Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Archive/May 2007

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing 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:Banorama

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

Suspected sockpuppets: Barnorama2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Mysdaao 15:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Username is the almost the same with a 2 added, and both users have vandalized User talk:Kablammo

Kommentare

Conclusions

Obvious. Barnorama2 is blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Peschomd

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Peschong1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
134.29.58.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
134.29.33.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
134.29.69.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
69.24.166.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
24.159.215.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
134.29.39.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Wyatt Riot 00:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Multiple edits to Mankato, Minnesota and other sites promoting himself and his businesses (Examples: [1] and [2]), was eventually blocked for WP:SPAM violations. Edited some articles using as an anonymous IP user (User:134.29.58.194 and User:134.29.33.91) adding the same or similar sites, and now has created another account with a similar name, again adding links to those same sites as well as an article about himself Matthew Peschong which is (currently) tagged for speedy deletion.

All above IPs come from city of Mankato, Minnesota where the spammer is located. IPs commencing with 134. appear to come from Minnesota State University Mankato where spammer is believed to have been a student. Activities include not only addition of own website to city articles as an External link and his own name as a notable person, but also pernicious changing of other links to links to his own site [3] (including this gem where he changed link for the official site for the city of Mankato to his own site, while leaving the text indicating it was the official city site: [4]) and partial blanking of undersigned's talk page after reversion of spammer's inappropriate edits: [5]. Kablammo 12:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentare

It may help to add those sites to the spam blacklists?

Conclusions

Peschong1 is blocked; you may want to add his website to the spam blacklist ([6]). --Akhilleus (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Arenaball

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

Suspected sockpuppets: 75.50.244.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); ~~Arenafoot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)~~; 70.254.69.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Whs itc hy 17:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

All three have done the exact same reverts to National Indoor Football League despite community consensus. The second IP is weak in it being a sock, but the reverts are the same.

Kommentare

Arenafoot does not seem to be a puppet. I made an error in reporting him. --Whs itc hy 18:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Blocked Arenaball and semi-protected National Indoor Football League. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Raphaelaarchon

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by --AStanhope 04: 41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

User:Raphaelaarchon has been disciplined for 3RR and multiple negative potentially libelous edits on the Glenn Greenwald article. The issue has been beaten to death. He has returned as 71.100.1.7 by his own admission. See Greenwald Talk page edits by 71.100.1.7 where he signed as Raphaelaarchon.[7]

Kommentare

Conclusions

I don't see any blocks on the Raphaelaarchon account, nor any violation of WP:SOCK. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:benito484847

Suspected sockpuppeteer

benito484847 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by Juansidious 20: 50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

After I warned Benito484847 about vandalism, he struck back by vandalizing my user page. After being told by other editors that he would be banned for further vandalism, he stopped. However, "another" editor with a similar name and style of writing began to vandalise my talk page and front page. Again, the user stopped once they were told that any more vandalism would equal a ban. Unless he gets punished, he's going to continue the cycle of vandalism and creating new accounts.

Kommentare

Conclusions

Both accounts are indef blocked as vandal only accounts. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:69.118.129.76

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

131.96.170.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
12.160.192.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
65.211.81.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by Noroton 01: 38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

User:69.118.129.76 (hereafter "69" or "he") has been disruptive in various ways as a look at the history of 69's user page shows (While his current talk page here shows numerous warnings have been left on the page, numerous others have been taken off, such as many of those on this old version of the page):

At List of people from Ridgefield, Connecticut, 69 has engaged in an edit war, with numerous editors changing back his reverts. See history here, from this edit to this edit. It was finally ended with a page block here.

In order to come up with a consensus and end the edit war, a very, very long discussion took place in which 69 rudely and stubbornly stuck to his points (starting here and continuing to this part of the discussion), long after his objections had been met.

In order to broaden the discussion and see whether there was a consensus, a straw poll was started (here). At this point, three anonymous editors showed up ("131" here, "12" here, and "65" here). Two of these (12 and 65) had no prior edits on Wikipedia; a third 131 had one prior edit (in Wikipedia Sandbox). These four accounts (so far) are the only !votes for deleting (there was one other, whose mind I then changed).

Kommentare

Wikipedia makes dispute resolution extremely difficult, including this long, complex process for reporting sockpuppets/meatpuppets. It is pretty damned obvious that there's abuse of various types going on here. I have been extremely patient in dealing with someone who is obviously not acting in good faith. Whether these accounts are meat puppets or sock puppets (and I've done the WHOIS search and found they are from different Internet accounts from widely divergent geographical locations) the pattern is obvious.

I strongly urge administrators to look into whether any non-anonymous Wikipedia editors use any of the same Internet accounts referenced at the top of this complaint and examine what that possible editor has been editing. Perhaps a motive can be found in a past dispute with me or another editor.

This may very well be the most pathetic grasping for straws I've ever seen. I'm not sure what's more void of evidence and logic... this case or the points you've made for keeping that ridiculous section in the Ridgefield residents article. 69.118.129.76

Conclusions

This isn't checkuser, so we can't look into whether any registered accounts are editing from those IP addresses. If this were checkuser, I doubt we would look into it; there may be a violation of WP:SOCK here, but the evidence isn't conclusive. In addition, this just doesn't look that serious; I highly doubt the IP votes will change the outcome of the poll. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Newport

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Brownlee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
R613vlu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
20.138.246.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Past SSPs of RachelBrown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

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

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

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

Report submission by

Bulldog123 09:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Prior documentation

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive58#Rachel Brown sockpuppet army blocked (December 2005)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive59#Sock check (December 2005)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive21#RachelBrown socks (December 2005)

According to documentation above, User:Newport is a likely reincarnation of User:RachelBrown, a user accused of gross sockpuppetry over a year ago. Four sockpuppets were blocked. The sockpuppetry charges were later dropped due to "lack of evidence" and the sockpuppets unblocked. However it seems that the gross sockpuppetry continues to this day but under different usernames, with the previous usernames only showing up once in a while to continue vote fraud and consensus faking. Details are as follows:

Vote and Consensus Frauds

CFD/AFD

I cite the following 15 AFDs/CFDs/DRs. To the best of my knowledge, this is every Afd/CfD within the last year ever participated in by two or more of the users By doing this, it shows the high frequency of the overlap of these users' votes.

If the usernames share the same opinion on the RFA, the chart below will have a yes by the username. If they voted differently, there will be a no.

Most CfDs/AfDs are closed as "no concensus", where this result defaults to the outcome these users wanted. Please see any archived history of these categories/articles for detailed responses.

Case #1: Categories for deletion, May 20, 2006 - "All ethnicity category pages"
Case #2: Categories for deletion, September 10, 2006 - Jewish Sportspeople
Case #3: Categories for deletion, September 12, 2006 - Jewish Mathematicians
Case #4: Categories for deletion, November 12, 2006 - Anti-Semitic people
Case #5: Categories for deletion, November 12, 2006 - Anti-Semitic canards
Case #6: Categories for deletion, November 23, 2006 - Anti-Semitic people
Case #7: Articles for deletion, December 10, 2006 - Zsa Zsa Riordan
Case #8: Categories for deletion, December 27, 2006 - Actors by Religion
Case #9: Categories for deletion, 2007 - Jewish Fencers
Case #10: Articles for deletion, 2007 - List of Peruvian Jews
Case #11: Deletion Review, 2007 - List of Peruvian Jews
Case #12: Categories for deletion, 2007 - Jewish Scientists
Case #13: Categories for deletion, 2007 - Jewish figure skaters
Case #14: Categories for deletion, 2007 - Jewish musicians
Case #15: Deletion Review, 2007 - Jewish figure skaters

Three or four more categories and articles they have vote stacked are missing.

Case #	Newport	Brownlee	R613vlu
1	YES	YES	-
2	YES	-	YES
3	YES	-	YES
4	YES	YES	-
5	YES	-	YES
6	-	YES	YES
7	-	YES	YES
8	YES	YES	YES
9	YES	YES	YES
10	YES	YES	YES
11	YES	YES	YES
12	YES	YES	YES
13	YES	YES	YES
14	YES	YES	YES
15	YES	YES	YES

RFAs

The following are examples of oppose or support stacking on RFAs. If the usernames share the same opinion on the RFA, the chart below will have a yes by the username. If they voted differently, there will be a no.

Case #1: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Shirahadasha
Case #2: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ryulong_3
Case #3: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Amarkov
Case #4: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Werdna_2
Case #6: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Marskell
Case #7: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Moreschi
Case #8: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/FT2 2
Case #9: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Seraphimblade 2

Several more probably on Votes for Bureacracy/Other Administration

Case #	Newport	Brownlee	R613vlu	Former Accused Sockpuppets
1	YES	YES	YES
2		YES	YES
3	YES		YES
4		YES	YES
6	YES	YES
7	YES	YES
8	YES	YES		YES
9			YES	YES

Most Recent Examples of Faking Consensus

TALK:Albert Einstein - voting to include "Jewish" categories and exclude "German" categories
Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-28 Eugène Ionesco - User:R613vlu, anon IP, and User:Newport faking consensus against User:Daizus
For examples of past faking consensus- please see the EDIT WARRING section.

Editing Similarities

Artikel

All three registered users make articles for British scientists, and almost exclusively for British-Jewish scientists. If you take a look at Newport's userpage it says "Currently, my main project is to write short biographical articles on eminent scientists, mostly British, where there is currently no Wikipedia article or a very poor one."

On Newport's talk page, a user commented that Newport writes British scientist/professor articles like a resume and that he/she shouldn't do that because this is an encyclopedia. It can be read at User talk:Newport#David Malcolm Lewis.

The "resume format" looks awkward and un-wiki-like and Newport seems to do it on most of the articles he/she makes for British(-Jewish) academics.

Brownlee and R613vlu make British scientist/professor articles in the exact same way... the "resume" format. I cite following articles done by the three users:

David Malcolm Lewis, created by Newport (note that the extended biograpy was added by someone else)
Norman Bentwich, created by Brownlee
Barry Supple, created by User:R613vlu (their first edit)

All three articles are British Jewish academics/scientists/professors. All three articles are written in Newport's strange resume-looking format, often copied from Who's Who. Just taking a test sample, we can see pretty much all British professors articles are not written like that if they are done by different users.

Edit Summaries

The point of this section is to show similarities in wording in edit summaries. These alone would not be "sufficient" enough but together with everything else they paint a clearer picture.

Below are a few examples of similarities in wording of edit summaries. This is NOT to say all these edit summaries are unique only to the users. It IS here to show the like-mindedness and similar thinking pattern of the users, in addition to wording. The contributions go back so far that providing diffs for these is very burdensome so I give only a few examples in areas where they are necessary.

"delete/remove refs" - "because you don't like what they say"/"them"

[8]

[9]

[10]

"We have [number] good sources that say that he was Jewish"

[11]

[12]

[13]

"violates [policy] and [policy]" || "anything else violates [policy]" || "please do not violate [policy]" etc..

"reports what reliable sources say" || "reporting"

[18]

[19]

"remove nonsense" || "preposterous!" || "nonsense!" etc..

[20]

[21]

[22]

"POV to ___" etc

[23]

[24]

[25]

"undoubted Jew(s)" || "undoubtedly Jewish"

[26]

[27]

"lets stick to"

[28]

[29]

[30]

"____ to deny ___" || violates WP:NOR to deny - to go beyond ||

[31]

[32]

[33]

This goes on and on, with many more examples.

Note, that due to past blocks the user is probably more experienced with making it appear like the users are different.

Edit Warring

User:Newport, User:Brownlee, and the anon IP repeat the same arguments during edit wars, often using very similar edit summaries (diffs are above). All users misunderstand WP:NOR and WP:NPOV and frequently use both in their arguments on talk pages.

Examples of this can be found historically at TALK:List of German Jews, TALK:List of Hungarian Jews,TALK:List of Iberian Jews, TALK:List of Czech Jews (archive #1), TALK:List of Polish Jews, TALK:List of Jewish scientists and philosophers and nearly every list of Jews article has some history of an edit war where all three users participated and agreed with eachother.

Articles where users have faked consensus include TALK:Georg Cantor, TALK:Otto Lilienthal, TALK:Albert Einstein, TALK:Alexander Grothendieck, TALK:Grigori Perelman, TALK:Peter Sarnak many many more...

RFA habits

Users often vote on the same RFAs. It was once mentioned on wikipedia that sockpuppets frequently indulge in RFA votes because this is an attempt at trying to make themselves appear more inclusive with the community.

All users vote "Oppose" to RFA candidates who disagree in some way with their editing styles...frequently their reasonings are very similar with wordings such as "oppose with regret" and "oppose with a heavy heart."

See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shirahadasha for [34] made by Newport and [35] made by R613vlu, including an edit made by Brownlee where the resemblance between the above two votes are stark, in wording, tone and general theme.

User:Brownlee once voted to support AND oppose an RFA on User:Daniel_Bryant. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Brownlee#Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006.2FVote.2FDaniel.Bryant) This is evidence that the user sometimes pays no attention to how or why they're voting on an RFA, but simply votes either for the sake of bringing up their edit count or for the sake of looking like strong community participants.

Checkuser

Checkuser reveals that User:Brownlee and User:R613vlu use open proxies to edit (and have shared about half a dozen proxies between them). Therefore, it can be suggested that the sockpuppets Brownlee and R613vlu are used via open proxies by Newport. The individual IP editor on the other hand is apparently a very public IP used by other valid editors on wikipedia.

Note that the IP address has a very high edit count but refuses to get a username. A possible reason why the IP editor refuses to get a username is because the sockpuppeteer is aware the the IP is held by other VALID users on wikipedia and thus uses it only to **appear** like another editor.

Note that the Newport account has been accused of sockpuppetry in the past. Given this, it is probable that Newport sockpuppeteer has become more adept at making sockpuppets look like different people by using proxies to edit.

Same Resources at Disposal

All four users have direct and immediate access to The Jewish Chronicle newspaper and the Encyclopedia Judaica. The Jewish Chronicle requires a paid subscription and is targetting a specific audience, so it is not a household newspaper everyone can be expected to have. Encyclopedia Judaica is very expensive too and not accessible online except through payment. That all four users have paid memberships to both of these resources is indicative, along with everything else, that they are NOT separate people. To see examples of each user using information from these sources see the recent talk page history at TALK:Otto Lilienthal and TALK:Georg Cantor.

Slip ups and connections

Connecting Newport and the anon 20.138.246.89

See Talk:List_of_Polish_Jews#Changing_the_scope_of_the_article.3F and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-28 Eugène Ionesco

A slip-up made by Newport confirms that Newport is the same user as the anonymous IP address (20.138.246.89).

User:Newport, User:Brownlee, User:R613vlu, and User:20.138.246.89 were all edit warring with User:LeszekB over measures taken on List of Polish Jews. They were arguing in TALK:List of Polish Jews. At one point, after LeszekB's argument, the IP address 20.138.246.89 writes the following:

This is clearly just a dispute about whether the scope of the article should be
changed. Shouldn't we just take a poll of editors? That's what's normally done
in these circumstances.--20.138.246.89 12:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

LeszekB responds with:

A poll to *rename* the list would be acceptable, but there's no negotiating
someone's identity. "I think he's German." "Well, I think he's English. Let's take a poll." That doesn't work. You can't take a poll on whether wormholes exist, you need citations that say they do. You can't take a poll on if people like Adrien Brody and Scarlett Johansson are Polish, you need citations that say
they are. LeszekB 18:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Immediately after this, Newport responds to the comment INSTEAD of 20.138.246.89 and writes:

That isn't what I am proposing. I am proposing a vote on whether to change the
scope of the article, which is clearly laid out in the introduction. There is no Wikipedia policy whatsoever that says that the scope of an article is determined solely by one editor's over-literal interpretation of the article
title.--Newport 22:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a slip up. Newport made no proposal for a poll, that was 20.138.246.89, but Newport is responding as if s/he made the comment that was made by 20.138.246.89.

In addition to this, in the Eugene Ionesco Mediation Cabal, Newport writes

I am in contact with the anon.

In contact with an anon who never revealed their email address on wikipedia or left a message on Newport's talk page? How can somebody be *in contact* with an anon any other way?

Connecting Newport and R613vlu

See User talk:Newport#Biographical articles

This is the only time in history any user has left a message on eachother's talk page and it was done on purpose. The message suggests R613vlu "accidently" started finishing an article initiated by Newport. This suggests Newport lost track of which username account s/he used to make those edits and ended up editing like Newport on the R613vlu account. In order to cover his/her tracks, R613vlu left a message on Newport's User talk page asking if it is "OK" that R613vlu finished Newport's edits. This seems suspicious, especially since Newport responded promptly "I'm delighted to welcome a new collaborator" - possibly covering up for future mistakes.

Connecting Newport and Brownlee (via old username: Poetlister)

See Talk:List_of_Polish_Jews#Proposal

User:Brownlee brought up an example of an article dispute on the Seamus Heaney article concerning his birthplace. However, if you look at the talk page of Seamus Heaney, User:Brownlee never participated in these discussions. Rather, it was User:Poetlister. In fact, the original discussions for the Seamus Heaney dispute took place on October 2005, User:Brownlee was only an editor since March 2006. How would s/he know about that discussion when s/he never made an edit on that article talk page and registered almost half a year after the discussions took place?

It is likely Brownlee is confusing her time editing as Poetlister, who was a suspected sockpuppet of Newport. This would suggest a connection between Newport and Brownlee. In addition, the username Brownlee also sounds suspiciously like Rachel Brown. The latter is obviously not evidence, per se, but it is note-worthy.

No Overlap in Editing found

According to a sorting algorithm which sorts editing times in ascending order, for the three registered usernames, no overlap in editing times could be found since their first edits on wikipedia. If proof of this is needed it will be given, but considering the output is over 2000 lines long, it won't be put on this SSP.

Kommentare

My only contribution to the above SSP was the analysis of editing times, and I will be glad to comment on that if needed. The rest of the SSP was sent to me through email after suspicions of meatpuppetry, WP:CANVASSing, and sockpuppetry on recent Cfds, the last three listed above. [36] If anyone has any questions regarding some of the evidence on this SSP, you will likely have to refer to users who have dealt with these people personally. I also analyzed the contribution summaries for the previously blocked sockpuppets, which I will link to if anyone wants. Bulldog123 09:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I'm currently looking at this with CheckUser. The other results will take a while longer to look through, but I can say right now that 20.138.246.89 (talk · contribs) is clearly Simul8 (talk · contribs), and I only reveal that because it is a WP:SOCK violation based on some of the double-voting, at least. Dmcdevit·t 07:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for one month each, per double-"voting" on at least two CfD's and DRV's, and edit warring with the IP on controversial pages the account frequents, in contradiction to WP:SOCK. Daniel 07:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See [37]. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:XERxes135

Suspected sockpuppeteer: *XERxes135* (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

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

Report submission by

DearPrudence 02:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User uses same signature (♠ΜōōŠε♠) and has vandalised pages (especially userpages) in exactly the same way that *vulgaration* did (usually by replacing the entire userpage with "♠ΜōōŠε♠"). Also, both usernames are formatted the same way, with asterisks on either side. *vulgaration* was blocked within the last twenty-four hours for vandalism.

(Note: I'm sorry that the formatting doesn't seem to work for the two usernames - I think it's probably because they both begin with asterisks.)

Kommentare

Conclusions

Obvious sock. vulgaration is indef blocked, XERxes135 warned that any further vandalism will result in a block. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:JBAK

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Billybatts70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Zaian 16:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Admitted by user, see [38]

Kommentare

JBAK (talk · contribs) has been indefintely blocked, as well as several other sockpuppet accounts: Williamdevino (talk · contribs), BOV1993 (talk · contribs) and JBAK88 (talk · contribs).

Conclusions

Obvious. Billybatts70 is indef blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Jamesinc14

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Jamesinc14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Jamesinc311 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Jamesinc310 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Jamesinc309 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Jamesinc308 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Jamesinc307 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
And a number of other iterations in the same numeric sequence...

Report submission by

Mhking 17:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

[39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44]

Kommentare

Poster continually has been blocked, and then returns with another iteration. The standard pattern is that the user posts false information, primarily in the children's television category articles (Nick Jr. is a favorite of his, apparently), but other articles are not immune to his attacks.

Eh, seems like a pretty open and shut case to me. Deletion Quality 20:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

The listed accounts are blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:CarlHewitt

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

TheHoover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - already blocked.
64.75.137.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)- Honolulu, see Evidence for connection
72.235.115.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)- Honolulu, see Evidence for connection
CarlEHewitt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
2ndMouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Anonymouser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
LelandStanford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 18:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

See: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt

User:TheHoover appeared on May 10, and has only made edits related to Carl Hewitt, and he shows uncanny knowledge for a new Wikipedia user. One of the anon edits appears to be a legal threat. [47]

He has disrupted WP:BLPN with redundant reports.[48][49]

Both 64.75.137.250 and 72.235.115.241 resolve to Honolulu, HI. Prof. Hewitt was scheduled to appear at a workshop in Honolulu on May 14. [50] How coincidental that not one but two anonymous IP users from Honolulu show up and take an intense interest in this article. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 18:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentare

Conclusions

All the named accounts are indef blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:LordPathogen

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

MindHavoc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
129.33.49.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

evrik ^(talk) 13:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

MindHavoc is a single-issue sock on a campaign for where LordPathogen was trying to make NPOV edits. In the last year LordPathogen has only edited on four articles: Lou Dobbs Tonight, Lou Dobbs, Illegal immigration and Elvira Arellano. The Elvira Arellano is where MindHavoc started editing in the same style as LP and then started reverting other users changes. --evrik ^(talk) 13:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentare

So, because I have not edited many articles, and when I did, I happen to agree with with an opponent of Evrik's, THAT makes me a sock puppet? If this were the 16th century, Evrik would probably burn me at the stake with such evidence. ;-) LordPathogen 129.33.49.251 14:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ummm, looking at you just wrote, are you writing in the voice of User:LordPathogen, User:MindHavoc or just 129.33.49.251? --evrik ^(talk) 14:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvously LordPathogen since my name is at the top of this page and hence am the accused. As for the IP, that belongs to a large corporation so it would not surprise me if it used by multiple wiki users. Really, try writing persuasive arguments rather than throwing out lame accusations... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.33.49.251 (talk • contribs) 10:01, 24 May 2007 editing as LordPathogen
  - Sounds to me like you were writing as MindHavoc and defending LordPathogen. --evrik ^(talk) 15:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I'm done writing here so feel free to accuse me of what you will. I request immediate judgement if possible. After that, I would like to know what the penalty is for falsely accusing someone here... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.33.49.251 (talk • contribs) 10:04, 24 May 2007 editing as LordPathogen
Why are you signing in such an odd fashion? --evrik ^(talk) 15:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just made a report here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR --evrik ^(talk) 16:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I have blocked User:MindHavoc as that account is clearly a sockpuppet of LordPathogen, whom I also blocked for 48h as a result of a 3RR vio. I have not blocked 129.33.49.251 as that user's editing history began in March 2 and I cannot find sufficient evidence to identify this IP as another sockpuppet. Signature ^brendel 20:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 04:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any relation with this and Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Primetime? --evrik ^(talk) 16:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Subsequent annotation No, that's a different puppet master. I'm familiar with Primetime and there is no connection. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:SEGA

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

Suspected sockpuppets: JudasAngel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); GlennGoins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); GregPhilMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

edgarde 00:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Three new accounts created to edit-war in Black Sabbath albums and fight for preservation of copyvio images.

JudasAngel – account created 2007-05-23T22:35:53

Single-issue sock on a campaign for which SEGA has employed other single issue socks in the past (notably Rumitoid and OneLove1977), demoting non-"official" members (always Geoff Nicholls) of Black Sabbath in album credits (contrary to WP:ALBUM#Credits and contrary to consensus).

Diffs are basicly edit history for this account: [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61]

/ edgarde 00:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changes pattern here by editing single Black Sabbath album article using different names. Note abusive and misleading edit summaries, a SEGA behavior.

GlennGoins — account created 2007-05-24T23:36:44

Note misleading Edit summary here[62]
Note "You know I'm right" language (comparable to OneLove1977[63] and some of SEGA's language), here[64]

GregPhilMan — account created 2007-05-24T23:51:13

Note abusive Edit summary here[65]
Note fondness for copyvio material (and abusive summary) here[66]
A likely WP:DISRUPT: legit images deleted[67][68]

/ edgarde 04:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compare with contribs by

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

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

OneLove1977 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Kommentare

SEGA is subject to a community ban for having made over 40 sockpuppets, and uploading massive amounts of WP:COPYVIO images. Is an IP block possible for this user? The puppets are breeding like bunnies.

Page still exists for Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/SEGA. This report is Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/SEGA (2nd).

Conclusions

All of these accounts are blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:AFI-PUNK

Suspected sockpuppeteer

AFI-PUNK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Hardcore-SkA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
87.167.231.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
87.167.249.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
87.167.235.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
87.167.211.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Hoponpop69 18:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Edits the same articles, making the same edits.[69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80]

Uses the same sloppy english and poor grammar.[81] [82]

Threatened me on my talk page after I had the original account blocked.[83]

Admitted one of the accounts was the same person.[84]

Evidence for 87.167.249.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Edits to From First To Last are identical[85][86]

Edits to Minutes To Midnight both involve fooling around with what is listed under genre[87][88]

Edits to Take Me (song) involve editing a Papa Roach song to make the genre say alternative rock.[89] AFI-Punk did the same edit to the Papa Roach songs She Loves Me Not (song)[90]. Not to mention changing the genre to Papa Roach songs was one of his trademark edits, as you can see from his contributions, there are too many cases to list.[91]

Edits to Scars (song), yet another Papa Roach song, is identical to an edit made as AFI-PUNK.[92][93]

Furhtermore the IP was obviously coming from the same area as the other ip that was banned as most of the numbers in the ip adress where identical.

Evidence for 87.167.211.93: Commented on my talk page using the same awful grammar and English, about Papa Roach's genre.[94]. The IP is also yet again in the same range. He also admitted to being Hardcore-Ska.

Kommentare

Why hasn't anything been done yet? This seems like an open and shut case.Hoponpop69 02:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While you have failed to act he has used another account: ip 87.167.249.151Hoponpop69 22:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added evidence ot prove the third one is a sock puppet, I also added another account in that ip range that is suspect is him, I will show my evidence for it later on, as I am getting tired of this right now.Hoponpop69 04:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's got another one, 87.167.211.93.

Conclusions

Hardcore-SkA is an obvious sockpuppet used to evade a ban - I have blocked that account indefinitely as such and am still investigating the two IPs. Signature ^brendel 03:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked 87.167.231.59 as well but cannot find sufficient evidence to issue a block on 87.167.249.151. Signature ^brendel 03:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I now have sufficient evidence to block the third IP. Signature ^brendel 04:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Ron liebman

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Ron liebman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Ron liebman user ID first appeared on January 30, 2007.

Suspected sockpuppets

Indef blocked already, provided as additional documentation

Possible related IPs

Report submission by

--Ebyabe 20:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Though User:Ron liebman's account was blocked, he is manifesting through a variety of other user accounts and anonymous IPs. He always makes the same edits (primarily birth or death date changes), without providing sources in the articles. He only provides "documentation" in the edit summaries. He has been asked repeatedly, but never puts citations for his changes in the articles themselves.

He also changes the entry for the actor Ron Leibman to include how the actor is often confused with the baseball biographer Ron Liebman (note the reversed "i" and "e" between the names). (The user has, in fact, hijacked the names of several actual members of the Society for American Baseball Research in creating his sockpuppet accounts.)

Checkuser

A checkuser case [95] has been run and confirms that as of May 23, 2007, the accounts listed are all sockpuppets. This reaffirms that the behavior-based identification methods used so far are accurate and correct.

Accounts affected

Non-Baseball related
Escitalopram
Elisabeth Hasselbeck
Joy Behar
The View

More baseball, occasionally vandalised by him
1935 in baseball
1936 in baseball
1940 in baseball
1960 in baseball
1961 in baseball
Cap Anson
Chief Bender
Christy Mathewson
Eddie Cicotte
Edward Caraballo
Ernie Banks
Frankie Frisch
Fred Haney
Frisch
Gil Hodges
Harry Chappas
Johnny Pesky
Larry MacPhail
List of Major League Baseball individual streaks
Major League Baseball titles leaders
Major League Baseball titles streaks
Mike Sharperson
MLB consecutive games played streaks
Paul Dean
Ron Santo
Sam Jones (baseball)
Sam Rice
Vada Pinson

Kommentare

This has been going on since at least early April, with no signs of stopping. Even if all the accounts are blocked, I believe he'll continue through other accounts. But at least this way, there's an official record here of his activities, for future reference.

This is also the first time I've done one of these, so I hope I'm proceeding correctly. Please advise if you need more info or anything.

Oh, and he exceeds 3RR, if you count his various identities. And sometimes even when you don't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebyabe (talk • contribs)

He also reverts the Escitalopram article to an old, non-NPOV version continually. This is what originally brought him to my attention - I don't edit baseball-related articles, but some digging led me to understand that he has been a thorn in the side of baseball wiki editors for quite some time. At any rate, this can be used as an additional check for the (almost certain) future sockpuppets. Cheers, Skinwalker 01:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent an e-mail to the SABR organization, notifying them of the situation. My approach with them was to assert that a vandal is using fake ID's that are the names of SABR members. Wahkeenah 23:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A SABR representative got back to me, and I have directed him to this page to allow him to see what's been going on.

SABR, if/when you're reading - There are two possibilities here.
- One, this is a set of legit SABR editors who are making correct (historically accurate) edits, but doing so in a manner incompatable with Wikipedia guidelines and rules. If so, please work with them to get them to engage us in a discussion on User talk:Ron liebman.
- Two, someone is trying to impersonate a lot of SABR people, from New York City public libraries and related facilities. This seems rather annoying.

Please feel free to contact me on my talk page User talk:Georgewilliamherbert (or email via my user contact info on Wikipeda). I am the Wikipedia volunteer administrator doing most of the blocking of these accounts, though others are finding most of them and flagging them. Georgewilliamherbert 23:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I'm not sure there's any point in keeping this report open; Checkuser has confirmed the socks, everything listed here is blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not all the articles are protected, and this guy has been inventing new ID's nearly every day. Baseball Bugs 06:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Liebman passed in 2023, so this page likely only has archival value at this point. https://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Ron_Liebman 161.185.198.86 (talk) 22:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This guy is also continually inventing sock puppets to edit the Baseball Reference.com/Bullpen still to this point. --71.197.115.41 20:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:VacuousPoet

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

ProtoCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
ImprobabilityDrive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Orangemarlin 23:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

This edit indicates involvement in a discussion well prior to the editor registering as a user.
Editor mainly edits Intelligent Design where sockpuppets of VacuousPoet have shown up previously.
First edit was on May 10, 2007, which was five days after ImprobabilityDrive's last edit.
This edit is very similar to this edit in both style and content.

Kommentare

Certainly, User talk:ProtoCat is clear evidence of trolling, as is much of Talk:Intelligent design/Archive40. My experience wih them involved tthem asking me to continue a discussion on their talk page - then accusing me of stalkig - because I continued the discussion - on their talk page! Even if not a sockpuppet, this user seems to eeither be a troll or... rather seriously disturbed. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

A troll indeed, and quacks like VacuousPoet, who quacked like Kdbuffalo. So ProtoCat is blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Imbilly

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Billy227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Rahk EX //my arguments | my random babble 22:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

First, and foremost, I would like to state the obvious, by saying that both accounts have the name "Billy"

Next of all, I would like to mention the style in which they write, Imbilly made this awards page, and Billy227 has made several edits to Wikipedia, so finding a page is not hard.

Being a vandaliser in heart, Billy227 often broke the civil policy, SHOUTING WORDS IN ALL-CAPS and otherwise putting others down.

The Imbilly account may be taken as a "bad hand" account, as it was used mainly for vandalism, and was blocked indefinitely. The Billy227 account was created a short while before Imbilly was blocked, and the puppeteer continued to use Billy227 for legitimate edits.

When it was stated that he had the Imbilly account on his talk page, Billy227 replied "do not affiliate me in any way, shape or form with that account you spoke of. I have no clue about whose account that is." If he really did not know who that account was, he would've looked into it more, instead of denying it flatly as if it were preposterous that he could be connected to it at all.

As my closing statement, I would like to announce that, as we are familiar in real life, I know that he has specifically admitted to having the Imbilly account, he worded it like so: "Come on Tim, I had my Imbilly account way before you joined Wikipedia!"

Tim.bounceback is also a friend from school, and I believe he should be able to confirm this, as well as help point out facts that I've missed.

Kommentare

Comment: A a vandaliser!? i have not engaged in any such actions! Also, could you please link to some pages where I supposedly "Broke the civil policy"? And even if I did break it, what does that have to do with supposedly "Being a sock puppet"? These entire accusation is blasphemy.
Also, this account has never been in another discussion/vote that I have been in. How can this be called a sock puppet?
Also, looking at my account, I see that it was made in January of 2007. Looking at this other account (Imbilly), was blocked in April. How can you possibly tell me that my account was made shortly after this other one was blocked when there is in fact a 3 month gap in between these events.?
Furthermore, me and this other account share no similarities in style of writing. If you think we do, could you please link to some examples.
And finally, the user making this accusation was accused of being a sock puppet before. How can people be sure that he just wants to accuse others because he was.
That is all. -Billy227, Review my account!! ^{talk contribs sndbx usbx} 23:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Oh, and lastly. I didn't "Flatly deny" your previous accusation (which you mentioned above). Nor did I have to "Look into it". I know this is my only account, so I had no need to investigate. -Billy227, Review my account!! ^{talk contribs sndbx usbx} 23:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: OK, here's my response. You broke the civil policy several times on your userpage and Tim's. Consider reading into it. Second of all, read the policy on sockpuppetry To see what is considered to be unacceptable. Third of all, Assume good faith, I agreed to be a second account to AFYFAF due to restrictions, but only because someone changed my password. Lastly, you are obviously lying, as you dropped the Imbilly account as if it were a vandaliser, but you didn't even know him, is that possible? Thank you for clearing up some misunderstandings. Rahk EX //my arguments | my random babble 00:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can you give specific links to diffs of these supposed "Civil policy breaking". Also, what you claim I did is not "unacceptable" anyway. This other account did not ever agree with me (or was even involved for that matter) in any sort of discussion or vote. Explain that? Also, if I supposedly did something "unacceptable", please specify exactly what that was. Thanks! -Billy227, Review my account!! ^{talk contribs sndbx usbx} 00:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Oh, jeez, just read the policy, will you? It says specifically! Rahk EX //my arguments | my random babble 00:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Firstly, please be nice. Secondly, I wish for you to specify where. Otherwise, your argument holds no ground. -Billy227, Review my account!! ^{talk contribs sndbx usbx} 00:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: OK, quote: "RAHK EX! This is a new user that you are talking to! Please DO NOT act in such an innapropiate manner towards the newcomers. You comments will be put under a new header. Shame!" OK? Just read the policy, it's not hard... Rahk EX //my arguments | my random babble 00:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Okay buddy, cool down. My comment was justified. You yourself weren't being nice to another uesr (PhishRCool). I neded to make my comments clear. Also, please answer the rest of my questions (see above). Thank you. -Billy227, Review my account!! ^{talk contribs sndbx usbx} 00:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also, how can you call me a vandal? in fact, I have over 500 anti-vandal edits. Can you explain that please? -Billy227, Review my account!! ^{talk contribs sndbx usbx} 00:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Read the sockpuppetry policy section on good hand/bad hand, and all will become clear. Besides, point me to a part in the policy that says that jokes are not allowed (referring to PhishRCool) Rahk EX //my arguments | my random babble 00:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The last edits made with this other account were quite a long time ago. Also, you're comments weren't a joke. They were just plain being mean. Also, this whole accusation is ridiculous. You only did this because Tim told you to. You don't believe any of what you're typing do you? I think we should get some more commenters other than just us two? Sound good? -Billy227, Review my account!! ^{talk contribs sndbx usbx} 00:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also, I made no such comment stating that this other account was mine. Don't lie please! -Billy227, Review my account!! ^{talk contribs sndbx usbx} 00:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I see absolutely no evidence of sockpuppetry here. User:Billy227 and User:Imbilly have edited entirely different pages, and personally I see no resemblance in style between either user. I'm trusting Billy227 when he says he doesn't know about the Imbilly account; I'm not buying this "good hand/bad hand" business, and I think that Billy227's seriously being treated unjustly here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar. I also do not see any evidence of sockpuppetry. Billy is an extremely common name, so I do not think that provides any evidence to suggest they are related. I do not think there editing styles are similar. Saying that Billy227 is a "vandaliser in heart" seems to be a breach of WP:AGF. And we have no evidence to show that he said in real life that also owns the Imbilly acount. --Mschel 01:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar I will remain neutral but you have been canvassing user talk pages so I would firstly stop this, however I will remain neutral. — The Sunshine Man (a.k.a Tellyaddict) 15:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also do not see any sockpuppetry here, but if it makes you feel better request a checkuser. But, I doubt it's a sock.--ROASTYTOAST 22:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doubt there's a connection between the two. A big issue is the nom said that Billy (the account in question) had said he owned the Imbilly account. To me, it seems like that statement could have been made up, and it's very circumstantial evidence wise. --Whs itc hy 23:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

No compelling evidence of any connection between these two accounts. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:EXtremeMentality

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

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

Report submission by

Wildthing61476 21:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Created article Persix, which is spam for software made my Kian Software. Puppeter was blocked earlier today for spamming articles related to same company.

Kommentare

Kommentar Because the edits are deleted, it is rather difficult to tell but the chances of these being socks seem high, however please note that User:Kiancorp did you actually create the Persix article (or was not warned prior to its deletion), they created the actual master company who created the software, however the seem to show a correlation. Regards — The Sunshine Man (a.k.a Tellyaddict) 15:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Probably a sock, definitely a spam problem. Kiancorp is indef blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:216.83.121.194

Suspected sockpuppeteer: 216.83.121.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: ECW113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Wildthing61476 18:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User continues to add vandalism to Bratz articles as with other sockpuppets of this IP. (See Bratz:The Movie)

Kommentare

Kommentar Some of the IP address edits are not vandalism (for example here - although he made a mistake with the template; and here), the ECW113 only has one edit to the article and that appears not to be vandalism, only adding information, I doubt this would be sockpuppetry because many articles and regularly vandalised by different IP's/user accounts but not all are sockpuppets, see what the concluding admin thinks. Regards — The Sunshine Man (a.k.a Tellyaddict) 15:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Inconclusive. No action taken. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Waterking1

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Waterking1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Waterking123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Wildthing61476 16:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User created Ps3 life which is similiar to Wii life cretaed by this user. User was blocked earlier for vandalism and creation of nonsense article, and this new accoutn is to get around it.

Kommentare

Conclusions

Both accounts have blocks; nothing to do at this point. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:JoeyC5

Suspected sockpuppeteer

JoeyC5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

—Gaff ^ταλκ 20:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User:Radioheadwanderer was created and promptly began posting notices on AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CJ Johnson, which I find extremely unlikely for a new user. JoeyC5 was the creator of the article in question and a review of the two users logs suggests that it could easily be one person logging in and out of two accounts.

This is my first report of suspected SP and I seem to have made a mess of it. Basically User:JoeyC5 appears to have created User:Radioheadwanderer to back him up on AfD. See below as well. —Gaff ^ταλκ 20:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentare

What is a sock puppet? What is this?Radioheadwanderer 20:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Seems possible, but since neither account has edited since the close of the AfD I don't see a reason to act at this time. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Rocket-Purse

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Rocket-Purse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

84.66.218.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Japanese_Zapher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
NinjaTobei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Elder_Deitra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
SlappyFan421 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Theonethird 03:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Rocket-Purse first created the articles Doonys and Doonys characters on 21 April 2006. These articles cite no sources and are likely hoaxes. All of this user's other contributions are in some way Doonys related. Speculation about the article began on the Doonys talk page on 4 March 2007, but this went largely unnoticed.

Later, on 8 May 2007, some information was accidentally deleted from the page but was reverted within 24 hours. A user with the IP 84.66.218.37 left an unsigned comment on the Doonys talk page coming to the defense of the deleted information. User 84.66.218.37 has made eight total contributions to Wikipedia between 8 May 2007 and 10 May 2007 all relating to Doonys. All of the other suspected sockpuppets related to Rocket-Purse follow a similar pattern of contributing a small amount of information in a limited period of time

User Japanese Zapher first appeared at 07:02 (UTC), on 12 May 2007 in response to some vandalism done to the article. The user's response was followed 11 minutes at 07:13 later by a response from Rocket-Purse. Twenty minutes later, at 07:33, another user, NinjaTobei appeared and commented on the vandalism.

On 14 May 2007, a user posted a comment on the talk page questioning the legitimacy of the article and calling for specific information and sources to support the article. User Elder Deitra first appears here to, yet again, defend the article.

On 17 May 2007, user SlappyFan42 appeared with yet another defense.

Kommentare

To me, it seems clear that the suspected puppetmaster, Rocket-Purse, created an article based on his or her own fantasy. The bulk of the article for Doonys was written by Rocket-Purse and has no external sources whatsoever to back it up. When the existence of Doonys began to be questioned, the user created multiple users to defend the article and make it seem as though there are lots of people who know about the show. All of the suspected sockpuppets have made relatively few contributions, and all within a short period of time, as if each new defense required another user to provide validity. It is also noteworthy that the contributions from each of the newer accounts do not overlap with each other except for one contribution that Japanese Zapher made before NinjaTobei's. It seems rather clear that there is one person behind all of these accounts. Theonethird 03:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am absolutely certain now that Doonys is a not a "real anime" as such, and thus fails the Notability criterion, after some further research I suspect that one or more of the users in question may actually be real people. However, even if they are not sockpuppets, the evidence is still very much in favour of them being astroturfing meatpuppets. PS4FA 22:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the Doonys article has now been deleted. Theonethird 12:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

All named accounts indef blocked; IP left untouched. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Sarenne

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

--Marty Goldberg 16:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User is engaged in war editing across a slew of entries to push agenda on currently contested [96] debate. Using sock puppets/dynamic IP to get around 3RR rule. Several of the IP's had been banned by admins, but yet more keep appearing.

The user is now blanking 3RR warnings and blanking sock puppet warnings with the comment "and rm the 2nd liar's accusation. I don't care." which doesn't show ver good faith in this process. Therefore I submit this as evidence that User:Sarenne is on balance more likely to be guilty. Fnagaton 16:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And another blanking of the same warnings. [[97]] Fnagaton 17:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And now the user has moved the talk page to here which has the effect of breaking the links above that show the repeated blanking of these warnings. Fnagaton 17:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentare

I agree with is report. The language/phrasing used in the change comments, the actual changes, the time of day the "anonymous" user is most active, the "amazing" ability of the new anonymous user to start submitting spurious 3RR reports against editors without first warning the editor and the way Sarenne has already been blocked for disruptive edits on the same topic all make me suspect Sarenne of sock puppetry. Fnagaton 16:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

User:Sarenne was blocked as a single-purpose edit-warring sockpuppet, separate from this report. The above IPs are mostly open proxies and have been blocked as such. Because they are open proxies, there may be no way to confirm the connection between User:Sarenne and the IPs, but they were both edit warring for the very same issue, and User:Sarenne was the only user account edit-warring for it, at least the only user edit-warring presently and so rampantly. —Centrx→talk • 18:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:WikiMan53

Suspected sockpuppeteer

WikiMan53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

«Snowolf ^{How can I help?}» 01:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

WikiMan53 has been removed from VandalProof's authorized user list on 03:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC) [98][reply]
Then, the user tried, unsuccessfully, to change Daniel's decision
On 23:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC), Hahaimbored is created. [99]
On 00:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC), Hahaimbored nominated WikiMan53 for adminship [100]
The only edits made by Hahaimbored are related to WikiMan53's RfA [101]
There is one edit which clearly explains everything: in the edit, Hahaimbored accept the nomination he made for WikiMan53 [102]
Then, 3 minutes later, WikiMan53 removes Hahaimbored's wrong acceptance and state that he accept the rfa (all on Hahaimbored's talk) [103]

Kommentare

It's quite strange that Hahaimbored registered and the only edit made are to nominate somebody for an RfA. Also is very strange that he mentions WikiMan53's claims to "Good edits using VandalProof", while the two shouldn't know each other.

Also, the edit where Hahaimbored accepts the nom he made for WikiMan53, is clearly WikiMan53 who mistaken the window and signed as the wrong user.

Conclusions

Confirmed Sean indef. blocked HaHaimbored via hardblock, and when WKM53 signed on, he found himself autoblocked. Real96 01:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Art Dominique

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Art Dominique (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Lieutenant Dan Taylor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by Stlemur 09: 35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Contributes solely in the form of adding the same original-research essay and POV comments to Continuation War, just as Art Dominique did:
- [104]
- [105]
- [106] etc.

Accuses User:Whiskey and User:Illythr of being sockpuppets/puppeteers, just as Art Dominique did

Makes the same claims about "Stalinist history" that Art Dominique's sockpuppet did

Kommentare

Conclusions

Already blocked, seemed obvious. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Ati3414

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Ati3414 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

SirLeopold 09:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User appears to be evading an indefinite block. From the content in first few edits [107], user continues edits of User:Moroder, a previous sockpuppet of Ati3414. Edits also fit profile according to last sockpuppet report, Suspected_sock_puppets/Ati3414: Including preferred topics (special relativity related pages, and graphics hardware/algorithm related pages), and posting external links that refers to Adrian Sfarti in them[108]. SirLeopold 09:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentare

Conclusions

IP blocked for 1 week. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Loshgr

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Logan Gregory FC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Xv8M4g3r 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Lots of vandals (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Luke Dunster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
King Logo Returns (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Iridescenti 18:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Not certain if this is one user with multiple SPAs, or two users with two-three SPAs each. User:Loshgr created Windsor High School (Halesowen) a month ago as a stub, and since then has been tag-teaming with User:Logan Gregory FC and User:Luke Dunster in adding assorted personal attacks, e.g. [109] by Loshgr (all intermediate revisions by same user), [110] by Luke Dunster and [111] by Logan Gregory FC. Two accounts also tag-teamed on the recently deleted hoax Huzcal article. Also, both accounts have been adding & amending content to User:Xv8M4g3r 2 and the associated talk page (eg [112] by Logan Gregory FC and [113] by Loshgr). (User:Xv8M4g3r 2 is a self-declared SPA). Finally, Xv8M4g3r 2 and Loshgr are the sole editors to the user and talk page of User:Lots of vandals, which in turn has made no contributions other than to create an account.

In light of the content of some of their edits, I strongly suspect that both are linked to the infdefblocked User:King Logo Returns but can't prove it. Even in the unlikely event that they're not sockpuppets, or the multiple accounts are found not to violate policy, Loshgr in particularly probably warrants at the very least a final warning in light of the history of vandalism (eg).

Kommentare

Conclusions

Sockpuppets or meatpuppets, doesn't really matter which. Most contributions are pranks or vandalism, so I'm indef blocking the ones that aren't already blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:LactoseTI

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Wikimachine 18:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

The evidence being constructed here. Take a look at [114] and [115]. Many of their most edited main & talk pages coincide. Also, their areas of interest which are Japan (mainly out of interest, or in defense against KPOV) & Korea (mainly for dispute) coincide too. Look at [116], and [117]. Their first edits were about Asashoryu Akinori. First Komdori opens a Requested Move case voluntarily, even without talking about it in the discussion page, and LactoseTI joins in & supports the page move, despite the fact that rest of the crew oppose the suggestion.

And then Komdori edits heavily on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles), under sections "Sumo Wrestlers (not names)", (obviously, he was unsuccessful with name change) and "Proposal" and "Pseudonyms", under which he shares lots of edits with LactoseTI. They then both edit on Wikipedia:Sandbox & then go back to Asashoryu Akinori.

Komdori moves on to the naming dispute at Talk:Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598), while LactoseTI at Dokdo naming dispute (used to be Liancourt Rocks) & articles such as Japanese-Korean disputes.

Both participate in a dispute at Talk:Yasukuni Shrine. Komdori continues to talk at the Imjin War talk page (= Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598), so does LactoseTI, except that he also has Dokdo page to worry about.

Something funny is that both Komdori & LactoseTI don't really know about Korean culture except at the extent that a foreigner could read a book & know a little about it. Komdori's edits on articles of Korean topics are usually rv's, etc., something that a non-Korean could easily do. On the other hand, he seems to know a lot about Japanese culture & its history. I wonder why a Korean who came from Korea would be so interested in Japan, but not really in his own country... He doesn't even have a WikiProject Korean banner, & I don't think he is even in the project... like most Korean editors here. It's as if he doesn't want to participate, & want to be all alone. But that's not likely either. LactoseTI, on the other hand, who is not a Korean, is overly concerned with Korean articles & making sure so that they are NPOV. He's also very interested in Japanese stuffs.

Another thing I've noticed is that their edit intervals swap. There are times when their edits overlap, but probably that's because the Wikipedia server only tracks edits by the minute, not by the seconds. So we can't really find out if they ever have a simultaneous edit. Furthermore, at intervals when Komdori edits a lot, LactoseTI edits little & vice versa. Also, there are intervals in which one account would be restive while the other account would be extremely active, and vice versa. I'd like to show that more in the data section I'm creating, and I'm right now.

Their recent violations include 3RR revert war in here for Dokdo article. However, LactoseTI refrained from participating in the discussion any further, which I assume is meant to serve as a buffer against SOCK attacks.

Finally, let me add that an admin already confirmed that their IP addresses ~~coincide~~ are from the same region. However, they pleaded "not-guilty" (I made that up) because they went to the same university & ~~they were using the same internet~~ live in the same region. Even later, LactoseTI claimed that he was a professor at a university in New Jersey & Komdori claimed that "knew him". However, LactoseTI's behavior at Talk:Turtle ship in making aggressive & uncompromising stance against the statement that the turtle ship was iron clad & at his talk page where Merumman (? is that his name?) & he constantly gave "good faith violation & block" warnings to each other. So, we already know that their IP address is the same, it's just a matter of looking at their areas of interests & edit intervals, etc. (Wikimachine 01:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Kommentare

~~Sock puppets~~ Multiple accounts are not against Wikipedia policy per se. In the recent discussion of Dokdo the two users are not supporting each other and so it would not be a sock puppet violation (even if there is a ~~sock puppetry~~ multiple account). You need to show that they are sock puppet and there is a sock puppet violation. I don't see any recent violations. Macgruder 03:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm Macgruder, where did you come from? Let me explain, just in case there could be a misunderstanding. At first, I assumed that Macgruder & Komdori were the 2 sock puppets. However, you joined Wikipedia in 2004 while Komdori joined in 2006. So, it didn't really matter... however during that process when I researched both of your edits, I felt that Komdori's edits were kind of funny... Reminds me of LactoseTI? So I went on to check on him.

I already showed the 3RR revert violation, and I know that LactoseTI could join any time soon. Plus, he had already discussed in Dokdo naming dispute before. (Wikimachine 18:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I get it from the Wikipedia Policy guidelines. Multiple accounts may have legitimate uses, but users must refrain from using them in any way prohibited to sock puppets, and from using one account to support the position of another, the standard definition of sock puppetry. If someone uses multiple accounts, it is recommended that he or she provide links between the accounts, so it is easy to determine that they are shared by one individual. Since pretty much everything you have written relates to multiple accounts rather than sock puppetry I assume that you are unaware of the difference.

So multiple accounts are not prohibited on Wikipedia. What is prohibited is using multiple accounts from supporting each other for example. I see no recent violation of that issue. This whole page is ridiculous not because of the issue of multiple accounts (which I don't believe anyway) but you have not focussed your arguments on whether the two users are supporting each other. You have simply said some ridiculous stuff about what you perceive as personality or knowledge issues suggesting that two people are the same (this in not sock puppetry!) . Something funny is that both Komdori & LactoseTI don't really know about Korean culture except at the extent that a foreigner could read a book. That is both totally irrelevant to the issue, rude, and not something I want to see Wikipedians saying.

I suggest you read the WP:SOCK guidelines and focus on those. Macgruder 09:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you are in an (admittedly heated) discussion with two that agree on a topic you disagree on, and you immediately think "sock puppet!" You couldn't get enough together for it, so you tried to find an editor who had similar edits to either of them in order to further your accusation. Even if Lactose and I we were the same person (we're not), you've barely listed anything that would be against policy. I'm sure I've probably reverted in several cases where there was a Wikipedian nearing his 3RR limit, maybe even helped you once or twice with it. --Cheers, Komdori 18:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already know that having multiple accounts is not illegal. What I've seen in edit history, assuming that the right conditions are true (that they are indeed sock puppet & master), are illegit. WP policy states that you wait for the very recent violation even if you sight a violation from long time ago. I think that I have an obligation to make SOCK attack b/c supposedly they made these illegit edits (coordinated efforts for the sumo wrestler... again, all these are hypothetical) since long time ago & they performed 3RR.

Komdori, I always watch out for sock puppets in disputes. The evidence of your past edits itself serve as violations, plus the 3RR. (Wikimachine 02:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'm a bit surprised by this report. It's lucky I happened to see it because I happened to be watching some of the talk pages and the editors contributions who submitted this report. No one mentioned it to me. I'm not sure what the policy is when you file one of these things if you only mention it to the editor who has the most edits or what, but with over 1,000 myself (yay,I hadn't noticed until now), it would have at the least been courteous to tell me (I just noticed he left a tag on my user page, but that was all). I'm particularly distressed by this comment because I had just got through leaving Wikimachine a comment about how I felt the conversation we'd been having was being very fruitful and thanking him for his level head.

I might add that an admin never said our IP coincided. This is a simple fabrication. I severely doubt that to ever have happened. We're both in the same region of the country (heck, we work at the same university, though there are over 10,000 here). We have tea together, we don't live together. For the nth time, Wikimachine, it's in NY, not NJ. As for the first edits being regarding the same article, well, I was introduced to Wikipedia by him after visiting for seeing sumo for the first time in my life. We talked about the article, and how to improve, and we started editing.

And I'm getting sick of people using as evidence things like "He doesn't act like a Korean" or "He doesn't stick together with Koreans by joining Korean enclaves here." I'm sorry, I don't throw this word out so easily, but that's racism. Who are you to say how a "Korean should act"? As for "not knowing Korean culture," you didn't even know what my wife's pet name for me (Komdori) meant in Korean. Something simple like this might demonstrate a level of knowledge of Korean culture that you don't have, but you don't see me accusing you with some racist thing. --Cheers, Komdori 14:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Komdori, I assumed that you'd watch your user page. And no, I'm didn't fake that nice talk we had the other day. I really meant it. Ok, fine, IP don't coincide then. I just remembered something similar when we had a dispute at Dokdo long time ago, and, when you got blocked, I went "great, less opposition. Something was really fishy to begin with." However, when you got unblocked for the reason that the admin was mistaken, you were truly out of my radar. Understand, I understood you as something of a foreign/unknown object that I felt would serve as a counterbalance to this systemic bias (as you can see, I'm part of WikiProject countering systemic bias... however I feel that there are biases not only in articles/topics covered but in these communities that different Wikipedians form) amongst the Korean Wikipedians (I notice that a noticeable amount of them are just acting plainly stupid, probably middle schoolers feeling all hi & nationalistic).

Like I said, I moved away from S. Korea a long time ago when I was young, so I forgot a lot (I can speak without stutter, but my vocab is limited to that of a 3rd grader). And I'm not being a racist. If you're going to accuse somebody of being a sock puppet, you better cut it nice & clean because you're only going to do it if you're really sure that somebody is really a sock puppet. Or else, you shouldn't accuse someone of being one because there is a risk that they might not be sock puppets, and that's bad for many reasons. So, I thought through & gathered as many data & observations, and made one hammering blow. That's what I think. If I was a racist & defined how Koreans should act, etc., (assuming that you'd believe my story above) why would I even have thought like that (above, again)?

I admit. Komdori & LactoseTI talk really differently. (Wikimachine 18:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Wikimachine, I still think you're one of the most level-headed editors I bump into now and again. I have also noticed a bit of a "youthful nationalistic" trend in some of the Korean groups, but I think you might be right that it's time to join in WikiProject Korea. I sometimes wonder what to edit, and it might be a nice source to get ideas.

Please don't take the word "racist" too much to heart, I just meant by it that to define how people should act because of their race is kind of a simple definition of racism, and it seemed you did this when you said, "I wonder why a Korean who came from Korea would be so interested in Japan, but not really in his own country... He doesn't even have a WikiProject Korean banner, & I don't think he is even in the project... like most Korean editors here."

You and I have had a long and serious discussion on the Dokdo page recently. I understand the feeling to be eager to participate in such a discussion, but be afraid of people "breaking the rules." I'm not breaking them. When that page comes down to a vote, I'm sure there will be at least few sock puppets attempts on both sides, but I won't be in the group of editors using that tactic. I don't think you will, either, and although I am disappointed that you thought there was a possibility I was breaking rules, I definitely won't hold it against you. We have continued the same spirited conversation on that talk page even after this report. Hopefully it can get settled soon (perhaps people more familiar at looking at sockpuppet cases will realize quickly this isn't one) and we can move on.

In the future, if you have a suggestion about joining a project like the WikiProject Korea group, etc., please bring it up to me. I am not anti-Korean for sure, I just have a strong interest in the dispute articles to try to find a long lasting solution that will satisfy everyone. I heard lawyers say if you find a solution where no one is happy, it means it's probably the best one. --Cheers, Komdori 20:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take "level-headed"ness as a compliment, Komdori. I'm really sorry if there was no sock puppetry to begin with & is that right that the violation must take place in the discussion? I don't want to be a hypocrite by withdrawing my accusations, and saying "all right we're all friends now" immediately. But I admit I had not considered the possibility that two really good and close friends editing on Wikipedia might make cooperative moves that all the more allow false sock puppetry accusations to slip in very easily.

I also read your words on my discussion page. No, I wasn't really serious in all this except for the edit data & your edits that seem to overlap in areas of interest. I have not a single drop of grudge for you not joining WikiProject Korea, nor do I think that you joining WikiProject Korea should be something so overwhelming that the burden would be on you to talk with me about joining the project. Plus, it's not like I'm the president of the project. I can't speak for the whole group. Like I said, it is my philosophy that when I make a sock accusation, I either do it 100% or don't do it at all b/c it just destroys everything.

Again, I'm really impressed (could you get it?) by your reaction. I would just have exploded & gone 100-day war on why I'm not a sock puppet. If you have nothing to do with this sock puppetry case, it's my sincerest belief that you should run for adminship. You remind me a lot of Visviva, who now seems to have retired. --Cheers, (Wikimachine 21:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

A similar accusation by Wikimachine in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Assault11 went nowhere, per the RFCU cases related to that one. Wikimachine is erroneously accusing fellow participants in the ongoing mediation, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Goguryeo... and it's the 2nd time he's doing it. If we're going on a fishing expedition, I suggest we do an RFCU against all users in that mediation.

Just look at the old RFCU case for LactoseTI, and you'll see that it was determined at high levels in Wikipedia, that LactoseTI and Komdori are NOT sockpuppets of each other. User:Mackensen has personally presided over on this decision.--Endroit 19:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of you guys are so picky. Good friend100 19:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Japanese_invasions_of_Korea_%281592-1598%29&diff=next&oldid=68948541

It's not like I'm doing it only on people who's in disputes with me. This is the 3rd time I'm doing it. By the way, are there any outside opinions other than these editors whom I already know? (Wikimachine 02:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Conclusions

LactoseTI and Komdori are separate editors, and so are not sockpuppets. They acknowledge knowing each other, however, so both users are urged to be aware of Wikipedia's policy on meatpuppets. I see no evidence of policy violation in this report, however. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Mfantoni

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Baby Dove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Aeuio 19:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

This ties in with my earlier claim, because Mario Fantoni is the same user as Mfantoni.

Kommentare

Conclusions

Again, clearly the same person, but having multiple accounts is permited, as long as they are not used for abusive purposes. If these accounts have violated WP:SOCK, please provide evidence. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing 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:Freddy Diab

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Freddy Diab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Diaz Warren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Possibly 216.80.110.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) --Evb-wiki 19:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably BSCRYNO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) --Evb-wiki 19:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Dr.Greenstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) --Evb-wiki 19:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
EdbLitlelfridi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) --Evb-wiki 19:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edberter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) --Evb-wiki 19:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Report submission by

TJ 17:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Both users seem to have only edited the same page in rather questionable ways (which on their own approach vandalism), apart from vandalising the user pages of those who got in their way.

Have only edited Joe Guse, mainly after article was challenged, and then only to remove AfD template. --Evb-wiki 19:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three observations:

Freddie Diab corrected a typo on a post by Dr.Greenstein.
The histories of five of the six suspected sockpuppets go back no further than 15 May 2007: Dr.Greenstein (08:35, 15 May 2007), Diaz Warren (09:28, 15 May 2007), BSCRYNO (15:52, 15 May 2007), Edberter (18:43, 15 May 2007), EdbLitlelfridi (18:51, 15 May 2007). All are single purpose accounts, their sole edits having concerned Joe Guse and, in most cases, the user pages of those who have been involved in defending the article against vandalism. Indeed, the first edit made by Freddie Diab occured between the debut edits of Diaz Warren and BSCRYNO.
216.80.110.114 is also a single purpose account. All but one contributions has concerned the Joe Guse - the exception being an edit made to Richland, Washington in which Guse's name was added to a list of "famous residents". The name was removed on 15 May by Freddy Diab. Victoriagirl 21:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentare

If these are not all sockpuppets, they are associated with and/or friends of the puppetmaster. --Evb-wiki 19:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is also possible that the user IP 216.80.110.114 belongs to Brucesilot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), as they have often edited each other's edits. --Evb-wiki 01:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recognizing the above comment, I will add that like 216.80.110.114, Brucesilot is a single purpose account. As with 216.80.110.114, Brucesilot's only contribution outside Joe Guse has concerned the inclusion of Guse's name in the Richland, Washington article. Victoriagirl 02:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Looks like your classic self-promoting sock farm. All indef blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Numberman3

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Numberman3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Numberman1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Numberman2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Numberman4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

_→AzaToth 18:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

All edit summaries are only consisting of rising numbers, for example Numberman3's edit on my talk page had the summary "33"

Kommentare

No, I know these people. I have asked them to stop. The others are impersonating me. I have a right to leave any edit summary I want provided my edits are constructive. I use numbers to keep track of my edits. I will nominate myself to be an admin with the edit summary 5000. --Numberman3 18:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with that.--Bongwarrior 18:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I do think they will stop. Just as further evidence, all of the other three's blocks were autoblocked, so I would be too if they were socks. --Numberman3 18:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly for you'r case, Numberman1 made edits before Numberman3 :)

If you want to keep track of how many edits you have, there's a much easier way... — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get why Numberman3 removed Numberman4's comment from Numberman4's talk page: [118] -- The very model of a minor general 21:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was reverting his changes. I got that one by mistake. -Numberman3 19:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Numberman3 is indef blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:SEGA

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

Suspected sockpuppets: Rumitoid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); OnWIthTheBodyCount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

edgarde 04:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Rumitoid resumes an edit war by the recently-blocked OneLove1977 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (identified by others as a SEGA sock) making identical edits in about 10 articles. Examples: [119], [120].

Similar comments ("You know this.", "This is fact."), ignoring discussion concerns and WP:ALBUM#Credits.

OnWIthTheBodyCount blanked User:Rumitoid after an SP notice was added to that page.

Checkuser confirms both users are SEGA.

Kommentare

This has been discussed with Rumitoid by at least two different editors today; this was also discussed with OneLove1977 prior to that userID being banned.

Conclusions

Confirmed by Checkuser, blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Trafficcontrol

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

Suspected sockpuppets: Ajuddie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Masterchan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Juddie76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Wildthing61476 17:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

To add onto this, articles DRJ, Drjudd, and PDRECORDS were created by these 3 accounts.

Kommentare

I blocked them all for vandalism (WP:CSD#A7) and sockpuppetry (their contributions were all the same). · AndonicO ^Talk 17:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

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

User:Trafficcontrol

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

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

Report submission by

Wildthing61476 16:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Drjudd was shortly created after the user TrafficControl was blocked. Recreated article Drjudd immediately upon user creation.

Kommentare

Open-and-shut.--Wafulz 16:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Both accounts are already indef blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Plz dont ban me lol

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Plz dont ban me lol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Plz dont ban me (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

-He ck XX (G,W,U,V) 21:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Same name, with a "lol".

Kommentare

Conclusions

Both indef blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Plasedntbanme

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

Suspected sockpuppets: Plz dont ban me (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

-He ck XX (G,W,U,V) 21:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Basically same name

Kommentare

Conclusions

Both indef blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Giovanni33

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

61.6.221.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.91.90.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.93.143.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
69.150.209.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Divestment (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by Yaf 04: 21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Giovanni33 appears to be the puppet master coordinating a tag team of 2 puppets for his edits to avoid 3RR violations and to avoid problems in soliciting others to affect consensus through a similar tag team consensus influence peddling effort on the article State terrorism by the United States. Suspected puppetmaster Giovanni33 never exceeds 2 edits per day to avoid appearing to near a 3RR violation. Puppet 68.93.143.57 also makes edits to the article, while never exceeding 2 edits per day to avoid nearing a 3RR violation. A second puppet, 69.150.209.15, then solicits others to affect consensus, leaving a message of:

"==Might be interested==

I noticed that you took part in State terrorism by United States of America discussion for deletion. After the article has survived many deletions, you may be interested that there is a user right now who is deleting large portions of the article. 69.150.209.15 17:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

There were 17 of these messages left by this puppet between 17:42 14 May 2007 (UTC) and 18:16 14 May 2007 (UTC) as visible here.

As for the tag teaming of edits to avoid 3RR, see for example:

1st revert: 04:28 14 May 2007 by 68.93.143.57
2nd revert: 16:36 14 May 2007 by 68.93.143.57
3rd revert: 18:34 14 May 2007 by Giovanni33

No 3RR violation, technically speaking, but still a violation of sock puppetry to achieve a POV end while attempting to game the system.

Giovanni33 has a long history of sock puppetry. His prior history on these issues is repeated here for convenience:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive121#User.3AGiovanni33_again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive128#Giovanni33_once_again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive128#Giovanni_Part_One http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive128#Giovanni_Part_Three

The issue here is more than a simple content dispute. The present article is POV pushing at its worst. Giovanni33 even makes the case that he is writing an attack article against the United States through pushing his POV, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:State_terrorism_by_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=130877307 .

Coupled with sock puppetry to push his POV agenda, there is clearly a need for something to be done administratively to stop the (continued) sock puppetry to push a POV agenda towards writing an attack article against the United States.

Kommentare: For the record, I deny the puppety charge and welcome an IP user check as is deemed appropriate by any admin. I've done nothing improper. This user has lost the debate, and failed to gain consensus for his strong POV issues, as is evident on the talk page; Thus his wholesale deletions of sourced material have been correctly reverted by other long established users, and once by myself. The anon IP user has no connection with me whatsoever.

I also note the user has been dishonest, not only with the arguments he had made on the talk page for deleting the sourced material (hence his evolving reasons, a new one being created after each time its shown to be false, and citing a different source than the one actually provided for in the article to claim the statement does not reflect what the source says, etc), but now he is falsely accusing me of saying that I actually made the case that I'm writing an attack piece to push my POV. That is pure nonsense. As anyone can see, I was making the point that our POV's should not enter into consideration (regarding the allegations of US State Sponored Terrorism), but rather we should only be concerned about reporting what legitimate sources claim. Since he shared his POV, I did as well, but advised that we need not concern ourselves with our own personal political povs. To twise this into a claim that I said I'm creating an attack article is just more dishonesty.Giovanni33 20:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A host of Single purpose accounts seem to be getting created to edit just this one article, in accordance with Giovanni33 styles of editings. They sure look like sock puppets. Yaf 04:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False. You have only shown the IP address from the same school, which is probably the same person logging in the the school PC using a dynamic IP address. There is no pretence of this anon IP user pretending to be more than one person, nor any connection to myself, style or otherwise.Giovanni33 06:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you know this how? Arbcom discussions in the past have generally indicated that single purpose accounts that are created during a content dispute which support only one editor's viewpoint are generally considered to be meat puppets and/or sock puppets. Yaf 07:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its common sense. I can look at their edits and its all from the same place. And, no, they are not single purpose accounts just created. The main account has about a thousand edits covering many subjects, so this is a valid member of the community desite what you say.Giovanni33 18:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the contributions of all these puppets has been on one article, only, definitely single purpose accounts, in support only of Giovanni33. One student acting as a puppet is still a puppet, even if she is in San Antonio during the week (and in Houston on the weekend), even if the puppet master is perhaps controlling remotely via e-mail or cell phone calls. Yaf 02:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what I see here:[121] This user was editing before I ever came to this article, on April 24th. And, I came here on May 15th. This user has edited on many articles, starting last year in Sept.Articles I never have been to. Very little connection at all, in terms of what I see from his edits and mine. If this were a puppet connection it would have shown itself with some history behind it, and I would have called the puppet to help me instead of vise-versa, no? The speculations are not logical. In reality I've long given up any puppetry--its all in my past only. I'm a firm believer in following the rules of WP.Giovanni33 03:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policies on Meatpuppets is contained at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppet#Meatpuppets relative to them not being considered members of the Wikipedia community. Yaf 04:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm familiar with these policies but they don't pertain to the facts of this situation, unless you argue simply being an IP user means they are not a real user? That is not a rule.Giovanni33 04:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Not arguing that at all. Many valid edits come from IP users testing the waters before deciding to get a named account. We never want to bite the newbies. -- For the "vote stacking" IP soliciting support for your view, yes, it does have a prior history of edits, many of which though are on Christian and similar religious topics which you do have quite a bit of history on :-) None of the other puppets have any prior WP editing history, before just showing up in the last few days to be single purpose accounts, with an agenda on editing just the State terrorism by the United States article in accordance with your views. These are all clearly Meat puppets, which by policy are to be treated as if just one individual. By the way, it is generally not considered good form to remove sockpuppet taglines placed on the talk pages of single purpose accounts during the time that a case is open on puppetry charges, as you did earlier tonight; some might consider this to be an attempt at removal of case evidence. Once the case is closed, then, depending on the outcome, removal may then be proper. Yaf 04:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soliciting for my view? But that was before my view was even known. And, I see no Chritian or related religious article where we crossed paths. In fact, I have no history on any of the Christian related topics that this user made edits on. And, looking at his edits, its not even clear that this user shared my POV on any of these articles--other than this one. Since a user check was done and shown to be not related, also goes against your theory. I don't see any basis for assuming any "meat puppetry" either. I would think its logical to assume given that the other IP addresses which all come from the same place (St. Mary's in Texas) to all be the same person, but I see no evidence that the different IP's even attempt to be different users, either. So, if they are the same, then this negates your argument that they were created as single user accounts--its just the same person at the same school not logging in, or that there is any puppety of any sort going on. I don't think you sticking those tags implicating me in them without any evidence at all (I'd take linguistic evidence even) as good form, until you have something more solid to go on. If you want, I know a very good linguist who has studied my writing patterns and could probably be a good source to convince you that I'm not these other people, if there was any serious thinking that I was. I don't think anyone thinks that except maybe you.Giovanni33 07:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I note that a user check was done on the above and resulted with a finding of "unrelated." If one does an IP trace it pulls up St. Mary's in Texas. I am in San Francisco.Giovanni33 01:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A traceroute was only done on two of the original puppets; none have been run since. Yaf 02:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure if the others are checked, they will show no connection as well. I have nothing to fear with any checks.Giovanni33 03:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence presented here is not strong, and the Checkuser result strongly suggests that the IPs are not Giovanni33. Divestment definitely looks like someone who's already been involved in the debate, but there's no strong evidence to tie that account to Giovanni33, so I'm closing this case with no action. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:FrankJones23

Suspected sockpuppeteer

FrankJones23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

Omega Archdoom^Talk 09:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

All add the same stuff to the Ibagué (something about evil monkeys attacking). Go to the history of the article and look at the edits they made.

Kommentare

I know some have already been blocked as sockpuppets of Ibague monkey, but a few haven't, and some of these accounts are quite recent. Ibague Monkey 4 didn't get round to editing the article before being blocked as a sockpuppet of this user.

Conclusions

All named accounts are blocked, the IPs shouldn't be blocked as their edits are old. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:DavidYork71

Suspected sockpuppeteer: DavidYork71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

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

Report submission by

— Indon (reply) — 15:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Edits are similar with his other sockpuppet Proudlyhumble07 (talk · contribs)

Should be closed and added to the existing checkuser page - we already have over a dozen confirmed sockpuppets there. Orderinchaos 15:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added to checkuser page. Orderinchaos 16:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentare

Conclusions

Already handled through checkuser. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Atabek

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Earthdream (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Drastamat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Shantinorashkar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Zipirtich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
128.195.31.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Dondurma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Hachiktoumanyan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

--VartanM 00:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Earthdream reverting to previous version of articles edited by Atabek [122] [123] He is know to use suckpuppets before [[124]] By mistake he made an annon. edit with his IP address(128.195.31.152), which he corrected very fast. see [125]

Compare edit made by Atabek [126] with edits made by User:Zipirtich [127], User:Earthdream [128], and User:Drastamat [129]. -- Augustgrahl 01:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentare

Atabek is placed on standard revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. [[130]]

You should probably post this at requests for arbitration enforcement, if you haven't already. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Checkuser established that it was not Atabek: [131] So the accusation is groundless. Grandmaster 11:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - - If User:Drastamat doesn't belong to Atabek, it still has to be a sock of somebody. New editors don't immediately jump into edit wars. So far the only contributions made by User:Drastamat were to engage in edit wars, making it almost certainly a sock. -- Augustgrahl 14:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is preposterous. Both users Augustgrahl and Vartanm are involved in potraying convicted terrorists at Varoujan Garabedian and Monte Melkonian as "freedom fighters" and constantly removing evidence to State Department reports. When they fail to get their point through, they find some Drastamat (very likely established by themselves or banned users Artaxiad or Fadix) and accuse me of having socks. I don't need socks as I openly discuss all my edits on talk pages and make the edits. I think after ArbCom it's pretty clear that these people are driven by nothing else but by national sentiment and self-convincing libel. Why don't you confront the evidence and discuss your edits, before resorting into this style of harassment and attacks. Atabek 15:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It was suspected that you were using socks, because these accounts were used to make edits identical to ones that you made. I never ruled out the possibility that it was an impostor. It is ridiculous to accuse me of using these accounts (why would I want to draw my fellow editor User:MarshallBagramyan into an edit war that resulted in him being blocked for 24 hours?), and I never sought to justify terrorism. What you have just said can be taken as both a personal attack and an attempt to make this a battle along national lines, so please desist in making such comments. -- Augustgrahl 16:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Augustgrahl, if you're not driven by the national sentiment, I don't see why MarshallBagramyan is your "fellow" editor. After all, Wikipedia is encyclopedic environment, and there should be no "fellow" editors on national basis. So please, desist yourself in accusing me of "battle along national lines" and learn to discuss and come to consensus on talk pages. Just like you accuse me of sockpuppetry, you could very well be the establisher of that same Drastamat sockpuppet in order to blackmail me. Can you prove otherwise, besides claiming Bagramyan as "fellow" editor or groundlessly accusing me of personal attack. Atabek 16:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Their both from WikiProject Armenia. Making them fellow editors. We suspected that it was you because of his editing pattern. If you suspect that it was one of us your more then welcome to use checkuser. VartanM 17:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes, thanks for confirming that it's a "battle along national lines" for yourselves. I don't claim Drastamat is any of you in particular, although if the checkuser should not exclude that possibility either. I am just asking for the logic of Augustgrahl or yourself, both of which are involved in editing disputes, in accusing me and resorting to such low-grade techniques as blackmailing me without evidence. Atabek 17:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:MarshallBagramyan is my fellow editor because we are both part of a collaborative project on Wikipedia to improve the information available on topics relating to Armenia. This doesn't require any nationalist sentiment, just an interest in the subject, which is evident given that there are several Wikiproject Armenia members who are not of Armenian descent. Saying that I am driven by nationalist sentiment is both an assumption of bad faith and a personal attack, so please stop - these kinds of accusations are not constructive and only serve to increase hostility between editors. I know that I am not the creator of the sockpuppets, and you can run as many checkuser searches on me as you desire, because nothing will connect me to any of the socks. Now, I never definitely said that the socks were created by you, just that you were a likely suspect, given that the edits were made on pages you had previously edited, using the same exact edits as you had. If that isn't evidence of a connection, I don't know what is. -- Augustgrahl 17:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you claim to be here "to improve articles relating to Armenia", that should be your primary task, instead of accusing people along "national lines" without evidence. As you have been explained quite clearly, the suspected sockpuppet could be of Azeri origin or of Armenian origin trying to get another Azeri/Turk banned. If you don't know which case it is, then your targetting of myself or any other single user of certain non-Armenian origin is simply driven by the "national sentiment"! Next time, please, think carefully before taking sides in a rush, and this time, please, learn to apologize for your groundless accusation and mistake, just like your fellow Vartan did below. Atabek 22:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that the puppet-master couldn't have been an Armenian, or a Russian, or a martian, or anything. I didn't target you because you're an Azeri, I suspected you were the creator of the sock puppets because they were used to make edits identical to your's. I don't see anything faulty or nationalistic about that logic. Note that suspected is different from declaring for certain, and a checkuser confirmed that you weren't responsible. Please stop assuming bad faith on my part - it might be useful for you to read over this policy: WP:AGF. This is not about "sides" and ethnicity, but discovering who is responsible for disruptive editing. -- Augustgrahl 22:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could be another user, or it could be banned user AdilBaguirov.Azerbaijani 14:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Here we ago, Azerbaijani :), how did you end up on this report page even before myself? Atabek 17:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same way you and Grandmaster showed up on Dacy's parole violation report, and remember Atabek, your own false accusations on check user. And besides, Adil Baguirov has come into Wikipedia before with several socks, so my comment was completely acceptable and justified, because as pointed out, new users dont suddenly start edit warring on hot issues unless they are socks or they are being used as meat puppets. Besides, why would anyone every suspect Atabek of having a sock, oh wait, maybe its because you had one before: User:Tengri.Azerbaijani 01:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Checkuser results were negative. I would like to apologize to Atabek for accusing him of using socks. Can somebody close this, before it gets out of hand. check user results can be found here [132] VartanM 19:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, apology accepted. I hope we move on to constructively edit the articles. Atabek 22:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, based on the above. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:StopErrorBashing

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

Suspected sockpuppets: Error46146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

BOARshevik 01:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

The names are remarkably similar and obviously related (given the statement made in the handle "StopErrorBashing)." The only edit made by StopErrorBashing is on a page started by Error46146 which has been criticized and nominated for deletion.

Kommentare

Conclusions

Probably the same, but I don't see an abuse of WP:SOCK. If the situation changes let me know, but right now there's no need to do anything here. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Ehyofam

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

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

Report submission by

Kesac 22:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Ehyofam created the attack page Cynthia Harper twice. After placing a {{uw-npa4}} on Ehyofam's page, Waablo created the same attack page with the same text.

Kommentare

Conclusions

With the deletion of that article neither account has any edits to its name. Waablo is indef blocked, but Ehyofam isn't. I don't see any reason to do anything more, really. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:69.19.184.141

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Selket ^Talk 23:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

IP user vandalized Tournament (medieval) multiple times [133] from 22:54-23:04. Received final warning at 23:01 [134]. New user (suspected sock puppet) registered and began similar vandalism at 23:12 [135].

Kommentare

Papercutbut has been blocked for 24 hours but can be extended indefinitely depending on outcome of checkuser.

Conclusions

This isn't Checkuser. Anyway, I don't see anything here that warrants a longer block. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Laveol

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Mr. Neutron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Ploutarchos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Selket ^Talk 00:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

New user (Mr. Neutron) created possibly to avoid WP:3RR violation on Atanas Badev (history). Ploutarchos' involvement may be incidental.

Kommentare

There is no sockpuppetry here, as the checkuser Selket proposed shall certainly show.--Ploutarchos 08:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm going through the edits I see how it looks, but I haven't done anything. I log from work and from home (DSL) and I'm here most of the time. That's what the IPs should show. The problem with the accusation is that at the time this user was created I had edited the article only once - exactly 3 days before Mr. Neutron's appearance. It looks like he's going through Strich3d's contributions and reverting them, and it's just a coincidence that these are articles I edit, too. I had something other to say, but I've seem to forgotten it. Be back tonight. --Laveol 08:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Checkuser says unrelated, and I don't see any compelling evidence here to contradict that. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Toni is here

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Toni is here (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Toni thebest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

ShadowHalo 20:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Toni is here has mainly been active at articles related to Gwen Stefani. At The Sweet Escape, I removed an almost completely unsourced section of chart statistics and moved all sourced information and moved the info to prose in the Sales section. Toni is here restored the section twice [136][137] and decided not to discuss at the section on the talk page. A similar thing happened at Gwen Stefani discography; I edited the article, mostly changing the chart positions so that they could be referenced. Toni is here reverted several times. After receiving several warnings about adding unsourced material to articles, Toni is here left this message at my talk page and was blocked by UkPaolo at 11:35, May 13 (UTC). At 19:48 (UTC) the same day, the account Toni thebest was created, and the user's first edit was to do a revert at Gwen Stefani discography. Based on the similarities in username, the time the account was created, and the articles that the user has edited, the Toni thebest account looks like a sockpuppet of Toni is here being used to evade a block. ShadowHalo 20:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentare

Conclusions

Clear sockpupetry and block evasion. Toni is here is blocked for another 24 hours, Toni thebest indef blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Strong 0CD

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Strong 0CD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: 0CD therapist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Goodnight mush^Talk 02:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Identical edit summaries to edits of President of the Republic of China that make the same personal attack on the same editor. Have since learned that the suspected sockpuppeteer account is a suspected sock of User:SummerThunder, a banned user.

Kommentare

Conclusions

Both accounts are already indef blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Sexybutttime

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Sextbutttime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Jackjackincredibull (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Cool Blue^{talk to me} 21:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

The similarity in usernames Sexybutttime and Sextbutttime indicate a clear connection between both users. Similarly, all of the accounts have been used to vandalise The Joy Luck Club at the same time. Also, the first two similarly named account may indicate the user is not new to sockpuppet-blocking, and since the first two names are so similar, they were meant to be blocked, but the third name would allow the editor to keep editing, as to avoid a possible IP block.

Kommentare

Special:Contributions/Sexybutttime Special:Contributions/Sextbutttime Special:Contributions/Jackjackincredibull

Note that Sexybutttime and Sextbutttime have both been blocked indefinitely. One as a sockpuppet block, another as a {{unb}}

Conclusions

Jackjackincredibull's only contributions are vandalism, so he's blocked, as are the other accounts. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Frt0

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Frt0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Always420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 84hg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Sign inner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

-- _Hdt83 ^Chat 00:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Replacing same user page with "420".

Kommentare

Conclusions

All accounts are already blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Freak104

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Freak104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

--Tenebrae 20:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User:Freak104 was blocked at 18:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC). At 19:30, 9 May 2007, User:35.10.159.15, who has exactly one edit prior to then, began reinserting many of Freak104's edits.--Tenebrae 20:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Addendum: 35.10.159.15 himself says (see his user contributions) that he is Freak104: "19:34, 9 May 2007 (hist) (diff) J. Jonah Jameson (fixed my(Freak104) errors)" --Tenebrae 20:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentare

Conclusions

Freak104's block was reset for evading the original block. Nothing more to do here. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Thedec

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

David Underdown 14:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Log [138] shows that Declanthebullbull was created after Thedec was told [139] that he was blocked [140] for vandalism. Declanthebullbull then vandalised Windermere [141]. The user then seems to have a few days off before reappearing yesterday (as Thedec). Vandalism then starts again [142][143]. Today seems to switch back to Declanthebullbull to vandalise Torvill and Dean [144] then throws in a bit of sneaky vandalism by using Thedec with a misleading edit summary [145], then switches back to Declanthebullbull with a variety of additional vandalism, including to my user page [146]. He's then blocked by user:Kungfuadam [147]. 25 minutes later, Thedec appears on my talk page [148] (and subsequent edits), signing as Declan Bull.

Kommentare

Hello. I am writing to try and explain some of the happenings on my Wikipedia account(s). I hope you note that up until the 2 May 2007, I had made only useful and relevant contributions. Although I have very rarely edited articles, I have participated in disucssions and offered (hopefully) useful suggestions on improvement. A few days before my account was used for vandalism, a friend of mine (I attend a sixth form) took note of my password as I was logging into my account, but claimed to have forgotten it the next day.

Him and another student used my account to vandalise certain articles, for which I was eventually blocked. [[149]] [[150]] [[151]]. No longer been able to edit on my account, one of the students (unbeknown to me) then created another account in my name so that I could use it to contribute to articles as I had been doing up to that point. However, this account has NEVER been used by myself, and has only been used by the people who created it.

When I was unblocked from editing, I personally vandalised two accounts which I apologise for. One case was the inserting of a humerous quote[[152]], while one was plain stupidity[[153]]. This is however, the only vandalism that I have personally commited.

The account which was created in my name was then used to vandalise certain articles, while my account was used to disguise the vandalsim (mentioned in the above evidence)[[154]]. After the other account was blocked, my account was used to abuse one of the moderators on a talk page. [[155]].

I am aware that I am at fault for allowing my account to be logged into by others, and am also aware that much of the reasoning will have been seen a thousand times before by moderators. However, I felt I should provide this comment in an attempt to clear the air. Thanks for reading, Declan (D. BULL 19:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)_[reply]

I trust you have now changed your password? By the way I am not a mod (nor admin/sysop), jsut an ordinary user. David Underdown 08:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my password has been changed. Do you know what I have to do next in order to resolve this issue?(D. BULL 09:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Conclusions

Declanthebullbull is indef blocked. I accept Thedec's explanation of events, and will caution him to make sure that no further shenanigans come from his account, as we will not be so forgiving if something similar happens again. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:221.148.48.216

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Firefox001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Pgdn001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Pgdn963 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

(possible related IPs):

63.239.21.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
69.111.77.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Enigma3542002 06:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

The IP address has been creating new accounts to support his edits, all stemming from a biased sense of Korean nationalism. Specifically, this IP has instigated and propagated improper edit wars in Samsung Electronics and Lexus using three-four usernames. In the first case, the IP is zealously defending the Samsung Electronics article from necessary maintenance tags regarding its lack of NPOV. In the latter case, the IP has first vandalized the Lexus article (false citation need tags where references are included in the article in adjacent sentences/sections), then applied maintenance tags to falsely claim the article needs rewriting. Finally, the IP is repeatedly adding maintenance tags without supporting them with specific examples on the talk page.

1. Samsung Electronics: repeated removal of consensus-agreed maintenance tags [156] [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] [162]

2. Lexus: improper addition of maintenance tags, following vandalism: [163] [164] [165] [166] [167]

Furthermore, this IP has used the sockpuppets to support edits, both to article comments and on talk pages. These sockpuppets have advocated for the same view within a single talk page discussion, and are used interchangeably:

1. Edit comments/false support: [168] ("yeah I think so")

2. Talk comments/false support (tag-teaming): [169] [170] (arguing same points)

Please note: this IP has a history of actively vandalizing talk pages, and has already vandalized the Talk:Lexus page: [171]

Within the final comments of the Samsung talk discussion, [172] other users have already suspected "Pgdn/Firefox" (sockpuppets called as such) of being the same person. Furthermore, by examining the shared article edit histories of all four usernames, it is possible that abuses of editing and talk pages have occurred elsewhere.

Since the sockpuppetery report has been placed, user has deleted the sockpuppetery notice here: [173] [174]

Kommentare

This IP address has already been blocked at least 4 times in the past 4 weeks alone [175], and has blanked its talk page of warnings multiple times. These warnings cover facets of racism, vandalism, improper revision of talk pages, deletions, etc. This IP has even been suspected of false accusations of vandalism. [176] This IP has been given final warnings several times.

Two examples of the IP's biased nationalistic thinking are shown here under the different sockpuppets: Defensive, libelous accusation of anti-Korean bias in talk: [177] Accusation of "are you Japanese?" in talk: [178] and in response to the sock puppetry report again in talk with "This_guy_is_a_JAPANESE": [179] and also: [180]

Also, already one sockpuppet has been blocked for vandalism before. (Pgdn963)
Please note as well that IPs 63.239.21.87 [181] has also engaged in a similar pattern of activity, and 69.111.77.41 [182] has done as well. The former has to deal with the Samsung Electronics page where a similar reversions/talk reactions have been documented [183] and also a similar pattern has been documented as Sockpuppetry here: [184], although this IP is stated to be from LA.

It is possible this IP got the idea to vandalize the Lexus article with improper maintenance tags, following the correct application of those tags on the Samsung article. Enigma3542002 06:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's quite obvious that the user accounts in question are being used by someone from this IP address. From a brief overview of those accounts' contributions, and from past experience with this IP address, I think we're better off blocking the IP for an extended period of time, and permabanning the sock accounts. Johnleemk | Talk 12:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In just a few weeks this IP has caused more trouble than some other confirmed sockpuppets and vandals have done on Wikipedia in months. I request that appropriate action be taken. Thank you for your attention. Enigma3542002 06:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Wiki admin User:Johnleemk concluded on the IP's talk page most recently before it was wiped:

"It's very clear that the same user has been doing the same thing, and that the same user has no intent of co-operating with our policies." quoted by Enigma3542002 10:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Indef blocked the named accounts. The IP's block will expire soon, and if the same behavior begins again it's probably time to apply a longer block. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Purgatory Fubar

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Purgatory Fubar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Centsupon 01:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User:Purgatory Fubar blocked 24h. Block log here [185]

Suspicious IP begins editing within block timeframe:

(1) [186]

(2) [187] - 3RR report, placed immediately under the 3RR report that earned Purgatory Fubar the block. Very similar to Purgatory Fubar's earlier comment here [188]

(3) [189] - user seems unusually interested in ANI case against Purgatory Fubar

Kommentare

Requesting investigation to see if user evading block. Centsupon 00:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Seems possible, but I don't see the point of re-blocking 5 days after the fact. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:JJonathan

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

Suspected sockpuppets: Mr. NYC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Dancepopper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Kurt Shaped Box 00:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tatyana_Ali%27s_2nd_studio_album&diff=prev&oldid=129676482

Kommentare

A single diff isn't enough to conclude sock=puppetry from. Od Mishehu 08:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From looking at the users, however, it is quite possible that there is more evidence that Kurt hasn't put here yet. --Philosophus ^T 09:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Constantly recreating the 'Tatyana Ali's second album' hoax at various different titles is JJonathan's most distinct characteristic, though this is another diff that fits his MO to a tee (compare with this). --Kurt Shaped Box 11:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another addition of false info about a new album to the Aaron Carter article as User:Dancepopper.

Conclusions

Mr. NYC is already blocked, and I'm not sure about Dancepopper. Closing with no further action; if the Dancepopper account causes further problems, let me know. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Daniel Chiswick

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Daniel Chiswick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Andrew Steller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Gdo01 16:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User:Daniel Chiswick was blocked earlier for "personal attacks against other users"[190] stemming from the user's obvious anti-European, pro-American bias[191]. During the block's duration the user used several sockpuppets to get around the block: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daniel Chiswick.

This username was created during Daniel's block[192]. The puppetmaster has removed comments from the sock's page [193] (a practice the master pursues often[194])and the master has put warnings on a user that the sock was edit warring with[195]. The edit warring[196] was on the History of Tamil Nadu article on which both the master and sock have the same POV and have the same specific insignificant issue with the article (master:[197] sock:[198]).

Kommentare

Listen "Gdo01", my block is over and yeah, so what, I made another account. Wow, that block was too long anyway. Also on Talk:History_of_Tamil_Nadu I wasn't trying to push a POV as another user who was not my second account agreed with me. How is replacing English with British POV when the article talks about something that took place after 1707? I am no longer blocked and I can have a second account if I want to, and if you would like I could even make a link on my page saying that is a second account. I understand you do not like me but stop watching my every move because it is really annoying, why don't you go bother somebody else instead of bothering me. User:Daniel Chiswick 9 May, 2007.

No, circumventing a block is expressly forbidden --Liπus the Turbogeek^{(contact me)} 18:09, May 9, 2007

Eventhough, you may not have meant to do it this way but the presence of two of your accounts on a talk page can lead to vote stacking or "showing wider support of a viewpoint": Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Voting and other shows of support. Other than that, as said above, you created the username while blocked, a clear case of circumventing a block. Furthermore, none of the legitimate reason to have a sock on WP:SOCK apply to you:

Segregation and security - you seem to not care whether your accounts meddle in the same things as shown by you deleting comments on your other account[199], so you clearly intend to use both accounts for the same purpose
Keeping heated issues in one small area - You've actually brought both your accounts into conflict with User:Venu62 so this is out.
'Role' accounts - you don't have an official sanction for this.
Bots - not a bot
Doppelganger accounts - doesn't apply either

So that means you have no legitimate reason for having another account.Gdo01 01:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I will add that the user has personally attacked me [200](edit summary). Gdo01 01:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to "Show Support" on that talk page and it was a mistake. I have already admited that was my second account and I would be happy to delete it if I could. If you want I could sign my main account in as my second account of that talk page, I would be more than happy to. Also that "Personal attack" was not directed at you, it was towards all the people who won't leave me alone and keep bothering me and watching my every move, you are one of the people but I ment in general. I am just trying to turn over a new leaf but people like you (Among others) will not let me and keep harassing me. User:Daniel Chiswick 9 May, 2007.

Also stop instigating people by trying to get them blocked and creating pages like this and watching people's every move which would cause a person to "Personally attack" you. User:Daniel Chiswick 9 May, 2007.

See my response at User talk:Jersyko#Can you delete my account.3F. You still have not addressed the fact that you have no legitimate reasons (outlined above) to create a sockpuppet. As I wrote in the link, you can start a new leaf if you abide by the rules in WP:SOCK. Gdo01 01:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Obvious block evasion. Daniel Chiswick is blocked for a week, Andrew Steller indef blocked. During the one-week block, you are not allowed to edit Wikipedia under any username or anonymous IP. Once the block expires, if you wish to exercise your right to vanish, I or any other admin would be happy to help you. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Sonic Shadow Silver

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Sonic Shadow Silver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Broly The LSS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Sonic Shadow Silver The LSS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
One-Winged Sonic Shadow Silver The LSS Angel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
One-W Son ShaXM Sil The Lss Angel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
One-Winged Sonic Shadow Silver The LSS Molly Angel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

DBZROCKS 01:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

First there was Sonic Silver Shadow. Then Broly the LSS, just like Sonic Silver Shadow he was a vandal. I reported him and he was blocked. Then there was Sonic Shadow Silver The LSS a blatatent vandal and an obvious sockpuppet. next there was one-WsonXM Sil the Lss Angel, a obvious sock and a vandal. Next we have One-Winged Sonic Shadow Silver The LSS Molly Angel yet another sock with the exact same user page as One-W Son ShaXM Sil The Lss angel. Cocinidence? I think not.

Kommentare

Im tired of all of them and I hope the ones that aren't already banned will be very very soon.

Conclusions

Obvious. If you spot more of these socks you can probably go straight to WP:ANI, it will be faster. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:216.212.253.243

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

216.212.236.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Thomasmarshallertyulorsbhtys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by: Andy^talk 18:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Editing the same articles with vandalism at the same time, such as Thomas Marshall (general), Dairy Queen, Kyle

Kommentare

Thomasmarshallertyulorsbhtys has already been banned due to more vandalism than the others.

Conclusions

The named account is already indef blocked, and there's no reason to do anything about the IPs. Closing. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:JJonathan

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Discomedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
DJ Libra Soul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Junkysoul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Mr.Bubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

--Kurt Shaped Box 13:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

The editing patterns of these accounts are identical to the edit patterns of the numerous other User:JJonathan socks - same articles, same false information and inappropriate, uncited vocal range categories, e.g. [201], [202], [203], [204], plus recreation of his pet hoax at Tatyana Ali's Upcoming second studio album with his latest account.

EDIT: User:DJ Libra Soul also blanked User:JJonathan's talk page. --Kurt Shaped Box 18:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

8/5/07: Added User:Mr.Bubble to the list of suspected socks for this edit, which is classic JJonathan. --Kurt Shaped Box 22:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentare

Conclusions

all named accounts are indef blocked as socks. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:SlimVirgin

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Crum375 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

NathanLee 20:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Tag team reverting on the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals page to avoid 3RR. Similar topics editing in history. Date/time editing that seems suspiciously related. e.g. pick any day and it appears there is a block of one editing, then flick over to another, then back etc. A link between the two (an award from one to the other) e.g. patting each other on the back. Another user also thought there was some affiliation between the users (Jav43). Confusion between which of the two users was which (on a topic on the holocaust). Attempt to censor any suggestion that the two users appeared to be the same person on the discussion forum (May not be an issue if this is regarded as non civil behaviour?). User removed the link from the sock puppet request for check page saying "quit it". Surely this is not how a request for investigation is meant to be "resolved". If this investigation confirms there's no sock puppet actions then fine: but surely it is not the place of the person being questioned to decide to remove their link.

Kommentare

Seemed like similar behaviour of the two users (e.g. continuous reverting of other's work where common habit would be to mark things as needing revision/citation etc)

The problem with things like this is that most of these users have had accusations made against them many times before, since well known editors generally make quite a few enemies, and they are also well known and trusted members of the Wikipedia community - SlimVirgin is probably a name that is known to nearly every editor who knows anything of the politics of Wikipedia. Calls for investigations like these just waste resources, and thus tend to get removed as being a waste of time. Also, editors on Wikipedia often edit similar topics and tag team revert. --Philosophus ^T 09:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
fair enough, I'm not going to push it if it seems this user is magically regarded as beyond question or investication: BUT it certainly doesn't seem the proper way for an editor to act: either tag teaming OR self determining to close an investigation. That's like a judge making the decision to abort a trial on themselves. NathanLee 13:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

This is a waste of time. These are established editors, and the "evidence" here is a vague "they're doing the same stuff" without even a single diff given. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Mnm321

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Mnm321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Ecwfan77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Coolv(Talk • Contribs) 01:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Direct quote from user creation log: "18:46, May 8, 2007 Ecwfan77 (Talk | contribs) created new account User:Mnm321 (Talk | contribs)". Is this not criteria for being a sock puppet? (I am not 100% sure, but reported anyways.) (Note. Mnm321 is therefore a sockpuppet OF Ecwfan777, not the puppermaster.)

Kommentare

Conclusions

Obviously the same person, but neither account has any edits. It's fine to have multiple accounts, but they can't be used to violate policy. No policy violation here, so there's nothing to do. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:69.111.77.41

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

– A stroHur ricane 00 1^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)(+sign here+How's my editing?)} 17:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

The puppeteer vandalised Talk:Seung-Hui Cho [205], by changing people's comments, including mine. The edit was later reverted [206] as vandalism. I warned the anon [207], saying his/her edits were considered fraud. The puppeteer went on to troll on my talkpage [208], and has not made any edits since. I sent the user a surprised comment, then another warning [209], after his/her edits were identified as vandalism/trolling [210]. A few days later, my talkpage was vandalised by a new vandal/puppet whose only edit was trolling on my talkpage [211]. I sent a report to ANI [212], then an admin said it was trolling [213]. I then removed the comment by the puppet [214], and my talkpage was protected [215] (note:there was an error in the template, it was later fixed). I then reported the vandals to AIV [216] (this is the diff when I fixed it). Why do I think they are puppets? They both trolled on my talkpage, both come from LA (according to WHOIS), and both use the same ISP (indicated by WHOIS).

Kommentare

Conclusions

Probably the same person used these IPs, but this is not a case of abusive sockpuppetry. Closing with no action. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Alt f in

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Alt f in (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

— Dave (Talk | contribs) 19:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

A diff wherein the sock puppet reveals his true identity.
The spammer erased his revelation of sock puppetry within just over two minutes.
He then went on to create a new user page wherein he identifies himself, by name, as the same banned individual.
The user next began to edit under the new user name, here, in what appears to be a vindictive attack on a similar spam page of a competitor who lives in the same village.

Kommentare

Comment by Dave: Note that, since filing this report, the spam page I linked to in the fourth bullet of evidence has been speedily deleted (deletion log) in its own right. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 20:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Obvious. Alt f in is already indef blocked, the sock is now indef blocked as well. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Cogswobble

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Italiavivi 16:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

This IP continually shows up to endorse User:Cogswobble's opinions on Fox News Channel and Talk:Fox News Channel. Most recently, when Cogswobble had reached his 3RR limit on changing Fox News Channel's introduction, this IP showed up to make a fourth revert [217].

Kommentare

Check away ;-) This isn't me. Cogswobble talk 16:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol...incidentally:

The claimed "fourth revert" was not even the same revert I was making: [218]
Not only that, but I only reverted this article twice today, not three times as he's implied. [219][220]
The best part is...the edit that I'm accused of sockpuppeting on was a change to my OWN edit [221]

That would be a pretty silly use of sockpuppetry. ;-) Cogswobble talk 18:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support Cogswobble - the evidence Italiavivi has presented is, at best, circumstantial. And there's not even a remotely notable volume of it.

The claim that 75 "endorses" Cog's views - and thus is a sockpuppet - is absurd. It amounts to nothing more than "he agrees with him, so it must be the same person". You could apply that to virtually every single editor here.

The only other piece of "evidence" is similarly ridiculous, and could easily be put down to the fact that if several editors agree or disagree with one particular edit there's every chance a number of them will take the same action.

I can't believe this 'sockpuppet' bull has been clogging up the Fox talk page. If there is no other evidence against Cogswobble then it reflects very badly on the editors making such a claim. Edders 17:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Even if Cogswobble and the IP are the same person, this isn't a 3RR violation. Furthermore, if I were to scrutinize the edits to Fox News Channel on May 5 more closely, it looks like there's a good chance I'd find other 3RR violations. Fortunately for the editors involved, I think it would be pointless to block for 5-day old violations; but participants in the dispute are strongly advised to discuss, rather than edit war. (A revert with an edit summary saying "discuss it on the talk page" counts as edit warring.) --Akhilleus (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Gavin bear

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Gavin bear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by Edward321 00: 05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Gavin bear posted both speedy deletion and hangon tags to the Conan O'Brien page claiming that Conan O'Brien has requested the speedy deletion.[[222]]. I reverted this page [223] because it makes no sense - someone who posted for speedy deletion has no reason to add the hangon tag.

In the appropriate talk page, Gavin bear actually claims to be Conan O'Brien.[224].

At which point, Egyptiancamel posted to my user talk page, claiming to be both Conan O'Brien and the person who put up the speedy delete notice on that page [225]. Edward321 00:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentare

From that last link, Egyptiancamel is clearly claiming to be Gavin bear and both are claiming to be Conan O'Brien. That's a clear admission of sockpuppetry. Edward321 00:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Um, I don't think that's as clear an admission as you think, but these accounts are obviously the same person anyway. However, I don't see any violations of WP:SOCK, so there's no reason to do anything here. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:自由戰士

Suspected sockpuppeteer

自由戰士 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

倭犬王 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Agha Nader 15:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

This user is extremely disruptive. He rarely leaves edit summaries, and never comments on the talk. He just reverts edits. Sometimes once a day or twice a day. But he never makes more than 3 reverts per day. He has been reverting since April 26. He has been removing the picture of Cyrus many times, sometimes using his sock. See [226], [227], [228], [229], [230], [231], Here enters 倭犬王 [232], [233].

Kommentare

It is clear that he has been using his sock to revert the picture of Cyrus. In total they both have reverted his picture 8 times. Nipponese Dog Calvero may be the the master sockpuppeteer since 自由戰士 is a confirmed sock of Nipponese Dog Calvero. They have both been blocked indef but 倭犬王 is carrying out their work on Father of the Nation. Agha Nader 15:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

倭犬王 fits into the pattern of socks of Nipponese Dog Calvero, see [234]. --Agha Nader 16:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Both accounts have been indef blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Biggy P

Confirmed sockpuppeteer (By checkuser, see [235])

Biggy P (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Sockpuppets

Mike Sorensen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
ProperManner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Mr.Strong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
SciFrutto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Meatpuppets (Or, just operating from another location)

Voy7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
66.214.253.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
66.214.253.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
MagnusSound (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)(Blocked)
JWilman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)(Blocked)

Report submission by Jrod2 21: 46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Disclosure

My name is Joe Rodriguez and I am an audio engineer. I own a mastering facility in New York, and I am in charge of its administration as well as its operation. I am also responsible for all statements that were made by the User:Evinatea, which was my first account at Wikipedia. I feel it's important to come out clean about who I am, and explain the frustrating circumstances that I find myself in. Even our clients have taken notice of what's happening at WP, and this is totally unacceptable (See: [236]).

My accounts

Jrod2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)(Active)
Evinatea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)(Inactive)

On February 28, 2007, I used my mastering engineer's (Mr. Edward Vinatea) articles on the subject of music mastering, but without his knowledge or consent. I created, one article called "Music Mastering", complete with its reference links, and two Spanish versions. I did this, totally ignorant of the rules and procedures. To accomplish this, I used the User:Evinatea account (See English article: [237]). I was so naive and new at Wikipedia, that I even signed my reference links with my own username! (See: [238]). Some editors were fine with the description I provided for the mastering article, however, any hints at spam and the links were promptly deleted the following day (See: English article: [239]).

As you can see, I posted Mr. Vinatea's name, title and company name. It was an error on my part which I am sorry and deeply regret. However, by March the 2nd, I had learned most WP rules, and even though I tried to correct my mistakes by allowing edit reverts, and asking other editors to help me erase the "Music mastering" page (See: [240]), I had no choice but to create this new account (User:Jrod2), because my Evinatea, was completely useless due to Biggy P, Mike Sorensen and all his sock puppets and meat puppet attacks and accusations (See a few examples: [[241]][242][243][244] [245][246]) , even after I asked him civility (See: [[247]]) and now continues under "ProperManner" [248]).

It's very apparent to me now, the reasons for his vicious attacks: the diversion of attention from past, present, and probably future spam and vandalizing activities at WP. This user must be stopped and your help is needed a.s.a.p!

Evidence

According to a checkuser on May, 5 2007 by an administrator (See: [249]), Biggy_P matches all the listed suspect sock puppets above, therefore, a CONFIRMED vandal, highly disruptive and a deceptive spammer. He has been using Wikipedia, apparently from 2 detected locations in California, or uses the aid of a cohort, to spam and promote a business website at the Audio mastering page (See: [250] and [251]). He goes as far back as August 2006 with sock puppetry and meat puppet activities with cohort account Voy7 a/k/a "R.Watts" (See:[252] and [253]}. His previous meat puppet accounts were permanently blocked (See: [254] and [255])

Biggy P's account main purpose is to give support to the reverting a of a deleted article {"Artmastering"), which had raised concerns in the past, of just being a biased promotion of a mastering studio, and particularly, of its engineer (See: [256]) . Because of his conduct, I believe that Biggy P is obsessed about the inclusion of this article, but I wouldn't be surprised, if there are more hidden agendas, and even more sock puppet accounts. At the moment, it looks like his cohort Voy7, is no longer using IP address 66.214.253.51, which confirmed him in the past as a vandal. His last use of WP was seen here in March 22, 2007 to give support to sock puppet Mike Sorensen (See: [257]).

The contribution history on this known IP address 66.214.253.251 (See: [258] and [259]) indicates a relentless need for the deception and manipulation of WikiPedia and the inclusion of the so called article on "Artmastering". Nevertheless, the accounts that are popping up recently, were created to intimidate (See confirmed sock puppet account (ProperManner), give credibility or support (See confirmed sock puppet account SciFrutto) to the inclusion of said article, complete with external link to its business site (See: [260] and reference link). This raises the concern that Biggy P and his cohort are still trying to use Wikipedia for pure financial gain and self promotion. For more information on the spam article a/k/a "Artmastering" see [261]).

Kommentare

His main tactic: he regards me an outcast who is here to vandalize, and constantly reminds me and everyone, of my article submission errors. He is always calling it "spam" in order to create a disruption and a diversion from topical questions, while antagonizing me with his sock puppets's multiple role playing (See: [262]). In the end no one desires to participate in any discussions for fear of being tagged a sock puppet. That's how he has managed to drive everyone away. He would tag me, and everyone that opposes him, with sock puppetry accusations. At some point, I learned to do the same, but the difference is, I did it in self-defense.

His sock puppet User:Mr.Strong account, summarizes and accentuates Biggy P's frustration to get rid of me and along with my remarks at the audio mastering talk page (See:[263]). I believe the main reason for Biggy P's anger, and his need to get me blocked or vanished from WP, is the deletion of his "Artmastering" reference link, and my opposition to the inclusion of its article section. He has shown that he won't stop harassing me for that, and unless you block his sock puppets, he will never stop his deceptions to antagonize me. Making him pay with the loss of his puppets might make him see that, deceptive tactics and disrupting behavior, doesn't pay, and has no place at Wikipedia. I therefore request, that Biggy P a/k/a Mike Sorensen, Mr. Strong, ProperManner, Scifrutto and his meat puppet account Voy7 along with the associated IP addresses 66.214.253.155 and 66.214.253.51, be blocked forever and for good. Thanks very much for your attention..Jrod2 19:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

The socks confirmed by checkuser have been blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:SummerThunder

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

--Dynaflow 00:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Everything matches; quacking like a duck: Wikipedia:Long term abuse/SummerThunder. Not bothering with diff tags. Just look at the contribs. It's all there. The UCR Highlander obsession, the accusations that other editors are his sock puppets, ad nauseam.

Kommentare

Conclusions

Already blocked indef. Obvious SummerThunder socks can go straight to WP:AIV. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:VacuousPoet

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

65.73.81.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
ImprobabilityDrive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Gnixon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Orangemarlin 18:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

All of the IP sockpuppets of VacuousPoet logged on through Frontier Communications, Rochester, NY. Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VacuousPoet (2nd) for those sockpuppets.
With this edit, ImprobabilityDrive changed the signature of a uncivil post from 65.73.81.131 to his own, and claimed ownership of the edit, as you can see here.
As with all of Kdbuffalo's and VacuousPoet's sockpuppet edits, they focus on Creationist/Evolution articles. Please note that there is an RFC filed against ImprobabilityDrive, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ImprobabilityDrive.
VacuousPoet is banned for sockpuppetry. here.
User:Gnixon posted in several of the same articles as ImprobabilityDrive. In fact, Gnixon halted editing in those articles [264] at about the time ImprobabilityDrive began editing [265], around April 17-19, 2007.
Checkuser has been filed, but will be revised.

Kommentare

Comments of Infinite Improbability Drive: User ImprobabilityDrive has resigned. Please see User_talk:ImprobabilityDrive for details, and contact User:Rockpocket regarding my request that my request to leave gracefully. Infinite Improbability Drive 03:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to Frontier communications. It is a small phone provider in Upstate NY and a few other areas. The DSL IP address points to Rochester, NY. Frontier Communications is just the ISP. Since you are paraphrasing my comment about Wells Fargo, it is a massive banking corporation in a number of states. It does not allow the Whois to point to particular location. Frontier does. Sorry. Orangemarlin 20:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry ID, but I know how Frontier works, and your obfuscation has no meaning to me. I don't care where you live, but it's pretty clear you live in Rochester, NY probably in the same house, with the same name, and same face as one VacuousPoet, etc. And the rest of your comments are just fodder for other areas where the community is looking into your habits. If you are right, the checkuser will be denied. If you are wrong, then anything you say is not going to help. Orangemarlin 01:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A comparison of ImprobabilityDrive logs against logs will show that it is not possible for me to be a sockpuppet of Gnixon, as you were told previously. Again, this is just another false accusation by Orangemarlin who has a history of making false sock puppet accusations, as do others who pre-empt him. Infinite Improbability Drive 02:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments of Orangemarlin: Previous sockpuppetry charges against you are irrelevant. You made an error in editing, which showed your IP address, which is the same one as VacuousPoet. If we had known, we would have submitted the right checkuser. Our error, which is now corrected. Orangemarlin 19:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments of •Jim62sch• : There is no attempt to intimidate anyone here, and as I explained to you previously it is any user's right to request a sock check if he feels it is warranted. Additionally, you are clearly not a new user -- that much is made painfully clear by the sophisticated use of tags, some rather arcane, from the moment you started editing. •Jim62sch• 20:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

According to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ImprobabilityDrive, ImprobabilityDrive is likely a sock puppet of VacuousPoet
Based on checkuser results, ImprobabilityDrive is blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Kkm5848

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Kkm5848 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Akx256 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Brownwalrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Hornplease 14:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Tagteam reverting on Hindu Students Council [266][267][268][269][270], as well as very confusing talkpage.

Kommentare

Possible organisational meatpuppets, all editing organisation's page.

Response

If I think somoene's edit is correct, I'll revert to it. If you honestly believe that this counts as sock puppetry, that's your business. I have trouble believing that, though - I think you're just using these accusations to try to get rid of people whose views you disagree with Brownwalrus 08:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. You have six edits in all, not including the one above, and those are all to the disputed page, and reverts that do not add any information, and permit you to escape 3RR. Any comments? Hornplease 09:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Clear sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. Akx256 and Brownwalrus indef blocked, Kkm5848 blocked for 24 hours. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Xeterna

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

Suspected sockpuppets: ChrisKaos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Archer07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

JoeSmack ^Talk 06:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Girl Hair Nick is a nonsense page that is constantly readded to and db tag removed by these three users

Kommentare

You deleted my comment to the evidence, foremost, stating the IP addresses are different. Since you did that, I'll go delete something important of yours, nub. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xeterna (talk • contribs).
talk page diff ~a (user • talk • contribs) 06:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Whether it's sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, all the accounts have been used for nothing but juvenile vandalism and nonsense, so blocked indef. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:VinceB

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Odbhss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Pannonia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Tankred 17:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

VinceB was banned after having been blocked eight times for disruptive sockpuppetry, vandalism, personal attacks, and edit warring. See Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard/Archive6#Community ban proposal for VinceB. Facing a ban, he threatened that he would evade it using sockpuppets[271] and so he does. 91.120.82.124 (talk · contribs), Norman84 (talk · contribs), The only sockpuppet of VinceB ever (talk · contribs), 195.56.91.23 (talk · contribs), 195.56.51.196 (talk · contribs), and several other IPs have already been blocked. I believe VinceB is currently using two new sockpuppets. Another user who have had numerous dealings with VinceB and is very familiar with his style of editing and communication, believes the same.[272] Here is the evidence:

Odbhss was created 11 hours after Norman84 was blocked indef. Pannonia was created just few hours after Odbhss started to attack me[273] (and few days after Norman84 was blocked), perhaps in order to create a back-up or support account.
Odbhss and VinceB's IP collaborate in revert wars, plausibly to avoid 3RR violation (compare Odbhss[274] and VinceB's IP[275]; and Odbhss[276] and again VinceB's IP[277]).
Instead of constructive contributions, both accounts are used only to push VinceB's POV. Compare Pannonia's edit[278] and VinceB's edit[279] and edit of an IP of VinceB's range[280]. Compare Odbhss' edit[281] and VinceB's edit[282]. Please also note that both users are interested only in few articles, the ones that have been frequently vandalized by VinceB and his other sockpuppets.
Odbhss is replacing official names of towns in Slovakia, Romania, and Serbia by their Hungarian names[283][284][285] - one of the favorite activities of VinceB (e.g. [286], [287]).
Both users immediately started to attack the usual victims of VinceB. They use VinceB's words, including the f*** word (Pannonia:[288], Vinceb: [289]) and accusation of "ultranationalism" (Pannonia: [290], Odbhss: [291], VinceB: [292]). Odbhss used his user page to attack other users[293] in a very similar way as VinceB did,[294] even including the same targets. Pannonia may have chosen his nick name because it is close to the name of User:PANONIAN, a frequent victim of VinceB's harrasment. Although this is just a minor point, both Odbhss and Pannonia have the same level of English, doing the same mistakes as ViceB did, and they overuse capital letters and exclamation marks in communication - another characteristics of VinceB's style.
Odbhss has repeatedly removed a vandalism warning template from his talk page,[295] as VinceB used to do.
Another user requested a CheckUser against them, but the request was even refused as unnecessary because the behavior of Pannonia itself is a duck test.[296] Just to avoid misunderstanding, I asked the administrator responsible for CheckUser for an answer again. And the answer reiterated that an administrative action against Pannonia and Odbhss is really needed.[297].

Kommentare

Conclusions

Quack quack, block block. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Yardus maximus

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Yardus maximus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Yardus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Yardus minimus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Yardus v1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Yardusthelawngod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Yardus prime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (added May 2)

Report submission by

--Finngall ^talk 02:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Yardus maximus and Yardus minimus share a common interest in vandalizing Aqua Teen Hunger Force (Y.max diff), (Y.min diff) and related articles.

All accounts have been involved in repeated creation of nonsense articles under various "Yardus" names:

Yardus (deletion log)
Yardus 5555 (deletion log)
YrdusV4 (deletion log)
Yardus v5 (deletion log)
Yardus v1 (deletion log)
Yardus prime (deletion log) (added May 2)

Yardus maximus was active (and was blocked) on 4/16. Remaining accounts have appeared between 4/26 and 5/1--none of these are currently blocked.

Kommentare

Similarity of names, similar vandalism to the same article which involves the base name, and creation of several nonsense articles using same base name - all seems suspicious to me. Definitely looks to me like Sock-puppetry or impersonation. Od Mishehu 20:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An other account was created about an hour ago - Yardus Ezikial (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Od Mishehu 20:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No contributions from that account yet, but we have yet another account, Yardus prime, and this one has posted to his user and talk pages approximately the same nonsense content as was in the previous Yardus articles. I've tagged that user page and added it to the official list here. In other news, Yardus minimus inflicted further vandalism on various ATHF pages and was given a 48-hour block. --Finngall ^talk 20:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

All obvious throwaway/disruption socks, all have been blocked indef. Puppeteer was already blocked indef. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:JohnHistory

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

—Alde Baer 21:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Kommentare

I am worried that JohnHistory is not willing to negotiate civilly and prefers unilaterally removing a part of the article (Manfred von Richthofen), even through use of IP sockpuppet.

Of special concern are edits to Manfred von Richthofen, where an ongoing RfC is to determine the validity of including the sources which user:JohnHistory and this IP keep removing [298], [299], [300].

Using an IP sockpuppet bears witness to a fundamental unwillingness to respect policy and process.

Conclusions

User indicates that the IP is him, editing while logged out: [301]. However, I'm not seeing any policy abuse (such as a 3RR violation). Keep on going with the RfC. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Josef09

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Josef09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

81.223.24.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
195.3.113.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
195.3.113.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
195.3.113.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
195.3.113.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Dyanega 17:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

This user has been incessantly reverting a chunk of text in the Colony Collapse Disorder article which - in this case - is inappropriate for inclusion, and for which I devoted a huge explanation as to WHY it was inappropriate (in this April 27 edit: [302]) - all of this after earlier warnings that parts of his edits were a violation of WP:NOR. Instead of responding, within a matter of hours of my posting this explanation, a series of identical edits has begun appearing, all from what appear to be public computers in the user's home city of Vienna, Austria. These edits are all anonymous, and the two most recent have come after I warned the user that he should sign his edits when editing from multiple IP addresses. The effort here appears to be to circumvent WP:3RR, and there are two points that suggest this sockpuppetry is deliberate; (1) in one edit [303], the editor referred to the primary account in the third person. (2) on the talk page, on several occasions, he has concealed his username by using the following trick: bogobogo, in edits such as this one: [304]. If you examine the edits to this article from the IP numbers listed above, they are all the same (even including the same misspelling of "Georgia" as "Gorgia") - though other edits from these IP numbers indicate that multiple users have access to these machines.

P.S. This user, after I posted the sockpuppet notice on his talk page, reverted again via 195.3.113.178 and included his username, Josef09, in the "comment"; see [305], and then several unsigned reverts followed via 81.223.24.208 - the total number of identical reverts now stands at around a dozen. Dyanega 16:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentare

I have been as patient and polite as possible, and even warned him that failure to sign his posts when using multiple IPs could result in administrative intervention. His edits and reverts are disruptive and inappropriate, toy with the fringes of WP:NOR, and - honestly - if some admin can simply take him aside, and explain to him that he needs to leave that article alone, that would be plenty for me. Apparently, though, this is the only article in WP that he has ever edited, so it may be the sole reason he has an account (his edits have universally promoted a "conspiracy theory" interpretation, that the honey bee dieoffs are due to genetically modified crops, suggesting that his motivations involve environmental activism). There is nothing wrong with activism, inherently (ironically, I myself am an environmental activist - but also a professional scientist), but the selective misquotes, revert warring, and manipulation of sockpuppets take this beyond the point where any appeal to reason seems likely to work (he has stated, for example, "it would be great if there could be a citation - but I do not think that Wikipedia is all about that what authorities say" and "but I do not drop such personel opinions though there is no reference"). I do not think he understands what WP is, or how it works.

I can only conclude that the anonymous edits from these various IP numbers are deliberate violations of policy as outlined in WP:SOCK; the odds of so many identical or near-identical edits, all from Vienna, Austria, and all within a span of four days, staggers the imagination.

Conclusions

These edits are probably all by the same person, but I've left them unblocked for now, and semi-protected the article and its talk page instead. Hopefully the user will discuss his desired changes. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Mewtwowimmer

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Kathywimmer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Pixiefrogmelvin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by Watch37264 15: 50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

I have strong suspicions that Mewtwowimmer, a blocked user, is using suck puppets to evade a ban. The names of Mewtwowimmer and Kathywimmer are extremely similar and appear to have edited similar articles. I suspect Pixiefrogmelvin may be a further sock because that user has also edited similar articles to Kathywimmer. Watch37264 15:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One such type of edit that each user has performed is to insert information about broadcasting of Pokémon into articles about television channels. Watch37264 19:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentare

Conclusions

Both pretty clear socks, both blocked indef. The puppetmaster's block has also been extended to indefinite for the sockpuppetry, disruptive editing, and outright vandalism. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:XxJessicaMarieRitchiexx

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

IRoCkdOyOu3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by --Greatwalk 09: 11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Both IRoCkdOyOu3 and XxJessicaMarieRitchiexx have recreated the same speedily deleted page Jessica Ritchie and have repeatedly entered identical vanity edits to Bring It On 4 and Keith (film).

Kommentare

Conclusions

Both blocked as vandalism-only accounts. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Bluemarine

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 18:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

High number of edits by both accounts on Matt Sanchez, who happens to also be the Sockmaster, as he admits on his talk page

Kommentare: The fact that they both edit the same page doesn't seem to me to be a reason to suspect that they are the same user. In addition, from looking only at the history of the page, it looks to me like Bluemarine is vandalizing the page, while GSschool is making god-faith edits. Od Mishehu 21:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not good faith. Look what he put on my user page: GSSchool's edit of my user page Aatombomb 01:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that GSschool is a good faith editor. I just said that your evidence isn't convincing - from the page which you said, it looks like they're different users. I think you need better evidence to link the two users like that. Od Mishehu 07:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have to supply more specific evidence of sockpuppetry than this. Please provide some diffs showing that the users make similar edits. I see no sign that Bluemarine has admitted sock puppetry at all. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

No substantial evidence of sock puppetry, so closing with no action. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Lukas19

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Lukas19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Thulean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Lukas19's former account (also banned)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Alun 12:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Lukas19 was banned for a period of one year for tendentious editing by the arbitration commitee. SeeWikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lukas19-LSLM#Lukas19_banned There is an editor to the White people who I believe to be a Lukas19 sockpuppet, it's really blatant. I have had numerous dealings with Lukas19 and am very familiar with him. The user is User:KarenAE contribs I am suspicious because:

his edits,[306] [307] including info that Lukas19 contributed. No one else seems to want to include this info, only KarenAE and Lukas19
claims that other editors are acting "unilaterally" and starts to edit tendentiously [308] [309] [310] [311] [312] [313] just like Lukas19, untill I point out that the only editor that is acting unilaterally is KarenAE andf that his edits are suspiciously similar to Lukas19's [314] [315] at which time at least the tendentious editing stops, though the similarities in talk page discussion continue.
style of writing, [316] [317] (note the mistakes in English, Lukas19 was not a native speaker (though had an excellent grasp of English), similar mistake here with a preposition missing "add yourself". Also note here the term "counter argument", Lukas19 used this term a lot)
turn of phrase,[318] (use of the term "counter argument" by KarenAE this time), I have been struck by how similar their language is and could probably provide more evidence if you think it is necessary.
arguing style, (see any talk page discussion for either of these editors)
use of wikipedia procedures (he has just started an RfC imediatelly someone disagrees with him rather than have a proper discussion), [319] so there is no attempt at resolving the dispute by talk page discussion, but imediately wants to go for an RfC, this is like Lukas19 as well
appeals to the talk pages of people he thinks have authority [320] [321] [322] (this mediation involved Lukas19 on the one hand and all other editors on the other, now KarenAE seems to want to resurect it after two months)
Interest exclusively with thw White people article, this was Lukas19's "favourite" article, though he did later "branch out" into other "race" related articles. [323] [324]
Making comments about other's edits, especially derogatory comments. [325] [326]
Seems to have a very detailed knowledge of Wikipedia policies and procedures for a "newbie", discussing RfC's in their very first few edits. [327] this was KarenAE's fourth edit.
Belligerent attitude, both these users prefer to make demands and order other users around rather than make requests. [328] [329] [330] [331] [

This user may be editing from California, [332] [333] whereas Lukas19 claims to have edited from Nova Scotia. [334] So it may be that these IP addresses are different, though this does not mean that these are not the same person. Anyone can move from one end of continental America to the other for work etc. Alun 12:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentare

I think this is strong evidence for suspected sockpuppetry whenever a new user gets right into the thick of things. In have noticed similarities in the reintroduction of materials in the genetics sections of the article that were removed after Lukas19 was banned.Muntuwandi 17:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does quite look as it could be him. I would have actually been quite surprised if Thulean/Lukas19 would have "accepted defeat" so easily. He is just way too stubborn and obsessed with the idea that Wikipedia can be made a political platform for his ideas via determination and strong will (as he will naturally consider all discrepant editors as adversaries but also somewhat "inferior", due to the complex of superiority that his racist ideas imply). It's quite indicative that "she" gets directly into the heat, editing massively with no doubts, using terminology not typical of newbies, appealing to "authority" and harshly discounting those that oppose "her" - exactly as Thulean/Lukas19 did. The only thing "she" has not done yet seems to be trashing "her" opponents with PA warnings and denounces. "She" is not probably just a mere correligionary of the same political organization or with similar ideas, the behaviour is too similar to that of Thulean/Lukas19. If is not Thulean himself then is a meatpuppet intensely trained by him... so (Occam's razor): it's he again. --Sugaar 18:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karen's editing pattern looks very much like Thulean/Lukas19's; I think it's safe to say she is a sockpuppet. By the way, was Karen's talk page deleted? Because you say "the similarities in talk page discussion continue", but there isn't anything. · AndonicO ^Talk 20:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the Talk:White people talk page. Sorry if it wasn't clear. Alun 03:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked to comment here by Alun. I find that there are some curious similarities; in addition to the focus on the same material, viewpoints and others mentioned above, both use "for ex" to mean "for example", and other idiomatic expressions are likewise in tune. KarenAE's first action directly after creating their account on Apr 23 was to question the deletion of a section in the article that Thulean/Lukas19 had earlier been interested in, an action which had taken place some 10 days before and was long since buried in the accumulated edit history. I suppose it's possible they had been monitoring the article for some time before committing to any edits, or maybe had waded through the talk page to find where the action had been mentioned; but it's hard to see a genuinely new user following up on this in that way. I note that KarenAE's account was set up a bare 3hrs after an earlier anon ip (130.94.107.217 (talk · contribs)) edit had questioned the same action; this anon ip's other edit was to revert a change made two days earlier to info on Statistics Norway in the article (and Lukas19's self-professed interest and heritage included Norway). By another remarkable coincidence, 6 hours after Alun posted notification at Lukas19's talkpg of this SSP, a different, seemingly unassociated, anon ip placed an {unblock} tag on the talkpg [335]. All in all, isolated occurrences might be only coincidence, but taken together there's at least a reasonable circumstancial case to be considered here. KarenAE has denied being a sock, and yet goes on to appear unconcerned and challenge editors to prove otherwise [336] -again, at least an unusual position for a new editor to adopt under these circumstances, particulary given the single-purpose nature of their contributions thus far.--cjllw ʘ TALK 03:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you mention IP address activity there was also an IP address that is apparently unrelated that vandalised AndonicO's User page and talk page shortly after he left a comment here. It seems to be related to this case. [337] Alun 12:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I'd like to say one more time (and for the last time) that I'm not Lukas19. I dont really know what else to say. Most of the information here seems to be non evidence. Perhaps this was done deliberately to make the page look longer so that there would be at least an illusion of a real case here.

For ex, (Yes, not for example) I'm guessing millions use "for ex" instead of "for example". This is not really an evidence. Another example is that it is clear that I'm 130.94.107.217. No need to play a 4th rate Sherlock Holmes there. It is self evident in talk page [[338]], where I follow up my own (and 130.94.107.217's) arguments.

The only semi credible claim here is that Lukas19's and my edit histories are similar. I have less than 50 edits in my account so I note how quickly people jump to conclusions. I dont think I have enough edits for my editing style or interests to be analysed. I dont have time to edit more than one article so when I'm done or bored with white people artice, you may see the divergence. (If I'm not banned.) But, you may ask, why did I jump directly to this particular article?

I found white people page while I was doing homework and after reading it, I considered it to be poor. Then I looked into its history. At this point, I should say that I have indeed edited Wikipedia before, but I didnt get an account and my edits are probably less than 200. Anyway, when I looked at the history, I spotted the first vandalism [339] and corrected it [340]. Then, looking at the history futher, I noticed that more than half of the article has been deleted [341]. I was amazed that light skin section of the white people article was deleted. cjllw says this was 10 days before I questioned it and that it is unusual for a new editor to go that far back. What he (convienently?) forgot to mention is that, due to low levels of activity, that 10 day edit was quite "recent". I just had to go one page backward in the history.

Anyway, I also noticed other blatant displays of bias such as [342] in which Wobble deleted Europe but not Middle East among other "selective" deletions. These are kinda what motivated me to get an account here and edit this article.

Talking about bias, taking a look at Wobble's edit history, it is clear that he has some sort of an agenda, which is to make all race related articles to say that race doesnt really exist. He may think whatever, but encyclopedia articles should be neutral. His biased approach is clear in his edits in Race article. [343] I have also given another example of his selective deletion of links in See also section. Other examples include the ones explained here [344].

Of course, the case here is not Wobble's bias, I know that, but I'm just noting it so that you, Seraphimblade, would double check and double think about the claims made by him and his acquaintances. I also want to say I consider this case may be an attempt to keep the page in its current biased state, rather than a genuine concern. Wobble claimed I was Lukas19 after my 3rd post in talk page. I'd assume it should have taken longer for him to claim such a thing. How can he claim that a person whose 3rd post s/he has read is same as another person s/he has known online only? KarenAE 19:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Checkuser request has been filed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser comes up unrelated, and I can't find anything conclusive enough to conclude that these are socks regardless. It's certainly conceivable that more than one person could have a contentious view on this particular topic. However, as I've stated to KarenAE, having it noted that one's editing patterns are pretty close to a user who wound up banned should be cautionary in itself. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:ParalelUni

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

BritishDad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
67.177.149.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Realitymed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Nhmd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by Leuko 06: 17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Users listed appear to be sock puppets of User:ParalelUni, who was indefinitely banned by the Arbitration Committee [345] for making grotesque personal attacks. These accounts all appear to be a fairly new single purpose account making the same sort of disruptive edits on Talk:St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine which were characteristic of User:ParalelUni and his many already confirmed/blocked socks. The language used is similar, as well as the multi-step editing, and the every other indentation on talk pages.

Kommentare

Per the ArbCom decision SPA's only used to edit the article can be restrained. It appears that these are multiple ban-evading socks. Leuko 13:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You will notice that Leuko has already asked for this once before against User:67.177.149.119 at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/ParalelUni just a few months ago and it was decided they were unrelated and that User:ParalelUni was "Stale". Is it really appropriate to do it again for the same address just a few months later when one considers the intrusive nature of this probe? It is obvious that Leuko is doing this in order to harass User:67.177.149.119 and other users he disagrees with when discussing the editing of a particular article. Leuko appears to be using this process in an abusive and disruptive manner and he should not be allowed to continue to do so. He really has absolutely no evidence that warrants another use of this process or this investigation, especially in light of his last failed use of this process only a few months ago. If there really is any integrity to speak of with regard to the Wikimedia foundation you will not allow him to continue to abuse, harass, and intimidate other editors with this process. BritishDad 06:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, User:ParalelUni is probably stale because he has been indefblocked for quite some time now, meaning that the software would not have a recent IP address for him. As medical students (which ParalelUni was) frequently change locale from basic sciences to clinical rotations and during clinical rotations, CheckUser is not all that accurate and may be mislead in thinking that two accounts may be unrelated when in fact they are the same user. I believe the similar style of editing is much more convincing. But since it is apparent that these accounts are solely SPA meatpuppets, they can be regarded as a single individual per the ArbCom case "Users who have made little or no other contributions outside a single narrow article or topic may be treated as meatpuppets and regarded as a single individual. When it becomes clear that such accounts are only concerned with advocacy or other disruptive activity, they may be banned from their area of interest." Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/St_Christopher#Single-purpose_accounts Finally, User:BritishDad's comment: "If there really is any integrity to speak of with regard to the Wikimedia foundation you will not allow him to continue to abuse, harass, and intimidate other editors with this process" is interesting as similar comments were what caused the Wikimedia Foundation to protect the article via WP:OFFICE. Leuko 13:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

All sockpuppets banned per Admin JzG. diff

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing 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:Codeplowed

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

TemplarMission (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
WarAgainstTerror (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Vagary 17:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User:Codeplowed was recently blocked for sockpuppet use. Two new accounts are continuing his editing patterns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vagary (talk • contribs) 17:35, 1 May 2007

Concur. Diffs: [346] and [347] show the same disruptive pattern as the blocked accounts. Those diffs are the only edits so far from two new accounts created immediately following the block of Codeplowed & sockpuppets. I am an uninvolved third-party who responded to the initial alert at WP:WQA. --Parzival418 _Hello 20:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentare

Please note there is no problem with the behavior of User:Vagary. The sub-section on the talk page at Talk:DeVry University#Vagary's bad Behavior was placed there by the blocked COI SPA puppetmaster account. User:Vagary's report here and his editing is in good faith as corraborated by multiple good faith editors on that talk page. I'm mentioning this only because of the misleading title that appears in the evidential diffs. Part of the blocked user's actions were to attack various editors, including Vagary; this is just one small example. --Parzival418 _Hello 20:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A checkuser is unnecessary. These are clearly throwaway trolling accounts that appeared in support of known puppeteer Codeplowed the moment he was blocked. They are obvious and blatant socks, and I have blocked them indefinitely. Furthermore, since these accounts appeared at a time when Codeplowed's confirmed IP was blocked, it is likely that a checkuser would be inconclusive, which would only prompt indignant declarations of innocence from Codeplowed. Hesperian 00:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Socks already blocked by Hesperian (and for what it's worth, I fully agree, obvious throwaway socks), no reason to leave this one open. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:A67

Suspected sockpuppeteer

A67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

A87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 18:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Compare contributions.

Kommentare

Has been warned about providing source information and has ignored. Created a second account to avoid the original block, and continues to upload images and restore non-tagged to articles where they have been removed.

Conclusions

Obvious. A87 is indef blocked, A67's block reset. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Referenced

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Coren 15:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

By his own admission on his sockmaster's user page, and comment on my talk page. Sock created to circumvent relatively short block put in place for vandalism.

Kommentare

Conclusions

Clear sockpuppetry. Referenced is blocked for an additional 24 hours for block evasion, Degrad is indef blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Additional suspected sockpuppets are listed on this page's corresponding talk page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing 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:Belginusanl

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

USANational (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
CanadaNational (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Nina90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (already blocked)

Report submission by

Gobeirne 01:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User:Belginusanl was blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia and from Wikimedia Commons on 30th September 2006 for posting identifying pictures of minors. These were deleted from Commons. However, the following edits indicate he has returned. In particular, he

Frequently alters of image captions to include the words "little girl" or "child":
- Compare this edit and this edit by User:Belginusanl with this edit by User:USANational
Has a preoccupation with a particular child, and reveals identifying information about this child:
- Compare this edit by User:Belginusanl with this edit by User:CanadaNational
- This same child is the subject of the Studearring.JPG image mentioned below...
Develops a preoccupation with one image (such as image:Studearring.JPG, uploaded by User:Nina90) and inserts it in multiple pages (such as skin, jewellry, body piercing, etc., etc.):
- Compare this edit by User:USANational with this edit by User:CanadaNational, and this edit by User:Nina90.
- In fact, it doesn't stop at the English Wikipedia: Wikimedia usage data indicates that the image is present on 24 pages in 14 Wikimedia projects. Almost all of these instances have been placed by 24.192.149.137, who has also been blocked repeatedly on English Wikipedia, and edits the same articles as User:Belginusanl, User:Nina90, and User:USANational (namely, Child, Earlobe, Body piercing, etc.). While the multiple postings of the image isn't a problem in itself, it does indicate the links between the suspected sockpuppets.
- The above edits also closely follow the pattern of User:Belginusanl, who in one week posted one image to over a dozen articles on the English Wikipedia alone (namely, Girl, Sibling, Female, Human, Puberty, White people, Adolescence, Demographics of Europe, Sex differences, Ethnic group, Human bonding, Friendship, Caucasian race, etc.)

Kommentare

This user frequently posts disruptive (and given his focus on children, unsettling) edits on Wikipedia (both English and Dutch) and Wikimedia Commons. The similarity of edits and usernames indicates sockpuppetry at work. - Gobeirne 01:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I also suspect a possible link to User:Jessica93, but can't be sure. - Gobeirne 02:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Based on the obvious sockpuppetry (and the very disturbing habit of identifying a child's picture by name), both socks which were not yet blocked have been blocked indefinitely. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Mattisse (4th)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

BackMaun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Alien666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
RasputinJSvengali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Rosencomet 21:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

1. A Checkuser was run by an arbitrator who reported that User:Mattisse, User:BackMaun and User:Alien666 "all share an IP address from time to time".Rosencomet 21:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. All three editors and User:RasputinJSvengali have engaged in conflict with the same other editors on several of the same articles. BackMaun has referred to these same targetted editors and these conflicts on the talk pages of both these and other editors in an uncivil manner. Rosencomet 21:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Each has an edit history that indicates stalking of editors with historical conflicts with User:Mattisse and sockpuppets used by her; she has been asked numerous times what connection exists among them but has refused to answer. Rosencomet 21:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. Mattisse has been a major opponent of at least two of the targetted editors in question during several mediations and an arbitration, has attacked their reputation on the talk pages of several arbitrators, and has created several pages of "collected evidence" against them. Rosencomet 21:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Mattisse has a documented history of using no less than 18 sockpuppets[348] over a period of five months, several in relation to these same editors, engaging in tagging sprees, revert wars, vote-stacking, and in some cases using them to create fake articles and attribute them to another editor. [349], (2nd) Rosencomet 21:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentare

(Moved from Evidence section: regarding points 2 through 5)

Note: please provide diffs for Mattisse's role, preferably less than 10 month old. Mattisse 05:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentare

I felt I had to begin this process ASAP since none of the arbitrators I spoke to had done so, and I did not want to be told that it was too late to run further checkusers on the users in question. Mattisse has been editing today, and BackMaun as recently as April 21st, 2007.Rosencomet 21:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The previous sockpuppets they we active in august and september 2006. Since then no sockpuppets have been identified. Other acusations sinnce then have be found to be negative. Mattisse has admitted to previous use of sockpuppets and has stated that she no longer has been using sockpuppets.

See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood where both Mattisse and Rosencomet were participants. --Salix alba (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentare

Although I searched and failed to find the proper diffs on Thatcher131's page, I am forced to copy what was there (probably against the rules and I will be punished}. This is from an ANI posting by my mediator at the time, one piece of evidence that I did indeed try to explain the grandchildren sitation and the ridicule that followed did not encourage a more forthright discussion of the "granny defense" as it is now known as.

Mattisse redux

I'm sure many of you are familiar with the interesting history of Mattisse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been criticized for mass tagging sprees, not the least of which is connected to a great number of articles created by Rosencomet (talk · contribs) and involving the Starwood Festival. Mattisse has been subject to many checkuser cases, some of which are documented here, which resulted in a block, here, and here, which resulted in a longer block (1 week) for inappropriate uses of sockpuppets.

Well, an RfC and a mediation case are still ongoing regarding Rosencomet and the Starwood Festival articles. It was recently brought to my attention that Mattisse approached another user involved in the disputes, complaining about an article that one of Mattisse's own confirmed socks created, apparently as a device to discredit other parties in the mediation and create an impression of impropriety. I feel this action warrants a longer block. Thoughts? --Ars Scriptor 16:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm advocating for Matisse, my only comment is that Matisse was asking Paul Pigman what should be done with the article and wasn't really complaining, just asking for advice. As it happens, I've prodded the article. Addhoc 18:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, Matisse should learn that 'It wasn't me, it was my granddaughter' only works as a sockpuppetry excuse once and is a poor one the first time. I hope she has learned better sense. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, same excuse given here. —Hanuman Das 21:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentare

Please provide example of anyone using the phrase "the granny defense" other than Mattisse. Rosencomet 18:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Mattisse uses a different computer and provider than Backmaun does, but they are in the same large city. Information on the other two was unavailable. Fred Bauder 22:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the evidence is reasonably convincing that BackMaun, Alien and Rasputin are sockpuppets of each other, and that their main purpose is to harass Jefferson Anderson and Rosencomet. I have indefinitely blocked all three accounts. Regarding Mattisse, it is possible that she is using two computers and two ISPs to mask her activities, but it is also possible that she is the unfortunate victim of a coincidence, that someone else with a grudge against Jefferson Anderson lives in the same city. (As such, please do not tag the accounts as Mattisse sockpuppets.) I have sent Mattisse an e-mail about this, and it is my hope that all parties will be able to move forward without further drama. Time will tell. Thatcher131 14:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I greatly appreciate this action by Thatcher131 to prevent further harassment, which is by far the most important reason I opened this case. It is difficult to put past unpleasantness aside if it is not truly past. My other purpose was simply to arrive at the truth of the matter, and if both Fred Bauder and Thatcher131 have determined that we have gone as far as we can in that direction from a technical point of view, I have no basis on which to disagree. I ask them only to keep an eye on the issue in the future. Rosencomet 18:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like as much has been done as can be, but please report back with any additional problems. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]