Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Archive/December 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:Aidan Work

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Aidan Work (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Spinningspark (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

203.211.73.21 is starting exactly the same edit war over postal order categories as User:Numismaticman who was a (now blocked) sock of this banned user. Here are the diffs, [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

And here is an example one from Numismatician [6] He put the same category in Alderney as well, which edit has been disputed. Both of these have been re-inserted by 203.211.73.21, not the usual sort of thing for a new user to start with.

Plus there is this very unfriendly comment on someones Talk page (not mine); [[7]] Nice person eh?

Comments

Conclusions

I'm convinced of this, but the problem is the sock is an IP and the most recent edit is from three months ago, so I can't justify a block. I have tagged the IP though. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:41, 31 December 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:Welshleprechaun

A well-meaning editor is asked to move this from the talk page to the project space proper. Thanks.

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

90.203.45.214 (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User has been generally unhelpful, but in particular has added fabricated claims as to the population rank of Cardiff. User's last edit was 17:35, 22 December 2007. The IP's first edit was 22:55, 23 December 2007. Welshleprechaun appears to have a clear interest in articles related to "Cardiff, the capital of Wales" (a point they seem insistent on including in any article mentioning the city), and the IP contributions are entirely to articles on the same subject - even edits to the article on large urban areas in the EU was edited with a nationalist POV, tagging Cardiff on to the top 5 list for growth[8] with a Welsh rather than a UK flag, as is convention[9] (later reverted as unsourced).

In particular, WL invents a population ranking, including a bogus citation to back it up (the documents cited make no mention of "11th" anywhere) - WL adds this information at 19:01, 14 December 2007, 15:21, 16 December 2007, 17:19, 22 December 2007 (and possibly earlier).

WL having "gone away" for Christmas, the IP then re-adds this falsified information after it is removed - 09:19, 26 December 2007 12:13, 26 December 2007. I suspect that acts of vandalism were carried out [10][11] in an attempt to mask the above.

Comments

Conclusions

I find this inconclusive. It look more like vandalism, which should be reported to WP:AIV after they're warned. Welshleprechaun should have been told of this SSP case too. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:09, 31 December 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:MaidService

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

ThaCleaningLady (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
BombBuilder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

DiligentTerrier^{and friends} 21:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

ThaCleaningLady's contributions
MaidService's contributions
BombBuilder's contributions
MaidService's template deletion nomination - also notice comments at that page.

Comments

These edits seem very complex for first edits. I think that there is an experienced user involved in this sockpuppetry. DiligentTerrier^{and friends} 21:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what? None of their edits are disruption or circumventing policy. –Pomte 03:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well they were double voting on the template deletion page. DiligentTerrier^{and friends} 18:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Vote stacking is a violation of WP:SOCK and this case is blatant. Tagged all. Blocked socks and "master" indef. I suspect there is another real master out there. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:16, 31 December 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:Kirbytime

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Atari400 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
~~Wordbywordbyword (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)~~ Matt57, who knows Kirbytime says this is not him. Jehochman ^Talk 01:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Report submission by

Jehochman ^Talk 15:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

~~Wordbywordbyword (talk · contribs) has made a single edit, the coatrack article Jewish slave trade.~~
Atari400 (talk · contribs) claims to be a sockpuppet of Sefringle, who is actually a former account of one of his content adversaries. Sefringle was only active before Atari400 appeared on Wikipedia. This creates the appearance that Atari400 has been here before with another account. [12]
Atari400 account is being used disruptively and for edit warring. See contributions to Jewish slave trade. See this ANI thread.
See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kirbytime, evidence copied below:

Article/Topic/Behaviors	Kirbytime/former sock	Atari400
Edit warring with Yahel Guhan (formerly Sefringle)	[13],[14],[15]	[16],[17],[18], [19], [20], [21]
Islamophobia	[22],[23]	[24], [25], [26]
Faith Freedom International	[27],[28],[29],[30], [31]	[32],[33],[34]
Islam and animals	[35],[36]	[37]
Islam Controversy Task force	[38]	[39]
Deceptive/strange user page edits	Posts whole ANI on user page, later blanks, Claims to be a jewish girl, [40]	Retirement notice on 2nd edit, later blanks
Ethnicity related templates	[41]	[42]
Stalking Allegations	[43]	[44], [45], [46]

Misc:

Sarcastic admittal of sock puppeting [47]: "You got me. I am actually a sockpuppet of editor Sefringle."
Says he's a 'long time wikipedian' when his account was only 3 months old.
First edit was a long copyright warning to another user.
Admin Daniel also suspects this is Kirbytime [48]

There are many other edits but hopefully these should suffice for CU. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Result of RFCU was "possible". — Rlevse • Talk • 17:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the comment left by Jayjg? If so, the result was actually marked both "possible" and "inconclusive". Tarc (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The terms are not mutually exclusive. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there are two possibilities here: possibility 1: this is Kirbytime. Pretty strong, but not 100% conclusive. Possibility 2: This is someone else who is exactly like Kirbytime. I don't see any third alternative. In either case, it is someone we can do without, who is an active hindrance to the goal of building an encyclopaedia consistent with core policies such as WP:NPOV. Guy (Help!) 12:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rlevse asked me to look this over, so I did. I'm fully in agreement with all of the administrators who've decided that Atari400 is almost certainly a sock puppet of Kirbytime, and should be indef-blocked. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 22:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Blocking and tagging Atari400. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:13, 30 December 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:Jackkofspades

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Luckiducki004 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Nori Llane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Street Llane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Makesfolkslose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

MKolt now 07:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Original article Walter Ratcliffe was created by puppeteer Jackkofspades (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who has no other edits. diff Successive edits to article (which appears to be a hoax are by Luckiducki004 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), diff and by Nori Llane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) diff

who by their edit histories are vandalising Death Metal in similar fashion. Ratcliffe is also being added to the article Chaos Theory but there are no WP:RS to substantiate the edit.

Street Llane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) only has two edits, both vandalism. They are specifically to pages listed on User:Dlohcierekim (the creator), a page which Nori Llane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has vandalised.

I think the actual puppeteer is Makesfolkslose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Per diff, this editor claims to know Jackkofspades (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and per his talk page, this user repeatedly created (to salting) Hypothesis (band) who are from Durham, North Carolina, referred to in some of the other accounts' edits. Further, the message left on this user's page is from admin King of Hearts (talk · contribs), so I suspect that Jackkofspades is an allusion to that username.

Comments (by Makesfolkslose)

There are indeed strong cases for the vandalism caused by the users Luckiducki004 and Nori Llane, and you can easily see the pages that were altered by these accounts. However the vandalism of pages such as Chaos Theory (is it only the allusion to Ratcliffe?) and Death Metal bear no resemblance to each other, were vandalized in altogether different fashions, and are based around completely different subjects. If Luckiducki0004 and Nori Llane were both controlled by the same person, it would seem that the puppetmaster would be attempting to work towards a goal. Instead, Nori Llane seems to be just randomly vandalizing (albeit the somewhat random reference to Ratcliffe) while Luckiducki004 eventually strongly and seriously argues for the existence of the Walter Ratcliffe page (and may be no longer vandalizing).

The find of Street Llane and Nori Llane is indeed interesting, and one could suggest that these two users are puppets of each other (in some way or another), but Street Llane bares no similarities or relationships to Luckiducki0004, and so it is even more of a stretch for the other puppets to relate to one another in some way.

I do indeed know JackofSpades, and the parallels between JackofSpades and KingofHearts are very... circumstantial I have to say. They do not relate to eachother in anyway. I admit to repeatedly editing the Hypothesis (band) page, with KingofHearts responding. I am at fault for not explaining myself to him, but he and JackofSpades have nothing in common. The page I was attempting to make did also center around Durham, North Carolina, but all that I can see relating to that is the fact that Walter Ratcliffe relocated to North Carolina later in his life.

Thanks.

Please file an RFCU on this. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

The RFCU was turned down because of the way it was written, you may want to refile with good diffs showing disruption. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At first it looks like there are two different people here, with Lucki and Nori being one, but when you look at the deleted contribs of the article Walter Radcliffe, it makes a pretty convincing case of socking. I also find the activities of Makesfolkslose very sock in nature as his only interest (edits) are things related to this case. Blocked and tagged all indef. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:45, 30 December 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:BangUser

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

Suspected sockpuppets: MarcusUser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); DJUser01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); DJUser03 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); UrieUser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); RJUser01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 172.207.5.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Closedmouth (talk) 13:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

All of these accounts are involved in the creation of, or dissemination of links to, practically identical hoax articles about made-up films and games. Also the anon account has been deleting just about every {{hoax}} tag that's been placed on the articles.

Comments

You should probably add RJUser01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and UrieUser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) to that list. Pagra shtak 15:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Closedmouth (talk) 01:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Except for the IP, the socks are already indef blocked. All were tagged already. I've blocked the IP and master one week. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:49, 30 December 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:Afromexicano

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

Suspected sockpuppets: Sikshooter123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Kickshooter123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Glacier Wolf (talk) 03:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

See Special:Log/Afromexicano. Has yet to make an edit, and has created accounts about 10 minutes after he created his.

Comments: Since none of the accounts have been used for abuse, no need to report them. Per WP:SOCK, there are cases where the owning of multiple accounts is allowed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

No edits = no abuse. Such a case is only blockable if the master account is a known puppetmaster and you can show he created the socks. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:20, 30 December 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:Lwachowski (2nd)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Lwachowski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Some people (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Lucyintheskywithdada (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
121.118.80.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Bksimonb (talk) 10:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Reverting the BKWSU article and trolling in exactly the same fashion, with exactly the same type of edit comments and talk page comments, as previous socks. The contribs of this editor show a brief history of normal editing unrelated articles until it suddenly turns nasty on the BKWSU article. This exact same pattern was observed in a previous disruptive account Some people (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) centred around the same article. In particular, note some of the similarity in edit comments.

Evidence of reverting [49]

Evidence of trolling [50]

Evidence of similar edit comment by Some People [51]

Comments

Before jumping to a conclusion, it should be made clear that Bksimonb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is the lead Internet PR man for the organization in the question, the BKWSU.

The BKWSU Internet PR team has been involved in considerable edit-warring on this topic for sometime. Simon has been shown to invest considerable effort and energy in construing such threats, accusations, blocks and attacks as these on any independent editor contributing to the topic in collusion with other BKWSU followers in a very skillful fashion.

Let's look at the timing of this and the collusion of yet another BKWSU contributor, user:76.79.146.8; Bksimonb requests an early unprotection. 76.79.146.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) reverts and accuses vandalism, attacks etc. Both complain to admins etc. Bksimonb puts RfA.

Putting aside the loaded and hysterical language, the seemingly endless accusations and complaints, if we look at the differences between the BKWSU's chosen version, the main differences are really;

the removal of weblink to an informed independent website that makes public and openly discusses the BKWSU's core teachings, the only independent website about the organization and one that the BKWSU's USA trust spent considerable amount of money attempting to recent silence via legal action and failed to do so.
the attempt to play down the centrality of channelling and mediumship to its practises. The channelling and mediumship of a spirit guide its followers are told is God and a centrality which illfits with its public face and political ambitions.
the removal and erasure of considerable time and effort made making entirely neutral and beneficial formatting etc.[52]

What is being pursued here is a specific policy by the new religious movement in question to block any other informed, independent contributor.

None of the proceeding user accounts the BKWSU seeks or sought to block edited at the same time acting as sockpuppets. Lwachowski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was changed to AWachowski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) due to a loss of password and this was clearly noted. These names were blocked on a technicality (too similar or same as living individuals), not sockpuppetry. No checkuser took place.

Simon has been intent and successful in blocking out other contributors in order to progress the organization's own PR agenda. This is all that this is all about.

--Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's quite obvious now that you are the same editor with yet another account. I hope we can find a long term solution for the disruption you have been causing for so long because the rest of us have lives we would like to get on with. Thanks Bksimonb (talk) 19:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming, frankly, desperate and dishonest. My browser logs me out as I leave it for while during writing a reply to you and the other members of your organization's Internet PR team on a talk page ... Then you then attempt to misconstrue to a third party it as sockpuppetry.

I rest my case and hope the admins finally wake up to what you are doing. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 11:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's quite significant that the IP is Japan-based since we had a barrage of Japan-based IP addresses causing disruption last year [53]. So now you are linked to Some People and the Japan IP proxies. I know you are not in Japan, or at least you aren't usually. You are either one of two people I know of, one of whom has been banned. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly think it should not be up to an active party in a dispute to push the point on a page like this. WP:NPA is proceeding to desperate levels here, whether or not the user is in fact a sockpuppet. Orderinchaos 08:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Case of using the process to further one's side in a dispute. Take it to dispute resolution.

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

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

Suspected sockpuppets: Darko V.Trifunovic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Sh3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Sh3online (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 11:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Sh3 (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log) seems to have an WP:OWN issue with Darko Trifunovic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the only subject s/he has ever contributed to. The articles has been previously created by Darko Trifunovic (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log) (see Special:Undelete/User:Darko_Trifunovic) and the userfied by DragonflySixtyseven. This was on 30 June - 1 July 2006. On 8 January 2007, Darko V.Trifunovic (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log) recreated the article and created his userpage.

All the edits from the users have been only related to Mr. Trifunovic.

Comments

Forgot to add, Sh3 (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log) denies being Darko Trifunovic. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 11:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only account that seems active is Sh3, where is the abuse at? Can you provide more info? — Rlevse • Talk • 12:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking in terms of WP:COI, but SSP won't help. On second thought, no need for this report at all. I'll withdraw. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I dont know why you think I use Darko Trifunovic's account - I dont. I did have sh3online account but I forgot that I did and created new one which I use now. Therefore your accusations are inapropriate and false. Please remove the accusation against me.

I am only trying to defend here the article I originaly wrote and which muslims belonging to bosnjaci.net or someone affiliated with them are trying to change in their favor. Please leave my article alone.

And yes, I only wrote this one article, why is that strange? I am not into wikipedia world as some of you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sh3 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions: Withdrawn by Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:22, 29 December 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:AirFrance358

Suspected sockpuppeteer

AirFrance358 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Nightshadow28 (talk) 05:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Hello administrator. AirFrance358 has been blocked indefinitely at 15:24, 27 September 2007 UTC by administrator Jpgordon. And an anon, 211.108.10.9 changed a user page of AirFrance358's sockpuppet (it is surely a tit for tat by AirFrance358 to administrator Nlu [54] and Yamla [55]). The anon is saying comments about releasing of AirFrance358 in edit summary[56][57], and supports the position of AirFrance358. (Especially, "East Sea" or "Dokto" expression[58][59]).

Although prior result of RFCU is stale and inconclusive.[60], I think that the anon is AirFrance358's sock/meating. Thanks. --Nightshadow28 (talk) 05:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Conclusions

Most likely a sock-blocked a month, also disruptive and vandalizing. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:09, 29 December 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:Bolonium

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

Suspected sockpuppets: Bormalagurski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); TheWriterOfArticles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

--Tiyoringo (talk) 15:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Edited article

see also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bormalagurski

Comments

Asking for diffs. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ja:User:Bolonium was indefblockeduser.[62] He/She was doubted ja:User:Staka's sockpuppets.Both User have acounts in enwp, too.

Probably Bolonium (talk · contribs · count) used 99.244.247.108 (talk · contribs · count), and Staka (talk · contribs · count) said he is 99.227.234.81 (talk · contribs · count).Both User are probably from Brampton, Ontario, but certainly Bolonium is Serbian and Staka is Japanese.

This user page guess User:Bolonium may be that's page person.

Other problem is founded. User:Bolonium Lied he wasn't administlator, but his User page, he wrote he was administlator.[63](see above left) --Tiyoringo (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Asked submitter for diffs. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs not provided. Next time build a better case please. Closing as inconclusive. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:20, 28 December 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:M.V.E.i.

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

--Protagon (talk) 14:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

This is (luckily) the first time I have felt the need to take measures as these, but I guess there is a first time for everyone...

Some two weeks ago (10 Dec 2007) I started adding some template tags on the page Russians since I found two sections were seriously flawed/and or biased, and I described it in detail on Talk:Russians. Shortly afterwards, I got into a dispute with User:No_Free_Nickname_Left (a dispute which is ongoing), and he has hitherto been refusing to deal with the matters constructively and responded in a rather hostile way; the dispute is here: Talk:Russians#The_section_.22Contribution_to_humanity.22_and_the_section_.22Culture.22_is_disputed. I will probably takes this to a RFC, if the matters are not solved. At first, I did not think much about it or User:No_Free_Nickname_Left, but after a while the red strange-sounding nickname User:No_Free_Nickname_Left got me thinking...but really, it can't be that obvious, could it?

Nevertheless, due to NFNL's continued obsessive edit war with me, I started yesterday to do some basic snooping (even though I don't particularly like to do so), and I believe I have spotted a true sockpuppet;

During the discussion on Talk:Russians, User:No_Free_Nickname_Left referred to a supposed previous discussion concerning the disputed contents, and he referred to 3 other users (in order): User:M.V.E.i., User:Fisenko and User:Miyokan, who he claimed had agreed with him before on the matters. I just decided to check on those users; Now, User:Fisenko and User:Miyokan are obviously Russian, but there does not seem to be any controversial with their accounts. But, with User:M.V.E.i., this is however quite the opposite; I found that he had got blocked from Wikipedia for a period of one year, and as far as I know, this is not done routinely.

Very well, I started to check on User:M.V.E.i. more deeply, and after reading his talk page (a very long and in many cases a really unpleasant read!) - look here: User_talk:M.V.E.i., I soon started to spot the similarities between User:M.V.E.i. and User:No_Free_Nickname_Left (a good idea is to read User_talk:M.V.E.i. from the bottom and up).

The similarities are the following;

Referral: User:No_Free_Nickname_Left referred to User:M.V.E.i. during our dispute on Talk:Russians#The_section_.22Contribution_to_humanity.22_and_the_section_.22Culture.22_is_disputed

Open hostility/abusive language: shouting, SHOUTING and SHOUTING, and generally quite hostile behavior, referring to others as "vandalz" and "vandalizm", refusal to adhere to Wikipedia rules:

MVEi, MVEi, MVEi, MVEi, NFNL, NFNL, NFNL, NFNL, and much more...

Numerous (very numerous) spelling mistakes: Normally I don't hold this against anyone, but there are obvious similarities here between Special:Contributions/M.V.E.i. and Special:Contributions/No_Free_Nickname_Left (check both edit summaries and edits).

Examples (just some examples of many more):

- Small "i"'s: MVEi, MVEi, NFNL, NFNL

- "Vandalizm": MVEi, User talk MVEi, NFNL, NFNL, NFNL

Feverish defense (WP:OWN) of same section Russians#Contribution_to_humanity:

As you read above I have had a long dispute with User:No_Free_Nickname_Left on this particular section, which can be read in full on Talk:Russians#The_section_.22Contribution_to_humanity.22_and_the_section_.22Culture.22_is_disputed.

According to the revision history for the article Russians, User:M.V.E.i. made numerous edits of the section "Contribution to humanity" adding (or readding ) for instance here) and perhaps (IMO quite likely) started and wrote the section himself (e.g. see this example and numerous edits of his directly after that; there are many more).

Russian connection 1: If you compare the contributions Special:Contributions/M.V.E.i. and Special:Contributions/No_Free_Nickname_Left, you will discover that both their main focus is Russia-related.

Russian connection 2: User:M.V.E.i. categorized himself as Category:Russian_Wikipedians, and on User_talk:No_Free_Nickname_Left#WP:BABEL, NoFreeNicknameLeft says In Belorusian i can read and understand. Polish I understand but reall bad. I also learned Russian in an exellent way.

User connection: Both User:M.V.E.i. and User:No_Free_Nickname_Left has been in contact with User:Miyokan, asking for/talking about support: NFNL to Miyokan and MVEi to Miyokan

Quote similarity: and here's another quite interesting similarity: User:M.V.E.i. lists a quote of his own at the bottom of his user page (exactly): "I'm not gonna say it's gray only because you say it's black when i see it's white". During my talk with User:No_Free_Nickname_Left on Talk:Russians he said (exactly):

"I also dont think that if you'll say it ain't true it will make it not true." - not alone a perfect proof, but it certainly adds to the suspicion.

and finally, the date of MVEi's block and the start of NFNL's Wikipedia career:
- User:M.V.E.i. blocked (blocked 13 October 2007, edit summary:(account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 year ‎ (Extending length due to block evasion))
- User:No_Free_Nickname_Left (account created 31 October 2007)

All in all, my conclusion is that User:No_Free_Nickname_Left and User:M.V.E.i. are very likely the one and the same. I hope any admin(s) who reads this feel the urge and are able to do a thorough check and compare User:M.V.E.i. with User:No_Free_Nickname_Left, in order to establish if they also think it's likely that they are one and the same (which IMO is more than likely). If this is found to be true, I'd say it's suitable to block User:M.V.E.i. indefinitely, since the reason for his block is very, very serious (see the racist rants) but that's another discussion, I believe. Hope this helps the integrity of Wikipedia.

Signed, --Protagon (talk) 14:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Oh yes, forgot to mention that some days ago I was myself ironically "tried" as a sockpuppet by NFNL (which I openly admit I am) here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Protagon. Ah, what irony...) --Protagon (talk) 14:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, forgot this as well (ah, yet again, the irony...); in the case against me (under "Comments"), by NFNL, there are numerous spelling errors like small "i":s, "vandalizm" etc. Furthermore, NFNL seems stunningly aware of many Wikipedia terms, even though he is a "quite" fresh user... --Protagon (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further new evidence:

Israel connection:

Here NFNL says ...i'm from Israel..., and User:M.V.E.i. said on his talk page : i live in Israel...so hhh unfortunatly i dont (see User_talk:M.V.E.i.#Hi_friend), and furthermore, User:M.V.E.i. was categorized as Category:Ashkenazi_Wikipedians (see Ashkenazi Jews). What's the likelihood that "two" users with the same behavior, connected to Russia AND Israel are different from eachother in person?

Damn it, I really hate this kind of snooping, but I feel it's necessary in this case. --Protagon (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC), signing off.[reply]

Comments

Its nothing but a dirty trick. You are simply a Russophob. You were explained you cant abuse tags, and i'm not the only one who said that to you. I refered you to Fisenko because he was the last one reverting you before me, while Mikoyan wrote the section.

Plus you are a sockpupet, so shud up. I have no connection to MVE, are all who edit the article MVE?? How would i know you are not?

Get a life. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the irony of it - NFNL continues to provide more evidence even here... abusive, bossy and bad language. Evident case IMO. --Protagon (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Asked for info from a blocking admin. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser was run privately, result was "confirmed/highly likely", and the behaviour patters match very nicely. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 13:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing. Already blocked now. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:22, 28 December 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:Pollypenhouse

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

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

Report submission by

Whitstable (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User page mentions user created Clarendon House and GHD, two articles created by User:iamandrewrice who was banned recently. Same style, too.

Comments

Have to agree, I was going to add the same tag. Seems to be self admission by posting names of articles on talk page. Also, seems to know a fair amount about WP whilst claiming newbie status. I'm not 100% sure, so needs further investigation, but matches with use of multiple puppets as per indef block discussion here OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 22:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I came here to request a checkuser myself. Note that the user has also contributed to the same articles as iamandrewrice (talk · contribs); e.g. Clarendon House Grammar School and Latin Europe, re-adding the same material to the latter. Chris.B (talk) 10:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No no, there's no need to worry, I am not 'Iamandrewrice' him/herself. I have followed the 'Iamandrewrice' saga for a while now (although not whole the way back unfortunately), and have anonymously been editing and correcting his/her works. If you view my user page edit history, you will observe that I was acquiring difficulties in trying to sort out my awards/contributions, as I found that by adding certain codes, the names of the titles were all changing to 'Userbox,' which obviously was not what I was trying to achieve. I therefore, through this interruption, did not get round to finishing off the boxes themselves. I had written 'Pages I created,' with the LG Chocolate articles underneath, but I had actually intended to write in addition to this, 'and pages I have contributed to,' although as is apparent, I did not get round to this task, although have been reminded to now by your notice. I have now corrected it, and sorry to have caused such confusion. With regards to editing the same pages as the user, as explained above, I was following the events and keeping a close eye on them anonymously. I have been continuing here and there to do as such, but I did find that a few peices of information, although I must admit, it does not amount to very much to count towards the user's contributuity, were of some use, so I read through the parts I thought of his/her work to be useful, and attempted to install them on the pages. For example, what I read of 'Iamandrewrice's edits to Latin Europe, they were of general good faith, although rather unencylopaedic, but I found the sentence he added about Malta (the way I first encountered the user's edits was from an edit to the Maltese Language page by the way) in the Latin Europe page, to be true, and decided it would be rather benefitial to at least make some use of it. That is the cause for the same topic material to be reinstated, but I would hope in a more encyclopedic way. I have not had much time to read up about your 'checkuser' feature, but from what I gather, it involves discovering any possible links between accounts, am I correct in assuming? Well I most certainly would not object to your use of the 'checkuser' to aid you in concluding this. Hope all is well, and happy christmas to everyone who may be reading this. Sorry again to have been so careless to allow this frame of thought to form. Best wishes to all at this merry time of year. Oh and yes I almost forgot myself in this time of rush, I may not be the newest of new users as you correctly point out, but I am rather in need of some help in bettering myself in this line of work. Thank you. Pollypenhouse (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So you are not the same user as iamandrewrice? Even though your claimed birthday on your user page is the same as the claimed birthday on the MySpace of the banned user? Stop wasting our time and your time Whitstable (talk) 10:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added User:Pollypenhouse to current RFCU case, awaiting results. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon? Are you suggesting that if I was 'Iamandrewrice,' I would have the sheer ignorance to indicate who I was as a blocked user by stating pages I had made, and my birthday if it was on myspace? And anyway, for your information, I do not have myspace. I have facebook if you would like to perhaps go observe my profile on that gathering that you do not seem to believe me? I find your tone very rude an innapropriate on me. What was it I observed before, Assume good faith! And good day to you, happy christmas! Pollypenhouse (talk) 20:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out, that I did in fact go and have a look at 'Iamandrewrice's myspace page as you requested, and there was no such mention of any birthday. Please stop trying to provide false information whitstable. And I would ask you not to continue to maltreat me in such a manner, or it may be you Whitstable, that finds yourself in this kind of position if you continue to be so uncivilised in your discussions. Also, while I was on 'Iamandrewrice's myspace page, one of the first things I noticed was that they named themselves 'Ben Lavender'. I have not been following the whole saga for the whole time, so pardon me if I missed this news at any point, but is this the correct myspace page for 'Iamandrewrice'? or have I looked at the wrong one? Oh and by the way, yes, such a great link between us two users; we're both sagittarians and are both sixteen, that REALLY is such great evidence! Pollypenhouse (talk) 20:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I must have imagined the messages left on that MySpace page wishing a happy 16th birthday on December 4. Oh, no, they really were there. And the person who holds that account was also online...must be another coincidence that you have just mentioned you have logged on there! WP:DUCK Quack. Whitstable (talk) 21:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How very dare you! Are you seriously suggesting that I am working in coincidence with such a fellow?! I have good mind to report you! I am quite sure there is a policy on here about Good Faith, in fact I am most certainly sure, I will find it now! So, just because a while ago, you observed that perhaps a comment was left on December the 4th telling him happy birthday, that his birthday is the same as mine? For a START! we are both sagittarians, so obviously our birthdays will be near each other and someone may have been wishing a late happy birthday! and secondly, i dont see these comments, so I am not under your believing influence I am afraid. And thirdly, even if by some random chance the user did in fact share the exact same birthday with me, I do not in any way understand, forgive me for my ignorance, how that would lead us to a link between us two? So, according to your philosophies, anyone on this site who edits the same articles, and who has the same birthday must be the same person? I am sorry but I do not follow your ideologies. Goodnight to you Whitstable, and I hope that one day you will actually start doing something which would actually be of help to wikipedia, rather than persuing this hopeless case of trying to frame me as something for which I am not. If you would like to know who I am, I can give you my facebook page would you desire it? And one last comment to you Mr Whitstable, if you even had the slightest ounce of intelligence, you would at once realise that the sheer writing style alone sets 'Iamandrewrice' and I away in such a deep gulf in these high seas that only someone as insolent as Iamandrewrice himself would be able to draw up such a conclusion. And for a start, I am a girl! the complete opposite of Iamandrewrice! but then again, I guess it must be more likely that I had a sex change inbetween, than the fact that we are not linked?! Pollypenhouse (talk) 21:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that that is conclusive - Iamandrewrice claimed to e a girl on several occasions, depending on whom he/she was talking to. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 11:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me?? Have I ever once stated that I am a boy?!!!! I have never such stated anything to the contrary of me being a girl, hence my name 'pollypenhouse,' well actually, polly isn't my real name (Paris is), but most people call me Polly (my middle name). This is ridiculous; you are judging the fact that bloody 'Iamandrewrice' was a transvestite to imply that because I am female i must be the result after his now-completed sex change?!!!!!!! Pollypenhouse (talk) 11:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Iamandrewrice's birthday is also December 4, 1991. I just checked and saw I sent him an email greeting on that day. And yes, Iamandrewrice did indeed say he was a girl at the beginning of his editing under that name. That said, while I do think that this user is a sock, I do not think s/he is a sock of the actual person who was editing as Iamandrewrice. More likely it is a friend of his, who is also responsible for dozens of socks attributed to the original Iamandrewrice. This issue needs to be thoroughly researched, as Iamandrewrice has posted several times here, and also to me on email, that he is the victim of a "friend's" impersonation of him. While I am here, I should add that Listsvery is also very likely a sock. If you go to the relevant MySpace page, you'll see that the page owner claims "Alex" is one of his best friends; by remarkable coincidence, Listsvery is also named Alex, and is a friend of this suspected sock. Jeffpw (talk) 12:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to add: Both the user under check here as well as Listsvery are either under adoption or have tried to become adopted. That was part of the editing pattern of the other socks from the Iamandrewrice debacle. Jeffpw (talk) 12:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well please can you provide some evidence that I can SEE to show his/her/transvestite's birtday was the 4th Dec. And secondly I don't see how that would link us anyway. And thirdly!!!!!! no I do not know 'Iamandrewrice' in real life! Can you please just do a checkuser because this is getting ridiculous now. I did not join wikipedia to be inquisitated about whether I am a clone of another banned user! My name is Paris polly Larcose. check it on my facebook if you don't believe me!!!!! http://profile.to/ppl/ Oh my god I can't believe I am being FORCED to give you my facebook to prove who I am! Im sorry, I don't have time for this, I was getting on fine constructively editing and do not need you all poking your nose in! And if it is true 'jeffpw' that you have been talking with a banned user, 'Iamandrewrice' in real life, surely this is against policy?? and secondly, my email address (well the one I use anyway, it used to be my sister's) is charlottethenewt@hotmail.co.uk! Is that the same one as you have been emailing?? if not, then please just go do something useful on the site and stop trying to frame me!

If that facebook link doesnt work, try this: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1041739469

PS, it appears after clicking on the link that you have to have your own facebook account to view my profile.

Comment A Facebook account with no friends and a Hotmail address are not going to convince us of anything. Perhaps it's time to block access to the entire Isle of Thanet! Whitstable (talk) 14:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whitstable, what have i told you about not talking to me? I don't want to hear your whining again. Please leave this discussion and leave it to those who can discuss this maturely. I am not a sockpuppet, my name is Paris, not Ben, i am a girl, not a boy, I am editing constructively, not vandalising. But yeah, I forgot, we MIGHT have the same birthday, and Andrewrice was also a transvestite, so does that mean that i am simply the finished result after the boy had the sex change??? So basically, you are saying that I used to be a boy and that I am transgendered, i find that extremely offensive. Pollypenhouse (talk) 14:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I do have friends on my facebook, what are you talking about?? Pollypenhouse (talk) 14:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request a checkuser on Whitstable, as he/she seems to be very keen on putting the blame of sockpuppets on me, but how about the fact that he is just trying to cover his own sockpuppetery. Pollypenhouse (talk) 14:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say how all 'Andrewrice's sockpuppets followed the same pattern of finding an adopter, well it was OwainDavies who suggested the adoption idea to me originally! since I did not even know what it was! I just can't be bothered to discuss this with you. Get the checkuser done now or I'm taking that thing off my page (which it states clearly I am allowed to after a certain period of time with no checkuser actions being taken). Pollypenhouse (talk) 14:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Confirmed The email address Pollypenhouse uses is known to be that of the Iamandrewrice banned vandal. --Yamla (talk) 17:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked at RFCU. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:07, 28 December 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:Listsvery

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

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

Report submission by

Whitstable (talk) 12:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Appears to be the same user, has been "conversing" with user:Pollypenhouse and asked for adoption within minutes of joining although appears to know Wikipedia quite well, operates similarly to banned user:iamandrewrice - who it seems is user:Pollypenhouse (despite protestations, that user shares the same birthdate as that on the MySpace of banned user)

Comments

He asked me to adopt him, which i did, but i did notice something unusual. He said he didn't know how to link to a page, but he knew how to use <ref> and IPA transcription. As long as i didn't see anything criminal, i assumed good faith, despite the suspicion. I did tell him that the notability of the articles he created is borderline. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are suggesting I was holding a 'conversing' with myself?? how ridiculous, I am not even going to comment. And please stop using false information, as for all my searching, I found no evidence whatsoever to indicate that 'AndrewRice' and I share the same date of birth, which, even if we coincidentally did (which it is apparent that we do not anyway), I do not grasp your idea of how that makes us the same person. I am tiring of this, I am here to construct an encylopedia, not listen to your rambling romanticised ideas, Whitstable, of how 'Andrewrice' is working through I and this other user, to vandalise (oh yes, on that matter, it is apparent that I and Listsvery have vandalised oh so much isn't it?!!!!) so I suggest you get that checkuser done quickly so that I can have that tag removed from my page. And anyway, if you were following the 'Andrewrice' events clearly, you would now know that the user has officially applied to be un-banned. Well that is what I gather from reading his writings in any case. I would argue that you go and take a look at casting your decision on the unbanning of the real user, rather than being clumsy-handed and wasting vast amounts of my editing time simply to prove my innocence. And if you would like me to prove who I am, I can give you my facebook account if you wish it. But I am not 'adding you as a friend,' if that is what you would like, for firstly in addition to the fact that you have established yourselves in no way as anything clarificable as that, but I do not mix work with leisure, and I would expect no outside wikipedia links with someone I expected to work with withing the wiki-sphere. So please, as I mentioned, go hurry up with the checkuser, for you are not only choosing to wasting your time, but more importantly, you are forcing me to waste my time. Pollypenhouse (talk) 10:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And with regards to how us two users met, it was from the fact that we both edited Swatch Internet Time, and this is where I found the suer. I do not know them in real life, let alone 'being' them, so please, next time you want to accuse someone, I suggest actually looking at ALL the evidence, not just the pieces you select. Whitstable, an additional comment to you, you deleted the message I left on your page, so I feel that only the same treatment will be due of you, so therefore, I do not wish to ever have a personal discussion with you, as I find you rude, oppinionated, and unintelligent, i am sorry to be so frank, but you continue to walk this route in such a manner that I am obliged to avoid any possibility of further coinciding with you, and having to hear your buzzing unsourced oppinions about me. So just do me a favour, and get the checkuser done quickly. Pollypenhouse (talk) 10:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I do not have time for this, I have an essay which has to be in at Uni in a week aand a half, and Idon't understand where all of this is coming form. If you look at my contributions, you will see that I have made good faith edits and created 3 new pages, two of which have now been unfairly deleted, giving me practically no warning time. I am Not a sock-Puppet of this andrew Rice Child. Me and Polly are new friends, I do not know her in real life, I met her on Wikipedia and we have been helping each other out. I am soory if I have caused any unconvenience, But I am not a sock puppet, I guess you'll have to Take my word for it. Or, you could do a check-user thingy. Listsvery (talk) 12:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the time right now to dig out the diffs, but Iamandrewrice also had conversations with other accounts which were later determined to be sockpuppets of him. It appears to me that these two are either Iamandrewrice himself, or a friend or friends of him. Intersting, too, that this user could make refs so easily. And he does not use the ref templates, but rather formats the refs himself...exactly as I taught Iamandrewrice to do. Circumstantial evidence, to be sure, but I am fairly convinced this account and Pollypenhouse are somehow related to that fiasco. Jeffpw (talk) 13:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One final thought: in looking through Listsvery's contribution history, I see he has been welcoming new users, often users who have yet to make a single contribution. I find it odd that a new user could find the new user log so quickly, and wonder if the users he has been welcoming are also socks. Jeffpw (talk) 13:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious minds, Suspicios minds. Actually, all I did was go on the recent changes, and when I saw that there was a new user, I welcomed them, that is all. That is all. Please, Look at my contributions again, Have I made a single bad faith edit? Am I harming Wikipedia in any way? Or am I trying to contribute and make Wikipedia a bad place, I'm sure that you are all intelligent enough to figure out that I am a credit to Wikipedia and certainly not a vandal. I do not know anything about this IamandrewRice account or any of the whole debackle, but i assure you that I am a good person and I am trying to contribute to wikipedia peacefully whilst at university. Please, give me a chance. Regarding the referencing, I didn't want to hastle my apopterUser:Amerie80 too much, so I went on Websites and I figured out how to reference from a website which I found on Google. Listsvery (talk) 13:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not true!!!!! You copied the exact same way I do MY references!!!!!! Pollypenhouse (talk) 13:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you are so ignorant! It wasn't that user who did the IPA writing, it was ME!!!!!! GOD! At least get your contributions and evidence right! Pollypenhouse (talk) 14:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Likely Account blocked indefinitely, almost certainly yet another sockpuppet of banned vandal, Iamandrewrice. Note that the other account mentioned here was confirmed as Iamandrewrice. --Yamla (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked at RFCU. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:08, 28 December 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:Clarissamelissa

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

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

Report submission by

Whitstable (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Same style as other User:iamandrewrice creations, see here and related sock puppets that have just been confirmed. Second edit (first was to user page) was a threat to a user who was dealing with the last round of socks.

Comments

I am pretty sure that Iamandrewice is the puppeter, and Clarissamelissa is a sock. But the puppeter is already banned. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is allready a sock puppeteer report involveing iamandrewrice (talk · contribs). See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Pollypenhouse. -Icewedge (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of the RFCU too. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Blocked now. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:06, 28 December 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

4.226.63.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.149.150.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Gladys J Cortez 03:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence
Same MO, same article PBS Kids, same continually-added irrelevant, consensus-deleted info. Same ISP.

Comments

This is way too sporadic for a rangeblock, isn't it? If it's not...please consider it.

(I apologize for the belated listing on this--forgot to add it to SSP.)Gladys J Cortez 02:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Blocked one week and tagged.

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

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

Suspected sockpuppets: 172.213.13.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 172.159.24.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 172.209.8.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 172.142.186.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

PhantomS (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Edits to James Stewart (actor) article and incivility on talk page and in edit summaries extremely similar to ones made from blocked HarveyCarter sockpuppeteer (Special:Contributions/DaveyJohnson) to John Wayne article and talk page.

Comments

Those edits appear to have been made by the same user. I've blocked the most recently used IP, 172.213.13.20. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Tagged the one not tagged. This and the block are about all we can do here. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:32, 28 December 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:69.131.154.47

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

IslaamMaged126 (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Replied to my comment on the other user's talk page.

Comments

Conclusions

Don't see abuse here. Let me know if there is. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:33, 28 December 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:202.151.195.132

Suspected sockpuppeteer: 202.151.195.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

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

Report submission by

Jonathan (talk • contribs • complain?) 16:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

IP is asking to have one of his other socks' userpages reopened. This IP is obviously KL, because of this action.

Comments

Conclusions

KL is the master and been blocked for awhile now. Blocked IP a month and retagged as needed. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:27, 28 December 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:Dalas666bolen

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Dallas666bolen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 01:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Hey; recently there has been some confusion on the Gorgoroth page as to the band line up, but the official response has finally been sorted, and they are sourced on the page. However, one user (who originally went by the name User:Dallas666bolen, started changing this claiming he has spoken personally to one of the band members (see my talk page here). The discussion went on, all the while him breaking the 3RR, until at last he was given his final warning. As you can see with his final reply on my page, he intends to create multiple accounts of sock puppetry to "spread the truth" - and has done. If you look at the contributions for his new account, followed by the message I left him, and the final message he left me, it is obvious that he is the same person who does not intend to stop adding misinformation to the Gorgoroth article.

Comments

Conclusions

Pretty certain. Tagged both, sock already indef. One week block on master. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:40, 26 December 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:70.68.151.228

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Victoriagirl (talk) 04:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Republicon (talk · contribs), who like 70.68.151.228 (talk · contribs), is a single purpose user, appeared 31 minutes after 70.68.151.228 reached the WP:3RR threshold with this edit. The new Republicon account allowed for the reversal of this edit, which had stood for twelve minutes. 70.68.151.228, who contributed eight edits between 07:42, 22 December 2007 and 18:04, 23 December 2007 70.68.151.228, has not been heard from since.
Both users make the identical reversion and employ periods at the end of their edit summaries (not at all common).

Comments

Conclusions

Tagged Republicon as master, who someone else blocked indef for disruption, blocked IP one week. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:48, 25 December 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: See also: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jamesinc14

70.241.200.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
4.226.63.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
4.226.63.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (added 12/24/07 11:25 AM CDT)

Report submission by

Gladys J Cortez 23:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence
Same ISP; same page focus; same text being repeatedly reinserted. Abuse Reports steered me here, even though User: Jamesinc14 is a well-known sockpuppeteer and his MO is really obvious on this page. Gladys J Cortez 23: 36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Conclusions

Blocked IPs a week. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:44, 25 December 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:Drokstef

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

89.36.80.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
91.168.220.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 23:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Four minutes after this, 89.36.80.198 suddenly started editing after months of inactivity and began removing the AfD tags from the same articles, also ignoring warnings to stop ([70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77]). 89.36.80.198 also contacted me on my talk page and commented on the AfD, with very similar writing style and arguments compared to Drokstef ([78] [79] [80] [81]).

After about 2 days of quiet, 91.168.220.29 began removing the AfD tags from the same articles ([82] [83] [84] [85]). 91.168.220.29 also commented on the AfD with a similar writing style as Drokstef ([86]). Note that 91.168.220.29 has made no edits outside of these pages.

From this evidence of similar articles edited, similar styles of writing, and common factor of removing the AfD tags, it seems clear that Drokstef is using these IPs in an attempt to unbalance and hinder the AfD discussion.

Note: The AfD is now closed, so some of the diffs can now only be viewed by administrators.

Comments

Conclusions

Blocked named acct one month, IPs a week. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:39, 25 December 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:Kitia

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

December 21, 2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

edg ☺ ☭ 10:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User:December 21, 2012 reopens [87] a WP:DRV to restore Betsy Baker, the same topic Kitia had been confirmed running two other sockpuppets in a previous DRV opened by Kitia.[88] December 21's opening comment: "I would pretty much go along with Kitia's reason in the previous DRV."
Similar articles edited
- Both have frequent edits to articles about years, such as Deaths in 2007 [89] [90]
- Both have multiple edits to Algiers [91] [92] and Khartoum [93] [94]
- Both edit war in American Pie, inserting large, previously deleted tracts of WP:OR [95] [96]
Sock account created[97] shortly after puppeteer blocked for sockpuppetry [98].
Kitia more or less announces intent to create sock accounts here [99], so expect more
User:December 21, 2012 nominated Joseph Priestley House, which s/he has made zero edits to at WP:FAC. However, Kitia started the article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I just looked it over and thought it was reasonably well written, so I nominated it. i guess I'll have to do a bit of reasearch. December 21, 2012 (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

User:December 21, 2012 seems an obvious WP:USERNAME vio as confusing. --Jack Merridew 11:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reported per your suggesion,[100] thanks. But I don't want the name retired as this editor will pop up with another name and create more disruption. I want it blocked. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Followup: the request was dismissed as not sufficiently inappropriate to warrant a block. [101] I don't really want to persue the name issue anyway, but thanks for the suggestion. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but isn't this for when people use multiple accounts to edit abusively. As far as I know I haven't done that. Please tell me if I did. If my name is such a problem I will create another account. December 21, 2012 (talk) 23:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Votestacking and edit warring are sockpuppet abuse. There's evidence of both accounts being used to do the same things, and creating yet another account is only going to result in it being blocked along with any other sockpuppets, if this SSP report does conclude that you are a sockpuppet of Kitia. --Coredesat 07:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have not votestacked, and my only edit warring was mostly on stuff other Wikipedias agree with. I only reverted the closure of the Betsy Baker nom because too little Wikipediand contributed. December 21, 2012 (talk) 15:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

The December user is a block evading sock, that and the other issues mentioned are plenty to block indef. Blocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:30, 25 December 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:Nicknam4

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Nicknam4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Wiki Pickle Slip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

TJ09 (talk) 03:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

All users recently vandalized the Twin page. 66.75.90.238 added a heading ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Twin&diff=179706571&oldid=179664106 ) containing a shoutout to members of a forum on which Nicknam4 (and I) are members. Nicknam4 subsequently modified the statistics in that section ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Twin&diff=179711015&oldid=179706571 ) as well as changed the title ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Twin&diff=179711068&oldid=179711015 ). After that was reverted he reinstated his changes and replaced the image with a vandalized version ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Twin&diff=179711739&oldid=179711572 ) Once again the changes were reverted, and Wiki Pickle Slip tried to reinstate the vandalized image that Nicknam4 had placed ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Twin&diff=179715633&oldid=179713037 )

In addition, on the forum referred to earlier, 'Nicknam4' a topic linking his name with the account Wiki Pickle Slip ( http://dragcaveforum.technoized.com/index.php?showtopic=2363 ), and where he admits to vandalizing the Twin and Pickled_cucumber articles.

I am admin of the forum http://dragcaveforum.technoized.com on which the user (or a user that coincidentally has the same name) is a member. There was a discussion on the forum relating to twins and the percent frequency at which they occur. This is likely what prompted the statistic vandalism.

Comments

Conclusions

That off wiki link makes this solid. Blocked sock indef and Nicknam4 for 1 week. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:24, 25 December 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:Mary170

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Mary170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Mary170.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Mary17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.147.235.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
90.208.99.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

SkierRMH (talk) 18:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User:Mary17 Began with 7/19/07 [102] through 7/19/07 [103].

User:Mary170 picked up the pattern of similar vandalism from 12/18/07 [104] through 12/20/07 [105]. Was blocked for these.

User:Mary170.5 started recently with 12/24/07 [106] and was blocked.

Has appeared as User:86.147.235.127 - [107] and User:90.208.99.73 [108] with same pattern of vandalism.

Comments

Conclusions

All 3 already blocked by 3 diff admins. Retagged for Mary17 as master account. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:13, 24 December 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:Cocknschnout

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

Suspected sockpuppets: 81.159.67.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

~~ [Jam]^[talk] 20:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Honley_High_School&diff=prev&oldid=179417022 First edit involved adding two instances of "inbred" to the page. These were then removed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Honley_High_School&diff=next&oldid=179448895 Another edit involving an "inbred award".

Comments

Possible that that it is the same person, but somewhat inconclusive. I don't see enough evidence to warrant a RFCU. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 15:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Possible, but not enough to block. Resubmit when there's more evidence. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:34, 24 December 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:LMA2007

Suspected sockpuppeteer

LMA2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

SJR2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

BlueAzure (talk) 04:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

These accounts are part of an ongoing COI case at the Conflict of interest Noticeboard. On October 30, 2007 LMA2007 was blocked for 1 month. On November 6, 2007 the similarly named SJR2008 was created. SJR2008 uploaded images named Erika Head shot.jpg and Cold Case.jpg, LMA2007 had previously uploaded images with the same names. The image Cold Case.jpg appears to the same per the edit summaries for the uploads. LMA2007 summary was “Dennis W. Hall acting role Clerk in COLD CASE episode 1, 2004 Author: has given permission to post photo. Please ref. Dennis W. Hall IMDB profile for all COLD CASE acting roles. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1667150/)” and SJR2008's was “Dennis Hall in cold case, 2007”.

Comments

Comment: User:LMA2007 has been indefinitely blocked on Wikimedia Commons for repeated copyrigtht violations/false licenses after warnings. -- Infrogmation (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Long term copyvio issues have not ceased. Socking too. Both blocked indef. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:25, 24 December 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:Thedc6

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Thedc6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

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

Report submission by

Mayalld (talk) 08:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User:Thedc6 is defending an article (G-APSA), that he is the sole contributor on from an AfD that alleges that the aircraft concerned is not notable.

His was the sole voice in favour of keeping the article. At 07:01 on 21st December, User:Latto shubtil registered, and by 07:06 had weighed in to post a keep on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G-APSA. At 07:09, User:Thedc6 made his first edit of the day

New account, immediately joining in on an AfD in support of the side that isn't doing too well in the discussion, and not editing anything else, stinks of sockpuppetry or meat puppetry.

Comments

See your point, but refute it. Though no previous comment or contribution, Latto felt that this informative and apparently well founded article appeared to have been unreasonably targetted for deletion. Therefore registered in order to join the debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Latto shubtill (talk • contribs) 08:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And does Latto always talk about himself in the 3rd person? The comment above appears to have been written by a puppetmaster who has forgotten which account he has logged on. Mayalld (talk) 08:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find your tone rather personal. Please excuse the abbreviated language of my last post - I am happy to stand by my comment. As a new joiner I may still be learning the etiquette. A little leeway in my formative days would be greatly appreciated. I apologise if I have somehow casued offense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Latto shubtill (talk • contribs) 21:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

WP:DUCK, blocked sock indef and master 1 week, Put notice on AFD about vote stacking. Master should stick to one account. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:29, 24 December 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:121.45.39.83

Suspected sockpuppeteer: 121.45.39.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: 121.45.163.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 04:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Edits made by two anons are almost exactly alike.

Comments

Surely this is more a case of having a dynamic IP address than abusive sockpuppetry, right? (Note: the edits in question have been deleted; they're viewable by admins at Special:Undelete/James Allen (internet personality).) —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 06:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Edits are from early this year. Only 1-2 edits showing for each in contribs. Not much to do here. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at deleted contribs, blocked 48 hours for vandalism. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:14, 25 December 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:Fiet Nam

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Fiet Nam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Chinese has a V (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Intrested in stuff? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

—An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 06:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Same interest in the Dalecarlian, [109] and Elfdalian dialects of Swedish as Chinese has a V and Fiet Nam
Same interest in alphabets derived from the Latin as ChaV
Undid the reversion of ChaV's edits
Same interest in Old Norse as Fiet Nam
Same interest in List of country nams in various languages as Fiet Nam

Comments

Chinese has a V (talk · contribs) has actually already been blocked as a sock puppet of Fiet Nam (talk · contribs); this is about Intrested in stuff? (talk · contribs)

Conclusions

Intrested in stuff? (talk · contribs) has been blocked by Ryulong.

All already blocked indef and tagged. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:18, 24 December 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:89.241.196.68

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

Suspected sockpuppets: 89.243.4.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 89.241.196.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Whitstable (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

From Jimbo Wales's talk page:

ok well this is like my last attempt to try to talk to someone here... ...i have been banned as a user for some time now (User:Iamandrewrice), having been said to have many sockpuppets. However, this is not true, as another user (User:Joeseth1992) pretended to be me and hacked my account, making sockpuppets himself, and then leading to a phenomenon in which even though I was trying to explain my situation to fellow wikipedians, no one would listen, as they all thought that I was lying and that all the sockpuppets were mine, even though they had nothing to do with me. I really want to help edit the site, and it would really make me smile this xmas if you allowed me once again to operate here. I would very much appreciate it if the other users could be informed that many of the messages that they have read and received that they believe to be me, were in fact from another user who was impersonating me. (I know this user in real life by the way). Please please please try and help me out... if you would like a full detailed step-by-step explanation of everything that has happened, I can email it to you, but it is quite long. Well whatever you decide, please email me here on benniguy@hotmail.co.uk

Thanks a lot... and have a nice xmas

89.241.196.68 (talk) 13:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Conclusions

That is obviously andrewrice trying to appeal his ban the wrong way. --EoL talk 14:11, 24 December 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:Jjmalone

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Amplifiedlight (talk) 08:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User:Jjmalone vandalized the page for Glen Maxey, creating comments about bankruptcy and a false life parter. These have been repeated by User:Mcblogger. (This also seems to be an attempt to impersonate an actual blogger that goes by that name as a result of this online forum's debate which occurred only hours prior to the edits).

User User:Jjmalone has made homophobic and libelous statements as part of their vandalism in the past coinciding with campaign activity of the target of the page, Glen Maxey. It may be helpful to request an IP checkuser request to determine if the underlying IP should be banned as both accounts have only edited that page and made similar changes as mentioned under the evidence section.

I'm not 100% how to describe this situation. We have an apparent case of a sockpuppet created to impersonate someone with an established online presence with the name 'mcblogger' (see www.mcblogger.com) all with the intent to vandalize a wikipedia page with untrue statements that may very well be done by the opponent of the targeted person (Glen Maxey). Ideally, both usernames could be blocked, the IP checked, or the mcblogger sockpuppet renamed.

IP similarity confirmed from checkuser request. Amplifiedlight (talk) 10:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Conclusions

Checkuser confirmed that they were sockpuppets of each other (and that MCBlogger was unrelated to the website). --EoL talk 13:58, 24 December 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:Alexander Mak

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Alexander Mak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Alex Makedon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
213.140.6.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

-- Avg 23:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Alexander Mak and Alex Makedon were involved in editing Talk:Republic of Macedonia [110]. Immediately after the first stopped, the second started [111]. The diffs show the same editing pattern, lack of usage of the preview button and minor corrections to the initial text. Finally and most obviously, they both sign the same text [112] [113]. Alexander Mak has been previously blocked [114] here, along with the IP 213.140.6.120 [115]. so the link between those two has already been established. This IP comes from Italy (Milan) and user Alex Makedon claims he has a professional level of Italian [116].

Comments

Might be more, since these accounts are shortlived and seem to be quite experienced for a newbie. My guess is that Alex Makedon has been created to avoid the bad reputation of Alexander Mak.

Is this a case about an abusive sockpuppet? --EoL talk 00:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:POINT, WP:DISRUPT, WP:UP, yes. I was recently involved in an ArbCom case about Macedonia and a big part of the discussions was about disruptive behaviour. You might say I'm a bit more sensitive to the issue since I'm also offended by the content of what this user claims, but let's concentrate on the technical part.-- Avg 01:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alex Makedon once again showed disruptive behaviour by deleting my sockpuppet notice, labelling it "politically motivated defamation" and accusing me of harrassment and vandalism [117].-- Avg 16:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear AVG your behavior is harrasment, and im contacting Admins about your obsessin with me, you keep threatening me, contacting admins to get me blocked, even controling my IP to see where im posting from!!! You are really making a personal war out of this! Are you a Psyco or somthing!?

As for the puppet acusation, both of the accounts are mine. I deliberatly did not pick a totaly different name, Alexander Mak and Alex Makedon are almost the same. I created Alex Makedon to have a clean start. Alex Makedon

Thanks for proving my point. The only reason this user is reincarnating under different names is to repeat the same abusive and disruptive behaviour, since his only edits are in talk pages spamming external links and writing inflammatory comments and in talk pages insulting other users. -- Avg 20:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You got something personal here mate... find one, just one place where i have insulted anyone... you on the other hand cant keep your eyes off me... i have just contacted an Admin about your behavior... and for the last time Wiki is not your personal Battlefield. Alex Makedon

If you want to have a clean start it would be better to start contributing in the encyclopaedia and stop using your new usernames for the very same reasons that got you banned before.-- Avg 22:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dont talk about things you dont know, 1) you dont know why i got banned for 2) for your information Alexander Mak got banned for a posting in the City of Skopje article, wich in the end, turned right the way i changed it - and got banned for. So you cant say that i act as i did and if that is a right way to act or not... Alex Makedon

Conclusions

There is precedent for blocking a second account of a user who is trying to hide a bad history. The break between the two accounts was only two minutes. IP and A.Mak blocked 48 hours, Alexander Makedon indef. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:20, 23 December 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:Cronos2546

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Cronos2546 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Caviarsteel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Flamin Warrior27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Flaminwarrior (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

spryde | talk 19:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Users created the La Plata High School (not a bad thing) but continue to add unverified information about the principal, alumni, prison pics of the school, etc. and all continue to war over it adding the exact same unverified vandalistic information.

Comments

After a bit more research, Cronos2546 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) appears to be the oldest account.
Added Flaminwarrior (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). spryde | talk 14:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

If they're warring over it, how can they be the same person? This looks more like vandalism, which should be blocked right away via WP:AIV. Closing as inconclusive for socking. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:13, 23 December 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:Dtemkin4

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Dtemkin4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Coryp2004 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
All4wingmen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Mr Senseless (talk) 06:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Dtemkin4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked indefinately for creating spam pages for a company Amalgam Entertainment, LLC. He or she has also posted the same article under Amalgam entertainment. Both of these have been speedily deleted multiple times. Recently, another similar article Amalgam Digital was created by user All4wingmen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) . Additionally, Coryp2004 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reposted Amalgam Entertainment, LLC again. I took the possible puppeteer to the COI noticeboard earlier today, and then after reviewing that entry again as well as his more recent contributions, I realized sockpuppetry could be involved. All three accounts have almost identical contribution lists.

Comments

I reviewed all accounts and the remaining article's history. This looks like fairly good proof of sockpuppetry. Bearian (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also put in a checkuser request to see if the IP in question could be blocked. I will post any outcome of that here. Mr Senseless (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

All blocked, see RFCU case. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:01, 23 December 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:Bandidoferoz

Suspected Puppetmaster

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

Suspected Sockpuppet

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

Evidence
I have reason to believe that OldManTellah is a sock puppet of Bandidoferoz. My reasoning behind this is that both accounts have created highly non-notable articles about a German language school teacher named Frau Caster. Variations of this page include Frau Caster and Frau caster. Logs of the deletion can be found here and here, respectively. Please refer to each user's talk page to see the warnings issued for the pages in question.

Report Submission by:
Icestorm815 (talk) 21:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Hopefully this is enough information to prove my statement. Please forgive me if this is not enough, or incorrectly formatted, for this is my first attempt to identify a sock-puppet. Please feel free to inform me if something should need to be changed. Thank you. Icestorm815 (talk)

Conclusions Delete logs very convincing. OldManTellah blocked 38 hours already, so I blocked Bandidoferoz 48 hours — Rlevse • Talk • 00:58, 23 December 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:PJHaseldine

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Phase4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Phase1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Phase2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Deon Steyn (talk) 11:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Accidentally edited User talk:PJHaseldine as User:Phase4 and corrected again as PJHaseldine: Diff. January 10, 2007, 17:43
User:Phase4 admist that it is continuation of Phase1 and 2 [118] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deon Steyn (talk • contribs) 12:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Phase4 edits User:Phase1's page: [119]
User:Phase4 repeatedly edits Phase1's talk page: [120] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deon Steyn (talk • contribs) 12:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Phase4 added reference to news article about Haseldine petition only days after news article appeared: diff 16 December 2007, 13:45
User:Phase2 also adds reference linking directly to Haseldine petition: Diff. 18 December 2007, 9:31
Phase = P Haseldine
Both users almost exclusively edits pages related to this topic (a few main ones):
- Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial
  - Diff. December 11, 2007 recent edits by Phase 4
  - Diff. 2005 edits by Phase1
- Investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103
  - created September 2005 by Phase1
  - November 2005 edits by Phase4
- Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103
- Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi (Libyan agent convicted of bombing)
  - Diff. December 16, 2007 recent edits by Phase4
  - Diff. 2006 five edits by PHase1
- Hans Köchler's Lockerbie trial observer mission
- Jim Swire (Spokesman for Lockerbie families)
  - Diff. 19 November 2005 created by Phase1
- Robert Black (professor)
  - Diff edited by Phase1 within hours of anonymous creation
  - Diff. 15 December 2007 recent edit by Phase4.
External petition for South Africa luggage swap theory by Patrick Haseldine indicates that South Africa luggage swap theory on Wikipedia is the primary source of his conspiracy theory, indicating his interest in keeping this article in line with his POV. Same article is militantly and POV edited by Phase4. Phase4 tried to censor negative info about this petition in the article by citing "Important" signatories as well as updating the signatory count as it progressed (e.g. 62-64 votes).
Multiple highly personal edits of own biography by the abovementioned accounts. Attempted ownership of own biography article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socrates2008 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

User:PJHaseldine is former British diplomat Patrick Haseldine (by his own admission: Diff) and he using Wikipedia as soapbox to push his point of view (South African involvement in Pan Am 103/Lockerbie bombing) by using sock puppet accounts User:Phase4 and User:Phase1 (used in 2005). Mr. Haseldine was dismissed from government for these allegations, but continues his campaign on Wikipedia.

Note that Phase1 (talk · contribs) also uploaded this photo of Patrick Haseldine claiming to be the copyright holder. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 05:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Socrates lied to me on my user page about this case [121], confirming my own suspicions that this user, Socrates, is trolling, regardless of teh rightness or wrongness of the case. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a false accusation - I pointed out that his IP had been blocked in response to my POI report, however this editor does not believe this for some reason, and has consequently been posting derogatory comments about me. Please see my talk page for further comments in this regard. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Between this and the editing evidence from the RFCU case, this is pretty convincing for Phase1/2/4 and PJHaseldine. Phase's blocked indef, PJHaseldine 1 week. IP already blocked 3 months. I checked and there is a Phase3, but it only has one edit on contribs and may be unrelated--no action taken on that one. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you swift and firm action here. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:38, 23 December 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:khampalak

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

ZRX222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Afghansuperior (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Anoshirawan 03:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

This user Khampalak was banned a few months ago for vandalizing articles and and cursing admins and other users. Now he is coming on wikipedia with numerous sockpuppets and is vandalizing articles [122] [123]. His other Sockpuppets which were banned were [124] [125] [126] [127].

Comments

Provide diffs that show the connection. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Khampalak and Afghansuperior's edits on Ahmad Shah Durrani's article is similar plus the IPs match. Anoshirawan 07:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoshirawan (talk • contribs)

Can someone please see recent edits of User:Anoshirawan, he is a proven vandal, removing page protection (that admins placed) plus images from Afghan American article over and over. [128] Why are his destructive actions ignored and you wanting to block constructive editors just because they revert his vandalism? It was already concluded not to change the word "Afghan" to "Afghanistani" in July 2007 (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 27#Afghan people) but Anoshirawan keeps on changing the name to fake "Afghanistani" as well as removing clean images from the article. [129] Why are there images allowed at Italian Americans, Greek Americans, Iranian Americans, African Americans, and many others but he wants to only remove the imiages from Afghan American article. It's probably that administrators are afraid to block anoshirawan or probably they are supporting him to vandalis pages. Anoshirawan already has a long block log [130], shows that his character is not of a good editor, he should behave, he was also warned of his actions many times but he removed many of those warning from his talk page.--Afghansuperior (talk) 01:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next, on Ahmad Shah Durrani article, I've placed 4 major sources (including the CIA factbook and encyclopedia Britannica) as reference that Ahmad Shah Durrani is known as the founder or first Emir of modern Afghanistan. [131], [132], [133], [134] (also see List of leaders of Afghanistan) This is very well known fact in Afghanistan as well as in all parts of the world. Anoshirawan claims that he was not all of that but a ruler of Khorasan, which is a province in Iran. This is like someone trying to say that George Washington was not the first President or founder of the United States but that he was a ruler of Washington or something like that. Anoshirawan is self POV pusher, not a nuetral editor like most of us. The things he claims don't make any sense to anyone that's why everyone is reverting his vandalism so that makes him upset. He also has a bad habit of removing images from the Ahmad Shah Durrani article, If you can also fully protect the Ahmad Shah Durrani article, that will help Anoshirawan go find another hobby instead of coming here vandalising pages.--Afghansuperior (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided enough sources for my edits and This is no page to discuss these issues but you are a sockpuppet and the reason you got banned from wikipedia was because of your vandalism. --Anoshirawan 07:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoshirawan (talk • contribs)

Conclusions

All three blocked, NisarKand socks. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:38, 23 December 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:Huard118

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Huard118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Huard119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Jona than 22:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Obvious sock of either Huard111, Huard 115, Huard 116, Huard 117, or Huard 118. I request an autoblock.

Comments

Conclusions

RFCU IPblock case was filed and completed. Both confirmed. --EoL talk 22:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The real master is User:AppleMacReporter, see RFCU case on Huard111, here. Retagging all to show AppleMacReporter as master. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:23, 23 December 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:85.178.128.251

Suspected sockpuppeteer: 85.178.128.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); MikeHalpert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Tralala98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Leistikow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); MichaelScart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Atze88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 85.178.154.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

Rjd0060 (talk) 05:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

added to by

--brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

All accounts began editing within a few hours of eachother. All editing the same page (Eduardo von Spaahm), making similar disruptive edits. See their contributions.

Comments

I would say put User:MikeHalpert as the sockpuppeter, as the sockpuppeter seems to work in a dynamic IP range and this account seems to be the oldest. --WinHunter ^(talk) 16:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that might be right. But it would require page moves and redirects...It is probably just better to leave it this way. I didn't know about User:MikeHalpert until today when User:Brewcrewer added it, but I created the report last night. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just meant the actual tagging, not the report. I am now changing the tags to sockpuppeter MikeHalpert i/o the IP. I am fine with leaving the report this way. --WinHunter ^(talk) 17:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks for your help. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Obvious socks, all accounts involved blocked indef and IP involved given only temporary ban since the sockpuppeter works on a dynamic range. Temporarily semi-protected Spam King to prevent further vandalism by the sockpuppeter's IPs. --WinHunter ^(talk) 17:18, 22 December 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:Centerforautismandrelateddisorders

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Dawn bard (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Centerforautismandrelateddisorders twice created articles on Doreen Granpeesheh, was speedy deleted twice as copyright violation, spam, not notable, COI. See User_talk:Delldot#Doreen_Granpeesheh_Deletion, where this was explained to the user. Daphnedawoman has now twice recreated Dr. Doreen Granpeesheh.. It was speedy deleted once, current speedy is contested. Both users have used the same photo of Dr. Granpeesheh.--Dawn bard (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"Centerforautismandrelateddisorders" likely has a conflict of interest, as Dr. Granpeesheh is the founder of the Center for Autism and Related Disorders, Inc., suggest that Daphnedawoman has the same COI.--Dawn bard (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Centerforautismandrelateddisorders soft blocked as username vio matching an organization name. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Looks innocent until you look at deleted contribs of both. Both blocked and tagged. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:12, 22 December 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:MascotGuy

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

Suspected sockpuppets: Lightvision (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Mighty Bitter Sweet Star (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Lightvision (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Doesn't seem to meet the name pattern, but check contributions. Also created an account Mighty Bitter Sweet Star (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which looks more like a MascotGuy sock. Kesac (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]; Cartoonguy11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I found this whilst searching through articles on Category:Burger King , seems similar to me. Cartoonguy11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 81.151.27.58 (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Report submission by

Thedjatclubrock :) ^(T/C) 01:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

See wp:aiv; above.

Comments: Give us some diffs. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]; Sigh. I was all set to defend Lightvision/Mighty Sweet Bitter Star because they doesn't seem to be exhibiting any of MascotGuy's signature problem behaviors, until I looked way back in Lightvision's contrib history and found this, one of his first edits. At the same time, though, that account definitely isn't causing problems, and seems to be doing good work.; CartoonGuy, however, made one edit last month, and before that his most recent edit was a year before. That's a long time to leave a sock in its drawer. -- Vary | Talk 02:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of MascotGuy, you'll see a similarity in their contributions. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 00:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be more specific and point out some real good resemblances. --EoL talk 00:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think editing similar articles is good enough. He needs to cause similar problems. Not everyone who edits cartoon or corporate mascot articles is MascotGuy. And while it's possible that one person could create that many accounts, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of MascotGuy is such a big pool that it's going to make it very easy to get a false positive when comparing possible new accounts to already blocked ones. -- Vary | Talk 04:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I find this inconclusive. Some show no contribs, one only has one edit in the last year. There is not enough problem editing here to show socking in my opinion. If there is a next time, provide good diffs. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:05, 22 December 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:Huard111

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Huard111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Huard112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Huard113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Huard115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Huard116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Huard117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Huard118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Huard119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Jona than 21:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Username just one number higher, obvious sock.

Comments

I think both are sockpuppets of Huard111, who is obviously blocked. AppleMacReporter (talk) 21:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Jona than 21:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

All have been blocked indefinitely. Unless there's any comments, the case should be closed here and settled at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check#Huard111. Spellcast (talk) 22:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The IPs have been blocked for now in the above report. Spellcast (talk) 22:39, 21 December 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:64.30.201.109

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

HollywoodFan1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

BlueAzure (talk) 04:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

This account and ip address are part of an ongoing COI case at the Conflict of interest Noticeboard. Until involvement in the Conflict of interest case all of HollywoodFan1 edits had been on the same day and slightly after the edits made by 64.30.201.109. The times of the editing:

November 7, 2007

64.30.201.109: 22:45-22:52
HollywoodFan1: 23:21-23:29

November 8, 2007

64.30.201.109: 21:06-21:10
HollywoodFan1: 21:38-21:42

November 27, 2007

64.30.201.109: 07:01-07:09
HollywoodFan1: 07:44-08:20

On December 15, 2007 HollywoodFan1 moved a message that had been left on my user page to my talk page [135]. The next day 64.30.201.109 edited the talk page changing a message SineBot added to the posting clarifying HollywoodFan1’s action [136].

Comments: User:BlueAzure first put me on a COI notice board under a complaint for MetaphorEnt along with a lot of other editors, and didn't notify me on my talk page.

User:EdJohnsonjoined the discussion and once other editors agreed there wasn't a conflict with the article I started. User:EdJohnson responded by putting on an Adf tag on the article I started without notifying me. Several editors thought the article was legit and helped to clean it up and removed the tag,

User:EdJohnson wrote that he wasn't satisfied then blamed me for using two accounts HollywoodFan1 and SJR2008. He then wrote "Thanks for clarifying, and sorry for the false alarm. EdJohnston" when I showed him his mistake.

Now User:BlueAzure put the sockpuppet tag on me.

Now User:EdJohnson is trying to get User:BlueAzure to put another Afd tag on the article I started, since his didn't work out.

I'm new to Wikipedia. I don't know what those numbers mean, they may be coming from my computer - I don't know. I'm not a computer tech. I made my first edits (very minor) before I had an account. Once I decided I would get more involved, I opened an account. I have only written one article and made minor edits to a few more. I am being tag teamed (literally) by two editors. And I've tried to be civil, by asking them for help and for advice, but they just continue to WP:BITE. I believe this sockpuppet thing is just another way for them to get rid of editors they don't like. If I am being a sockpuppet I don't know that I am. I only have one account registered.

Any advice? Any help?HollywoodFan1 (talk) 09:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)HollywoodFan1 (talk) 10:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)HollywoodFan1 (talk) 10:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Comment: The whole case only shows, that BlueAzure did not read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry or did not understand it. Sockpuppetery is the use of two accounts by one editor. In this case only one account is involved. There are not many editors, who never edited on their IP address, because almost everyone sometimes forgets to log in. Even if Bad Faith should be assumed, an registered editor should have the same right as everyone else, to edit under his or her IP address. --Thw1309 (talk) 11:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It seems possible that many of the editors named in the COI complaint at WP:COIN#MetaphorEnt are actually the same person. (There is more circumstantial evidence in the original COIN posting by User:BlueAzure). It would be good to get a clear statement from HollywoodFan1 as to whether he has used multiple accounts at different times. Since a COI matter is involved, it might not be out of line to ask for a checkuser on all the editors named in the complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 14:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the case, please make a new (correct) report, but this one is pure nonsense. --Thw1309 (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quoted from above "I only have one account registered." That's clear. Yes, I might have made edits without realizing I didn't sign in.HollywoodFan1 (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My question to you User:BlueAzure and You User:EdJohnson why you are using the COI board to make and Afd case, the sockpuppet board to make a COI case? You've made one COI case & reopened it. You've made one Afd case and you are asking for another one. And now I'm here on a sockpuppet charge. In the real court system there is no double indemnity. It looks to me like you're going to try everything and anything to get me off of wikipedia. My question is why? HollywoodFan1 (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)HollywoodFan1 (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Not a case of sockpuppetry. You may take your discussion elsewhere. --EoL talk 23:14, 20 December 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:You need a name

Suspected sockpuppeteer: You need a name (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: I need a name (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

cf38^talk 16:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Connected Usernames, I'm about to perform a WHOIS check to see if they share the same I.P

Comments

What? You need a name (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WHOIS check? There's no IP involved or am I mistaken? Also, can you state why was the suspected sockpuppet used in violation of the policy? Regards, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 16:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a regular alternate account. I don't see any problems with it. You need a name (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, it appears that the main account is I need a name (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), as it was created back in 2005 rather then You need a name (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) that was created recently. cf38, can you provide a reason why you think that the accounts were used in violation of the policy? I've reviewed the contributions and I haven't found any. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 16:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need a name can you kindly drop a line here from I need a name to confirm that you control both accounts? Thanks, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 16:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandals in the last couple of months have registered accounts with names similar to my (old) account and User:I need a name's (e.g. User:I need a lame). A note from I need... to confirm control of You need... would be swell. --EEMIV (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the names to me seem connected (You need a name/I need a name) But if they are not, I'm sorry for any trouble, as I just thought it was a bit suspicious. cf38^talk 16:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple accounts are allowed. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 16:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me for saying, but if multiple accounts are permitted what's all this about sockpuppets?cf38^talk 16:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet != Multiple account. A sockpuppet is a an alternate account used deceptively. In particular, using two usernames to vote more than once in a poll or to circumvent Wikipedia policies is forbidden. From WP:SOCK. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 16:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fair enough. I'll remove the template and I've requested this page be deleted per CSD7- author requested deletion. cf38^talk 16:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

No evidence of abuse, the author of the report has requested its closure [137]. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 16:56, 20 December 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:WatchingYouLikeAHawk

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

- auburnpilot talk 06:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

After SesameRoad (talk · contribs) nominated Natalee Holloway for deletion, WatchingYouLikeAHawk (talk · contribs) voted delete in agreement with SesameRoad, just six minutes after the nomination was complete.[138] This is WatchingYouLikeAHawk's first edit in over a month. SesameRoad has previously blanked project banners on Talk:Natalee Holloway,[139] and so has WatchingYouLikeAHawk.[140] Both editors were previously active on the Capital punishment article, edit warring in tandem to remove the same content. [141][142] In addition, both editors have been active in discussion on Talk:Homelessness‎ and Talk:Willie Horton‎ advocating the same positions.[143][144] Also note WatchingYouLikeAHawk's support of Conservapedia on his/her user page [145] and the fact that SesameRoad's first edit was to the Conservapedia article.[146]

Comments

Normally I would simply block these two editors as fitting the WP:DUCK test, but I'm an active editor on Natalee Holloway and have reverted several of SesameRoad's edits. As this has an affect on an active AfD, I'd appreciate quick resolution. - auburnpilot talk 06:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't check the diffs. I'll assume they indicate what auburnpilot says they indicate. A check of the contrib logs shows editing of similar subjects such as capital punishment and homelessness by both editors, as presented in the "evidence" section above.

The contribution log shows something very interesting. WatchingYouLikeAHawk edited furiously (for him) in the week preceding September 23, 2007, then he suddenly disappeared. He has edited exactly 11 times since then. Meanwhile, SesameRoad made his first edit to Wikipedia on September 23 and has been somewhat active until now. It would be okay if the older account had simply been forgotten about, but there appears to be vote-stacking, as mentioned above, so it's a violation of the sock puppet policy. Based on the editing pattern, combined with the evidence presented by auburnpilot, I believe these are the same person, and I endorse any reasonable admin response on this basis.

I acknowledge Rlevse for alerting me by email. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 01:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Both accounts blocked indef for socking and vote stacking, put notice on the Natalee Holloway afd about this. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:53, 20 December 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:James brown1605

Suspected sockpuppeteer

James brown1605 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Marktherufftheryder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.142.104.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Toddst1 (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User:James brown1605 is clearly a WP:SPA for writing about the Neville family as you can see from his/her contribs. He/she created a page Neville Neville‎ that included a hoax about him/her being instrumental in the fall of the Berlin Wall. The article was tagged by me with {{prod}} which failed by User:James brown1605. I nominated the article for AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neville neville and two new WP:SPA users who have only edited Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neville neville, and the article itself appeared and argued forcefully and like experienced editors to keep the article: User: 86.142.104.27 and User: Marktherufftheryder.

Comments

Conclusions

Pretty obvious socks engaged in vote stacking. Names blocked indef, IP one week. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:31, 19 December 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:Protagon

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Unknown

Suspected sockpuppets

Protagon (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

Report submission by

No Free Nickname Left (talk) 18:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

His talk page, where he admitts he is a sock puppet

Comments

This user entered the Russians page and started edit warring. A concensus was reached there long ago but he keeps on reverting the page.

I decided to enter to his page to see who this user is, and i have seen that he openly declares himself to be a sock pupet.

The edits he is doing is execly the vandalizm we once complained on. The complain can be found here. Please check him out if he's one of those vandals.

And something out of the case, if possible, make the Russians page protected in a way that only registered users could edit it, since as you can see, most of the time the vandals are not registered.

As you could see by my contributions page, i havent been here lately because i have studies and dont have time to be here, and unfortinetley after this messege i probably wont be here again for a few weeks, so i hope i was helpful.

The fact that the user ain't doing those edits from his account, but opens a sock pupet, and admite to it, already shows theres a reason people dont listen to him on his real account. I have a few guesses who this user is, but there's no use in saying because you sinply can find out. Sock Pupets are very dangerous for Wikipedia.

Apparently, the user is using sockpuppets for legit reasons. As long as he isn't using his original account to help his side win, it's not considered "abusive." --EoL talk 01:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And diffs. We need some diffs to compare. --EoL talk 01:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PLUS who is supposed to be the sockpuppet(s)? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Not an abusive case and not enough information. --EoL talk 21:20, 19 December 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:Nrcprm2026

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Nrcprm2026 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Abd (talk) 05:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Yellowbeard Contributions

08:57, 23 July 2006 Yellowbeard New user account[147]

First edit: 09:10, 23 July 2006 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schentrup method‎ (First deletion reason)[148]

comment: Clay Shentrup is a well-known activist for Range voting, often ppromoting the Center for Range Voting, and he has written some articles posted there. Schentrup method was his invention, and is non-notable. The point is the timing, as the first act of a new account, within minutes of registering.

One of Yellowbeard's early AfDs was for Center for Range Voting.[149] If I recall the history of CRV correctly, it might have been notable by then, it much more likely is now. Notability is not the issue, the action shows pattern and intention.

Subsequent activities included the deletion, though AfD or redirection, initially with high success, of many articles relevant to voting systems. If this sock is James Salsman, aka User:Nrcprm2026, an indefinitely banned user, it is relevant that numerous socks of his have been involved in attempting to keep criticism of Instant-runoff voting out of that article and to further slant or remove positive information on alternate voting methods from Wikipedia, and this is my reason for suspecting that this sock is one of Salsman's. For the Salsman socks which are clearly identified and involved with voting systems, see: Special:Contributions/BenB4 Special:Contributions/Acct4 Special:Contributions/P-j-t-a

Yellowbeard took action against articles for voting systems that might be considered political competition for his apparent preference, Instant-runoff voting, and against Voting systems criteria that are not satisfied by Instant-runoff voting, such as the FBC, Favorite betrayal criterion.

(Not all of Yellowbeard's actions have some obvious function with respect to a particular agenda, though I've seen no example of any work to actually improve the encyclopedia, only killing articles of arguably marginal utility, with some attempts -- and some success -- at removing notable articles.)

Yellowbeard filed a successful AfD for Bayesian regret [150], which is a term used for a measure of overall public satisfaction in simulation studies of voting systems by Warren Smith, cofounder of the Center for Range Voting, which work is widely considered to be important in measuring performance of voting systems. As was common with Yellowbeard's AfD's, the notability of this was misrepresented. For a definition of Bayesian regret, see [151], and for confirmation of the claim of prior use there, see (1989), ref to 1957 work, etc. Warren Smith himself showed up on that AfD, and gave references, but Smith is definitely *not* a wikilawyer!

Favorite betrayal criterion had been deleted [152] as a result of a simultaneous AfD for six articles on election criteria. Some of these may have been non-notable, but others are quite recognizable to students of election methods. Yellowbeard was not involved in the first deletion. However, FBC is very well-known to people studying the field, so it is not surprising that the article reappeared.

Then Yellowbeard filed: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Favorite betrayal criterion (2nd nomination). For the first time in this series of AfDs, editors familiar to me as participants in the voting systems articles appear to have noticed the AfD, and provided the necessary sources and arguments, and the decision was Keep.

Then he filed: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Favorite betrayal criterion (3rd nomination). This one started to heat up, and there was even broader participation. The AfD success of Yellowbeard depended on nobody watching the articles; some of these articles were created by specialists who are not regular Wikipedia editors, so they may have been on no watchlist for any interested user who logged in during the AfD period. At this point Yellowbeard began to personally attack those who had voted to Keep; however, Keep prevailed.

At this point, Yellowbeard began to attract some suspicion. He reverted a comment from User:Fahrenheit451 on his Talk page with the summary "rv vandalism."[153]

Yellowbeard continued to AfD articles. Definite majority choice was successfully deleted: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Definite_Majority_Choice. Here he started to encounter more resistance. DMC is well-known among students of election methods.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sequential proportional approval voting was also a successful deletion. Ironically, one of Yellowbeard's arguments was that there was already a section on this in Proportional approval voting. Yes, he then subsequently presented Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proportional approval voting, and was again successful.

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Majority choice approval (3rd nomination), which was successful, Yellowbeard presented a novel proof of non-notability: "The fact that only two users participate at this AfD exemplifies the complete lack of notability of this article." Of course, the number of users who participate in an AfD has little to do with notability, except for massively notable subjects. With specialized subjects, it can have to do with the very few editors who have the article on their watchlists, and who are not constant editors. Most of us don't watch all the AfDs that come by! Of course, there were two prior AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Majority Choice Approval and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Majority choice approval (second nomination)

Yellowbeard stopped editing for a period, his last edit before this hiatus was October 25[154] when he deleted content and redirected Allocation voting to Range voting, which is an error; Allocation voting is similar or identical to Cumulative voting, it is not Range voting at all. Again, nobody noticed. Recently, I became aware of the extent of Yellowbeard's activities, but he had not been editing, so it was moot. However, in case he returned, I put him on my watchlist. He started editing again December 11, with the same theme.

I have been countering his efforts, this time, but it's tedious.

My biggest concern is the abrupt and ill-considered loss of content. Indeed, some of the articles he has successfully deleted are not sufficiently notable to have their own articles; however, the goal of Yellowbeard, unfortunately, does not appear to be improving the encyclopedia, but to remove information about voting systems. If he does not go for an AfD but instead deletes the content and redirects, he does not place the old content on the Talk page for the new target, so that editors there can merge it, nor does he merge it himself. He's an eraser, not an editor, and that's not a proper use for socks.

From his Contributions it is clear that he is a sock, an experienced wikilawyer, and User:Nrcprm2026 is an obvious suspect; but it's possible that he is another with a similar agenda.

Comments

I am not a sock puppet of James Salsman. Abd also doesn't give any explanation why he believes that I was a sock puppet of James Salsman.

As for the article on allocation voting, the article says:

Allocation voting is any voting system in which voters are assigned a number of "points" or other unit of account, and are expected to allocate these among a number of alternatives. Unlike preference voting the numbers do not represent ranks but weights.

As a simple example, a system might allocate each voter five points or votes and permit them to apply them to a number of candidates for office. A more complex example might permit both positive and also negative votes, so that disapproval voting was also supported in the same system. asasally, an approval voting scheme is just an allocation voting scheme where each voter has as many votes as there are options, and can allocate only one vote to each such option.

This article is very contradictory. Is the number of points that a voter can cast fixed or variable? If this number is fixed, then I have to agree with Abd that allocation voting is identical to cumulative voting. But the author of the "allocation voting" article also mentions approval voting and disapproval voting, two methods where the number of points is variable, as examples for allocation voting. In this case, "allocation voting" refers to all range voting schemes. In any case, and here Abd agrees with me, we already have a Wikipedia article on this topic. Yellowbeard (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a suspected sock report and content controversy or argument is not generally relevant here. It's been acknowledged above that many of Yellowbeard's AfDs and other actions were technically correct. If any facts alleged above are incorrect, Yellowbeard is, of course, welcome to correct them, and if any apparent implications from the fact are imbalanced, he is also welcome to counter those implications with fact or argument. Allocation voting was mentioned merely as the most recent action; however, there may be some specific relevance, i.e., in the specific interest in deleting subjects relevant to Range voting. Allocation voting and cumulative voting are essentially plurality systems and as such have well-known problems; if a reader is referred to the Range voting article when looking for Allocation voting, and has a knowledge of the problems, Range might be tarred with the same brush. But any editor may err, even sock puppets, without consequence; it is a series of errors in a particular field, generating a certain subtle (or sometimes blatant) slant in coverage of that field, that may lead to suspicions of POV motive.

As noted above, there is only circumstantial evidence, based on interest and to some extent on more subtle characteristics of his behavior, that Yellowbeard is James Salsman. What is clear, however, a virtual certainty, and what was not denied by Yellowbeard in his response, is that Yellowbeard is a sock, an experienced Wikipedia user, who registered a new account. I assert that he has made and is making contentious edits and proposals, including voting twice first vote, and second vote; when correctly warned[155], responded defending action), and including personal attack and incivility. (See diff and the general discussion in that AfD.) As such, any administrator may consider appropriate action, from doing nothing, to warning or blocking any of the users involved, including me if my behavior is inappropriate.)

If the conclusion here is that Yellowbeard is not a sock puppet making improper edits, then various forms of dispute resolution would become appropriate if any content disputes remain. Because I consider the probability high that a judgment of "abusive sock" will be found, I'm not wasting effort yet on dispute resolution that would become moot. I am independently taking action to prevent harm from current edits of Yellowbeard. This mostly is a matter of insisting on proper process before making massive edits, such as his deleting and redirecting an entire article without notice and opportunity for consensus to form. Generally, the articles he has attempted to delete need improvements, and it is possible that the attention generated by this situation will help attract the attention of editors who can make them. I will do so myself as I can. Note, as well, that Yellowbeard initially reverted my reversion of his content deletion and redirection for one article, without engaging in discussion.diff

--Abd (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abd complains: "Yellowbeard initially reverted my reversion of his content deletion and redirection for one article, without engaging in discussion." Well, Abd re-inserted the AfD tag although the corresponding discussion was already closed since 3 days [156]. Of course, Abd's behaviour was a clear violation of Wikipedia's deletion policies. Therefore, I replaced the AfD tag by a Merge tag [157]. Yellowbeard (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I considered not responding to this at all, since what I wrote wasn't a "complaint," but a piece of evidence showing a pattern of behavior; but then I realized that this response, itself, confirms the pattern, in its wikilawyering and misleading description of the history.

This is the history: Yellowbeard filed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simple majority voting, primarily based on content criticism, and was correctly advised he did not need to AfD, he could simply delete content and redirect. Yellowbeard then did this,[158] noting it in the AfD, which was then closed: "The result was Redirected to Plurality voting system. Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 23:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)" This is in no way a binding AfD result. It is an AfD helpfully closed by a user because it has become moot.

I then reverted this, summarizing "AfD should be renewed or this article improved. Topic is notable."[159] At this point, Yellowbeard is on notice that the redirection is disputed. I left the AfD tag because of what I suggested. Contrary to his assertion above, he again deleted and redirected, giving a content-criticism based summary.[160] I reverted, with "See Talk."[161], and added comment to Talk:Simple majority voting. He then (correctly) replaced the AfD tag with a merge tag, which is where it stands. He has not responded in the article's Talk. I then placed discussion of the merge proposal in Talk:Plurality voting system (as indicated in the tag]]. No response there either. --Abd (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File an WP:RFCU, this is possible, but not conclusive. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFCU filed, hope I did it right![162]

That Yellowbeard is a sock is, from clear evidence in contributions, a near-certainty. That he is a sock of User:Nrcprm2026 is a reasonable presumption from interest; also it is of interest that no proven socks active in voting systems started Afds, Yellowbeard mostly avoided article edits except to place deletion or merge tags. That partition is also a possible characteristic of a puppet master becoming more sophisticated. Nrcprm2026 threatened to partition activity to avoid detection.; --Abd (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Closing, RFCU results said they are unrelated. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:19, 19 December 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:Serio1

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Serio1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Serio2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Pharmboy (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Content of user page is substantially similar to the edits that let to blocking of Serio1. Serio2 has now recreated the deleted article of Serio on his user page, against policy of overly personal use. The original article was subject to him deleting the AFD tags repeatedly (hense the block) and resulting in the page now protected. Pretty clear case if you compare photos from original article as well. This talk entry was particularly interesting and demonstrates that the account was made solely to "apologize" and immediately recreate the article in user space. Another interesting note is the original comments made by Serio1 when uploading [Serio.JPG], This is SERIO the artist himself My friend took this picture with my camera I am the only owner of this snice I own my record label too my legal name is Jonathán Pérez all rights reserved therefore I have the authority to upload this file clearly demonstrating that Serio1 (the artist) and Serio2 (the record company executive...) must be the same person.

Comments

User is using a sockpuppet as a way to circumvent being blocked. Also using personal page as way to circumvent previous AFD in an attempt to self promote. User has no respect for the process here.

Conclusions

Blocked and tagged. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:22, 19 December 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:91.89.72.16

Suspected sockpuppeteer: 91.89.72.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: 91.89.72.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Newtman (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Appears to be a sockpuppet for Special:Contributions/91.89.72.16

Comments

Conclusions

These are obvious related, since their IPs are identical/in the same range. Block if needed. --EoL talk 00:04, 19 December 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:Sam coles 1234

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Sam coles 1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Sam coles666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 09:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Based on name and similar edits

Comments: Also Sam coles321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (already blocked) and Sam coles 12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ~~(no edits yet)~~ (blocked) seem to be related. --Oxymoron⁸³ 09:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]; Sam coles667 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (blocked)--Oxymoron⁸³ 09:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Already blocked and tagged, nothing to do here, but you may want to file an RFCU as it may find more socks. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:15, 18 December 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:Jlee616

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Jlee616 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

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

Report submission by

Alexfusco⁵ 02:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

this page history

Comments

Conclusions

Blocked sock indef, master one week. Suspect someone else is real master account. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added Lucyintheskywithdada (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) per [163] Guy (Help!) 18:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Lwachowski

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

AWachowski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Ugesum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Creationcreator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Bksimonb (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

A series of accounts that revert the BKWSU article to a preferred version against consensus of other editors and taunt the other editors in the edit comments, trolling discussion pages or making accusations of meatpuppetry or article ownership. The reverts usually re-introduce material from several months ago. Although the accounts are not active simultaneously they all behave disruptively. It is necessary to show that these are all, in fact, the same user so that evidence can be prepared for a arbcom "request for clarification" regarding the article. Otherwise, this user can keep changing his name and fresh-starting. The Lwachowski/AWachowski accounts have already been disabled due to being similar to names of famous real people however Ugesum and reationcreator have popped up since then carrying on in the same style.

Evidence of disruptive reverts [164] [165] [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] [171] [172] [173]

Evidence of trolling [174] [175] [176] [177] [178]

Comments

I think you've got enough evidence there to bother ArbCom. I didn't look at all the diffs, but I glanced at a few of them, and I scanned the contib logs. The pattern of persistent edit warring and incivility by these users is very troubling, and I'm not surprised that the two main accounts are indef-blocked. The activity should be recent enough to allow for checkuser on Ugesum. Maybe you could check if you typed in the name of Reationcreator correctly: I didn't see any contribs by him.

There is definitely enough evidence to warrant a checkuser. When you request clarification for ArbCom, they can do a checkuser for you. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 00:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for taking the time to investigate this. I did misspell the last username. This is corrected now. This user also has done nothing to the article but revert to his previous incarnation's preferred version and troll an AFD I filed. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 06:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bksimonb has previously filed numerous checkuser and sockpuppet reports against what seem to be every other contributor, and the BKs have made further allegations, so it might be good to ask him to list them all, e.g. [179].

If we look at the early edits from Awachowski, they are clearly stated notices, attempts and discussion to have the user name changed due to a lost password. This discounts it from being a sockpuppet account [180], [181] etc. The rest of the edits are constructive adding citations, correcting formatting and punctuation.

Let us be clear what is going on here. BK Simon b is the organization's own Internet PR man, part of their core Internet PR Team along with other BK contributors such as Appledell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Riveros11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and others. Since their involvement in the topic, there has been a skillful and persistent effort to control WP:OWN the article and exclude other independent, informed contributors with the help of IPSOS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). There has been a huge investment in time and energy to do so by numerous means; endless complaints and accusations, constantly pejorative language and the use and misleading of other independent contributors, even adminstrators.

This is supported by off Wikipedia correspondence and meetings within the BKWSU.

In particular, the BKWSU seeks to hide the centrality of its use of spirit mediumship, channelling and possession as it is also involved with seeking status and influence within politics, such as through the United Nations, governmental offices and the corporate world. And inparticular, it seeks to avoid reference to an independent and informed website that makes public its practises, the mediumistic channelled messages its uses as scriptures and for guidance (http://www.brahmakumaris.info) and offers support for victims of its practises.

Even the Scientology topic allows independent and critic weblinks.

The BKWSU teaches that its main mediums have been, and are still are, possessed by a spirit it claims is God and who speaks to its followers in person, making numerous and failed predictions of the End of World since the 1930s, re-writing them while the organization profits from followers donations. BK sit each day, every day, at 6.30 am to listen to these teachings and visit the Indian headquarters to witness it performed in person.

Any administrator looking at this issue for the first must bear this motivation and the degree of motivation involved here. I appreciate that Wikipedia adminstrators can only be expected to give cursory looks over such skillful and well present accusations but this calculate attempt to control topics on the BKWSU, even to the point of the persistent deletion of other such articles [182] - which he does not mention is also BKWSU related - so the organization can focus on this one. Giving a shock example and claiming to another BK contributor that these topics were only being edited by "written by people that really hated the BKWSU". So is their world view. [183]

--Creationcreator (talk) 09:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The accuser is current involved in an indentical pattern of edit-warring/reversion with other BKWSU contributors, as previously noted, here [184]

--Creationcreator (talk) 10:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for giving such a detailed analysis. That's quite an achievement for an editor who has only made 17 edits at time of writing. Perhaps you should have posted in the Evidence section since you are clearly demonstrating that you are indeed the same user changing accounts again. Well done! 11:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bksimonb (talk • contribs)

Conclusions

Editing and date sequence of user names is pretty convincing. All blocked and tagged. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:35, 18 December 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:MostPimpBruthr

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Pimpbrutha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Destroyerofthewiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

WWGB (talk) 11:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Revision history of Geoff Clark

Comments

See also Jeff Fenech and Marcus Einfeld. Continual breaches of BLP and NPOV. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is very obvious. I haven't checked the diffs, but the editing patterns indicate beyond a reasonable doubt that these three accounts are the same person, trying to push a certain POV in favor of revealing that people such as Geoff Clark are accused of rape. Not sure whether this violates BLP or not.

I suggest that all three accounts be indef-blocked, but the user is not banned and is free to start over with a new account. The usernames, while not necessarily inappropriate per se, do not reflect the standard of mutual respect that is expected of contributors. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that all these accounts are socks of community banned User:DavidYork71. See here for confirmation - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wanted: User:DavidYork71-familiar admins -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Sockpuppets tagged and blocked. Nothing to see. --EoL talk 22:02, 17 December 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:Kaka12o

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Kaka12o (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Kaka12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
A1ninon27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Gzus209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Ariasmario32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Matthew_hk t c 15:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

The user often using cut and paste move, and move the page to unknown name, or very uncommon "real" name.

Kaka12 and Kaka12o have strong link, the page created by 12, is redirected by 12o.

And Gzus209 is the user of the unique template created by 12o, for a youth team in Mexican football.

The other were main contributer of the Mexican team affected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew hk (talk • contribs) 15:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

69.225.253.123 (talk · contribs) is clearly the same person as Gzus209; he edited the same article many times a day later.

All editors share the same interest in Latin American soccer (futbol). I am not yet convinced that they are the same person or even "meat puppets". Certainly the similar usernames of Kaka12 and Kaka12o is strongly suggestive of sock puppetry, but I don't see the connection to the other users. Clarification via diffs and links, which were not provided in the "evidence" section, would be helpful. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 00:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note also: Kaka12 made a few edits in August, then Kaka12o started editing in September, and the first account has not edited since then. It looks like this person simply forgot his password and started a new account with a similar name. This is not a violation. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 00:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

This is really shaky. WHile the general area of Latin America is of mutual interest, they don't even edit the same articles. The two similar names are interesting, but we'd need more to block. Next time provide diffs that link the accounts together. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:23, 17 December 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:Innes2k7

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Innes2k7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

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

Report submission by

Blueboy 96 15:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

TheStephenator created an article for I & K Motors, a Scottish car dealership of questionable notability, at 1:28 Eastern time on December 13. The company is owned by a man named Steve Innes. Within five minutes of its creation, Innes2k7 tried to add the dealership to List of Scottish companies (diff) only to be immediately reverted.

Comments

Yes, I have created a new account. This is because I was coming under criticism on my old one, and wanted to make a fresh start on my new one. What's the harm in that? --TheStephenator (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does, actually--per WP:SOCK#Avoiding scrutiny. Especially when you consider you're trying to advertise your own company. Son, you've been caught. Blueboy 96 15:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No SON, it's not my company actually. I may have the same surname as the owner, but it is not mine. Sure, delete the article, but please get your facts right before throwing around accusations, SON. --TheStephenator (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have the same last name as the owner, you create an article about his company, and yet you're not the same guy? Please. Blueboy 96 15:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, have you ever heard of the word "family"? No? Check out this article then, Chuck: Family. --TheStephenator (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have, actually ... which makes you at the very least a meatpuppet. Blueboy 96 15:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sorry. Just delete the article. Now. Anyway, I don't really want to be involved with Wiki - I have a life. Goodbye. --TheStephenator (talk) 15:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I think this is just a case of different people being interested in the same thing.

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

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Mister ricochet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Mister_ricochet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
24.62.54.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Realsanpaku (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
ImagineNoPossessions (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
MindGuerrilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
24.168.17.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

as Mister ricochet: Comments in John Lennon and Mister Ricochet User Talk claiming a relationship with a famous Lennon photographer named David Spindel that a permanently blocked, long-time puppetmaster, SixString1965 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) also claimed. A previous SSP report noted the connection between Realsanpaku and SixString1965. It should be noted that "Mister ricochet" only came into being shortly after the last sock, Realsanpaku was shut down.

as Realsanpaku:
as '24.62.54.8'
Noted as being in the range for Suspected Sockpuppets of Sixstring1965

as ImagineNoPossessions:
as MindGuerilla:
as 24.168.17.212:
Noted as being within the range for Confirmed Sockpuppets of SixString1965. It should be noted that the anon IP was used once, to attack David Shankbone on his user talk page.

Comments

All of these accounts appear to be socks of the sockpuppeteer SixString1965 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); specifically, 'Mister_ricochet' and '24.62.54.8' have been attacking user David Shankbone and myself in both his article and the John Lennon article. This is a recurring problem.

See also thread at ANI (link) started by R.Baley (diff). Tvoz has more evidence laid out in the ANI thread (diff). Also check out the user log with image uploads (Mr. ricochet's), and compare with SixString's uploads. R. Baley (talk) 08:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admission [185]. Note very obvious and improbable use of identical userboxes by MindGuerilla and Mister ricochet: [186] and [187]. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

There is strong evidence of sockpupptery. I have blocked the account for 48 hours and requested checkuser at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mister ricochet .- Jehochman ^Talk 14:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFCU confirmed all but the 24...8 IP, all confirmed blocked and tagged. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:19, 16 December 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:Jjk82

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Jjk82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

--Appletrees (talk) 12:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Jjk82 has been making highly disruptive behaviors on Korean related articles as putting false and biased sources of environment, dog meats, education, foreigners and so forth.

Jjk82's vandalism
User:Jjk82 added many false information and irrelevant information to eight Korean related articles in a row. He claimed that Korea is very dirty place and not good for English teachers working there, so he inserted seemingly formal citations into the articles. However, everything turned out that the external links and references are duplicated bogus links. As I was following citation links, it went to another wiki pages repeatedly. It was like a labyrinth. In addition, the list of the English private institutes at South Korea, hagwon he added for his allegation, can be a serious legal problem for his sake. Therefore, I restored some of the 8 articles from his vandalism to the last revision and removed the possible legal problems. He put redundant texts regarding Korean eating dog meat to Korea and South Korea articles. 1. Korea: [188] South Korea can be a downright dirty place. South Korea was classified as a “developing country” and with that, wasn’t required to reduce cardon dioxide emissions. Many Koreans view people of darker skin (such as South-East Asians) as inferior. Note: He added a very long popular cuisine subcat. as listing all kinds of dogmeat from two existing articles. Korean cuisine, Dog meat 2. South Korea: [189] Korean environment as same as the above. This was partly due to the destruction of much of the country's infrastructure during the Korean War; however, the primary cause was that it didn't open up to the world and embrace new ideas and technology until the 1950's. Because of this, Korea has been called "The Hermit Kingdom At present, the Korean workforce is terribly inefficient. Koreans work more hours than any other country, but Koreans are far from the wealthiest - they are a disappointing 28th. Korea is not an egalitarian society; one is either of a higher or a lower status than other people. How do foreigners fit into this scheme? Because of the lack of higher level education, studying abroad has become the norm. For every foreign student who comes to Korea for university The Republic of Korea is ranked the 12th in military strength. 3. Tourism in South Korea: [190] Despite these attractions, Korean tourism has a long way to go. Korea’s “travel account deficit” amounted to $8.49 billion. Simply put, the Korean tourist industry is not very competitive. /and deleted passages with citations. 4. T-50 Golden Eagle 5. LG Electronics:[191] , 6. Samsung Electronics Samsung Electronics and LG Electronics, were given poor marks (both 4 out of 10) from Greenpeace because of their total lack of environmental responsibility. More specifically, the companies lack a comprehensive product take back program, 7. Teaching English as a foreign language: [192] South Korea, However, there are many dodgy schools, so do be careful. 8. Hagwon: [193] black list: Schools you should avoid working for. Teaching English in Korea is really a minefield of potential disasters. Read the warning from the U.S. Department of State regarding teaching English in Korea: "Note" listed actual names of the hagwon. If people to whom concern find out this, he can get in legal trouble.

And after close looking into the history of the articles, South Korea, and Seoul, Korea, User:Keyngez showed the same behavioral patterns as Jjk82's. Like Jjk82, Keyngez uploaded unsourced and unnecessary images of Korea. Several images were erased as spams. They both got warnings from admin on the matter.[194][195] [196]

The editor and the others all obsess with environment of Korea and South Korea and show similar writing style to Jjk82. To avoid look himself suspicious, the editors begun editing neighbor countries of Korea as well.

Fightingforever [197], [198], [199] and his activities on Japanese environment [200]

211.41.250.203 and Fightingforever are the same person per this [201], [202], [203]

I think Jjk82 uses some tactic to disguise himself as other people with revealing fake ip addresses. Anon, 202.136.142.171 who extended Jjk82's comments intentionally revealed he is now in Iran. [204][205]

Comments

This is serious, but I haven't decided whether the proof is strong enough to warrant a ban. Checkuser (code C) would be helpful. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the check user? I'm getting to know every "new" thing when a disruptive editor comes to Korean related articles.--Appletrees (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]; File the CU code C at WP:RFCU. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Results at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Jjk82, I blocked and tagged the ones with evidential support. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:46, 16 December 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:Alexfusco5

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Alexfusco5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Broadway14122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Redmarkviolinist ^(talk)^{Editor Review} 16:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Broadway14122 was created on December 12, 2007 Creation log. Just a little while later, Alexfusco5 warmly welcomed him (one of the the first times Alexfusco5 has welcomed anybody). One day later, wala! Alexfusco5 was nominated for Adminship. I personally think that this was a little soon for Broadway14122 to know how to nominate anybody for Adminship, much less know what an administrator is. On top of this, he posts a notice on Alexfusco5’s page, which anybody who had been created in the last day would surely not know how to do. (The notice was put on 2 days after Broadway14122’s creation.) Since the nomination was put down a little while after it was created, Broadway14122 has not contributed since, nor do I think he will in the future. With all of the above evidence, I think that Broadway14122 is a Sockpuppet of Alexfusco5, just so Alexfusco5 could be nominated for adminship.

Comments

Strange. There is no way Broadway14122 is a brand new wikian, see [206]. Question, who is the master. Alex turned down the nom. I asked Alex to respond here. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I have some counter-evidence to submit. Most importantly if broadway14122 was my sockpuppet why would I decline the nomination? As for welcoming broadway14122 I have welcomed many users (both anons and registered users). So what Redmarkviolinist is saying is that because I welcomed broadway14122 he is my sockpuppet and if I go to the user creation log and welcome three or four new users they are all my sockpuppets. Alexfusco5 17:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

While this is an unusual case, it is not convincing that they are the same person. If they were, it'd make no sense for Alex to turn down the nom. More evidence is needed. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:47, 16 December 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:Dennis-from-accounts

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Dennis-from-accounts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

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

Report submission by

Mayalld (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Dennis-from-accounts is indef blocked. MeMutu arrives, and continues in the same vein, and even edits Dennis-from-accounts user page to add a "knowing" question about why was the account blocked

Comments

Pls provide diffs showing a connection. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks very likely to me--Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 20:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Indef'd Metutu. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:15, 16 December 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:Beh-nam

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Beh-nam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Kabul-Shahan2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
KabulHospital (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
HariRud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
See also Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Beh-nam and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Beh-nam

Report submission by

—Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 16:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Editing pattern and sock name correlates strongly to first sock case.

IP makes the same moves as Kabul, see here.

Since there has already been a case with this user I haven't provided any diffs, but I can if they are necessary. The contribs are really the most telling. —Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 16:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I added User:KabulHospital and User:HariRud (Beh-nam's already banned sock accounts). The 201.6.56.26 IP is not of Beh-nam's. Beh-nam's IP is from Toronto, Canada, similar to 65.94.218.184 but sometimes starting with 7 as the first number. User:Kabul-Shahan2020 is in fact User:Beh-nam.--ZRX222 (talk) 05:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Reset short block of Kabul-Shahan2020 to indef. The other were already indef blocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 16 December 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:Owenisgood

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

Suspected sockpuppets: Owenb1991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

—Travis ^talk 23:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Same article, Bartholomewism, created by both usernames. Article was deleted once before and has now been recreated and prod'd. Article refers to an Owen Bartholomew, which leads one to believe that User:Owenisgood and User:Owenb1991 are one in the same.

Comments

I don't have access to deleted edits. Assuming that Travis is correct, there's no mitigating evidence because the users have made no other productive edits, and the usernames are similar. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that the article was indeed created by User:Owenisgood on 21:22, 17 March 2006 and recreated by User:Owenb1991 on 22:14, 12 December 2007. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also User:Owenisgood did uploaded an image called File:Bartholomewism.jpg which contained the same text of the article Bartholomewism, however the text of the article that User:Owenb1991 created was different (same concept) but since there are only 7 results on Google for the term, 3 of which from Wikipedia (well, one from Answers.com displaying text from wikipedia) I very much doubt that somebody else then a same Owen Bartholomew would have create an article on it. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've took some time and read http://ickyface.deviantart.com's entry for Tuesday, October 09, 2007 which is one of the results (the only one that gives a clue). It's a conversation between two persons identified as gotnocash16' and sushi4thedentist, that further in the conversation refer to theirselves as Adam (gotnocash16) and Tessa (sushi4thedentist). The only references to other person (not necessary involved with the issues) as been to a Blanco (referred in the following line sushi4thedentist (9:39:31 PM): and Blanco’s so stupid), Anna (referred in the following line gotnocash16 (4:32:13 PM): aw that sucks.. how r u gona mail stuff to anna and others), katie (totally unrelated, appears to be a girl who goes at the same school as the other two). No mention of an "Owen" whatsoever. It seems that this two friends has decided to create a religion, started more as a joke than something serious but then seriously thought that I had some good point. Some random quotes from the lengthy conversation:

gotnocash16 (9:09:41 PM): this should be another chapter is the bartholomewist scripture
gotnocash16 (9:11:23 PM): this may yet become a rather nice religon
gotnocash16 (10:05:57 PM): our religion should perhaps die with us
gotnocash16 (4:35:25 PM): we wont have superior teachers in our religon
gotnocash16 (4:35:53 PM): everyone will be an equal.. the only thing that will be differnt will be the level of understanding

No mention of an Owen then, but I doubt that it's not the same person. Leaving open for giving the chance to the editor to reply. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't thought to read through that link, but it seems to confirm my original suspicion that “Bartholomewism” is something made up in school one day. Thanks for digging, Snowolf. —Travis ^talk 22:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Blocked both indef for socking and hoaxiing. Pretty conclusive, don't see anything constructive here. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:06, 16 December 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:Carnun

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Compower (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Nownownow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
69.121.234.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 11:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

On Dec. 4, Carnun was blocked for a week for date warring, primarily on articles relating to South Asia. The Compower account was created within the last 24 hours. This new account immediately began a similar pattern of date warring, changing BCE/CE era style to BC/AD style. [207] [208] [209] [210] [211] Note the misleading edit summaries, i.e. "spelling" and "fixed mixed dating" (used when changing 15 instances of BCE/CE to match a single instance of his preferred era style). Note, also, the inappropriate tagging of the edits as "minor." This is all fairly standard date-warring. What makes me suspicious that this user is a sock of Carnun is his similar interest in simplifying the names of certain countries. Carnun does this here. [212] [213] [214] [215] [216] Compower does it here. [217] [218] [219] [220] [221] Although I see nothing inherently objectionable about these changes in the names of countries, they are evidence of a similar area of interest and editing style.

--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC) I just added Nownownow and an IP to this page, note Nownownow's similar interest in Asia and pattern of date warring. Two near identical edits by Nownownow and 69.121.234.204: [222] [223] The best examples of the IP's conduct are his oldest edits[reply]

Also note the similarity of Nownownow's edit summaries ("consistency," "common usage," "simplified") to Carnun's and IP's interest in Fauna of Australia to Nownownow's in Australian megafauna. -Steven J. Anderson 09:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Compower looks like Carnun to me - exactly his signature. Just in case, I put a block warning on his talk page. kwami (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The next two do not have his modus operandi. It's not unreasonable that someone would see Carnun's edits being reverted, and decide to join in - that might explain the overlap of articles. Another IP that just cropped up is User:125.253.16.156. kwami (talk) 19:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Carnun was just blocked for a month. Compower I've blocked as his sock, pretty obvious to me. But I'm not convinced of Nownownow, so I did not block him. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:59, 16 December 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:Mschuhe3

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Mschuhe3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: 205.155.11.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 205.155.22.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 205.155.22.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 205.155.22.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 205.155.22.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 205.155.29.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 205.155.5.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 205.155.5.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 64.175.151.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 69.225.161.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 71.131.6.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 74.220.67.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Zedla (talk) 05:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

eerily similar vandalism to Soquel High School:

changing the infobox principal's name to Hitler (or some variation of, sometimes including a reference to Nazis)
changing the infobox mascot from "Knights" to typically "Mickey Mouse" (or again some variation of)

most of these IP's are dynamic school IP's making it hard to identify/warn this particular vandal.

particular diff's:

Mschuhe3: [224]
74.220.67.79: [225]
205.155.29.254: [226]
205.155.22.195: [227]
205.155.5.97: [228]
69.225.161.167: [229]
71.131.6.229: [230]
205.155.22.225: [231] * 205.155.22.225: [232] & [233]
205.155.22.254: [234] & [235]
64.175.151.35: [236]

Zedla (talk) 05:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Most of these IPs are from the Santa Cruz, CA area. Being dynamic there is not much to be done here. The named account has lots of vandalism edits--only one in the last couple of days, but it's not vandal only. Issued final warning to the named account on the vandalism. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:50, 16 December 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:P wee bob peck

Suspected sockpuppeteer

P wee bob peck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

P wee herman peck mcdonalds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
P wee bot2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
P wee reubens bot3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Zer0~Gravity ^{(Roger - Out)} 02:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

[237] attack on User:SqueakBox retaliation [238][239]

Comments

Conclusions

PWeeHurman socks, blocked and tagged all. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:36, 11 December 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:Snotch

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

Suspected sockpuppets: B1azers2002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 05:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

See history for page Raptor

Comments

Conclusions: Both puppeteer and puppet have been blocked. --Chris 09:07, 11 December 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:Soulgany101

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Soulgany101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Goddessculture (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
121.223.64.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
124.186.83.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
121.222.133.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Zeraeph (talk) 09:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Talk:Cassandra complex (psychology) Talk:Cassandra phenomenon http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Soulgany101&oldid=166050049 (reference to deleted article)

Comments

This editor persistently over a long period of time, has tried to create and divert articles to promoting the self published, non-notable agenda of Maxine Aston and http//:www.faaas.org (there are other articles, one of which was deleted, I'll try to find them ) it seems to be something of an obsession. He has often used IPs to give the impression of consensus without actually claiming it, however, at this point, he has crossed the line into creating a second identity as well. (The IPs resolve to same town/city using this http://www.geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm )

This editor has now "come out" and agreed to "disuse" (his term) his User:Soulgany101 account and will hopefully not be making further misleading use of anon IPs. I would at this point, prefer to WP:AGF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeraeph (talk • contribs) 00:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See this ANI thread too: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets.2FSoulgany101 — Rlevse • Talk • 02:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

This is where the use of a new name is admitted: [240]. As submitted wishes to AGF, closing. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:25, 11 December 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:Plasynins

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Armyguy11 (talk) 04:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

On another article Parsley Massacre [241]

It is far more than coincidence how Plasynins was working on an article Parsley Massacre and was approaching 3rr violations on the article. On what would have been his forth reversion in 24 hours, he disappears and another user Yemal shows up and reverts the article [242], and defends Plasynins on a 3rr violation posting. [243] . Yemel arrived on the scene at [244] 23:08, 8 December 2007 after last having been on at 00:26, 8 December 2007. Plasynins last edit was at 22:45, 8 December 2007, and right after Yemal arrived. Playsins next comes back on at 01:47, 9 December 2007 with an edit on the 3rr violation about him [245] . They both have a similar history of using the UNDO button and have not ever been on at the same time or similar times. Always one after another or a few hours apart.

RFCU was filed and a possible was the result. [246] Armyguy11 (talk) 05:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Ugh, this is what happens when I get myself involved in other people's fights. Anyway, we are not the same person, I have only even edited the same article as him once ever. Nor have I ever edited any similar article. Is that really enough to start making pages like this? The same user who you are fighting with made a similar page about you. I find this all very insane, I didn't even know pages like this existed. Like I said before, I'm staying out of this. You don't have to worry about me reverting you anymore, so relax. You people all need to chill out. Yemal (talk) 00:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Possible, but not convincing. I think this could merely be coincidence or someone just agreeing. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:13, 11 December 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:Richprentice

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Portlandy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Human growth and development (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Jimmihoffa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
James Whitmore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Portland State University IPs

131.252.193.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
131.252.231.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
131.252.232.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
131.252.192.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
131.252.192.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
131.252.232.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
131.252.232.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Oregon Health & Sciences University IPs

137.53.254.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
137.53.254.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Orpheus (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Accounts all making the same contested edits to Environment California, using multiple accounts in an apparent effort to avoid 3RR. For example:

Portlandy
Human growth and development (not identical reversion, but edit summary points to puppetry).
Jimmihoffa
Richprentice

Also similar comments made by all accounts on user talk pages. The accounts are so new that they're all under 20 contribs, so even a quick glance through the contributions should add further confirmation if required.

For example, Portlandy, One of the PSU IPs and the OHSU IP all make similar comments about "erasing entire pages" and "collaboration" and suppression of free speech: Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff

For the link between Portlandy and Jimmihoffa, note that Jimmihoffa signed "Portlandy" after WP:RFPP reports: [247] [248].

The user James Whitmore asked for protection on Environment California, despite never having edited that page. The reverts he mentions are of edits made by Portlandy and the other socks mentioned above.

One of the PSU IPs and Human growth and development use similar comments about "hopefully making everyone happy": Diff, Diff.

Two of the PSU IPs characterize others' edits as vandalism: Diff, Diff.

The OHSU IP signed one post as Jimmihoffa: Diff.

On 6 December, one of the OHSU IPs left a comment on Christopher Mann McKay's talk page immediately before Jimmihoffa reverted CMM's edits.

Comments

Note that I have no idea which is the puppeteer - the user seems to be using all the accounts and IP editing pretty much interchangably. I picked the oldest one.

They're editing the same topics, but not making the same edits. Can you provide better diffs? — Rlevse • Talk • 03:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an instance where Jimmihoffa signed a comment as Portlandy, which would seem to suggest that those two accounts may be used by the same person. —C.Fred (talk) 03:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rlevse, the best one to look at is the page history of Environment California. There's not a huge number of diffs to post, but the essence is that Richprentice made a contentious edit which was reversed. Then another user from the list above came in and reverted, making further edits to their version. When that was edited, yet another user from the list reverted and continued to make further edits. That's why the diffs aren't identical - they're restoring the same content, but what they restore keeps evolving. Orpheus (talk) 06:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added several IPs from Portland State and OHSU (both schools are in the same area). Similar issues are happening with Environment Oregon, which is where I became aware of Environment California. Katr67 (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added another IP edit from today. It may be an innocent case of forgetting to log in, but it establishes a circumstantial link between the IPs and the users. —C.Fred (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I by analyzing the information given, I think the only way to really resolve this would be to put in a Checkuser request. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 04:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, although I must note that in this comment, Jimmihoffa confirms that he is User:131.252.232.103, who had just made this edit. Tying the other usernames together would still be a good idea. —C.Fred (talk) 05:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other usernames have been quiet for a while now - perhaps the user saw the talk page warnings and read the sockpuppet policy. I'm happy to withdraw this now, but I'll re-file (maybe at WP:RFCU) if the other accounts wake up again. Any thoughts? Orpheus (talk) 08:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File the RFCU, the named accounts woke up again. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I filed the RFCU and the checkuser said the result was confirmed, but I don't know what else to do. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 15:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's up to an admin at this point. Thanks for filing the checkuser, I've been busy irl. Orpheus (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Posted on the administrator's noticeboard. An admin will get to them eventually. --EoL talk 22:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Named accounts were blocked by another admin. RFCU confirmed too. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:07, 11 December 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:Okayama

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

Suspected sockpuppets: Sasayama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Adneicah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Adanesne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 58.105.129.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 220.237.125.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 220.239.184.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 211.30.39.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 220.239.187.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 211.31.5.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 211.31.1.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); N688CZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 211.31.7.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 211.31.0.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Kansai Goma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 220.239.175.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Dresdener (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 767-249ER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 211.30.172.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Report submission by

Freshacconci | Talk 12:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Almost simultaneous attacks on User talk:Onorem after a string of trolling incidents.

Comments

If it's coming to SSP, might as well try to get a few more which are almost certainly the same user. I added a few more names, and will try to summarize the history later today. --Onorem♠Dil 09:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are these the names that have just targeted your userpage, or could there be more? Rudget _{Contributions} 11:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User has been indef-blocked see block log Rudget _{Contributions} 11:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are just ones that have edited my userspace. If there were more, they'd likely have been editing the St George Christian School‎ and Carlton Public School articles. There was a slow but steady push at adding some defamatory content to the SGCS article over the past couple months. I've added a few more after looking at the history of that article. All IP's (with whois data from OPTUS INTERNET in Chatswood Sydney). I don't see any more registered that look like socks. The CPS article was one started by this user, and that's why I was trying to extend the duration of my good faith. I was hoping they'd stop with the vandalism, and work on creating a useful article. --Onorem♠Dil 12:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more added. The latest IP, 211.31.1.239 (talk · contribs), has left a few messages on my talk page, admitting they are Sasayama and that they have other accounts created already. The newest user, N688CZ (talk · contribs), made similar edits to the others, and "N688CZ" was used as the edit summary of many of the previous socks. --Onorem♠Dil 11:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I protected this page against moves by non-admins after it was moved into the article space. Please feel free to unprotect as needed -- no need to contact me first. Thanks. kmccoy (talk) 06:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. - User:Kansai Goma - caught vandalizing this very page. Not the best move. Also blocked for gross incivility and userpage vandalism - Alison ^❤ 06:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I tagged the master and all the named accounts, which were already blocked, EXCEPT 767-249ER, who isn't blocked, so I left him alone. N688CZ was only blocked a month, and seems inactive, I tagged him too. Closing.

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

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

Suspected sockpuppets: Johncellis89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

^Writer_Listener 02:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

showing similar patterns as in recreating the article Four Clicks To Jesus

Comments

Conclusions

Both already blocked by anohter admin, though note even deleted contribs don't show any by Johncellis89 to that article. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:20, 10 December 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:Evrik

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

South Philly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Student erotica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Pigman☿ 02:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Since South Philly is already indef blocked for sockpuppetry, a sock connection to Evrik would amount to a current evasion of an indef block. A checkuser showed the South Philly and Evrik accounts unrelated but the checkuser admin on the case, Alison, also said "checkuser results suggest these users are obviously unrelated, but there do appear to be strong meatpuppetry concerns." Close examination of the edit histories of South Philly, Evrik and Student erotica indicates sockpuppetry rather than meatpuppetry.

My analysis of the editing patterns of the three accounts over the entire life of South Philly's account strongly suggests the use of two geographically separated computers for these accounts, possibly home and work or a similar arrangement. Evrik and South Philly's editing sessions never overlapped. Nor did either account ever overlap with the Student erotica account. There was usually a pause of between a half hour to two hours between log-ins and log-outs. There were a very few instances of faster switching (4 and 11 minutes) between edits of the different accounts which might be explained by signing out and in on the same computer. Unfortunately, the info on these particular examples is probably well outside the checkuser buffer/cache since they are over 6 months ago, so could not be examined by Checkuser. Two (or three?) accounts from the same geographic area (Philadelphia, PA, USA) who never overlap signins for twenty months seems highly unlikely to me. The two main accounts (Evrik and South Philly) both did heavy and long edit sessions, usually sequentially. The pause between the accounts' switchoff was always clean, clear, regular and unmistakable.

I'm not going to detail the specific WP policy violations committed by this use of sockpuppet accounts here because they are fairly well laid out at the South Philly checkuser report. The main concern is that this is a block evasion by an indef-blocked user.

I should also mention an early sockpuppet case against Evrik although the result was inconclusive and doesn't appear to be related to this case. Pigman☿ 02:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Also of note is that the very few times where switchover from one account to another was under a half hour occurred during disputes where the additional account opinion would make a marked difference in discussion and consensus. Pigman☿ 02:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I recuse myself from this case as I have known Evrik for a long time via the ScoutingWikiProject. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a total waste of time.

First, Student Erotica was banned for being a sockpuppet of South Philly. To repeat what was said above, "a checkuser showed the South Philly and Evrik accounts unrelated."
Second, when South Philly and Student erotica were both banned. I had no involvement and was not referenced in any manner. I'm amazed this is even coming up now.
Third, to my knowledge I have never interacted with Pigman before but in reality this is retaliation, and an abuse of the system. Recently Pigman said, "After his recent appearance in a few RfAs, I decided to look into what User:Evrik has been up to lately." [249] Well, what he is referring to is my "oppose" vote in Kathryn NicDhàna's RfA. Pigman and Kathryn NicDhàna have worked together closely in the past. This is retaliation for that vote. My simple vote was responded to by pigman with this screed. Also, the claim of meatpuppetry was made a user who also supported Kathryn's RfA.
Fourth, twenty months? This went on for twenty months and the last evidence was 8 months ago? Most of the activity listed by Pigman at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/South Philly happened months ago. None of this was brought up at the time by any of the involved parties.
Finally, I'm not sure about some of the wording used by Pigman, specifically "overlapping." I never overlapped, but some edits were within 4 and 11 minutes? Does wikipedia have a policy on overlapping edits?

Thanks. --evrik ^(talk) 06:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word "overlapping" refers to editing sessions. Since you and South Philly allegedly live in the same time zone (and city), it would be expected that at some points your different individual account editing sessions would overlap. That is, you would both be signed in and editing at the same time on occasion. Thus, the different account editing sessions would overlap in time. For example, you (Evrik) might edit from 7pm to 11pm and South Philly from 9pm to 1am. Editing from both accounts would overlap between 9pm and 11pm. These two accounts never overlapped editing sessions. For this to happen over a twenty month period is very, very unlikely. At some points, both accounts were editing quite heavily for long periods yet there was always a gap of around 45 minutes plus or minus between when one account stopped editing and the other began. These gaps were quite regular. Of course there were longer gaps but these in particular were noticeable for their regularity. There were two gaps in editing sessions between accounts that were shorter than 30 minutes (4 and 11 minutes) which interested me because these particular exceptions happened during conflicts where an additional voice and account could make a difference in 3RR and votestacking. These instances still did not result in overlapping editing sessions of the accounts.

While this is circumstantial evidence, it is extremely strong evidence. To be blunt, as an admin I believe the evidence is strong enough for me to block you without bringing it here. I'm bringing it here in the interest of transparency and your long history on Wikipedia. Pigman☿ 19:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't really speak as to the overlap, but I don't really know if what you say is true. The raw data may be there for every to see, but I'm not going to go through 20 months of edits in an effort to defend myself. This is ludicrous. It's a waste of time. I feel sorry for you that you felt compelled to waste your own time in doing this research.

I also believe that no matter what I say you wouldn't be convinced. I've said all I could say. I did file a notice here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Problems with Pigman. --evrik ^(talk) 04:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that neither here nor at your complaint against me on the Admin Noticeboard do you actually explicitly address or deny the connection I've asserted between the accounts. As to the waste of my time, I believe that, as an admin, investigating this sort of thing is part of my responsibilities on Wikipedia. I probably wouldn't have spent the time on it if I hadn't become an admin. I certainly wouldn't have posted this if I wasn't confident in my findings. These are extremely serious violations of policy, and manipulation of consensus through sockpuppetry goes to the heart of Wikipedia process of decision-making . If we can't trust that the voices discussing issues on talk and project pages are separate people, the process becomes very tainted and unreliable. Pigman☿ 22:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am nobod's sock or meatpuppet. What you call meatpupptery, I call loyalty, you understand that concept pigman, don't you? It was your loyalty to Kathryn NicDhàna that made you feel compelled to start this whole mess. Also, your theory doesn't take into account that people also edit under IP addresses and on the other projects. Have you taken that into account, or did you just look at the english wikipedia? By the way, i've asked to be unblocked again. South Philly 00:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought when I said, "a checkuser showed the South Philly and Evrik accounts unrelated" that I had explicitly addressed and denied the connection. You can say what you want about your responsibilities, but your motivations are based in retribution for some perceived slight. --evrik ^(talk) 19:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it mildly interesting that pigman is using quite a strong language just because he finds there is no overlapping. Man, you look very much like the number one to me. Stop pissing and do show real evidence. Otherwise I may suspect you are an ally of the enemy. I am also an admin and I might just as well block you just for this.

Yes, I have come here to pester you because you seem so literally overcome with the sense of power. Many years without writing and what do I find: shit again. Bye. Pfortuny (talk) 10:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:Shalom: Rlevse asked me via email to look at this case. I've spent more than two hours working on it, which is much longer than I've spent on any other sock puppet case.

I'm really torn. Evrik hasn't exactly been a model citizen, but he's been around for more than two years (longer than me) and has done good things. It would require very strong proof to block such an established contributor. Alison said in the checkuser that Evrik and South Philly are "clearly unrelated", but there are "strong meatpuppetry concerns."

There is no doubt that Evrik and South Philly have had much interaction on Wikipedia, and have worked cooperatively in debates. Pigman laid out some evidence in the checkuser case, which he linked above. I looked and found that some other edits left by each user on the other's talk page, or on a third user's talk page, corroborate this connection.

So, are they the same person?

Let's suppose they are. If that's true, we would have to establish the following scenario. Evrik started in Summer 2005 and became active fairly quickly. In February 2006 he was editing for several hours a day, at somewhat erratic time spans and intervals. He was engaged in a month-long revert war with Boothy443 about whether to categorize Philadelphia as a county (Boothy said no, Evrik said yes). On February 16 around 1:00 UTC, South Philly makes his first edit. In his 3rd edit, he substitutes his signature for an IP signature on a comment to Boothy443 saying he should be "banned from wikipedia." On the 4th edit, he reverts the category to Evrik's version. A little less than an hour later, he leaves a barnstar on Evrik's page, thanking him for standing up against miscreants. Evrik later leaves a comment, thanking South Philly for the barnstar.

Pigman has documented cooperation between the two accounts in a mediation, an arbitration, an AFD, and several "votes" at WikiProject awards. I will not review this evidence in detail here, but I did look at almost all of it.

If they are the same person, they would probably have similar writing styles. Unfortunately, forensic examination of writing samples is an inexact technique for which I am no expert. I notice that Evrik's writing style is more precise. He likes to use multiple bullet points in a discussion, as he has done here and on the checkuser page. South Philly occasionally does this too, but not as much. I found it interesting that on the Monserratt AFD, Evrik cited news articles using bullet points, whereas South Philly wrote in an ordinary running paragraph with a noticeably different style. I've also noticed that South Philly makes a lot of spelling mistakes, which doesn't seem to be much of a problem for Evrik.

Pigman has suggested that South Philly and Evrik are likely to be the same person because they never exactly overlapped in their editing times, but they came within a few minutes of doing that during heated debates. Honestly, I'm not too impressed by evidence based on the fact that an overlap didn't happen. The fact that the two accounts did a revert on the same page within minutes of each other is, of course, significant.

I think the collaborative revert warring and mediation on pentagram, etc. can be explained as two people having the same opinion and watchlisting the same pages. That doesn't explain how South Philly got started on Evrik's issues in Feb. 2006, probably not as a truly "new" user, but I think it's possible to explain that as meat puppetry rather than sock puppetry.

The real killer for me is the overall editing pattern. I rely on a sense that two editors are interested in the same subjects if I want to consider them the same person. There is some overlap on Philadelphia-related subjects, but there is also a lot of separation. Evrik, somewhat like me, edits anything and everything. He has amassed more than 25,000 edits to a range of namespaces, including more than 3,000 edits each to Talk:, User talk:, and Wikipedia:. He's maintained a consistently high activity level for more than two years. (No, this is not an RFA.) He's made more than 150 edits each to Scouting in Connecticut and Saint symbology and has been active in both Wikiprojects on Scouting and Saints. South Philly has had nothing to do with either topic.

South Philly edited a little in February 2006, then reached a peak of activity in June through August 2006 before becoming fairly inactive until he was banned. The increase in editing by South Philly did not have a measurable effect on the edit rate of Evrik. Notably, in July 2006, at the peak of his activity, South Philly edited 1070 times, but Evrik also reached the peak of his activity in the same month, with 2059 edits (slightly more than his second-most of 2031 in October). If Evrik and South Philly were the same person, we would have to believe that this person edited Wikipedia 3,100 times in July 2006, but never edited 2,100 times (more than 1,000 less!) in any other month.

It's also noteworthy that South Philly concentrated most of his editing on (guess what?) South Philly, and did not branch out as much into other topics. He did not focus a lot of energy on any single article. His maximum number of edits to a single article was Erotica with 12 edits; second place is Rocky Steps with 10; third is South Philadelphia with 8; and so on. Evrik routinely edited many articles 40, 50 or even 100 times, and these articles generally had little or nothing to do with Philadelphia. If these two accounts are the same person, he would have to consciously focus on Scouting, Saints and whatnot with his main account, then save his Philadelphia-related editing for the sock puppet. I'm not quite sure if I believe this is plausible.

The more I think about this case, the more convinced I am that these are probably two different people. Definitely there are "meat puppetry concerns", as Alison put it, and I'm not thrilled about all the conflicts Evrik has been involved in. In the best-case scenario, it looks like Evrik drafted a friend to help revert-war with Boothy443, then this friend went on to do some editing independently, always staying loyal to his teacher in various disputes, big and small. Even though Boothy443 was not a model citizen either, I cannot perceive all this controversy as laudatory behavior by any of the sides.

But, after reviewing this case as carefully as I am able, I suggest a verdict of not guilty for Evrik. There are some things in the "one-person" hypothesis that just don't add up. In a sense, I'm glad that as a non-admin, I don't have to take responsibility for these decisions, but to anyone who wishes to take responsibility, I would say this: in order to block an established user with 2+ years of activity and 25,000 edits, you better have no doubt about it. I've raised some serious doubts, and that should be enough to let Evrik off the hook. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Here are the "Interiot's tool" edit counter pages for Evrik, South Philly, and Student erotica:

Conclusions

Evidence provided does not support a conclusion of sockpuppetry. Concur with Shalom’s extensive analysis. — ERcheck (talk) 01:50, 10 December 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:Darkadam1

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Darkadam1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: 66.56.55.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Alexfusco5 19:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

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

Comments

Conclusions

Darkadam1 indef blocked as a vandal only acct, the IP for one week. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:02, 9 December 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:Pat1425

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Pat1425 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

X3210 (talk) 03:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Please see edit history of Patrick Syring and user contribs. of Pat1425 and Jockgerman. There is strong evidence that Pat1425 is the subject of the Patrick Syring article, and he has been blocked for vandalism and conflict of interest. Both accounts have only been used to edit the Patrick Syring and James Zogby articles.

Comments

Conclusions

Pretty obvious, for one thing the sock started right after the master's block, and editing very similar. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:19, 9 December 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:Blue5864

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Blue5864 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

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

Report submission by

Alexfusco5 02:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

This diff and this diff also see User talk:Blue5864#Sock

Comments

Conclusions

Blue58564 already blocked for legal threats, it's also a shared/role account for a company. I blocked Mcgillismusic as a name vio. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:13, 9 December 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:Claudia Spatar

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Claudia Spatar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Melly Marco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

¤~IslaamMaged126 11:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Claudia Spatar and Melly Marco both put the exact same spam link at almost the same time.This,normally,doesn't occur,and I belive that that means Claudia Spatar is using the Melly Marco account as well

Comments

Conclusions

The Sock has been blocked, I see no reason to block the main account at this time. --Chris 11:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me point out that both accounts only show two contribs each and hence there's likely BOTH socks of a third user. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:58, 9 December 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:Mr messy

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Mr messy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Paiew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Paievvw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
128.119.23.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Paiev (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Mr messy: [250] [251] Paiew: [252] Paievvw: [253] 128.119.23.89: [254] [255] [256] [257] [258] [259] [260] [261] [262]

The above diffs show recurring vandalism on the article dive bomber. I suspect that after I issued a final warning the IP user created the accounts Paievvw and Paiew. The former was used for two edits, the latter for several before being indefinitely banned. After that, it would seem that the user created another account, Mr messy, to continue vandalism.

It should also be noted that both Paiew and Mr messy have vandalized ([263] [264]) my user page in the same way, and that both Paievvw and Paiew bear a fairly close resemblance to my own username, Paiev.

Comments

Conclusions

Vandalism and socking. Names blocked indef, IP one week. Paiew is the master account. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:34, 9 December 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:Durin's Bane

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Durin's Bane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

いちだぱねど (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Bane of Durin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

-Nard 19:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:いちだ_ぱねど speaks for itself. Previous sockpuppetry case closed as moot as users were already blocked. -Nard 19:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Conclusions

Fairly obvious. Blocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:58, 8 December 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:86.143.121.35

Suspected sockpuppeteer: 86.143.121.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: 81.155.144.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 86.143.125.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Alexfusco5 22:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Special:Contributions/86.143.121.35, Special:Contributions/81.155.144.100, and Special:Contributions/86.143.125.98

Comments

Conclusions

Same user and result as 86.132.133.177 SSP case. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:10, 8 December 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:86.132.133.177

Suspected sockpuppeteer: 86.132.133.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: 81.157.93.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 86.132.128.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 81.153.47.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 81.157.93.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Alexfusco5 22:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Special:Contributions/86.132.133.177, Special:Contributions/81.153.47.108, Special:Contributions/81.157.93.32, Special:Contributions/86.132.128.31 , andSpecial:Contributions/81.157.93.45

Comments

This person constanly adding that the Bloodrayne series is a rip-off to character Durham Red. this person was asked to provided a source for their claims, but did not listen. A year ago, one of this person's IP was suspected to be User:Leyasu, so this person has been around a while, so though their IP changes, they probably have couple of IPs mainly used just my them..(having a hard time explaining this..) They are just vandalizing the Bloodrayne articles. Other articles, like ones relating to Resident Evil, their edit's are more constructive. THROUGH FIRE JUSTICE IS SERVED! 22:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Probably are the same user, but would need more evidence to tie to Leyasu. Note this are dynamic IPs or he's computer hopping as the IPs edit in sequence, so I've blocked the most recent IP (bottom one) for 48 hours. If can be tied to Leyasu later, file report at the appropriate place. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:08, 8 December 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:Emperor13

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Emperor13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Emma44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Kushi13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Dr.Rema (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Doodler45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Winner33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
STUPIDUSERKILLER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) adding per this revert of my talk page
Eagle231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) added per this edit

Report submission by

Arx Fortis (talk) 07:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kushan_I.A.K.J/Eagle_Club_Group

User continuously removes Speedy Delete tags from article...rotating accounts as to not violate WP:3RR on any one account.

See this history.

Comments

It appears that the article with the majority of the evidence has finally been deleted. Perhaps an administrator can review the pertinent activity. The article was Eagle Club Group.

- Pasted from WP:ANI "Suspected sock puppetry reported here. User continuously removes Speedy tags without following procedure even after warnings. This almost looks like a child "playing" on Wikipedia with his "club." I've given up trying to replace the speedy delete tag as the user just keeps removing it". — Rlevse • Talk • 18:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: - Article deleted. --EoL talk 23:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

STUIPUSERKILLER was hard blocked as a name violation. All the rest except Eagle231 have meat puppeted on Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:Fir0002.jpg--take a look at the picture, notice the "friend of Emma comment", look at the writing, and it is pretty certain these are kids messing around. The article was deleted and the picture not promoted. I'm closing this with a warning to all the named accounts. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:33, 8 December 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:Beh-nam

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Beh-nam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Raoulduke47 (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Recently Beh-nam has been banned from editing wikipedia, for meatpuppetry and edit warring. Since then, a new account has appeared, KabulHospital, that makes exactly the same edits to Afghanistan-related articles, mostly minor edits, tagging talk pages. Also this user insists on adding inappropriate and controversial tags to certain articles( [265] , [266] ) just like Beh-nam used to ( [267] , [268] ). It seems clear that this is in fact Beh-nam evading his ban. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Conclusions

Evidence is very strongly in favor of block. I have blocked the sock. This case is closed. --Eye of the minD 04:52, 8 December 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:24.181.235.80

Suspected sockpuppeteer: 24.181.235.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: 68.116.160.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Alexfusco5 22:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

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

Comments

Both IPs resolve to the same general location, but I don't believe there is any sockpuppetry going on here. It's either a rotating IP or a couple of kids thinking they're funny by vandalizing an article while chatting online. - auburnpilot talk 23:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Both temp blocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:29, 8 December 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:Mastascource

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Infoman1311 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 03:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Very similar edits, vandalism.

Comments

Conclusions

Both blocked as vandal only accounts. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:21, 8 December 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:Nrcprm2026

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Nrcprm2026 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Abd (talk) 05:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Yellowbeard Contributions

08:57, 23 July 2006 Yellowbeard New user account[269]

First edit: 09:10, 23 July 2006 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schentrup method‎ (First deletion reason)[270]

comment: Clay Shentrup is a well-known activist for Range voting, often ppromoting the Center for Range Voting, and he has written some articles posted there. Schentrup method was his invention, and is non-notable. The point is the timing, as the first act of a new account, within minutes of registering.

One of Yellowbeard's early AfDs was for Center for Range Voting.[271] If I recall the history of CRV correctly, it might have been notable by then, it much more likely is now. Notability is not the issue, the action shows pattern and intention.

Subsequent activities included the deletion, though AfD or redirection, initially with high success, of many articles relevant to voting systems. If this sock is James Salsman, aka User:Nrcprm2026, an indefinitely banned user, it is relevant that numerous socks of his have been involved in attempting to keep criticism of Instant-runoff voting out of that article and to further slant or remove positive information on alternate voting methods from Wikipedia, and this is my reason for suspecting that this sock is one of Salsman's. For the Salsman socks which are clearly identified and involved with voting systems, see: Special:Contributions/BenB4 Special:Contributions/Acct4 Special:Contributions/P-j-t-a

Yellowbeard took action against articles for voting systems that might be considered political competition for his apparent preference, Instant-runoff voting, and against Voting systems criteria that are not satisfied by Instant-runoff voting, such as the FBC, Favorite betrayal criterion.

(Not all of Yellowbeard's actions have some obvious function with respect to a particular agenda, though I've seen no example of any work to actually improve the encyclopedia, only killing articles of arguably marginal utility, with some attempts -- and some success -- at removing notable articles.)

Yellowbeard filed a successful AfD for Bayesian regret [272], which is a term used for a measure of overall public satisfaction in simulation studies of voting systems by Warren Smith, cofounder of the Center for Range Voting, which work is widely considered to be important in measuring performance of voting systems. As was common with Yellowbeard's AfD's, the notability of this was misrepresented. For a definition of Bayesian regret, see [273], and for confirmation of the claim of prior use there, see (1989), ref to 1957 work, etc. Warren Smith himself showed up on that AfD, and gave references, but Smith is definitely *not* a wikilawyer!

Favorite betrayal criterion had been deleted [274] as a result of a simultaneous AfD for six articles on election criteria. Some of these may have been non-notable, but others are quite recognizable to students of election methods. Yellowbeard was not involved in the first deletion. However, FBC is very well-known to people studying the field, so it is not surprising that the article reappeared.

Then Yellowbeard filed: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Favorite betrayal criterion (2nd nomination). For the first time in this series of AfDs, editors familiar to me as participants in the voting systems articles appear to have noticed the AfD, and provided the necessary sources and arguments, and the decision was Keep.

Then he filed: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Favorite betrayal criterion (3rd nomination). This one started to heat up, and there was even broader participation. The AfD success of Yellowbeard depended on nobody watching the articles; some of these articles were created by specialists who are not regular Wikipedia editors, so they may have been on no watchlist for any interested user who logged in during the AfD period. At this point Yellowbeard began to personally attack those who had voted to Keep; however, Keep prevailed.

At this point, Yellowbeard began to attract some suspicion. He reverted a comment from User:Fahrenheit451 on his Talk page with the summary "rv vandalism."[275]

Yellowbeard continued to AfD articles. Definite majority choice was successfully deleted: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Definite_Majority_Choice. Here he started to encounter more resistance. DMC is well-known among students of election methods.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sequential proportional approval voting was also a successful deletion. Ironically, one of Yellowbeard's arguments was that there was already a section on this in Proportional approval voting. Yes, he then subsequently presented Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proportional approval voting, and was again successful.

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Majority choice approval (3rd nomination), which was successful, Yellowbeard presented a novel proof of non-notability: "The fact that only two users participate at this AfD exemplifies the complete lack of notability of this article." Of course, the number of users who participate in an AfD has little to do with notability, except for massively notable subjects. With specialized subjects, it can have to do with the very few editors who have the article on their watchlists, and who are not constant editors. Most of us don't watch all the AfDs that come by! Of course, there were two prior AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Majority Choice Approval and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Majority choice approval (second nomination)

Yellowbeard stopped editing for a period, his last edit before this hiatus was October 25[276] when he deleted content and redirected Allocation voting to Range voting, which is an error; Allocation voting is similar or identical to Cumulative voting, it is not Range voting at all. Again, nobody noticed. Recently, I became aware of the extent of Yellowbeard's activities, but he had not been editing, so it was moot. However, in case he returned, I put him on my watchlist. He started editing again December 11, with the same theme.

I have been countering his efforts, this time, but it's tedious.

My biggest concern is the abrupt and ill-considered loss of content. Indeed, some of the articles he has successfully deleted are not sufficiently notable to have their own articles; however, the goal of Yellowbeard, unfortunately, does not appear to be improving the encyclopedia, but to remove information about voting systems. If he does not go for an AfD but instead deletes the content and redirects, he does not place the old content on the Talk page for the new target, so that editors there can merge it, nor does he merge it himself. He's an eraser, not an editor, and that's not a proper use for socks.

From his Contributions it is clear that he is a sock, an experienced wikilawyer, and User:Nrcprm2026 is an obvious suspect; but it's possible that he is another with a similar agenda.

Comments

I am not a sock puppet of James Salsman. Abd also doesn't give any explanation why he believes that I was a sock puppet of James Salsman.

As for the article on allocation voting, the article says:

Allocation voting is any voting system in which voters are assigned a number of "points" or other unit of account, and are expected to allocate these among a number of alternatives. Unlike preference voting the numbers do not represent ranks but weights.

As a simple example, a system might allocate each voter five points or votes and permit them to apply them to a number of candidates for office. A more complex example might permit both positive and also negative votes, so that disapproval voting was also supported in the same system. asasally, an approval voting scheme is just an allocation voting scheme where each voter has as many votes as there are options, and can allocate only one vote to each such option.

This article is very contradictory. Is the number of points that a voter can cast fixed or variable? If this number is fixed, then I have to agree with Abd that allocation voting is identical to cumulative voting. But the author of the "allocation voting" article also mentions approval voting and disapproval voting, two methods where the number of points is variable, as examples for allocation voting. In this case, "allocation voting" refers to all range voting schemes. In any case, and here Abd agrees with me, we already have a Wikipedia article on this topic. Yellowbeard (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a suspected sock report and content controversy or argument is not generally relevant here. It's been acknowledged above that many of Yellowbeard's AfDs and other actions were technically correct. If any facts alleged above are incorrect, Yellowbeard is, of course, welcome to correct them, and if any apparent implications from the fact are imbalanced, he is also welcome to counter those implications with fact or argument. Allocation voting was mentioned merely as the most recent action; however, there may be some specific relevance, i.e., in the specific interest in deleting subjects relevant to Range voting. Allocation voting and cumulative voting are essentially plurality systems and as such have well-known problems; if a reader is referred to the Range voting article when looking for Allocation voting, and has a knowledge of the problems, Range might be tarred with the same brush. But any editor may err, even sock puppets, without consequence; it is a series of errors in a particular field, generating a certain subtle (or sometimes blatant) slant in coverage of that field, that may lead to suspicions of POV motive.

As noted above, there is only circumstantial evidence, based on interest and to some extent on more subtle characteristics of his behavior, that Yellowbeard is James Salsman. What is clear, however, a virtual certainty, and what was not denied by Yellowbeard in his response, is that Yellowbeard is a sock, an experienced Wikipedia user, who registered a new account. I assert that he has made and is making contentious edits and proposals, including voting twice first vote, and second vote; when correctly warned[277], responded defending action), and including personal attack and incivility. (See diff and the general discussion in that AfD.) As such, any administrator may consider appropriate action, from doing nothing, to warning or blocking any of the users involved, including me if my behavior is inappropriate.)

If the conclusion here is that Yellowbeard is not a sock puppet making improper edits, then various forms of dispute resolution would become appropriate if any content disputes remain. Because I consider the probability high that a judgment of "abusive sock" will be found, I'm not wasting effort yet on dispute resolution that would become moot. I am independently taking action to prevent harm from current edits of Yellowbeard. This mostly is a matter of insisting on proper process before making massive edits, such as his deleting and redirecting an entire article without notice and opportunity for consensus to form. Generally, the articles he has attempted to delete need improvements, and it is possible that the attention generated by this situation will help attract the attention of editors who can make them. I will do so myself as I can. Note, as well, that Yellowbeard initially reverted my reversion of his content deletion and redirection for one article, without engaging in discussion.diff

--Abd (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abd complains: "Yellowbeard initially reverted my reversion of his content deletion and redirection for one article, without engaging in discussion." Well, Abd re-inserted the AfD tag although the corresponding discussion was already closed since 3 days [278]. Of course, Abd's behaviour was a clear violation of Wikipedia's deletion policies. Therefore, I replaced the AfD tag by a Merge tag [279]. Yellowbeard (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I considered not responding to this at all, since what I wrote wasn't a "complaint," but a piece of evidence showing a pattern of behavior; but then I realized that this response, itself, confirms the pattern, in its wikilawyering and misleading description of the history.

This is the history: Yellowbeard filed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simple majority voting, primarily based on content criticism, and was correctly advised he did not need to AfD, he could simply delete content and redirect. Yellowbeard then did this,[280] noting it in the AfD, which was then closed: "The result was Redirected to Plurality voting system. Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 23:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)" This is in no way a binding AfD result. It is an AfD helpfully closed by a user because it has become moot.

I then reverted this, summarizing "AfD should be renewed or this article improved. Topic is notable."[281] At this point, Yellowbeard is on notice that the redirection is disputed. I left the AfD tag because of what I suggested. Contrary to his assertion above, he again deleted and redirected, giving a content-criticism based summary.[282] I reverted, with "See Talk."[283], and added comment to Talk:Simple majority voting. He then (correctly) replaced the AfD tag with a merge tag, which is where it stands. He has not responded in the article's Talk. I then placed discussion of the merge proposal in Talk:Plurality voting system (as indicated in the tag]]. No response there either. --Abd (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File an WP:RFCU, this is possible, but not conclusive. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFCU filed, hope I did it right![284]

That Yellowbeard is a sock is, from clear evidence in contributions, a near-certainty. That he is a sock of User:Nrcprm2026 is a reasonable presumption from interest; also it is of interest that no proven socks active in voting systems started Afds, Yellowbeard mostly avoided article edits except to place deletion or merge tags. That partition is also a possible characteristic of a puppet master becoming more sophisticated. Nrcprm2026 threatened to partition activity to avoid detection.; --Abd (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Closing, RFCU results said they are unrelated. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:19, 19 December 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:85.189.170.202

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

85.189.180.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
85.189.181.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
EdChampion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

SECisek (talk) 09:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

The puppeteer account was banned as abusive. Note the use of screaming capital letters in these vandal diffs: [285] [286]

Puppets are almost certainly connected to one another. Note 85.189.180.235 use of rude caps: [287] [288]
Here 85.189.181.99 uses the tell tale caps and the rude "UNDERSTAND" we saw from 85.189.180.235 [289]
EdChampion is a single purpose account that was created by the above IPs solely to disrupt Edmund the Martyr as the user name itself indicates. Note the caps and rude tone: [290] [291]
The account will rarely edit another article [292] in violation of WP:POINT in the hopes that bizarre edits elsewhere will improve the chances of advancing his agenda at Edmund the martyr.

Comments

Use of one or more accounts abusively and using IPs and single purpose accounts to edit while blocked is grounds for further penalties. I believe there are other accounts belonging to this user. I presented the most obvious ones here.

EdChampion seems to be an expert when it comes to WP policy and "jobbing the system", yet he claims to edit only Edmund the Martyr. He is clearly a sock of some editor who does not want anybody to know what else he edits when he is away from Edmund the Martyr. He is also a horrid example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT as proven by the 125k of the same tired arguement over and over again in Edmund the Martyr's talk archive. In the face of consensus and RfCs going against him, EdChampion lives up to his name.

It is easy to see that 85.189.181.99, 85.189.180.235, and EdChampion are all the same user. If those three could be tied to 85.189.170.202, it would be clearly in violation of an existing block.

Note: - Sockpuppeteer blocked as an open proxy. --EoL talk 23:35, 6 December 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:Errorminor

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

BattleMech40000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Pagra shtak 01:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

This new account started removing PROD tags on a group of related articles with no edit summary marked as minor, like previous sockpuppets. (example) I left a note on BattleMech40000 asking that he or she provide an edit summary when removing the tags. BattleMech40000 ceased editing, and Breakwings removed the PROD tag from the next article in the group here. Breakwings is now blocked as a sockpuppet of Errorminor. Since the account seemed to take over from BattleMech40000 once he or she realized I was "aware" of the account, I feel that BattleMech40000 is also a sock.

Comments

Conclusions

Blocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:19, 7 December 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:Middim13

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Middim13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

208.29.67.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
208.29.67.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
208.39.172.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
208.39.172.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Parsecboy 02:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User has been disrupting and edit warring on several pages, including General Dynamics and USS Holland (SS-1)‎. Middim13 made this edit to General Dynamics, followed by this revert by 208.29.67.33, followed by this revert by 208.39.172.33

Middim13 made this edit to USS Holland (SS-1), followed by this revert by 208.29.67.33, followed by this revert by 208.29.67.36.

Also note the proximity in range of the three IP addresses.

Also see history of my talk page. B.S. Lawrence (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

how for apart are the were the times of the reverts of the suspected socks and the pupetter? ANOMALY-117 02:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On General Dynamics, the reversions I referred to occurred in the past 4-5 hours, on USS Holland (SS-1), within about 2-3 hours. The edit warring has been going on considerably longer than that, however. Parsecboy 02:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case no one noticed, the IP's appear related to http://www.pwcgov.org/ and may be proxys for Prince William County, VA government, library or schools so there might be collateral damage in a range block. --Dual Freq 03:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hm.. possibly a sock but at two to four hours its streching it unless its a conspericy. um were does the user trace from is he even close enough to that school? it could be friends or some weirdos who like framing people? but thats a huge streach ANOMALY-117 03:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The time of the reverts is more or less irrelevant. The edit summaries used by all 4 (Middim and the 3 IPs) are all far too similar to be coincidence (not to mention making the exact same reverts, editing the same pages in the same style, etc.). Also, the fact that two of the IPs are off by only one digit on the last octet would imply that the computers used are in the same area of a building, if not the same room. Parsecboy 03:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing I'd like to point out is the extensive use of the IPs by seemingly the same editor (especially to tag-team revert-war on the same articles), which tends to rule out the possibility of the user simply forgetting to log in. Parsecboy (talk) 05:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Definite same person. Blocked named acct 2 weeks (hard block) and IPs 1 week (allowing acct creation). — Rlevse • Talk • 11:09, 7 December 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:Wrestlingphenom

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

Suspected sockpuppets: 24.0.47.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Alexfusco5 02:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

here and here notice how first edit was vandalism to the blocking admin's talk page

Comments

I am not too sure about that, the evidence seems too circumstantial. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 05:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Concur with Vivio, possible, but weak, plus Wrestlingphenom's edits were 6 months ago. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:59, 7 December 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:PWeeHurman

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

Suspected sockpuppets: PWeeHurman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); P oui airmanmcdonald (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); (P)(Wii)HermanMcdonalds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); P(Ee)W(Ee)H(rm)(A)(N)VIII (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Pal rooben mcdonaldxiv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Pal rooben mcdonald (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Pope Mcdonald HermanXIVI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Pope Mcdonald HermanXIX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); PopeHermanMcdonaldXI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); P wi eeHer mann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); P Wee211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); PeeUUHerman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); PWeHurMen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); P we er man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); P w eHermanned (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Phermannronald (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); PeeWee McDonald (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Pall Roobens Ronaldmc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Peeweeklownmcdonalds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); P-we(X2)-herrma+n(X 2) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); PeeWeeHerman102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); PeeWeeHerman101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); (P)We)(Hur)(mun)) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); PWiiiH(u)rman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); PeWiHrMn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); PeaWiiHerMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); PeaWeHerMun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); PHman2.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); PWhm2121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Giveupalready (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Giveupfool21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Hermannnn21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Hermannn21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Herman21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 11EPayEWayErmanHay11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

-Go od sh op ed 04:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~a (user • talk • contribs) 06:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

See Activity log here. There are more socks, just don't have the time to add them all. He has 50+ socks since October 2007.

Some of the edits in the activity log have been deleted. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 06:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

In one of the edits by User:P-we(X2)-herrma+n(X 2) (edit was deleted) on the Ronald McDonald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article: "I have an IP machine that generates 200 IP's a second. you can't win." (quote is not exact and from memory) If this is true, then will this fact affect the results of a check-user? Thanks. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 06:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much for me to say, except to praise the extensive research, probably occupying several good hours, that led to this report and the Long Term Abuse report. That being said, it's hard not to chuckle at the intense motivation of this vandal. If only we were all so motivated to do the right thing... :) Shalom (Hello • Peace) 06:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

File an RFCU to block the underlying IPS. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do I use code A, code C, or code F? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done --EoL talk 00:03, 7 December 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:Mrshoot

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

Suspected sockpuppets: 75.2.63.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Alexfusco5 21:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

[293]

Comments

Conclusions

I'll handle this one myself. It appears that Mrshoot and the cited IP, working together and almost simultaneously, have been in a revert war with two RC patrollers. I didn't bother to check the content of the dispute, but it's probably a "new user" issue. Neither Mrshoot nor the IP has any other edits, so this proves a link, but it also calls for leniency. I'll leave a warning to both user talk pages. If activity resumes, report to AIV. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 22:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK with me. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:52, 6 December 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:Errorminor (3rd)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Gtstricky (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

New account that quickly deleted Prod tag from a page. [294] Also quickly attacked last sock puppet reporter on a AFD discussion here.

Comments

Conclusions

Blocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:50, 6 December 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:Giovanni Giove (4th)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Giovanni Giove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User:Giovanni Giove, as an Italian nationalist, was recently banned indefinetly for repeated edit-warring and multiple ARBCOM restriction breaches (ARBCOM page: [295]) . He is rather famous for continuing to make edit (i.e., edit-war) no matter the cicumstances. In the past he ignored calls for discussion, personal agreements ([296]), and even ARBCOM restrictions ([297]). To be brief, the evidence for him ignoring his restriction with various IPs is as follows:

1) The IPs started reverting within 48 hours of Giovanni Giove's ban.

2) The IP's reverting in the exact same articles Giovanni was interested in. Giove was finally blocked indefinetly for edit-warring in the Birth Place of Marco Polo article, and one of the first edits of the IP was that same article (here: [298]).

3) The IP is displaying the same radical POV that got User:Giovanni Giove banned in the first place.
([299] as IP 87.9.234.27, [300] as IP 87.2.235.167, and [301] and [302] as IP 87.2.63.34)

4) If there are any doubts about these being User:Giovanni Giove's IPs, have a look at his statement in his previous sockpuppet report, before he was banned (here: [303]):

"THIS IS MY IP: 84.221.67.196. (...) Giovanni Giove (talk) 14:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

All in all, there is little room for doubt. These IPs do appear to be the banned User:Giovanni Giove. Could someone please do something about this guy, nothing stops him!

Report submission by

AlasdairGreen27 21:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User:Giovanni Giove was banned on 30 November 2007. From the IP addresses listed above, the following edits were made on 1 and 2 December:

• 20:23, 1 December 2007 Birth Place of Marco Polo‎
• 08:55, 2 December 2007 User talk:DIREKTOR‎
• 08:52, 2 December 2007 User talk:Giovanni Giove‎
• 16:26, 1 December 2007 Birth Place of Marco Polo‎
• 16:25, 1 December 2007 Birth Place of Marco Polo‎
• 16:14, 1 December 2007 Birth Place of Marco Polo‎
• 16:09, 1 December 2007 Birth Place of Marco Polo‎
• 16:07, 1 December 2007 Birth Place of Marco Polo‎
• 15:55, 1 December 2007 Birth Place of Marco Polo‎
• 08:53, 1 December 2007 Talk:Fascist Italianization‎
• 08:19, 1 December 2007 Fascist Italianization‎
• 08:48, 2 December 2007 Birth Place of Marco Polo‎
• 09:04, 2 December 2007 Birth Place of Marco Polo‎
• 08:12, 2 December 2007 Birth Place of Marco Polo‎
• 20:09, 1 December 2007 Fourth Crusade‎
• 20:09, 1 December 2007 Siege of Zara‎
• 19:44, 1 December 2007 Lidia Bastianich

User:Giovanni Giove made the following edits in November 2007 prior to his ban (the number in brackets is the number of his edits):
• Birth Place of Marco Polo‎ (21)
• User talk:DIREKTOR (3)
• User talk:Giovanni Giove‎ (31)
• Talk:Fascist Italianization‎ (6)
• Fascist Italianization‎ (24)

The last three (Fourth Crusade, Siege of Zara and Lidia Bastianich) are odditities, in that User:Giovanni Giove made no edits to those pages in November. However, the Croatian city of Zadar and whether it should be called by its Italian name (Zara) is one of his favourites [304]. Lidia Bastianich left Istria as part of the Istrian exodus‎ - (22 edits to that article in November 2007)

User:Zenanarh entered the first report of his suspicions that User:Giovanni Giove was editing pages by writing his concerns on User:Giovanni Giove's talk page at 01:37, 2 December 2007 [305]. By 08:52, IP address 87.9.236.57 was already at User:Giovanni Giove's talk page denying any connection [306]. This he managed even though User:Zenanarh had only undone the first edit in question with the comment "(removed edits of a banned user)", without any mention of User:Giovanni Giove. A dialogue followed here [307] between User:Zenanarh and IP address 87.8.239.37 beginning at 11:55, 2 December 2007 which included the anonymous user saying "it's really probable that 'Marc Pol' is only a Francization". I'd never heard the word 'Francization' until yesterday. I wouldn't even have known what it meant. A quick check reveals that User:Giovanni Giove edited Francization 3 times in November 2007 [308][309][310].

Report submission by

AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Evidence relating to User:Cherso being a sockpuppet of User:Giovanni Giove.
User:Giovanni Giove was banned at 15:57 on 6 November 2007 [311]. The account User:Cherso was opened at 21:34 on 6 November 2007[312].

During User:Giovanni Giove's 6-day ban which started at 15:57 on 6 November 2007, the account User:Cherso, having opened at 21:34 on 6 November 2007, went on to make 17 edits up to 9 November [313]. During this time, his edits were all to Dalmatian Italians and its talk page (unusual in itself for a new user), such as remarking, with confident knowledge of Giovanni's state of mind, that "I am afraid you are dreaming too much. Wake up: Tito is dead! We are in 2007 and the nationalism is dead, even in the Balkans. We cannot keep saying in our contemporary Europe what you write in a bizantine way about San Grisostomo and the Zara coat of arms. I am sure Giovanni Giove will agree with this in a few days more" [314]. In typical Giovanni style, they included numerous grammatical errors [315] and comments of a belligerent nature "(For the last time: They are not italians, they are dalmatian italians.)" [316] User:Cherso stopped editing at 18:35 on 9 November 2007.

User:Giovanni Giove was banned again at 17:02, 16 November 2007 [317], which expired at 14:10 on 19 November. Immediately after the expiry of User:Giovanni Giove's ban, and his return to editing Wikipedia, User:Cherso was active again, making 6 edits/comments on talk pages between 15:36 and 16:12 [318]. He was then sporadically active (4 edits on 24 November, 2 on 27 Nov and 3 on 28 Nov).
User:Giovanni Giove was banned at 19:30, 30 November 2007 [319]. On 1 & 2 December the IP addresses above were active (see reports above) but have now stopped editing. Since then, User:Cherso has become active once more, with 16 edits starting at 14:35, 3 December 2007 up to 05:12, 5 December 2007 [320].

All of the users, User:Giovanni Giove, User:Cherso and the IP addresses show the same interests. Namely an Italian nationalistic POV, especially regarding places with Italian minorities in the Adriatic and whether places in these areas should be known by their Italian names in Wiki articles.
I understand that Cherso has been discussed before [321] but the facts that his activity has mainly overlapped with User:Giovanni Giove's bans and that he is now active again is serious cause for concern.

'Cherso' in itself, by the way, is the Italian name for the Croatian island of Cres.

Evidences that Cherso is not Giovanni Giove

I started to write anonymously in Wikipedia since last year, mainly on articles related to the island where I was born: Cherso, in northern Dalmatia. Then I started to sign with the word "Cherso" in September/October and finally in November I opened my account User:Cherso, in order to defend the Italian points of view on Dalmatia, when I understood that the only Italian (G. Giove) discussing in the topic was attacked by a group of Croats and was soon to be banned or reduced to histerical behaviour (that was going to be punished by admins) by the continuous offenses and provocations received. I am an exiled Dalmatian Italian, born in Cherso in 1944 and moved by my father to the United States in 1948. Actually I live in Florida, where I am retired. The best evidence I can bring is my IP that is from Florida, while the one of Giovanni Giove is from Italy (I guess). If the admin AlasdairGreen27 allows me, I am ready to communicate directly with User:Giovanni Giove and in this way will be easily verified by a "wiki check up" that we are communicating from distant continents.

Answer to "In typical Giovanni style, they included numerous grammatical errors [322]" : Sincerely I don't understand which are the numerous grammatical errors in the example, since I only corrected a mistake from a Croat (I am even an US citizen, with a Degree obtained from an accredited University). what strikes me is that the accusations are EXACTLY the same moved by User:Kubura.

Answer to "comments of a belligerent nature ("For the last time: They are not italians, they are dalmatian italians.)" [323]" : What is wrong here? That phrase is a normal comment, without any belligerAnt nature. I want to pinpoint the mistake (letter "E" instead of letter "A" in the word belligerant) done by the admin accusing me and ask him if that mistake proves that he is User:Kubura". I am sure he will tell me that this is not an evidence and that all of us make mistakes writing fast on the computer. So, why accuse me with "strange" superficial evidences, that have been solved by a formner check up? Please, do another check up.

Finally:I am ready to collaborate with every examination or test about me in order to fully demonstrate that I am not Giovanni Giove Sincerely--Cherso (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick reply, prior to formal response: According to my dictionary, my spelling of belligerent is indeed correct. User:Cherso seems to be saying that User:Kubura and I are one and the same person due to our satisfactory ability to spell...AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

;Response to Cherso
Giovanni/Cherso, if only that were true. Upon the opening of your account, you took immediately to edit warring. Unfortunately, comments such as "Kubura, you should moderate yourself with your offenses. You are not the only one with knowledge, while those who don't agree with your POV are all ignorants. Many Italians have surnames from other languages, as you know. Oberdan, Cavour, and many others have roots outside Italy and the same happens with France, Germany, England, etc" [324] are hardly the work of new users. That, your 5th edit, is a giveaway. New users don't insult, revert, or get involved in talk pages, or edit wars.
Where were you during Giovanni's unbanned periods? and how come you become active precisely when Giovanni gets banned? How dumb do you think we are? And, lastly, "wake up", is an old Giovannism [325], whether followed by "boy", or not. So your "wake up!" here [326] was a bit of a slip, Giovanni, was it not?
AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Checkuser results are in. The IPs listed above by Direktor are unrelated to Giovanni Giove. Which makes sense, because User:84.221.67.196 is him (or at least, he has been on it at some point) and it's on an entirely different ISP to the rest. – Steel 21:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's probaly just modulating his IP, like LEO, can nothing be done!? I mean I followed my restriction, he did as he pleased and now he continues to edit exactly as before, while I have to mind the restriction for another 10 months. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, what CU results? — Rlevse • Talk • 02:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Alison ran a check after I pinged her on IRC last night. – Steel 20:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What, there are no CU results?! --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The RFCU was not filed correctly, that's why no action was taken. I've fixed it. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cherso probably isn't G.G., but the others are much more simmilar. Please CU the guy... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, like I said, Cherso's OK, but these IPs are an entirely different matter. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The IPs do not appear to be directly related to GG, although the similarity of the edits suggests that they may be other individuals acting as proxies for him. Kirill 20:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you propose? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- See conclusions. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

This Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Giovanni_Giove_(3rd) shows Cherso is unrelated to Giove. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- These IPs are, by WHOIS, assigned not dynamic, and all map to Italy (no surprise). Not likely they are one person in my opinion, but as Kirill suggested, more likely meat puppets. While the IP range is too big to range block, in my view, the IP editors are disruptive and I would not be surprised if GG is involved. Therefore, I've semi-protected Seige of Zara, Birth Place of Marco Polo, and Fascist Italianization for 3 months from anon and new user editing. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:48, 6 December 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:Its Pytch.. Hon

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Its Pytch.. Hon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Admitted as such here. Very similar editing patterns, edit summaries, and each one created virtually identical pages in different editor's userspace - here and here (which I've deleted since it was in my userspace). Both intent on recreating previously deleted material as witnessed here and here. The last one is worrying, potentially exposing a large number of accounts with similar editing styles... such as those now listed above...

User:Webb Traverse has now created this page which is remarkably similar to the two posted above...The Rambling Man (talk) 13:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was created by another of the socks, User:Lew Basnight IV. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I think you are on to something. Can you get this sock puppetry confirmed by a Checkuser, and then block all but the main account? The Checkuser may be able to identify additional accounts not listed here. I have not checked yet, but has this user has been warned not to recreate deleted, non-notable articles, and not to edit with multiple accounts for the purpose of disruption or evading scrutiny? If so, and he has continued to do so, I think a community ban would be appropriate. If he hasn't been properly warned yet, he needs to be told that a ban is the likely outcome if he persists in this disruptive behavior. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that it may be a logistical challenge to notify all the accounts. If Checkuser shows them to be the same person, I think that if any one account has been notified previously, or now, that is fair. If the user has created a confusing situation for himself because he's operating so many accounts, in fairness, I think that's his problem, not ours. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, good advice. I've told a number of the puppets that recreating the deleted material is inappropriate, but just to be sure I've added a final warning on (what I'm assuming is) the current puppeteer's page to desist. We'll see what Alison comes up with and take appropriate action. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned every registered user on the list with {{subst:socksuspectnotice|1=Its Pytch.. Hon}} ~~~~ - Jehochman ^Talk 17:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this looks like a major headache. The last ten or so accounts are linked by Rafael Trelles, Plasda, and a veiled threat against The Rambling Man ("We believe..." in the edit summary). It's hard to know what's the story with the older editors from February 2007 and even earlier. I don't think there's much to gain from blocking accounts that are already inactive for more than six months. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, as this has now moved into threats, etc, can you paste this over on WP:RFCU as a case and I'll see to it ASAP? Thanks - Alison ^❤ 22:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Alison is looking into this case at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Its Pytch.. Hon. I'm closing this page for procedural reasons; any further discussion should be directed to the checkuser page. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 06:52, 6 December 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:128.6.83.122

Suspected sockpuppeteer: 128.6.83.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: 128.6.83.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 05:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

After user User:128.6.83.122 was blocked for vandalizing Gaurav, another user User:128.6.83.121 preceded to vandalize the same article that User:128.6.83.122 did.

Comments

Both IPs look like they're in the Rutgers block. It seems like he just changed IPs after the block. I'm not sure anything further can be done, at least not unless the pattern continues over multiple days. —C.Fred (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Already blocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:29, 6 December 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:Errorminor

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Avoidhours (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Deskthird (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Yardsblue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Pagra shtak 18:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Errorminor for Errorminor's previous sockpuppets. The three accounts I've listed follow the same editing pattern—accounts used only for removing PRODs—and are named similarly to previous socks.

Comments

The only difference in M.O. I see is that these accounts delete the prods (without explanation) and falsely mark the edits as minor. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It just occurred to me that this account is probably also Neverpitch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who is already indef banned. Pagra shtak 01:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like sock puppetry. I'd support blocking all of the accounts. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

All blocked and tagged. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:28, 6 December 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:MTL NICE = FAKE MASSEUR DO NOT CONTACT !!!

Suspected sockpuppeteer

MTL NICE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

SAM SOOM123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

— Rudget _speak.work

Evidence

MTL NICE, which has exclusive contributions to Joe Sioufi which was previously deleted, reposted it at 20:02 (GMT). I requested speedy deletion at 20:04, and at 20:26, SAM SOOM123, (the alleged sockpuppet) was created and has started (exclusively) editing the page trying to keep it. It might be unconnected, but my intuition suggests otherwise. — Rudget _speak.work 20:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Askingyou arrived and immediately began arguing to keep the page on the article talk page. He/she also created a spam bio on the user talk page. IrishGuy ^talk 21:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Conclusions

SPA, recreating deleted content, socking, what more do you need? Blocked all three. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:20, 6 December 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:Diamonddannyboy

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

Suspected sockpuppets: Valboy1672 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Winksajdl;aslkdjasklj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Mayalld 16:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

New spa created to agree with puppetmaster, using similar phrasing etc, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darren "Two Sheds" Jackson references to "Valhalla belt" by Diamonddannyboy, whilst only other reference to this award are from user page of Valboy1672. User:Winksajdl;aslkdjasklj already banned for username/abuse recreated an oft deleted article by User:Diamonddannyboy

Comments

comments I did not right the article Darren "two sheds" Jackson another user Winksajdl;aslkdjasklj and hoaxer did, my artcile was the orginal Darren Jackson Martial Artsist which has been edited by other and hoaxers. see the deletion notice Winksajdl;aslkdjasklj was banned for hoaxing and scamming other, so give me a break, im not valboy1672 im diamonddannyboy.

I find this offensive, I write truth not fiction, valboy is probably another martial artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamonddannyboy (talk • contribs) 21:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Valboy1672. Only a checkuser could tell. But at this point, I'd say that Winksajdl;aslkdjasklj is not the same person. This user made unjustified and seemingly random removals of CSD tags and copied an article slated for CSD deletion under a new name.
Given Diamonddannyboy's edit history, however, I'd say the story about Darren Jackson is possibly a hoax: he previously vandalized an article about another person (a soccer player) with the same name. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 00:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Indef'd Valboy1672, warned Danny. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:43, 5 December 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:64.81.69.243

Suspected sockpuppeteer: 64.81.69.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: 64.81.69.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 67.155.196.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

-- ALLSTARecho 16:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Keeps vandalising Bear community. Threatened with sockpuppetry at [327] saying, "Your insistence on reverting to a previous version of the bear community page is facile. I have more ip addresses than you can poke a stick at". Was banned for 31 hours under IP 67.155.196.3. Thanks.

It's been like what, 11 hours since I reported this? What's the conclusion? -- ALLSTARecho 03:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Sounds very much like Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/74.13.29.56 see [328] That user was also crowing about having lots of addresses to edit from. RPP seems appropriate Mayalld 16:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Page was protected, two of the IPs only edited once. WP:AIV would have been more appropriate here, but as the page was protected, there's not much to do here, closing. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:36, 5 December 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:PaidInFull1987

Suspected sockpuppeteer: PaidInFull1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: SouljaBoy2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); PapooseNever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 08:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

All of the accounts will try to insert the text in the possible tracks section.

Into LupEND

Comments

These blocked accounts and IPs are likely the same person.

TGSNT2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

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

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

I've indefinitely blocked PaidInFull1987 and his obvious socks. If more socks arise, a check user will be needed. If there are no other comments, this case should be closed. Spellcast 03:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Blocks done by Spellcast, closing. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:33, 5 December 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:Daniel575

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Daniel575 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: 169.132.18.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Yossiea ^(talk) 22:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Comments

Conclusions

Main account not active in over a year, no evidence provided, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Daniel575 too. There is a mutual interest in Hebrew topics. Very little to go on. If more evidence arises, fill in the evidence section in detail. Closing. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:57, 4 December 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:Purple contribution

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

Suspected sockpuppets: Mystarious (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Thunda from downunda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); R-HIT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Saurabh.hit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Mayalld (talk) 07:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Purple contribution has been taking over the user pages, but the other users are accepting this, and playing along. Unsure whether this is plain sockpuppetry or compromised accounts

Comments

I'm confused as well. This doesn't seem like your usual troll, creating sleepers to avoid blocks, but some of these accounts were created late last year, and I doubt that the average troll would put so much effort into a little prank... this diff shows Thunda from downunda adding that same panther picture to User:Spute's user page. I'll dig up some more diffs in a moment. Spebi 08:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I've indefblocked Purple contribution for vandalism, so perhaps this might all stop, but we'll see. Spebi 08:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Please file an RFCU. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CU returns that Thunda from downunda is probably Purple contribution (which corresponds to this being the only other account that co-operated), whilst the others are just long dormant accounts that were vandalised. I've reverted all remaining vandalism. Is it worth indef blocking Thunda from downunda or do we guess that he is bored now? Mayalld (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I blocked him, editing is the same to a high degree, I hit the IP too. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:06, 5 December 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:Komodo lover

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Komodo lover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

DietLimeCola 06:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Does many things his other Sockpuppets do (Look here: [329]

Talks about Fred Fredburger - [330]

Talks in all caps (like some of his other sockpuppets) - [331]

Adds false information on Cartoon Network Articles - [332]

Adds nonsense to talk pages - [333]

Forces point of view without providing a good reason (or resorts to original research). - [334]

For more about this vandal, look here: [335]

Comments

Has been blocked over and over for writing the same type garbage.

Added him to the existing RFCU case. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Komodo_lover Says unlikely. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:59, 4 December 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:SwimmingHole

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

Suspected sockpuppets: 72.33.93.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Rjd0060 00:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Sockpuppeter near violating 3RR on Frank Lasee. When I warned the user for the possible 3RR vio, the sockpuppet (IP) made an identical edit that was already made by the puppeter. That, along with the edit summary left, indicate the strong possibility of sockpuppetry.

Or, maybe it evidences the fact that I forgot to sign in once? Damn, this is certainly one hell of a mystery. Maybe we should get our panties in a bunch before thinking rationally. --SwimmingHole 01:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, your contributions on both accounts are disruptive. - Rjd0060 01:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It's obvious those two are sockpuppets and judging by the history of Frank Lasee, they're likely socks of the accounts in this report: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Azurbanipal. I've blocked SwimmingHole indefinitely and the IP temporarily. Spellcast 02:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Tagged as Azurbanipal suspected socks, blocks by spellcast. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:54, 4 December 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:Piononno

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

ReadyFreddie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.174.181.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
172.129.15.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Darkspots (talk) 02:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

This is Piononno's second time around, despite the lack of an ordinal number in the title of this page. The previous case, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kaiser1877, decided that Piononno was the puppetmaster and User:Kaiser1877 should be indef blocked.

User:ReadyFreddie is a single-purpose account. The account's first edits were tests of vandalism templates, and all other edits have been made to Fräulein, its talk page, and various user and WP pages, all edits about this article. ReadyFreddie used relatively sophisticated WP tools like popups.

User:ReadyFreddie has made identical, unique edits to Fräulein as were made by User:Piononno. For example, ""little" can seem condescending to women past school age": RF: [336], PO: [337]

ReadyFreddie deleted all sources that contradicted his/her version of events: [338]. Piononno did this too [339], as well as corrupted the quotes from sources to make them agree with him/her: [340].

As in the first case, ReadyFreddie uses the same unusual style of putting two lines before a talk-page comment:[341]. Piononno doing the same: [342]. The other sock, Kaiser1877 doing the same: [343]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkspots (talk • contribs) 02:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see User:ReadyFreddie indef blocked as a sockpuppet, and User:Piononno warned again. Even though this user appears most of the time to have a healthy disregard for the idea that WP is based on verifiable facts, he/she found a source once [344], and may be able to edit the encyclopedia constructively--but being limited to one account would be helpful. Darkspots (talk) 02:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ReadyFreddie's Comments

Actually, the "little can seem condescending to women past school age" comment was inserted into the article for the first time on September 25, 2006 by User:SnowFire, a user whom User:Darkspots complemented at Fraulein's talk page. I am not a sockpuppet of any other user. I stumbled on the article by accident while searching the internet; I have edited Wikipedia before, but only under IPs. This is the first and only account that I have created. I certainly did not expect to be accused of vandalism because of my edits to that page. Thank you. ReadyFreddie (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever originally put it in the article, I found this a striking edit when I looked at the diff. Looks a lot like this. I suppose you didn't originally put the phrase in--I don't think it causes my entire argument to collapse in ruins. ReadyFreddie is a single-purpose account dedicated to removing sources from Fräulein and asserting that Fräulein is still used. The little stylistic touches like the two lines before the talk-page comment, the pattern of edits, the method of arguing all seem very similar to me. And you are using sockpuppet accounts to create the illusion that several people all agree with you: [345]. Darkspots (talk) 03:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Did you edit Fräulein as an IP? Can you identify which, or at least some, of the IP edits you made? Darkspots (talk) 04:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, as I said I recently stumled upon the Fraulein page by accident and was trying to improve upon it by describing some of the areas in which it may still be used, just as many other users had done as far back as March of 2005. I do not see anything in the article that was not there before and added by established editors. I just thought that the article sounded much better back before all of the arguing started in June of 2005. I know that this is a "highly controversial" subject. ReadyFreddie (talk) 05:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand that it's improbable at best that a fairly new user would come upon an article, not agree with what it said, and then thoroughly comb through the article and synthesize the bits that he/she liked the best? You did not revert to June 2005, you brought in text from different revisions, all added by "established editors". It's the pattern of someone fighting about the article, not the usage of the term, if you can see the distinction. A new user would revert to a single revision he liked, or (more likely) add a couple lines that stated what he felt. It's much more likely that you are someone who has edited the article for a long time, and, stylistically, you sound and act just like User:Piononno. Darkspots 14:03, 30 November 2007

(UTC)

Maybe, it does sound similar, I do not know. Anyway, the edits from User:Piononno all say something about "educated people" using Fraulein or something to that effect. The impression that I get from the talk page is that you found these unsourced statements inappropriate; I would probably agree. That users edits appear to be pure nonesense, but the edits that I made were all made by established editors, so I really do not see how I committed any vandalism, unless all those editors also are guilty of vandalism. I personally think that the March, 2005 version is fine; if you would like to revert the article to that version, I will not make any further edits to this page. ReadyFreddie 01:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested submitter file a RFCU case on all users for this. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further Evidence -- The Smoking Gun

At 23:18, 28 November 2007, ReadyFreddie made the following edit: [346]. At 23:32, 28 November 2007, an IP, 71.174.181.168, made this edit: [347]. This is an exact duplicate of an edit made by ReadyFreddie on 27 November: [348]. The user apparently was trying to figure out how to wikilink properly. Anyway, 71.174.181.168 is an IP that ReadyFreddie was using to edit from, and after he logged out, he said, hey, gotta fix that template, let me make one more edit, so we have ReadyFreddie's IP address for that night. ReadyFreddie = 71.174.181.168. And what else, you ask, did that IP address edit? Talk:Flammability, with this edit: [349]. Now, that's the IP's first edit to that article or its talk page, BUT the edit picks right up and speaks for another IP, 172.129.15.175. It's clearly saying that the two IPs are being used by the same user: "Excuse me, you said that I have poor grammer?" is the first line of the edit.

So, ReadyFreddie = 71.174.181.168 = 172.129.15.175. And what has 172.129.15.175 been up to? Page move vandalism of Flammability, of course: [350], which annoys a lot of legitimate users, hence the heated talk page discussion. And guess who else engaged in a little page-move vandalism of Flammability back in the day? I'll give you one guess: User:Piononno: [351]. And what are the chances that a random user who "as I said I recently stumled upon the Fraulein page by accident" would also be really interested in editing Flammability, and NO other pages (except user talk pages about the two articles, etc). Hmmm. Darkspots 06:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

RFCU confirmed these plus a two more. BLocked and tagged them. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:07, 4 December 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:Eatpie2395

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Eatpie2395 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

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

Report submission by

Mayalld 09:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

two new accounts embarked on vandalism of the same obscure article at exactly the same time

Comments

Conclusions

Both blocked as vandal only accounts and made sock possiblitiy note on talk pages. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:58, 3 December 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:SEAL-team6

Suspected sockpuppeteer: SEAL-team6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: SEAL Team 10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Jonathan ^(T•C) 00:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Usernames seem a little too similar to let it pass by. I'm not sure if these users are socks or not, but again, the names are too close to call.

Comments

10 has 2 edits, and 6 no edits, kind of hard to tell. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first account SEAL Team 10 and its the only one — Preceding unsigned comment added by SEAL Team 10 (talk • contribs)

Conclusions

Team6 has not made an edit and Team 10 3 or less, hardly enough to claim socking. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:35, 2 December 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:Hamsterpalace

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

Suspected sockpuppets: 88.107.221.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

NF24^{(radio me!)} 13:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Both are attempting to spam links to hamster-palace.com on Hamster. Compare [352] and [353]. Sockpuppeteer was indef blocked for having a promotional username and that made it very clear that it was not good faith adding of links.

Comments

Conclusions

Obvious case. Name already blocked for username vio. Blocked IP for one week. Already tagged. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:00, 2 December 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:Bason0

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Bason0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Cause5stage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
774townsclear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Nightshadow28 (talk) 05:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Identical editing - In Yeongeunmun Gate.[354] This is the idencial edit with Checkorder2 (talk · contribs)[355] and Dutyterms (talk · contribs).[356]
Identical editing - In Independence Gate.[357] This is the idencial edit with Jh5trealteeth (talk · contribs).[358]
Similar interests - In Kia Sorento, he/she is interested to edit the car as "not compact (or not)".[359][360] This is the same behavior of Dutyterms[361][362] which is a sockpuppet of Bason0. He/she has appeared in Comfort women, but Rockgoals3 (talk · contribs) has liked also the article.

Comments

As per above mentioned evidence, I request to block him/her as a new sockpuppet of Bason0.

774townsclear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) also has an editing pattern and broken English usage that resemble those of Cause5stage and Bason0.

A comment left by 774townsclear on an admin's user talk page: [363].
Use of the peculiar expression "is not/no relation with." Bason0: [364]. Cause5stage: [365]. 774townsclear: [366], [367].
Use of the peculiar expression "citation/souce contents different." 774townsclear: [368]. Cause5stage: [369].
Edits on Ban Ki-moon (almost identical reverts). Cause5stage: [370]. 774townsclea: [371].
Use of the peculiar term "socket puppet." Nightshadow28 pointed out the common usage of the term among Bason0 sockpuppets at [372]. 774townsclear's use of the term: [373].
Bason0 wrote at [374]: "i'm not socket puppet. bcz, i do not act like other guy. also, i did not discussion like other people. or protect my second ID i do not violation any rule. do you understand Sock puppetry mean? i already explain this.... your claim no relation with this. bcz i point a distruptive edit war. and my previous no relation. also, if you find my previous edit of Bason1, i edited a Neutral point of edit. but, he is non-neutral point of edit. he delete dokdo in some page...." This rambling resembles 74townsclear's below.--Saintjust 21:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not. I'm not sock puppets. I just found your POV, correct it.

Saintjust is push POV troll. mainly pick the criticism contents from source. and omitting other side of view.(POV) i found his POV edit. 774townsclear

"Socket puppet" is a favorite word of Bason0. --Saintjust 00:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

funny. lol. you believe or not. I'm not sock puppets. you just push me as sock puppets. is that all?

type in Google. 'socket puppet' is not typographical errors. i googled, and it's OK. so i use it. 774townsclear

I'm not sock puppets. I didn't acting like multiple player.

Saintjust continue to Push me as sock puppets. I'm asia foreign who english poor. funny. it's just typo miss.

even if i'm a sock puppets, it does not matter of your edit. It caused by your POV edit. not user matter. first of all, Bason0 and Me edited different article. different edited.

I didn't mimic like 2 Players. and I didn't mimic like 2 Players in 1 article. I didn't attack 1 user by multiple accounts. i didn't disruptive edit war by 2 players.

I searched Bason0 and his accounts. sock puppets Bason0's accounts are all indefinite blocked by admin. as i think, He can't do sock puppets. because, He can't use other accounts. He can edit Only one account.(pevious accounts are all dead) in my think, it's some type of personal harassment. continuously block him when he entering new participation. He already punished by blocked period.

Again, I'm not sock puppets. I didn't acting like multiple player. 774townsclear 02:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, administrator. must check reported user and me. He think he is me. lol. I'm really not. i want show evidence from administrator. 774townsclear 02:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter in fact, 774townsclear seems to be a new sockpuppet of Bason0, too. In addition to the comment by Saintjust, I show the following evidence.

Bason0 and a series of his/her sockpuppets have filed bogus WP:3RR reports repeatedly. Please see 774townsclear's[375], Yearwaves3's[376], Panelequal3's[377], Rockgoals3's[378] and Bason0's[379].

P.S. I explain a little (and important) thing because it is a good chance. Wikipedia is not a videogame. Please do not create a new account after "killed" one. And please see also a message in my talk page. --Nightshadow28 09:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my engish is poor. please undestand my slightly abnormal expression.

Again, I'm not sock puppets. I didn't acting like multiple player. ok?

Did I WP:3RR reports repeatedly? don't tell a lie. I did report only 1 time 3rr warning.

just check time, bro. 3rr rule must within 24 hour period. IF i am a sock puppets, i use multiple accounts and 1 article and attack 1 user, pretend to different user, within 24 hour.

1. i am not a sock puppets. (Japanese POV agent user, make me as sock puppets, and want revert all my edits) you make me as sock puppets.

2. I did not pretending other users, so i did not abuse 3rr rule. i revenrt Japanese POV's edit. originally, previous edit is not made by me. My english skill is not good. so, i can't change whole article. When i find POV edit, i only revert it from previous edit.(little modified) you do not mistake that other user and i are same person.

3. IF i pretending other users, nevertheless It is still not within 24 hours report. did not misuse 3rr rule, too. Yearwaves3, Panelequal3, Rockgoals3 and Bason0's accounts are all dead. right? can't be a multiple user. and Yearwaves3, Panelequal3, Rockgoals3 and Bason0's edit are very old.(not 24 hour)

4. i did not use multiple and attack 1 user. I did not pretend to different user in 1 article, within 24 hour.

5. Nobody think Wikipedia is a videogame. it's your think. Wikipedia is not POV agent's video game. I did not create a new account after "killed" one.

change the channel, for user Bason0. maybe He and I are same country person. and want participation in Korea relation topic. but, It does not means i am a same person with him.

When he entering a participation, You(Nightshadow28) guy want block him repeatedly. If he judged by sock puppets from admin. His all previous ID are indefinite blocked. It's impossible he use other accounts. If he want participating edit, making new account is only way. but, you report him as sock puppets(even his edit are not violation). Just check Cause5stage's edit.(you report him as Bason0) What is problem of his edit? His edit is fine. you just want block him forever. (other accounts are all dead. so he can't pretending multiple user) It's unfair to him. according to cocker, He can't be a sock puppets. and in my think, his edit are not fabricated edit, really. I think your action is personal harrasment. He already punished by blocked period. Please be civil. WP:CIVIL.

Return to channel, Just do not push and make me as sock puppets. I didn't violation any wikipedia rule or vandalism. you must make discussion before report other user as sock puppets, try to make consensused edit. Why you can't do like that? You did not talk with him. You did not try to make consensused edit. report as sock puppets is your only response. you guy want block me, too? by same way? you want opposition user make as sock puppets and repel him, revert article. why? you can not make sincerely discussion. you didn't prove fabrication edit by trust citation. like your fabricated edit.[380](I checked your edit. this edit is totally fiction. just see discussion page. nobody prove cite and any source. vandalsim)

Whatever you say, i have right for correct the wrong edit. anyone can edit wikipedia. It is wikipedia. and It is GNU. you do not have right for repel other user who opposition edit to you. 774townsclear 11:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pleas, adminstrator. check my IP and compare edit or whatever. check reported user and me. I am not sock puppets, really. I really annoying this. i want show evidence from administrator. 774townsclear 11:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i) (1) It is completely free that you assert it. (2) I have only pointed out the identity between Bason0 and other users. And the behavior which repeats edit of sockpuppet, just serves as proof of socks. (3) I can not understand your saying. (4) It is the same as 3. (5) Because Bason0 was editing articles of the video game at the beginning, I have used the word. It is very glad if you understand truly that Wikipedia is not a video game. Wikipedia is a reference work.

ii) For Bason0 — By taking a proper procedure, Bason0 can return to edit of Wikipedia. Using an unblock request tag ({{Unblock}}) with rational statement in his/her talkpage, administrator will decide to unblock (or not). Repeating reincarnation without this procedure, will be worsening the image of Administrator. In fact, Bason0 has created and used many new account after blocked indefinitely, Administrator will do a severe judgment. However, to follow directions of administrator sincerely, is the method most advantageous to Bason0. Or Bason0 may have to join into local language project, like kowp. It will surely have many discovery and experiences there. Bason0 will understand why enwp obstructed participation of Bason0.

iii) Following the rules of Wikipedia, I thought enough, collected evidences, and filed this report. It seems that Saintjust have done so, too. I never raised doubt of a sockpuppet without the reason. Of course, I do not hesitate arguing based on reliable sources. If it is a general user, or this report is rejected. I only have been waiting to decide by reliable administrator, because sockpuppets of Bason0 can not edit at enwp. --Nightshadow28 14:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added 774townsclear as a suspected sockpuppet of Bason0, into this report. Evidences are comments by Saintjust and me. --Nightshadow28 15:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFCU has been declined by administrator Deskana. And respectively, they have been blocked by administrator Future Perfect at Sunrise.[381][382] Please close this issue. --Nightshadow28 16:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quack. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I've filed and RFCU on this. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already blocked as a result of RFCU> — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 1 December 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:Errorminor

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

Suspected sockpuppets: Localrules (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Tiredthink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Mayalld 15:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

All 3 users are going on a spree of redirecting pages that are up for deletion, all use an identical edit summary; redirecting due to plague of deletionist disruption

Comments

Please add Groupshear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Offerdream (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and Alertother (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) to this list. Pagra shtak 15:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

All already indef blocked, I tagged them. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]