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.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Tube bar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Stonic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
4.153.59.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Rockgardenmagic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
--Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Evidence
This user is the previously indefinitely blocked user Stonic. He has begun spamming links to Digital Press again:
08:37, 23 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Easter egg (→External links)
Likewise, in trying to continually push for recreation of the twice deleted Digital Press page, he has identified himself via the Digital Press forums:
"the trouble with Wikipedia", where he is also trying to incite people regarding the issue.
- Comments
Disagree First of all, there doesn't seem to be a crystal-clear connection between the IP and the user Stonic. Discussion on a talk page are highly appropriate for such an item. While the desire of such a user to add material to Wikipedia is certainly valid, his use of a different account doesn't meet the criteria of a sockpuppet (Please note that all users are explicitly allowed to start over). He has not spammed links, but only one link; such a categorization is misleading. The provided web-based link does not link to a page the general populous has access to or has been deleted from the website. Combined with the lack of diffs or other clear evidence I do not see a violation of WP:SOCK at this time. Please feel free to add more information if you have it (see other nominations for examples). — BQZip01 — talk 00:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Clean start only applies if they do not repeat past disruption. If they come back and repeat spamming they were warned not to do before, they do not get a clean start. They can be blocked as a scrutiny-avoiding sock puppet. Jehochman Talk 05:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Concur, but at the time this was not very clear. It has certainly become more apparent. — BQZip01 — talk 05:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
A) The link he added was the exact reason he was blocked indefinitely the last time - he was spamming links to that site. What's the very first thing he does creating the new account? Adds another link to that site. That's hardly misleading. B) As far as what's on the page, I'm including a copy of the post here (the website forum is free and open to the general populace, you just have to register, there is no fee). The first is where he identifies himself as the same previously blocked person:
-
- 01-23-2008, 11:00 AM
- stonic
-
- This morning I noticed the Wiki page for DP was removed. The page was originally created back in 2005. I can't imagine why it would
- have been removed, so I attempted to recreate it, and it was *immediately* removed again! Why? Read on....
- Wiki comments in read; DP in blue
(proceeds to copy argument from his wiki talk page)
-
- Clearly, Wiki has changed its policy regarding how pages are created because proving 'notability' was never required before. And I
- still don't know why it was removed to begin with. If anyone wants to take up the torch here, feel free. I'd had my fill of blimeys
- for one morning.
Then there's this post where he states his intent to keep the pattern of adding those links here:
-
- Yesterday, 08:05 AM
- stonic
-
- Quote:
- Originally Posted by Nebagram View Post
- The irony of course is the amount of times wikipedia uses DP for references.
-
-
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.T._th...8Atari_2600%29
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Qube
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobal_2
-
-
- That last one in particular is a corker of a reference.
-
-
- edit: no, those aren't the only three.
-
- Nice, huh? If links to DP on other pages are ok, then we'll just do that ;)
--Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- And now he just did it under yet another account, Special:Contributions/Rockgardenmagic. Spamming more Digital Press easter egg links, vandalizing AtariAge related links, atariprotos.com links, and other content. It should also be noted that he (Stonic) runs that easter egg link he keeps spamming. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 06:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree Confirmed. It's him. StagParty (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree I think these latest edits prove a pattern of disruption. Any users that perpetuate this disruption (whether intentional or unintentional) should share the fate of the primary user. Indef blocks all around... — BQZip01 — talk 05:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Conclusions
Please contact Wikiproject Spam and ask them whether the domain that is being spammed can be blacklisted. This will end the sock puppetry by depriving the motive. Jehochman Talk 05:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Not convinced of the IP, but did tag him. Indef blocks on all named accounts. Notified spam project. The master is Stonic, not Tube bar. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jeffrey O. Gustafson
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
SergeiXXX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppet
142.33.185.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by --Jw21/PenaltyKillah VANucks|25-18-5 21
- 12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Evidence
[46][47] <- Both accounts have contributed to the Second Chechen War article in a similar fashion.
[48][49] <- Coincidence? I think not.
[50] <- Not only does this user uses that IP address to manipulate, but he also boasts it.
[6]<-Proof that the user is using both the account and the IP
- Comments
This user tends to keep his account fairly clean of vandalism, while the IP address is used for unconstructive edits. Also, from what I have found and understand,[51] the IP address seems to be of a Richmond secondary school. Convenient, but quite disturbing. I recommend that this user should be forced, at least, to claim all responsibility for these contributions within one account, and stop using the IP address as a sockpuppet to cause, or repeat the bidding. --Jw21/PenaltyKillah VANucks|25-18-5 21:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comments by uninvolved BQZip01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Evidence in the first line proves nothing. One person added a reference to a group of references. Nothing conclusive there. Evidence in the second line is a revert of the non-IP's edit. While suspicious, in and of itself, it is not sockpuppetry and the IP may simply have been watching the page BUT given the evidence in the third and fourth lines, it is obvious that the editors are one in the same (or at least SergeiXXX has used the given IP from which to edit).
Editing from an IP is not a wikicrime even if you have a user name (I have intentionally done so myself). With the exception of one block 6 months ago, the IP account has been clear of blocks. With this evidence, though, I don't see this as a violation of WP:SOCK, though Sergei undoubtedly uses this IP address to edit from. How sure are we that this isn't an IP used at a school? I say to err on the side of caution here and let any future violation determine outcome, not this one. He doesn't appear to be stacking votes or making edits to avoid WP:3RR. — BQZip01 — talk 02:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Given the confirmation, I suggest blocking the user and the IP for 24 hours, tag the user and the IP talk pages as sockpuppets, and then see if actions improve. — BQZip01 — talk 23:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Conclusions
Checkuser confirmed that the editor has been using IP accounts for vandalism and to avoid detection. [52] I will think about the just result. Jehochman Talk 05:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- My case
My account has indeed been hacked recently, as I told user Jw. The hackers may have used the account to make unconstructive edits. This is why I am still unable to use my signature properly.
Also, I do, in fact, have two articles that I have created here:
I also have made many CONSTRUCTIVE edits to Wikipedia. My edits to the Chechen war article were not vandalism, but merely stating my honest opinion, and it was deleted, as soon as proved wrong by another user, in a good, civilised, open-minded discussion.
As far as the R.C. Palmer Secondary School IP, yes, sometimes you'll find that I edit from that IP. That is because I am student at that school, what's wrong with that? And yes, I may have fooled around a bit with the school article, but it was all in good fun, and I assure you, a lot of people were entertained by it. :)
That is my case. Decide what you want.
Your loyal user, and editor, SergeiXXX.
- Most of us are not telepathic. If you have fun with an article, it can look like vandalism. Can you assure me that you will edit seriously in article space from now on, and that you will protect your account and use a strong password? If you want to joke around, your own userspace is a better place. If you can provide these assurances, then I see no need for further action. Jehochman Talk 06:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- This is an encyclopedia, not a place for "good fun" in article spaces. Other than that, I concur with Jehochman. — BQZip01 — talk 06:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, ok, I won't touch the Palmer article anymore. And I won't edit articles without thinking either. And i have already changed my password. SergeiXXX
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
ColourWolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu)
- Suspected sockpuppets
HatingPeanutButter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
ChadleyCreator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
QuestQueen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Juggernaut999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
MonsterMan0007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Note: User indef blocked as an abusive sockpuppet by User:Cowman109. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 01:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
202.128.188.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
WolfRedux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
ForsakenOne99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Note: User indef blocked as an abusive sockpuppet by User:Cowman109. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 01:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
BestEditorEver88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Note: User indef blocked as an abusive sockpuppet by User:Cowman109. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 01:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
165.21.154.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Arbiteroftruth (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Evidence
These users only edits Singaporean Chinese-language drama pages, an area which was subjected to massive vandalism attacks in recent months. In addition, one of the accounts, QuestQueen, edited the Calumon article, an article edited by other ColourWolf vandals in the past (User:HonourablePig). ColourWolf's MO has always been the sole editing of cartoon/manga articles and Singaporean Chinese-language dramas, and insert cartoon-inspired fake contents into these drama pages. These users must be banned NOW, before they completely trash Wikipedia's reputation!
Not to mention, ColourWolf's name, when translated into Chinese, means "Sexual Predator". He should have been banned in the first place!
-
- Detailed Evidence
- Although ChadleyCreater has not made any vandalizing edits, he has focused his efforts solely on Singaporean TV shows, a pattern shown by earlier ColourWolf vandals before they began to edit. This is to establish legitimacy, so that their chances of making vandalized edits unnoticed becomes greater. In addition, he has edited shows right after other ColourWolf vandals made their fake edits (case in point, Mind Games. WolfRedux made a fake edit on the 20th, and ChadleyCreator made some minor edits soon after. He also began to edit after another vandal, using IP addresses, began to add nonexistent casts in Return of the Condor Heroes (The IP added these, compared to the IMDB cast entry). Soon after the IP finished editing, ChadleyCreator began to edit that page. ChadleyCreator's edit tags along perfectly with two ColourWolf vandals.
- QuestQueen made this edit, and he used a cartoon character as comparison, another hallmark in ColourWolf's edit. He also edited Calumon, which was also edited by other ColourWolf vandals before.
- Juggernaut999 added these, which featured the radical, cartoonish storylines that ColourWolf is infamous for.
- WolfRedux (the name itself sounds obvious) these edits, also featuring the radical, terrorist-inspired storylines ColourWolf is infamous for.
- ForsakenOne99 inserted these, again, a hallmark of ColourWolf's edits.
- Comments
May I also make a note about User:WolfRedux? The username is similar, and edits some of the same articles as the other suspected sockpuppets. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 01:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- The name is close, which violates the rule on posing as a banned user already. He needs to be banned as well. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 01:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment from uninvolved BQZip01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
The pattern of disruption (in this case vandalism) fits WP:SOCK criteria to a T for HatingPeanutButter
QuestQueen, ChadleyCreator, and Juggernaut999 do not seem to fit the profile and the edits do not seem to fit the described violation of WP:SOCK.
202.128.188.103 seems to be involved in reducing vandalism, not creating it. That said, the edit summaries of this IP are suspect (awfully detailed for someone who isn't a registered user). This however is not conclusive, just suspicious.
WolfRedux's edits seem to correspond to the same timeframe as ColourWolf's banishment, but do not seem to be disruptive. While ColourWolf is not welcome here anymore, this editor seems ok, IMHO.
Keep in mind that people interested in one portion of a specific genre may be interested in other parts too. When a show airs, users can be competing to see who updates the latest plot twist sooner. This is not unreasonable to assume. I recommend these later users be allowed to continue editing. Should future actions change, they can certainly be brought up on WP:SOCK violations and this case referenced. This should also not be taken as support that this is not WP:SOCK. I may have simply missed it. The connection between socks should be crystal clear before banning. — BQZip01 — talk 02:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- BQZip, Juggernaut999 inserted blatantly fake synopsis into a Singaporean movie article. The synopsis were very fake and very obvious, because a non-Singaporean like me who have never saw the movie noticed the obvious hints. These users were put here for a purpose: they fit most, if not all, of the signs of being a ColourWolf sock. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- For clarity, can you show me the diff? — BQZip01 — talk 02:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- This is obvious. I have seen the description of the Liang Po Po: The Movie synopsis from its movie studios website, and it is nothing like the synopsis Jugganaut999 posted. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Another example that proves WolfRedux's role. Even if these synopsis are "real" (and I will need to be committed to a mental institution to believe that), I highly doubt that 5+ non-cartoon movies and drama series (stretching across different genres and topics) will feature such ridiculous, unbelievable, and cartoonish synopsis that sounds similar, and revolves around the same topic of cartoon/manga storylines. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I am not saying they are not real, but some of these edits appear useful (such as adding wikilinks and additional plot information). That said, I do not know enough about these movies/TV shows to make a conclusion one way or another. In the interests of impartiality, I invite these users to submit feedback here. If they do not defend themselves here, then I think we have our answer. Furthermore, Arbiter's edits seem unsourced as well. Please read WP:V and cite sources for your claims on these pages.
- Again, I am not saying you are wrong, but I cannot see these and I cannot verify anything of what you are claiming. All of your information seems based on WP:OR ("I have seen the description of the Liang Po Po: The Movie synopsis from its movie studios website, and it is nothing like the synopsis Jugganaut999 posted." Great. I haven't seen it. Where can I possibly find it? You are presenting this case; please try to make it crystal clear as to sockpuppetry.
- After that, let's see what his/her next move is. — BQZip01 — talk 08:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- I invite you to look at EVERYTHING ColourWolf's vandals have edited. Can you seriously tell me, in a sound mental state, that 5-10 non-cartoon movies and television series, covering different genres and topics, can have the same asinine and cartoonish synopsis, which features, with regularity, superhuman powers, terrorists plots by monsters, and Power Rangers battle sequences?
-
-
-
-
- Can you seriously tell me that is believable and plausible? Can you??? Use your common sense please! Arbiteroftruth (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- There is no need to question my sanity.
- There is no need to be hostile.
- I have seen many TV shows from Asian sources that have such similar plots. I'm not saying you are wrong, but merely that you haven't proven it to me. Please provide a link to the synopsis you claimed earlier.
-
-
-
-
-
- Something else that would help would be specific diffs in conjunction with the synopsis:
-
-
-
-
-
- For example:
- He put in this when the plot is this.
- Make it obvious and the WP:SSP process will be easier and quicker. — BQZip01 — talk 18:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- If I gave you the wrong impression that I am being hostile, or questioning your mental state, I apologize. However, I must implore you to use your common sense in this case, and think: "Is it possible for 5+ dramas and shows, dealing with topics ranging from oil drilling, gambling, the military, a soap opera, and a game show, to all commonly deal with cartoon/manga terrorists with superhuman powers after cybernetic experiments?"
- As for evidence, I will present them later today. For now, I am taking a break to cool off, just so I won't piss anyone off. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Conclusions
BLocked HatingPeanutButter indef. Pls make statements concise and focused, it's easier to handle that way. waiting for more info. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- All blocked and tagged, most verified by the CU case. Another admin helped. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:14, 23 January 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.
User:UkraineToday]]===
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
UkraineToday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
193.243.156.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
80.249.229.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
193.243.156.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Ukraine2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
217.12.205.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Timberframe (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Evidence
The strogest evidence concerns 193.243.156.214. This IP was used to manually revise his auto-inserted username from 193.243.156.214 to UkraineToday in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:UkraineToday&diff=prev&oldid=155390393 the day before UkraineToday was indefinitely blocked on 4th September 2007- that's the clincher, since he's writing in defence of UkraineToday in the first person and 193.243.156.214 has continued to be used following the block. ;
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Racepacket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Runreston (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
207.91.86.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
(already identified as a sockpuppet of Racepacket via an earlier checkuser - see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Racepacket) Xcstar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
(already blocked as a sockpuppet of Racepacket via an earlier checkuser)
- Report submission by
Alansohn (talk) 02:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Evidence
Washington Birthday Marathon - Article was created by Runreston, but the only known previous Wikipedia reference to race was added by Racepacket in Henry A. Wallace Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (this diff). Only other edit to this article is by User:207.91.86.2, a confirmed sockpuppet of Racepacket.
- 14:41, 13 January 2008 Runreston began article. This edit, which created a complete, properly-formatted article, is all the more bizarre as the first edit from someone who has claimed below that he is only first learning how Wikipedia works.
- 14:45, 13 January 2008 Runreston corrected link
- 17:43, 18 January 2008 207.91.86.2 - Added external link to Racepacket.com web site
- DC Road Runners Club - Article created by Racepacket
- Henry A. Wallace Beltsville Agricultural Research Center
- Marathon - Article previously edited eight times by User:Xcstar (three of which are shown below), previously verified as a sockpuppet of Racepacket per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Racepacket
- Dean Karnazes
- User Pages - brief stub
- Dane Rauschenberg - this article is near and dear to the Racepacket / Xcstar / Runreston sockpuppets, with Racepacket nominating the article for deletion, Xcstar then taking the baton and abusively editing the article including 96 of his 200+ edits to this one article alone (plus another 40 to the article's talk page) before being caught as a sockpuppet. After one brief day of non-Rauschenberg edits, User:Runreston has dived in with some half of his edit history dedicated to this one article and its talk page.
- 14:31, 19 January 2008 Runreston
- 14:30, 19 January 2008 Runreston
- 14:29, 19 January 2008 Runreston
- 14:25, 19 January 2008 Runreston
- 14:19, 19 January 2008 Runreston - remove description as runner and characterize Rauschenberg as "motivational speaker", change fundraising total to $34,000 (removing sourced count of $43,000)
- 13:52, 18 January 2008 Runreston - remove description as runner and characterize Rauschenberg as "motivational speaker", change fundraising total to $34,000 (removing sourced count of $43,000)
- 12:43, 7 January 2008 Xcstar - remove description as runner and characterize Rauschenberg as "motivational speaker", change fundraising total to $34,000 (removing sourced count of $43,000)
- Edits to Chicago area articles. The two have edited articles related to the Chicago area, for locations three miles from each other (see map).
- Comments
The fact that User:Runreston's edit history overlaps almost completely with Racepacket / Xcstar, and the fact that Runreston's edit history consists almost entirely of edits to the Dane Rauschenberg article raises significant concerns that we are seeing the same abuse we saw earlier. None of the actions here are indicative of a user new to Wikipedia.
The syllogism of Racepacket = Xcstar = 207.91.86.2 has already been conclusively proven at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Racepacket. The fact that our brand new editor User:Runreston has an edit history that syncs up exactly with all three of these users -- there is no article other than his user page that the three known sockpuppets have not also edited -- provides rather conclusive evidence that we are dealing with sockpuppetry, and that all of the users involved should be promptly blocked/banned to prevent any further abuse of Wikipedia policy, as has been a chronic problem with these users and the Dane Rauschenberg article.
A permanent block is clearly justified for User:Runreston, and it should be abundantly clear that a ban on User:Racepacket is long overdue, particularly in light of the fact that a block was imposed just days ago has been so blatantly flouted.
This is all very confusing, but it appears that the author is concerned that it took me seven edits to accomplish what a more experienced person could do in one edit. I am still learning how to do this and will try to become more efficient as I gain more experience. Runreston (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'd have to say that someone whose first edit was the creation of a properly-formatted new article and who seems to have ample understanding of the syntax of the reference templates is someone who has demonstrated a clear track record of prior Wikipedia edits. Sockpuppetry should be a word that is a well-established part of your vocabulary. Alansohn (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'd assume good faith here, it could well be a friend of the editor, as people do introduce one another to websites they're interested in... I just hope it's not meatpuppetry. --Solumeiras (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- The editing pattern speaks for itself, but there is indeed the infinitesimal possibility that these are two different people who happen to share the exact same editing interests. Meatpuppet or sockpuppet, the use of another false identity in a continuing pattern of abuse that needs to be ended, both puppet and puppetmaster. Alansohn (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- I speak from experience. An admin on here accused me of being a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked editor, who had "good hand, bad hand account" sockpuppets about a year ago - and it's forced me to declare my user history on my userpage. Either way, I suspect it's probably a friend who's meatpuppeting for him (is that even a proper term?) As it were, I was introduced to Wikipedia by friends, so I speak from experience. I agree with your points though, Alan. --Solumeiras (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Conclusions
Very convincing case. Blocked IP 24 hours and Runreston indef. Blocked Racepacket one week and final warning. What shows this is socking vice meatpuppeting is the appearance of Runreton right after the Xcstar was blocked. Tagged all. — Rlevse • Talk •
UPDATE, Checkuser just confirmed Runreston is NOT Racepacket, but keep an eye out for new editors on that topic. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
UPDATE, Checkuser now says [61] "likely"] — Rlevse • Talk • 01:14, 31 January 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.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
- Dr who1975 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- France a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu)
- Loads more too!
- Report submission by
Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 10:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Evidence
One of the many blatant sockpuppets of France a - see this edit to another of their userpages. This is characteristic of all the socks, to edit each others' userpages and make insults!
- Defense
I made an unsportsmanlike edit but I am not France A. I have never made the type of vandalising edits France A has made to Doctor Who pages. The edit of mine above was a response to France A vandlising my home page through one of his sockpuppets. I apologize if this behavior has inadvertantly mislead anybody.
It should be obvious I'm not France A.
France A started activity on "13:09, 24 January 2007"... my first edit was on "01:30, 17 June 2006". France a wasn't even on the scene when I started my account.--Dr who1975 (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Has France A or any of his sockpuppets ever shown an interest in The Untied States Congress?
Has France A or any of his sockpuppets ever put up a lot of user boxes saying things like they have degrees from FSU and GSU.
Has France A or any of his sockpuppet's ever shown an inetrest in local American political figures such as Sandy D'Alemberte, Pam Resor, or Jamie Eldridge?
I can put up more examples if you like. If you look at the history of my edits, the behavior in no way matches any of France A's behavior. The only thing I have in common with him is an interest in Dr. Who.
Porcupine is being overzealous. France A has upset a lot of us. I made a mistake.--Dr who1975 (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Here's another one, I just created Louisiana's 6th congressional district special election, 2008 yesterday... I doubt France A, who probably lives in Engalnd, would ever take an interest in Louisiana politics.--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comments
- User:Porcupine's complaint is insufficient on its face. The complaint rightly shows a single instance of vandalism. However:
- that vandalism was not planted anonymously- it clearly belonged to User:Dr who1975, who has had a WP account much longer than the suspected sockpuppet;
- vandalism is not enough to make a case for sockpuppetry;
- the complaint does not make a case that User:France a is in anyway related to User:Dr who1975
- it's hard to defend against a sockpuppetry complaint because it requires proving a negative. How can someone prove they didn't do something. Nevertheless, User:Dr who1975's defense, while not great, is still more than sufficient to dismiss this complaint.
- Therefore, I believe this complaint should be dropped.
- On the other hand, I doubt User:Dr who1975's medical school background and I don't think he/she is even a doctor at all :-). —Markles 18:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think the last comment about my "medical school backround" was a joke (i.e. the "Dr" in my name). I have never claimed to be a doctor. I'd be laughing if it was on my discussion page instead of here.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes it was. —Markles 21:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Question What evidence is there that User:Dr who1975 is the same individual that operated France a? --Kife 19:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Answer All the other accounts of France a left silly messages just like that on the pages of the previous ones that had already been blocked. Therefore, when a DrWho fanatic leaves a silly message just like that on the pages of a previous one that has already been blocked, I see a certain correlation.--08:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Simply stating something does not make it true. You have to provide evidence. Which ID's of France A's left such a message... you have to cite instances where a confirmed sockpuppet left such a message..... my ip address, 67.62.103.180, has never been accused of being asockpuppet of France A. I did use it 6 months ago to leave messages on 2 of France A's discussion pages where I called him a wanker. I told you it wasn't vandalism at the time and there wasn't repeated instances of this behavior. My IP (which was not mine before June 11) has never been used for vandalism of wikipedia pages.--Dr who1975 (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Request I need somebody to submit a Checkuser between me and User:MrClaxson User:Brinstar... MrClaxson Brinstar is a confirmed sockpuppet of France A (confirmed with chekuser) and he has engaged in edits this very day. Time is of the essence as the edits become satle and therefore ussless for checkuser... plus, I am not allowed to request one for myself. A checkuser request is the only sure way to provemy guilt or innocnce.
-
- He has not edited since July 2007, actually, which is probably something to do with the fact that he's blocked.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 22:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- You're right, I meant User:Brinstar. It was an easy enough mistake to make since I'm not him. All of the following confirmed France A sockpuppets from Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/SaxonUnit have activity within the last two weeks.
- MrWez (talk · contribs)
- ShadowpuppetKing (talk · contribs)
- SaxonUnit (talk · contribs)
- Nosxalc (talk · contribs)
- Brinstar (talk · contribs)
Brinstar appears to be active even today. I desperatly need a checkuser against any or all of them to prove my innocence.--Dr who1975 (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Some clarification:
- Brinstar was unblocked by me; some email conversation led me to think perhaps I'd misidentified him as a sock. Normally we automatically refuse Dr who1975's request, since checkuser is not any good at proving innocence; it can only provide evidence of guilt. But since I'd unearthed these annoyances, I checked Dr who1975, and found no IP or geographic relationship between the Dr and the SaxonUnit gang. Different hemispheres, actually. In checkuser language,
Unrelated. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Different hemispheres..as I suspected... the Saxon gang is in Europe (or maybe Austrailia/New Zealand), I'm in the U.S.--Dr who1975 (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Aside: I've reconsidered Brinstar and blocked him again. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Just as long as everybody knows I'm still not him.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per all of the above, it is pretty obvious this should be dropped ASAP. — BQZip01 — talk 08:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Conclusions
I am not the least bit convinced by these accusations. Archiving and untagging the suspect Dr who1975 (talk · contribs). Jehochman Talk 04:38, 22 January 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.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Rothchild (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Timbermile99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Bingehighmen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Flymanmcgee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
ChildofRoth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Pimpmacro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Happydudewater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Mistersupter258 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
--Skylights76 (talk) 07:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Evidence
The suspected sockpuppeteer, Rothchild, was blocked for 48 hours and then indefinitely after I reported his/her trolling and bad faith edits on the administrators' notice board.
Timbermile99's account was created soon after. Timbermile99 reverted three of my recent edits in a row: [66], [67], and [68], within minutes of each other. The articles were unrelated to each other, so I'm certain the user was simply working off my user contributions page. Also, the edit summaries did not reflect the actual edits.
After the Timbermile99 editor was blocked for being a vandalism-only account, another editor, Bingehighmen appeared. He made two edits [69] [70] continuing his previous vandalism, and was also blocked. After Bingehighmen was blocked, Flymanmcgee appeared and began harassing another user, and was then blocked. Creation of further sockpuppets by this user is ongoing (see their contribs for evidence).
The sockpuppets have basically admitted their sockpuppetry in edits to others' user pages and talk pages.
- Comments
The suspected sockpuppeteer has likely been using Wikipedia for a long time (probably using other sockpuppets as well), as he/she seems to know a lot about Wikipedia and esoteric areas like WP:LAME as discussed on Rothchild's talk page and in the conversation about Rothchild on the administrators' board.
Timbermile99 added numerous userboxes to his/her talkpage and made some small edits to a couple random articles before reverting my edits. I believe this was done in an attempt not to look like a sockpuppet. Also, the user posted an inappropriate question about adding color to text in the administrators' notice board, again no doubt to appear legitimate.
After I filed this report, Timbermile99 posted this fraudulent sockpuppetry notice on my talk page, and engaged in further personal attacks.
- I commented about this before on AN/I and the user's talk page, this user is displaying a ammount of knoledge rather detailed for a newcomer, including LAME, SOCK, AGF and ABF, I would say that Rothchild himself is a sockpuppet of someone else, and its probable that someone o=is either banned or blocked, perhaps a check user is in order. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Conclusions
I believe Rothchild created the sockpuppet Timbermile99 and several others after being blocked, then proceeded to revert my edits and harass others to "get revenge." The individual continues to create new accounts, harass editors, and vandalize articles. I believe that all of these accounts should be blocked indefinitely, and action should be taken, if possible, to prevent this individual from further account creation and harassment.
- It's been eight days. Presumably the person has give up, or the autoblocks have nailed their IP addresses.All of the above accounts are already blocked. There is nothing else to do here. I am closing this report. Jehochman Talk 02:55, 22 January 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.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
RobJ1981 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
JB196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu)
Eyrian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu)
Dannycali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
JohnEMcClure (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu)
Burntsauce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu)
- Report submission by
Jasdhf1981 (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Evidence
I'm a regular editor and need to avoid on-wikipedia harassment from possible socks or proxy editors. I hope that it is useful so taking this route so admins can see if this merits investigating/action. I've found this editor to be borderline attacking others, making accusations against users. I wish to remain anonymous and feel someone should pay attention to the case.
User:JB196 primary editing/deletions related to wrestling articles. RobJ1981 has parallel assumptions of bad faith and anti-"in popular culture" edits shared by suspected meat puppets and engages in numerous wrestling deletionism that seem to match JB196, in fact he has hundreds if not 1000s of wrestling related removals, deletions, AfD nominations and a interest in editor TJ Spike, whom JB196 also disagrees with (the first post is from JB196): [71]
It may be worth checking to see to what extent the known JB196 socks argued with TJ Spike; numerous RobJ1981 anti-TJ Spike edits.[72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96].
RobJ1981 has continued doing so recently (notice also the rivalry with TJ Spike): [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151].
Similar behavior against Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles: [152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161], [162], [163], [164], [165], [166], [167], [168], [169], [170], [171], [172], [173], [174], [175], [176], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Happy_Meal_toys_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=172872089&oldid=172770090 [177].
Notice that part of that dispute involves an editor named 3bulletproof26. Now, notice JB196 problems with the same editor: [178], [179].
Additional evidence of a JB196/RobJ1981 versus 3bulletproof16 over wrestling articles:
JB196 versus 3bulletproof16: [180], [181], [182], [183], [184], [185], [186], [187], [188], [189], [190], [191], [192], [193], [194], [195], [196], [197], [198], [199], [200], [201], [202], [203], [204], [205], [206], [207],
RobJ1981 versus 3bulletproof16: [208], [209], [210], [211], [212],
Notice as well the harassing accusations andANI similar to Dannycali (recently blocked as a JB196 sock puppet after checkuser), Eyrian (who admitted using the alternate account named JohnEMcClure to "test limits"), and RobJ1981 (who has strikingly similar edits and accusations as JB196, Eyrian, Dannycali, and JohnEMcClure). The above are sample of their (JB196 and RobJ1981's) edits on 3bulletproof16's talk page. There's, again, even more to this dispute in the similar dispute of JB196 and RobJ1981 with TJ Spike in reverting and ANI threads elsewhere. It may be worth seeing if any of the other determined or suspected socks or meats or proxies have also engaged in conflict with 3bulletproof16 and TJ Spike that strengthen the likelihood of a connection, or disruptive relationship.
So, JB196, an editor mostly interested in wrestling articles, has his main dispute toward the end of his editing life is with 2bulletproof16 (someone suspected as being a TJ Spike sock). RobJ1981’s main dispute in his edit history is also with TJ Spike/3bulletproof16. Moreover, JB196 finished editing in 2006 around the same summer that RobJ181 started.
Part of what led to JB196 troubles (as well as those confirmed alternate accounts) involved incivility, personal attacks, etc. again, consider the following warnings to RobJ1981 and disputes: [213], [214], [215], [216], [217], [218], [219], [220], [221], [222], [223], [224], [225], [226], [227], [228], [229], [230], [231], [232], [233], [234], [235], [236], [237], [238], [239], [240], [241], [242], [243], (notice that JB196 and RobJ1981 had problems with TJ Spike and the one to protect TJ Spike talk page is Alkivar),
[244], [245], [246], [247], [248], [249], [250], [251], [252],
RobJ1981 is also edit warring/conflict with other users: [253], [254], [255], [256], [257], [258], [259], [260], [261], [262], [263].
So:
1) RobJ1981 has had issues with 3bulletproof16, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles and TJ Spike, just as JB196 did;
2) Dannycali, who has accused users of stalking, was recently blocked as a JB196 sock or meat after a check user and RobJ1981 has offered similar accusations against the same editors that Dannycali did;
3) RobJ1981 has a history of persistent and determined claims of harassment against editors, even if told to let it drop. And RobJ1981 even disagreed to an offer at mediation in one of the disputes. Notice JzGâ comment to RobJ1981 compelling: "Having proven beyond reasonable doubt that they are separate accounts, creating a second sockpuppetry case against them looks a lot like harassment. I have deleted it. Do not pursue that line again." His aggressiveness towards others even after well-established admins told him otherwise.
Also, RobJ1981 has AFD articles that Eyrian originally nominated: Eyrian:[264], RobJ1981:[265]
- Comments
- Similar opinions doesn't always mean it's the same person. I think you are just trying to cause trouble, which is bad faith and unnecessary. You claim you are a regular editor, yet your account only has edits on today's date. So to make this clear: you make a new name, just to accuse others of being sockpuppets? That's a bit hypocritical. Have them do a check user on me, it will prove I'm innocent and you are just assuming bad faith/causing trouble. Also I want to point out, all those links aren't even relevant. I didn't have time to go through them all, but here's some examples to explain my edits. 28: I removed the wrong year category, as it's the original release year that is the only category listed for video games (the video game project has mentioned this many times on their talk page when the issue has been brought up). I also added a relevant category for the game console it's for. 29: I removed cruft from the article. The heights and so on aren't useful for the encyclopedia. Check any other wrestling game article, all that information is never listed. 67: I removed a dead link from the article. 74: this was a matter of category cleanup, and removing a wrong template. Many of those articles listed I wasn't even reverting TJ, so the heading of "notice also the rivalry with TJ Spyke" doesn't exist in every edit. It's wrong to just group all those together, when many don't even involve him. In my view, this user is just trying to find anything I removed from wrestling articles. It's called cleaning up the article. I don't have a grudge against wrestling articles. You might as well throw in all my other edits into this, and claim I have something against all subjects I edited, because I've removed things from those as well. Give me a break, this claim is just stupid and full of nonsense. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've commented at AN/I. Some of the diffs do seem to be the wrong edit , and I dont think the departed Eyrian has anything to do with this. The general pattern does seem to raise some concern./ I unfortunately am not able now to properly look through all the evidence, DGG (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Conclusions
I don't need all these diff to solve this. Note the submitter's name pattern on a keyboard. This SSP case is also his one and only edit. Note the last four accounts are indef blocked already, and JB196 hasn't edited since 2006. RobJ1981 seems a constructive editor. The submitter is obviously a sock of someone trying to get at RobJ1981. I've blocked the submitter indef. What I don't know of whom the submitter is a sock but a CU would tell us. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
CompScientist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu)
- Suspected sockpuppets
75.8.98.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.7.233.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.156.48.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.4.15.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.3.251.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.8.213.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.3.254.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.4.10.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.3.252.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.156.61.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
76.208.157.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.156.59.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
75.8.214.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.156.57.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Wikipeadian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Mcknight11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
New IP addresses/users as of 10 March 2008:
75.7.148.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Evidence
- A discussion initiated by one of the IP addresses at Talk:Nissan GT-R challenged the validity of the discussion and the consensus achieved in a prior discussion relating to the term, supercar. The comments therein, by the starting IP address and the three others, revolved around the same line of comments and assumed bad faith on part of other editors. The discussions at Talk:Nissan GT-R mirror that of CompScientist.
- The IP addresses have reinstated original research and vast amounts of unsourced materials to supercar, beginning with this IP edit:
-
- 1st: 08:42, 8 January 2008 by 71.156.48.66
- 2nd: 18:58, 8 January 2008 by 75.7.233.121
- 3rd: 19:33, 8 January 2008 by 75.7.233.121
- 4th: 20:13, 8 January 2008 by 75.7.233.121
- 6th: 21:52, 8 January 2008 by 75.8.98.85
- These IPs were also used to make false AIV reports on some of the other users involved.
-
- [270] 22:28, 8 January 2008 by 75.8.98.85
- [271] 22:06, 8 January 2008 by 75.8.98.85
- [272] 21:54, 8 January 2008 by 75.8.98.85
- [273] 20:17, 8 January 2008 by 75.7.233.121 (cumulation of two)
- [274] by 75.7.233.121
- [275] 01:24, 9 January 2008 by 75.3.251.3
- Daniel Case (talk) 05:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Various IP addresses were adding in blank section headings as a potential POV-fork.
-
A new batch of very similar edits to CompScientist has appeared by Wikipeadian (talk · contribs):
-
-
I'll request a CU tonight. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
And... with Mcknight11 (talk · contribs):
-
- Comments
- IP addresses evading block of CompScientist for edit warring, 3RR.
- Currently, Nissan GT-R is locked due to edit warring between CompScientist and various individuals, and supercar is locked due to edit warring between the IP addresses and various individuals.
- I am sending this for IP Checkuser, and if this proves to be CompScientist, a lengthy block for disruption, abuse and repeated sock puppetry will follow. Jehochman Talk 15:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Conclusions
The IPs were confirmed by checkuser [276] and I have lengthened the existing block to one month for block evasion and disruptive sock puppetry. Jehochman Talk 21:25, 21 January 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.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
MathStatWoman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Alfred Legrand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu)
Samuel Kotz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.242.164.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.242.188.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Amy Internet Avoider (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Bioinformatician (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
DeveloperFrom1983 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Philly Student (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
PreHistorian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
WomanTreatedUnfairly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
H Wilf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
MRKPinsky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
CharlieFeff. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
JanosGalomb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Simon,Jms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Evidence
User:MathStatWoman sockpuppeteer (confirmed by Checkuser admins Kelly Martin & Fred Bauder), see summary of behaviour here), has been blocked three times for repeated copyvio contributions, repeated vandalism and repeated disruption. She has a history of abusive sockpuppetry and disruptive edits related to the now deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roberta Wenocur subject in particular. Articles on Wenocur have been deleted four times already, the fifth is now at AfD. MathStatWoman has not edited since Aug 06 (none have any of her previously identified sockpuppets have edited past Sept 06, except for one, which made edits to userpage removing the sock template Feb 07).
The most recent R. S. Wenocur article was created by User:Alfred Legrand. Other pages created by MathStatWoman and since edited by User:Alfred Legrand include Marion Cohen (twice survived AfD by non-consensus), and Mark Pinsky.
A confirmed MathStatWoman (by Fred Bauder here) sock is User:Philly Student, and MathStatWoman has edited Philadelphia related articles such as the Philly suburb article Ardmore, Pennsylvania, example (problematic) edits: [277], [278]. Alfred Legrand's also displays an interest in Philadelphia topics, making some problematic edits: (e.g. [279] & [280]).
MathStatsWoman complained that Utz chips ought to be deleted [281], Alfred Legrand's put a prod tag on it ([282]). Alfred Legrand has also created some very odd food-related articles, such as Sweet Muenster Cheese, the (now deleted) Harvest Moon Cocktail and Whole stuffed camel. He's also made edits attributing the invention of recipies to R.S. Wenocur, e.g. the pomegranate martini [283], the harvest moon beer coctail [284]. In a similar edit User:Samuel Kotz attributes a recipie for Sweet Muenster cheese (note difference in capitaliation from the Alfred Legrand article) to R.S. Winocur [285].
- Comments
Many of these have been confirmed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Alfred_Legrand. CM (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Conclusions
Checkuser confirmed a number of sock puppets, and they were blocked. It appears that no further administrative actions are required here. Jehochman Talk 15:05, 21 January 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.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Standshown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Stagalj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu)
- Report submission by
Laveol T 21:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Evidence
User:Standshown has been edit-warring on a number of articles and especially on 2: Neo-Nazism in Serbia and Ante Pavelić and has done it till the 31 December. On December 30 a new account was created (User:Stagalj) that immediately started warring on the same articles - here are all the reverts from both users on Neo-Nazism in Serbia [289] Stagaji, then Standshown [290] and then again Stagaji [291], [292]. The other article is Ante Pavelić where Standshown made reverts as follows [293] [294] [295] - that was untill the protection of the article. Immediately after protection expired there was [296] (this is on December 31) and three days later Stagaji continued [297] [298] [299]. Standshown had been previously blocked for similar edits and that might be the reason for the new user creation. It might be just coincidence, but an extremely suspicious coincidence. --Laveol T 22:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comments
The "evidence" above is just a frivolous attempt to eliminate me as an opponent in this discussion and in contributing to Wikipedia. I only share an honest interest with other editor (Standshown) in improving the quality of Wikipedia's articles. The Wikipedia's checkuser is free to confirm that I am not the one who uses the same Internet account as the other editor (Standshown).--Stagalj (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Just to add up: Immediately after his first revert Standshown provided references for his edits taken directly from Google books (where he most probably just made a simple search) [300] and guess what Stagalj did after his first revert (or maybe a little bit later: [301] - obviously again google booked. --Laveol T 15:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I've contacted Stagalj. We learned that we live in two different cities, use two different IP accounts owned by two different ISPs.
As to the accusations above, the accuser is obliged to provide a sound proof that both of us used the Google Book Search engine and not, for example, Live Book Search, or Questia search, or a library commercial or proprietary book catalog search tool. One of the accepted proofs might be the format of generated search engine report like [302] or [303] and the clear connection between the reports and our edits seen on the talk page. Also, the accuser is obliged to provide evidence that the edits are comming from the same IP account or that both accounts belong to (and/or are used by) the same person.
--Standshown (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually the accuser is not obliged to provide non of this above. I have no privileges to see your actual IPs as the accuser is not an Admin. And the accuser meant that both of you have an almost identical way of providing references - I have not linked Google book cause it was meant as a principle not as the exact way you attained your sources. And as you might notice the accuser has not put the Google book stuff in the evidence section of the report.--Laveol T 19:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note The following ISP's seem to also be socks of this user: 72.75.47.110 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) and 66.2.146.41 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log). Both of these are in the greater Washington, DC area and have made similar edits. --Strothra (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Seconded. This user seems to have an interest in WWII Serb related articles. Until New Year User:Standshown have been in edit war on 2 other articles Serbia (1941-1944) and Puppet state. He hasn't broken WP:3RR as far as I can see, but WP:Edit war is now policy. A single user using multiple accounts to hide the true state of the article (Neo-Nazism in Serbia and Ante Pavelić) is problematic .--Rjecina (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Conclusions
I think there is evidence of sock puppetry, but I am not completely convinced at this time. Therefore, I will file Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Standshown to see if that provides any further information. Jehochman Talk 20:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- The checkuser result is that the two named accounts are Unrelated, however both have been logging out and using their IPs to evade 3RR or avoid scrutiny. That is not allowed. I will warn both not to do that further. There have been no fresh reverts, so blocking is not necessary. Should edit warring resume, contact me and I will consider whether to apply blocks. Jehochman Talk 20:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have issued warnings to both users.[304][305] Hopefully this will be the end of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jehochman (talk • contribs) 21:54, 20 January 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.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Ray andrew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Proctor spock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
—Locke Cole • t • c 03:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Evidence
- Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Ray andrew — checkuser request resulted in a "likely" that Ray andrew and Proctor spock are one and the same.
- Proctor spock was created while Ray andrew was blocked for violating WP:3RR. Proctor spock immediately began edit warring over an article Ray andrew had edit warred over in the past. I immediately requested a RFCU as I suspected this new editor was merely Ray evading his 3RR block.
- The account continues to edit and "contribute" by reverting edits similar to Ray, as well as sharing opinions similar to Ray (this is, obviously, not evidence enough by itself, but is contributory I believe).
- For an account recently created, Proctor spock seems to be very familiar with Wikipedia and it's policies/procedures.
- Evidence (with responses)
- The only evidence that that conclusion was based on was that one of us (not me) was using an open proxy. Thats pretty thin if you ask me. --Ray andrew (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Alison's result was (surprisingly) faulty and I am still in the process of asking her about this. Proctor spock (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Proctor spock was created while Ray andrew was blocked for violating WP:3RR. Proctor spock immediately began edit warring over an article Ray andrew had edit warred over in the past. I immediately requested a RFCU as I suspected this new editor was merely Ray evading his 3RR block.
- From the time stamp I see he was created near the end of my ban, why would I create a sock puppet just before I was to be unbanned? --Ray andrew (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- From the time stamp, you can see I created this account after Locke Cole inappropriately removed content about 51 GB (triple layer) HD DVD discs from the HD DVD article. Proctor spock (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- The account continues to edit and "contribute" by reverting edits similar to Ray, as well as sharing opinions similar to Ray (this is, obviously, not evidence enough by itself, but is contributory I believe).
- Is it hard to beleave that other editors would have similar views in that dispute? --Ray andrew (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- While we share some views, we differ on others. In general, though, we both respect WP:NPOV above our own desires to promote a particular platform. At least, that is what I have observed. Proctor spock (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- For an account recently created, Proctor spock seems to be very familiar with Wikipedia and it's policies/procedures.
- Finally, a compliment. Though I do not think it was meant as one. I do know this -- I am not familiar enough with Wikipedia's policies and procedures as an editor who has been through arbitration. Proctor spock (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comments
- I can provide diffs if needed, but I think the RFCU coupled with just looking through their contributions should be enough. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure it was appropriate for Ray to respond directly to the evidence, but I'll leave it alone for now. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- A fuzzy investigation gives a fuzzy result. Where is the evidence? Proctor spock (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- The RFCU should be enough on it's own, but the editing patterns visible just by opening up each of your contribs stands out like a sore thumb. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't follow. You are saying that look over there in that general direction is enough? Sounds fuzzy, not of the warm feel good inside variety, but of the inconclusive variety. Proctor spock (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Initial comment by Proctor spock: This is disappointing. Rather than address the merits of my arguments over at Talk:Comparison of high definition optical disc formats, Locke Cole has resorted to personally attacking me and Ray andrew as being "sock puppets". It is aggravating and it muddies the waters when you are trying to address a difficult content issue on an article to be falsely accused like this. While assuming good faith, I find it hard to believe Locke Cole can honesty hold the belief we are still one and the same at this time. I hope that this case can finally put an end to being falsely accused by Locke Cole of being someone I am not. It would be nice to get back to discussing the article and not one another. Proctor spock (talk) 04:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- As you've been told, pointing out that you are a sock puppet of Ray andrew is in fact not a personal attack. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Since you do not know I am a sock puppet of another editor, it is a personal attack. Please, as I have asked you repeatedly, stop it. If you must attack, focus on the arguments, not the person. Proctor spock (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- But I do know. And you've already been told it's not a personal attack. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- You do not get to decide what is and is not a personal attack. You have been personally attacking me repeatedly on the Talk:Comparison of high definition optical disc formats page and asked nicely to stop on multiple occasions. Again, I ask, please stop with the personal attacks. They do nothing to add to the discussion, and instead serve to distract and delay, unnecessarily prolonging the formation of consensus. Proctor spock (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- This accusation has mainly been used to discredit me and my positions and to avoid the real debate. --Ray andrew (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- No Ray, it's not some insidious plot to win a debate on an article. I just like knowing that I'm not being abused (as I believe I am) by someone who is manipulating the discussion by using a sockpuppet. Someone who used the same sock puppet to evade a 3RR ban and revert war on another, related, page. I think those are the real reasons I brought these accusations. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, trying to get another editor blocked who shares views similar to an editor you already oppose is a way to win a debate on an article by silencing the opposing side. You have only filed this sock puppet case when it became clear your desired version of the chart had fallen out of favor. Funny that. Proctor spock (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- You would do well to take this seriously rather than continuing to try and bring up an article dispute. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- You brought this suspected sock puppet case because of an article dispute. As interesting a movie as Secret Window is, the world becomes absurd when you ask me to imagine that I am Ray andrew, whom I have never met and do not know outside these bits. I take my duties as an editor seriously, which is why I have stuck around through your abuse. Proctor spock (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Apparently Locke thinks warnings about his personal attacks are silly [323] --Ray andrew (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- They're irrelevant. An RFCU has resulted in a "likely" that you and Proctor spock are one and the same. Besides, you've already been told that those aren't personal attacks. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- YOU can tell me that they are not personal attacks all day but, it sure feels like it to me. Practly every other comment you made recently on Talk:Comparison_of_high_definition_optical_disc_formats accused me or Proc. of being sockpuppets. The "Likely" conclusion of the RFCU does not give you the right to go around and publicly smear me because you disagree with my views, that is a personal attack. --Ray andrew (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Ray andrew here. Locke Cole, your belief that because someone wrote something you are now free to personally attack me and Ray andrew is erroneous. You are responsible for what you say. You can't put this on another editor. Proctor spock (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
How shall I count your errors...
- RFCU=Request For CheckUser
- if RFCU's come back "likely", anything that even seems like two accounts supporting one another is used against you.
- Besides, the admins have tools even I can not access. This includes IP location tracking.
- that wraps it up.
Oh, yeah, and always remember to cover your tracks in the woods, even bears can be smart, if they try. M1N (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The request for checkuser has been revised and the outcome is "
Inconclusive". Proctor spock (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- And yet it still remains that the original outcome was "likely" and that the timing of your account creation (while Ray was blocked for 3RR) and your edit history since then reinforce the idea that you and he are one and the same. You support nearly the same points of view, you have the same habit of revert warring (something a Wikipedia newbie shouldn't be too familiar with, yet your first three edits consist of reverting a single page to your preferred version), and so forth. I still say you're a sockpuppet of Ray and this wikibreak he's on is a sham. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Please note: both accounts have denied responding to this claim:
I believe Ray andrew may be evading a 3RR block, the Proctor spock (talk · contribs) account was created today and within minutes began reverting changes in an article similar to the one Ray andrew was blocked for edit warring on. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Specifically:
...within minutes began reverting changes in an article similar to the one Ray andrew was blocked for edit warring on. ...
Therefore: You like pie. But seriously, this SSP war has been all about blocks, name-calling, and hatefulness. How about we actually use actual proof. M1N (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'll respond :) Note that the reverts Proc. made when he signed up were not on the same page and not on the same topic. He was reverting the removal by Locke of well sourced information, strange thing to get banned for, but I guess Locke has some friends. --Ray andrew (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Conclusions
CU was inconclusive and this SSP is nothing but a fingerpointing match, and uncivil at that. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:19, 19 January 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.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Avraham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Mongoosed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Adjuro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
--Matilda talk 05:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Evidence
Two new wikipedians whose first edits, competently made with signatures, were to vote for keeping an article supported by User:Avraham and strongly supporting his views. first edit by Mongoosed First edit by Adjuro--Matilda talk 05:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comments
Checkuser is not appropriate until the AfD has been completed and will only be done if the outcome is affected by the votes of these two potential sockpuppets.--Matilda talk 05:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note - I feel really bad about accusing User:Avraham of this and no longer think he is the puppetmaster. I ahve nominated him because of the strong support shown by the two new users. However, in reviewing talk page comments and editing history, I suspect it is probably User:Adon Emett. I find the whole AfD rather bizarre - particularly when reviewed against the previous AfD for the same topic.--Matilda talk 05:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I would also like to chime in and say my thoughts re my dealings with avi, he has tried to block me numerous times, i do not think he is a bad editor at all, he is a good and trustworthy valued editor, - where it not for the concern that he scares of new users we should give him all the medals and money of the world to continue doing his tireless wiki work. I must be open, i personally would like him to be desysoped, because his actions are very though and strict with new users, but until the community is tolerant of his antiques my voice will not be heard, it is clear to me from my interactions with him, ly that he is working like a puppet, although i think he is too shrewd to use it like a sock-puppet, i definitely see a pattern in metapoetry, i will try to enumerate my evidence although it may be unconvincing for the community, i urge extra caution since avi is a sysop he should be more responsible and held to some higher standard especially since he evokes his higher status here daily to win edit wars.
- when i answer an other user he jumps suddenly in on me to talk instead of that other user.
- also when i argue with him suddenly other names come in and attack me that i hares him they try to change the discussion.
- he always diverts a discussion that others hurt him personally when the others talk only about the subject.
- he usually never answers on his talk page when simple discussions are started but jumps to to decentralize the issue to other talk pages, so it should be hard to follow his discussions around so not be able to detect what comment belongs where and who are the users commenting on it.
- he has reverted in the past to delete the history of other pupets see his reasoning that we must follow his actions because he knows better.User_talk:IZAK/Archive_30#Yeshivish_et_al
thanks for everybody who will take the time and effort to comment and investigate further on this cloud of puppetry behavior, because i feel Avi has crossed all lines definitely with me he has succeeded in wasting my time through these above enumerated issues and i hope his name can be cleared so all the pain would be for the good of the projects consensus building, by all means a check-user should be done just to be sure it would be great and encouraging that no socks are involved. i would strongly urge a check-user tool on his name to see what names, if any, are linked to puppeteer from his ip address. Thanks for bringing this up --יודל (talk) 10:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- See also Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Adon Emett which covers some of the same users (but not Avraham). It also lists additional users. Perhaps these lists should be combined. --A. B. (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Response
I believe Matilda has exhibited extremely poor judgement and allowed her personal point of view to interfere with her ability to act as an impartial sysop. We are involved in a discussion about the deletion of the Ed O'Loughlin article, which may be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed O'Loughlin 2nd attempt.
Involved in this discussion are a number of new accounts; which she has decided are my sockpuppets.
If she had taken more than 30 seconds to check my editing history as well as the editing history of User:Adon Emett and User:124.191.88.235, not only would she see that the new accounts are most likely tied to the Australian IP, she would see that I had blocked the Australian IP for vandalism related to the Ed O'Loughlin case.
Not to skip the fact that all of the other editors, including herself, are from Australia, and I am from the United States.
I feel as if her point-of-view regarding this Mr. O'Loughlin has prevented her from approaching this case properly, and resulted in at best, a gross violation of the assumption of good faith and at worst, a deliberate ad hominem attack meant to impugn the credibility of a firmly established editor and administrator on ideological grounds. I hope it is the former.
As for Yudel/Yid, he has been blocked for disruption before, has been castigated for improper allegations before, has exhibited a total disregard for wikipedia policies and guidelines before, has apologized and returned to the same actions before, and a perusal of his editing history will clearly demonstrate the problems with this editor. He has been long trying to claim I deserve desysopping, because I have the "gall" to uphold wikipedia policy and guidelines where he finds it annoying. Oh well, every established editor eventually gets his or her "fan club" 
.
-- Avi (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Avi i was very open that u have tried to block me weekly by stating that i break policies, i am i clean? u bet i have my flowes. Please refrain from making this page about u or other editors, if u r a good decent editor like i say u should let this page be about the puppetry accusations others have on u, i strongly urge the community to be tolerant of Avi and not block him if the checkuser finds he has acted like a puppet, all we want in this page is clarify some heavy feelings we may have that hinders our community collaboration with avi. thanks--יודל (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- At the time of nomination, the most vociferous editor on the AfD was Avraham, the apparent puppets supported him, hence my nominatin of him as puppet master. It may well be someone else but since checkuser is not allowed, we can't find out and I can't make an altrnate accusation other than the one I have already suggested above - Adon Emmet.--Matilda talk 19:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Why is check-user not allowed, if Avi agrees to this why shouldn't we make this check, after all not only u has raised this issue, why not finelize it once and for all?--יודל (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- It is amazing how every time you edit, you just prove my long-standing point that you completely disregard wikipedia policies and guidelines, Yid/Yudel. Read WP:RFCU before making inappropriate suggestions. --- Avi (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Avi this isn't my page initially but if u do not agree to make a checkuser i will at one time take the day off my job and collect all the evidence, right now i agree with u that we should not make a check user since u r evidently against it. love and peace.--יודל (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
(<-)I've been involved with the AFD discussion page. While I don't know who the puppetmaster is -- or if this really is a csae of sockpuppetry -- I doubt it's Avi. It's just not his style. I can understand why Matilda may have thought Avi was behind it, but I'd wager that a closer look will exonerate him. I hope both Avi and Matilda can put this episode behind them. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- I note Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Adon Emett (which was raised on the basis of code G - Request doesn't fit any of the criteria but you believe a check is warranted anyway) has found it unlikely that the various users nominated there were the same editor, specifically:
- As two of those users are the same as nominated here and a third was my suspected alternate puppet master I withdraw this nomination. I fully accept Avraham's denial of being a puppet master.--Matilda talk 21:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Conclusions
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Thuringowacityrep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
RockandRolldownunder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Mattinbgn\talk 10:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Evidence
Thuringowacityrep (talk · contribs) is an editor with a keen interest in the municipality, City of Thuringowa in north Queensland, Australia. His editing history could almost see this editor considered a single purpose account. Thuringowacityrep created an article, Les Tyrell about the mayor of the municipality, that was nominated for deletion by Twenty Years (talk · contribs) on 8 January 2008.
On 10 January 2008, the account "RockandRolldownunder" was created. Its first edit was to create a user page with the content "Hi all, just found this site and see that it is full of great music infomation so i thought i would join up and add my bit to this site. A little about me..I'm a Guitarist of a heavy metal band....like i said a little about me." This is very similar in writing style and content to Thuringowacityrep's user page. An example includes "I was a professional drag racer for about 14 years and played lead guitar in my own band until I had to give up the racing and music due to my health, I then built race motors for the next 4 years but again my health let me down and had to stop, so I moved into computer building and band promoting and that's where I am today."
Following this edit, Rockandrolldownunder then made an edit typical of Thuringowacityrep's style, changing a mention of Townsville to City of Thuringowa.[325] The next edit was in the AfD mentioned above where he supported keeping the article, using an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument similar to Thuringowacityrep's earlier comment.[326]
Finally, the account makes an edit [327] to List of shopping centres in Australia, once again pushing the point of view strongly held by Thuringowacityrep that Thuringowa is separate from Townsville.
This sockpuppet case is not an attempt to argue one way in the ongoing Townsville/Thuringowa discussions. Other editors who attempted to mediate in those discussions know far more about this than I. However, the evidence above seems to me to point clearly at an improper use of a alternate account in an attempt to push a point of view and to influence the result of an AfD.
- Comments
It's been confirmed - the user has the same writing style, same interests, and the edits for R are located in T edit periods. I have blocked the sock indefinitely, but have not blocked Thuringowacityrep as a one-off good faith measure. I sincerely hope this does not happen again. Orderinchaos 12:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- That sounds a fair resolution to me. -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- This is getting low now, for a start the user that you say is a sockpuppet IS NOT, the User is a Good Friend of mine from Cairns and did infact play im my band with me untill i had to give up, we were talking the other day and i just said about how there are some cock heads on here that are very one sided (just saying what i told him) and he said that he would have a look at the site as he had never heard of it and i told him that it has a lot of info on bands, and yes he may have done a few edits that i had NO input in (i might add) and as some of them were in my watch list i did see what he had done and really all he did was correct a few pages that were wrong (and you all know that they were) i just hope that when he gets home from work and finds out what you have done he doesn't get pissed off becasue this is not the write way to treat a new editor...IS IT?. So much for your it's proven, now i am the one who is genuinely disappointed that you resorted to this. Thuringowacityrep (talk) 03:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
-
Confirmed per checkuser. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Conclusions
Closing, already resolved. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:27, 17 January 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.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Mjf08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Kmkroeger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Torc2 (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Evidence
Both are SPAs. The puppeteer, created January 9th, has only made edits on three articles related to Michael Johns. The alleged sock, created January 10th, has only ever made one edit, a "keep" vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Johns (singer), which includes detailed references to WP:BAND and was made 13 minutes after account creation.
- Comments
It's taken a few hours to get up to speed with the Wikipedia lingo so as to understand what's been accused and prepare a response but please excuse any misunderstandings. Mjf08 is an SPA, created to enhance and flesh out Michael Johns related articles (created back in 2006 but still sparse even now) leading up to Tuesday's premiere of American Idol (season 7). Unfortunately these half a dozen minor edits attracted the attention of Brianyoumans who promptly proposed the articles for deletion, only to immediately invoke an AfD debate when objected to. Granted the initial proposal was in order, and perhaps the AfD debate too given no reason for objection was given, but that's where it should have ended. Some hours were then spent researching, ultimately identifying no less than 8 of the 12 WP:BAND points were satisfied (where any 1 would suffice) which should have ended the discussion here.
Kmkroeger, seeing the 8 points already raised and apparently consulting WP:BAND added one that had been missed: Also potentially #7 with his regular performances in Buckhead, Atlanta over a number of years. It is this action that is at the heart of the accusation, despite the earlier comment: If you don't like it, don't count the vote (but do consider the information that spent some time to collate).
Torc2 then joined in, likened these innocuous edits to being spammed with "street teams" of people doing nothing but plugging the artist, unjustifiably claimed that at minimum it's a conflict of interest, and possibly it's just advertising, stated that it was disturbing that the only other keep vote is from a new account and finally accused both of us of being involved in sock puppetry, presenting at best tenuous 'evidence' starting by simply stating that Both are SPAs.
It is no surprise that these articles (still plastered with obnoxious AfD messages despite convincing counter-arguments having been presented on NINE separate fronts) are getting increasing attention - the AI7 video has had 10k+ views in the first few days and fans are encouraged to 'Check out the Wikipedia article(s) and contribute if you have anything to add.'. What is surprising however is how much time and effort is going into biting the newcomers; while this experience has forced learning the ropes it's also proven a strong disincentive to contributing. The intention was to build an authorative, high quality resource of information, relying on Wikipedia's 'filtering' et al rather than hosting the content elsewhere and 'collaborating manually' or hosting an instance of MediaWiki soley for an about page. Mjf08 (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I only accused one person of sockpuppetry. I make no apologies for noting the coincidence and am simply following Wiki's rules at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser for proper procedure during an ongoing AfD vote. Torc2 (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Conclusions
Kmkroeger is almost invariably a sock and vote stacked=indef block and only 24 hours for the master since he's a new user. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:50, 17 January 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.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Ahering@cogeco.ca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
216.167.225.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Cheeser1 (talk) 09:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Evidence
After engaging in tendentious editing with User:Fireproeng on Fire protection and Talk:Fire protection, Ahering made alot of claims based on personal expertise, and in doing so, questioned that of Fireproeng. After the dispute turned to incivility, an IP just happened to vandalize Fireproeng's userpage by questioning his credentials. When asked not to vandalize Fireproeng's userpage, Ahering defended himself by (among other things) asserting that Fireproeng should reveal his identity and back up the information on his userpage (as the vandal IP also suggested).
Ahering is clearly from Canada, and the IP traces to Canada, although he asserts that the IP is "not in [his] town." This doesn't seem to be something he could determine, and does actually seem likely, since the traceroute goes back to Ontario, specifically personainternet.com, an Ontario ISP. Ahering's username indicates that he is (or was) subscribed to Cogeco internet service, which is a part of Persona Inc. (in fact, it is the part of Persona that provides service to the Ontario/Quebec region, where the user claims to be from). Note that I'm filing this report in response to a complaint at the WQA. --Cheeser1 (talk) 09:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, if we look outside the incident at hand, the IP's contributions are all edits that uniquely fit Ahering's editing pattern, and are substantially related to Ahering's contributions-proper:
- Adds an external link, one that just happens to be about fire protection, to Gerald W. Brown, which Ahering has also edited regarding fire-safety issues.
- Links to Commons pages regarding fireproofing at Cambrian College. And adding commons links (esp. those relating to fireproofing) is something Ahering does frequently.
- Rants about anonymity, something Ahering has frequently done (as evidenced even by his conduct in this matter and related dispute resolution procedures). What he says is very similar to the things Ahering has been saying (in tone, style, and content).
Addendum: In response to my good-faith mix-up (struck, above), Cogeco and Persona are not the same company, however they do provide service to the same region as the one in which Ahering lives. Furthermore, he noted in an unrelated comment that his username is from "long ago" (changing providers is conceivable, and perhaps he's using a computer at somewhere other than his home). The geographic/IP information is only given to refute his assertion that the IP resolves to a different location than his. It does not - it resolves to Ontario, which is where he lives. It (still) supports the evidence that already makes it evident - based on the behavior of the IP editor - that this is sockpuppetry. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Response to Ahering's demands: I will not reveal my identity, and he has made a very strange habit of demanding that those who disagree with him reveal their identity and even confront him in person. I will, however, explain my motivation for posting this complaint. A user who has been participating in good faith in the dispute resolution process has found it difficult, due to Ahering's hostile rejection of any dispute resolution that doesn't agree with him. This user posted an alert on the WQA about Ahering's incivility, which includes these incidents that appear to be pretty blatant sockpuppetry. I filed this case on the basis that it is clear, and Ahering's only (relevant) response has been that he is from Ontario and the traceroute doesn't go to Ontario (this is false, it does go to Ontario). I had recommended that the complaining user at the WQA file this report, but it seemed as though he is unfamiliar with such procedures, and I thought I'd lend a hand. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Response
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona_Inc. This page states The company is the fifth largest cable television provider in Canada, following Rogers, Shaw, Vidéotron and Cogeco. Cogeco and Persona are separate firms. The page goes on to state: Persona is owned by Bragg Communications, owners of EastLink and Amtelecom. Persona's head office is located in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador. The company also has divisional offices in Greater Sudbury (for Ontario and Quebec) and Edmonton (for Western Canada). Also look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogeco. There is no mention of fiduciary ties between Cogeco and Persona. They operate in different areas.
Canada is different from Luxembourg. Please take a look at the area for the country. Even the Province of Ontario has 1,076,395 km². Being from Canada or Ontario or any other Province does not mean that one is the same person as another.
Cheeser1 is clearly wrong on the geography as well as the corporate angle. --Achim (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment on Cheeser's Addendum He wrote:however they do provide service to the same region as the one in which Ahering lives.. That is false. Cogeco and Persona don't overlap anywhere that I am aware of. You don't normally have a choice of two cable companies. Cheeser does not have my address. He has no idea where I live but he makes statements about that my hometown is serviced by Persona, which is wrong. I am several hours by car away from any area serviced by Persona and have no reason to travel there. Wikipedia outlines where Persona does business. I live nowhere near that area and have not been there in some time. I note that he makes these statements as if they were fact and when proven wrong, calls it good faith. For the most part, I really don't get why he's trying to pick a fight with me and leaving infantile messages on my talk page, whilst refusing to answer straight questions. Say it to my face tough guy. You're pretending to know where I am, so come by and tell me. I'll even have some coffee for you. --Achim (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comments
This case seems stale. The edit in question happened in October and the IP has made no further edits. Darkspots (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Conclusion
- The IP has very few edits, all of which are from October 2007. I don't see a current issue here. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:47, 16 January 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.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
- Kingofmann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Theisles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu)
- Lazydown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- DukeofAntwerp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Drewdaily (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Freddulany (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)Martylunsford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)- Report submission by
CarbonLifeForm (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Evidence
- [336]
- The King of Mann was User:DukeofAntwerp in a previous life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarbonLifeForm (talk • contribs) 23:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- He admits it under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Principality of Vikesland .... I am David Howe and a member of Vikesland's Royal Council. I fail to see why that is an issue, unless perhaps a person who has more knowledge than yourself about the true nature of Vikeland and what is actually written by the authors of "Micronations," a book that you apparently have never touched, has to say. Pardon me for the defending the predatory actions of a few. You're negative agenda here is obvious.--DukeofAntwerp 22:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC) CarbonLifeForm (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comments
User:Duke_of_Antwerp does not seem to exist. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 03:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Try User:DukeofAntwerp CarbonLifeForm (talk) 09:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I hope I'm not breaching privacy here, you can blank this if I am, but it seems fairly obvious that User:Martylunsford is the ultralight pilot Marty Lunsford, judging from his contributions[337] and a quick google search[338].
Freddulany is probably a real person called Fred Dulany.
As I said at the Request for Arbitration, DukeofAntwerp and Drewdaily are almost certainly the same person as Kingofmann[339]. DukeofAntwerp and Kingofmann both claim to be the same person, and only that person could know the information inserted by Drewdaily. However, to be fair, neither of the older accounts is now in use. DrKiernan (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
On 'Theisles' and 'Lazydown'. User 'Theisles' first appeared on 23 October 2006, inserting statements about David Howe on two Wikipedia pages (see contribs). On that same date, 23 October 2006, David Howe made a signed post to Usenet claiming the title 'Prince of Mann and the Isles'. See http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.royalty/msg/875ab24c46fd8816. 'Theisles' (as in 'Prince of Mann and ... ') has exclusively made POV edits to articles about David Howe's claim down to 21 December 2007. User 'Theisles' disappeared on that date and User 'Lazydown' appeared; 'Lazydown' has had same pattern of POV contribs on same subject. For what it's worth, User 'Theisles' denied being Howe on 8 November 2007: "...I do not know Howe or how many homes he owns..." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lord_of_Mann&diff=prev&oldid=170196169 68.166.235.203 (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Given the checkuser result below, what is the ordinary consequence of repeated denials by User Kingofmann? -- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Howe_%28claimant_to_King_of_Mann%29&diff=prev&oldid=184237649 68.166.235.203 (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
*User:Kingofmann is presently blocked. - CarbonLifeForm (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Apparently Howe claimed/claims/is related to Daniel Dulany (Talk Page Archive 1 of his biography) and the Freddulany account has added “Duke Howe of Antwerp” to the list of Frederick, Maryland notable residents I think the accounts contributions point to this being another Howe sockpuppet and not someone named Fred Dulany. Am I able to add another suspected sockpuppet User:Wikiroyals Kigf (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Patterns of contribs for User Wikiroyals doesn't match single-issue focus and argumentativeness of Howe's known socks. Looks like Wikiroyals just likes to add links to articles on royalty, without much descrimination. But I agree on pattern of contribs for Freddulany, a probable sock (inserted Howe into Wikipedia, defended 'Vikesland' from proposed deletion, and attacked its detractors during the AfD discussion). 140.247.42.73 (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Checkuser confirms that Lazydown, Kingofmann, Theisles are the same. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- My inclination, unless someone has a really good reason to do otherwise, is to indefblock the socks and leave the main account for the arbitration committee. Lazydown is an active participant in the AFD and so that's clearly a case of using a sock to create the appearance of support. --B (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Would be the apropriate course of action. Support--Hu12 (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
What Wikipedia says
WP:Article_subjects'_FAQ#The_information_in_your_article_about_me_is_wrong._How_can_I_get_it_fixed.3F
It is generally considered okay for you to edit your own article in certain circumstances:
- If the article is clearly derogatory in tone and was written based on questionable sources or no sources.
- If it contains private information you strongly don't want shared, particularly if you are not famous. (This might include, for example, your e-mail address, date of birth, religious affiliation or sexual orientation.)
- If you believe it is libelous.
These are the circumstances under which I participated in the editing of the biography page about me.--Kingofmann (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Yes, this is understood under WP:AGF. The problem is that you appear to have hidden your identity, said things that were not true and have ignored WP:COI and WP:NPOV. My suggestion would be that you leave things alone and let other folks sort it out. The chances are it will come out OK for you in a while. WikiRules may be bizarre but there are folks around who will look after your interests. Whatever occurs it doesn't have to get a reaction from you within hours or even days. You have also compared yourself with Prince Charles who did not bring his notability upon himself as you have tried to do (using WP:OR). You see yourself as a minor celebrity which status you surely volunteered for; you have drummed up a little press interest and you don’t like the downside. You have been referred to as unassuming (that must have been sarcasm) and your coat of arms is undoubtedly pretentious. Your embarrassment is understood; it may now be best if you back off for a while. --CarbonLifeForm (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Very little of the information here is wrong you have been exposed as a liar through your serial use of sockpuppets past and present you don‘t seem to have learnt your lesson from your Vikesland wikipedia days.Kigf (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Conclusions
Late update for completeness:
See also:
FT2 (Talk | email) 11:46, 16 January 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.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Jeffrywith1e (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
CMartin007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Hodagacz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Percy Snoodle (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Evidence
On the "tssi" yahoo mailing list, a user signed in as "Jeffry with one e" posted a call for help[340] with an ongoing AFD. The two users above appeared shortly after, as well as Dpmcalister who has posted to that yahoo! thread. I would expect the above users to have at least posted in the yahoo thread if they were real people. It is possible that they are sock puppets of User:Dpmcalister, or even that they are real people who lurk on that forum. However, even if they are, they are here at the request of User:Jeffrywith1e. The two listed user accounts should be investigated to see if they are sock puppets of either User:Jeffrywith1e or User:Dpmcalister. I had planned to list this at requests for checkuser after the AFD closed, but now I have evidence that they are at least meat puppets I thought this was the appropriate avenue. Percy Snoodle (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comments
I take great offence at being accused of recruiting either sock puppets or meat puppets. I feel that this accusation has been filed purely because the accuser doesn't like the conversation in the AFD. Regardless, this entire situation has sullied my opinion of Wikipedia. It appears that might makes right here and the person with the most contributions over the years is, obviously, allowed to besmirch the character and integrity of any other user they wish. dpmcalister (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- With respect, what brought you to the AfD, Dpm? It sounds like you were influenced to weigh in after the Yahoo groups message call for help, which is would seem to be the very definition of both WP:CANVASS and WP:MEAT. Can you provide evidence to counter Percy's? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I was already aware of it (albeit I hadn't acted upon it). Of course, there is only my word for this and, since my character and integrity have already been besmirched there is, no doubt, little I can do to prove otherwise. dpmcalister (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the SSP should square things away in short order. It looks to me that, while you may have known about it, you weren't actively canvassing or meating, whereas Jeffry is pretty much canvassing (and should kindly knock that crap off, IMHO) for support. Maybe you might want to stay away from the guy for a while, as guilt could be confused with association. A good editor acquaintance of mine was recently suspected of being a sock-puppet because one had talked to him. He pulled through, and so will you. Chin up, little buckaroo! :) - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs) 22:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Arcayne, I have looked at WP:CANVASS and see that I was, in fact, canvassing. I apologize for requesting support to the articles from the yahoo group and do not intend to do that anymore. I sincerely didn't realize the policy when I committed the crime. Jeffrywith1e (talk) 06:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm confident that however you investigate, you will find that Jeffrywith1e is my only user account. I apologize to the users who gave support to the articles and have been effected by my asking for help on the yahoo group. It is my opinion that since the consensus was not going in the accuser's favor, they revert to character attacks. It saddens me to see Wikipedia effected by people who seem to be hell bent on adding to their contribution list. It wasn't my intention to create a conflict, it was simply to add information about a fictional universe that I enjoy on to the world wide web, because I haven't seen it anywhere else. Seemed like Wikipedia used to be the place to do just that. Jeffrywith1e (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I shall ignore the goading, but regarding your latter point, we at WP:RPG have recently been pointed to The Annex, which is a wiki for information about fictional universes in exactly the way that wikipedia isn't. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comments
I am a webmaster for Top Secret the Role Playing game. My site is http://www.cm4.com/topsecret/ I have been to the Top Secret sites before, but have not contributed to them. CMartin007 (talk) 11:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Conclusions
Clearly meat puppetry here. However the AFD has ended so the purpose of blocking being preventative is rather moot here. The question is will these users violate WP:SOCK again? We don't know. Therefore I'm issuing warnings to all three and entering notional 1 second blocks in there block logs. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:25, 14 January 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.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Universal Studios Number 1 Fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
71.251.114.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
5VH9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
B5JH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
ThuranX (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Evidence
Since at least 12 Dec, [348], USN1F has been pushing for a format against citation and consensus. He was reverted quickly [349], and shortly undoes reversion [350]. Although a brief content problem arises about whether or not Hulk and Incredible Hulk should be a franchise or separate single films, no other editor contends that the two Punisher films are a series, nor that spiderman 4 belongs on the template. Discussion on relevant talk pages sorts the Hulk content out further.
On Jan 1, [351], [352], [353], [354], Universal Studios Number 1 Fan (USN1F) makes a series of edits against citation. Two minutes later, the IP appears [355], supporting USN1F.
The page history for the last two days shows the rest. USN1F reverts again, and then the IP shows up.
Proof of the relatedness of the two is seen in the talk page of User:Tijuana Brass. On that Page's [history], you can see USN1F coming in to clean up his earlier IP edits, seen here [356].
As USN1F has been warned about his edits to the template [357], and knows that his edits aren't welcome, it's clear he's trying to circumvent the problem by logging out, supporting himself, and logging back in. ThuranX (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The editor has come to my User page to confess and apologize, see this diff. I personally am satisfied with this confession. In light of Tijuana Brass' comments, I'll reverse my acceptance for after the findings of fact. If penalties of block are needed, I would support a short one for reinforcement. After that, I may be willing to adopt the editor for a 90 day period, to help him learn how best to edit here, conditional to the findings of fact. ThuranX (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The user has since decided to make a conflict instead of solve one. First some sort of acceptance of wikipedia's standards, and indication he might have read part of the articles in question. Then the IP comes at me with harrassment accusations, only for USN1F to immediately return to correct formatting on the comment. As such, I am no longer willing to mentor this person, and have slashed that out above. I request a ban on both the account and a one year block on the IP, allowing time for the editor to mature and prevent his continued vandalism of pages, his refusal to listen, and his attitude to attack others from continuing. ThuranX (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Following his accusations, he decided to really ramp up the trouble, with this sort of nonsense, which I immediately reverted. ThuranX (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've added a level 4 warning to this user's talk page. Tijuana Brass (talk) 08:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comments
- Conclusions
Admitted socking, also disruption. Can't block IPs a year. Two named socks blocked indef. IP and master for 2 weeks, hope master account reforms. Tagged all. Informed master of the results. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:04, 13 January 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.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Creepy Crawler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu)
- Suspected sockpuppets
FightTheDarkness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Clasby Thomas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Gifford924 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Trump1026 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Batman Fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) added by Rlevse
- Report submission by
Doczilla (talk) 05:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Evidence
Yes, the heading should say something like (4th), (5th), (6th), but between the various sock puppet reports listing Creepy Crawler as the puppetmaster and reports listing some of the puppets (some of which engage in vandalism like creating hoax articles or inserting bogus birthdates) such as EJBanks as puppetmaster because IP address records don't go back far enough to confirm CC as the current puppetmaster, I have no idea what Xth report this is. Just look at the sheer number of confirmed puppets and suspected puppets.
Anyway, User:FightTheDarkness is a clear sockpuppet of User:Creepy Crawler who has been repeatedly banned and repeatedly uses new socks to edit anyway. All incarnations create and quickly populate categories and/or lists, editing articles about superheroes (especially Batman and Spider-Man), soap operas (especially Days of our Lives), reality shows, and miscellaneous celebrities. See editing pattern information which was compiled for a previous sock report.
FightTheDarkness's similarities to that past pattern include but are not limited to the following:
• Incorrect capitalization of article/category titles [358]
• Batman edits [359] [360] [361]
• Comic book movie actors/filmmakers Actor [362] [363] Filmmaker [364] [365]
• Days of our Lives edits [366] [367]
• Lists [368] [369] [370]
• Harry Potter edits [371]
• Reality TV shows [372] [373] [374]
• Shrek edits [375] [376] [377]
• Spider-Man, especially movie and video games. Movie[378] [379] Video game [380]
- Evidence by ThuranX against Clasby Thomas
Although his contrib list is small, it's the same sort of efforts we've seen from EJB/CC, and a common area, Spiderman. The vandal's been known to bounce between identities before, and jumping into a few page histories, that stood out to me. I may be wrong, but both Doczilla and I have reported this guy before, and that one feels right. Consider that both avoid edit summaries and edit the entire page, preventing even section Identifiers from being present in summaries. CT follows FTD by a day on the page, the next immediate edits. That's also something we've seen before, him editing, then editing with another account right after, or days after.
- Evidence by ThuranX against Gifford924
Based on this dreamcast of Spider-Man films, and his contribs to soap opera characters and comic book film actor articles, this clearly fits the EJBanks/Creepy Crawler pattern. Main user page has MORE dreamcasts. A look at the age of the account suggeststhis might be one of the earliest of his socks, and shows that there are potentially dozens of hidden socks still out there. Similar dreamcasts at Trump1026 reveal him as yet another sock of EJB/CC. Trump1026 isn't even a real user, apparently, but just a faked out page. Still, it's him, and I'm requesting the name be blocked from becoming an account as well.
- Comments
- Conclusions
Pretty convincing. All blocked and tagged but note Trump1026 couldn't be blocked because it was never registered. Added Batman Fan (who was already indef'd) because it created Trump1026's user page. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:39, 13 January 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.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Nathann sc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Hudson Hawk21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
PRINCETON007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
The Austrian Oak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
67.188.99.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
DachannienTalkContrib 19:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Evidence
A multitude of edits to similar articles, and I've put a sampling below. Mostly, these consist of an obviously bad edit by User:Nathann sc which is reverted by other users, only to be reinstated numerous times by the other accounts. More info follows the evidence list.
Hydrochloride: Six edits by Nathann sc One edit by Hudson Hawk21
Roland TR-808: One edit by Nathann sc One edit by 67.188.99.192 One edit by Hudson Hawk21 One edit by PRINCETON007 Another edit by PRINCETON007 violating 3RR if these are sockpuppets Another edit by PRINCETON007 violating 3RR with that account alone Yet another edit by PRINCETON007
Variable: One edit by Nathann sc One edit by Hudson Hawk21 Three edits by Hudson Hawk21 One edit by Hudson Hawk21 Two edits by The Austrian Oak
See also the contribution logs by these accounts.
The user pages for some of these accounts except Nathann sc are also unusual, consisting of a reference to an Ivy League school inside a math wikitag. However, it is Nathann sc's userpage I believe to be at the core of this problem.
The trouble started with this MfD on Nathann sc's userpage due to having an immense amount of social networking content while making few or no contributions to mainspace on Wikipedia. While the MfD was withdrawn in an effort not to bite the newbie, comments made to the MfD (which was also edited/vandalized by Nathann sc while it was open) suggested that a user who makes good faith contributory edits to Wikipedia will be afforded greater leeway with their userpage. After that, Nathann sc began making numerous edits consisting solely of things like adding commas where they aren't necessary, boldfacing words where emphasis isn't necessary, wikilinking obvious words that aren't important in the article context, and replacing words with thesaurus synonyms that are inappropriate for the article's context.
Just around the end of that account's edits, the account Hudson Hawk21 was created and began making numerous edits to the same articles, in many cases reinstating reverted changes. That account also launched personal attacks against other editors in the edit logs for articles. Later, the accounts PRINCETON007 and The Austrian Oak were created. These other accounts are now being used to do the vast majority of bad edits, presumably in an effort to deflect attention away from the original account's userpage. --DachannienTalkContrib 19:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comments
- This egregious user has also been vandalising my user talk page when I reverted some of his mischief.--feline1 (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Same here: Hudson Hawk21 (talk · contribs) erased a large chunk of my userpage[387] and vandalised it again here. Thankfully, Denniss (talk · contribs) restored it. Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Note: The "5 edits" by Nathann had quite a few revisions not shown. --EoL talk 23:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- I honestly think that if these users aren't sockpuppets, they are very close meatpuppets. Maybe we should file an RFCU just to be sure. --EoL talk 23:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Conclusions
See RFCU, all blocked and confirmed. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:24, 12 January 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.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
NORDKAPP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Ray of truth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Arbucies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Maitedebarcelona (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 01:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Evidence
Continuation of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/NORDKAPP, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/NORDKAPP (2nd) and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/NORDKAPP (3rd). NORDKAPP is blocked, but (s)he continues creating sockpuppets. The page is temporaly protected but just for one month now semi-protected (third time). I think it should be considered to block the ip ranges 80.102.220.xxx and 80.102.248.xxx.
- Notes
Page Barcelona semi-protected indefinitely by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) on 01:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC). Please unprotect (or request unprotection) when the problem has died down. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Conclusions
All blocked indef and tagged. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:00, 12 January 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.
[edit] User:VanBrigglePottery
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
VanBrigglePottery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
72.11.124.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
--Duchamps_comb MFA 04:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Evidence
04:57, 7 May 2007 -3RR violation on user:VanBrigglePotter
17:21, 7 May 2007 -Start of use by 72.11.124.226
Break in use for VanBrigglePottery
02:05, 7 May 2007-- 00:59, 21 December 2007
- Comments
Also 3RR violation of Lakota people, Russell Means reverts to same version in wording, with “Nazi collaborators.”
You will also notice they edit on the same pages McCarthyism, Russell Means, Lakota people and Van Briggle Pottery.
Lakota people
Revision as of 21:29, 31 December 2007 [403]
Revision as of 15:26, 31 December 2007 [404]
Revision as of 22:15, 30 December 2007 [405]
Revision as of 00:17, 30 December 2007 [406]
Russell Means
Revision as of 23:10, 30 December 2007 [407]
Revision as of 00:05, 30 December 2007 [408]
Revision as of 03:54, 29 December 2007 [409]
- Conclusions
Blocked username as it matches a company name. Note that a CU IP check is pending here: Wikipedia:RFCU#Requests_for_IP_check. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- IP CU check shows these are unrelated, [410]. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:13, 8 January 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.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
L.L.King (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu)
- Suspected sockpuppets
AnotherSearcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
SomeSlasher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
ExtraordinaryActor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
ZeeToAaa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
ManicAttack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Cinemapress (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Anypose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
CelebPress (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
SynnManagement (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Moonkissed9999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
MikeTheModel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Evidence
Sockpuppets confirmed by checkuser: Case information. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
All accounts were created within a small period of time, have similar editing patterns, have nearly identical user pages and all support each other in trying to form consensus. Each have made edits to Paris Hilton removing a trivia tag with identical explanation: ExtraordinaryActor, L.L. King, ZeeToAaa, SomeSlasher. All have made edits specifically to the section of the article dealing with a music video parody of Paris Hilton called "Paris in Jail," for instance:
SomeSlasher, L.L. King, ZeeToAaa, ZeeToAaa 2.
- *Editors concerned with the same issue (IE: preventing Wiki vandalism by User: Cumulus Clouds, and interest in Paris Hilton) would very well have similar editing patterns. Identical user pages? There are thousands of user pages that say or say less or say similar things. Just as in his editing, User: Cumulus Clouds is voicing opinion. Opinion is not fact. L.L.King (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- *Was it a surprise that two related articles might recieve attention at the same time? Apparently not... just as you yourself are tieing three or four articles together in this great conspiracy.. articles that are all already inter-related. And no big surprise that none of this began until you decided to remove cohesive informations as "trivia", and the tag the disconnected remaining elements as trivia... having just turned the article into just that. As a newcomer to Wiki, even I have looked to previous edits to see what explanation or reason to give. That they all tried to repair your vandalism, and used the same terms to do so... not at all surprising. Sensible actually. L.L.King (talk) 10:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
L.L. King addressed AnotherSearcher as a "friend" on his talk page, and all accounts have made almost identical remarks on my talk page.
- *Anyone who stands up to a tyrant such as yourself, is my friend. Feel free to take that sentence out of context as well, should doing so serve your own purposes. L.L.King (talk) 10:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- *Anyone visiting your talk page, newbie or not, who agreed with the remarks made there, might certainly make similar comments... and even more likely to quote other's comments as Wiki newcomers. It is interesting to note that NO ONE has contradicted the claims of your editing with bias. You remove attention from yourself by indicting others with a fabricated conspiracy. Your actions are even more strongly contentious. L.L.King (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Last, each user has made edits to Omovies, the company that produced "Paris in Jail", as can be seen in the edit history. Activity at Omovies increased for all accounts after Tony Sidaway placed a prod notice on that article for being only promotional in content, with each account trying to expand the article to try to save it from deletion.
- *Isn't that what we're supposed to do? Improve an article to make it worthy of Wiki? You're making that a crime now? L.L.King (talk) 10:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- *And someone placing a tag on an article calls for the article to be improved. You're now using that improvement as an evidence of a deeper conspiracy? Seems like you are supporting yet another action that discredits or removes informations in support of your own opinion. L.L.King (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Addendum: Each of these accounts has also made extensive edits to Paris in Jail: The Music Video to promote this product. In addition all accounts have either started or made extensive edits to Allan Murray (actor) and Sean Haines (actor), the two men who control Omovies.
- *Your use of the word extensive is opinion. Your own edit history has show MAJOR extensive edits to articles all over Wiki. You have removed entire sections of various articles because you "felt" they did not belong. You have pushed your opinion all over Wiki. That you have been caught and acted upon at the Paris and Paris-related articles just shows that you can not continue your actions forever. There is a check and balance. Wiki is not about you. It is about making things better. L.L.King (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- *A pattern of continued Wiki abuse: Cumulus Clouds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu) L.L.King (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- *... it seems that Murray and Haines aren't allowed to be writen about on Wiki? And why is it impossible that their articles get improved at the same time as related articles? Is that not what we are here to do? To improve Wiki one must improve ALL aspects of an article and related articles. Yes? Or is your example of repeated deletion and vandalism under the guise of misintrepeted guideline the example we must follow? L.L.King (talk) 10:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
In the case of User:ManicAttack, that user registered as a new account on Monday the 31st and immediately began making edits about issues they would not otherwise have known about as a new user. This account's only edits are to almost entirely to my talk page protesting the addition of a trivia tag to Paris Hilton. This is probably an attack account controlled by the puppeteer.
- *Edits about issues they would not have otherwise have known? Well... I checked ManicAttack... ManicAttack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). His/her only action was to speak up. Nothing was edited. Nothing was deleted. So, you must be absolutely right here... someone came forward with the specific intent to protest your actions and point out your mistakes. What a major crime!!! Hunt them down! String them up! Burn them at the stake! Ban them from Wiki for life! (Please read a sarcastic tone in those last 5 sentences). Pointing out someone's mistakes is not an attack. Encouraging someone to rethink an opinion is not a crime. Your own use of the word "attack" seems to underscore a certain paranoia on your part. L.L.King (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- *Probably an attack account? God bless one more individual who came forward to protect Wiki from the likes of you. L.L.King (talk) 10:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
L.L.King registered on 20 August, 2007, 2 days after an article creation request for Paris Hilton: The Music Video by an anonymous IP was declined on 18 August 2007. I now suspect L.L.King is this user and he registered subsequent puppet accounts to mask his identity in order to promote this video and Omovies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cumulus Clouds (talk • contribs) 01:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- User: Cumulus Clouds, has me listed as a sockpuppet of L.L.King, stating that I was one of several persons come on to do King's bidding... but I was registered a week before King. So I suppose that statement is another example of one person's opinion trying to masquerade as fact. I'll grant that my time on Wiki has been a learning experience, and I've made mistakes as I've learned, but I do no one's dirtywork. I am agreed with King though that pushing one's opinion without regard for consensus or for fact is not the way to perform under Wiki guidelines. Cinemapress (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- *You can "suspect" anything you wish. The items you keep calling "evidence" only shows a pattern of continued Wiki improvement by concened individuals who came forward when your mis-use of the system was presented Cumulus Clouds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu). Their edits have been laudable. Yours have not. Now THAT is evidence. L.L.King (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Update: Where L.L.King has previously claimed these accounts were "friends and associates" scattered throughout the city, he now claims they are all local ips originating from within his apartment complex and thus would fail checkuser. I believe that this confirms these are all sock puppets being used abusively by the puppetmaster. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- *Again.... one can twist things to espouse one's own opinion can't one....? I have never denied speaking to friends and associates about the heavy-handed and biased edits of a person on Wiki who calls himself "Cumulus Clouds". Over a few day period, these conversations have taken place in a grocery stores, local diners, in the laundry room, outside a union hall, at a gas station... lots of places. It rankles that someone so abuses Wiki for his own ends. ANd I voiced my concerns to many people outside of Wiki. And here on Wiki I wrote to friend user SchuminWeb to thank him more recently thanked for advice and apolgize for involving him in my disagreement with this Cloud person. I also wrote similarly to friend user Wanderer57. I voiced a my recent suspicion that some of my own neighbors might well be among those trying to undo Clouds vandalisms. HOWEVER.... that some of these new editors may know me... that they may have come on board Wiki within a short period of time due to my discussions outseide in the world... that they apparently agree that user Cumulus Clouds is abusing the Wiki process... that they have come forward to patch the holes he has made... that they are likely sitting back and watching this discussion... that some of them could even be my neighbors, does not in any way mean that they are puppets. It does mean they are constructive and not destructive. It does mean that they came forward to take action against an abuser. Every edit they have made has been an improvement. Cloud continues to use Wiki voice opinion. L.L.King (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comments
I believe that all these accounts are employees of, or otherwise associated with promoting Omovies, or are the same person using several accounts abusively to the same ends. If a user has access to Checkuser, this may yield further evidence but I don't believe it's necessary in this case. Thank you.
Update: Leon L. King runs a movie review blog called "Cinemapress." The url is here: http://www.cinemapress.biz/id38.htm
Any references or links to this site inserted by this user or others should be removed and the users treated with scrutiny as possible sockpuppets for L.L.King. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- *A wonderful supposition. And if I did not know how wrong you were, I might even agree with you myself. You have dredged up a wonderful circumstantial case to prove your delusions... but your evidencea are conjecture and opinion. L.L.King (talk) 10:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- *I have associates around my home and city with whom I have discussed the Paris page and related pages... associates with whom I have discussed you and your actions that so negatively affect Wiki. YOU are the reason that Wiki so often gets bad press. It is not at all surprising that others came on board to keep an eye on you. So yes, I can imagine that a number of accounts were opened withing a short period of time, and yes I can see that these individuals have done their best as Wiki amateurs to hold back the machinations of a Wiki abuser such as yourself. They are individuals, with the constructive purpose of truth. I may have encouraged individuals to come on board and take a stand for truth, but YOU are the one abusing Wiki using your greater knowledge and expertise of the Wiki systems. L.L.King (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- *I have told no one what to do. I gave no course of conduct nor action beyond suggesting that if they do join the ranks of Wiki users, that they keep an eye on you. Someone had to. But no one is my puppet. No one moved at my bidding. That these people read on your talk page of the wrongs you have done and then voiced similar concerns to your machinations is not at all surprising. I can not put a name to any of the users you listed, but God bless them. Nor do I know any of the hundreds or thousands who have made adjustments to the Paris page. What I can say with clear conscience is that I am proud that these others have come forward to keep an eye on Wiki. And it is quite obvious that your own actions kept them centered on the Paris and related pages. What I see is that they have each, as narrow as their field of improvement have been, been as forthright and factual and constructive in their contributions as I wish you could have been. L.L.King (talk) 10:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Cumulus Clouds has been subtly editing (without consensus} the "Sock puppetry" page to make it say what he wishes it to say in just the manner he wants it to in order to support whatever additional allegations he wishes to make. If that is not a clear case of Wiki:COI, I don't know what it is. L.L.King (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm no sockpuppet. I did some corrections to the Paris in Jail page, the Michael Schmidt page, and the James EVans page. Don't drag me in to this argument. I don't have the free time to spend thousands and thousands of hours on the computr to fix stuff all over wikipdia. I added some stuff in 3 places. That does not make me anybodys puppet. I think Cumulus Clouds has got way too much free time. Get a real job fellow and support afamily like the rest of us. No this is not an attack. I think you are selfish and greedy and tryingto mess with anybody who does not think like you. Ever think of going to Iraq and becoming a dictater? I hear theres an opening in Bagdad. - Anypose
Cumulus Clouds has been caught out using opinion to replace or remove fact. The members who came forward are now under attack by the person who was doing the vandalism. Their acts have been constructive. His acts have been destructive. The only "crime" he can accuse them of is being "puppets" because they came onboard and worked in similar fashion at similar times to a similar end. If they were indeed newcomers to WIki, it does not surprise that they acted alike, commented alike, and took the same interest in the vandalism being done by Cumulus Clouds. If I knew exactly who these specific individiuals were, I'd shake all their hands. L.L.King (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Conclusions
Confirmed that the socks on this checkuser are L.L. King. --EoL talk 22:15, 7 January 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.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Shamulou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Pri2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Theokrat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Vhettinger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Jehochman Talk 21:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Evidence
All four accounts were made their first edits within 24 hours of each other [411][412][413][414] at four different pages, and then about five days later they all appeared at Talk:Waterboarding/Definition in rapid succession, expressing the same POV and supporting each other.[415][416][417][418] This may be a case of newly recruited editors who are unaware of our social norms that prohibit canvassing in order to establish a false consensus, or it could be outright sock puppetry. Other editors may be involved, but I will not name them since it is unclear who may be doing the canvassing.
See also the recent case, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/GooseCreek which focused on the same locus of dispute. Jehochman Talk 21:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comments
None of these users are sockpuppets. They are four seperate individuals who are participating in Wikipedia as part of a course project. The first assignment was to create a username and edit a Wikipedia entry, which is why they all did so at the same time. (Right before the assignment was due). I explained my own participation in this class clearly on my own userpage.
The second assignment was to participate in a dispute. The only required coordination was that we agreed to choose a single dispute to weigh in on. At each step of the way, each person has been contributing according to their own personal opinions, evinced by the fact that we do not all agree. The fact that we happen to agree is incidental. No one person, including myself, had an opinion on the subject until after we had chosen this AfC and began reading and participating in it. Indeed, I was originally of the opinion that the lead section should stand. My mind was changed when I read the BBC and Wall Street Journal references.
Our professor, Jonathan Zittrain is actively involved in Wikipedia and was a presenter at Wikimania. The parameters of the assignment in no way implicate the Canvassing and Sockpuppet policies you mentioned; I doubt if he would have given us a task that violated Wikipedia social norms. As a longstanding Wikipedian myself, I also participated in a manner carefull to obey general Wikipedia standards, such as ensuring that each person came to their position independently and felt free to voice their opinions on Wikipedia without defering to the positions of any other group member.
I understand that is is very distressing for you that so many people are taking a position contrary to your own. However, since no Wikipedia norms have been violated, the fact that several law students happen to disagree with you is just something you'll have to live with, and handle through the normal channels of debate and discussion. -Lciaccio (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- This sounds dubious. Where on that wiki does it mention this Waterboarding article as part of it's coursework or project? Lawrence Cohen 22:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think there is an unintentional tendency for newcomers who know each other in real life to support each other on-wiki. This is due to sympathy, not conspiracy. Jonathan Zittrain and I attended Yale together. Please ask him to contact me via email so we can debug this. By the way, conducting experiments on high profile Wikipedia articles is not acceptable in any way. Jehochman Talk 22:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- This Harvard project
I think this needs wider admin review on AN or ANI: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ipc/Group_4_Dispute_Results
These people are debating and affecting encyclopedia content as part of a class project. How long has this been going on, with this string of new SPAs flooding the Waterboarding article that we've seen? It's been highly disruptive, especially as this "project" was not disclosed. Lawrence Cohen 22:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Commentary like this on this Harvard page:
- "# Should we weigh in on whether Wikipedia should keep the statement "waterboarding is a form of torture"? If so, what is our position? Khoffman 19:53, 7 January 2008 (EST)"
Make me EXTREMELY uncomfortable, especially given the comments on that page that the class "orally" decided to pursue the Waterboarding article. If a class decides to take a matching position orally, that is meatpuppetry. Lawrence Cohen 22:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- As a courtesy to Jonathan Zittrain, my old friend, I ask that his students not be blocked. This matter should be discussed, and a consensus achieved as to how we will handle this. At minimum we need full disclosure of any coordinated editing that has occurred so we can correct the discussion. A considerable amount of time and effort may have been wasted here. I am not amused. Jehochman Talk 22:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Sent to ANI. Lawrence Cohen 22:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Conclusions
- This is under discussion at WP:ANI, and further comments should be made at that location. The actions described here probably do violate Wikipedia's policy against sock/meat puppetry, but the class members do not appear to be intentionally violating policy. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:40, 8 January 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.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Nrswanson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Ringnpassagio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Voicequeen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
edg ☺ ☭ 04:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Evidence
Both socks are new accounts who edit war in favor of fork articles (and a template) recently created by Nrswanson in voice/opera related topics, including Discussion page conversation and deletion discussions for these pages. Voicequeen in particular has very few edits, and no interest outside Nrswanson's disputes. Nrswanson's method appears to be creating parallel versions of existing articles, then attempting to delete the existing versions. Why this is done is unclear, but it evades WP:CONSENSUS in the existing articles, and violates WP:OWN.
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nrswanson considers this Possible sockpuppetry, but cannot rule out multiple users of the same public wireless node, and propose "It's most likely that they are known to each other, rather than being the same person".
1) Voice type hijack attempt
Nrswanson establishes a consensus with the two new accounts to delete Voice type ("and do not merge")[423] in favor of the Nrswanson-written Voice classification. Ringnpassagio (in this editor's 5th & 6th ever edits) promptly deletes comments from Talk:Voice type, copy/pasting to Talk:Voice classification (a discussion page that prior had only comments from Nrswanson and puppets.[424])
Voicequeen twice reverts information merged to Voice type from Nrswanson's fork article, with edit summaries accusing bad faith [425] [426], helping Nrswanson evade WP:3RR. Nrswanson's reversions on same article: [427] [428]. Nrswanson's initial deletion: [429].
2) New account edit history
Day-old account Ringnpassagio also creates a template on 2007-12-30T19:15:18, 2 hours after claiming to have never used Wikipedia before 2007-12-30T17:09:12.
3) Talk:Falsetto edit warring
Ringnpassagio and Voicequeen help Nrswanson edit war in Falsetto register. Nrswanson rewrote Falsetto register (previously a redirect to Falsetto) and created a bad-faith Afd for the Falsetto article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falsetto
Upon being rebuked in this AFD (Speedy keep)[430], Nrswanson begins Talk page campaign to instead redirect Falsetto to his article. New accounts Ringnpassagio and Voicequeen agree most enthusiasticly. [431] [432] All three casually ignore the decision made in the Afd.
Nrswanson begins edit-warring on the Falsetto register redirect, continuing to revive his version. Day-old account Ringnpassagio contributes to the revived page, making sophisticated edits (such as adding a template [433]) and when redirect is restored, reverts with edit summaries accusing the redirector of bad faith,[434] and canvasses a WikiProject for support on Nrswanson's issue. [435] [436] (Ringnpassagio templates an article relevant to one of Nrswanson's issues for this WikiProject[437] prior to joining this WikiProject [438].)
The Potemkin village on-wiki consensus-building demonstrated on Talk:Falsetto register [439] seems especially improbable considering Nrswanson's later claim that these people are friends of his who correspond via email [440].
4) Sock similarities
5) Votestacking in {{Vocal classification}} Tfd
All three accounts vote Keep in a Tfd for Nrswanson's 2 day old[445] fork of {{Vocal range}}, created to replace an existing template. Nrswanson [446]; socks [447] [448]. Interestingly, Ringnpassagio makes a show of independence later in the discussion, changing Keep vote,[449] but continuing to argue for Nrswanson's other pages.
6) Style similarities (added by Ddxc (talk) at 00:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC))
On Talk:Falsetto#18.1 and User talk:Ddxc#8 - 10 you can see that all three users use similar (slightly cumbersome) sentence structures. Also, they have a similar density of punctuation and spelling mistakes, and they sign the same way. (Nrswanson wrote that the two other users are meat-puppets, but because of the aforementioned stylistic evidence I don't believe him, and I'd consider them sock-puppets for all practical purposes.)
- Comments
- Comment from Voceditenore Preliminary Note: I have never edited the articles in question, although I am a member of the Wikipedia Opera Project which has an interest in articles on voice and singing. This issue was brought to our attention on the project talk page. Note that in the deletion discussion, I voted to keep Falsetto. I don't believe User:Ringnpassagio and User:Voicequeen are sockpuppets, but that should be easy for admins to check via looking at their ISPs. Their edits are sophisticated because they are all voice teachers and have all studied voice and vocal performance - two of them are also teachers. The fact that their biographies are similar is also not surprising if they are all in the same line of work and probably at one point studied in the same institution. They do seem to be friends whom User:Nrswanson, specifically recruited into the 'fray', something which he has admitted himself. That is highly frowned on by Wikipedia and was ill-advised. Their expertise is welcome, but at the very least, they should have made the circumstances of their participation clear on the talk pages of the relevant articles. Had they done so much of this unpleasantness could have been avoided. I also have views on what should be done about the conflict between the two articles, but I shall put that on Talk:Falsetto. Voceditenore (talk) 06:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- One of Ringnpassagio's edits was to create a Template. I don't think using Wikitext is routinely covered in voice and vocal performance education. / edg ☺ ☭ 07:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- No it's not routinely covered ;-) But he could be technically savvy anyway and it's quite possible to create a template by modifying an existing one on a related article e.g. Template:Vocal range. I figured out how do that quite quickly when I first started editing on Wikipedia, and I am not technically savvy at all. In any case, User:Nrswanson has never created templates before and often asks for help on technical questions far simpler than creating templates. Like I said, I don't think the three editors above were acting in bad faith, but their approach was most ill advised and could have been avoided had they read this before they embarked. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- For the record, Nrswanson created the {{Vocal classification}} template. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- As the checkuser who ran this case, can I just state that I strongly suspect collusion here due to the addresses used and the timings involved. I am 100% certain that these people know each other - Alison ❤ 20:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- I really doubt much harm is done here. Nrswanson writes very nicely and his friends sound like equally knowledgeable people. Welcome one and welcome all, says I. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 23:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Nrswanson is being disruptive and ignoring WP:CONSENSUS, and his lovely friends are at best meatpuppets who edit war on his behalf with disregard to policy and consensus. As I commented on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera, the sneaky and complicated efforts Nrswanson is making to WP:OWN these articles are not justifiable, and would not be needed if Nrswanson would contribute to the existing articles (presuming there is non-puppet consensus for his edits). / edg ☺ ☭ 23:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- (I've added another point 6 above.) -- Ddxc (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Conclusions
If these users aren't socks, they're meatpuppets. I also find the fact that Nrswanson and Voceditenore (who appeared defending them here) both have large gaps in their edit histories that are very close in time very interesting; along with the fact that Ringnpassagio and Voicequeen. The only reason I'm issuing warnings vice blocks is that they all seem to have gone quiet again. Strong warnings issued on all talk pages. If such activity reappears, this case should be referred to. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Interesting followup, see [450]. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:55, 8 January 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.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
ChrisRay6000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Jlray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
AnubisGodfatherT© 15:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Evidence
Both have similar user names (the "ray" in both names) and their behavior on the talk page of Unidentified flying object is also very similar. They back each other up and say that they will rewrite the article from a even more skeptical point of view. here and here.
- Comments
Why is this report here, after just one edit by Jlray on the article talk page, and an edit that did not state or imply that he is a different person from ChrisRay6000? Anubis Godfather, why didn't you do what common sense and common decency would demand, and simply ask that user politely whether it's him or not? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
JlRay is my brother. He just left a similar comment elsewhere. So if you are asking if our accounts are "related," then the answer is yes: our genes are, in fact, remarkably similar. In fact, our IP addresses ought to be identical because we are both home from school for the winter holiday break and are both currently using the family computer. ChrisRay6000 (talk) 07:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- That's a bad excuse IMHO. To be honest, I don't believe you. You are admitting, that your IPs are identical (so we don't need to do the checkuser). If what you are saying is true, then why don't you both use one account? Sorry, that doesn't add up. 84.177.253.41 (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
From what the accused puppet master says, I think it's very likely IMHO. The puppet master's excuse is not really a new one...in fact lots of puppet masters use such an excuse. 84.177.253.41 (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please don't forget assume good faith. --EoL talk 23:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, okay, I must say the explanation raises a few eyebrows - coming out with "we are two people using the same computer" after somebody else has noticed you have similar editing profiles is just such a very easy excuse many sockpuppeters have employed. But since we currently have no evidence to the contrary, we'll have to take your word for it. Please just make sure your editing doesn't overlap too much in contentious situations, because that will very likely renew the same suspicions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Conclusions
We're going to assume good faith that these two accounts are two brothers editing from the same computer/IP/place. Future Perfect at Sunrise summed it up pretty well (see above). --EoL talk 21:42, 4 January 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.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Save Us 229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Indopug (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
MegX (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Evidence
User:Indopug signed up for Wikipedia on the 24th of December at 06:19.[505] Within 28 hours User:Indopug signed up for Wikiproject Led Zeppelin on the 25th.[506] Before signing up to the project he removed an edit on the project page.[507] User:Indopug has not added any new articles to Led Zeppelin. For someone who has just signed up for Wikipedia and a WikiProject, given the comments he has left on my Talk page, he certainly knows more about the processes than a newbie editor would.[508] However it became apparent to me this more than a new user. User:Indopug disagreed with my template image and that I should change the image on it back to the old one. The one he uploaded here. I told him the reason why I couldn't was because of copyright, so I used what I thought was a free image. User:Save Us 229 then deleted the image I had placed on the templates.[509] The image was replaced by User:Indopug then calling my template "grotesque". I then examined the edit history of User:Save Us 229 and noticed that since User:Indopug joined the Wikiproject, User:Save Us 229 has been targetting Led Zeppelin images.[510] This is strange considering many of these images have been pretty much left untouched for years. I then compared edit histories between both users and noticed a high correlation of editing blocks. A form of "tag-team" editing. More often than not one logs off, one logs on. Below is an example of a seven day period.
With sole exceptions of stray edits that fall out of these blocks:
25th of December User:Indopug starts at 05:21, edits until 19:47 User:Save Us 229 who normally edits everyday is strangely absent during this mammoth block of 14 hours by User:Indopug
26th of December User:Indopug starts at 04:37, edits until 15:20 User:Save Us 229 starts 15:50 edits until 17:26 User:Indopug starts at 18:20 edits until 18:39
27th of December User:Save Us 229 starts at 00:16, edits until 02:38 User:Indopug starts at 05:35, edits in spurts until 23:07 User:Save Us 229 is absent in Indopug's 19 hour stint.
28th of December User:Save Us 229 starts at midnight, edits until 03:53. User:Indopug starts at 07:09, edits until 09:34 User:Save Us 229 starts at 17:40, edits until 23:00
29th of December User:Indopug does not edit for the whole day User:Save Us 229 edits in three blocks (05:11-05:21, 17:07-17:09, then 19:11-23:33)
30th of December User:Indopug one block 10:14-10:30 User:Save Us 229 starts 00:33, edits until 03:45, then again 17:56-23:58
- Comments
- Please, run a checkuser, I don't care, because that's not me, I've never heard of this user Indopug outside this case. I would like to see what violations of policy you think either me or Indopug broke because I seriously doubt that you could. Furthurmore I'm not even interested in Led Zeppelin, I could care less, I care about removing violations of non-free content and I did so. — Save_Us_229 01:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- You admit you're not a fan of Led Zeppelin. I believe you. I also believe User:Indopug is not a fan either.MegX (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- He's not? How many non-fans of Led Zeppelin join the WikiProject? His userpage and his edits seem to signify that he is remotely interested in editing their articles. I'm not. I'm interested in violations of fair use being removed and editing pro wrestling articles and other policy-related work. Do you actually have any proof whatsoever other than me not editing Wikipedia at certain times? — Save_Us_229 01:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- (To MegX) The differences in the times these editors edit, may be caused because they live in different parts of the world? Also, just because Indopug knows a little something about wiki-process, doesn't mean he's someone's sock. Have you considered that he might have edited as an anon? Seraphim Whipp 02:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Seriously, some of it doesn't make since. According to UTC time:
- User:Indopug starts at 04:37, edits until 15:20
- User:Save Us 229 starts 15:50 edits until 17:26
- User:Indopug starts at 18:20 edits until 18:39
- For those of you who don't know my location, I'll tell you what time it is locally for me according to the UTC:
- User:Indopug starts at 11:37 p.m. and edits until 10:20 a.m.
- User:Save Us 229 starts at 10:50 a.m. until 12:26 p.m.
- User:Indopug starts at 1:20 p.m until 1:39
- Ok, you want a conclusion? Locally for me, he started editing at 11:37 p.m. and edited until 10:20 a.m.. So I edit from 11:30 at night and don't end until 10:30 in the morning? Now in which part of that timeframe do I sleep if I am him? He could potentially be on the otherside of the world editing at those times. — Save_Us_229 02:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello everybody! Firstly, although this new username is new to wikipedia; I'm not. I used to have another username, but I changed it for non wiki reasons. I had no problem with the previous image on the template - the "Led Zeppelin" logo. If i remember correctly, that image was incorrectly tagged as free-use. However, I did have a problem with the old template because, well, it is grotesque. Anyway, as for not adding any new articles to the wikiprject, since when is that an important or necessary part of wiki-editing. I have never been rude and uncivil toward MegX and I believe she has a problem with me is because I didn't like the bureaucratic way she runs the wikiproject. indopug (talk) 05:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
And to make these allegations anymore ludacris, I'm in Florida, in the United States and he is from India. Explain that one MegX. — Save_Us_229 05:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Want definitive proof? This is my IP, I am Save Us 229. 74.235.136.188 (talk) 06:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- This is me. — Save_Us_229 06:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- And this is indopug. 122.167.4.43 (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- This is me indopug (talk) 06:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Me thinks this case is solved no less. — Save_Us_229 06:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ditto. indopug (talk) 06:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Conclusions
There is almost no evidence here of sockpuppetry, let alone disruptive sockpuppetry. They both edited some WikiProject Led Zeppelin pages. One user not editing during a day is not evidence of anything. As far as I can tell, they have no articles edited in common and Save Us only seems to edit music related articles for WP:NFCC reasons. Mr.Z-man 07:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
TiconderogaCCB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
TiconderogaCCB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.240.26.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
141.158.125.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Comments Removed link to Wikipedia article that was asked to be placed on by the talk page [514] of St. John's University strike of 1966-1967 . Deletion of sourced material [515]. Using the same IP range as he did before. Most likely in avoidance of WP:3rr. UnclePaco (talk) 05:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
TiconderogaCCB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
TiconderogaCCB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.240.26.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
141.158.125.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Comments Removed link to Wikipedia article that was asked to be placed on by the talk page [517] of St. John's University strike of 1966-1967 . Deletion of sourced material [518]. Using the same IP range as he did before. Most likely in avoidance of WP:3rr. UnclePaco (talk) 05:58, 3 January 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.
[edit] User:DrDelos
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
DrDelos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
SignOfTheTimes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
--neonwhite user page talk 21:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- Evidence
Revision history of this article [532]. SignOfTheTimes begins exactly where DrDelos left off adding the same source and edits the same way, especially the similar misunderstanding of reliable sources [533] [534] Has also made the same personal attacks. [535] [536]
-
- Another identical edit made back in may [537] and [538], there's also instances of user SignOfTheTimes claiming to be a 'representative' of the subject of the artical [539] [540]. [DrDelos] also makes a similar claim to know the same subject [541] and two instances here [542] and [543] of both asking users to email the same subject, not something i have seen any other editor request as it isn't policy to verify facts this way. --neonwhite user page talk 18:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
See [544] — Rlevse • Talk • 00:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comments
Asking for input from SignOfTheTimes and DrDelos, neither was notified of this case. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- hi, this is signof the times, i am not a "sockpuppet" of drdelos nor is he of mine. we both have interest in the same pages being taken care of properly, as opposed to NeonWhite who is bullying all of the pages for some bizarre reason as opposed to a million of the other pages he could be overseeing, he chooses to pick on 3 of them. DrDelos and I happen to care for the same pages, we are both moderators on the same board, and the bands that we are watching the pages for, have asked us to try and keep the vandals that keep changing them (ie NeonWhite) away. So we are both working for the same people, the people that that the pages are about, if that makes any sense, and are not sock puppets of each other, hence why we are the same team. Hope that explains it.
sincerely, signofthetimes —Preceding unsigned comment added by SignOfTheTimes (talk • contribs)
-
- Please cease the personal attacks, the pages were marked as needing work which i performed. What pages i decide to improve is no business of anyone but myself. There is no policy on what pages an editor may or may not improve. Please remember that editors do not own pages. All users are free to improve them. The only thing you are 'working for' on wikipeda is the improvement of the encyclopedia based on it's policies. You have admitted a WP:COI and neither account has acted appropriately in regard to this. Patterns of disruptive editing doesnt improve much. If your claims are true then this is simply meatpuppetry rather than sockpuppetry --neonwhite user page talk 23:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Please tell me what the conflict of interest is. There is no "COI" in wanting the said pages information to be up kept, and , you are the ONLY person who is messing with it, and asking for a every single sentence to be verified to YOUR standards and your standards alone, when they are all FACTS about said performers and bands, and we gave you sources that YOU did not deem good enough, just because they didn't speak to Rolling Stone about it, does not make it untrue. As for "personal attacks", calling myself or DrDelos a meatpuppet is a personal attack as from your own definition : "The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used only with care." Just because another user and I care about the same pages does not make us sockpuppets or meatpuppets, please make this user stop harrassing us, and the pages we choose to care about and edit. He really has made this a personal vendetta for some reason. Sincerely, SignofTheTimes —Preceding unsigned comment added by SignOfTheTimes (talk • contribs) 01:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Conclusions
While it is possible these two are socks, I am more inclined to think this is a case of two people interested in the same article. So I cannot block based on WP:SOCK at this time. This seems to me more of a case of content dispute and I urge the parties to use the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution system. Also of concern are the claims by DrDelos and Signofthetimes that they know the subject (by itself not an issue) but are also acting on her behalf and at her request. Subjects of articles are not allowed to dictate article content. See WP:BLP. Also, user accounts are limited to one per person; they should not be used by more than one person and can not be used by an organization. Please heed. I'm posting this to DrDelos and Signofthetimes's user talk pages too. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Unlikely. Whilst both have similar interest areas, and are both editing disruptively, there is no compelling evidence to suggest sock puppetry. Admittedly, both are having a net negative effect on whichever article they choose to edit, but there are no cross-over editing habits, points of view and indeed log-in times (as suggested in the evidence presented), as far as I can see. Burden of proof lies in your court, and I'm afraid it's not been fulfilled at the present. Anthøny 02:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Likely. ++Lar: t/c 21:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC) (Cross-posted by Edit Centric (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Resolved.
