Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Archive/September 2006

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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:Bismihi

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Rgulerdem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (indef banned user)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Articles involved: Fethullah Gülen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Evidence

User:Bismihi is suspect of being another sockpuppet of indef bannded user User:Rgulerdem Old cases here: [1][2]. Basically the same arguments as in the old case apply: Same spelling mistakes, same defensive fixation on Fethullah Gülen, single pupose account, goes into edit war mode immediately after establishing account, exhibits an extremely uncanny familiarity with the history of the Fethullah Gülen article and its contributors at the talk page [3] and in his edit summaries[4], Azate 00:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments
Conclusions

Already blocked. Iolakana•T 16:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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:Nodekeeper

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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


Evidence

the user account (Proabivouac) may be new, but it is certainly not new to wikipedia. the first few edits point to previous experience on WP, although obviously not quite enough to know how to raise concerns about GAC in the right manner, which is notable as User:Nodekeeper too is still relatively new. his style of posting is reminiscent of Nodekeeper's entertaining voluminous blocks of discussion, per Talk:Muhammad. he is also noted as going to the talk pages of Aiden[5] and Opiner[6], both of whom involved in the Muhammad article dispute (as was Nodekeeper), and indirectly requesting assistance of them for the article Muhammad as a diplomat. the new account knows pretty much what he is doing most of the time, and along with almost the exact same approach in style and psychology as User:Nodekeeper, it has led myself and other users to suspect that the link may be more than just common interests. it is also noteworthy that both users tend to accuse Muslim editors in general of inherently working against the rules of wikipedia. User:Nodekeeper has a long history of these kinds of accusations([7], [8], [9], [10], [11], and more), and User:Proabivouac repeated such with his very first edit[12]. the reason why i believe that this is blameworthy sockpuppetry is that the sock is portraying themselves as an independant user, without seemingly any justifiable reason to be using a sock (seemingly a SPA) looking at his current contributions, when the account of the suspected sockpuppeteer is already in use. the user is definitely a sock as can be seen from their contribs, and i believe there is evidence to suggest it may be User:Nodekeeper. ITAQALLAH 14:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Evidences that Proabivouac is a sockpuppet I think Proabivouac is definitely a sockpuppet.

  • User's first edit is this [13]. God knows how this new user is aware of someone's GA comments on an article?!
  • Proabivouac says: Your reliable sources argument is wikilawyering ... only in his 19th edit in wikipedia!!!
  • User is familiar with the terms POV, NPOV in his very first edits to wikipedia.

Evidences that the sockpuppeteer is Nodekeeper

  • Both Nodekeeper and Proabivouac are conspiracy theorising and accusing editors of maliciously trying to "supress" information:
Nodekeeper: One example, [14]
Proabivouac: I am happy to bring several sources which attest to the exile and/or destruction of three of five Madinan tribes which has been very conspicuously omitted from this article...
  • User knows and has contacted user:Aiden and user:Opiner. These two editors have no common point except that they were both recently involved in the Muhammad article. Nodekeeper was the only other editor I know who had close relations with both these two editors.
  • There is a strong evidence to believe that both these two users live in the same time zone:
Proabivouac's edits: from 9:04-10:53 and the next day starts at 20:17
Nodekeeper's edits:
at 25 September 2006, we see the gap 10:22, 25 September 2006 - 21:38, 25 September 2006;
at 24 September 2006, we see the gap 10:21, 24 September 2006 - 23:39, 24 September 2006;
at 23 September 2006, we see the gap 10:44, 23 September 2006 - 02:06, 24 September 2006 (which is 23 September 2006 24:00 + 02:06)
at 21 September 2006, we see the two diffs at 06:45, 21 September 2006 which is less than 10:44, and also one at 22:01, 21 September 2006.
These edits establish that Nodekeeper edits before time 10:22 (probably before the user sleeps) and then we see a gap and he starts again at around 21:38 or the very beginning hours of the next day.
Report time 22:57, 27 September 2006 . The pattern obviously may change afterwards
  • Please note that the user Nodekeeper's last edit is on 00:53, 26 September and user:Proabivouac's account was created on 09:04, 27 September 2006. Report time 22:57, 27 September 2006

--Aminz 22:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no connection whatsoever between myself and User:Nodekeeper, nor do I operate in contravention of WP:SOCK. The preceding comments suggest that I have been dragged into an existing dispute between User:Itaqallah, User:Aminz and User:Nodekeeper which would be better addressed in another forum.Proabivouac 01:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Conclusions

Only insinuated. Please take this to WP:RFCU. Iolakana•T 16:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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:64.14.194.26

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Evidence

Both users added the same vandalism text, "RJ Pasaporte", multiple times to the article PCU Dolphins within a couple of hours of each other. Joesatisgod had also added the same text to the same article on Sept 14.

Comments

64.14.194.26 was recently blocked for vandalism to now-deleted article Rachell Ann Loresto on Sept 19, and has been warned again on Sept 25, presumably after the block was lifted. Multiple prior warnings for vandalism. Using suspected sockpuppet Joesatisgod to evade block and vandalism detection? No block notice appears on Joesatisgod's talk page. Rrburke 01:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Conclusions

No violation of sockpuppet policy. Iolakana•T 16:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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:Finsj

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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


Evidence

Several links to essay by the apparent owner of Finsj and a coworker of his had been added by Finsj ([15] [16] [17] [18] ; I deleted them in accordance with WP:EL, and explained that course of action, after stumbling across a link to an essay that contained many factual inaccuracies.

Cpacifico appears to be a new account that readded some of those links ([19] [20] [21] [22])

No other policy violations (regardless of whether this is one or not) are known to me; however, it seems impossible to contact the contributor off Wikipedia (a comment on his essay was removed without reply).

It seems clear to me that the purpose of the new account is to add external links to Finsj's work while hiding that it is actually him that is adding the links. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RandomP (talk • contribs) 15:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Articles involved:

Serialization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
String functions (programming) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Regular expression (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Script.aculo.us (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Looking at the history, Finsj added the external link to the Serialization article at 14:56 on 9/25, RandomP reverted the change at 16:08 on 9/25, the Cpacificio user was created at 20:31 on 9/25 and his first edit was two minutes later to re-add the external link. Combined with the rest of the two users' edit history, it seems pretty cut-and-dry. Neil916 (Talk) 15:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Conclusions

Blocked. Iolakana•T 16:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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:Zoso2005

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Zoso2005 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (Account created 18:08 9/18/06)

Suspected sockpuppets

Franklin999999999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (Account created 18:09 9/18/06)
129.93.196.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Elvis 1950 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (Account created 21:29 9/23/06)
Dormir 2777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (Account created 01:13 9/24/06)
Lindy3930 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (Account created 03:13 9/24/06)
Tier1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (Account created 14:24 9/24/06)
Flea1999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (Account created 14:30 9/24/06)
Memphisjack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (Account created 17:33 9/24/06)

Evidence

Sockpuppetry and Vandalism issues surrounding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The RCP (Red Car Posse) During this Afd yesterday, a series of vandalisms occurred to all the people who voted to delete and some of their article creations by a series of new user accounts. The following is my account of it. (also, it appears to be still alive diff)

User(s) suspected of sockpuppetry (my guess is that there are two distinct users, possibly three, but no more.):

Affected users (in other words, users who voted to delete the article):


User:Dormir 2777 did not participate in the Afd, instead, made four edits total as described below:

Possibly related acts by other single purpose accounts:

The vandalism to User:Dina was reverted by User:DVD R W, who also placed a warning on User:Dormir 2777 's talk page. User:DVD R W was then vandalized by User: Dvd R W (sole edit) diff


Comments

I don't understand how this pertains to me at all. Apparently it's not enough to condemn a factual article but now I get to be blamed for something I have no knowledge of. The "evidence" seems inconclusive and appears to be something Dina has against me, an intense vendetta. I apologize for anything these particular users have done, but I have no ties to this is any way. Wikipedia leaves itself open for such vandalism by not at least requiring all new accounts to have an email address. And, why is that even though some new users have nothing against the article in question, every one of them immediately must be a "sockpuppet"? --Zoso 19:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not conclusive, but it is suggestive. New users almost never edit Afd for the first time. It's also unusual when a new users first edit is to vandalize another users page, then vote in an Afd. Almost never happens, really. Wikipedia doesn't need email address confirmations because certain admins can run a check to see which IP addresses were used to post which comments. If, for instance, the same person sitting at the same computer created a new user name to post a "Save" in an Afd, or to vandalize the page of someone who had voted to delete, it would be possible to determine that they were the same person by checking the IP of both users. It's also often possible to see if all the comments came from the same city, school, etc. See WP:RCU. However, if you haven't made any of these other edits, you have nothing to worry about and I apologize in advance. If you have, my suggestion would be to simply stop. Dina 20:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • What about various software that allows people to use other people's IP addresses? Would it then be possible for some hackers, like these "sockpuppets" to cloak themselves with my own IP address and then I become invariably blamed, being banned from this site forever? If so, that royally sucks. It seems like many problems here beget even more problems.--Zoso 21:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's certainly a (remote) possibility, but it seems unlikely that hackers would steal your IP address purely for the purpose of supporting an article you wrote in an Afd and vandalizing those who wanted to delete it. Occam's Razor suggests that the simpler answer would be that you, and possibly a friend, created a bunch of user names to make those edits. Wikipedia isn't really anonymous. Anyone who reads the above WHOIS links already has a good idea of where you go to school and the contact information of your school's IT department. With an IP or two, that contact person may even be able to identify where you live on campus. And I'd like to point out, as gently as possible, that it's extremely likely that you are one of the people whose full name is given in the article up for debate. Should this get out of hand, not only could you be blocked or banned, but your schools IT administrator might be informed. When I was in school, "computer crimes" using the school network were taken pretty seriously. If any of this hits home, I'd suggest you do the following: Confess and apologize, on the Afd itself and to each of the people whose pages you vandalized. Request that the page you created be deleted, since if creators make that request it can happen almost immediately. (As it stands, even if you remove your personal information from the page it will still exist in the history.) And decide to contribute as constructively as possible to Wikipedia from now on. You're obviously a bright guy, why waste your time with this B.S.? If you do those things, with good faith, I'll drop the issue immediately. Dina 22:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, buckling under peer pressure and in spite of internet pirates, I went ahead and requested its deletion.--Zoso 22:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I can't apologize for something I did not do. I sincerely mean that. At any rate, the page is gone now.--Zoso 22:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I appreciate you db-authoring that article. I will check with an admin. If it wasn't you, and was one of your friends, using an IP address in the IP range of your school, you might have issues anyway. You might want to doublecheck with the rest of the "posse" and if it's one of them, they should be taking the heat for this. If it wasn't anyone who had anything to do with you, then the checkuser will demonstrate that. You can request a checkuser for yourself at WP:RCU to clear your name, if you think that's really a good idea. Dina 22:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Note This matter appears to be resolved as the editor in question db-authored his article and so far as I can tell, the relevant user pages, articles etc. haven't been vandalized since. Since I'm relatively sure I can't personally close a sock puppet case, I'm just going to leave this note here until someone else does. If I'm mistaken in that assumption, please let me know. Thanks. Dina 01:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Conclusions

Complaint withdrawn. Iolakana•T 16:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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:Cretanpride

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Evidence

Checkuser has already shown that User:GreekEconomist has an IP similar to an IP that Cretanpride has used in the past. It was felt that since GreekEconomist was not following Cretanpride's pattern of behavior, s/he might be a different person, and his/her account was left unblocked. However, GreekEconomist has today made contributions to Talk:Alexander the Great that reflect Cretanpride's interests (see this diff. Furthermore, this post to my talk page directs us to a discussion in a MySpace forum, started by Cretanpride. I still believe that GreekEconomist is a sockpuppet, and would appreciate it if an administrator takes another look. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

I have an interest in Alexander the Great. I originally named myself after him. If you look at my edit I suggested more info on his relationships with women and more info on his military campaigns. Adding info in these categories would improve the article. User Apro posted and I responded. That is what you do on wikipedia. Regarding my edit to Akhilleus' talk page, he had accused me of not telling the truth about the whole myspace thing and I was trying to show him otherwise. I have not supported Cretanpride's argument. This is a case of bad faith against me. I feel as if I can't express my opinion now, or else I'll get blocked, and that is not right. GreekEconomist 01:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Conclusions

Unlikely. I would say more, but do not wish to violate WP:BEANS. Iolakana•T 16:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

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:12.182.70.131

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Evidence

Johnbrownsbody said this might be the same user who operates from 12.182.70.131. I agree with because both of them have made the same style of edits. The vandalism also occured today a few minutes apart after each edit. Then YaSirCaLama registered a few minutes late and his edits were all vandalism in the same style. His account got blocked for one week because of vandalism. Hmrox 12:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Unlikely to be the same computer, since timestamps indicate on the seven article indicate simultaneous edits. They seem to be cooperating on childish vandalism at the same time, though, so both are probably at the same location. And by the way, logged-in users are not sockpuppets of anonymous (not logged in) users. Wikipedia does not require its editors to log in. -- Neil916 (Talk) 15:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Conclusions

Not blocked. Iolakana•T 16:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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:Dhammafriend

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

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


Evidence

All accounts are new. All accounts have similar names of similar etymologies. They have been editing the same articles Indian Buddhist Movement,Indian Caste System,Hindu,History of Hinduism, as well as their respective talk pages. The aggressive and insulting tone used by the accounts are 100% identical as you can see here, here and here.As far as User:Truthlover,while he pretended to "calm things down" between his fellow socks (as a facade) he then went on to push the same anti-Hindu POV by moving Indian Caste System to Hindu's Caste System(fork article speedily deleted), which is part of the agenda of users like User:Dhammafriend, which is why I suspect him to be a sockpuppet also.Hkelkar 20:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

All three socks have rabidly anti-Hindu views (see edit summaries of their edits in history page) and my talk page here, and here, as well as on the talk pages of the socks and sockmaster, all of which are the same wording used by new users with very similar names (as an aside, the word "Dhamma" and various other Neo-Buddhist concepts are used or alluded to in all three of the user names)Hkelkar 20:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not know what Mr. Hkelkar is trying to proov here. Insted of having healthy conversation/disscusion/argument by providing supporting documents/references/arguments he is trying to get me out so that he can continue with his Hindu right-wing propaganda. If Mr. HKelkar has valid points please provide documents, I will take my arguments back. When a person does not have valid reasons/documents/references he starts doing what Mr. HKelkar is doing.(Threats/blocking/using administrative contacts pls refer[1][2]) I call it hypocritism. The only way to proov your POV is through perception,inference and valid testimony. Without that any knowledge human gains/shares/distributes is useless/meanigless.

--Bodhidhamma 20:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Dhammafriend is Truthlover Dhammafriend (and Truthlover) has completely reverted [Indian Buddhist Movement[|this page]] to how it was prior to his/their ban. He/They did not only remove the navayana concept, which he/they question but also all the citations that cleared up citation neccessity's. I have reverted the page to how it was prior. Thegreyanomaly 23:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It is also important to note that "they" reverted the 'official-style' referencing back to their informal previous citations, they also removed claims of dubious assertions and etc. the proof is [[23]], [[24]], [[25]]

Interestingly. TL reverted it to just DF left it before his ban. --Thegreyanomaly 23:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Conclusions

Please take this to WP:RFCU. Iolakana•T 16:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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:65.143.104.102

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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


Evidence

Microchip (comics): After I removed two paragraphs of uncited POV at 03:18, 19 September 2006, describing that rationale in the edit summary, they were reverted by User:65.143.104.102 the next day — this IP's only day on Wikipedia, per Special:Contributions/65.143.104.102.

I again removed the POV paragraphs, and left a note at User:65.143.104.102 asking that he not revert this again since the paragraphs "violate the Wikipedia policies regarding original research and neutral point-of-view". Today, the exact same two paragraphs reappeared, inserted this time by User:65.142.204.13 — who similarly has never been on Wikipedia before today.

I'm not sure if anything can be done with evidently the same person using different computers, but this seemed the logical place to report someone apparently using multiple identities. Thanks. --Tenebrae 20:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

It's almost definitely the same person using a dynamic IP via Qwest as an internet provider, apparently based in Kansas City, or near Columbus OH, depending on who you ask. It was probably the same computer. They weren't logged in to Wikipedia, and their IP address changed, either because it was a dial-up account or their ISP rotated their address. See the IP Address article for a more detailed explanation of this. These types of users are also referred to by Wikipedians as "anonymous users", or "anon's". Neil916 (Talk) 01:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Conclusions

No violation of the sockpuppet policy. Neil916 (Talk) 01:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Not blocked. Iolakana•T 11:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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:Cretanpride

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

John1111111111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Evidence

Posted a message on User talk:Apro asking for help in an edit war on Homosexuality in ancient Greece. The edit war was carried on by User:Steve88 and User:James577, already blocked as probable socks of Cretanpride.

Already confirmed by Checkuser, but not yet blocked. (I am not an admin.) --Akhilleus (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments
Conclusions

Already blocked. Iolakana•T 17:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

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:Mattisse

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Timmy12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Evidence

Suspect is tagging the same set of articles previously tagged by Mattisse and her other sockpuppets, continuing the pattern of tagging and/or vandalising articles on pagan writers and musicians, vis:

On most of these articles, the same tags are being placed as were placed by Mattisse and her sockpuppets.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hanuman Das (talk • contribs) 13:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments
Comments by Neil916
  • On the Harvey Wasserman article, on September 12th, user Timmy12 added the {{unreferenced}} tag to the article and a {{fact}} tag to a bold claim that Rev. Jesse Jackson referred to the subject of the article and another person as the "Woodward and Bernstein of the 2004 election" [28], [29]. User Mattisse's edits on August 21st consisted of adding a proposed deletion tag to the article for being nonnotable, and the addition of the {{unverified}} and {{advert}} tags [30], [31]. The edits appear justified, non-malicious, and not similar to the edits made by Mattise.
  • On the Donald Michael Kraig article, on September 16th, user Timmy12 added the {{fact}} tag to three claims of notability in the article [32]. The tags seem appropriate to me. The four edits by user Nothingmuch consisted of three vandalism edits and adding the {{citation needed}} tag to a different fact in the article [33], [34], [35], [36]. The edits don't seem similar.
  • On the M. Macha Nightmare article, user Timmy12 made one edit to add the {{importance}} tag and three {{fact}} tags to claims made in the article [37]. The edits seem justified to me. On August 24, user ABSmyth made his/her only edit to the article, adding {{wikify}} tag to the article [38]. On August 21, user Mattisse added the {{verify}} tag and {{importance}} tag to the article [39].
  • On the Raymond Buckland article, user Timmy12 added the {{unreferenced}} and {{importance}} tags to the article on September 18. I'm not sure I personally agree with those tags [40], but they don't strike me as malicious in nature. On August 23, user NLOleson added the {{citations missing}} tag to the article [41]. The edits don't seem similar in nature, and in fact Timmy12 removed NLOleson's tag when he made his edit.
  • On the Gilli Smyth article, user Timmy12 made several edits on September 19, adding the {{music-importance}}, {{unreferenced}}, and {{advert}} tags to the article [42], added a {{fact}} tag to a claim made in the article [43], then battled reversions of those edits by user Ekajati and user Anger22. As an impartial observer, I don't disagree with the addition of those tags to the article. Mattisse's sole edit to the article on August 21 was to add the {{music-importance}} tag to the article [44].
  • The Timmy12 user has contributed to far more than just those five articles. The Mattisse user has contributed to far more than just those five articles. The fact that both users have contributed to those five articles is well within the possibility of being just a coincidence.
  • The {{Unreferenced}} tag has been added to over 22,000 articles on the English Wikipedia. The {{Importance}} tag has been added to nearly 3,000 articles. The {{Advert}} tag has been added to over 2,000 articles. I haven't even tried to count the articles with the {{fact}} or {{citation needed}} tags. These are clearly not obscure templates that are used by a relatively small number of wikipedians.
  • The Timmy12 account was created at 14:11 on September 8, 2006 and began editing immediately The edit contributions showed a knowledge of Wikipedia that was significantly more advanced than a typical new user. On September 3rd-4th, user Mattisse [45] engaged in a discussion on his talk page that indicated that he was frustrated with recent events on Wikipedia and was advised to create a new account to avoid scrutiny. The user Mattisse did not contribute again until late on September 8th.
  • When the Timmy12 account was created, the user Mattisse was not blocked, so this does not appear to be a case of block evasion. None of the evidence points to any policy violations in edit wars (i.e. 3RR avoidance) or voting issues.

--Neil916 (Talk) 17:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Conclusion by Neil916
  • The evidence provided does not show that the contributions of Mattisse (and his proven sockpuppets) and Timmy12 are similar enough to demonstrate a sockpuppet relationship. In addition, there has been no evidence provided that if the two users are the same, that there has been any policy violation of WP:SOCK. The Timmy12 user appears to be an active contributor, and while there may be some editorial disputes with other users here, they don't appear to fall into the category of malicious or vandalism.

--Neil916 (Talk) 17:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Not blocked. Iolakana•T 11:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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:Randallrobinstine

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Vrrayman2004 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


User continues to create bogus pages such as FOX 70s as with previous incarnations of his/her sockpuppets. Wildthing61476 20:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

Article creations. Iolakana•T 11:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments
Conclusions
Obvious sock; article has been deleted. Follow the instructions—they are not difficult. The account has been blocked. Iolakana•T 11:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
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:Randallrobinstine

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Vrrayman1998 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Evidence

Same MO and similar name to Vrrayman1987

Comments

Blocked. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

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. Nothing appears to be happening. If the user starts up again, ping me on my talk page. Iolakana•T 10:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Littleraindrop

is suspect of being another sockpuppet of indef bannded user User:Rgulerdem Old cases here: [46][47]. Basically the same arguments as in the old case apply: Same spelling mistakes, same defensive fixation on Fethullah Gülen (but this time in a different article), single pupose account, goes into edit war mode immediately after establishinmg account, conceals major reverts as "minor" edits Azate 22:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Would a CheckUser be appropriate here?? --LiverpoolCommander 22:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Let's wait if or until something really serious happens. Maybe having been caught and reported here is enough for him to back off. Azate 22:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
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:Qabbalah

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

TonySReed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
HisNameIsAlive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Evidence

Sockpuppet User:TonySReed ? User:Qabbalah created an article Tony Reed, with massive self-promotion by spamming and vandalising multiple music genre articles (see Special:Contributions/Qabbalah. The article Tony Reed was put up for an AfD, and see: what a coincidence: by accident the "real" tony reed just found out this page at this very moment (User:TonySReed , registers, knows his way around in WP and goes voting for a "keep"... very suspicious at least. (If it's not sock puppetry, Qabbalah has had enough warnings for this ugly spamming of dozens of articles, so a block may be a good idea as well....)

User:HisNameIsAlive appears to be another sock, evidence same as above. Oh, and User:TonySReed has "authenticated" himself to User:HisNameIsAlive on his talk page, which is quite amusing. Leibniz 21:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

I need to make this clear. I am NOT the person going by the handle "Qabbalah". I have been a regular visitor to wikipedia for a couple years now, but never bothered to get a membership until this debacle reached my attention. I have figured out what little I know because I use computers regularly and, aside from formatting, wikipedia is pretty easy to navigate. If you want the article on me to cite sources and show notability, I'm happy to oblige.

The user "Qabbalah" has impersonated me before I suspect. I am "Qabbalah" on myspace due to the fact that "Qabala" was already taken by this same user. Go look for yourself!

I appreciate Qabbalahs efforts to promote me, but not the posting of my personal information and the half-truths and omissions present in the article. If you wish to remove the article, fine! but don't besmirch my name!

I certainly support blocking Qabbalah. --User:TonySReed (I can't find the tilde on my laptop) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TonySReed (talk • contribs) 17:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • THIS IS GETTING RIDICULOUS. Now I'm accused of being "Hisnameisalive"? For the record, I have a suspicion of who Hisname is and I'm pretty sure she is not me. I can't say whether she's Qabbalah. So what do I have to do to clear my name here? --TonySReed 21:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Looking at the contributions of User:Qabbalah would certainly give the impression that User:TonySReed and User:Qabbalah are the same person, assuming the user TonySReed is who he claims to be, especially given the detailed information that Qabbalah has posted, including personal information and a photo of Tony's wedding (Image:Treedwed.jpg) with a copyright tag that claims that Qabbalah is the creator of the work. Unless Tony could provide a plausible explanation of how a random fan would be able to come up with such photos and knowledge, I'd personally consider it to be pretty good evidence of sockpuppetry. However, I haven't noticed any contributions from either of these two users that indicate that any Wikipedia policy has been violated, since Qabbalah's contributions ended on September 13, and TonySReed's contributions began on September 18. The new user was not created in order to circumvent any blocks or to stack any votes, so I'd say that the issue is pretty moot if these were in fact the same user, unless such behavior happens in the future, especially if the Qabbalah account remains inactive or both users clearly identify the sockpuppet relationships on their user pages in order to avoid confusion in the future. Neil916 (Talk) 16:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Looking at the contributions of User:HisNameIsAlive, I can conclude that it is possible likely, but not necessarily definite, that this user is a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of the same user. Of particular interest is the fact that the user account was created at 16:02 on September 15, 2006 [48], and within 20 minutes contributed a lengthy section about Tony's religious beliefs to the Tony Reed article [49], including a direct quote, with no attribution of source. It doesn't appear to me that it was a simple cut-and-paste from another source, since it included typos that were immediately corrected in a separate edit [50]. This user's other contributions are pretty limited to linking to the Tony Reed page in other articles [51], [52], [53], [54], all in the same day. Potentially offsetting this is the fact that on September 18, the TonySReed user subsequently reverted a portion (but not all) of the regilious beliefs section added by HisNameIsAlive [55], but by that time the AfD was already in progress and this could have been a step to make the page seem less like a personal vanity page. The most disturbing coincidence is that user HisNameIsAlive posted a dissenting vote on the AfD for the Tony Reed article on 9/18 at 01:52 [56], with a minor revision at 01:56 [57], then the TonySReed account was created at 02:02 [58], then the TonySReed account immediately posted a dissenting vote on the same AfD at 02:07 [59]. This is a case where checkuser may be appropriate, since if they are demonstrated to be the same user, then Wikipedia policy has been violated since both HisNameIsAlive and TonySReed cast dissenting votes in the AfD for the Tony Reed article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Reed and appropriate actions should be taken. Neil916 (Talk) 16:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, my vote on removing the page was neutral. I don't care what happens to the page, I just didn't want my personal information available. I'm okay with a page being here, but I have no personal stake in it. Since nobody took the initiative to remove it, I took the matter into my own hands and erased the info about my political views(half-truth), My whereabouts, My marriage, and my religious views (Including a quote of something I never said). Where I agreed, was to cancel Qabbalahs membership. If you do a check user and find Qabbalah and Hisname to be the same person, then I agree with removing both identities, (although it would seriously disappoint me if that were the case). I still appreciate your fairly neutral approach Neil916 --TonySReed 21:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I've tried to be 100% neutral here. I looked at the facts and outlined my conclusion. If there's something that I've done that is showing bias either way, please point it out to me so I can remedy the situation. I have had no prior contact with any of the accused or accusing users here, nor was I involved with (or even aware of) any of the articles involved prior to looking into this. Neil916 (Talk) 00:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The checkuser results have confirmed that all three accounts are using the same IP address(es). Neil916 (Talk) 04:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Accounts have been blocked. Iolakana•T 10:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
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:Dicksg

Suspected sockuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Evidence

I believe this user is a sockpuppet for Dicksg, recently blocked (User_talk:Dicksg) for repeated (over 20 times!) vandalism to National Service in Singapore. Namely, he engaged in a revert war with several other users including User:Terence Ong, User: Vsion, and User: Rifleman_82 repeatedly inserting this unencyclopedic, POV, and original research text:

<quote> One person account "i came to singapore at the age of 2 from malaysia,studied from k1 to jc 1,than at the age of 17 i cancelled my pr and went to uk to study.i came back to singapore at 21 and got an employment pass.after 5 years of ep i applied for pr and got it. i dont have to serve a minute of ns.i have a letter from mindef congradulating me that i am not liable for ns(ever). so i suggest you go down to singapore immigration and change your ic from pink to blue. the only advantage for pink ic holders are a subsidised 4 rm hdb flat. what is the value of a ns exempt letter from mindef ? priceless. i rather die than convert from blue to pink. i pray that the mentor lives for another 20 years and maintain the current status quo than i can retire a rich man in malaysia. malaysia boleh !!! btw my son will be learning this hat trick from his old man me." Another person account "Same case here with me....! i was in malaysia studying til Form 6 (singapore's JC level) ....my dad is a 1st generation PR and i got my letter to serve NS after my studies. All i did was to renounce my PR and i didnt have to serve. 3 months later, i applied for a local uni as a malaysian and got in. After my degree, i was on EP and 1month after i got my first job, the singapore government offered me PR AGAIN.......i pity you singaporean......but its a loophole indeed. BTW, i was on scholarship during my studies in singapore as well so it was absolutely free...........GREAT FEELING....!!! I LUUVVVVV SINGAPOR</quote>

For his trouble, he received five warnings from 14 Sep to 17 Sep, having been blocked once on 14 Sep (8 hours), before finally being blocked indefinitely on 17 Sep.

The new user, User:Safgeneral, is believed to be the sockpuppet of User:Dicksg because there is a similarity in the style of posts. Specifically, the posts appear to be placed randomly, with no regard for the context of the section. The posts are mere cut-and-paste statements, no attempts being made to craft the addition to fit the context of the article.

--Rifleman 82 10:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments


  • The Dicksg user was blocked indefinitely on 9/17/06 at 18:02 for vandalism. The Safgeneral account was created on 9/18/06 at 10:02, and made its only edit, a nonsense addition to the National Service in Singapore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article three minutes later [60]. This is the same article that had been the focus of Dicksg. The manner of vandalism, insertion of large blocks of irrelevant text, is similar. The timing of the account creation is suspicious. Neither user used any edit summaries. Although this new account doesn't have much of a contribution history to compare, it does look like a case of block evasion and continued destructive behavior to me. Neil916 (Talk) 20:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • More than likely. Iolakana•T 10:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
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:Grungoria

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppet

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

Evidence

Uses same writing style, sources and arguments as puppet User:Garamundi.

  • Does not sign his posts just like his puppet.
  • Uses the same sources
  • Provides simular arguments and makes same mistake of thinking that the King of Denmark actually had any political power. This is an unusual and very unique misunderstanding of a constitutional monarchy.
  • Has very simular, unique and rather unusual opinions
  • Puppet turned up a few days after his master stopped posting to the talk page.

Please look at his edit here Talk:Axis_Powers#Debate_with_White_Guard and compare it to the statements of his puppet later in the debate. His points and arguments are identical. Furthermore he calls other people's arguments stupid and generally has no regard for Wikipedia's no perosnal attack policy or warnings given to him by admins.

Also if you see his edit history [[61]] and [[62]] you will notice that these are not the kind of edits a first time editor would make. He clearly had the experience needed to make major changes to the article. Also you will notice that Grungoria's personal attacks began 5 hours after he created that account. A user who is only 5 hours old does make such edits, it is highly unusual. it makes me think that Grungoria is not the sockpuppeteer but another puppet of an unknown puppeteer but I have no direct evidence so I am only reporting the two known accounts.

He is trying to make it seem as if his views has broader support than they really do.

Both have only made edits to the Axis Powers article and only a few yet they are quite familiar with Wikipedia policies about NPOV and decided to start right away with editing the article rather than "get their feet wet" on the talk page first. Makes me think that maybe they are both sock puppets belonging to an unknown puppeteer.

Ran a check by CheckUser which resulted in a likely verdict. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Grungoria.

Has been blocked just 2 days ago for 24 hours for breaking the 3RR and is currently under a warning for personal attacks. These include accusations of vandalism, sock puppetry and using my ethnic heritage as an argument against me. These attacks occured shortly after his block expired and has not ended despite a warning being added by an admin on his talk page.

His only response to this case has been to accuse me of being a sockpuppet of another user User:White Guard with whom he also disagrees.

I request that he and his sockpuppet is permanently blocked. MartinDK 18:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Can he prolong the case by not responding to it? MartinDK 17:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

No, the user doesn't necessarily have to respond to it in order for an investigation to take place. The Garamundi user is certainly aware of the accusation and whether any involved parties choose to contribute information about the sockpuppet accusation is up to them. Neil916 (Talk) 20:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Without hearing any kind of explanation from the accused users about why the checkuser came up "likely", I'd say that the original poster of this sockpuppet case makes a good argument, especially given the checkuser results. I don't think there's much more that I feel I can add, other than the fact that the user Grungoria has only 5 edits from 9/9 to 9/10, and the user Garamundi wasn't created until 9/14, but immediately jumped into the middle of a heated discussion on the Axis powers talk page. The Grungoria account had not been blocked, so there was not a need for block evasion and it doesn't look like a revert war where a user was trying to avoid 3RR. (I especially would have looked for that type of activity to come into play while Garamundi was blocked for 3RR or in an attempt to avoid 3RR). Neil916 (Talk) 21:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
It's certainly possible, but it is also not possible either. If the suspected account begins acting suspicious, create another report. Iolakana•T 10:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

.

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:Robertjkoenig

Evidence

While Robertjkoenig has not posted for awhile (in fact, either he or one of his other sockpuppets was permanently banned from Wikipedia by Jimbo Wales), he continues to post using a variety of short-lived (at least in terms of their use) sockpuppets. Puppets used recently include User:84.58.226.55, user:usaa_indexer, user:usaa_editor, user:true_to_usaa, user:voltaire_redux, user:69.147.149.74; in the past he has also used a variety of IP addresses as well as the following user names user:philosophenweg, user:zorro_redux, user:kwai, and user:outofthenoondaysun.

Essentially, the only posts he makes on Wikipedia are on the USAA page, the USAA discussion page, or on the Reciprocal interinsurance exchange page. Typically, he will use Wikipedia as a soapbox; he believes the existence of USAA is illegal and likes to cite court cases (such as True v. USAA) or (Tuck v. USAA) as well as other arcane legal citations. He (or his sockpuppets) have been banned for their habits of editing archived talk pages, violating the 3 revert rule, and for personal attacks against others who do not share his opinion. Any of this activity can be observed by checking any of the user pages cited above.

It is my intention in making this post that all Robertjkoenig sockpuppets be banned, and for entry to remain in the archives to facilitate banning of any further sockpuppets generated by Mr. Koenig.

--Swizzlez 22:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Accounts have already been blocked. Iolakana•T 10:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

New information

Koenig contacted me via this post [63] from an address in Riga. He is still after the same old thing. I blocked his IP address. Watch for this guy.--Brad Patrick 16:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ccson Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Robotam Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bearly541

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.

TareTone

Accused sockpuppeter

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

Accused sockpuppets

Tonetare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Aaroandre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Evidence

The user Taretone, previously banned user [64] has a long grudge against myself and a couple of other users (including one admin).

The first move of the sock is to tell his friend Sugarpine that he's back and that he plans to have a little fun. His next move is to post disgusting abuse here and then move over to my page to do the same.

This follows a pattern of abuse and bad behaviour under his previous names:

1,2, 3,4,5, 6, 7,8, 9, 10

--Charlesknight 09:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments
  • I considered this user my friend but have been growing more and more irrated due to his attacking of other users. He has come back as many accounts and promises to do more. Any accounts related to Taretone or Tonetare should be blocked indef. Charlesknight is right when saying he has been abusive to him and Tryenius though not to me as much. I almost requested arbitartion but was advised not to by Tryenius. Other users he is bothering are LtPowers, Fram, Tryenius and Charlesknight. Just more evidence....I'll provide diff's later. Sugarpinet/c 14:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The user Aaroandre has already been blocked indefinitely[65]. This seems more like a simple abuse case than a sockpuppet case since the user in question does not appear to be taking many steps to conceal his identity. I've had a bit of difficulty determining who you were suspecting of being a sockpuppet of whom and tried to clarify the headers. Let me know if I have mixed anything else up. -- Neil916 (Talk) 19:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Please remember to tag the user's page; I was having difficulty trying to find out who you were talking about. Iolakana•T 10:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
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:ShinerDawg

Evidence

User:ShinerDawg moved the article caffeine to "Caffeine on WHEELS!!!!!!" Special:Contributions/ShinerDawg

User:Jobe6 has also moved articles to "(article name) on WHEELS" as well, before being blocked from editing by Jimbo Wales and/or the Arbitration Committee. Special:Contributions/Jobe6 – Zntrip 17:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Already blocked. Iolakana•T 17:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

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 not going to let a big arguement on this page happen here. Take it to WP:RFCU. Iolakana•T 17:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Mykungfu

Evidence

The user has used various IDs and AOL sockpuppet IDs such as Bobbydoop, Mikeandike,User talk:152.163.100.130, User talk:64.131.205.160, User talk:68.175.26.54. The NinjaNubian ID was only created about 2 weeks, after the Alpha Phi Alpha article was semi-protected so that anonymous or newly registered users could not edit the article. After about 7 days when the ID was no longer new, he began his vandalism and revert war again. The user created another ID Mykungfu saying he lost his password to NinjaNubian. Since admin attention was brought to the ID Mykungfu via an AfD and RfC, the user has used anonymous IP addresses to revert and remove the AfD template on the page Alpha Kappa Nu as well as comments on the discussion page[66] and comments on the AfD itself[67]. User has also used Anonymous IPs to remove dispute templates from article Sigma Pi Phi.[68] Mykungfu's edits under anon IP are traceable.[69] -Robotam 20:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • User:Mykungfu claims that he is being reported because of an "edit war." Unfortunately, the only person warring is User:Mykungfu. Everyone else is either ignoring him or reporting clear violations by User:Mykungfu, per wiki policy. Article Alpha Phi Alpha was protected because of User:Mykungfu. When consensus is built on articles that he/she disagrees with, his MO is to flame the article or their personal pages, and accuse everyone else of be a sockpuppet, even though he/she is the one that uses various anon IPs to do so, which are traceable to his/her ID. And when someone reports him/her, he simply breaks wiki policy by editing out their report (claiming they too are a "vandal" or "sockpuppet"), comments[70] or template (even on their own page)[71][72], as if no one investigating will read the history or logs to see what he is doing--or he tries to flame them by repeating their allegations back against them. His IP and ID's have been previously blocked; It was on the verge of being blocked again that he "lost" his password to NinjaNubian and created ID Mykungfu. No, I am not a sockpuppet of any form, but as I sign my name, I welcome any admin to verify both of our accounts. -Robotam 13:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • User:Mykungfu appears to be editing in very bad faith. S/he has accused me, a Wikipedia user in good standing with over 3000 edits, of being a sockpuppet, without providing any evidence whatsoever. | Mr. Darcy talk 14:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


Comments


Sockpuppet? The user pages of Mykungfu

states

Lost my password to NinjaNubian

Created another one Mykungfu 08:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


This is also on the userpage for Ninjanubian

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NinjaNubian


Robotam is engaged in a revert war with Mykungfu and this should be noted.

robotam

Came around september 6. his second edit was sept 12th, his third was on the 13th it basically seems as if his whole existance was to sign this RFC. I believe him to be a sockpuppet

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robotam&limit=500&action=history Mykungfu 09:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


Robotam has made it a pesonal mission to destroy pages created by ninjanubian as can be documented by his actions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sigma_Pi_Phi

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alpha_Kappa_Nu


he opens up dispute pages for the sake of wasting everyone times..

he is also reverting pages twice in the past 90 minutes

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/NinjaNubian

posted by anon IP of Mykungfu150.210.226.2 23:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


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 interested in this complaint, take it to WP:RFCU. Format cases correctly next time, the SSP page looks horrid. Iolakana•T 17:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Robotam

Came around september 6. his second edit was sept 12th, his third was on the 13th it basically seems as if his whole existance was to sign this RFC. I believe him to be a sockpuppet

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robotam&limit=500&action=history Mykungfu 09:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


Robotam has made it a pesonal mission to destroy pages created by ninjanubian as can be documented by his actions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sigma_Pi_Phi

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alpha_Kappa_Nu


he opens up dispute pages for the sake of wasting everyone times..

he is also reverting pages twice in the past 90 minutes

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/NinjaNubian


Mykungfu 08:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)



http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&oldid=75463808

User:Ccson reported by User:Errabee (Result: warning) Three revert rule violation on

Alpha_Phi_Alpha (edit|talk|links|history|logs). Ccson (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log):



Previous version reverted to: difficult to say, several minor additions, wikifying has been done as well. 1st revert: 11 September, 04:30 2nd revert: 11 September, 06:19 3rd revert: 11 September, 12:00 4th revert: 11 September, 15:40 Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :

not done, only after 4th diff warning was given: [19] However, user seems to know about WP:3RR: 30 August, 05:12 Comments: User:Bearly541 reverted the other two additions/reversions from User:NinjaNubian. Errabee 15:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)



User:Ccson reported by User:NinjaNubian (Result:) Three revert rule violation on

Alpha Phi Alpha (edit|talk|links|history|logs). Ccson (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log):


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&oldid=76160415

Previous version reverted to: 02:43, 30 August 2006 1st revert: 04:11, 30 August 2006 2nd revert: 04:11, 30 August 2006 3rd revert: 04:16, 30 August 2006 4th revert: 04:28, 30 August 2006 Time report made: 21:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: As can be seen above, this is his second 3rr violation in under two weeks. I want a documentation of Ccson's reversion as well as the on going edit war between users.

These diffs are back in August and even earlier than the above warning? --WinHunter (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC) yes this user has a constant history of 3rr behavior

Response
  • This is a retaliatory flame by Mykungfu after being reported.[73] His/Her allegations are disproved by a reading of the links S/he listed above and below. -Robotam 16:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
ongoing revert war on multiple topics and boards as well as filing for RFC's and AFD's

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alpha_Phi_Alpha&limit=500&action=history

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


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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/NinjaNubian

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alpha_Kappa_Nu

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sigma_Pi_Phi&oldid=75715627


Bearly541

Bearly541 the co author has also been problematic in that he has posted things such as Ninja Nubian

Please do not accept edits by Ninja nubian. He/she is putting irrelavent facts without discussing them on the discussion page. Bearly541 14:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC) REVERT AT SIGHT. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kappa_Alpha_Psi&oldid=75102668

reverted edits on kappa alpha psi http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kappa_Alpha_Psi&action=history

over here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kappa_Alpha_Psi&oldid=75102453

and here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kappa_Alpha_Psi&oldid=75056898

both on september 11th

over here as well

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kappa_Alpha_Psi&oldid=72767067

on the alpha phi alpha article twice on september 11th

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

as can be seen here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alpha_Phi_Alpha&oldid=75056228

and here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alpha_Phi_Alpha&oldid=75053784

as well as here on another day

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alpha_Phi_Alpha&oldid=72533713


Response
  • This is completely ridiculous. I am a user in good standing with over 3000 edits to the English Wikipedia, and User:Mykungfu is acting in very bad faith by drawing me into some edit war in which I'm not even involved, over an article I haven't edited in weeks. I see no evidence above to support this accusation. | Mr. Darcy talk 14:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • User Mykungfu is flaming users that have reported him for various violations, by cutting and pasting their reports into ridiculous claims against them. The links that he offers as evidence impugn his own allegations. If it will help stop his misuse of wikipedia, I welcome any administrator investigation. -Robotam 14:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
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:Donotsayno

Evidence

These users exhibit a very similar behaviour. Uploading a huge number of fair use images without source or rationale and never responding to any talk page comments. Ddanno35 (talk · contribs) has been blocked twice for this abuse, Donotsayno has not yet been blocked but I just warned him. They seem to be editing the same sort of articles (US TV) and never use edit summaries.--Konstable 10:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Account have been blocked. Ddanno35 is actually the sockpuppet; Donotsayno is the sockpuppet master, after checking the user creation log. Iolakana•T 13:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

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:Edipedia

Evidence

Both User:Tecunre and User:Ltnte may be sockpuppets of User:Edipedia. It has been confirmed by a checkuser that Edipedia uses socks to violate 3RRs. Both these accounts were created on the day of this report, making similar edits that Edipedia does. Ltnte was already blocked for 24 hours for violating 3RR. Immediately afterwards, account Tecunre was created to make the same reverts.

Comments

Blocked per the RFCU result. Iolakana•T 13:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

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. Most IP address were currently no threat to Wikipedia. Also, about five or six had been blocked in the past and only one IP address had not made any contributions. Iolakana•T 16:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

KraMuc (2nd case)

The basic issue here is that someone whose first user account was permabanned appears to be extensively editing as an IP anon and has also apparently registered some sockpuppet accounts. (This suspicion could probably be tested using the evidence listed below via a request at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser.)

KraMuc, a permabanned user

KraMuc (talk · contribs · block log) has been permabanned for his offensive and disruptive POV-pushing at less-widely articles such as

as well as widely and frequently edited articles such as:

Previous suspected socks

Users previously suspected of socking for Kramuc include:

New suspected socks

New users suspected of socking for KraMuc include:

Not suspected KraMuc socks
  • Licorne (talk · contribs), another permabanned user with similar opinions and similar narrow interests, but believed to be a different person entirely, possibly Dean Mamas IRL
  • E4mmacro (talk · contribs), apparently Michael Macrossan IRL, who has in part somewhat similar opinions and interests (he has opposed the apparent anti-Semitic strain in some anti-Einstein edits, for example), but is not believed to be the same person as KraMuc
Evidence

Compare the following list of edits, noting such features as:

  • KraMuc edits a fairly narrow set of pages, always pushing his anti-relativity notions, promoting his "modern Galilean relativity" replacement notions, and often attacking the character of Einstein
  • As ARIN records of the IP addresses he is known to have used as an anon show, KraMuc generally edits from the Munich area, but has vacationed (he himself mentioned this in signed comments) on the Adriatic coast, which largely explains the Italian ISPs noted below as having been used by KraMuc at certain periods
  • KraMuc often cites papers by Wilfred Krause, a very little known fringe physicist
  • KraMuc sometimes mentions Gertrud Walton, a very little known anti-relativity crank
  • KraMuc has denied that his attacks on relativity and on the character of Einstein have any anti-Semitic motivation, but some of his edits may suggest otherwise to some users (an example of an insensitive edit is noted below)
  • KraMuc often employs imperfect English diction (KraMuc is apparently a native speaker of German)
  • KraMuc often belittles the expertise of users expressing opinions he dislikes
  • KraMuc often signs his anon comments "KraMuc", sometimes "Knäckebrotfabrikant.it", and often doesn't sign at all
  • KraMuc sometimes mentions his own professional experience, or drops names of various fringe physicists in the German speaking community in Europe
  • KraMuc sometimes begins his talk page comments with "Salve"
  • KraMuc sometimes posts comments in German
  • KraMuc sometimes belittles users he doesn't like by calling them "immature"
  • KraMuc sometimes accuses users he doesn't like (including admins) of "criminal" behavior
  • KraMuc sometimes threatens legal action
  • KraMuc has been known to threaten to contact employers and sometimes demands (in talk page messages here at Wikipedia) that a Wikipedia user be fired from his job
  • KraMuc sometimes edit wars with other users
  • KraMuc is often sarcastic
Known KraMuc edits

As his registered user KraMuc (talk · contribs):

  1. 00:15, 25 June 2006 "Another misunderstanding concerns my identity. Krause is in China for several weeks (if not for months or even longer - he sent me yesterday a message according to which he has been offered a post at a university). The similarity between us two reduces to the first three letters of our second names, which are identical. In real life we easily may be distinguised, because I am much taller than he is. He is the little one, at conferences always well dressed, who wares continuously gloves made from white silk. Some of you must have seen him in Schladming and at other places. Don't make him cross because he is highly sensitive and can become very grim. He has good contact to adminsitrations of important research institutes...Price, has been explained to me, is the one who during conferences smells continuously out of his big mouth because in his brain there is only shit." This edit was the last straw which resulted in KraMuc's permabanning.
  2. 12:59, 22 June 2006 vio of WP:CIV
  3. 12:56, 22 June 2006 vio of WP:NPA
  4. 12:54, 22 June 2006 vio of WP:NLT
  5. 05:09, 21 June 2006 vio WP:CIV
  6. 05:06, 6 May 2006 "I have myself worked a long time ago as a professional editor of a technical journal in Berlin (for one year). Since I am a retired physicist, I do have also the time...The [h]air dresser told me, that his friend, the architect, had ask him - meant as a joke - the following question: "Why don't you install in your place here a special chair for Jews?" The hair dresser asked back: "For Jews? How should that chair then look like". An the answer was: "On the left hand side of the chair a gas cylinder and on the right hand side another one". This kind of jokes are spontaneously triggered off by persons like Mr. Jacobi when he creates his nonsense. Afterward then the complaint comes: "That's anti-Semitism"." For the life of me, I don't see the humor in this particular [sic] "joke".

In addition to his user account, KraMuc has frequently used numerous IPs, mostly from the Munich area. There is no doubt about his identity as an IP "anon" because he frequently signs these edits as "KraMuc". Note that he has clearly continued to edit as an anon even after being permabanned.

The dip.t-dialin.net anon

This domain is registered to Deutsche Telekom AG (dial-up access in Munich). The following IPs have apparently been used to edit Wikipedia exclusively by "KraMuc".

Note: the edit history is destroyed, but it seems that as the dip.t-dialin.net anon, KraMuc wrote at 19:20, 8 May 2006 in the talk page of the deleted article on "Anti-relativity" "Ich bitte Sie dringenst, die kriminellen Handlungen von 'pjabobi' zu unterbinden. Er hat u.a. auch Texte vernichtet sowie eine Botschaft für den User 'E4mmacro', einen australischen Dozenten. Solche Handlungen sind gesetzwidrig, also kriminell" ("I ask you to stop the criminal actions of Pjacobi. He deleted among other things edits and a message for the user ' E4mmacro ', an Australian lecturer. Such actions are illegal, thus criminal"), a WP:NPA-WP:NLT vio. See the link to this statement for admins only.

The deutsches-museum.de anon

This domain is registered to the Deutches Museum, a science Museum in Munich

The deutschepost.de anon=

This is a more doubtful case of a possible KraMuc IP anon. This domain is apparently registered to Deutsche Post AG in Bonn and putatively geolocated near Burlingame, CA, in the San Francisco Bay region

The pools.arcor-ip.net anon

This domain is registered to Arcor AG and apparently geolocated near Düsseldorf

The prim-ns.de anon

This domain is registered to Easynet Group Plc, aka Easynet DV GmbH, and possibly geolocated somewhere near Ludwigsburg, a suburb of Stuttgart

The interbusiness.it anon

This domain is allegedly registered to InterBusiness (headquartered in Rome) via Telecom Italia (but has a bogus registrar)

Apparently geolocated near Milan:

Apparently geolocated near Ferrara:

  • 87.1.61.243 (talk · contribs · block log) (blocked by SCZenz as a KraMuc sockpuppet)
    1. 01:39, 28 June 2006 "Salve, Laurascudder, I have sent a letter to the Head of Personnel CERN, Geneve, Switzerland, today, and I am sure that SCZens will get a fair chance at CERN to explain his misuse of both working time and of CERN computers...KraMuc is a senior physicist whose name you may find mentioned in your field of work in connection with the thick saturable absorber, with the circular-scan streaktube and with laser ranging type of space projects. You could make good use of your administrative power by lifting the irresponsible and childish ban against KraMuc. Mr. Zenz is an immature person with an extremely bad behaviour, the same is true for his 'assistent' Crum375. 28 June 2006, Knäckebrotfabrikant.it" Note the date (three days after KraMuc's permabanning).
    2. 01:39, 28 June 2006 signs "Knäckebrotfabrikant.it"
  • 87.10.48.130 (talk · contribs · block log)
    1. 03:31, 14 July 2006 signs "KraMuc"
  • 87.10.48.157 (talk · contribs · block log)
    1. 07:29, 16 July 2006 several edits of Modern Galilean relativity (note the date)
    2. 14:18, 30 June 2006 signs "KraMuc"
    3. 14:12, 30 June 2006 "Mr. Zenz is simply an immature person, and I regret that he deserves this kind of treatment. Apparently he has nothing or too little to do during working hours at CERN. Therefore, he is currently misusing CERN computers for his nonsense. I have informed the Head of Personnel of CERN as well as the manager of the ATLAS project about his continuous misuse of CERN computers, and I must say that I have absolutely no bad feeling about this"; vio of WP:HAR-WP:NPA.
  • 87.11.49.18 (talk · contribs · block log)
    1. 03:29, 7 July 2006 reply to POV-pushing warning by myself signed "KraMuc", statement "up to the present day none of the physical theories tought at universities worldwide is capable to explain the elementary particles and their mass spectrum" similar to pushers of Heim theory,
  • 87.16.48.211 (talk · contribs · block log)
    1. 13:07, 27 June 2006 signs "Knäckebrotfabrikant.it" (literally "crisp bread maker")
The retail.telecomitalia.it anon

Likewise registered under Telecom Italia S.p.A.

The business.telecomitalia.it anon

This domain is also allegedly registered to Interbusiness under Telecom Italia (but has a bogus registrar)

The atlanet.it anon

This domain is allegedly registered to Atlanet S.p.A. in Rome (but has bogus registrar)

PaolaDiApulia edits

As PaolaDiApulia (talk · contribs)

  1. 11:15, 14 September 2006 Tries to rebut talk page comment about KraMuc's behavior, saying "the longer I think about his ideas the more I get the impression that at the end he might be right." This may suggest wikishilling to some observers. Note the somewhat mangled English diction.
  2. 02:05, 24 July 2006 Another sarcastic reply to inquiry about possible sockpuppetry. As usual with socks, this user avoids direct denial.
  3. 03:18, 20 July 2006 Continues KraMuc's edit war by deleting entire section "Mainstream critiques" from Modern Galilean relativity.
  4. 03:23, 20 July 2006 Sarcastic reply to inquiry whether he/she is socking for KraMuc.
  5. 02:33, 19 July 2006 This user's very first edit is a complaint about "suppression" [sic] of KraMuc, similar to ones signed by KraMuc
Alarich di Busento edits

One of the anon IPs noted abovem 84.154.112.248 (talk · contribs) has been used only to leave a message at User talk:Jimbo Wales asking that KraMuc's permaban be overturned by Jimbo Wales and to vandalize my notes on the KraMuc case. There is no doubt since this anon signed himself "KraMuc".

One of the new suspected sockpuppet accounts, Alarich di Busento (talk · contribs · block log) is also a single use account, used only to leave two messages at User talk:Jimbo Wales supporting the plea by KraMuc and deprecating comments by other users:

  1. 10:31, 7 September 2006 Sarcastic comment dismissing another user's negative comments as not coming from a physicist
See also
External links
  • Did Einstein cheat?, by John Farrell, Salon, July 6, 2000. An excellent survey of some crank attacks on Einstein and relativity, which gives the big picture of attacks on relativity and on Einstein.

End of KraMuc (2nd) (sorry, I can't fix the munged indents)

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:SuicidalZero

Evidence


User Page under construction.. He commented on my talk page that he'd made a legitimate change, yet he has a talk page under each name (User talk:Kamikaze, User talk:SuicidalZero) and uses the redirect " User:SuicidalZero | Kamikaze " . Even if no untoward behavior is meant, his use of multiple alias has the potential for confusion, and seems unnecessary. -- Tenebrae 21:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments
That is a false accusation. I have never, ever removed someone else's comments. --Tenebrae 23:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Parties have talked it out
  • We have each, on our talk pages, talked things through, and found we each made assumptions about evidence for which we could have given each other the benefit of the doubt. We're willing to apologize to each other and drop the respective matters. I'd like to formally withdraw my complaint. -- Tenebrae 02:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
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:Jdbreathe

User:Wps85 recreated the article Jeff Davidson, previously posted by User:Jdbreathe, and recently deleted for the eleventh time. The article had been copied from the user page of Jdbreathe, where it had been edited. The implication is that Jdbreathe is Jeff Davidson. In [74], User:Wps85 asserts himself to be Jeff Davidson. Neither user appears to have done anything apart from articles about Jeff Davidson. Pseudomonas 15:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

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:Usman Farooq

Usman Farooq seems to have set up an account called MaverickInUrFace solely to attack other users who disagree with him on the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. The latter also signs his abuses as "Usman" —Ravikiran 11:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I have done no such thing. Just because another user has the same first name as mine I am being accused of sock puppetry? Usman is a very common Muslim name. If I was involved in sock puppetry I would not use my name to sing it. And If admins can check ip adresses then they will see that we don't have the same ip address either. I have maintained a high standard of co-operation and civilty and it disturbs me that I am accused of something with so feeble an evidence.

Comes out of nowehere, signs as you and has personal attacks in the edit summary. Pretty clear to me. Iolakana•T 18:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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:DaffyDuck619

Evidence

Their edits are strangely similar. Same articles, almost identical edits (and in some instances completely identical). IrishGuy talk 01:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • DaffyDuck619 on Doctor Who [75]
  • 203.25.140.101 on Doctor Who [76]
  • DaffyDuck619 on John Cena [77]
  • 203.25.140.101 on John Cena [78]
  • DaffyDuck619 on Films that have been considered... [79]
  • 203.25.140.101 on Films that have been considered... [80]
  • DaffyDuck619 on Dave The Barbarian [81]
  • 203.25.140.101 on Dave The Barbarian [82]
Comments

A simple WHOIS will show that the anon is from Queensland, Australia, same as Daffy, so the coincidences keep mounting up. Exact same articles, exact same edits, exact same protestations, and no connection? Colour me skeptical. A checkuser will no doubt confirm this. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

1) DaffyDuck619 never contributed a citation for the Robin Williams bit of fandom for Doctor Who (except imdb.com or some original research) but I provided the citation 2) So what it's true information 3) DaffyDuck619 never added in the category section for Dave The Barbarian category: fictional cowards. I only put back fictional heroes because he falls under the category, I bet a million bucks if I deleted a category in a page which the page falls under you would put it back. 4) DaffyDuck619 has asked people not to delete the word huge, I was doing the next best thing, putting it back up there. 5) I've made contributions to pages DaffyDuck619 hasn't like the Hollywood walk of fame or the TV movie for Doctor Who. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.25.140.101 (talk • contribs)

Will one of you file a checkuser request? CovenantD 02:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Done. No problem at all. IrishGuy talk 03:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

A lot of people are from Queensland, Australia. That doesn't mean there the same person.That I don't think is evidence. Brian Boru is awesome 13:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

By itself, no. Along with all the other bits, it becomes more suggestive. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

However all of which is explained in the above paragraph I typed up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.25.140.101 (talk • contribs)

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:RR2

Evidence
Comments
  • This user has placed personal attack comments on Talk:Spider-Man 3. He has also violated the 3RR, and when notified of both instances he created a second account so that he could revert his comments again. Bignole 22:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I have updated more reverts, plus instances where he changes his name on his signatures, and then talks to himself to appear that he's not a sock. Bignole 22:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. Iolakana•T 14:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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:Arthur Ellis

Evidence

Arthur Ellis has recently been removing large portions of Rachel Marsden, as he does from time to time. Yesterday, after Ellis had reverted for the second time, a new user Craigleithian appeared, performing much the same edits as Ellis -- namely, removing sections that contained sourced and verifiable information that did not reflect well on the article's subject. 3 of Craigleithian's 4 edits are wholesale removal of material from the Marden article. Suspect that this may be a sock to circumvent 3RR.

Craiglethian's edits: [83] [84] [85] [86]


Ellis's edits in that time frame: [87] [88] [89] [90]

Note also that Craigleithian seems to have the same interpretation of BLP, as noted on his talk page and on Talk:Rachel Marsden. Ianking 00:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Craigleithian also posted a nearly identical comment here to one posted by Arthur Ellis here. I suppose it's remotely possible that one comment inspired the other, but if there's one thing I've learned in my three years on Wikipedia, it's that a brand-new user who suddenly appears in the middle of a contentious edit war and supports one side of the debate is never a truly disinterested party offering a genuinely neutral assessment of the POV situation; it's always a puppet of either the sock or meat flavours. But then again, y'all knew that already. Okay, maybe Arthurleithian didn't. Bearcat 01:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Requests for checkuser confirms the suspicion --Geedubber 07:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Accounts have been blocked. Iolakana•T 14:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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

User:Willy on Wheels

Evidence

username is 'i am willy' --DakAD 00:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

I assume you mean i_am_willy (talk · contribs)? Iolakana•T 19:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Can't find the user; if they do exist, or anything relating to a willy, Curps or another admin immediately blocks. Even if all else fails, and then the user does page move, the account will be blocked. Please, in future, format cases correctly. Iolakana•T 19:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

my appologies. i followed the instructions i found to the letter (actually, i wondered about the detailed instructions not linking to the user account, but i assumed youd use the 'what links here')

anyhoo, i've only just noticed the existance of the 'blocklog'link... it appears he was blocked just after account creation, anyway.

sorry for the timewaste :-/ --Dak 00:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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:Randallrobinstine

Evidence
  1. Account name is a variation of one character compared with a previous sockpuppet, Vrrayman1987 (talk · contribs), blocked for being a sockpuppet of long term abuse Randall Robinstine.
  2. Behaviour pattern is pretty similar with previous sockpuppets, in example, obsession to That '70s Show (as Vrrayman1987, Vrrayman1988 and Randall Robinstine.
  3. According to the Long Term Abuse page:
    1. Randallrobinstine often vandalizes images with a paint application or replaces images with sloppy versions made with a paint application (what he did at Image:Nintendos.JPG)
    2. and inserts random words and sometimes false information into articles (as he did with a userpage)
    3. He sometimes vandalises video game-related articles such as Super Mario Bros. 3 as well (like replacing a logo with a penis)
    4. and to local vandalize the user and talk pages of those who have warned him for vandalism or banned his accounts, such as KHill-LTown. (as he did with Hill-LTown userpage and my talk page).
Comments

Could not add the sockpuppet notification at User talk:Randallrobinstine as the page is protected. -- ReyBrujo 22:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

That's OK, but it should go on the sockpuppet's user page (not talk nor sockpuppet master [the one who controls the sockpuppet]). Iolakana•T 19:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Already blocked. Iolakana•T 19:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

User:David Justin

Evidence

Allegations of sock puppetry on the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) page

User:Jean-Philippe writes on Talk:Center for Science in the Public Interest: “A quick look at the article history reveals that ever since this article was created last year, the article has been under pressure from one source attempting to drown what little information on the subject exists in favor of a massive amount of negative information. It's an open secret that 90%+ of those edits come from one source using a multitude of sockpuppets. A simple look at the contribution histories confirms this. [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98]”

And upon the appearance of a new account User:Bryant Wright [99], Jean-Philippe writes

“Does that mean that the next time we speak, you'll be using a different sockpuppet? That's a shame :P”

The alleged sock puppeteer is David Justin (real-life David J. Hanson)

The alleged sock puppets are: Bryant Wright, Ralph Creighton, Stu Wise, Enrique Perez, Sandy Beech, Emma Jacobson, Al Ellison, Neverglade, Cheese Lover

History of edits on the CSPI page

  • David Justin edited from 20 August 2005 – 7 April 2006, often using edits to add external links to his (David J. Hanson’s) web sites.
  • Cheese Lover started on 7 April 2006 shortly after David Justin’s last edit and continued until 18 April.
  • Al Ellison started on 8 May and finished on 10 May. Edited on CSPI page only so a likely Single Purpose Account.
  • Neverglade started on 8 May and finished on 9 May. Edited on CSPI page only so a likely Single Purpose Account.
  • Emma Jacobson started on 31 May and finished on 16 June. Edited on CSPI page only so a likely Single Purpose Account.
  • Sandy Beech started on 21 May and finished on 21 July. Edited on CSPI page only so a likely Single Purpose Account.
  • Enrique Perez started on 23 July and finished on 12 August. Apart from a CSPI-related comment on a talk page, edited on CSPI page only so a likely Single Purpose Account.
  • Stu Wise started on 28 August and finished on 30 August. Edited on CSPI page only so a likely Single Purpose Account.
  • Ralph Creighton edited on 2 September only. Edited on CSPI page only so a likely Single Purpose Account.
  • Bryant Wright edited on 2-4 September. Edited on CSPI page and the CSPI-related Michael F. Jacobson page only so a likely Single Purpose Account.

The edits of these accounts all show a strong similarity, different accounts copy in the same or very similar text. Nunquam Dormio 19:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

I added {{cleanup-date|August 2006}} on August 13, 2006. Other than that, I know nothing about the page or the other edits or editors. Mattisse(talk) 19:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Surprised to get a message on my talk page about sockpuppetry. My edit to Center for Science in the Public Interest page was:

06:51, 2 September 2006 Euchiasmus m (RETF Typos: Commerical → Commercial, using AWB)

On 2nd September I set AWB chugging through a shedload of pages using RETF, as I sometimes do. I usually load up pages that link to a page I choose at random, or that kind of thing - just correcting spelling mistakes while I'm doing something else - it interrupts me periodically when it finds a typo. My involvement with Center for Science in the Public Interest is thus totally accidental, and only arose because someone/somesock had typed Commerical. I have responded here simply so that you can eliminate me from your enquiries. I am not a sock.

Good luck with your endeavours. Cheers. Euchiasmus 20:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I see what I did some months ago was add some Category links. My additions are still present and seem appropriate. I don't know anything about the article's contents. Good luck. Thanks Hmains 22:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

My single edit to the page was 5 months ago, early in my Wikipedia editing experience. I attempted to remove some POV, added some {{citation needed}} tags, re-ordered some of the text and did a little copy editing. I haven't visited the page since and have no real knowledge of the material. The content and format have drastically changed since then. Let me know if you need any more info... -- Scientizzle 23:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't watched this closely, but looking at the contributions linked above, there is a strong push by these user accounts for a strongly critical POV against the Center for Science in the Public Interest. I don't know whether it's sock puppetry, meat puppetry or something else, though the fact that most of the edits by these accounts are on the one article is potentially suspicious. Cheese Lover's contributions are more diverse, but they seem to have a lot of topics in common with David Justin's contributions. Definitely worth checking for further evidence (IP addresses or whatever). --Singkong2005 talk 04:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

On the whole the contributions don't overlap, so its not the worse sockpuppet situation I've seen. I'd be inclined to take no action other than reverting, a pain I know, but theres plenty of other pages on contriversal groups, which get a similar level of negative attention. This might be a case for WP:RCU, if they do seem to be editing from the same IP account we would have more evidence of a concerted campaign. --Salix alba (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure doing the allegation of sockpuppetry was entirely adequate, but it did serve my purpose to identify the user and prevent any more reverting without discussion. I will add that the speed at which new users were created to apply reverts is a blatant example that someone has this article on his watchlist. Examine the entrance of new users in the history if you wish, but by example Bryant Wright was created 6 hour after my first edits to the article to make a blanket revert, whereas Stu Wise was created less than 24 hours after Neutrality's took out the huge criticism section. His first edit here [100] and the complete diff here[101]. I'm not familiar enough with the custom of a checkuser to know if it's justified in this case against their concern of privacy, but at least 6 months of constant revert, using a multitude of sockpuppets, with no discussion does qualify as a distruption. JSYK, here's the edits I took in consideration for the 6 month number[102]. Jean-Philippe 20:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Take this to WP:RFCU. Iolakana•T 19:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I support the motion. Granted, sockpuppet investigation may not be the most appropriate action. But something needs to be done. These accounts clearly collaborated with a clear POV goal, often falsifying information or inserting unreferenced defamatory claims. This clearly violates Wikipedia's mission, and there should be a way to fight it, regardless of the question if these accounts are sockpuppets or not. That question may be interesting in the context of the 3RR rule, though. Common Man 07:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

editor date of change regarding
"encouraging other to
collect misleading information" 		regarding cspinet.com other
Sandy Beech 19:55, 22 May 2006       deleted/replaced "[Tufts] lists the CSPI as a recommended link in the Consumer Information category"
Sandy Beech 18:32, 6 June 2006   deleted "CCF, who had registered the domain name cspinet.com, was ordered in January 2002 to transfer it to the CSPI. ...", only keeping "The CCF maintains a number of sites which are a frequently used source of anti-CSPI material ...."  
Emma Jacobson 18:29, 7 June 2006   deleted "One CCF tactic has been to register domain names similar to those used by CSPI."  
Emma Jacobson 17:34, 11 June 2006   deleted "CCF, who had registered the domain name cspinet.com, was ordered in January 2002 to transfer it to the CSPI. ...", only keeping (and adding POV to) "CSPI has attracted the attention of groups opposed to ...."  
Emma Jacobson 01:49, 12 June 2006   deleted "CCF, who had registered the domain name cspinet.com, was ordered in January 2002 to transfer it to the CSPI. ...", only keeping "The CCF maintains a number of sites which are a frequently used source of anti-CSPI material ...."  
Emma Jacobson 19:21, 15 June 2006   deleted "CCF, who had registered the domain name cspinet.com, was ordered in January 2002 to transfer it to the CSPI. ...", only keeping "The CCF maintains a number of sites which are a frequently used source of anti-CSPI material ...."  
Emma Jacobson 14:56, 16 June 2006   deleted "CCF, who had registered the domain name cspinet.com, was ordered in January 2002 to transfer it to the CSPI. ...", only keeping "The CCF maintains a number of sites which are a frequently used source of anti-CSPI material ...."  
Sandy Beech 18:46, 17 June 2006   deleted "CCF, who had registered the domain name cspinet.com, was ordered in January 2002 to transfer it to the CSPI. ...", only keeping "The CCF maintains a number of sites which are a frequently used source of anti-CSPI material ...."

(Interesting, how Sandy Beech made up for the fact that Emma Jacobson forgot their usual change by doing the same change just after Emma's edit.)

After this, the edit war ended, as the other side gave up.

 
Sandy Beech 02:20, 13 July 2006     changed "CSPI suggests alternatives to foods high in saturated fat" to "CSPI says not eat foods high in saturated fat".
Sandy Beech 01:09, 14 July 2006     changed "CSPI is a nonprofit institution" to "CSPI is a nonprofit corporation"

changed "CSPI has ... commented on  ... baby food" to "CSPI opposes baby food"

and more related changes
Sandy Beech 16:39, 14 July 2006    

changed "CSPI has ... commented on  ... baby food" to "CSPI opposes baby food"
Sandy Beech 20:52, 15 July 2006     changed "CSPI is a nonprofit institution" to "CSPI is a nonprofit corporation"

changed "CSPI suggests alternatives to

foods high in saturated fat" to "CSPI criticises foods it considers to be too

high in saturated fat"

changed "CSPI has ... commented on  ... baby food" to "CSPI opposes baby food"

and more related changes
Sandy Beech 21:39, 16 July 2006 inserted "encouraging other to collect misleading information (CSPI, n.d.), " (wrong reference, see my talk with Enrique Perez about this same change.    
Sandy Beech 19:14, 18 July 2006     inserted unreferenced "[CSPI] receive[s] grants and payments from trade groups. "
Sandy Beech 02:52, 19 July 2006     deleted/replaced "[Tufts] lists the CSPI as a recommended link in the Consumer Information category"
Sandy Beech 00:32, 20 July 2006     deleted/replaced "[Tufts] lists the CSPI as a recommended link in the Consumer Information category"

changed "CSPI suggests alternatives to

foods high in saturated fat" to "CSPI

criticises fooods (sic!) that do not meet its nutritional standards" 

many other changes that were summarized by user:Neutrality as " hit piece".
... ... ... and ... ... so ... ... on ...

Common Man 07:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Check user request has been made Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser — Nunquam Dormio 20:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The corresponding checkuser request is at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/David Justin. EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
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. Been ten days now. Any further edits should go to WP:ANI. Iolakana•T 19:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Wonderfool

wikt:Wonderfool (talk • contribs • page moves • block log) Local: User:Wonderfool has been permanantly blocked on the English Wiktionary. AFAIK, when the same stunt was pulled by him last year, he was asked not to edit any WMF project. After considerable contrite apologies were made, he was allowed to edit again (no longer as a sysop.) Creating several sock puppets, he was able to get a new user nominated for sysop, and about one year later, during WikiMania, repeated his stunt.

In IRC channels, he has promised to return next year, for more of the same. He expressed dissatisfaction that his Wikipedia user Dangherous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) narrowly failed the RfA procedure.

This is an active inter-project vandal. As new Wikipedia sockpuppets are uncovered, en.wiktionary.org would greatly appreciate information about them, on the Wiktionary beer parlour.

This user is known to use sleeper accounts. One is User:Dangherous (wikt:Dangherous (talk • contribs • page moves • block log) Local: User:Dangherous). His logs at Wiktionary, starting at August 6, 2006, show what he is capable of doing with administrator tools. When Wonderfool was an administrator under his original username, he went on a similar rampage on September 17, 2005, as you can see in this log. He tried to get adminship here (see this RFA, where he admits he is the same Dangherous as the Dangherous in Wiktionary.

Confirmed en.wiktionary.org sockpuppets


Wonderfool attacked Wiktionary in the same manner that the Anonymex vandal gang is rumored to be trying to use to attack Wikipedia.

Please note that some of the Wiktionary sockpuppets named are possibly impostors on Wiktionary who stole legitimate Wikipedians' usernames. However, some of them could be moles from the Anonymex vandal gang mentioned above that could be waiting for the right moment to attack Wikipedia.

Some of the users listen here are actual proper users. Contact an administrator on Wiktionary, you have a better chance of dealing with them over there. Iolakana|T 16:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
wikt:User:Connel MacKenzie is the Wiktionary administrator who opened this case. I have added a few notes after he wrote the report up. He wants to warn the Wikipedia administrators about this backstabbing rampage artist and have his sock farm blocked here. Please contact him at wikt:User talk:Connel MacKenzie if you wish to contact him because he does not spend much time here and therefore is often unaware of talk page changes here. Better yet, if you want to contact any administrator at Wiktionary, please visit the Wiktionary Beer Parlour, which is their analog of our Village pump and Administrators' noticeboard. Jesse Viviano 16:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that is correct. Perhaps I should restate the inter-project nature of this event at the top of this section. AFAIK, Wikipedia knew about Dangherous being Wonderfool, here on Wikipedia and the proper communication channels were not working. This is a multi-project vandal; as Wiktionary gets bigger we are seeing more and more inter-project vandalism. I think we need to coordinate our efforts much, much better. Thanks again Jesse; good clarifications. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 19:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
If WP knew Dangherous was Wonderfool, why is he not blocked? Iolakana|T 12:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I do wish to note that I think the theory that there is a link to "Anonymex" seems invalid. Wonderfool could have done much more damage, if he had actually been trying to do anything other than get attention. (I.e. "See, I did it again!") --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 19:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Corresponding Wikipedia users
I have created a sub page to make it easier to understand Wikipedia users from Wiktionary users, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Wonderfool/Wikipedia. Iolakana|T 12:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, below is a list of users that have had their name stricken because they do not exist or they are suspected (except from Shanel and Freak). Iolakana|T 13:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Do you mean not suspected? Dangherous/Wonderfool himself (in IRC and on wikt: talk pages) identified the Wonderfool, Dangherous, Dangerfool, Anonymous Editors, Bottletoground, Brandy, Expurgator, Foumidable, Newnoise and TheWayForward as his accounts on both wikt: and wiki:. Whatever criteria you used to conclude they are non suspected, is obviously wrong. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 00:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
      • It is possible that Wonderfool could be trying to frame legitimate users on Wikipedia. He already stole Shanel's and Freakofnurture's identities on Wikipedia by creating a Shanel account and a Freakofnurture account on Wiktionary. However, there is a remote possibility that these are Wonderfool's socks, so it looks like this case is becoming a good candidate for being sent to CheckUser. I am not taking this lightly, because the only other time I have requested a CheckUser anywhere is because someone was uploading child pornography on the Wikimedia Commons, and that requires us to find out the pedophile's IP address to prepare an ISP abuse report and a police report. Jesse Viviano 18:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Looking at "Oldest contributions", I'd have to say that Wonderfool was trying to gain Wiktionary sysop status from Freakofnurture's and Shanel's reputations. If he had had these accounts the first time around, they likely would have been used for nefarious purposes then. So, on those two I agree with Kilo-Lima, they should be striken from this secondary list. I also agree that users that don't exist here (Note: not the same as not having a user page) can be stricken. It would be more than prudent to CheckUser all the others against Wonderfool/Dangherous though. Indeed, very foolish not to. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 10:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
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:CltFn

Evidence

CltFn is an established editor here at wikipedia who primarily edits articles related to criticism of Islam, most often those of books critical of Islam. Recently I have run across a user (User:Amenra) that I suspect is a sockpuppet of CltFn for several reasons that are listed below:

1. Amenra and CltFn edit the same type of articles. Often one user will edit/start a specific article and the other user will do the same later on. See user contributions for evidence. Specific example 1. Specific example 2.

2. Related to the above, both also regularly upload images of the covers of books critical of Islam and use/edit each others images; See [103] and [104]. Specific example

3. Amenra and CltFn share the same view and often revert to each others versions. See the histories of Seeing Islam as Others Saw It and Hagarism for recent examples of such activity.

4. Amenra's account was registered [105] during the December 26th, 2005 block of CltFn.

5. Amenra has shown a relatively significant increase of activity during some of CltFn's blocks with noticeable lack of activity in between. See contribs of Amenra during April 30 (while CltFn was blocked for 96 hours), and during early September (while CltFn was blocked twice for 48 hours).

6. Amenra and CltFn have very similar typing styles and word choices showing habits I have not seen in any other users to date.

See these talk page contributions, for example: [106] [107]. Note the spaces before and after each comma.
Among other similarities, they also both frequently use "Mohammedanism" in place of "Islam." See [108] [109].

7. Amenra and CltFn have used misleading edit summaries for reverts and other possibly controversial edits. See [110] [111] [112] [113].

8. Amenra showed an unusually high level of familiariaty of Wikipedia policy from his very first edits. He was familiar with fair use policy and using edit summaries from his first edit. From his second edit, he was already familiar with the typical format of an article, templates, categories, external links, headings, etc.

Now, obviously, I can understand two different users have similar interests and the same viewpoint on their interests, however, the other similarities and evidences are strong indications of sockpuppetry. If the reviewing admin is unsure of what conclusion to reach in this case, please let me know so that I can file a request for a checkuser. BhaiSaab talk 05:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments
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:Blake911 (2nd)

Evidence

User:Thordice appears to be another sock/meat puppet that came into existence soon after a 24-hour block was implemented on User:Blake911's account. Previous puppet accounts, namely User:Jackson512 and User:Choirboy (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Blake911), were identified and banned. One example specific to the Thordice account is the AfD nomination of the Blake Van Leer article (Blake911 has self-identified as this Van Leer person). Upon Blake911's temporary blockage, Thordice (whose account came into existence approximately five hours after Blake911's blockage) took up the defense of the article's existence. Additionally, Thordice has picked up Blake911's project of creating articles for other members of his family (e.g., Samuel Van Leer), as well as continuing to edit and defend the existence of his various other creations (e.g., Bloodclan and its corresponding AfD nomination). Simões (talk/contribs) 01:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments
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:2Legit2Quit

Evidence

Near identical edits and usernames:

— ERcheck (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments
  • It was brought up earlier when 2Legit2Quit registered that he/she might be a VaughanWatch sockpuppet. — ERcheck (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The username itself (both of them) are clearly related (by virtue of the two users' intimate knowledge of VaughanGate upon registration) to the recent trolling escapade by socks of VaughanWatch/JohnnyCanuck. JC was recently indef blocked as a sock of VW, immediately following which, his socks began blanking pages and replacing them with slogans to the extent of "___________ user is ugly, unblock JohnnyCanuck" (with the ____ being replaced by myself or JamesTeterenko). -- pm_shef 22:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Accounts mentioned have been blocked. Iolakana•T 17:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

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:Colwyn_13@hotmail.com

Evidence

Similar pattern of edits, including attacks on User:HarryKnock, similar edits to Thank God You're Here. User:Daphne Roberts created just after User:Colwyn_13@hotmail.com was tagged with {{test4}}. -- Chuq 09:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments
  • I feel that, even assuming good faith, after a quick check of the contribs, user creation logs in relation to test4's, and pattern of editing, that this is the one person. Daniel.Bryant 13:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Weak disagree. Although the only evidence is the single edit of Daphne Roberts, which is a link that matches up exactly with a link posted by Colwyn but removed a short while before. HOWEVER, the evidence is not solid and there are other reasonable explanations as to why the links match up. Another user could have been reading, saw the recent change and he/she disagreed with the removal of the one link. Like as in lineral mathimatics, it is impossible to extrapolate a relation with but a single data point. Daphne needs to post a bit more for any certainty. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 19:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I am going to block the user. The single edit of Daphne indicates that it is just another throw-away account, with no further edits; trying to get the blocked/wanred user's view added. Iolakana•T 17:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
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:Bulish.cx

Evidence

User:Bulish.org and User:Bulish.cx have very similar usernames. They have also gotten into trouble for adding nonesense to Wikipedia, about the same subject. Bulish.org has also been shown to vandalize Wikipedia.

Comments

Bulish is the page mentioned above.

Accounts have been blocked. Iolakana•T 12:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

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 person has so many sock puppets that it is hard to keep up with them. One person, using several sockpuppets, has been vandalizing the Beverly Hills High School page for months and he is the reason that the page had to be semi-protected TWICE.

This user only has 5 edits, four of them are for the BHHS article, and the 5th edit was a vandalism of User:Accurizer's user page by putting "I think I am a fucking loser, and other areas. Thanks for stopping by!" on Accurizer's user page. This kind of attention seeking vandalism is typical of this guy.

StarFAX recieved this warning on his talk page for vandalism: "Please stop. If you continue to target users' pages for vandalism you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. DVD+ R/W 18:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)"

I have to close this as inconclusive. You have supplied no evidence for any of it, nor have you given the names of any of the accounts. Iolakana•T 17:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
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:Super7am

Evidence

From userpage of User:The Kombucha Mushroom People "Hi, some people know me as Super7am. I'm a convicted and many times blocked vandal.DcClark is gayyyyy!!!!!!!"Elephant Juice 15:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Obvious. Vandal account, anyway. Iolakana•T 17:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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:203.57.68.20

See IP's contribs, he's editing all the same articles Jackp used to (namely Sydney and Eyes Wide Shut). CRCulver 12:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Obvious. Iolakana•T 17:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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:CRANdieter

Evidence

On Talk:Ben Best/archive 1 user User:Ben Best makes the following allegations (Allegations are summarised in the bullet points below):

  • The User:CRANdieter account is itself a sock puppet of a person unknown. (Ben Best links CRANdieter to the earlier accounts / possible sock puppets User:Happy Savage and User:Dwayne McGee.) The CRANdieter account has been used largely for attacking Ben Best.
On 28 June editor User:Usernamefortonyd added a link to an external page written by Ben Best on the Alcohol consumption and health wiki page [117]. On 29 June, CRANdieter posted a message on Talk:Alcohol consumption and health crticising Ben Best on the basis of his colourful past rather than the contents of the article. [118] On 30 June, CRANdieter posted much the same message[119]. On 14 July, CRANdieter posted a jibe directed at Ben Best[120]. From 31 July onwards, CRANdieter has edited only Ben Best and its talk page. CRANdieter's last edit was on 8 August.
Freezer Man's first edit was on 9 August, the day after CRANdieter ceased.
On 20 August, Freezer Man posted on the Talk:Ben Best. This edit bears a strong similarity to the two edits by CRANdieter on 29 June and 30 June mentioned above. [121]. This appeared again on 2 September [[122]]. On 5 September, Freezer Man marked Ben Best's talk page edits as Single Purpose Accounts, in response to a similar labelling of Freezer Man's.[123]
Following a complaint by BB, Administrator User:Shanes asked Freezer Man whether Freezer Man is one of a number of accounts, but has received no reply to date.
Following a complaint by BB, Administrator User:Shanes asked CopOnTheBeat whether CopOnTheBeat is one of a number of accounts, but has received no reply to date.
CopOnTheBeat has made just two edits [124] both criticising Ben Best [125]
  • The User:Cecelia Hensley account is a more subtle account, used to attack Ben Best from a different angle. Although Cecelia Hensley has made footling edits to a number of pages, its principal purpose is nonetheless to attack Ben Best.
On 22 August, Cecelia Hensley made an edit to the Talk page[126]. The theme was similar to some of those of Freezer Man's i.e. a conflict of interest between BB as a wiki editor and his commercial interests. The Cecelia Hensley perspective is presented as that of a cryonics supporter: "Ben’s actions seem harmful to the cryonics movement".

Note that Ben Best is both a wikipedia editor User:Ben Best and the subject of an article Ben Best, mainly regarding his cryonics activities. Nunquam Dormio 10:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments
I believe that the best summary of this sock puppetry -- as well as the evidence for it -- can be found in one particular entry of the archive: The Many-Headed Hydra of Freezer Man's Sock Puppets. I believe that this should be the best place to start in understanding the problem. This entry comes directly after Distressing Behavior, the entry by what I believe is the most subtle of the sock puppet family, Cecelia Hensley. This individual has been given a "feminine persona" such that the "Distressing Behavior" attack has a softer touch. This individual has a portfolio of minor edits to cryonics/life extension edits which began August 11, so is not so obviously a "single purpose account". Following the "Distressing Behavior" attack, "Cecilia" developed a more "helpful" attitude toward the Ben Best entry and made a number of edits that mostly hacked-away a large amount of content [127]. And is now presenting "herself" as a peacemaker (Talk:Ben_Best#Request).
I believe that this all began because of someone citing a web page I wrote about alcohol [128] in the Alcohol_consumption_and_health page. I had not been aware of the existence of this page until I was made the target of an attack on What kind of authority is this? by the CRANdieter sock puppet. My writings evidently greatly agitated this individual. From studying other edits on the Alcohol_consumption_and_health page I believe CRANdieter is associated with the sock puppets User:Happy Savage and User:Dwayne McGee in an effort to impose a strong "alcohol is good for you" POV into that Wikipedia entry. There may be other sock puppets involved, but I have not studied the Alcohol_consumption_and_health carefully enough to make this assessment.
Naturally I have a personal interest in the Ben Best page, but I have not made an edit to that page since the month of June, although I have had to defend myself against attacks on the Talk:Ben_Best and have even provided information about my education when demanded to do so by Freezer Man. Freezer Man has been using Talk:Ben_Best as a soapbox for personal attack since the month of June. I made no response to his vandalism for part of June and nearly the whole month of July, but by attacking cryonics, and not just me personally, Freezer Man aroused the interest of cryonicists who attempted to oppose his vandalism. So the Talk:Ben_Best and Ben Best pages have been a battleground.
I would not have initiated this "Suspected sock puppet" entry if Nunquam Dormio had not done so. I believe that Nunquam Dormio has had much experience with this sock puppet on the Alcohol_consumption_and_health entry, but he has chosen to focus on the vandalism of the Ben Best page. Thanks to the actions of the administrator Shanes I have been hopeful that this whole process was finally ending. I have been advised to be patient, and I have tried to be patient since June, but Freezer Man has been relentless, tireless and patient in his attacks. I truly hope that this is the last entry I will have to make on this subject. I know the price of mutual recrimination. If Freezer Man would only have left me alone -- or if he will leave me alone in the future -- I will have no desire pursue this further. I do not have an appetite for revenge. -- Ben Best 15:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems likely. Iolakana•T 18:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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:Lenapecal911

Evidence

User:Lenapecal911 has been the strongest advocate for either the inclusion of the Bloodclan guildpage(up for AfD), or the exclusion of the Shadowclan guildpage(also up for AfD), his stance depending on if Bloodclan is kept or not. He or she has written some other non-notable articles other than the Bloodclan article (he or she was the original author) such as the Van Cleeve article (a vanity article written about himself or herself), and other articles related to his family members. He or she took great offense to anyone offering opposition to his stances (all of his articles went up for AfD, most were deleted) and was banned for 24 hours for personal attack after repeated warnings[[129]]. I say all of that to give context to the situation as it appears he has created a sock puppet, User:Jackson512 and voted again in the Bloodclan AfD. Both Jackson 512 and Lena 911 have similar arguements for the inclusion of the Bloodclan article. That being that if the Shadowclan article is included, then the bloodclan must be included by default as well. This is not out of the ordinary on its' own, as even I agree with others and vote per nom or per (insert user's arguement). What brings me to suspect sockpuppetry is that Jackson512 has had no other votes prior to today, is a brand new account, and managed to find his way directly to the Bloodclan AfD page[[130]]. Another concern to be brough to light is where Lena threatened the re-opening of already deleted, non-notable articles[[131]] and the use of multiple computers, ISP addresses, and accounts though use of, what he boasts, to be several office locations and home places that have access to the internet[[132]] to circumvent any action taken against her or his articles.

I hope I made it clear, please alert me if I can improve upon this to make it easier to discern the truth, or if I havn't made valid enough arguement. Regards, Shazbot85Talk 00:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

User:Choirboy, a new single purpose account, also seems to very likely be a Lena! --Jestix 06:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Reiteration User:Lenapecal911 threatened to use other internet access points to bypass IP identification[[133]]. He or she boasts on the Jackson512 talk page that his IP is different[[134]]. I ask, why would a brand new user immediatly offer this defense? How would he or she know such things would be checked for? Shazbot85Talk 15:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that User:Jackson512 came into existence 10 hours after User:Lenapecal911 was issued a 24-hour block. Jackson512 additionally seems to be picking up where Lenapecal911 left off (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloodclan). Simoes 15:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Obvious; no new Wikipedia comes to Wikipedia and immediately gets involved in a dispute without prior knowledge of it happening. Iolakana•T 17:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:The real Barbara Schwarz (2nd)

Evidence

Ms. Schwarz is a banned user of Wikipedia (see User:The real Barbara Schwarz) that has been known in the past to use sockpuppets on talk pages to make it appear as though more people support her ideas than really do.

JohnPower (talk · contribs · count) has suddenly appeared on the Talk:Barbara Schwarz pages, and is making threats and personal attacks. The IP address 172.190.37.157 is associated with edits on this page signed by this user, and this is an AOL proxy IP address. Barbara Schwarz has posted to the Usenet using an AOL account before. [135]

Also the stilted English style of this user is reminiscent of the writings of Ms. Schwarz.

Comments

Edits from an AOL 172 block were made and signed as "The Real Barbara Schwarz". [136] 01:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Obvious. Iolakana•T 17:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

User:24.94.126.250

Evidence

The above user, banned for six months in July, is back as User:24.94.120.140. Compare the edit histories here and here. He also vandalized my user page here.

Comments

Blocked. Iolakana•T 17:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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:Mattisse (2nd)

Evidence

Note: there is another report for two other sockpuppets at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse.

User:Mattisse has already been confirmed as a puppeteer, see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mattisse. In particular, many of these puppets went around tagging articles about pagan authors with multiple tags.

Another thing the socks did was to create intentionally non-notable parody articles on pagans, such as, for example Anne Hill, created by sock Flinders, Modern occultists also created by Flinders, Charles Gatewood, again created by Flinders. Joi Wolfwomyn, again created by Flinders. There are several others. Another sock, User:NothingMuch started a semi-hoax and/or duplicate article Headingley ground. Suspected sock LiftWaffen has created a duplicate of Anne Hill at Ann Hill, this was the user's first edit.

Now LymphToad has done two things which match Mattisse's agenda.

  1. Created hoax article Al Peeger [137], which links to Muruga Booker and Badal Roy, both of which were tagged by Mattisse and/or her socks: [138], [139], [140], [141]
  2. removed Association for Consciousness Exploration from ACE disambig page under a misleading edit summary [142]

Several of Mattisse's puppets complained vocally on Talk:Association for Consciousness Exploration, Talk:Starwood Festival and Talk:WinterStar Symposium about these events being "a group of thirty friends" and she and her socks followed all the links of speakers and performers, multiply tagging the articles, too numerous to list here. In short, this looks like more WP:POINT games by Mattisse. -999 (Talk) 20:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Looking at article creations etc., this is an obvious sock. Iolakana•T 17:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

User:The real Barbara Schwarz

Evidence


Ms. Schwarz is a banned user of Wikipedia (see User:The real Barbara Schwarz) that has been known in the past to use sockpuppets on talk pages to make it appear as though more people support her ideas than really do.

The recent edits of SummertimeBlues (talk · contribs · count) demonstrate that this user is a sockpuppet of someone, most likely Ms. Schwarz herself. The person is apparently already very familiar with the editing procedure and this new account seems singularly interested in discussing Ms. Schwarz. This is highly unusual that someone would only make edits to a Ms. Schwarz article and then make claims that Ms. Schwarz isn't notable enough to deserve an article. If she isn't notable enough then why did SummertimeBlues bother to create an account on Wikipedia for the express purpose of talking about Ms. Schwarz.

Also the stilted English style of this user is reminiscent of the writings of Ms. Schwarz. I also find it troubling that this user is repeating the threats of Ms. Schwarz to sue Wikipedia, when Ms. Schwarz was already banned for that behaviour. Vivaldi (talk) 05:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Please note 216.190.11.45 (talk · contribs · logs) appears to be another sockpuppet, and the IP address is that of Barbara Schwarz's ISP. [143] I have added the sockpuppet tag to the User:216.190.11.45 page. Orsini 17:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This is indeed Ms Schwarz - she gave herself away with a characteristic misspelling of Jimbo's name (as "Jumbo"). User:SummertimeBlues has now been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user. -- ChrisO 18:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
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:Mattisse

Evidence

User:Mattisse has already been confirmed as a puppeteer, see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mattisse. In particular, many of these puppets went around tagging articles about pagan authors with multiple tags. In this case, the article Stephen Kent (musician) was tagged by Mattise [144] and then later by User:LiftWaffen [145]. But the most curious thing is that Liftwaffen is also editing an article which was created by another of Mattisse's socks, User:NothingMuch. The article is The End of American Jewry's Golden Era, and so far is has NothingMuch has created and edited it twice and now Liftwaffen is also editing the same article. See the article history.

Another interesting tidbit is this user's first edit is to create [146] a duplicate article Anne Hill under Ann Hill. The former article was created [147] by User:Flinders, another Mattisse sockpuppet. Following this, User:BlackHak adds a link to the article to Starwood Festival: [148].

I suspect that both User:LiftWaffen and User:BlackHak are socks of User:Mattisse. —Hanuman Das 01:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

For BlackHak, there is fairly strong evidence of sockpuppetry, namely that Ann Hill was created by new user User:LiftWaffen at 14:21, 2 September. The article is linked from no other article when it is created. Then User:BlackHak adds a link to the article from Starwood Festival at 16:23, 3 September. This looks like intentional misdirection. How did BlackHak find the article which is not linked from any other article. How did she know that it should be linked from Starwood Festival? Unless she is the same user who created Anne Hill, who was Flinders who was a sockpuppet of Mattisse. —Hanuman Das 13:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

User:BlackHak also asked a question,about the tagging on Village Pump (technical) [149]. Previously User:Capit (a confirmed sockpuppetet of Mattisse, although the user claims to be here grandchild) also posted a similar question on VP(T) of a similar nature[150]. User:Mattisse, has rescently asked questions there [151], as had another sock User:Massmato[152]. None of these questions are really on topic for VP(T), but it seems to be a favorite place to ask for help, so contribute a bit more evidence. --Salix alba (talk) 15:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments
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:Cretanpride

Evidence

User:4.245.122.69 made this edit to Talk:Alexander the Great continuing Cretanpride's insistence that homosexuality was "not common in ancient Greece", using text that Cretanpride previously posted to Talk:Homosexuality in ancient Greece.

Note also the edits of

--Akhilleus (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Blocked—yet again. Iolakana•T 18:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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.

Cave quid dicis

Cave quid dicis (talk · contribs) first and so far only edit was to revert an addition of a POV tag (without explanation) at Sons of Confederate Veterans. User:Fix Bayonets! had previously reverted the article 3 times to remove the tag, thus I suspect that this account was created merely to avoid WP:3RR. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Obvious. Iolakana•T 18:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
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:AndyAndyAndy

Evidence

A new account, User:Dannyfloyd, created the article Brunnock on August 29. It was his first edit. According to the article, a brunnock is a creature "characterised by foolish and clumsy behaviour. They are described as being short almost squat in stature with hairy, wart-covered skin and having odious breath." The Brunnock article is a smear against me (my surname and username is Brunnock). So far, all of Dannyfloyd's edits have related to the Brunnock article.

I think that DannyFloyd is a sockpuppet for User:AndyAndyAndy. As you can see on Talk:Pottery/Archive 1 and Talk:Pottery, AndyAndyAndy has a bone to pick with me.

  • Both accounts prefer to use the word "whilst"
  • Both accounts start replies to comments with "Hello (username). Thank you for your contribution.".
  • Both accounts sign comments as "Regards, firstname".
  • Both accounts began making edits at about the same time today. --Sean Brunnock 18:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


Confirmed. DannyFloyd is a sockpuppet for AndyAndyAndy. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/AndyAndyAndy. --Sean Brunnock 23:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Up to now I have been very patient but it would be much appreciated if someone could explain what the heck is happening. I have spent not an inconsiderable amount of time over the last 6 months contributing to wikipedia. I can not but think somebody is playing some rather silly, and perhaps even malicious, games. I ask for a resolution to this as I have been unfairly maligned Regards, Andy


Comments

I do not think sockpuppetry is present here. Iolakana•T 17:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Would you reconsider? DannyFloyd's first edit was to create the Brunnock article. All of his subsequent edits related to that article. If you look at the histories of Talk:Brunnock and User talk:Dannyfloyd, you can see that he responds to all comments very quickly (within an hour). Ever since I placed the sockpuppet notice on User:Dannyfloyd, the account has been inactive. --Sean Brunnock 17:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


Dear Sean Brunnock, Although I confess to feeling as if I am having to defend myself for others’ actions I the spirit of openness I am happy to list my email address so that you can contact me direct. Please advise if you are interested Regards, Andy


Dear Sean Brunnock, Please do not accuse me of changing yoour comments as I did not; I simply highlighted one posting of mine and one of yours. This was done solely to clarify the resolution to this rather strange debate

I'm was very puzzled about the so called 'evidence' you have referred to, including the useage of hello, whilst and regards. These are all common English words that I been used appropriately. From my expereince starting an email, fax or message with 'Hello' is just as popular as 'Dear'. Of the main emails I receive each day I estimate that of those from English speakers in excess of 90% end with 'Regards'. And again the word 'whilst' is very common, and signing of with ones name is hardly unusual

It is purely speculation but I wonder if you are confused about the regional use of English: I note you have recently used the term 'heads-up'. This is new to me. However after a little searching I understand it is popular in the US ... can I therefore presume you are American? Well I am British and as such differences in phrasing would be expected. Perhaps Dannyfloyd is also British and therefore would have more in common with how I speak / write than you. Again this is speculation but it is something I would consider before listing rather spurious evidence. Maybe Dannyfloyd will comment if he is reading

Also having checked the disussion page of the article that is in question I also wonder as to why you engaged in debate with Dannyfloyd, including making contributions yourself, if this was me and it was a fake entry (and referring back to your comment above I can see nothing suspecious about the use of the word contribution ... could I ask what other you would deem to be suitable?)

Regards,

Andy




'Dear Sean Brunnock,

Thank you for being considerate enough to post the above. Whilst I have highlighted this is bold, along with my reply, I am happy for all relevant correspondence on this page and otehrs to be deleted Regards, Andy'


Dear all, Whooaa ... please note: 1. I am not DannyFloyd 2. I do not know a DannyFloyd 3. I do not have 'a bone to pick with' with Sean Brunnock

Please could someone explain what is happening here?

Regards,

Andy

Dear Sean Brunnock,

What is going on here? Please see my comments above

I do not have ' ... a bone to pick with' you. Please explain what you mean by this

What is the issue with the word 'whilst'? As I have used 'is' in this current post twice, are you going to misinterpret that?

I would be very grateful if you would address any issues you have with me (though I can not understand what they may be) to me rather than posting such comments as you have recently

Regards,

Andy

Dear Sean Brunnock,

Rather than changing your posts on this page could you please respond to mine Thank you Andy


Seems likely. Iolakana•T 18:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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:Cretanpride

Evidence

User:Heraklis, an account created on Sept. 2, follows in the footsteps of User:MegasAllexandros, whom Checkuser has confirmed as a sock of Cretanpride. Heraklis has edited The 11th Day: Crete 1941, an article started by MegasAllexandros, and his other edits are to articles that MegasAllexandros edited or pertain to disputes started by MegasAllexandros/Cretanpride. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

comment I have already been blocked as I cannot edit with my user name Heraklis. So much for assuming good faith. I edited on the article The 11th Day: Crete 1941 because I am a relative of Alex Spanos, the man who funded the film. I was also an extra on the set. Once I found there was such an article I decided to join wikipedia. As for my edits on 1994 World Cup I got to that article by looking up the history of the 11th day. It linked me to it by looking at MegasAllexandros' contributions. Feel free to ask me about my other edits as I'm sure there is a logical explanation to them. Until the checkuser result comes in I think I should be allowed to edit with my user name.

User has been blocked. Iolakana•T 17:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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.
DXRAW Response

In my option if you disagree with Halbared then you get accused of being a sockpuppet. I was trying to carm the situtaion down by asking Halbared to be civil. He removed the warning with no response. He has tried to turn the things i said against me. Can somebody checkuser me so he can be showen that im not a sockpuppet. DXRAW 12:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I have only accused you of being a sockpuppet, I have disagreements with man ppl recently, TJSpypke, Dol Grenn and other users, I do not suspect them of sick or meat pupperty, only you. Mostly becdause of Disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, but just over general behavior.(Halbared 12:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC))

If you disagree with Halbared, you are suddenly a sockpuppet. How is this fair? Look at the people he is accusing. They have all had some kind of content dispute war with him! This should be proof enough that Halbared's accusations of sockpuppetry are NOT true. May i please remove the accusation on my page of being a sockpuppet, as i am clearly not one?!?! I plan on reporting this to higher level Wikipedians. Thank you, --Cookie 19:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Cuke monster

The IP addy 67.185.26.89 seems to be a confirmed sockpuppet account that Cuke monster has used before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:67.185.26.89

It might be possible that User:DXRAW is also a sock puppet.

Edits to my own talk page and to the page of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bautista http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Bautista&oldid=73547469 make me think this user is at it again(Halbared 09:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC))

I am being accused of being uncivil and warnings are being posted on my page by User:DXRAW, accusing me of being uncivil to Cuke Monster. I have asked for citations, and as evidence DWRAW pointed out a page where Cuke admits he has been a vandal before and the proof that he used the ip 67.185.26.89 as a sock puppet.(Halbared 09:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC))

I felt I have been very civil and I have let the edit stand in the favour of Cuke monster. I have amended the disclaimer on the page though because it doesn't fall in with wiki wrestling protocol(Halbared 09:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC))

It may be possible that this is not a sockpuppet, but it just seems coincidentasl that Cuke monster used a lot of warnings on my talk page and now DXRAW does too, that Cuke monster is not around now as DXRAW is spamming my page with warnings, although different computers might be, being used? The MO of both users seems similar?? User talk:Halbared

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Halbared&oldid=73565448 This advises for me to sign my mssg, when I always sign them. Possibley this user is using wiki to make a point?(Halbared 12:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC))

Enough, you two. It is extremely likely both DXRAW and the above IP are Cuke's sockpuppets. However, the way you went about this fails to WP:AGF, and could be viewed as an attack on Cuke. In addition, asking you to sign your name is not WP:POINT, it's just common courtesy. Wooty 22:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not a sockpuppet of anybody but User:Cuke monster if i ever meet you. I will buy you a beer. DXRAW 05:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Then I suppose the dispute is resolved. Recommending that both of you leave the article in question (regarding the height) alone for a while, and don't comment on others talk pages, etc. Wooty
Sure, I am happy with that.(Halbared 07:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC))
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:EnglishGarden

Evidence

Edits to Featured Article Tahirih Justice Center bear strong similarity to edits made to article Mail Order Bride. Edits made to both websites advertise for identical websites with similar mysogenistic agendas. Elementalcs 14:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

When someone creates a brand new username in order to brand someone else as a sockpuppet, I have to ask the question: Elementalcs, clearly you've had edit disputes with this person, yet you just created this account in the last hour. Who are you a sockpuppet of? Fan-1967 14:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

  • It is also worth noting that the only presumed sockpuppet you have tagged, 84.56.26.19 (talk · contribs) is a variable IP, and edit history on the article in question ([153]) seems to indicate the same editor using more than one address from that ISP. Fan-1967 16:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

User does not exist. Iolakana•T 18:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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:Edipedia

Evidence

User:Edipedia has been blocked 48 hours for his fourth violation of 3RR. He is currently using a sockpuppet, User:Editor 1, to make his edits in articles Han Chinese and Overseas Chinese, e.g. Edit by EdipediaEdit by Editor 1, and Edit by Edipedia Edit by Editor 1. Editor 1 has also removed the 3RR report that I filed, which Edipedia was blocked for [154]. Editor 1 made the same edits in the two pages that Edipedia has edit warred in ; counting Editor 1's edits, he has made a total of 7 reverts under 24 hours in an article and 5 reverts under 24 hours in another. Editor 1 has also uploaded an image with a false license, the same false license that Edipedia used to upload his ~10 images. Moreover, Editor 1 makes the same grammatical mistakes that Edipedia makes [155]. Lastly, Editor 1 tells us to "discuss" per this edit, but in fact the account has not started a discussion before that. Only the account Edipedia has made a discussion in the article, so the connection is obvious. Aran|heru|nar 02:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

That's just your imagination. Edipedia 15:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments
More information here -- Aran|heru|nar 03:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Please add User:Yepre to the list of his suspected sockpuppets. Account was made after User:Editor 1 and User:Edipedia were banned for violating 3RR, and edits are similar to that of User:Edipedia. --- Hong Qi Gong 19:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't seem like he's going to stop sockpuppeting. Epedia is another sockpuppet (I forgot to mention it, though it's tagged already now). The new account Yepre has broken the 3RR already. I'm going to file a report to get the account blocked first, before we start taking action for his sockpuppeting. Aran|heru|nar 02:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Edipedia is trying to remove the sockpuppeteer tag from his User page. He has removed it three times already[156][157][158], and will most likely keep going until an admin stops him. --- Hong Qi Gong 16:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Edipedia is now trying to remove the sockpuppet tag from one of his sockets[159][160][161][162]. --- Hong Qi Gong 18:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Fourth sockpuppet (Contributions). A quite obvious sockpuppet. Apparently he thinks Wikipedia is a game. I suggest some harsh actions - if he changes, fine and welcome, if he doesn't, an indef block will be nice. Aran|heru|nar
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:Cretanpride

Evidence

User:Apro, an account created today, joined in Talk:Alexander the Great, supporting the position of User:MegasAllexandros, a confirmed sock of Cretanpride. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Blocked. Iolakana•T 16:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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:Cretanpride

Evidence

IP is from same ISP as Cretanpride's other socks. User made two contributions to Talk:Alexander the Great, taking the position of MegasAllexandros (a confirmed sock of Cretanpride), and blanked out part of Talk:Josiah Rowe, the talk page of an editor/admin involved in dealing with Cretanpride.

Is this the best page to report this kind of continued IP sockpuppetry? --Akhilleus (talk) 05:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments
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:Jessefriend

Evidence

Users

have made the idential edits to the article Jesse Macbeth (reversing the meaning of the intro), and have refused to discuss changes on the talk page. The edits by Deepthroat followed Jessefriend's 4th revert by five minutes. Together, the three have repeated the revert 12 times today. --Mmx1 23:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Having hit 4rr with Deepthroat, the edits continue with User:Nobunaga25, a bad attempt to impersonate User:Nobunaga24. --Mmx1 00:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
See also 3rr reportWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Deepthroat123_reported_by_User:Mmx1_(Result:24_hour_block)
Comments

Evidence seems clear that this is a sockpuppet.

  • All edits to Jesse Macbeth are identical — reverting the verified, referenced version of the article, with a change to the introductory paragraph.
  • Both of the IP addresses come from Ontario, Canada.
  • The creation of Jessefriend was on the same day as a number of reverts of 66.11.160.31; all edits were only to the Jesse Macbeth article, with the first edit within 25 minute of username creation.
  • The creation of Deepthroat123 was within 5 minutes of the 4th consecutive rv by Jessefriend; with first edit within 1 minute of account creation; and 4 identical reverts within less than 45 minutes.
  • The creation of impersonator Nobunaga25 was within 1 minute after the 4th revert by Deepthroat123, and the only edit was the identical reversion to the same article.

— ERcheck (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Accounts have been blocked. Iolakana•T 13:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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: IndigoGenius

I am submitting this user because I have reason to believe that User:Kitia is also User:IndigoGenius, and is simply recreating articles that were deleted under the latter name (most notably Cesidian Root and TTF-Bucksfan). Further, in the Cesidian Root discussion board for the now protected article, Kitia's arguments are not unlike what was discussed in the Cesidian Root deletion discussion (please reference for IndigoGenius' arguments against deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cesidian Root).

--Dennis The TIger 07:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Additional note, please see the entry in the checkuser listings. --Dennis The TIger 16:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that it is unlikely; please read the instructions when formatting please. Iolakana•T 13:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
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:Shravak

Evidence

Dattat (talk · contribs) first edit is to insert exactly the same text into Dattatreya as previously inserted by Shravak (talk · contribs) less than 1 hour after Shravak had reverted the article 4 times despite having been warned of 3RR. A copy of the details from the 3RR report follows:

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

Time report made: 22:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments
  • Admins, please do not delete this evidence page. Then the subject cannot find out why I accused them and they start asking and become hostile. The evidence should stand regardless of whether it is closed without action. -999 (Talk) 19:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Admins, 999 had been bulling me and trying to intimidate me by calling me a sockpuppett because of one edit. Does Wikipedia really allow such tactics? I can't seem to get any answers from anyone. I don't know where to go for help. Dattat 20:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Account has been blocked. Iolakana•T 13:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
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:Pvcblue

An ongoing editwar on The Smurfs article. Persistent additions of links to Pvcblue's website to the article from the following IP addresses. Please refer to previous case for details.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  08:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

08:59, 30 August 2006
08:37, 30 August 2006
08:32, 30 August 2006
19:50, 28 August 2006
19:16, 28 August 2006


11:45, 28 August 2006
11:35, 28 August 2006
02:16, 28 August 2006
02:07, 28 August 2006
01:14, 28 August 2006
22:03, 27 August 2006

Comments

Like before - I do NOT know who this is - it is NOT me - that is a verizon user, I have grandecom. I don't care anymore!!!!!!!

Pvcblue 13:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

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:Leyasu

Evidence

Several edits from this IP (86.132.128.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) have suggested that this user is the indefinitely banned user Leyasu evading his ban again:

Additionally, several similar IPs have been blocked for the same types of edits and have been listed on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Leyasu#List of blocks and bans as such. They have also been confirmed as sockpuppets of Leyasu by CheckUser; the results of those cases are posted at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Leyasu.

Comments

I have blocked this IP for one week. Idont Havaname (Talk) 18:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Also adding and blocking 70.110.185.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 86.143.124.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for a week each. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 17:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Blocked 81.157.94.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for a week too; his only edit so far was Leyasu continuing his argument against Deathrocker on my talk page. [166] --Idont Havaname (Talk) 17:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Other accounts:
All of these which are registered accounts are now indefinitely blocked. All of the above IPs are blocked for a week. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
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. An IRC chat is not proof of sockpuppetry. If there is any further evidence of the complaint about sockpuppetry, I would more than likely want to hear about it on my talk page. Iolakana•T 16:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Daloonik

Evidence
  • User Daloonik created the sock puppet User:Blank_nate in order to blank my Wikipedia user page after he was banned. He did this in June, and again this Month. - N. Harmon 17:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • User Daloonik also appears to have created the sock puppet User:Grindingteeth in order to nominate Grex logo image I uploaded for deletion. Daloonik is a known troll on the Grex conference system and was opposed to its logo being put on Wikipedia. This is despite the fact that Cyberspace Communications' Board of Directors granted Wikipedia permission to use it. - N. Harmon 17:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The following is an excerpt from Grex's party log. Party is a Unix program on Grex where users can chat to one another. If you wish to see the original log for yourself you will need an account on Grex. To do this, telnet to grex.cyberspace.org and login as "newuser" with no password. After creating an account, navigate to the file /var/party/log/party.log. The portion of the log I will post here starts at line #9354. Since the log will most likely be rotated in a few days to party.log.old, I have copied it to my web space:
  • Actually, that log you've posted on your web page only goes through August 27th and doesn't include the conversation you've excerpted below. Neil916 (Talk) 06:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
herasleftnut:  where is krj and his corn update?
naftee:    i'm a part-time troll, nate
naftee:   do you think i'll ever stop ?
herasleftnut:  ha
herasleftnut:  i figured out how to word this
herasleftnut:  without sound like I like a total homo
nharmon:  top post?
nharmon:  what is to top post?
nharmon:  grindingteeth, you'll never stop trolling. You enjoy it too much.
sholmes:  lunch time !
---- sholmes leaving (Aug 29 23:05)
---- trig leaving (Aug 29 23:07)
---- trig joining (Aug 29 23:07)
naftee:    nate : when you reply to something leaving the previous text under your reply
naftee:    like in an e-mail
naftee:    haha
naftee:    grindingteeth
naftee:    did you like that userbox, nate ?
naftee:    i didn't make it, though :(
nharmon:  yeah
<nharmon:nharmon laughs>
naftee:    the category is hilarious
naftee:    dumb wikipedians
naftee:    haha
nharmon:  you're such a prick :)
naftee:    aw geez
naftee:    :)
naftee:    but seriously
naftee:    i've had about 20 accounts indef blocked on wikipedia
nharmon:  hahahahaha
nharmon:  not just Daloonik?
naftee:    i'm trying to get back at this jerk MONGO, you see
naftee:   no way man
naftee:   but MONGO, you see, has his userpage semi protected
naftee:    so i wanted to create an account like MONGO SUCKS
naftee:    and then wait a few days, and post something to his page
naftee:    but like, whenever i create an account along those lines, there's always somebody ready to toast my ass
naftee:    it's uncanny
naftee:    the longest i've had an account last is 16 mins
naftee:    so i gave up on that line :(
nharmon:  rofl
nharmon:  Create an account called  "EatmeMongo"
naftee:    some of the guys are funny, though
nharmon:  or
naftee:    ok
nharmon:  MongoEatsMe
naftee:    watch
naftee:    i'll do it
naftee:    watch the logs
---- bipolar joining (Aug 29 23:13)
naftee:    03:12, 30 August 2006 MONGO eats me out (Talk | contribs) New user account
naftee:    j
naftee:    bipolar !
naftee:    ok
---- sliew joining (Aug 29 23:13)
naftee:    so in a few mins
naftee:    that account'll be blocked indef
naftee:    hi silew !
nharmon:  heh
sliew:    Hi all.
naftee:    now, what i REALLY hate, dude.
naftee:    REALLY hate
naftee:    is when you put up an unblock request and that Pgk guy comes along, blanks the talk page and protects it
naftee:    it's annoying !
naftee:    so once i blanked his talk page
naftee:   but it got reverted in a few mins :(
nharmon:  23:14, 29 August 2006 Freakofnurture (Talk | contribs) blocked "MONGO eats me out (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (o rly)
nharmon:  hehe
nharmon:  o rly
naftee:    03:14, 30 August 2006 Freakofnurture (Talk | contribs) blocked "MONGO eats me out (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (o rly)
naftee:    two minutes
naftee:    heh
naftee:    it's so screwed up, man
naftee:    who spends their time deleting usernames :(

N. Harmon 00:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

I have no clue what N. Harmon is talking about. I've never used Grex, and do not know who Daloonik is. Nathan's evidence seems rather slim indeed. Grindingteeth 01:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Perhaps you (N. Harmon) could give us an idea why Daloonik started the blanking of your userpage, if you know? The only time I see your paths crossing is when you subst'ed the generic "welcome to Wikipedia" message on his talk page, other than the userpage vandalism you've already mentioned. Crawling around through edit histories for several users makes me believe that there are several additional user accounts that may be involved (most have already been banned for various reasons), but I don't want to throw around names until I get a better picture of the relationship of all the parties here. You've mentioned the "Grex conference system". Is this some type of off-wikipedia forum where your paths have crossed? Neil916 (Talk) 10:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I honestly do not recall the circumstances behind the original blanking of my userpage. I recall Daloonik told me that he would blank my userpage if I did something, or didn't do something. That was around the time of the second blanking. You will see our paths crossed when the Grex article was nominated for deletion. The discussion page for the nomination would show Daloonik has/had an interest with things related to Grex. If you have any more questions, let me know. Thank you! N. Harmon 00:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

A few points:

  1. I have absolutely no connection to User:Grindingteeth, and I have no idea why User:Nharmon believes this to be true.
  2. The user naftee mentions above that he/she did not create the userbox put on User:Nharmon's page.
  3. I don't know why User:Nharmon is bringing Cyberspace Communications into this discussion, since it obviously has nothing to do with sockpuppetering on wikipedia. I also don't think he should be commenting on these people being trolls on other systems when he hasn't posted any proof of this being so. Indeed, in the log above, it is clear that User:Nharmon is laughing about another user's vandal edits to wikipedia. Is this a joke, Nharmon?
  4. Please refrain from posting any more sockpuppet templates on my userpage. Truthfully Yours, Blank nate 22:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
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:Cretanpride

Evidence

IP user (4.245.120.147) says he is User:Ellinas, who has been banned indefinitely for being a sockpuppet of User:Cretanpride.

Comments

Blocked. Thanks, Iolakana•T 17:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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:Subhash bose

Previous Case 2 Previous Case 1

The user Subhash bose is under ban , this new account created subsequent to the ban has started editing almost the same set of articles that Subhash did.It is already established that this user's IP is the same as University of Texas at Austin, the same as Subhash.

Actually, this is a lie. Subhash's ip is, based on his talks, a roadrunner ip from a private service provider, same as mine at home, though I do not use tmy home computer to edit on wikipedia. I edit from UT, Subhash bose|Netaji edits from home.I'm sure that if admins check his server logs of wikipedia he will see this.Hkelkar 21:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually it's not a lie. As you can see from one of his suspected sockpuppets (User:128.83.131.121) that admitted to being Subhash bose[167], User:128.83.131.121 also traces to the University of Texas at Austin. So we don't need an admin to tell us that Subhash bose frequently edits from the UT network. Another IP, User:128.83.131.139, who began editing (during Subhash bose's block) the same articles that Subhash bose edits frequently, also traces to the same location and is suspicious for the same reason. BhaiSaab talk 21:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about past accusations, as I wans't involved in them. This present accusation is based on the claim that bose's recen tip edits are from UT, and the accuser above states that the ip address is "the same as Subhash's", and that is a lie on two counts. Firstly, since a simple traceruote of his ip (beginning with 66.) will show that it traces to a residential locality in Austin, not in UT. Secondly, even this "previous ip" is not the same as twist, which is where I'm presently editing from. Twist is located in the basement third floor of UT. I am an experimentalist, and my lab is very near twist, so I use it (for securoty reasons, my prof does not connect his lab machines, other than his own, to the WAN). Netaji, being a high-handed theorist, would never come below the 8th floor of the RLM building at UT so he wouldn't access twist.Also, I believe that many of his talk page edits are only a few minutes apart from mine. Are you suggesting that he went at relativistic speeds to UT and home and edited them? He must be a superman or something! Plus, so many users have tried to bait and vandalize his talk page regarding this that an admin has locked it several times. I believe that this is indicative of a concerted witchhunt against him.Hkelkar 23:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Subhash bose has verifiably edited from 128.83.131.121. You're essentially saying that he cannot edit from the nearly-identical IP, 128.83.131.139; I doubt that. BhaiSaab talk 23:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Just because 2 ip addresses are "nearly identical" does not mean they are in physical proximity. Ip addresses are virtual and do not specify physical location to the last foot.In fact, the two machines are physically separated by many floors in a very large building, called RLM (Robert Lee Moore Hall), which predominantly contains the Department of Physics.Hkelkar 23:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The tone and tenor of arguments and edits by both these accounts are same, and I have noted the following similarities in their writing styles.


Similarities in reasoning using Logic:

Netaji:

The logical fallacy in this claim is obvious if you can draw some Venn Diagrams.Your argument is problematic. The contrapositive of a logical statement WOULD be true if you have firmly established that EVERY INSTANCE OF set A leads to EVERY INSTANCE of set B, and you haven't established that at all.None of these so called "scholars" (with no background in mathematics or logic it would seem) have.(Netaji 11:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)) [168]

HKelkar

The very claim that RSS is fascist is a POV statement unless it is qualified as a claim, since there are ample arguments to refute their alleged "fascism". Thus, you are gaming the argument by a circular logic. You have assumed the very thing you are trying to establish and that won;t work. It is like saying A->B because A->B. Munje went abroad, then founded an org in India. Association does not prove ideology.Hkelkar 20:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC) [169]


I think this has to do with similar educational backgrounds on our part. We are both ex-IITians. He from IIT Kanpur, myself from IIT Powai.Hkelkar 21:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


Similarity in reactions:

Netaji

I'm afraid your most recent edit 'boycott of muslims' had absolutely nothing to do with the Gujarat riots and is a completely independent event. Plus, your extract from the supreme court was unnecessarily long because it is already cited and quoted, and I have adequately paraphrased your POV. Please refrain from further anti-Hindu propaganda or we will have a revert war on our hands. Agree upon a compromise and move on.Netaji 23:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC) [170]

Hkelkar

I'm afraid attacking the source is the last resort of a losing argument. I have not attacked any sources, merely questioned them. I admit that generally Christianpost is partisan. Since a non-Hindu site has not attacked a hindu organization in this case, it bears mentioning. Plus, the article is written by a non-Christian. The thesis was submitted through Sorbonne University, Paris, France.Hkelkar 00:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC) [171]


Why is this a 'similar' reaction?Hkelkar 21:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Noting that the same source Christianpost has been mentioned by user Subhash Bose in this edit

There is very high probability that this is a new Sock Account created to facilitate Subhash to circumvent the ban.I have noted another user Bakasuprman to be continually trolling the pages where evidence against Subhash has been mentioned.He has already mentioned in a few edits the necessity to "make noise" to influence the case checkers TerryJ-Ho 18:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


Again, plz refer to bose's talk page for counterarguments:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Subhash_bose#Sockpuppetry_case_2

Note - Checkuser came out InconclusiveBakaman Bakatalk 20:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Content moved to the discussion page by Bakaman TerryJ-Ho 20:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - view talk page for responses Bakaman Bakatalk 20:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I believe that this case is bogus, as I have provided conclusive evidence in previous cases that I am not Netaji's sock puppet or any other kind of puppet. I believe that this is an indirect response to our debate on the talk page of RSS party here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh#RSS_modelled_after_Fascist_Academy_of_Physical_Education

I have obtained help from Netaji regarding this offline (we are in the same department and meet up during lunch , discuss etc.). That is why we have cited the same source, he referred it to me. I am told that may be construed as "meatpuppetry". While I disagree, if an admin thinks I shouldn't correspond with Netaji regarding wikipedia then, of course, I will cease to do so. As for our sockpuppetry accusation; I reietrate that we have already cleared that up with the admins on irc, where we chatted with them from different computers (established by different ip addresses). Plus, Netaji edits from his home mostly, as his ip address is not UT (see that chat transcript), and mine is AT UT, miles away from his home. The chat transcript is located here:

http://pastebin.ca/149764

posted there by netaji. I believe the admin can get independent confirmation from admins Blnguyen and Skriet.

Open two sessions of chat (using same or different client)and send the information you want to convey or call a friend ask him to type what you want to convey ..and your proof is ready..assuming good faith does not being being naiive..TerryJ-Ho
Occam's razor, the simplest explanation is probably true.If you look at the chat transcript, you will see that the edits made by both users are often within seconds of each other. This is impossible under the pretxt above, unless Neta is a relativistic typist. Plus, the login made at that time by me, Hkelkar, was from another ip. Thus, I am clearly a different person who has made another login at that time itself BY YOUR OWN arguments. Therefore, from that time on, I have been making edits from twist while bose has been editing his talk page from home (I'm guessing, or maybe from another UT machine, certainly not twist, which I use all the time). Thus, even if I was a person typing under Bose's direction (a patently false claim), the login created by me since then is unique to me and so I am now established as a unique user distinct from bose.Hkelkar 23:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that this may be a manouever by the accuser in order to get his opponents blocked so that he can make unsubtantiated claims (which I have refuted) on wikipedia articles. Of course, in the interests of assuming good faith, I will say that this is only a possibility and hope that I am wrong. I also hope hope that TerryJ-Ho will refrain from wasting his time smearing his users and use his abilities to contribute to wikipedia.Hkelkar 20:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Plus, earlier case filed against netaji and myself as sockpuppets (I'm sure admin can look for it) was dropped.Hkelkar 20:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

PS: Note for admin that the first block on Netaji using Pussyamitra Sunga Login was confirmed by an email the user sent to the admin with the same email address rather than thru the RFCU TerryJ-Ho 23:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
See above. I do not know about what Netaji did in the past, nor can I speak for him.Hkelkar 23:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Well I think things have been cleared now. Lemme add my worth in saying that neither User:Hkelkar nor I are sockpuppets of anybody, each other, of the Vulcans, Romulans, Klingons or anyone. I took a detailed log of the chat I had with Hkelkar, User:Blnguyen and User:Srikeit, both admins and it was clear that we are 2 different people. We conversed within seconds (not minutes as Hrishi said above) of each other and so it is categorically impossible for me to direct him, unless I break the world's typing record! Plus, my ip address is to my roadrunner ISP, and his is to UT's twist.ph.utexas.edu. So there!Netaji 01:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Not conclusive, One can simply control another PC using a software like Netmeeting , any sets of combinations or permutations of the scenarios can be used - if one wanted to subvert.TerryJ-Ho 07:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Er, the correct way of saying it is "permutations and combinations". See netaji? Even we experimentalists know things :). Anywho I suppose I should be honored that you think I'm a big theorist like Netaji, but, sadly , I am just a meager experimentalist.Hkelkar 12:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Netmeeting? Ii netmeeting kaa hai bhai? Ii sub fancy-shmancy humre nahin maloom.
<Translation: In a yokel's voice> Netmeeting? What is this netmeeting? I do not know all these fancy-shmancy things.
Anywho I think you give me waaay too much credit. I have too much of a life to waste time on such underhanded tactics.Netaji 12:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Besides, can;t you say that about pretty much anybody?Netaji 12:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I do not see the point in this case. A RFCU is far more reliable than the judgment of an admin closing this case. The RFCU came back inconclusive, meaning that they are not the same person; however, this does not rule out meatpuppetry. Iolakana•T 17:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
User has removed the Sockpuppeteer tag unilaterally

[172]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rushdie (talk • contribs) .

Nope. The tag is still there right on my user page Salmaan-bhai.Shiva's Trident 18:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't removed. Rushdie is merely another person out to get Subhash.Bakaman Bakatalk 17:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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. Been here a while now, and the socks appear to have died down. Create a new report when more come. Iolakana•T 16:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Pnatt

Several new socks of already indefblocked user:

See also Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pnatt.

Evidence
Virtually identical contribution patterns, consisting of adding nonsense, and changing spellings, on a specific selection of articles (including Shaun Micallef, The Micallef Program, and suburbs and localities of Melbourne). --bainer (talk) 11:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments
All three have been blocked for 24 hours pending the outcome of any discussion and investigation here. --bainer (talk) 11:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The last two (38 and 39) are also blocked. --bainer (talk) 11:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I've blocked 37 as well. He also vandalizes Rhotic and non-rhotic accents. User:Angr 12:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

36, 35, and 34 have also been blocked, the last two before they actually did anything. User:Angr 12:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Ditto 33, 32, and 31. Isn't there a limit on the number of new accounts that a person can create per day? User:Angr 12:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I belive it is 10 per one IP address. What makes people suspect Minus 29 (one vandal edit, out of three) and Mcbgo XXVIII, who hasn't made any. Iolakana•T 13:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I identified Minus 29 because he/she made the exact same edits as the Pnatt sock/impersonator on 2 of the 3 pages and the third was a date conversion which is standard Pnatt behaviour. I presume Mcbgo XXVIII was identified because of the roman Numeral 28. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I see :-) Well, every one up to "Mcbgo @&" has been blocked. Iolakana•T 13:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Everything on this list is, so far, blocked. But I will leave it on this page in case any other accounts appear, for the time-being. Iolakana•T 17:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
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:Prettyw0man

Evidence

[173]: See file history at the bottom. User:Prettyw0man and User:Prettywoman2010 have vandalized despite warnings the pages. They uploaded both the very same picture with the same measurements and datasize.Plumcouch Talk2Me 17:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


Comments
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Archive/September_2006&oldid=123572392"