive comment on the sock's talk page, signed as the sock itself.
Comments
Requesting a block of both users for multiple violations of site policy.
Conclusions
AGFing and all that, it seems the alleged sock and his accuser have kissed and made up. No further action taken at this time, bar a gentle reminder about sticking to WP:CIVIL. GBT/C 12:11, 23 April 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.
This individual (or, and his friend/s) is resorting to malicious edits and polemic because of an edit disagreement on Ten-string guitar. They want it to be acknowledged that a "10-string guitar" can be tuned any possible way. This is not constructive, or appropriate for an encyclopaedia, which should contain facts and/or information/people/concepts/events etc. that have been historically proven significant. If you refer to good Music Dictionary or Encyclopaedia, you will find that those 10-string guitarists and their instruments that are historically significant include Carulli and his Decacorde, Mertz (and others) and their Romantic 10-stringed guitar, and Narciso Yepes and his modern 10-string guitar. This last is defined by its singular tuning, which possesses singular resonant properties. This is a matter of fact as we are dealing with the well-documented acoustic phenomenon of Resonance (or "sympathetic" resonance). Yepes's opinions about other tuning that are not informed by the same logic - or contrary ideas - are in print. My edits are based exclusively in what is proven facts of physics that can be applied to the strings of a guitar, printed interviews and articles, Narciso Yepes's own press materials and concert programs, and historical documents (manuscripts). These individuals feel threatened by this knowledge. They want a free-for-all, or to have their opinions recognised as significant. But they simply are not. So they resort to polemic against Yepes and repeated (daily) vandalism of Narciso Yepes and Ten-string guitar.
Please confirm if any of these are sock-puppets and block these IP addresses if necessary. This is becoming a daily disruption. We could all be spiteful and dig up polemics on everyone and everything, but where will that get us and what is there to LEARN? This is after all an encyclopaedia. I would just like to see the facts retained that others would like to obfuscate and when they cannot, they resort to pettiness and polemics. Where does it get us to deny that there is a standard tuning of an instrument, just because some individuals choose to do different? Why bother to have an encyclopaedia or any learning to begin with if there is a free-for-all, no standard, no knowledge, and everyone's lay opinion is significant or valid even when all the historical documentation and other facts contradict it.
Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 05:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
This is a bit stale now, on any number of levels. Firstly it appears to be an edit war over the inclusion of a not-particularly-offensive quote (I offer no view whether it's accurate or properly cited or not) about the Naciso yepes. I don't think it's particularly reasonable to describe that quote as "malicious" or "polemic", to be honest.
That said, Joe Dario and Joe Dario's friend haven't edited since November 2007. Can't all be good has a grand total of 2 contributions, and hasn't edited for some weeks. Dear Jonas and Archeoix have not edited since the beginning of the month either. Given the somewhat stale nature of the report by now, I'm not going to take any action, but will keep the article watchlisted. If this continues, then I'll semi- or fully-protect the article until the issue is resolved on the talk page. GBT/C 12:32, 23 April 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.
ChrisBunker was recently blocked indefinitely[101] for creating attack pages related to a person named Jay Ralph (see deleted contribs; article was speedy deleted as attack multiple times). He originally posted the page for creation last year at WP:AFC[102] and uploaded three pictures for use in said article.[103][104][105]
This exact same article and these exact same pictures were then used to request the same article be created today at WP:AFC by OniDarkLink.[106] OniDarkLink's only other contribs were last year to various rock bands. OniDarkLink had previously been the first registered user to create said article in 2006, after which it was speedily deleted.
It seems like it would be quite a coincidence that both users are using the same pictures and text to create an attack page on the same subject. Also suspicious is that OniDarkLink's return to Wikipedia is on the same day that both he and ChrisBunker are creating the same attack page using the same said pictures and text.
Comments
Conclusions
Quack. Blocked. GBT/C 11:54, 23 April 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 ScoutCruft (a {{spa}} recently attacked all the articles in Category:Local council camps of the Boy Scouts of America. After all those changes were reverted, User R00m c then came in and attacked all the same articles in a different manner.
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.
Already blocked. GBT/C 19:13, 22 April 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.
A constant stream of single-purpose throwaway accounts sharing a single-minded determination to remove a certain image from, a linguistic map, from Greece and Minorities in Greece. I blocked the latest two this morning, getting fed up with it, but I'm aware that was sort of unorthodox, as I am not uninvolved in the dispute (I'm the author of the image in question). Would appreciate some fellow admins taking over when this user reappears. The account listed above as the suspected "sockpuppeter", User:LittleTinMan, himself confirmed he was a reincarnation of some earlier user; I can't say with certainty what account that would be but it might be banned User:Mywayyy. Fut.Perf.☼ 16:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
I'll leave some comments here tomorrow, if I don't, nudge me. :) Rudget (review) 20:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
Looks like most have been blocked, apart from Ellin82 and a few others who only received 24 hour blocks. Most other named accounts are blocked indef and the IPs aren't touched because of their position as dynamic. Rudget 18:13, 17 April 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.
This user freely admits to being a sockpuppet, his justification appears to be a misreading of WP:SOCK. The user's posts on WP:RD/H have been pointless and unnecessary. Possible Troll.
[107]
Comments
This case appears to fall squarely within the WP:GHBH policy.GSTQ (talk) 06:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lord Foppington has requested me to clarify the above comment. VIVID proclaims on his user page that "VIVID is a sockpuppet created for another, more established user, to post more controversial views". Translated, "to post more controversial views" means "operating a 'bad hand' account for the purpose of... disruption".GSTQ (talk) 12:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
Well, that may be, but I can't see that he's actually really posted any comments - good or bad. Yes, pretty pointless posts to the RD, and a couple of questionable edits, but that's it. There's no actual activity which, if he were a sock, would constitute a breach of policy. No action at this point in time. GBT/C 19:08, 22 April 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.
91.127.19.182(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log) - this occured after this case was "resolved" and the IPs above were blocked together with MarkBA. Its first edit was a revert, then gone commenting here: User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment, where it was not joining but rather continuing a discussion. Obviously was aware of the page, so if not MarkBa than probably one of the editors listed here - therefore consciously playing out a general restriction against him/her.
If it is possible, I would be happy to see all the IPs wich are not listed above and used by MarkBA for edit warring and/or attacking other users/rouge speak[109], [110], User:MarkBA (userpage itself: "couple of mobs", "being chased or harassed by a couple of jerks","extreme nationalist and chauvinistic edits", etc. [111] ) be listed here to reduce the possibility of mixing MarkBA ('s IPs) with other anonim users from the same place/internet provider. --Rembaoud (talk) 07:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since these are all confirmed by CheckUser, I don't think we need the SSP report at this point. The only question in my mind is which account that MarkBA wants to use as his "primary" account. Unless I hear otherwise, I will tag the MarkBA account as a sockmaster, and all the others as sockpuppets. --Elonka 07:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think if User:MarkBA is an active user then somebody should remove his farewell text from his user page which is very uncivilized.Moreover He should receive a serious warning, for this behaviour of his.Because this slanderous text is put out on his user page for a long time. While he did defamation everybody was sorry for him for his retirement.Nmate (talk • contribs)
The banner has been removed. --Elonka 09:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
User:MarkBA, plus all of the above anons, have been tagged and blocked for 1 week for abusive sockpuppetry. --Elonka 09:32, 19 April 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.
"Bliss bois" just made this post to the Science Reference Desk, which is exactly the same as this edit (right down to the misspelling of "consummate" as "concertmate"), made by banned user "Picture of a cloud". PoaC was banned for trolling, and this entry (bragging about penis size) is more of the same. After his "question" others intimated that this was the same poster (see here). -- HiEv 21:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it isn't the same guy, his only contribution so far is to emulate the behavior that got PoaC blocked, and so he is probably another good block candidate. If this is the same user, then the IP may need to be blocked as well since he appears to be attempting to evade the ban. -- HiEv 21:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this user has previously boasted that he/she will come back as a sockpuppet [114]Nil Einne (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
Drew my attention when IoWD started a vandalism spree, tonight; since this case appears quite solid at this point, I've gone ahead and blocked both accounts (PoaC is already blocked). Feel free to let me know if any more show up. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I just added Crazy joke who you've already blocked (who came here to defend the case) to the list to help keep track Nil Einne (talk) 19:50, 21 April 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.
This guy is hounding & bullying me, without any reason to or excuse. I deny his right to hamper and distract scholarly work. DrHollisCollier (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a very clear, cut and dry solution here. Cordless Larry, you need to or an admin needs to request a checkuser. All three accounts are active on April 15 and around 11:00(UTC) time [119], [120], [121]. A checkuser would show right away rather these users are Socks or not. If all three are the same user, than all three IPs or IP range will match up. DJS --DJS24 15:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All accounts blocked - no further action required at this stage. GBT/C 18:51, 22 April 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.
The user has only made four edits, three were to TonyTheTiger's LOTD experiment (in the most recent one, the user voted for one of TonyTheTiger's nominations), the other was to one of TonyTheTiger's FACs, where the user made the comment "can I vote for my son's page?" which means it's meatpuppetry at the very least. -- Scorpion0422 00:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
BabyBamBam is my mother. Her IP should be coming from Memphis and mine should be coming from Chicago. Someone should be able to verify this very quickly. I helped my mother fix her votes today at WP:LOTD because she is not so proficient at Wiki language. I assure you I am no sock puppet. I started her account for her when I visited her for X-mas. She pretty much only votes at WP:LOTD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She voted in one of your FACs, and then she supported one of your FLs in the LOTD experiment, so it's meatpuppetry, which is almost as serious. -- Scorpion0422 00:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to go back and check, but I think this is the fourth month she has voted and the first time she has voted for one of my lists. She is an educator and liked my list this month because it involves education i suppose.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
No action at this stage - not the most serious breach of WP:SOCK we're likely to see today. Will leave a message for the users concerned. GBT/C 18:54, 22 April 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.
Both of these users created the hoax/nonsense page Kwanzilla and nothing else. User:Kwanzilla apparently re-created the page three times. Given that User:Nihongo no ecchi has created the page with (as far as I can tell) exactly the same content, I have reason to believe that the latter is a sock of indef-blocked User:Kwanzilla.
Comments
Conclusions
Quack. Blocked. GBT/C 18:46, 22 April 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.
MTA25 was blocked today as a sock of Honduran72. The more I look at it, the more I am convinced that both of them are socks of the indefinitely blocked Editor652. Same obsession with the number of Afro-Latinos in Honduras, Same drive to up the figures to levels not supported by any source, and now, the same willingness to resort to sockpuppetry to sustain the artificially inflated figures.
A quick comparison of MTA25's edits to [122], [123] and [124] tell the tale. He's reduced his number from 795,000 to 350,000, but nothing else has changed.
Comments
Conclusions
Well, you've overlooked the smoking gun which is the edit summary for this edit - look at the IP he's admitting to being against the first sockpuppetry case. Honduran72 block now upped to indefinite. GBT/C 13:11, 22 April 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 blocked. Bit too much of a coincidence for my liking. Hersfold(t/a/c) 03:04, 21 April 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.
This article has been protected numerous times since January due to vandalism by newly registered users. While it could be a random individual, it is quite possible all accounts link to the same individual based on the contributions I've observed. As soon as one account is blocked another appears and based on LB cheer's contributions I find obvious the person knew who to target.
Comments
Eww, kill it block it (don't want her to go mad)! Get rid of the vermin! Based on this attack page which was deleted, it looks like Sammie Lindsay, a person known in the area for doing things and then trying to blame other people for it! We don't need her here! By the way, I'd consider the puppeteer to be LBHS Cheerleader and Freaky Fishes just another puppet. Block her with all speed!GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
Thank you for those, erm, interesting comments, GO-PCHS-NJROTC. All accounts bar Freaky Fishes have been blocked indefinitely anyway, some several months ago. The last active account was blocked for 12 hours for vandalism and hasn't edited since. I'll draw the blocking admin's attention to this report and see if they want to up the block to indefinite on the back of it. GBT/C 12:59, 22 April 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.
Both accounts already indefinitely blocked for vandalism before this report was filed. GBT/C 12:53, 22 April 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.
This user obiviously has a long history of sockpuppeting, and continues to evade, is there a way to put a stop to this? A range block perhaps?
It is obivious from the usernames and the history of the puppetmaster that the above are socks.
Conclusions
All suspected socks have been indef blocked. If you want a range-block, then you'll have to take it to WP:RFCU. GBT/C 12:35, 22 April 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.
Just to repeat what is on NCdave's page, the post said to be admitting sockpuppetry is in fact an apparent response to NCdave's request here. Otherwise, Raul appears already to have cleared NCdave in a checkuser. Anyone could ask him for further information if there's an issue, but it doesn't appear there is anything here. Mackan79 (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NCdave has much too long of an edit history to be a sock puppet. Please see his talk page. Saksjn (talk) 13:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Am I mistaken in saying that NCdave has a longer edit history than the IP address? Also, please see the Expelled No Intelligence Allowed talk page. Saksjn (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The claim is that NCdave used the IP to give himself a barnstar and edit his own talk page, but it misses the fact that NCdave had already asked User:Fight_the Clique to make the change, and that since FtC was banned he'd have needed to do so from another IP. Hopefully FtC will consider his point made and not do this again. Mackan79 (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Fight the Clique was determined by checkuser to be unrelated to NCDave. This IP address is clearly Fight the Clique, not Dave; it started editing after FtC was blocked and its edits fit the same pattern. Mangojuicetalk 17:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn accordingly. GBT/C 12:31, 22 April 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.
First off, we'll establish beyond any doubt that CarbonLifeForm (henceforth referred to as CLF to save my aching fingers) is a sockpuppet of someone, and the later evidence will prove that it is Kittybrewster. CLF's third ever edit was to an ANI thread about Kittybrewster - quack, quack, quack! Also tut tut tut, using a sockpuppet to comment on an ANI thread about your main account, talk about brazen sockpuppetry most definitely not covered by policy!
The Kittybrewster account was unused from 11 December 2007 to 20 February 2008 (save two edits on 1 January). The CLF account had been dormant since 23 July 2007 (save three edits on 3 December), then became active again on 11 December. What convenient timing some might say! Even more convenient is the account stopped editing on 18 February 2008, just two days before the Kittybrewster account became active again. Well knock me down with a feather! An account that makes its third ever edit on an ANI thread about Kittybrewster, then edits for almost the entire time period the Kittybrewster account wasn't active. No ducks quacking round here, no siree.....
And if that wasn't bad enough, there was another sock being used in January as well. From 13 January to 29 January the MrsBucket account was used in addition to the CarbonLifeForm account. The accounts were used in a method incompatible with the sockpuppetry policy, for example on 13 January the accounts were used interchangeably for no discernible reason. None of the "Legitimate uses of alternative accounts" from WP:SOCK apply, especially due to the methods in which the accounts were being used, and especially considering this isn't one main account and one sockpuppet account, it's one unused main account and two sockpuppet accounts.
(edits by MrsBucket are idented and in italics)
11:55, 13 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Howe (claimant to King of Mann) (→David Howe (claimant to King of Mann))
11:56, 13 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Howe (claimant to King of Mann) (→David Howe (claimant to King of Mann))
11:57, 13 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Howe (claimant to King of Mann) (→David Howe (claimant to King of Mann))
12:40, 13 January 2008 (hist) (diff) David Lean (→External links)
12:50, 13 January 2008 (hist) (diff) George MacDonald Fraser (→External links)
13:01, 13 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Patricia Routledge (→External links)
13:03, 13 January 2008 (hist) (diff) John Gambril Nicholson (→Further information)
13:07, 13 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Norman Wong (→External links)
13:09, 13 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Rachel Adler (→External links)
13:09, 13 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Rachel Adler (→External links)
13:24, 13 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Audrey Hepburn (→External links)
13:26, 13 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Vivien Leigh (→External links)
13:27, 13 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Vivien Leigh (→Notes)
13:31, 13 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Michael Abney-Hastings, 14th Earl of Loudoun (→External links)
13:44, 13 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Peter O'Toole (→External links)
14:01, 13 January 2008 (hist) (diff) James Stronge (Unionist) (→See also)
14:08, 13 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Jimmy Stewart (racing driver) (→External links)
14:17, 13 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Jackie Stewart (→External links)
14:55, 13 January 2008 (hist) (diff) William Tollemache, 9th Earl of Dysart (→External links)
You can change your name, but the habits stay the same as ever.
The block log of MrsBucket is very interesting. The account was initially erroneously blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Rms125a@hotmail.com on 21 February. I provided evidence to User:Alison via email that she had in fact been mistaken and that Kittybrewster was the sockmaster of the MrsBucket account, and the account was unblocked and reblocked on 14 April. Despite having not posted an unblock request or talk page message at any time since the initial block, an unblock request was made less than 24 hours later. Mighty suspicious timing, especially as discussion was occurring on Wiki about the controller of the account at the time. Let's make this clear....the account was blocked as a sockpuppet with evidence, then the sockpuppeteer (who had returned to their main account) posted an unblock request in a deliberate attempt to discredit the blocking admin. There was no reason for an unblock request to take place, other than to cause trouble and disrupt Wikipedia. It is this action that is the most reprehensible of all, the clear attempt to discredit an administrator in good standing (who also has access to checkuser and oversight). Note that Alison confirms here that the main account (Kittybrewster, as I'm sure she'll be happy to confirm to avoid any possible ambiguity) was caught in MrsBucket's autoblock, nicely linking all the accounts together given the common articles, and the Kittybrewster editing absence timing ever so conveniently with CarbonLifeForm's reappearance and subsequent disappearance...
More evidence available if needed, didn't want to work too hard unnecessarily when it's a slam dunk in my humble opinion. One Night In Hackney303 13:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
I don't see how an unblock attempt would discredit the blocking admin., surely this is just your opinion, however humble that is. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do. Why else would a sockpuppeteer try and get one of their sockpuppets unblocked the day after it had been reblocked as a sock of a "known" editor? Nothing but an attempt to stir up trouble. One Night In Hackney303 13:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even on that analysis it's not the same as trying to discredit the blocking administrator. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh but it is, and in fact I have a much better idea. Rather than me or you speculating, why doesn't Kittybrewster explain exactly why he attempted to get his sockpuppet unblocked without mentioning it was a sockpuppet account, and he can also explain how it (and CarbonLifeForm) were permitted by policy? I don't believe that's an unreasonable request. One Night In Hackney303 14:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd originally blocked the Bucket account, mistakenly, as a sock of User:Rms125a@hotmail.com based on behaviour. Unfortunately, Kittybrewster was caught in the autoblock. I released the autoblock and emailed KB, requesting an explanation. While this was ongoing, I declined to discuss the matter too much, despite loud demands by User:Counter-revolutionary, as I felt there may have been an RtV issue here and I was concerned about the likely drama following yet another "Troubles" socking dénouement. I then went off-line for a day or so. When I got back, this SSP case had been filed. A checkuser then showed up the other accounts and, to be honest, I can no longer assume RTV here.
While the use of multiple accounts here is clearly against policy, this case is not grievous by any means and I feel that indef blocking all sock accounts should be sufficient without applying major sanctions to the KB account. Nor am I viewing the unblock request as KB trying to cause trouble for me. Rather, he found himself in a quandary as his main account was caught in the autoblock and likely tried to get an uninvolved admin to lift the main block. As regards Counter-rev; I'm actually not quite sure what he was trying to achieve, as he seemed very keen on "outing" the main account for some reason - Alison❤ 09:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
All three accounts have now been indefinitely blocked. Deferring to Alison's views, I don't propose applying a sanction to the main account at this stage. If anyone feels that's not good enough, you know where to contact me...GBT/C 12:30, 22 April 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.
Obvious case. Honduran72 was blocked last night for compulsively editing the number of Afro-Latin Americans in Honduras to 350,000, despite all sources saying 150,000. MTA25 has three edits, all of which are after the block, and all of which are the same edit. Time to block both indefinitely.
Comments
Conclusions
Sock account blocked indefinitely. Master account blocked for 72 hours (reset original block plus an extra day for block evasion). GBT/C 12:22, 22 April 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.
I am not affiliated with these other user accounts and I want to clearly state that I would never create multiple Wikipedia accounts in violation of their ToS. Obviously someone has created multiple accounts to create a campaign to sully my reputation and contributions on Wikipedia and give doubts about intentions of contributorship. Clearly Ironholds or any Wikipedia Administrator for that matter has not presented any evidence that these accounts are linked to me or that I have created them (Which I DID NOT), therefore I request that this investigation be dismissed without prejudice. Thank you. Simon Bar Sinister (talk) 03:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
Since both of the accounts were blocked indefinitely as being vandalism-only accounts back in (wait for it) August 2007, I'm at a loss to see why this has been brought here. It's clear cut that they were only created to piss off the actual Simon Bar Sinister. No wonder WP:SSP is permanently backlogged. GBT/C 12:11, 22 April 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.
Repeats the exact same edits as Ivan Bogdanov did, with the same non-arguments as editor note (favourite: "this is a good edit").
The IP (89.216.91.129) is included here for completeness, as it has already been blocked (block still active) for the same offense.
Comments
Abusive sock used to circumvent active block, continuing the same edit wars without change in style or behaviour.
Unable to notify puppetmaster as his talk page is protected after abusive editing from his side.
Ivan Bogdanov (but not the sock) has now been blocked indef because of abuse using another IP (89.216.92.83). --Latebird (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just happened upon this SSP while compiling my own report on Ivan Bogdanov for another administrator I asked to review his case.
On April 11, I discovered evidence that Ivan had been using his IPs to continue editing through out the duration of User:Geniac's 28 March one week block. So I went to his talk page to give him the opportunity to explain his side of the story [127] but his response was to simply blank my message with no comment whatsoever. [128] So I then reblocked his account and the IP 89.216.91.129 (talk·contribs) noted above by Latebird and left Ivan a message [129]. His response to that was to doctor that message to make it look like had actually said I had unblocked him! [130] He then requested an unblock [131] apparently under the pretense that I had said I would unblock him. However, it appears he then had second thoughts and removed the doctored message. [132] This is not the first time that Ivan has doctored block messages from administrators and it is becoming increasingly difficult to assume this fellow is acting in good faith. On 28 March, when User:Geniac blocked Ivan for one week he began doctoring Geniac's block message, changing the duration from one week to one hour [133]and then edit warred with the blocking administrator by repeatedly restoring the doctored version [134][135] until I stepped in and protected the page.
Ivan self-identifies on User:Ivan_Bogdanov as Serbian and the IPs I've managed to tie to him do in fact geolocate to Serbia.
On 17 April, six days after I reblocked Ivan for avoiding Geniac's block, my userpage was vandalised three times [136] by 89.216.92.83 (talk·contribs), which resolves to "Serbia Broadband Srpske Kablovske mreze". [137]
89.216.92.83 has made two edits in addition to the three vandal edits to my userpage. Three hours after vandalising my user page, the IP returns and makes one edit to List of prime ministers of Italy and about 21 hours after that returns to make one edit to King of Italy.
King of Italy was also edited by Ivan using IPs such as 89.216.210.117 resolves to Serbia Broadband "Srpske Kablovske mreze".
Okay, I had written a couple of paragraphs about Brad 34 (talk·contribs) explaining why I believed it to be an Ivan sockpuppet but Brad now confesses to being Ivan [143] so I won't elaborate further on that for the sake of Beans. I've blocked Brad and another administrator upgraded Ivan's block to indefinite. I recommend we look at placing some anon/account creation range blocks, if possible. Some IPs, all resolving to "Serbia Broadband Srpske Kablovske mreze" are as follows:
89.216.92.83
89.216.185.122
89.216.210.117
I have identified several other IPs which I will add to the list tomorrow. Sarah 15:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
Blocked user sockpuppet accounts indef and Ivan Bogdanov (talk·contribs) is currently indef after repeatable using IP to avoid a short term block.
IP's identified have also been block Gnangarra 03:24, 21 April 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.
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.
Deferred back to the original RFCU. You'll get a response there and this SSP report is unnecessary. Rudget 15:15, 18 April 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.
Both added the same spam link, which is a MySpace page about the Toronto Raptors. They also have a similar username.
Comments
Conclusions
Master already blocked indef; other named account, blocked indef. IP is untouched since its dynamic. Rudget 15:19, 18 April 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.
Ctsai1 and IP were both blocked for 1 month while Monkey80 is blocked indef. Should Ctsai1 be found sockpuppeting again, the block on the main account will be indef. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: (added after closure): I ran a CU as part of trying to close the referenced AfD and it is highly Unlikely that Monkey80==Ctsai1 based on technical information ... agree about the edit pattern correlation but there is no technical correlation present (apologies for incorrectly editing this the first time) ++Lar: t/c 22:18, 19 April 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.
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.
Both indefinitely blocked. Rudget 19:28, 17 April 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.
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.
I suspect User:Life.temp to be a sockpuppet of User:Bsharvy This is Bsharvy website I got the url from his first edit here. He tried to insert it in an abortion article, it is an anti-abortion activism esay that he wrote. Both users edit abortion articles and are pro life. Both users edit anti-Americanism. If you check the time of the edits on both accounts, they are being done around the same time. Finishes editing about 24:00 every day like a clock. Starts editing about from 6:00 and finishes around 10:00. Please look at the edit summaries, very neat and concise on both accounts. If User:Life.temp were a new user to Wikipedia how would he know wikitalk for the edit summaries? User:Life.temp a resent account straight to mostly editing anti-Americanismand abortion articles. In conclusion User:Life.temp and User:Bsharvy is the same user.
Comments
This person has been harrassing me non-stop since I started editing the article on anti-Americanism. He insists on putting personal opinions and factual misinformation in the article (e.g. articles that aren't peer-reviewed in a section called "peer-reviewed articles"). Then he edit wars with me about it. This seems to be the latest battle in his war. For the record, I'm not pro-life, but I don't see how that's anyone's business. I can't make head or tails of the rest of Igor's comment. Life.temp (talk) 04:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say from Life.temp's edits on abortion-related articles it is pretty obvious that s/he is pro-life (not to mention the username and userpage photo), but that's neither here nor there, because there isn't enough evidence to go on here, just a suspicion by someone this person edit-warred with. And regarding that edit-warring, it takes two to do it, and both engaged in it equally (user:Igorberger and user:Life.temp). Even if this is a sock puppet, the only thing he's guilty of so far has been edit warring, and he has since stopped (for now), so I really don't care. I think if there is an ownership issue, it can be attributed more to Igor than Life.temp. I think they should both be issued a stern warning about edit warring and this case closed for now. Equazcion•✗/C •04:41, 10 Apr 2008 (UTC)
When you do the same edits as user:Life.temp on anti-Americanism I respect your edits and do not revert them. Why? Because you explain your edits on the talk page, not just do them as this user without explanation or consensus. Also this is about sockpuppetry, which is a violation of policy. If you check Bsharvy sockpuppet case 1 he has 3 sockpuppets. I have no ownership of the article. I edit many articles, please check my contributions, not just 2 abortion and anti-Americanism. Also it is a he not a she, from the picture on his website. Igor Berger (talk) 04:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think I am pro-life? Just curious. I chose my username to comment on the brevity of life, not to say anything about abortion. The extension ".temp" is common in the computer world (I work with computers professionally) for temporary files. Life.temp (talk) 05:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah so do I. Don't see .temp spelled out often, it's usually .tmp. Anyway, [145][146][147][148]. Again it doesn;t matter though so I'm not going to spend time arguing about this. Equazcion•✗/C •05:26, 10 Apr 2008 (UTC)
The image on your user page is about new born. Image:Babymouse.jpg. Bsharvy also works with computers or he use to before becoming an English teacher in Korea. Please read his website. Igor Berger (talk)
Igor, can you document some of what you're saying with diffs? I can't find any edit bsharvy made to an abortion article other than the one you mention, in January 2007. Life.temp (talk) 05:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Life.temp, perhaps it would be most effective to address Igor's more valid concern, that you seemed to know the ins and outs of this place right from your first edit. If you had another account or if you edited from an IP previously, disclosing it/them would put an end to this right now. Equazcion•✗/C •05:31, 10 Apr 2008 (UTC)
Equazcion, I've been using Wikipedia as a reference since 2003. If I want to research editing, I do a search from Help:Contents. It is fairly easy to learn the basics, and the basic standards like citations and NPOV are prominent even to non-editing users, from the frequent tagging. I definitely do not know the ins and outs, I know the basics, because I'm the sort who reads the manual first. Life.temp (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find it really hard to believe that you have been referencing Wikipedia since 2003 but you never edited it till a few weeks ago, and you knew right a way the "ins and outs" of what to do. When I warned you about article ownership [149] your reply was pretty much knowledgeable, not of a newbie "Please stop frivolous (and dishonest) use of warnings" A new editor would leave the template and say something of PA or remove it completly with a revert. But you knew exactly what you were saying. Igor Berger (talk) 06:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there, it's pretty unlikely that you got all of this from help pages. You seemed pretty comfortable with the lingo etc. right from the start. Fact tags, COI noticeboard, POV, weasel words, talking about consensus etc, these aren't things anyone knows straight off. I'd bet money you've edited previously from another account. Equazcion•✗/C •06:22, 10 Apr 2008 (UTC)
OK, well, it's only worth trying to convince people up to a point. I didn't learn most of anything from the help pages. I learned most, like fact tags, simply from reading the encyclopedia. Fact tags are everywhere. Everybody who reads Wikipedia knows about them. I learned about the COI board because I saw someone with a conflict of interest, and did a search on what to do. I'm not going to bother further explaining what seems "pretty unlikely" to someone. A better focus would be whether I've edited in a disruptive way. Life.temp (talk) 06:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:disruptive that is for newbies? You really can tell when an editor is new because they make tons of mistakes. I dealt with a new editor just yesterday. I was reverting the edits, and the editor just reverted them back. I was dealing with a policy problem, but I also made some mistakes and at the end I apologized to the editor, eventhough I was not totally wrong. But we need to WP:AGF. I have become more conserned with you after reading Bsharvy anti-abortion essay, which is a total COI to abortion articles. If you are Bsharvy which I suspect you are, as a Wikipedia editor, I cannot AGF for you to edit abortion articles. Igor Berger (talk) 06:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Igor, just because someone writes an essay outside Wikipedia about the same topic he edits on Wikipedia, that doesn't mean there's any conflict of interest. COI is for the proprietor of a company editing the article on that company, or a person editing an article on himself, or the author of an off-wiki article using that article as a source. There's no COI even if this were Bsharvy, and the concern that there might be a COI issue is not a reason to bring a sockpuppet case. There needs to be some evidence. Aside from them both being pro-life and editing the anti-Americanism article, I see no proof at all. Although I do think it's likely, based on my suspicion that this user has edited Wikipedia before but is unwilling to admit it, I don't see any real evidence here. Life.temp's editing history is too short to draw any reliable conclusions. Equazcion•✗/C •06:51, 10 Apr 2008 (UTC)
Have you read the essay? It said there that women who commit any kind of abortion are murderers and and criminals. What is The Final Solution. I do not know. The tendentiousnes of this editor really has me worried. What would you propose? Igor Berger (talk) 07:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People are allowed to have opinions and express them in other venues, Igor. Someone saying something POV off-wiki is not any reason for concern. Equazcion•✗/C •07:04, 10 Apr 2008 (UTC)
If the editor was not WP:SPA and a sockpuppet, even if it just "suspected sock", but the evidence is pretty strong for it, I would agree with you. What one does off-wiki is not really Wikipedia consern. But this editor has not showed the community that the community can trust him, based on relevent behavior and history. So how can this editor eliviate the consern and win the community's trust?
He doesn't need to win our trust. He's already got it. Right now all we know is that he edit warred. But so did you. So if you don't need to earn our trust, then neither does he. Equazcion•✗/C •07:25, 10 Apr 2008 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry is a violation of policy and SPA is lack of trust, per guidelines. Igor Berger (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's certainly no evidence that this is an SPA. And stop saying this is sockpuppetry, because we don't know that. Focus on presenting evidence to prove it is sockpuppetry before you ask what should be done about it. Equazcion•✗/C •07:36, 10 Apr 2008 (UTC)
anti-Americanism and abortion is SPA. Sockpuppetry is suspected. I put a suspected sockpuppet template on his user page, and he removed it. It needs to be put back, but I am not going to edit war with him. So please put it back on his user page. Igor Berger (talk) 08:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The user's edit history is too short to draw a conclusion like that. If I created an account and my first 20 edits were to the same group of articles, there would be nothing suspicious about that. You need to wait and see what this user does on a longer-term basis. I'm not going to continue this here. I do hope another party weighs in on this soon, cause so far it's just us three involved editors. Equazcion•✗/C •08:23, 10 Apr 2008 (UTC)
(undent)I'm also not going to continue this for now, and let other editors comment on this. But I would like User:Life.temp to put back the suspected sockpuppet template on his user page to show the community that he respects the raised consern of another editor. Igor Berger (talk) 08:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this is still open, but please see the subsection Igor the Troll here [150] before wasting more time with this editor. Life.temp (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Creating a subsection on a Talk page to personally abuse another wikipedia editor is a flagrant abuse of wikipedia procedures and exactly the sort of thing Bsharvy used to do. Are you editing from the same small district in Seoul, Korea where Bsharvy is located I wonder? Colin4C (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't create a subsection on a random "Talk" page. I didn't abuse anyone. I gave links to the individual's Web sites that brag about his trolling on wikipedia and elsewhere, on the page dedicated to reporting incidents to administrators. Have you actually read the case?
Is there going to be a case made for adding Gohdeilocks? A single diff? Life.temp (talk) 22:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can some clerk please remove the garbage from this page? This isn't for arguing. Jtrainor (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
No further action is required here with regard to the accusation of sock puppetry. If anyone wants to make a case of disruptive editing against any of the parties, this is the wrong venue to discuss that. There is insufficient evidence for a sock puppetry block at this time. JehochmanTalk 04:03, 16 April 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.
Both Rafaelsfingers and Supergreenred were created at around the same time. First contributions were to report 3RR violations or revert other editors. Both accounts are SPA's that target the State terrorism and the United States article and supporting article. Stone put to sky (talk·contribs) and Aho aho (talk·contribs) were previsoulsy shown to be sockpuppets from Taiwan and it's not clear why they weren't blocked (or why one wasn't blcoked). Giovanni33 (talk·contribs) has a number of meatpuppets/sockpuppets from the San Francisco area but IP's are different. I suspect it's dense enough that he could use a wirless card to use different peoples ISP's in a very local area. Giovanni33 has a history of sockpuppetry. These accounts all have a very narrow editing focus with the same POV often reverting to the other editors version to the point that the edit warring bars all progress to fixing the article and invariably leads to the article being locked. It's to the point that if the IP is from SF area it's Giovanni or if it's from Taiwan it's SPTS. Bottom line is that regardless of the CU results, these are SPA meatpuppet/sockpuppets that need to be dealt with if those articles are to be fixed.
Rafaelsfingers created March 27 [151]. Only two edits that day to support the only person sharing his view in that thread, Giovanni33. [152][153][154][155]. Rafaelsfingers then takes a few weeks off and returns to revert Jtrainor (talk·contribs).[156]. But that was only after the page was semi-protected after the IP editor 76.102.72.153 (talk·contribs) and 64.118.111.137 (talk·contribs) was involved in an extensive edit war over the same material the day before. As an example, these two edits are 19 revisions apart [157] but are identical. These edits are 5 apart.[158]. Basically the account Raphaelsfingers didn't start editing until his IPs were blocked due the semi-protected status and a 3RR block of 64.118.111.137.
Even though the two IPs show up as geographically distinct (5 hours apart), Sierra-Tel (64.118.111.137) offers dialup service which means that there is possibly a large geographic location that could be used for access. Similarity of edits, relative proximity and profile of edits links all three of these accounts.
Giovanni33(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log) has a 1RR arbcom restriction. He has a Northern California IP as established by previous checkusers and his previous sockpuppets. The other accounts above are all SPA's with very short edit histories. Basically these match very closely to his location and it is more than coincidence (either meat or sockpuppets) for all these Northern California accounts all editing a very narrow set of articles. His previous checkuser confirm the location of these accounts. Giovanni33 is currently under a 72 hour block for violation of his 1RR restriction.
Even if Stone put to sky is not involved, there is the possibility supergreenred, rafael and the IPs could be the same person. I can see some possible 3RR vios:
Note how they only revert "one at a time" as it were. Also note when 64.118.111.137 was editing. As soon as the page was semi-protected the other accounts jumped in. 64.118.111.137 is now back on the talk page again.
I have also taken a look at the contributions of Rafaelfingers, supergreenred and the IP 76.102.72.153. If you check, you will see they all essentially edit the same articles, primarily State terrorism and the United States. The IP and Rafael also have an interest in Guatemalan Civil War. In terms of registration, they all started editing in March - the IP one day after Rafael. John Smith's (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
This will be controversial. We need diffs showing what you have summarized. JehochmanTalk 23:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First time Stone put to sky was caught socking: [163]
There are just so many coincidences here, it creates a very strong appearance of either sock puppetry or recruiting single purpose editors for edit warring. I am going to block the other two socks, Moriss levy and Aho Aho, which have been found twice by checkuser to be Likely socks of Stone put to sky. As for Aho Aho, my determination was influenced by an analysis of the contributions. Here are a few sample diffs to illustrate the common interests, and common editing point of view of Aho Aho (talk·contribs) and Stone put to sky (talk·contribs): [166][167]-[168][169]-[170][171][172]. Additionally, I will block Stone put to sky indefinitely because they have been caught sock puppeting previously, twice, [173] and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Stone put to sky, yet have continued using Aho Aho as recently as April 10. After being caught a couple times, I expect the user would desist. Also note that in spite of a long contribution history, Stone put to sky is virtually a single purpose account for editing State terrorism and the United States, as are the socks. JehochmanTalk
The case against Giovanni33 (talk·contribs) as a second puppetmaster in this case with a distinct set of sock puppets, Supergreenred (talk·contribs), and Rafaelsfingers (talk·contribs), is very convincing. (I find no relationship between this group and Stone put to sky and their socks.) Checkuser evidence is inconclusive, however, as a proven puppetmaster, Giovanni33 has more than enough experience to evade checkuser. The remarks provided by Thatcher in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Giovanni33 tend to corroborate rather than refute this case.[174] Per the evidence on this page, it is an implausible coincidence for these three accounts, supporting each other and the same idiosyncratic point of view, to be located in such a narrow geographic region while editing the same narrow set of articles. A panoptic view of this case leads me to conclude that there is a high probability of sock or meat puppetry going on here. Therefore, I will indefinitely block all three accounts. Giovanni33 has a very long block log and has been caught socking before. All available second chances have been expended. JehochmanTalk 03:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upon discussion with several administrators who know Giovanni33's style, I have sufficient doubts that I have unblocked. The other two accounts remain blocked as disruption-only, single purpose accounts, probable socks of each other, perhaps with an undisclosed puppetmaster. JehochmanTalk 02:42, 17 April 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.
Attention was drawn to Seddon69 by [175] from an IP suspected to be associated with Fredrick day, acknowledging that it was a "mobile edit from Seddon69," and his response to a query, [176].
193.35.134.151 edits began appearing June 30, 2006 and continued until there were ten edits in October 2006. These edits largely ceased and Seddon69 began editing November 1, 2006, one day after the last edit in this sequence from 193.35.134.151, and made 21 edits on that day, then two edits on December 27, 2006. 193.35.134.151 made 9 more edits through January 17, 2007. Fredrick day then began editing January 21, 2007, very actively. Seddon69 did not reappear until June 2, 2007. Thereafter, sessions of Fredrick day edits alternated with sessions of Seddon 69 edits. 8,287 edits from Seddon69, Fredrick daytime, Fredrick day, and all identified IPs shown on Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day, were compared. The patterns are consistent with a single user, over thousands of edits and many sessions of edits, and the level of coincidence needed for these accounts to be independent is beyond reason.
Fredrick day was indef blocked 23 March, 2008, having been found to be vandalizing as an IP editor, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day. In various edits, he indicated that he had other accounts used for more legitimate purposes, and that he intended to continue IP editing, as he did, provocatively. He showed that he knows how to use an open proxy, among other things, but the bulk of his blatant sock IP edits appear to come from the range 87.112.0.0 - 87.115.255.255 which is PlusNet, Sheffield, UK, with some (including what looks like stable IP) from 193.35.128.0 - 193.35.143.255 is Orange, Bristol, UK, so locations are compatible. --Abd (talk)
As to edit content, this appears to be a good hand account (Seddon69), with a bad hand account (Fredrick day), an openly nasty IP editor, and now Fredrick Dayton. There is an accusation that 193.35.134.151 has been used by User:MarkThomas, blocked for sock puppetry, see User:193.35.134.151. I have not investigated this possible connection yet.
I will email the spreadsheet with full data to any checkuser on request--Abd (talk) 16:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
I just received the notice on my talk page regarding this Suspected sock puppets case and so i wanted to respond to this as swiftly as possible. I fully admit editing from the Orange IP but as i have said this is from a mobile phone and is most likely a dynamic IP. I stated it was me who edited so that the edited not be considered vandalism. However i have only used this once and i was not aware of this user until the comment posted from User:Abd. After this comment i will edit this page from my IP address so that you can find out that i edit from BT broadband. Also i will request that someone from IRC makes a copy of the whois from that again to show i edit from BT. I welcome any checkuser that wishes to check my IP address and to compare the IP's. I hope that this can be resolved quickly. Seddon69 (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to be wrong. Seddon69 is a civil and active editor. However, I must note that Fredrick day has claimed to be able to use many different and providers, and he has shown himself capable of that. Notice that the single-user pattern edits are vast comparing Fredrick day and Seddon69 (if the checkuser does not have a tool to compare the thousands of edits involved, I can send a spreadsheet.) It is possible that the IP edit, allegedly from a mobile phone, might actually be that and that suspicion was thus unfairly drawn to Seddon69. However, it did establish that Seddon69 are operating in the same relatively small region. I was in doubt until I looked at all the edits together, it took me almost a week to get around to doing that. The evidence is strong (but not conclusive) that Seddon69 began editing from IP, the same range as in the report. The evidence that Seddon69 and Fredrick day are the same user is overwhelming. With certain precautions, Fredrick day may have been able to make the connection invisible to checkuser, we know he is capable of that. But it's hard to make yourself into two editors that don't sleep at the same time.--Abd (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Orange, Bristol, UK" - Orange is not a place in Bristol. UK IPs do not geolocate *at all* - I think I live in Manchester according to my current IP, and have been in Aberdeen in the past. Orange is a mobile phone network and provides access to the internet through GPRS/HSDPA edit: and ADSL, see below. It probably uses a very narrow gateway for this.Martinp23 18:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence seems sketchy to me, perhaps easily explained by coincidence. The IP correlation with that 195.*.*.* is something I feel confident ignoring, as it belongs to a mobile network which isn't at all static and is also (I've just realised! Bloody name changes Freeserve -> Wanadoo -> Orange) an ISP, using dynamic addresses again (from experience..). Plusnet: dynamic again, I believe. Geolocation: Massive pile of fail. Edit patterns: Evidence isn't really compelling. No evidence noted of abuse during !votes etc, or even of similar editing patterns (other than times, easily explained by saying they're in the same timezone). my thoughts, Martinp23 18:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am aware. The location is merely where the ISP has an address. Orange is also a direct internet provider, not only phone network. The phone connection may be a red herring, but the edit record is not. I presume that checkusers know what they are doing. However, the IP involved has clearly been long-term used by the same user, from article patterns. There is a *lot* more evidence than I have presented here. There are a few edits above, the complete study was of 8287 edits. If someone else has the tools, look, for example, at all the edits of Fredrick day and Seddon69. There *has* been double voting, in one case, but this is not a place to complain about such behavior, and, given the rest of what has happened, that is trivial. It is not just Fredrick day's account. Look at the other accounts on the SSP talk page linked above as well. It's a lot of work, which is why I've offered to send the spreadsheet to a checkuser. Soon as I know which one! This report is only filed for possible supplemental evidence, and sometimes checkuser reports show additional socks. If it's premature, that's fine with me, but I'd rather see a checkuser make that decision.--Abd (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hum.. I've hum'd and err'd about responding to this in case it makes things worse for Seddon69, but then it's not really right for me to drop him in the shit by omission.
Let's do this a bit at a time.
1) Yes I am Fredrick day - blocked user.
2) I am not and have never been Seddon69, he has never been me.
let's look at the evidence presented by Abd, line by line, hopefully I can convince people we are not one and the same.
However, it did establish that Seddon69 are operating in the same relatively small region. - I have no idea how he has come to this conclusion. Yes we both live in the UK (which explains the fact that we both post at similar times) but the 'relatively small region' is the whole UK. The 193.XX address is the range for the mobile (or cellar) gateway provided by Orange, the largest mobile telecoms provider in the UK - this is used by @12 million users (off the top of my head)! The other problem, as mentioned by Martin is that UK isp generally don't geolocate, so the location given by WHOIS will generally bear no relationship to the location of the edit (and if you don't mind me saying - only a yank would think that Sheffield and bristol are relative!)
As for the "edit patterns", besides the fact that we operate in the same time zone, I cannot find, from looking at edit histories over the last year, of any occasion where our paths have crossed (didn't we used to have a tool that would check the contributions of two accounts for crossover? if so, can someone run it). --Fredrick Dayton (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What has been studied is the timing of edits. It's pretty difficult for a single person to run two different active accounts without there being a correlation in edit timing. This is entirely apart from article crossover, which is normally a clue. There is, of course, some crossover; this is, indeed, how all the accounts but Seddon69 were identified. There is some crossover, I think I recall, of Seddon69 and IP associated with Fredrick day, very minor. It looks to me like Fd was quite careful to keep the accounts segmented. (Fredrick Dayton has likewise been mostly separate). There is even some interleaving of edits at certain times. Had this been done consistently, it would have been more difficult to detect the patterns, but it would still be possible. One person is not two people, two people who aren't connected with each other will show much more independence in the patterns than is present here. In any case, the evidence is now available, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day (2nd)/Evidence. --Abd (talk) 04:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot offer much more than to say other than this. From the very first edit i made on wikipedia a year and a half ago until now i have only looked to contribute well to this project. I have never been banned, i have never 3RR'd except when fighting vandalism, i have never been accused of incivility towards users, I have never been posted as a problem on the administrators noticeboard. I have nominated an FA which passed and also a featured picture, have worked on problems on peoples GAN's, I mediate at WP:MEDCAB and i am in the middle of helping what was a backlog at WP:MEDCOM, I have taken steps to be open about my true identity, when receiving incivility from users i have never retaliated and have always looked to find a way around problems. I freely make email and irc options to allow people to contact me, despite not having a great talent at article writing i have always strived to improve my abilities steadily over time. If that isn't enough to show that i have nothing but good intentions for this project. I dont know what else i can do. Seddon69 (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[195] information from the ip i edit from at home. Seddon69 (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There really isn't anything for you to do, Seddon69, if you are not Fredrick day. I'm human, I make mistakes. If I've made one, the community here has some pretty bright people who will be able to find what I've done wrong. I'm not on any crusade against you as an editor, and you could recite hosts of awards or achievements, it's basically irrelevant here. If you are not Fredrick day, I'd suggest not worrying about it. There are other people experienced with this kind of evidence, and I trust that truth will out. On the other hand, if you are Fredrick day, and you want to continue contributing here, the sooner you acknowledge what you have done, the easier it will be for you to resume your editing. My general advice is to trust in the truth. Any other alternative can make us pretty crazy.
One more thing. There are lots of avenues left for studying the data. In particular, I intend to test the method with some controls, and to look for ways to refine how the data is presented, to avoid certain biases that the present method seems to exhibit (it could make, under some conditions, unconnected accounts of certain kinds look connected. I don't think that's the case, but if I have erred, that would probably be connected with it). Believe me, if I find that I can exonerate you, I will rush here to do it. I have no investment in being right, only an obligation to disclose what I see.--Abd (talk) 04:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked through every edit by Seddon69 that's visible in checkuser. Basically it's pretty much a consistent pattern of perfectly normal editing behaviour, with occasional use of what look like shared IPs, as explained above. No evidence that I would say indicates any sort of bad behaviour. Any other checkers want to check? - David Gerard (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what I'd look for: edits to pages of interest to Seddon69 by IP from 87.112-87.115 range. I could eventually find these, if they exist, but I haven't started looking at the complete range. It may, however, be easier for me to find this, unless checkusers have some good tools -- I have no idea what tools are available. Similarly, I'd examine that IP range for other Fd IP or socks. As to the IP that Seddon69 has explained as being a friend's mobile phone, perhaps Fredrick day has been borrowing the same phone? Because three edits from that exact IP are linked to Fredrick day:
20:23, 9 April 2008 User talk:129.174.91.115
[196]
20:37, 8 April 2008 Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-13 24 character merging of minor characters[197] (Mobile edit by seddon69)
15:03, 24 March 2008 Wikipedia talk:Village pump (policy) [198]
(this edit was made immediately upon revelation that Section 31 was Fredrick day.)
00:44, 3 March 2008 User talk:Fredrick day [199]
Contrary to what is implied above, this IP shows consistent interest over time in certain articles, it is not dynamic IP, I'd suggest. (It's still possible it is shared in some way.) See Special:Contributions/193.35.133.151, and, in particular, these edits to Kaley Cuoco: [200][201][202][203][204][205][206] These edits come before, between, and after the edits linked to Fredrick day (and the sole one explicitly linked to Seddon69).
I hadn't looked at [[User talk:/193.35.133.151]} until now. This address has been used heavily for vandalism, according what is on the user page, and it is claimed there that it is a shared IP used by Orange mobile users (claim made a long time ago). I'd like to check that, but it is probably true. The IP is currently blocked, apparently. The level of coincidence involved is high, we do know that Fredrick day has made multiple use of this IP recently, but this was one IP that showed more rapid shifting between accounts, recently in particular, I already suspected that this was shared, with others using it, so many of the edits from this account may have nothing to do with Seddon69 or Fredrick day. Not that this matters; the evidence simply from comparing the edit timings of Fredrick day and Seddon69 is quite clear.--Abd (talk)
I'd like to make it clear that the spreadsheet showing all these accounts together in time sequence is plain as, well, day. If you are looking at each account alone, or only at IP evidence, I'm not surprised it would be murky, because this user is likely to have deliberately used different access for each account (such as multiple wireless networks accessible to him). I think I've laid out enough evidence that someone interested in identifying a sock would see it as a reasonably possible ID; only if I have displayed all I have would it be reasonable to rule it out or consider it weak. But I did a time and article coincidence study of almost 9,000 edits. The sequences above are not necessarily the clearest ones, merely ones I quickly found as interesting. I'm certainly not going to post the whole thing to a Wikipedia page! That's why I've suggested that a checkuser -- or other trusted user -- look at the spreadsheet. If I had found something different I'd have clearly exonerated Seddon69 from the charge that Sarsaparilla made. And if something is wrong with my analysis, I'd really like to know. Otherwise I'll go to my grave believing that I found a sock puppet and nobody wanted to listen.... (I don't know that nobody will listen, this isn't over yet....) Maybe I'll ask Durova.... --Abd (talk)
* [Seddon] (n=chatzill@host86-132-128-87.range86-132.btcentralplus.com): Sun, Sex, Sin, Death and Destruction
* [Seddon] #wikipedia-en-roads #wikipedia-en
* [Seddon] irc.freenode.net :http://freenode.net/
* [Seddon] End of WHOIS list
Result of a whois on Seddon69 through IRC. Seddon has been a user in good standing for quite a while; I find it highly unlikely that he's a sock of a blocked user. —Scott5114↗[EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day (2nd)/Evidence for a wikified spreadsheet, cut down a bit to eliminate unnecessary information. What was cut was long series of edits from only one account, with no intervening edits from another. What I have considered conclusive is the data in this table, in addition to circumstantial evidence mentioned before; if I have erred, I would appreciate correction. I actually hope that I'm wrong, but it appears that Seddon69 was a good hand account, with Fredrick day intended as the bad hand, and with IP edits for the really nasty stuff. I have seen no problem editing from Seddon69, so I have no wonder that there would be editors unhappy with this. What to do about it is an entirely separate issue. This report does not ask for any punitive measures, this is only to establish the fact. --Abd (talk) 04:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to request that no extreme comments be directed at any user in this SSP case especially from what i assume was from Fred Deyton. Abd is doing one role that is necessary on wikipedia. I know that he is mistaken but like everything on wikipedia we must let this process run its course. I request that if user want to contribute to this SSP that they concentrate on the location of my internet provider which i know to be BT broadband, and also the edits that i have made and to realise that i think my contributions should be part of people assuming good faith.
I would like to bring people attention in the evidence list to 13:27 24-Mar-08 where supposedly i would have had to sign out of seddon69 where i was editting an article in my userpsace, then sign in to the Phil McCavity account that is i believe a confirmed sock of Fred, then in 60 seconds make an edit, sign out, sign back in to seddon69 and then make another edit. It seems a little far fetched. As has been said previously that the fact i edit at the same time as someone in the UK simply isn't good enough evidence. I don't know what i would have to do to go about and edit from an open proxy IP even if i wanted to. Seddon69 (talk) 11:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added User:Fredrick Dayz above, since his edits to the Copyvio notice board as well as his own user and talk page, closely resemble that of Frederick Dayton. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anomolies in evidence
I would like to note that the following edits could not have been made by me. This is due to the fact i was college at these times. I will go even further back through the edit history if necessary but if we are going to throw WP:AGF completely out of the window then tell me what evidence you need and i will get it for you. I have taken into account the time difference between UTC time and the current BST:
Ah-ha, I know how we put this one to bed. During January and feb, some of my edits might resolve to hotel networks as I think I did some editing while away for work. Since we have established that Seddon69 has a BT ip, if he posts on the same days then that should finish this one off (unless abd wants to suggest he was booking into hotels, making a couple of edits and then driving home all within a couple of hours). Checkuser should pick them up those odd ip edits in my history during that timeperiod (I'll have to dig out my diary to find the days and it's in the office, I'll have to pick it up tomorrow). --87.115.17.90 (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seddon69 (talk·contribs) is Unrelated insofar as behavioural and editorial evidence can ascertain. Anthøny 00:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence suggests the IPs being related are Possible, but further to my review, evidence is Inconclusive. Anthøny 00:14, 16 April 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.
The UPN Vandal is the nom de guerre of an editor who has been persistently trying to add hoax material to wikipedia for over a year now. He edits the same pages with the same text every few days, making him easy to WP:RBI; however as he uses changing AOL IPs (172.x), we have to re-block him every time. (see eg [207])
However, the addresses above both made an identical edit to Osmosis Jones recently, promoting the same hoax information used in the UPN vandal's other edits. Checking edit history shows that unlike his 172.x addresses, he has been using these two addresses for a while, so they're probably worth giving a longer term block.
63.x [208], Madagascar/Winx/Kung Fu Panda hoax back in February: [209][210] Winx/Power Rangers hoax [211] (and many, many more - astonishing that this user has avoided a block)
For comparison, the UPN vandal's usual incarnation is via a series of AOL accounts: Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_The_UPN_Vandal which we already block on sight via WP:AIV - they don't last long enough to block longer term. The hoax is exactly the same: Speed Racer - [214] Winx/Power Rangers [215] Osmosis Jones [216] etc.
Anyway as I said these appear to be longer-term, low activity socks, so I'm bringing them here instead of AIV.
Comments
His sockpuppets are blatantly obvious (we can be certain they're socks just by looking at their contribs), so I don't think this is neccesary. Maybe a Long Term Abuse page should be created instead. --AAA! (AAAA) 13:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
Very likely. BLocked IPs 3 months. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:12, 15 April 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.
See edit history of Spenser Peterson, clearly using two three accounts for vandalism. Not clear which is the master and which is the puppet.
Comments
Conclusions
Speterson9 marked as the puppeteer and all accounts blocked indefinitely. Spellcast (talk) 20:57, 14 April 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.
Edit warring on Kurt Lockwood, abuse of Wikipedia 3RR policy and username impersonation (Kurt Lockwood). Many of its edits are the same, talking about his crossing into sexual bisexuality while another editor reverts.
Comments
Should be conclusive.
Conclusions
Events have overtaken this report and the situation seems to be well in hand. No further action needed at this time. JehochmanTalk 03:04, 14 April 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.
Both users have created hoax articles on various Disney films including Which Way and Mickey's Treasure Island. Accounts were created very close together and both use a buttload of numbers in their names; therefore, I believe this may be a bout of sockpuppetry.
These are obvious, throw away socks. I will block them. If the problem persists, we should take it to WP:RFCU next time to see if we can learn more. JehochmanTalk 23:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note (added after the case was closed): this group of puppets is quite clearly related to a much larger family of socks, namely that of User:StealBoy. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:13, 15 April 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.
These four accounts are engaged in what appears to be a coordinated effort to remove negative content about the unaccredited Rochville University. Tactics include identifying it as a legitimate school, creating confusion with University of La Rochelle, or deleting the Rochville article in a manner that suggested this was a Wikipedia administrative action, and making legal threats against its re-creation. This diff is one of a series in which Alpha2002 attempted to sanitize the Rochville article. In this diff, 195.112.192.2 tried to represent Rochville as a French school called "La Rochville." This diff by 92.62.160.3 is similar. In this diff, 92.62.160.3 attempted to rename University of La Rochelle to "La Rochville." This diff by 195.112.192.2 is similar. In this diff, 92.62.160.3 replaced the Rochville article with a statement that the article had been deleted due to pending litigation. In this diff, 195.112.192.2 deleted most of the article and made a legal threat against recreation of the deleted content. (That user was blocked for a short time following that edit.) This recent diff by newly registered user IamV replaced the Rochville article with a statement that the article had been deleted due to pending litigation, but did not make a legal threat.
Comments
Conclusions
All very clear, well done on an excellent report. Both registered accounts blocked indefinitely and IPs blocked 2 weeks. Rudget (review) 19:29, 13 April 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.
There was an incomplete AfD filed by 88.109.20.20 for the article Kingdom of Humanity (AfD here). Upon looking at the article's history, I see that the first two IPs have continually vandalized the article by inserting lines about it being a fantasy, and removing refs. Prior to this, User:Instantnood had made a similar edit ([217]). Both IPs also did similar things to Republic of Morac-Songhrati-Meads (history) where the third IP made some similar edits. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
The edits made to the two micronation pages recently came in under different IP addresses because of access from different locations: there was no intention to deceive.
The user Instantnood is another editor: and there was no question of any perceived pro-China bias in my edits. My aim here was and is to remove or mark poor quality and misleading material on the Spratlys. 88.109.209.20 (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
Not enough to link the three IPs with the main account, although possibly with each other. In any event, none of the IPs has edited for over a week. I think this is probably a bit stale now, and there's not a lot to be done. GBT/C 13:11, 12 April 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.
The talk pages of all or most of these accounts are littered with pages containing information about a fictional wrestler (called "Derek Bryan"), a fictional pro-wrestling promotion, fictional wrestling shows, etc. The accounts have even made edits to eachother's user talk pages. They have also made edits to other legitimate articles adding the name of their fake wrestler and moves that he performs.
Comments
There is a real "Derek Bryan" that these users vandalized to make the article about the fake wrestler. The vand was reverted, but they later moved from Derek Bryan the article to Bryan Derek Herman (which is also an improper move as the names are in an incorrect order). Until just recently the edits were mostly harmless, as they were only made to thier user pages. I wanted to report them earlier, but didn't becuase I wasn't sure about this process (and I am still unsure as to whether or not I am doing it right).
Conclusions
These just have to be the same person trying to bring their fantasy to life. NatureBoyMD (talk) 01:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
I found the move of the real Derek Bryan (an article I started) to Bryan Derek Herman quite outrageous, as that wasn't his name, and today I've moved Bryan Derek Herman on to Derek Bryan (diplomat). At the same time, I moved the new Derek Bryan to Derek Bryan (wrestler), not knowing he was fictional, and set up Derek Bryan as an hndis page. Thank you for anything you can do to control this annoying user. Xn4 14:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure you're all correct; I've just left Palmer-Ridge a note saying that if he keeps up with this he'll be blocked, and will keep an eye on their talk pages for further activity. Tony Fox(arf!) 18:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...and I just found four more. I'm going to get some other admins to look at this and advise. Tony Fox(arf!) 18:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At least 3 of those pages represent GFDL breaches and should be deleted. --Fredrick Dayton (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm playing whack-a-mole with this bunch; a couple are indef-blocked, a couple are doing edit-stop-edit-stop things, and most are idle. There's a checkuser request in, as well, because I think there's quite a sock farm to be dealt with here. Tony Fox(arf!) 21:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Call me harsh (I've been called worse) but none of them are here to contributed to the encyclopaedia, so I've indefinitely blocked the lot. They are almost certainly one and the same person, so hopefully the RFCU will turn up any other socks that haven't been caught above. GBT/C 12:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I've just blocked the other 43 sleepers that the checkuser turned up.
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.
Edits to articles on Bhumihar and Ranvir Sena. The earlier version of the Bhumihar article had been deleted due to extensive POV but User:Ranvir Sena had responded by infusing POV into the one newly created by vandalising it fromm an anonymous IP.
Comments
Ranvir Sena is a terrorist organization and this user appears to be one with malicious intentions hellbent upon indulging in glorification of the organization.
The suspected puppet master has not edited since [August 8 2007], and the suspected sock puppet only made one edit to the article in question. [218] Personally, i think there may be insufficent evidence here to directly link these two as sock puppetry. Steve Crossin(talk)(anon talk) 04:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
I agree - insufficient evidence to say that the IP is the blocked account. Treat it as you would treat any other editor adding controversial, unreferenced or POV material. GBT/C 12:33, 12 April 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.
Xhy20 originally made an edit displacing a verified statement from its citation with an unverified statement with original research and flunking NPOV. He was warned and reverted. 82.43.71.244, which I assume to be his ip, started making the same kind of edits over the same subject. Both accounts also edited Brian Barwick in Dec 2007. 82.43.71.244 was warned on his talk page and the Luscious Lopez talk page why his edits were not acceptable. When 82.43.71.244 was warned by an admin over the 3 revert rule, Wikkibobby showed up removing cited content and replacing with it with the same conjectures about the subject, continuing an edit war. Vinh1313 (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
The Luscious Lopez article has been protected and the Wikkibobby account has been blocked for 24 hours as a result of the edit war. Vinh1313 (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
Xhy20 indef blocked as a sock. IP blocked 1 week for edit warring by Luna Santin. GBT/C 12:26, 12 April 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.
Not necessarily socks, but both accounts blocked as being vandalism-only accounts in any event. GBT/C 12:22, 12 April 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.
I think I may have screwed up the listing of puppeteer/puppet originally when using TW. User:Scibaby is the puppetmaster, and a quick check of contribs should make this a speedy block. Jason Patton (talk) 04:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
Are you sure that's right? I can't see anything in Hu Xiang's (four) contributions that overlaps with Scibaby - I've corrected the spelling of the latter, as User:SciBaby has no contributions, deleted or otherwise. Have you got the right account? GBT/C 16:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, check out User:Scibaby's other socks, like User:Obedium and User:Victim of Changes. They edit the same articles, insert the same nonsense, and use the same style for their edit summaries. User:Raul654 is pretty familiar with this particular puppeteer and took care of it already. Sorry again for the misspelling and switcheroo! I'm still getting the hang of these user scripts/tools. Jason Patton (talk) 06:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - sock blocked by Raul. GBT/C 12:12, 12 April 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.
Over the past day or so User:Verocancun has created and recreated Bestday several times, all have been deleted as promotional/non-notable. Today new user User:Anaemma1981 has created the article with exactly the same text.
Comments
Conclusions
Probable socks, but activity appears to have ceased, so I don't see any point in action at this stage. Treat as separate users, warn with {{tl|uw-create2}] etc., and take to AIV if appropriate. GBT/C 11:42, 12 April 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.
The page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jackalicious
was made by JakG123 and when i posted a db on the page SLSADMIN posted a holdon template and also put this on the article talk page "I am writing to you to ask if you would keep this message posted on this site. Jackalicious is simply a fictional character in a book that i will publish soon in Northern Cyprus."
whats wrong with that?
well hes implied he is the author when he did not make the initial page
If he is not the author of a book that has not been advertised of publish and does not appear in google how does JakG123 know about it?
they are very much the same person
Comments
As the page was created by JakG123, and SLSADMIN was used for things like speedy deletion template removal (without given reason), I think the sockpuppet/puppeteer thing may be backwards here. But I may be wrong, and even if I'm right, it's sort of tangential. I'd also like to add that SLSADMIN's only edits on record were to that particular page (though said page is now deleted). - Vianello (talk) 08:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes i can see the logic in that Prom3th3an (talk) 03:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
SLSADMIN blocked indef as a sock. Main account's been blocked for vandalism - see what happens when it comes back off block. GBT/C 12:15, 12 April 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.
Markreidyhp started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#Page Overhaul for a general page overhaul, which got negative feedback. Then Dylman78 and AdDzer86 appear and give positive feedback. These accounts had been created on the same day and just posted on the talk page of the project and their own userpages.
Davxs also came on and gave a positive comment on the talk page of the project. He is a little it older but has not many edits besides the ones on talk page and his userpage.
There are also striking similarities in the userpages of Markreidyhp, AdDzer86 and Davxs.
--Mdebets (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
I have only checked the contribs of Markreidyhp (talk·contribs) against those of Dylman78 (talk·contribs) and AdDzer86 (talk·contribs). The latter two accounts were both created this evening, and their only edits have been either to own userpages or WT:IE in support of Markreidyhp. They have not edited simultaneously, and the pattern of editing indicates one person logging in and out under different accounts. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
All accounts blocked by a variety of admins. GBT/C 11:40, 12 April 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.
Over the past few hours or so User:24.130.18.189 has deleted and redeleted a section of Kina Grannis several times, all have been reverted. Rather than start an edit war, User:Whoopsadaisy1190 asked me to step in. However, I believe this to be a violation of the 33R rule as it would be "meat-puppeting." In the last hour, new user User:76.94.202.66 has redeleted the exact same text from the the article.
Comments
After checking WHOIS info, and using a traceroute, it appears this may be a coincidence. Both IP's use a different public ISP, and the traceroutes resolve to different locations. The IP's appear to come from different states. [219][220]. Also appears to be a SPA account reporting, and the two IPs look unrelated. Steve Crossin(talk)(anon talk) 14:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
Nowhere near enough to go on to merit a block, particularly as they appear to be dynamic IPs. GBT/C 11:46, 12 April 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:Webmaitresse had previously added links to fansites on several articles (shown here and here) which were removed. Following their removal, User:Latossa added the same link to the same articles (as shown here and here) suggesting that she is a sockpuppet of User:Webmaitresse.
Comments
Conclusions
Sub account blocked indef and notice placed. Main account warned - not enough warnings (or actions ignoring warnings) to merit a block at this satge. GBT/C 11:37, 12 April 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.
Both are making very similar edits, both editing the same article, and Batdub2000, was registered after the main account was blocked for WP:3RR
Comments
Conclusions
Sock blocked indef. Main account block reset and an extra 24 hours added to the clock for attempting to circumvent a block. GBT/C 11:33, 12 April 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.
Ojoe has made similar vandal edits [223] to Bungie as AnubanUT [224] referencing "HomoSexual Porn". This edit by Ojoe references an article A.I.D.A.N created by AnubanUT (PROD-ed, you can see the notice here).
Comments
Oh, look, they've been indef banned for vandalism. I had thought Ojoe was inactive which is why I filed this. I also wasn't expecting the blocks to be that long. --Nsevs • Talk 14:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
Both accounts indef blocked for vandalism. GBT/C 07:44, 12 April 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.
Rvlese says I should put whatever evidence I have here. I may have jumped the gun, but the first sentence on catraz' userpage is Don't block me for Username Hardblocked, Block me cuz I'm a sock of User:Catgnat! - that's a self-admission in my book. If I am mistaken, then I apologize. ArcAngel (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
I've indefblocked the user for username violation. - Revolving Bugbear 22:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
Dealt with by Revolving Bugbear. GBT/C 07:43, 12 April 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.
Promotes Koreans and inflates Korean-related numbers while denigrating or attempting to downplay the importance of Chinese and Japanese (Korea4one [237]; Bostonasia: [238][239][240]; Bostonjj: [241]; Bostonliberal: [242])
Attempts to use alternate accounts to avoid scrutiny: Bostonjj tried editing only once in mainspace after his temporary ban [243]. I asked an uninvolved user (User:Angelo De La Paz) who does a lot of updating of ethnic group articles to have a look, and he concluded that the edit was vandalism and reverted it. But then Bostonliberal came along (account created March 28 [244], just a few hours after Bostonjj's last mainspace contribution was reverted) and started making the same kind of edits [245], and the Bostonasia account, which hadn't been previously used since February, also made a comeback [246]
Off-wiki evidence
Users by the same names have made hundreds of similar nationalist-flavoured comments on the website of the The Korea Times, an English-language newspaper in Korea (Korea4One [247], Bostonasia [248], a few for Bostonliberal [249], none for Bostonjj [250]).
Those usernames often comment at briefly separated times from the same IP, e.g. [251] where they even commented on the same thread. That IP has also made similar kinds of contributions as all the above usernames (unsigned posts at the tops of talk page sections, like [252]).
The Bostonliberal username over at The Korea Times started showing up over there only at the beginning of April, briefly after it was created over here.
Comments
Looking over these accounts edits, it appears very likely to me, that they are all the same user, being used to make the appearance that a controversial claim has much wider support on-wiki, than it actually does. Also, they all seem to be used to further a long, slow edit war, and some sort of misinformation campaign. However, I don't often work SSP, and, I'm not 100% sure on this one, so I'm going to wait for further comment for a bit, just to be sure. SQLQuery me! 19:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
Agree with SQL, blocked and tagged all of them. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:59, 11 April 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.
All have TC related user pages and two have the same background (Joan97 and Santhi47)
DeltawDawn76 page mentions user has 2 other names.
[253], [254] Signed as other accounts to vote in an FPC of theirs; though signing as the other accounts, the user was logged in as the same name with double voting.
Comments
This user is a sockpuppetteer, period. Although I must say, flooding one's page with "Can I join?" is not great, but he/she did try fitting into the Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject.Mitch32contribs 22:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this should be a suspected sock puppet case, as the user openly identified as having other accounts. However, I don't see the need to edit as four different accounts, especially since it seems three of them aren't very active. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with above comment by Hurricanehink. User freely said he/she had other accounts, but cant be sure as to why four different accounts are needed. Just odd. Dustitalk to me 16:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion on WT:FPC. Thesediffs give Santhi47 away. Note that Elena85 was renamed to Joan97. The three alternate accounts should be blocked indefinitely, should they attempt to votestack at FPC - yes it was votestacking although very amateurish - or any other featured content process again (we banned someone for that). MER-C 12:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User has expressed remorse regarding misuse. But curiously has kept using multiple IDs, albeit in an innocuous fashion. I am in no way impressed with the user's actions on WP:FPC, as outlined here, but overall the user's actions are more bizarre than malicious. Matt Deres (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind a voluntary account restriction either. MER-C 12:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
Blocked 3 socks indef and warned master to stick to one account. Note user often signed as one account while logged in as another; causing confusion. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:54, 11 April 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.
Frosty, Heidi & Frank semi-protected for two days. There's a wide range of IPs from different states and this is likely only temporary, so there's probably no need for mark them as sockpuppets. Spellcast (talk) 20:25, 11 April 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.
Summary: Dana was warned of COI on editing an article about himself, and he appears to have decided to use socks to go around this limitation.
First, Dana asks another user to create an article about him (did he attempt to create it himself and it got deleted?) [255]
On 3 August 2007, Dana makes minor changes to links [256].
On 6 August 2007, Skinwalker aks for speedy because of COI [257]. Artickle gets nominated, and result is keep per snowball.
On 17 November 2007, first major edit of Dana on his own article. Gets reverted by skinwalker, alleging COI. This action could be what compelled Dana to allegedly create socks. He changes " Ullman treats claims he treats people, not diseases," for "Ullman treats people, not diseases,". Althought it looks like a AGF mistake mending the sentence, it happens to violate COI, POV and BLP, and changes an attribution to his own POV to a statement of fact by Wikipedia. He also makes multiple links to pages on his website [258]. After that, he got a COI warning on his talk page, [259]. A thread on COI noticeboard was also opened [Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_19#Dana_Ullman].
On 28 November 2007, Dana gets blocked for 48 hours for 3RR.
On 30 November 2007, Bifurcationland gets created.
sock edits
5 December 2007, Bifurcationland makes 3 edits to Dana Ullman article, and on the same day gets asked by an IP if he is Dana Ullman himself. Notice that he put in caps the same statement that he has been arguing on the homeopathy talk page several times [260], He also links to Dana's site.
9 December 2007, Drwein gets created, and edits Dana Ullman article for similar changes to the ones made by Bifurcationland, makes the same claims about Darwin's use of homeopathy, BBC study and Enis as Dana [261]. Here the same claims of four laboratories, Turnball and BBC program are repeated again [262] and again [263]
This comment is clearly written by Dana, talking in detail about his book, notice the badly formatted link [264].
Here he makes the same claim about four laboratories and BBC program and botches two more links [265]
Here he makes the same claims as Dana of being new to editing (Dana claims that he is active since December 2007, btw, and the socks start at that date! Notice that he has actually been editing regularly since August 2007) and the same claim of P 0.0001 [266].
Notice an error similar to Dana's on creating links, and the error on pushing the table button on the toolbar [267].
On December 17 2007 it gets identified also as Dana [268]
On December 18 2007 Flagtheerror gets created, and keeps editing on the same page as Drwein. He signs as Martha (!) [269] and then as his username [270].
On December 19 Notice how an IP gets worried about Dana using socks [271].
Flagtheerror does not post again until 6 January 2008
On 14 January 2008 Flagtheerror reverts the deletion of a Dana citation to James Manby Gully[272]. The day before, Dana had reverted twice already [273][274] (an attempt to bypas 3RR?).
Flagtheerror posts on 3RR noticeboard complaining of reverts of Dana Ullman. He makes a complete mess of his post and he deletes it himself at the end (notice the total lack of understanding of instructions, a benchmark of Dana's posts. He also broke the example section, that had to be restored by other editor [275][276][277][278][279]
Flagtheerror resurfaces after almost 3 months not posting, to defend Dana on the probation incident report. His writing style is very similar to Dana's, including the avoiding of issues, the nitpicking of small details, claims of importance of Dana, etc [280][281]. Other editor calls him just a fanboy [282] and other editor concurs, and says that the misrepresentations are proved, unlike what Flagtheerror says [283].
Now let's see Talk:Dana Ullman (the article, not the user page). See the contributions history [284], Dana Ullman didn't make any post unti 23 January 2008. Drwein and Flagtheerror did post there defending the same argument that Dana holds again and again. Then, Flagtheerror makes his last edit on 8 January 2008, and then on 23 January 2008 Dana starts posting, saying "I was previously assumed (incorrectly) that I could not participate on my own Discussion page, but I was recently told that there are no COI problems if I do so. So, hello." [285]. Flagtheerror does not post again at that page, and neither do any of the socks. Well, doh.
Evidence of overlapping contributions history. On 8 January 2008, Dana gets unblocked and enter LaraLove's classroom[286]. From 8 January 2008 to 23 January 2008, Dana posts about 4 times a day, except day 8 when he posts two, day 14 when he posts zero, and day 12 when he post one. Now, if we look at Flagtheerror, on those days he didn't posts only on day 8 with two posts and day 14 when he posts three. He also posted on 6 January 2008 on Dana Ullman article, and on 3RR noticeboard for violations on the same article.
Other details
Dana's claims of being new, similar to socks "I am relatively new to wiki and am trying to be as collaborative as possible" [287]
More proof of Dana's problem with undestanding technical details, that all the socks display: Dana says that someone has archived the active discussions, and has restored them (it was Miszabot, and I had to solve the duplications he had made, notice the same lack of understanding of simple technical things as the socks) [288]
Projection of own behaviour on Shoemaker: "it has been said that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones" [289]. Also, it took me several messages to convince him that I wasn't myself a sock.
Dana makes the same mistake always when linking to user pages[290][291]. Couldn't find the exact same mistake on the socks, but I found similar mistakes when linking.
Notice also that Flagtheerror was greeted and warned by LaraLove, Dana's mentor at the time. If flag is really a sock of Dana, then he was purposely deceiving his mentor [User_talk:Flagtheerror].
I disclose that I have communicated with this user and given him advices to take a holiday for his own good, before realizing the possible sockpuppetry. I have also told him that my patience with him exhausted (but I kept giving him some advices after that).
The sockpuppeteer appears to have used the socks serially as they were discovered by an IP.
This user has been harassed by socks for a few months, with the last sock network been dismantled a few days ago.
I'm sure that this user will claim that I am attacking the messenger, like claimed on Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation/Incidents#Shoemaker.27s_Holiday:_When_Content_Disputes_Lead_to_Attacking_the_Messenger. However, I have been involved on other two sockpuppetry cases of Pinoybandwagon and Aimar120, and on both cases I have tried to be as fair as possible, and given the sockpuppeteers good faith advice and warnings to stop them from getting themselves blocked by policy violations. I claim that I also have done so on Dana's case before I was aware of the sockpuppetry. I have not comunicated with him after I was aware of the socks and started to gather evidence on 9 April 2008, re-reading the probation report incident page, and finding Flagtheerror statements and the answers by other editors talking about the 4 month gap and the fanboy edits.
Conclusions
The evidence is not convincing. There isn't even enough here to justify a checkuser, so I am closing this. JehochmanTalk 01:09, 11 April 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.
All accounts indef blocked. GBT/C 17:31, 10 April 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.
Checkuser came back positive, so accounts blocked indef (either by me, or someone else who got there first). IP was blocked for 48 hours - no further action taken at this point. GBT/C 17:05, 10 April 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.
It is noted that the user name Garhauer appears to be associated with Garhauer Marine New Zealand and hence the Anchor Buddy company (same postal addresses on both websites). Ref:
Both accounts username blocked for promotional usernames. GBT/C 16:55, 10 April 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.
Whois and contributions firmly establishes it. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
I've added Soupdragon42. I recommend taking this to WP:RFCU as a code G. JehochmanTalk 15:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems reasonable to assume that Ian would know the operators of plasmacosmology.net but that does not mean he phoned him up and asked him to attack SA for him. Ian has been calm and patient in his communications with me. Thatcher 16:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser
Iantresman is not Soupdragon42 or the IP. I would have preferred not to comment on the IP, but under the circumstances I think I can confirm that the IP is in fact Soupdragon. Of course, both the IP and the web site that the IP signed with are in the UK. Ian is also in the UK but on a different ISP and a different city (depending on the accuracy of IP geolocation). Thatcher 16:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is an entire forum of Ian Tresman allies angry at my activity at Wikipedia: [295]. Soupdragon, it turns out, is one of the names of one of the members there other than Iantresman. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
Please explain how the whois information establishes it. Nevertheless, the IP has engaged in appalling harassment, and I will be blocking it temporarily, whether or not it is a sock. JehochmanTalk 15:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The society that Ian partially runs functions mostly out of Surrey: [296]. See [297]. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ScienceApologist, the claim that the SIS "functions mostly out of Surrey" is quite wrong. The SiS does not have any offices nor computers of its own; it has a membership of a few hundred, half of whom are in the UK, and the rest scattered throughout the English-speaking world. Ian Tresman actually lives in Derbyshire, which is about as close to Surrey as California is to Texas, relatively speaking. The link you list is just a hall hired for bi-annual speaker meeting--feline1 (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having been a member of SiS in the past, I can tell you that some of the reasons they've hired that hall are: it's nice, clean, cheap, and reasonably easy to get to by private or public transport, as it's just off the orbital London motorway (the M25) in between the UK's two biggest airports and well-connected to some of the main train lines in the country. It is not because anyone in particular lives there. Dare I suggest that, as usual, you haven't much of a clue what you are talking about, but don't allow that to stop you from making the usual vociferous allegations. NEXT WEEK ON WIKIPEDIA: ScienceApologist revealed as having spoken at meeting in New York. All New York IP addresses banned for obvious meatpupptry.--feline1 (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Glad we finally got you to admit to your associations. Oh, and Soupdragon was the person I was referring to. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol you didn't "finally" get me to "admit" my "associations", as you have never ever asked me about them in the first place. Moreover off the top of my head, the only SiS member that I knew who lived in Redhill, Surrey is, I think, dead, so I doubt he's "soupdragon". Is there anything else you'd like to be wrong about?--feline1 (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm simply happy that your association with Velikovskian societies has been uncovered despite your insistence that you weren't a Velikovskian. By the way the association between the IP and Soupdragon has been confirmed. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem like sock puppetry then. Please file WP:RFCU as that may shine light on the situation and identify sleeper socks -- and be sure to notify Thatcher who has already been checking. JehochmanTalk 15:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Socks have been identified and blocked. No further action is required here. JehochmanTalk 16:48, 10 April 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.
At the conclusion of the first sock puppetry case Jvolkblum and their socks were indef blocked and the ip address was blocked for one month. Six days later FlanneryFamily made their first edit. The edit was to Wykagyl Golf Club, which was one the articles that was mentioned in the first case. Many of FlanneryFamily's edits were to New Rochelle, New York, which Jvolkblum has also made many edits to. FlanneryFamily also de-wikified headings as Jvolkblum and their socks did [298]. FlanneryFamily changed the location of Sarah Lawrence College to Bronxville, this was a major part of the first sockpuppetry case.
Over the last 10 days, the timing of edits in Special:Contributions/FlanneryFamily and Special:Contributions/24.215.173.132 is consistent with one person actively monitoring for discrete periods, and switching back and forth between accounts. On 21 March, 24.215.173.132 posted as JVolkblum at 19:43 (all times are as they appear in my eastern U.S. preferences), FlanneryFamily edited at 20:41, and 24.215.173.132 came back at 23:15 and 23:26. On 22 March, 24.215.173.132 showed up at 01:20 as Jvolkblum, then FlanneryFamily edited at 01:51 and 02:11, 24.215.173.132 edited at 06:51 and 07:26 (the second of these in User talk:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry), FlanneryFamily edited in User talk:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry shortly thereafter at 07:47, and both were quiet until 11:13 when 24.215.173.132 returned as Jvolkblum, after which FlanneryFamily made several edits from 13:46 to 15:04. Neither account edited again until 24 March, when 24.215.173.132 had two edits. Flannery Family had one edit on 25 March, and neither edited again until 29 March when both became active again. On 29 March, Flannery Family did three edits on New Rochelle topics between 02:00 and 02:27, then 24.215.173.132 showed up to edit the New Rochelle article at 02:29. FlanneryFamily returned at 03:25 and logged 8 edits in New Rochelle topics within the next 32 minutes. The IP user 24.215.173.132 returned at 04:29, then FlanneryFamily logged 9 edits between 04:52 and 05:01. The IP user 24.215.173.132 appeared 5 minutes later at 05:06 and was active intermittently until 11:39. --Orlady (talk) 02:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone with checkuser privileges check to see what IP address Katherinehawk is using? I have reason to believe that this user may be yet another Jvolkblum sock puppet, but I'd need to know the IP address to be sure. Thanks! HMishkoff (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also perceive a correlation between Katherinehawk's edits [which were limited to templating articles about (1) U.S. shopping centers and (2) northeastern U.S. women's colleges as "adverts") and the edit patterns of both Jvolkblum and 24.215.173.132. --Orlady (talk) 02:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
JONJON78 ?
This is another new user who is focused on New Rochelle, Bronxville, and nearby towns, and who has displayed a pattern of adding images that are labeled as "self-made" although they obviously are not. See Special:Contributions/JONJON78. --Orlady (talk) 13:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IP blocked for one month.
User:24.215.173.132 is blocked (again) for one month. This may reduce the level of activity by all of these other suspected socks. --Orlady (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC) However, JONJON78 edited after the block was placed. --Orlady (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is unfortunate that such an emphasis is being placed on the suspected sockpuppetry of the above named user. I am a separate user
from the others that you mentioned and I believe they all are individual users as well. This issue has been discussed in group outside of Wikipedia and has raised a few eyebrows. There doesnt seem to be anyone in an 'administrative' role who finds it important to engage in proactive dialogue or even attempt to mentor the contributing users. If there wasnt important and helpful information being added to the articles I would definitely see the need for extra focus. --fact checker (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your accusation is untrue. Your argument needs to be rechecked--SLCAlums (talk) 14
40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I assume this is aimed at me, as I was the one who reported on this page that you were a sockpuppet. I should point out that this was not my own conclusion, it was based on a conclusion supplied by Thatcher on the Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Jvolkblum page. However, that sounds pretty lame, even to me, as I really should not be advancing someone else's conclusion with no idea of how they reached it. Accordingly, I've deleted the "accusation" from this page. HMishkoff (talk) 02:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, an administrator checked user IPs and posted that "Katherinehawk=jvolkblum, also JONJON78 , FlanneryFamily and SLCAlums". --Orlady (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your understanding [HMISHKOFF]. But now i am being accused again. This is untrue and rather annoying (to say the least).--SLCAlums (talk) 03:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added another suspected sock to the list. ABC123UNME (talk·contribs) was created at 14:15 on March 31, at 14:32 they made their first edit (to Sarah Lawrence College campus). This article has been edited by many of Jvolkblum's sockpuppets. The first edit, dewikifed headers. At 14:37, FlanneryFamily, another Jvolkblum sockpuppet, made an edit to the same article. Then at 14:53, ABC123UNME made another edit to the article, further dewikifying the article's headers.
Jvolkblum has continued to use open proxies to edit logged out. As previously mentioned in the sockpuppetry case Jvolkblum edited as 161.53.125.15 (talk·contribs), which was blocked as an open proxy. 148.81.175.50 (talk·contribs), which is an open proxy, made a series of edit to New Rochelle. In this edit they added a ref with the edit summary "added requested reference (which was on school district page already))". The The City School District of New Rochelle has only been edited Jvolkblum socks and editors dealing with Jvolkblum. The same ref was added to that article by FlanneryFamily. In this edit 148.81.175.50 added on to a statement that 24.215.173.132 added two days before. BlueAzure (talk) 00:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the connection to me is ..? that I did work on the Sarah Lawrence page? I am not sure if you see by my name ( SLCAlums ) that I have an interest in that subject in particular. So, one more, your accusations toward me are not true. --SLCAlums (talk) 10:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I read through the claim directly above to determine its relevance to me, of which there is none. The claim itself doesnt make sense . . . the edit made by whatever user you are tracking for 'wrongdoing' clearly seems to have been made in good faith and in response to a "citation needed" tag inserted in the text of the article. Anyone reading this schools-summary in the Newrochelle article can link to the main page for the district and see the same information is provided with citation. It seems only logical to apply the same citation to the same information on the other page. ??? --SLCAlums (talk) 10:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added still more suspected socks. At Commons, a new user named Smurfette143[299] uploaded several images files that are remarkably similar to images that FlanneryFamily uploaded here and whose copyright/source has been questioned. The name Smurfette143 was registered here a few days ago, although there are no contributions from this user, it is likely to be the same user who uploaded files at Commons. IP users 62.173.38.81 (diff) and 69.86.92.163 (diff) replaced links to some of the questioned images with Smurfette143's new "commons" images in New Rochelle, New York and possibly other articles. Other IP users edited heavily in New Rochelle articles during the same time period and may also be connected. --Orlady (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's additional cross-wiki activity that appears to be from the same source. Someone has been posting commercial-looking photos of New Rochelle (similar to copy-vio photos uploaded here by FlanneryFamily) on flickr under the name schmaberton. Photos then are uploaded to Commons by a bot and inserted in Wikipedia articles. New user Fronkenstein, who has no other edits, lost no time in adding a batch of newly uploaded Commons photos to New Rochelle, New Yorkdiff and Wykagyl, New Yorkdiff. --Orlady (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a shared consensus (amongst non-administrative wikipedia users and viewers) that due to the errors of a few (in protocol/ information sourcing etc.) select articles relating to New Rochelle are being targeted by a select group of 'administrators'. Many of those concerned have gone onto the wikipedia site with their individual contributions. The common goal has been to help maintain the integrity of the article in light of the underlying administrative issues. More specifically: when users attempt to replace 'questioned' info. with proper revisions & citations their efforts are deleted or deemed the work of a 'sockpuppeteer'; when images are restored with valid & appropriate sourcing, or replaced with valid images of similar sunbject matter, their efforts are deemed phony, or the work of a 'sockpuppeteer'. The information within these articles relates to readily available, widely referenced public knowledge and historical facts. Much of the relevant imagery initially provided readily available and easily replaced by others. The attempts to correct errors made by other individuals while maintaining factual, relevant, properly referenced subject matter should be viewed as such.
My contributions to the articles are varied but began with edits to images. These edits were either to replace images with ones that were appropriately referenced and sourced, or to add relevant images that were available. --Fronkenstein (talk) 11:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Results of a checkuser request: "Fronkenstein and ABC123UNME are confirmed, 15ParkRow is inconclusive as the account has exclusively used open proxies." --Orlady (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
Most accounts blocked per this case or Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jvolkblum. IPs haven't been blocked, 15ParkRow (due to the above comment per the RFCU case), neither has Smurfette143; no contributions as of yet. Rudget (review) 16:13, 10 April 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.
He first vandalized my user page using 220.239.82.136, doing ten edits on a row [300], then Aimar 120 did 2 more similar edits, starting 5 minutes afther the last IP edit [301]. His user page is built copying stuff from my user page [302], the current version lists me on his friend list, with my name striken, and his last addition was listing himself as an adpotee of mine [303]. That IP account has multiple vandalising of user pages, and was warned by User:Enigmaman until he got blocked for 7 days (he made the block warning, but not the block itself since he is not an admin).
The next day The.Amazing.Critical.Critic was created, and it proceeded to vandalize several user pages (the same type of vandalism as Aimar120), being warned and reverted by Enigmaman. He complained on Enigmaman page about his edits to other user pages being reverted (!) [304], and was later blocked. One of his edits was replacing a user page with an insult towards the user [305]. Seeing his later actions and the mail from Aimar120, I no longer believe he was a sock. Also, he's been undef blocked by unrelated reason.
After the block, an IP made posted on Enigman pages "meh, there's always proxies. ^_^"[306]
unencyclopaedic tone bordering on adding nonsense [307]
Depor23 has a page strinkly similar to Aimar120's page, has also vandalized user pages.
Ídem with Depaultivo. His page creation is similar to the one from Aimar120 [308], compare with [309] + [310] from Aimar120. both creations were done with 5 days of difference.
Depaultivo also vandalized my user page [311], and also tried to alter my "i will not spam talk pages" list, like Aimar120 did unsuccessfully because of bad html syntax (tried to make font way bigger and failed) [312]. Previously, a few minutes before, the his IP sock tried to put a "cocky" template on my user page [313], and finally decided to change it for "offline" [314], which the same template used right now on Aimar120's user page.
Depaultivo and Depor23 also add the same identical POV text on Alfarnate, here by Depor23 [315], another one by Depaultivo [316], and then they add the POV tag on it. I reverted some of his edits, when I checke dhis contributions after him vandalizing my user page This account has been blocked for 7 days.
Depaultivo added the same wikidragon userbox as Aimar120 [317]
User:John Reaves is also listed as a friend, and his user page has also been vandalised repeatedly by IPs, in this case the only contribution of 71.127.14.115 which consisted of labelling him (ironically) a sockpupeteer [325], another lone contribution from 195.194.162.49 [326] and 74.192.215.53 [327]. Page had never been vandalized before.
For proof of his vandalism and bragging of vandalism of user pages, Aimar120 user page has a warnign box saying "If you know aimar, you'd know for hell sure to never un-edit a page he has taken time to edit. Looks over at Enrico"[328]
Dycedarg use page has been repeatedly vandalized by IPs. No diffs because it's not relevant and i'm tired of diffing, but I suspect it's Aimar120 too. 98.226.5.166 vandalized both Dycedarg page and Enigmaman page about the same days, that's the connection from Dycedarg's user page edits to Enigmaman's user page edits (see contributions).
Aimar120 lists me as his adopter [330], and so does Depaultivo [331], within several minuts of difference. He also listed himself as my adoptee on my user page
Also, Aimar talks to himself using Depaultivo (!)[332], talking about his coding skills, so maybe he is a friend of him, and not just a sock account.
I have labelled already two IPs that I suspect were used by Aimar120 as his IPsocks (mentioned already).
Aimar120 seems to have fun with my user page [333].
Adenda: well, doh, Depaultivo is certainly making my case for socketpuppetry really easy [334] and [335]. And he claims to change adoption from me to enigmaman [336], so now he is harassing another user. He also removs warnings [337]. He also tried to label himself as a wikitroll [338] before going for wikidragon [339]. He also puts his warnings on his user page (bragging rights just like Aimar120?) [340].
Comments
Multiple puppets, only vandalism contributions, shows no regret, brags about vandalising other user pages, talks on a user talk page about using open proxies on one IP after after a different IP was blocked by that user for similar behaviour. Shows no sign of regrets. IP blocks don't stop his edits. Harasses other editors with repeated vandalism. Makes up conversations and relationships between his different accounts as if they were different persons (maybe he has friends using that account? maybe a mate from his school?)
I didn't notify the IPs that had only one contribution, since they will probably never be used again (probably they are a dinamic IP).
Plenty of evidence. Find some way to block him. Any later comebacks will be reported by me to admins inmediately for block based on this evidence.
Also, he's not gracious. Any possible fun he could give is shadowed by his repetiviness, lack of originality and pretensions of being fun and pathetics attempts to claim having friends, obviously unconsciounsly caused by his evident lack of RL and of RL friends, which are probably caused by his pathetic humour, throwing him into a feedback cycle that compels him to edit wikipedia's article as way to scape reality. Also, again, you are not funny, drop the lameness with my user page already. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aimar120 mailed me after reading this. He claimed that Depaultivo is his brother and that he didn't make many of the IP edits except the ones from 220.239.82.136. I'm going to answer him that I don't believe he didn't do the IP edits and that I will retire measures and requests for blocks as soon as he promises here that neither him nor his brother will vandalize wikipedia for fun again. Breaking of that promise will make me ask admins to indef block him and his brothers for only-vandalism accounts. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
sockmaster denies being The.Amazing.Critical.Critic. Checkuser could be necessary, altought the account is already blocked.
He claims also that Depor23 is his earlier brother's account. Seeing that it was created on August 2006 and doesn't appear to have been used for vandalism, I have striken it out --Enric Naval (talk) 02:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he appears to have decided not to stop vandalizing [341].
I'm asking for:
Depaultivo: indef block for alternative account used only for vandalism
Depor23: a warning to not let his brother vandalize wikipedia and not use alternative accounts for vandalizing
Aimar120: depending on his behaviour. If he continues vandalizing, I ask for indef block since he doesn't appear to intend to contribute in a contructive way to wikipedia
Why don't we just block all the dark blue IPs for 120 hours. This seems like they might be trying to create more account with those IPs. They need to see WP:SOCK and stop creating extra accounts intentionally. If they just forgot to log in its okay, but constantly trying to create extra accounts is not. Thier behavior is consider cheating.--Freewayguy (Webmail) 04:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Block Airmar and Depaultive for 80 hours (both or one of them bas on your preference.) They need to see WP:SOCK and the rule is as simple as one person can only make one user account. No extra account, and fair is fair-that type of behavior is cheating by faking to be another identity.--Freewayguy (Webmail) 04:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Block 220.239.82.136 some 120 hours for account creation, so they are forced to use their main accounts to edit, and can't create more throw-away accounts. It seems that most of the time they are forced to use that IP for whatever the reason.
Depaultivo is an alternative account for vandalising without compromising the reputation of his main account, where he makes useful contributions to wikipedia. Knowing this, it probably needs undef block, since he can keep editing on his main account.
Aimar has not been used for vandalizing since the case opening, so I say to let it be in case he decides to make good edits one day. I don't want to be too harsh and WP:BITE a newcomer, even if he started like this. If he vandalizes again, I'll report him to AIV, point at this case, and ask for a long block for reincidence, depending on the gravity of the vandalism. He's quite young, so I'd rather give him the opportunity of changing ways as he grows up and matures --Enric Naval (talk) 08:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can an admin look at this please? Thanks, Enigmamessage 06:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, where have the admins gone? Maybe they're off un-editing a certain someones admin-like behaviour -> User: Aimar120 —Preceding comment was added at 11:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's doing it again from this IP [342] and this one [343]. I change my request to ban of Aimar120, since it doesn't seem like he has any intention to stop vandalizing --Enric Naval (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't the one who edited that on your user page last night enric -.-' You're too paranoid. - Aimar120 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aimar120 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to point that the IP that vandalized my user page used exactly the same type of humor and edits that Aimar120 has used other times. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
how many ips do you think i have?? Im on a static ip plan, so not even modem resets give me new ip addresses :(
Checkuser request check if it's true that Aimar120 and Deapultivo have only ever edited from 220.239.82.136, as they claim, to assert if they kept vandalizing form IPs after opening of case --Enric Naval (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can assure you that Aimar120 and I have not vandalised on wikipedia since the opening of this case. --Depaultivo —Preceding comment was added at 08:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the checkuser is intended to prove your innocence so that there are no doubts left and the case can be closed as stalled. This was also about the last thing left to do, and it would have been done anyways --Enric Naval (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
The evidence above clearly demonstrates an overlapping area of interest (with, I hasten to add, malicious intent), a common preoccupation with a single editor, and evidence of "logging in-and-out". Confirmed that Aimar120 = Depaultivo, No comment with respect to IP address(es). Anthøny 15:27, 10 April 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.
LightSpeed and LightSpeed3 are POV-pushing on Earth Hour. They removed Google's participation in Earth Hour by removing a whole section of the article [344][345][346]
despite the fact that the community discussed and decided to shorten but keeping the section (per Talk:Earth Hour#Black google). Furthermore, in the same talk page, when I was curious and ask if LightSpeed and LightSpeed3 are related, LightSpeed removed my comment completely.[347]
Recently, both are actively editing in high schools in Miami.[348][349]
Additionally, I suspect LightSpeed has a hibernating sockpuppet (LightSpeed2). This evidence is weak because LightSpeed2 has not been editing since August 2007. However, they share common interests. Both were editing Curtis (50 Cent album) near the end of August 2007.
im not a sockpuppet, i didnt do anything against the rules. I feel this is frivolous because my main goal in that "earth hour" edit was to remove biased section, which is contradicting the allegations that i am "pov-pushing." Next, I feel that the use of multiple accounts here doesnt make a difference. I could have made the edits with 1 account, theres not reason for this sock puppet allegation. Also, Removing the google section was justified because Google isnt above all other websites, it didnt deserve its own section. If the google section is truly unbiased, then why doesnt each tv channel get its own section? The google section isnt even descriptive. Whats a google homepage? Why must it be asssumed that the reader automatically what google is? Because of wikipedia:bias. why isnt there a "website" section and not just google? Because its biased, therefore since my deletion is justified, Im not a sockpuppet (using alternate account for deceptive purposes). LightSpeed (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You were completely disobeying the community consensus established in the talk page. That's all it matters. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lightspeed and Lightspeed 3 seem pretty evidently to be socks. Lightspeed 2 probably but as no edits since 8/08... OhanaUnited's comment re 'all that matters' is questionable. 81.159.211.87 (talk) 06:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The user LightSpeed keeps vandalizing articles and deleting information that he feels that is irrelevant. Please cease and desist your constant destructive edits on information that is relevant to the article. Furthermore, he doesn't even use proper punctuation and grammar. Skillz187 (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Youre the one vandalizing. Read what I remove. Sorry but praise and POV do not belong in an encyclopedia article. Skillz is referring to my edits in the dr michael krop high school article where i remove all the unimportant news pieces as well. LightSpeed (talk) 01:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like I'm not the only person who thinks LightSpeed is destructive. And just to add, LightSpeed is using multiple accounts to get around 3RR. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a 3RR/EW notification on any of the pages, so perhaps it was innocent. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding me, I wouldn't mind logging in 1 account and doing the changes i do. The only reason this happened was because i dont have cookies enabled, therefore i just log in whichever account i type in. (random) LightSpeed (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason why you don't mention your other accounts front and centre on your talkpage/userpage? --Relata refero (disp.) 19:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No specific reason i didnt know you had to do that LightSpeed (talk) 02:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
LightSpeed is being deceptive and abusing WP:SOCK. He's blocked 48 hours and his socks indef as well as advised to stick to one account. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:24, 10 April 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.
2. Both users' edits have been solely concerned with altering the text so as to present the point of view that there is a dispute as to the rightful holder of the title. Specifically, the edits suggest that once Canada was ceded to Britain, the French branch of the family (assuming there is one) succeeded to the title in preference to the Canadian branch. None of the edits has been substantiated by citations, on the contrary the edits fly in the face of the citations already present on the article pages. Both users have been invited to provide citations and engage in discussion, both on their own talk pages and on the article talk page. The only response has been an oblique post by D.A.V.I.D. which simply makes an unsourced assertion along the same lines, and voices agreement with Souht (whatever that means). If I were to connect links to the diffs here, I would merely be reproducing the above users' contributions pages, which are linked above.
Comments
Conclusions
Combined these accounts have less than 20 edits. I'm blocking Souht indef as an WP:SPA and probable sock of D.A.V.I.D., who is warned not to sock again. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:20, 10 April 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.
Puppetmaster edits the sockpuppet's user page, as seen here. One account also removes the other's account, seen here. I also added a vandalism template here to the puppet's talk page after it did this, and the puppetmaster's account responded to me with this (the puppetmaster inadvertently thought that the vandalism warning I added was for them adding FA stars to several articles that were not featured, which explains the response.)
Comments
I suggest the puppet account be blocked and the puppetmaster warned.
Conclusions
Whether or not there is sock puppetry, both accounts have been disruptive. I shall now check if they have made any productive contributions whatsoever. JehochmanTalk 23:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think any blocks are needed at this time. If the disruption continues, either account could be blocked, and if further evidence of sock puppetry appears, I strongly recommend a request for checkuser. At this time there is not sufficient reason to request checkuser. JehochmanTalk 00:08, 10 April 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.
I'm pretty sure these are self-evident based on the previous TheNewHubris case and these guys vandalizing the Freddy Deeb article. Thanks.
Comments
Quack! (That means this is exceedingly obvious, and they need to be blocked.) JehochmanTalk 03:36, 9 April 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.
It's clear that there is a pretty good connection between KellyAna first name (CelticGreen) and IrishLass0128. It's clear both names deal with the Irish origin
Irishlass = "Irish Girl" CelticGreen = Green - Irish color; celtic - English words in the Irish origin [355].
KellyAna switched her name after being accused of a being a sock w/ Irishlass0128. Here is where she comments on it. [356]
TIME
1 - They both entered Wiki. at the same time in August 2007 (one day apart)- KellyAna August 1st [357] and IrishLass0128 August 2nd [358]. Both started working on the same site too.
2 - They are never on at the same time. NEVER. IrishLass0128 is on during the weekday afternoons between (12:00 - 20:00), contribs [359], while KellyAna comes on at night (21:00 - 2:00 next day) and during the weekends, contribs [360]. This makes me believe that one is her work account and the other is her home account. That way her IPs can never match.
3 - With the information describe in #2(TIME) here's an interesting note. If you look into the history of both KellyAna and IrishLass0128, on April 3, 2008 and April 4, 2008, KellyAna signs on Wiki. around noon on a weekday, this is very unusual from her normal time on. Weekday afternoons is the usual time IrishLass0128 is on, however these two days when KellyAna is on in the afternoon [361], IrishLass0128 isn't [362].
SIMS
1 - They work on the same articles Days of Our Lives [363], Charmed [364], List of Days of our Lives cast members [365], List of Days of our Lives characters [366] and several more.
2 - They both communicate with the same users at the same time. ([367],[368]); ([369], [370]) - several more just need to look.
4 - They also contact the same adimns all the time. Example they both contact Daniel Case several times to help them. Examples - [378], Or they contact the same adimn the other one is talking to at that point, Example, Elonka.
ACTIONS
1. - They double team users that disagree with their theories or thought process. Examples - [379], [380], [381], [382], [383], [384], [385], and several more.
2. - They both warn people and call their actions "vandalism" several times a day, when the users edits seem to be in good faith. Examples - IrishLass0128 -[386], [387]; KellyAna - [388], [389])
3. - They have voted on issues several times, which ends up going in their favor. Examples -
-In this diff, both KellyAna and Irishlass0128 vote together against me in a TV infobox dispute. [390],
-In this diff. KellyAna agrues against removing an article and out of no where, Irishlass comes in and defends KellyAna against a small insult. Both end up voting to not remove the article. [391]
-In this diff., you can see that KellyAna(CelticGreen) and Irishlass0128 vote against a user's citation on the Las Vegas episode page [392],
MISTAKES
1. - As much as they help each other, work on the same articles, vote, or discuss situations; they never talk to each other. I find it questionable that they can help each other several times and not once talk to each other. View their contribs - (KellyAna [393]) (IrishLass0128 [394])
2. - KellyAna makes a mistake. Example - [395] and here is where I questioned it to her [396], (they both try to save themselves -[397])
EDITS/EDIT SUMMARIES
Both have same types of edits, such as "removes" = (KellyAna - [398], [399], [400]) ; (Irishlass0128 - [401], [402], [403])
Both have same types of edits, such as "reverts" = (KellyAna - [404], [405], [406]) ; (Irishlass0128 - [407], [408], [409])
Both have same types of edits, such as "undos" - (KellyAna - [410], [411], [412]) ; (Irishlass0128 - [413], [414], [415])
Both use similar abbreviations in their edit summaries, such as "Rv't". - (KellyAna - [416], [417]) ; (Irishlass0128 - [418], [419])
Both use similar abbreviations in their edit summaries, such as "Rm'd". - (KellyAna - [420], [421]) ; (Irishlass0128 - [422], [423])
Both use similar abbreviations in their edit summaries, such as "fix(s)" - (KellyAna - [424], [425]) ; (IrishLass0128 - [426], [427])
OTHER INTERESTING DIFFs
In this diff, both KellyAna and Irishlass0128 edit on Blackwatch21's talk page on the same day. Both users return after being gone for several days. When they return, they both talk to Blackwatch about image guildlines, who at the time was a brand new user. [428]
Please look at this posted on KellyAna's talk page. She is attempting to confirm her identity. Malinaccier (talk) 03:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WHAT? You’re defending yourself with a video? Come On, when's the last time you've seen someone defend themselves using a picture or video. NEVER It doesn't prove anything. How do I know that, that's you? When are your names (KellyAna and Irishlass) mentioned? If they we’re, then maybe you have a little proof. I could put up a picture right now of my brother and tell you it's me. That's not proof. What is proof is the information I stated above. The information stated above proves 100% that you have the SAME (edits, edit summaries, work on the same articles, talk to the same users, and proves all my TIME points). There's no denying the information stated above. DJS --DJS24 (talk) 03:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You Rm994 for posting a comment. I see that you also work on all the same articles as KellyAna and Irishlass0128. Such as DAYS and look, you even have a School District edit. I also see that you have communicated with them several times as well. Hmmmm DJS --DJS24 (talk) 04:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I work on the same articles as them because like them, I am a DAYS fan. If you are referring to the CCBOE edit, I was not even aware that KellyAna and Irishlass even made school district edits. Anyway, I have communicated with KellyAna one time before today, and Irishlass once a few months ago. But what you don't know is that I have edited with several IP addresses and KellyAna and Irishlass BOTH have reverted my changes more than once. So, I don't know what you're thinking, but I assure you, I am not a sock. I think we would all be better served to work together on these projects instead of fighting. Thank you for your time.Rm994 (talk) 05:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMO Rm994 should be officially added as another SSP. -- Dougie WII (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. This is so sad. Just because I express an opinion that they aren't the same person, that automatically makes me a sock. You know what? Maybe they are the same person, who knows? All I know is I have NEVER edited a page for one of them, and we are not the same person. If you look at my school district edit, it was in edit in GEORGIA, where I am from! Plus, I am a male Ph.D student, and, like I said, have had my changes reverted by them before. And, if you look at my contributions compared to them, I RARELY edit. If I were a sock, wouldn't you have some sort of proof like you do for them? That's the last I'm going to say about this topic. It's REALLY REALLY sad. Thank you. Rm994 (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have a total of only 17 edits, a majority of which are on the same pages related to Irishlass and/or KellyAna. It's only natural to be suspicious here. -- Dougie WII (talk) 01:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a free pass to assume bad faith and make a drive-by accusation? An edit count trumps good faith? Really? the_undertowtalk 01:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stating facts isn't an assumption of bad faith, neither is simply being a bit suspicious in this circumstance. -- Dougie WII (talk) 01:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stating fact in conjunction with conjecture is still assuming bad faith. I suggest we take this off this page, unless you are formally adding a user to the SSP report. the_undertowtalk 02:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, but this is DJS's report so I don't want to change it. If he wants to add the other account then I would support it, otherwise I don't care if you delete my comments on this issue. -- Dougie WII (talk) 02:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are related to KellyAna and Irishlass because I am a DAYS fan just like them. But I assure you, I am no sock. I have never called a good faith edit vandalism, and to my knowledge I have only reverted a change once, unlike above where it is pointed out they they do that numerous times. I just don't think that they are the same person, it's just my opinion. I am sorry that you are suspicious. Have a nice day. Rm994 (talk) 03:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you have nothing to do with them, then I apologize to you for being suspicious. -- Dougie WII (talk) 03:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I apologize to you if I seemed too defensive. I could see based on which articles we participate in, that you may assume that we're linked somehow, but I promise, they have reverted my changes more times than I care to count! But that doesn't mean that they were wrong. I do hope that we can all work together to make this a trusted and reliable site. Thanks for understanding :) Rm994 (talk) 03:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right from the start I assumed that KellyAna and Irishlass were sockpuppets. After watching the Desperate Housewives page for some time, I can definetly vouch for the constant reverting of good faith edits as vandalism. [434][435][436] My problem with the claim that they are friends lies totally within their edit times. I usually edit articles related to greek music and i talk to 3 other people who also work on those articles through AIM and Windows Live. The fact that KellyAna and Irishlass are never on at the same time, yet seem to know what eachother is upto seems a little suspicious. They claim that they are friends off site, but never edit together? I discuss a lot of my edits with my wikifriends, we're a team, but I'm not seeing a KellyAna/Irishlass team, I'm seeing edits to the same articles by two different usernames at different times. Grk1011 (talk) 05:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IrishLass0128 claims to be from California on her home page[437], and KellyAna claims to be from North Carolina[438] but now she's claiming she has pictures of them together? I think an IP traceroute on these accounts would be helpful and I think DJS is probably onto something here, it smells very fishy. -- Dougie WII (talk) 05:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, looking at IrishLass's contribs for the past 3 weeks (probably more i just didnt keep going) she doesnt edit on the weekends. This could possibly be KellyAna's work or shared computer account. She would use IrishLass at work (and not work weekends) and KellyAna when she is at her home. I'm guessing that instead of just registering a second account (which is perfectly wikilegal) she decided to use both accounts to get her way in discussions. Grk1011 (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 100% w/ the home/work account. I stated that above under "TIME". So that way, if they did a IP trace or a checkuser, there would be no match DJS --DJS24 (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know, but you might find out that they are in the same city/general area. -- Dougie WII (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting NOTE - This link, is a SSP report, that was reported about two months ago on Users KellyAna and Irishlass.[439] In this report Irishlass claims she lives in West Garden Grove. So if KellyAna lives in North Carolina, why would she need to edit on a city in Calf., the one city Irishlass happens to live in. DJS --DJS24 (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My first and only interaction was here under LeVox when I was using 'Equilibrium.' I could not tell the two apart - I thought it was the same person. the_undertowtalk 20:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based on their editing patterns, it does look like both accounts are being controlled by the same person. The two biggest pointers for me are lack of overlap in editing times, and the similar edit summaries. The IrishLass0128 account seems to only be used during work hours, and the KellyAna account on evenings and weekends. On days that KellyAna *does* log on during the day, IrishLass0128 is mysteriously absent. The two accounts obviously work on the same articles, and they have similar styles and edit summaries, especially the '" Rv't " abbreviations. I have looked over the pictures and video that KellyAna provided, but I fail to see how this proves that the accounts are being run by different people. I guess it is possible that the accounts may have been created by different people, but if so, I would guess that there is some password-sharing going on and that KellyAna is the prime user of both accounts. I don't have CheckUser access, but I would be curious to know if the IPs behind both accounts trace to the same geographical area. IrishLass0128 self-reports as coming has a userbox which says she "lives in or hails from" California, and KellyAna self-reports as living in has a userbox saying she lives in or hails from North Carolina. I would recommend looking at their IPs to confirm this. If they are being used by the same person, then that's a serious issue since the IrishLass0128 account was used to access Wikipedia while the KellyAna account was blocked for disruption. --Elonka 00:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I adjusted my comment from "self-reports" to "lives in or hails from" since that's all the userboxes say. If someone has a diff where they actually said where they are currently living, please let me know. --Elonka 04:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that before the CelticGreen account was started on August 1, that this editor may have also used User:Antigone28, an account which was blocked for disruption on June 30.[440] I have added the information to the top of the report, and will invite administrator Yamla to this discussion. --Elonka 11:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be sufficient reason to suspect a connection between the accounts and what would be abusive use of sockpuppets (double participation on the same pages, block evasion, etc.) to file this at WP:RFCU to set it straight one way or the other. Avruch T 01:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RFCU
NOTE - I have opened a WP:RFCU for KellyAna using IrishLass0128 while her account was blocked. KellyAna's Block Log - [441]WP:RFCU case link - [442] DJS --DJS24 (talk) 02:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note for those watching this page. Thus far the rfcu has proven inconclusive for KellyAna/IrishLass0128, stale for Antigone28, and unrelated for Rm994. DJS24 has asked Thatcher to clarify if KellyAna and IrishLass0128 could be accounts operated by the same user at different locations. I'm guessing that's the case because the "Rv't" and "Rm'd" are just such odd edit summaries for two people who edit the exact same articles and joined at almost the exact same time to just be coincidence. If one was actually editing from North Carolina and the other from California as they claim, I think it ould be fairly easy to mark them as unrelated. AniMate 05:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of guessing here, but I imagine that the IPs must be in roughly the same geographical area otherwise the result would have been listed as unrelated instead of inconclusive. -- Dougie WII (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One more piece of evidence not yet introduced: the initial userpages on both accounts: IrishLass and KellyAna (then CelticGirl). No wonder I used to get them both confused back then. Daniel Case (talk) 03:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After RFCU
NOTE - I have asked that the conversation regarding the WP:SSP on KellyAna/Irishlass be moved back to this page. After reviewing the WP:RFCU, they found that Rm994 was unrelated and Antigone28 was stale. However there was no clear-cut answer for the KellyAna/IrishLass connection. Here is how Thatcher described it - "The technical results of the check are that KellyAna and IrishLass do not share IPs but do edit from the same geographic location." With that said, I'm assuming that that confirms our work/home account theory. Like it was noted by AniMate, if they truly live in California and North Carolina the results would have been "unrelated". It's clear that one of them is lying about their location, which brings us back to the work/home account situation. I'm not sure how this moves on from here - Any thoughts? Thanks DJS --DJS24 (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think at this point we need to hear from KellyAna or IrishLass0128. I would buy them as off-site friends, if they had ever edited at the same time or interacted. We do need an explanation, though. If none comes forth, I say block one indefinitely and give the other at least a month off and heavy civility and revert restrictions. AniMate 21:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another quick note:I've left comments for both KellyAna and IrishLass0128 asking for explanations. AniMate 21:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At this point is everyone satisfied that these accounts are being operated by the same person? Both in the same area, both edit all of the same topics, both self-identify as Wiccan, neither ever edits at the same time, and neither seems to be editing currently. Personally, I am convinced. The question now becomes, what steps do we take to prevent further abuse from this person. AniMate 05:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I have said I would like to see more results from Checkuser that I believe might more clearly establish a pattern of misrepresentation, I think we can start this part of the discussion as the circumstantial evidence has, I believed, crossed the preponderance threshold and, more importantly, I cannot hypothesize any innocent explanation out of those circumstances. There is just no way that two people living a continent apart can so consistently manage to avoid editing at the same time.
Since there is a lot of productive editing activity here, I would not like to see this user indefinitely blocked. Two weeks to a month, yes, but not forever. If she really does feel the need to have a separate account on a public computer for work as many other people do, then she should be required to disclose that relationship on the IrishLass page and possibly rename it (see Delldot and Delldot on a public computer). All talk should be directed to the KellyAna talk page.
Someone else mentioned revert and civility restrictions, but those would be informal unless imposed by the Arbitration Committee, and we're not there yet. Daniel Case (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, let me point out that, we’re not dealing with someone who used a sockpuppet once to get their way in a dispute. We’re dealing with someone, you used both accounts to vote on consensus several times, double team other users in disputes and in fact got other people blocked with their double team tactics. Both accounts have been rude and uncivil to several users over the lasts few months. I wonder how many Wikipedia members left Wikipedia on behalf of their double team tactics. Daniel, if you don't mind me asking and of course I don't have full knowledge of the situation. But what's the difference between KellyAna/IrishLass vs. Grant Chuggle. Let me point out right away, that I don't condone Grant's actions at all, but every time the guy gets a new account, it's blocked right away. Now if Grant's original account was blocked indefinitely for vandalism, how can KellyAna/IrishLass walk away w/ only a two week block? Now let me give KellyAna/IirshLass credit, they clearly know the information on the articles they work on. Both accounts seem to have much knowledge of the rules/guidelines, and with that knowledge, she tried to out start the rules and she got caught. Now my personal opinion on the outcome is that both accounts get blocked indefinitely. Only the accounts though not her IP address. Give her the chance to start over, with a new account and following the rules this time. I think we all know, that whatever the outcome is, she will end up back on Wikipedia, if she's not already with a new account. There's no way with all the edits she does day that she could just walk away from it. However, I strongly believe that both accounts should be blocked indefinitely. Thanks DJS --DJS24 (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KellyAna/IrishLass0128 hasn't engaged in any hardcore vandalism. She has displayed ridiculously bad incivility, bad faith, and ownership of articles, but she really hasn't vandalized any articles. Grant Chuggle wasn't originally blocked indefinitely for having a sockpuppet, but was blocked for increasingly long periods of time for continuing to make sockpuppets leading to an indef block. While I think KellyAna has been the "bad cop" of this duo, I also believe this is the "main account". She has contributed positively, and while it wouldn't bother me if she came back as a new account that only edited properly, I think KA should have the right to redeem herself. Block KellyAna for 1 month, and Irishlass0128 indefinitely. If she returns and wants to edit from IL we can always reverse the blocks. Besides, blocks are supposed to be preventative not punitive. If we block both indefinitely, we're punishing a rather good though problematic contributor not preventing a good but problematic contributor for gaming the system. That's my opinion. AniMate 18:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One or both should be indefinitely blocked - I'd prefer to allow the IrishLass account to continue to edit (based on a less problematic edit history), but if the user admits the sockpuppet abuse then she should be able to choose which one to continue as sole account. Future evidence of sockpuppetry by this user should lead directly to an indefinite block. An intermediate step of blocking for a month seems mostly to encourage her to create a new account. If its a static IP (not clear from the CU results) perhaps new account creation can be blocked on that IP. Avruch T 18:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that if one is to be indefinitely blocked, it should be the KellyAna account since it has been the far more abusive account. -- Dougie WII (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problem with indefinitely blocking both until the sockpuppetry has been admitted to. AniMate 19:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Avruch. Unless the user expresses a preference, block the KellyAna account, tag as a sockpuppet, and redirect the talkpage to that of IrishLass0128, with the hope that she would be able to Continue to Contribute in a Constructive and Civil manner (alliteration, whee!). --Elonka 22:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could live w/ blocking KellyAna and keeping IrishLass, as long as she is warned about future sockpuppets. DJS--DJS24 (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the love of the Gods you bunch of fucking tweedles. Irish is a simpering nice girl and I'm not her. DJS is a jealous child that can't get over that I get to go to the NASCAR races each weekend and HE DOESNT. Elonka, you know DAMN WELL Irish emailed you to say she wanted gone and would never edit here again, how convenient for your conclusion (then again, you've lied repeatedly in the past and present). Dougie ~ you're an idiot and a child who can't handle a strong woman. I'm the only one who's gone against you, Irish never has, so OF COURSE you want your foe blocked. You have no evidence, you're just a scared child. Block me, I don't give a fucking rats ass. Irish has already turned tail and run because she's afraid of internet idiots and liars. What's so fucking funny is DJS is a repeat sock yet he gets to fuck with Wiki all he wants. Do you really believe DJS and Blackwatch are two differentvpeople? If you do you are dumber than anyone I've met. Irish and I aren't socks, she's too freakin nice most days for my tastes. By the way, has anyone ANYONE ANYONE bothered to note that the tweedle bringing these accusations is, himself, a proven sock that posed AS AN ADMIN? KellyAna (talk) 02:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based on this singularly unhelpful and uncivil response, we might consider indefinitely blocking both accounts and be done with it. Even with no other problems, she'd earn herself about a weeklong block from that alone. Avruch T 02:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KellyAna account has been blocked for one week, though I would support an indefinite block if there is agreement that there is consensus for it. --Elonka 02:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WOW - DJS --DJS24 03:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
I have read the above report and decided to indefinitely block User:KellyAna, and apply a two week block to User:IrishLass0128. I find it is extremely improbable that these are not sock puppet accounts. There has been abusive editing, as well as an attempt to deceive the community. JehochmanTalk 03:13, 9 April 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.
After posting evidence here, Thatcher suggested I instead post my report at Suspected sock puppets. To summarize, checkusers and arbcom cases have determined that Eyrian, Gazpacho, JB196, Molag Bal, and Mrs random all engaged in sockpuppetry in "in popular culture" related AfDs. So far at least all of the following have either admitted to or been confirmed by checkusers as being socks or puppeteers: AndalusianNaugahyde, AshbyJnr, Blueanode, Brandon97, Burntsauce, Casperonline, Dannycali, Davenbelle, Diyarbakir, D73733C8-CC80-11D0-B225-00C04FB6C2F5, Eyrian, Gazpacho, Golfcam, IPSOS, Jack Merridew, JohnEMcClure, LAZY 1L, Moby Dick, Mrs random, Note to Cool Cat, 75.5.225.151, SolidPlaid, Varlak, and Yeshivish. Some of these accounts were blocked as socks of JB196 and Molag Bal, i.e. too of the project's most prolific sockpuppeeters who have combined hundreds of socks. If THAT is what we faced in fiction related AfDs and policy discussions, who knows how many edits these and those accounts I have not listed that are associated with these banned users made to policy and guideline pages or influenced other good faith editors. Collectively, they made THOUSANDS of edits many of which were overwhelming AfDs with delete votes and harassing their critics (notice some of these accounts for blocked for stalking and incivility even prior to the checkusers confirmed sockpuppetry). I also suspect that the following currently unblocked accounts may be related due to strikingly similar editing patterns (rapid delete "votes" in AfDs in many of the same AfDs or kinds of AfDs as the blocked accounts): Blahblahme, Bulldog123, Crazysuit, Hornet35, Keb25, MarkBul, 138.88.170.131, Saikokira, 76.80.112.235, 68.163.65.119, StaticElectric, and Tregoweth. While these accounts have seemingly stopped editing, it is nevertheless important to determine if they are indeed socks to 1) determine the actual extent of the damage done by Eyrian, Gazpacho, JB196, Molag Bal, and Mrs random and 2) to block those determined to be socks so that they do not make a "come back" and cause further disruption. For additional evidence, please see here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
There's relevance to this request: the validity of quite a few AFDs may be at stake. Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles turned out to be right on target about some concerns last year that got validated in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eyrian cases. Some people were doing an end run around site policies to advance a deletionist agenda. If the older accounts turn out to be socks then Roi would have a solid reason to open some DRVs. DurovaCharge! 18:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
1) This needs to be split up into multiple cases - you can't just lump a whole lot of serial sockpuppeteers together and say "well, it's probably one of these". Users like JB196 and Molag Bal have absolutely nothing in common with each other other than being known to use socks.
2) It'd be tough to work out which are socks and which aren't now; probably most if not all are, but most of those haven't edited since 2007 and their contribs would be too stale to checkuser.
3) In theory, votestacking at AfD isn't generally a problem (RfA is a different issue), because the !vote is either valid or it isn't - a pile of WP:ILIKEIT Keep votes or WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE Delete !votes can and should be disregarded by the closing admin. Can you provide some examples of AfDs where these socks have led to an AfD reaching a different concolusion to that it "should have"? Black Kite 11:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Konami code references in popular culture. Seven accounts voted to delete versus three arguing to keep and three arguing to merge. Of those voting to delete, two were determined by checkusers to be sock accounts (Eyrian and Dannycali) and another is a suspected sock who has some similar editing patterns with Dannycali and with Eyrian, as well as many similar edits to Burntsauce. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Garden of Earthly Delights in popular culture, sock accounts Eyrian and Dannycali voted deleted, as did suspected sock Bulldog123. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amateur radio in popular culture, if you remove the delete votes of banned editors (Eyrian, Golfcam, and Burntsauce), then you're left with something more like a no consensus. Similarly in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Minotaur references in popular culture, maybe half (Eyrian, Golfcam, Burntsauce, and IPSOS) of those voting delete were engaged in sockpuppetry in these types of AfDs, as well as one suspected sock (Mleivo). In fact if you go through the page User:Dannycali/In Popular Culture deletions that one banned sock created to coordinate the offensive against "in popular culture" articles, you'll find that most of those deleted consisted of some combination of the above confirmed and suspected sock accounts participating and accounting for half or more of the "delete" side of the discussion. What you also don't see in those AfDs is the talk page and email harassment those who disagreed with Eyrian and Dannycali experienced as addressed in the Alkivar and Eyrian arbitration cases. Who can say what the conclusion of the AfDs "should" have been, because you and I probably disagree about many of these articles' value, but what is certain is that in many of them multiple accounts voting to delete were engaged in widespread sockpuppetry at the time that included vote stacking in AfDs as well as talk page and other harassment of those arguing to keep elsewhere on the project, which was only determined after the AfDs closed. Because the above suspected socks share many similarities with those banned accounts (rapid delete votes in fiction and list related AfDs, halting editing around the same time), it is important for the sake of other discussions that we determine the actual scale of the problem. And there is some agreement (see [443], [444], and [445]--I thought it best to get some community input before opening this case) that we cannot just allow their "succeses" to stand. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Err, each individual vote/comment or whatever you want to call it as such assumes a greater importance in AfD as there are generally fewer than RfA. And self-righteous bluster can be quite effective in convincing a non-involved closing admin as well as newer passers-by, especially if enough people repeat it.
Problem is Black Kite, you as deletion-minded and me and LGRDC as inclusionists, neither of us are going to be objective about it, in a similar way to deletionists all disregarding evidence of Jack Merridew being a sock.Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me wrong, I may lean towards the deletionist side where fancruft and trivia is concerned, but I'm equally dedicated to saving worthwhile articles. None of the AfDs mentioned above, when I look at the deleted content, give me any pause to worry about the Delete decisions, even with the admitted sockpuppets. More to the point, I don't see any that would have been closed differently by an admin applying correct policy, even if the socks had been discarded. I wish LGRdC had found some different AfDs than those for "...in popular culture" articles. Black Kite 23:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As there is a lack of consensus in the interpretation of policy in regards to these kinds of articles, they more likely than not would have been closed as no consensus. Moreover, in most "in popular culture" AfDs after the confirmed sock accounts were blocked, the closures have usually been keep or no consensus. If nothing else, over two hundred AfDs started by puppeteers, socks, and their proxies as part of a coordinated effort and in which myself and others who protested the AfDs wound up being non-stop "attacked" by the now banned accounts did play a role in the discussions, as many editors became discouraged and chased away (such as MisterManticore) from those kinds of AfDs. An admin employing correct policy if the socks were discounted would have perhaps not closed as keep, but certainly as no consensus or redirect (as in every instance the articles could have been redirected somewhere and so the editors' contributions could have remained public). There were no copy vios, libel, or hoax elements to the articles that necessitated deletion and there were valid redirect points that further made outright deletion unnecessary. Plus, it doesn't help that some of these banned accounts were actually involved in some policy discussions. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the closing admin on the first AfD said, the main problem for a lot of these articles s lack of reliable sources. I wouldn't argue that a number of them are good candidates for a merge with the parent article, but they do struggle to maintain a claim for independent existence. And let's face it, if we're talking about the "fixing" of AfDs through socking, hundreds of articles have been kept through this method, whereas I suspect that the number that have been deleted is much smaller. Incidentally, Mister Manticore is still editing under a different name, and I have had more than one extended AfD "battle" with him where he was on the delete side and I was on the Keep side, so that's probably not a good example. Black Kite 23:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the purposes of this case, whether we like or dislike the articles under question is not really relevant, but whether or not greater sockpuppetry was involved than we initially suspected last year, which is important should any not yet blocked accounts be sleeper socks. Anyway, though take Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Examples of meta-references in fiction a no consensus with at least one delete from banned account Dannycali. Or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional restaurants, again largely no consensus, but closed as delete and yet we now know that SEVERAL of those voting to delete were socks or sockmasters: Yeshivish, Dannycali, and Burntsauce. And some are suspected socks: Crazysuit, 68.163.65.119, and MarkBul. With maybe six sock accounts making up a huge chunk of the deletion side of the debate, how can we allow such a closure to stand? Especially when the deletes in the discussion are largely "I don't like it" anyway. Or how about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charon in popular culture in which two confirmed socks (Dannycali and Burntsauce) and two suspected {again MarkBul and 68.163.65.119) voted delete and of the non-blocked deletes, we have such objective gems as "if it uses the words "in popular culture" its going to get a delete vote from me... period". Or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allentown, PA in popular culture in which confirmed sock Dannycali nominated, confirmed socks SolidPlaid and Gazpacho voted deleted, and suspected socks Blahblahme and Crazysuit made up most of the rest of the deletes. Again, even if you personally are happy that the article was deleted, why should we allow an account that is known to have used socks in "in popular culture" AfDs along with others blocked for sockpuppetry in these and other AfDs to have accomplished its objective through illegitimate means? Or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of media using the Wilhelm scream, which had as many or more good faith editors actually arguing to keep than delete (I don't count "votes" with "crap" as serious). Anyway, you have suspected sock Crazysuit, suspected sock Keb25, confirmed sock Dannycali, and suspect sock 81.153.158.137 all on the deletion side. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) OK, let's have a look;
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Examples of meta-references in fiction - 6 Keeps, all of which were "It's notable", "it's useful" or "we shouldn't be deleting stuff like this". Nothing policy related. The Delete !votes weren't a lot better, but I think the nominator nailed it to begin with anyway.
Oh I dunno, easy with blinkers on to assess anything as indiscriminate - this is the issue as many criteria can be applied with some fluidity.Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 01:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not in this case - an unsourced list spunoff from the main article when the information was nicely presented in that article - delete every time.
The ferryman is pretty notable, dont you think? Some fairly aggressive comments from the usual suspects here. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 01:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The ferryman is notable, but does it need a separate list of IPC appearances?
Well, I would have had it on the Charon page myself as it isn't very big, but would have closed as a merge. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 10:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even in the worst case scenario all of those could have been redirected to the main articles thereby leaving editors' public contributions (something that is incredibly relevant in RfAs for non-admin participants like my self) with little to no controversy. The delete votes for metafiction were essentially just votes, which means it would be a no consensus if neither side was really persuasive. For Charon, if it was a merge and redirect, then it wouldn't be a delete as per the GFDL, we cannot delete contribution histories on merges. As for Allentown, I would not say "never", because 1) Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and 2) the significance of any given thing changes over time and often unexpectedly (who would have thought Byzantium would have many years after its founding become the capital of the Roman Empire as Constantinople?). In all of these cases, I whole-heartedly agree that better referencing would have helped, but all that time and energy that went into deleting these articles very well could have turned up sources. I have participated in enough AfDs now where its nominated and then there's maybe several pile on delete "votes" in rapid succession only to have myself or others find all sorts of sources with relative ease that results in the article's improvement. Consider Cultural impact of Star Wars, which still exists following a no consensus afd (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural impact of Star Wars) in which you had the usual successive deletes until I found sources to improve the article. Now in that discussion, after I improved the article, most seemed to recognize that fact (at least two acknowledge my efforts in their keep arguments), but not banned accounts Dannycali and Burntsauce with the most vociferous proponent of deletion being this account. Here was the article as nominated versus at the close of the AfD. All the alleged problems with the article were fixed due to my and others' work, i.e. rather than us just piling on the easy "delete" votes. Another case in point is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godzilla in popular culture, starts off with a deletion nom followed by two delete votes only to again have myself and others find many sources to drastically improve the article that persuaded at least one delete to change his stance and as for the subsequent accounts who still voted for delete after the improvements, well, you again have banned account Dannycali (who directly references his big list that he kept to use as precedent in getting as many of these kinds of articles deleted as possible) or such "helpful" comments as "kill all pop culture articles in the face". In this AfD's case, he was the staunchest proponent of deletion. Here was the version nominated versus the version at close. In all of these instances, if as has been shown these kinds of articles can indeed be referenced and improved, how nice it would be if editors helped those of us who do in fact take the time to do so. What you notice as well in these two examples is that once the above confirmed and suspected sock accounts started to be blocked, the outcomes of the AfDs started to change as well. Fortunately, some of these cases did indeed end up as keep or no consensus. Consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Hood in popular culture, which closed as no consensus despite participation by this account (not sure whose sock he was and why it wasn't an indefinite block and what happened to its contribution history) and banned accounts Eyrian and Dannycali. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seppuku in popular culture was not as lucky; nominated by banned account Eyrian, the first delete (Harlowrahman) also blocked for sockpuppetry and more, suspected socks Keb25 and Crazysuit voting delete, as well as banned Burntsauce as a deletor. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space stations in popular culture did survive even though it was nominated by banned Eyrian and included deletes from suspected sock Crazysuit and confirmed sock Harlowrahman. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think a lot of this depends on the closing admin. Many admins are wary of redirecting IPC articles to the main ones, because they know it'll result in often very serious subjects being submerged under a wave of "OMG they referenced this in Star Trek!!11" which causes dropoff in the original article quality. So the closes go different ways. FWIW, I think most of those closes above were correct (I would've Kept the Robin Hood one, actually). It should be fairly obvious that an article like Godzilla IPC is completely sourceable and an obviously viable article, whereas the Seppuku one, as well as being unsourced, is just an random list of mentions of Seppuku, and thus fails WP:NOT regardless of how many socks !vote Delete. Black Kite 10:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But if it's really the concern of anyone that its a discrminate list of mentions, then Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. Myself and others have done so to make these articles better referenced and less of just lists. I don't see why others can't/won't help in the effort to do that. My whole feeling about the deletionist-incusionist issue large stems from not getting why anyone would rather than worry about improving articles they do care about and attempting to make these good or featured articles would instead devote time and effort to tearing down articles that others in our diverse community see value in. I recall seeing one or two posts in the episode and characters arbcom where someone outright said he doesn't really watch much TV and so on, where how can I not think, then why would you even worry about articles pertaining to topics you admittedly know little about? Say the article on Seppuku failed NOT in one of its drafts, but let's say secondary sources exist that can be used to revise the article (see for example Uneasy Warriors: Gender, Memory, and Popular Culture in the Japanese Army by Sabine Fruhstuck or Myth and Masculinity in the Japanese Cinema: Towards a Political Reading of the Tragic Hero' by Isolde Standish, both of which addresses seppuku). There's really few topics that haven't been covered in some secondary sources, whether it be books, magazines, or journals and for which a good tertiary article can be written. A comparable amount of time and energy spent nomination these articles for deletion and challenging anyone who dares to want to keep them could be spent finding these secondary sources and revising the articles as myself and others have done. And if those nominating really don't care for these articles, well why not try to bring the articles they do care about up to good or featured status? Hoaxes, libel, and copy vios should be deleted without any question (although I have seen times where articles are alleged to be hoaxes and lo and behold sources actually do exist), but way too many articles are dismissed as having no potential or no sources only to have myself or others find sources and with relative ease. Moreover, all the time I have to spend defending articles in AfDs is also time lost, i.e. time not spent improving articles. As you can see on my user page, I have successfully rescued many articles and I'd wager I could better many more articles did I not feel compelled to discuss (not vote) in AfDs. The fact that a large number of AfDs I argued to keep in were nominated by and flooded with "votes" by the above confirmed and suspected socks has made the experience all the more frustrating. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent/edit conflict) Then we have a new user user:Lord Uniscorn, who began editing on Jan 19 whose first edit is using a templated tag [446]. And soon after merrily joins in the deletion debate. [447]. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusive conclusion
I am closing this report because it is hard to use. Please break it down into manageable cases, preferably by puppeteer. Attach socks to puppeteers based on behavioral evidence in the form of diffs. If the socking is stale, or if the accounts are already blocked, we are not going to take action here. In those cases, I see no reason why you cannot go to deletion review if a specific AfD discussion was corrupted. For any current disruptive socking or block evasion, please do file reports here at WP:SSP. This report is closed, but you can still reference it as evidence whenever necessary. It is not going to disappear. Regards, JehochmanTalk 02:51, 9 April 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.
[460] and [461] are identical edits except for signatures. In [462] and [463] both users mess up talk page to disrupt ongoing discussion. Even edit-summaries are identical.
61.17.191.149:[472]. This ip was confirmed as an open proxy in simple english wikipedia: [473]
Comments
I am filing this case as advised by Jauerback (talk·contribs) to get expert opinion on this matter.
Venki123 was banned by the arbitration committee for fighting on ethnic grounds mainly in articles Mudaliar and Sengunthar. See here[474].
Saedirof edits only Sengunthar and Mudaliar and has exact edits as Venki123 as shown in diffs above. Redlance uses various open proxies and edit-wars on Sengunthar and deletes the same sections as Venki123 and Saedirof. In his recent post to Jackbauer's talk page [475], Redlance says he has been cleared but then instead of giving the link to his talk page, he gives the link to the talk page of his sock Saedirof. Next he also admits to have edited the Mudaliar page, but as of 07:13, 23 March 2008 (the time of this post) Redlance has never edited the Mudaliar article even once. Please ban socks accordingly. Thank you, Kokarako Gumango (talk) 06:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This user and his sockpuppets have been attacking me for a long time and I have been cleared already. [476].It was already shown that this user is a sock puppet of a banned user.[477]. I have created another suspected sock puppet check on this user.[478]Saedirof (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Venki123 did not provide conclusive evidence to substantiate this report. Additionally, the party who filed this report has been blocked as a sock puppet of a banned user. Therefore, I am closing this report with no further action. JehochmanTalk 02:43, 9 April 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.
In November, 2007 User:Leftcoastbreakdown, a long-time POV editor to the American Apparel article and that of its founder, Dov Charney, admitted to being an American Apparel employee. For a period of about a year his edits, among other things, seriously diminished the reports of sexuality in company advertising,[479] the reported sexualization of the workplace, sex harassment lawsuits against the company, and so on.[480][481][482] There was also PR fluff to praise the company and its founder. [483][484][485][486][487][488] The issue was raised and resolved at AN/I: here. I gave the user a stern warning[489] that a company should not make POV edits to its own article, because it was not only against our rules but could backfire on the company. The issue flared up again when the editor came back to make some uncontroversial changes[490], after which Wikipedia employees disappeared from Wikipedia -- or did they?
After a lull of two months, a number of brand new single-purpose accounts were created over a 2-3 day period, and immediately began to make the same edits, on the same issues, using similar tactics.
IrisAlonzo also admits (see above link) that another employee, User:Danicaobrien is also simultaneously editing Wikipedia on behalf of American Apparel. Danicaobrien, in turn, has made identical edits[497] to User:68.164.63.53[498], who has been engaging in the same POV-pushing edits as others on the list.
70.1.133.32, 70.6.90.178, 68.164.63.53, 70.6.153.149, Rhodiaboy and [[User|Igloo1981] began editing (and edit warring, when reverted) to paint the company and its founder in a more favorable light, including downplaying material related to the sexual nature of advertising, a unionization attempt, and reported allegations of sexual improprieties.
The edits share a common core of editing idiosyncrasies. Most are, standing alone, not anything surprising and transgress Wikipedia policies in a minor way if at all. The common tacts include removing sourced content, adding content that uses argumentative prepositional phrases to make insinuations ("paradoxically...", "despite..."), attacking the credibility of people who have made the statements (e.g. a writer's professionalism), and a number of other problems having to do with weight, POV, synthesis, reliable sources. One particular issue is the removal of sourced content that has been in the article for some time, done among others by company employee Danica Obrien editing as 68.164.63.53 [499] (see above for indication these are the same editor).
Many of the editors have inserted and re-inserted (edit warred over) unencyclopedic praise written in PR-speak, that is unsourced or poorly/weakly sourced (to the company website, advertising websites, and laudatory industry publications). For example, Charney "is the mastermind behind the company's provocative and award-winning advertising" (Mmhernandez)[500], he is (per User:Kingsasquatch)[501] "fiercely dedicated to manufacturing high-quality T-shirts", proves "that clothing manufacturers can turn a profit without exploiting laborers", combines sexuality and company management "in a synergistic manner" like Hugh Hefner[502]. User:76.168.41.13 (who is likely the same as User:76.94.170.79 and User:IrisAlonzo the company's Creative Director) adds[503] that "American Apparel is committed to leveraging art, design, technology to produce garments of the highest quality", that their VP of operations "has developed a new concept of team manufacturing based on eliminating wasted time in motion", and that their CEO has invented a new philosophy called "neo-capitalism" that "is actually the key to his company’s profitability." User:Environmentalgal adds[504] that a new plan to recycle clothing scraps to put on the ceiling for insulation is "a new direction for the fashion industry in going green." Indeed, many of these claims are possibly true at some level. The company does have some amazing advertising and tries (some would say succeeds) in making quality clothing, treating workers well, and advancing liberal social and economic policies. But it is odd, and unlikely, that so many new editors show up all at the same time to add the PR version of these statements to the article. For the most part real Wikipedians do not edit in PR-speak. One or two strays is understandable. This many at the same time looks like a sockpuppet attack.
Several editors share a fixation on extraneous unencyclopedic details they think repudiate negative information about the company - for example, that the oral sex performed by an employee on the CEO in front of a reporter was "consensual", that sex harassment lawsuits were settled, that the company denied the claims, that the company filed an SEC report describing its labor relations as "excellent", sex discrimination at retail stores based on looks is done "to enhance" the product image, that other fashion companies had also been accused of sex discrimination, and so on. Legitimate, good-faith editors might occasionally have a lapse in their reasoning abilities. But it is unlikely that a disinterested, independent group of Wikipedians would swarm to an article all at the same time to all add the same set of irrelevant details that are supposed to be exculpatory. One of the editors doing this is Danicaobrien [505], who along with other editors keeps inserting rationalizations that other fashion retailers discriminate on looks too, and that the CEO's sexual actions are only normal given his position at the company[506].
User:Igloo1981, who has added much of the PR fluff to the article, shares edits in common with User:69.232.38.186. [507][508][509][510]. Note how they edit war in tandem over reverting many disputed sections in toto while accusing me of "bias" in the edit summary. They also edit war in tandem in a way that seems to admit they are the same here.[511][512] over executive titles they claim are "outdated" (despite information on the company ebsite to the contrary - something only company insiders are likely to know). Igloo1981 claims to be a student doing research[513], but exhibits qthe same editing traits on the same issues, and arrived at the same time as the other sockpuppets. In one series of edits[514] he/she heaped unencyclopedic praise on the founder ("At an early age Charney showed signs of an entrepreneurial and independent spirit", "breakthrough", "a hugely popular wholesale brand"), removed sourced negative material (a company bankruptcy, charney's personal interest in sexually-charged advertising, models sending photos directly to Charney, Charney walked across factory floor in briefs and masturbated, and staged a sexual encounter with an employee, in front of a reporter), and added an un-cited attack that "Some critics questioned [the source's] professionalism". This is a new editor with negligible history here other than these articles who seems edit in the same style and using the same tactics, on the same issues and phrases, as the others. Of particular interest is Igloo1981's desire to add and keep material about one of Iris Alonzo's pet unencyclopeidc issues, Marty Bailey's "new concept of team manufacturing based on eliminating wasted time in motion."[515]
This new edit[516] by 69.232.38.186, and the immediate edit war by Igloo1981[517] matches this edit[518] by danicaobrien and this one[519] by 68.164.63.53. If so, danicaobrien=Igloo1981.Wikidemo (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
File RFCU and see if anything turns up. This report is very long, which discourages anyone from trying to understand it all. RFCU may help provide a smoking gun, and if not, I suggest editing the report for brevity. JehochmanTalk 13:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
It doesn't appear as though the reporting editor is filing an RFCU, and this is now getting somewhat stale. I am archiving this without conclusion, but it can be resurrected if needs be. GBT/C 20:11, 8 April 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.
Not much to say - here is the previous case. The user seems to log in and out to revert the article Lazar Koliševski(see latest revert [520]). It's clearly the same user as he edited the talkpage of the article [521]. in the same manner as Ejanev before that [522].
He was warned not to use such techniques[523].
Update: He has clearly showed that this is him in his last comment on the talkpage [524]
Comments
It is me editing the page of Lazar Kolisevski. I am not removing any relevant information about Lazar Kolisevski. The material on the page that is Bulgarian Nationalistic Propaganda is highly offensive to us Macedonians. This Anti-Macedonian propaganda negates our nation, language, culture and history. It's place is in the past and should be left there.
Sveti Nikole has been inhabited by Macedonians. The same people was claimed by Bulgarians during the occupation during Balkan Wars, and World Wars 1 and 2 as Bulgarian. Same for the Serbian rule: When Serbia occupied Macedonia in the first Balkan War, and during the Balkan Wars and World War 2 in general, the population was figuring in their official documents as Serbian. Between World Wars 1 and 2 the population was officially Serbian. Only after the liberation, that is end of World War 2 and forming of Republic of Macedonia as part of Socialist Yugoslavia, the population is Macedonia got the right to express freely about their identity, language, culture and history.
Bulgarian Nationalistic Propaganda uses material from the turbulent times, such as Balkan Wars as a proof. It does not hold to any reality in Republic in Macedonia.
As that material is offensive and negates the Macedonian view for Lazar Kolisevski, who himself was a Macedonian and is now part of the Macedonian history, the offensive and propagandistic material should be removed from Wikipedia.
This is not relevant and for the last time - I'm not claiming that anyone was Bulgarian. --LaveolT 22:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
I'm getting a big sense of deja vu. No action against the IP at this point, but main account blocked for 24 hours for ignoring previous warnings. GBT/C 20:15, 8 April 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.
They upload the same copyrighted images under false free licenses and edit the same articles.
Comments
Conclusions
Sock blocked. GBT/C 20:09, 8 April 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.
In November, 2007 User:Leftcoastbreakdown, a long-time POV editor to the American Apparel article and that of its founder, Dov Charney, admitted to being an American Apparel employee. For a period of about a year his edits, among other things, seriously diminished the reports of sexuality in company advertising,[525] the reported sexualization of the workplace, sex harassment lawsuits against the company, and so on.[526][527][528] There was also PR fluff to praise the company and its founder. [529][530][531][532][533][534] The issue was raised and resolved at AN/I: here. I gave the user a stern warning[535] that a company should not make POV edits to its own article, because it was not only against our rules but could backfire on the company. The issue flared up again when the editor came back to make some uncontroversial changes[536], after which Wikipedia employees disappeared from Wikipedia -- or did they?
After a lull of two months, a number of brand new single-purpose accounts were created over a 2-3 day period, and immediately began to make the same edits, on the same issues, using similar tactics.
IrisAlonzo also admits (see above link) that another employee, User:Danicaobrien is also simultaneously editing Wikipedia on behalf of American Apparel. Danicaobrien, in turn, has made identical edits[543] to User:68.164.63.53[544], who has been engaging in the same POV-pushing edits as others on the list.
70.1.133.32, 70.6.90.178, 68.164.63.53, 70.6.153.149, Rhodiaboy and [[User|Igloo1981] began editing (and edit warring, when reverted) to paint the company and its founder in a more favorable light, including downplaying material related to the sexual nature of advertising, a unionization attempt, and reported allegations of sexual improprieties.
The edits share a common core of editing idiosyncrasies. Most are, standing alone, not anything surprising and transgress Wikipedia policies in a minor way if at all. The common tacts include removing sourced content, adding content that uses argumentative prepositional phrases to make insinuations ("paradoxically...", "despite..."), attacking the credibility of people who have made the statements (e.g. a writer's professionalism), and a number of other problems having to do with weight, POV, synthesis, reliable sources. One particular issue is the removal of sourced content that has been in the article for some time, done among others by company employee Danica Obrien editing as 68.164.63.53 [545] (see above for indication these are the same editor).
Many of the editors have inserted and re-inserted (edit warred over) unencyclopedic praise written in PR-speak, that is unsourced or poorly/weakly sourced (to the company website, advertising websites, and laudatory industry publications). For example, Charney "is the mastermind behind the company's provocative and award-winning advertising" (Mmhernandez)[546], he is (per User:Kingsasquatch)[547] "fiercely dedicated to manufacturing high-quality T-shirts", proves "that clothing manufacturers can turn a profit without exploiting laborers", combines sexuality and company management "in a synergistic manner" like Hugh Hefner[548]. User:76.168.41.13 (who is likely the same as User:76.94.170.79 and User:IrisAlonzo the company's Creative Director) adds[549] that "American Apparel is committed to leveraging art, design, technology to produce garments of the highest quality", that their VP of operations "has developed a new concept of team manufacturing based on eliminating wasted time in motion", and that their CEO has invented a new philosophy called "neo-capitalism" that "is actually the key to his company’s profitability." User:Environmentalgal adds[550] that a new plan to recycle clothing scraps to put on the ceiling for insulation is "a new direction for the fashion industry in going green." Indeed, many of these claims are possibly true at some level. The company does have some amazing advertising and tries (some would say succeeds) in making quality clothing, treating workers well, and advancing liberal social and economic policies. But it is odd, and unlikely, that so many new editors show up all at the same time to add the PR version of these statements to the article. For the most part real Wikipedians do not edit in PR-speak. One or two strays is understandable. This many at the same time looks like a sockpuppet attack.
Several editors share a fixation on extraneous unencyclopedic details they think repudiate negative information about the company - for example, that the oral sex performed by an employee on the CEO in front of a reporter was "consensual", that sex harassment lawsuits were settled, that the company denied the claims, that the company filed an SEC report describing its labor relations as "excellent", sex discrimination at retail stores based on looks is done "to enhance" the product image, that other fashion companies had also been accused of sex discrimination, and so on. Legitimate, good-faith editors might occasionally have a lapse in their reasoning abilities. But it is unlikely that a disinterested, independent group of Wikipedians would swarm to an article all at the same time to all add the same set of irrelevant details that are supposed to be exculpatory. One of the editors doing this is Danicaobrien [551], who along with other editors keeps inserting rationalizations that other fashion retailers discriminate on looks too, and that the CEO's sexual actions are only normal given his position at the company[552].
User:Igloo1981, who has added much of the PR fluff to the article, shares edits in common with User:69.232.38.186. [553][554][555][556]. Note how they edit war in tandem over reverting many disputed sections in toto while accusing me of "bias" in the edit summary. They also edit war in tandem in a way that seems to admit they are the same here.[557][558] over executive titles they claim are "outdated" (despite information on the company ebsite to the contrary - something only company insiders are likely to know). Igloo1981 claims to be a student doing research[559], but exhibits qthe same editing traits on the same issues, and arrived at the same time as the other sockpuppets. In one series of edits[560] he/she heaped unencyclopedic praise on the founder ("At an early age Charney showed signs of an entrepreneurial and independent spirit", "breakthrough", "a hugely popular wholesale brand"), removed sourced negative material (a company bankruptcy, charney's personal interest in sexually-charged advertising, models sending photos directly to Charney, Charney walked across factory floor in briefs and masturbated, and staged a sexual encounter with an employee, in front of a reporter), and added an un-cited attack that "Some critics questioned [the source's] professionalism". This is a new editor with negligible history here other than these articles who seems edit in the same style and using the same tactics, on the same issues and phrases, as the others. Of particular interest is Igloo1981's desire to add and keep material about one of Iris Alonzo's pet unencyclopeidc issues, Marty Bailey's "new concept of team manufacturing based on eliminating wasted time in motion."[561]
This new edit[562] by 69.232.38.186, and the immediate edit war by Igloo1981[563] matches this edit[564] by danicaobrien and this one[565] by 68.164.63.53. If so, danicaobrien=Igloo1981.Wikidemo (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
File RFCU and see if anything turns up. This report is very long, which discourages anyone from trying to understand it all. RFCU may help provide a smoking gun, and if not, I suggest editing the report for brevity. JehochmanTalk 13:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
It doesn't appear as though the reporting editor is filing an RFCU, and this is now getting somewhat stale. I am archiving this without conclusion, but it can be resurrected if needs be. GBT/C 20:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed Abdullah bahajri = Egyption 4eva = Lebanese heart. They appear to be using open proxies. (Arabistani is too old to check.) Dmcdevit·t 01:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Confirmed independently by checkuser and checked further. Same user is also likely to be Matrixbucra (talk · contribs), Forza Deano (talk · contribs) and Barryisland (talk · contribs) and a bunch of BT dynamic IPs plus one or two statics. Some underlying IPs are softblocked, all accounts but one are blocked and Fadiga09 himself warned. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Unlikely that Monkey80==Ctsai1 based on technical information ... agree about the edit pattern correlation but there is no technical correlation present (apologies for incorrectly editing this the first time) ++Lar: t/c 22:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Likely socks of Stone put to sky. As for Aho Aho, my determination was influenced by an analysis of the contributions. Here are a few sample diffs to illustrate the common interests, and common editing point of view of Aho Aho (talk · contribs) and Stone put to sky (talk · contribs): [166][167]-[168][169]-[170][171][172]. Additionally, I will block Stone put to sky indefinitely because they have been caught sock puppeting previously, twice, [173] and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Stone put to sky, yet have continued using Aho Aho as recently as April 10. After being caught a couple times, I expect the user would desist. Also note that in spite of a long contribution history, Stone put to sky is virtually a single purpose account for editing State terrorism and the United States, as are the socks. Jehochman Talk
Unrelated insofar as behavioural and editorial evidence can ascertain. Anthøny 00:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Possible, but further to my review, evidence is 
Inconclusive. Anthøny 00:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
![[103]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:JayRalph22.jpg){kind=link}
![[104]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jralphsig2.JPG){kind=link}
![[105]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jayralph2008.jpg){kind=link}
![[254]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_picture_candidates%2FUss_saratoga_cv3.jpg&diff=195202724&oldid=195201246){kind=link}
No comment with respect to IP address(es). Anthøny 15:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
![[358]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Colleen_Brady.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=148771209){kind=link}