Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Screwball23/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Screwball23

Screwball23 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
24 June 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by Justa Punk
[edit]

I believe Belrien12 to be a sock puppet of User:Screwball23. After being blocked twice for edit warring on the World Wrestling Entertainment article, Screwball started a mediation and meanwhile suddenly we see Belrien12 make a few unrelated efforts from late May 2010, and then make the following two suspicious edits to the talk page of the WWE page and the article History of World Wrestling Entertainment.

It's the same opinion being pushed in effect by the both of them and it is highly suspicious. I ask that a checkuser be applied, and if found to be true I ask that appropriate action be taken against both accounts. !! Justa Punk !! 22:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: CODE LETTER (Unknown code )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by !! Justa Punk !! 22:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment - this user sounds much younger than Screwball23. (He could be a younger sibling or a friend or something.) I seriously doubt they are the same person, though. Aside from speech, look at their edits on June 1. Belrien12 makes an edit at 22:46 and Screwball23 has edits at 22:39 and 22:50. (All times Eastern). His edit at 22:50 is a pretty substantial one. It seems rather unlikely that he logged out, logged on as his sock, edited some Japanese thing completely unrelated to anything he has ever edited before, logged back in, and made his edits to Richard Blumenthal. That's an awful lot of effort to go through for no particular reason. I think it's more likely that either he's a sibling/friend/whatever or the issue has been mentioned on a wrestling message board somewhere. --B (talk) 23:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or that could be exactly what he wants you to think. It's too co-incidental, and even if you're right, it's at the very least a Meatpuppet situation which is just a bad. A checkuser will tell us for sure. !! Justa Punk !! 01:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think that's very likely. You're saying that on June 1, he anticipated a debate three weeks in the future so he had his sock puppet make an edit five minutes off from one of his to throw off suspicion? I think it's much more likely that either they are friends or Screwball is canvassing. (Yes, either way it would be meat puppetry.) --B (talk) 05:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think what he means is it could be a "sleeper" sock as I noted below. The project has had issues with users creating alternate accounts for use in discussions. Either way I agree that it could very well be a meat puppet. Meanwhile Screwball continues canvassing.--UnquestionableTruth-- 05:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I personally find it odd that a user who hasn't been active for weeks or never even edited a "wrestling" related article in the past would all of a sudden feel compelled to join that discussion in particular. Additionally, logging off an account and logging back in under a different one seems like a logical tactic for socks of say, established users. It's happened before even with members of WP:PW; User:TJ Spyke in particular. This could be a sleeper sock or as B suggested, a meat puppet. --UnquestionableTruth-- 03:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed –MuZemike 01:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
28 January 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/68.39.100.32 locates to Middletown, New Jersey. Master is part of Meetup NYC. Most action occurred on this talk page. diff LookinPace and Walepher were just created today and concur with original sockpuppet suspects in the same manner. All sockpuppets have very similar arguments, tone, and dismissiveness of alternate opinions. Master has been involved in editwarring now and several times previously, has had continuous disregard for Wikipedia policy, and common courtesy. Metallurgist (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further evidence: IP somehow found my edit war report and is attempting to defend suspected master account. The tone sounds a bit like that of someone covering something up. Metallurgist (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added another suspected IP 46.165.193.133. Same disregard for Wikipedia policy and unilateral editing, determining of consensus, self-appointing "third opinion". Thats not how it works.--Metallurgist (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

So I can't defend 'this' account because we (the other account(s) and I) AGREE on something? I am not 'any' of the other users. I can see why you make the connection between Middletown and NYC, I do live near NYC -- but its absurd to think of the couple million people that live in NYC (I don't) that they don't have a Wikipedia account. I am NOT interested in meeting up with anyone on Wikipedia. This isn't a dating service. And how in the world are you supposed to know all four of our tones if we agree on the same exact thing? Like I said before, I know you will be dismissive of my comments. Please, LOOK UP THE IP ADDRESSES. I have nothing to do with those accounts. If it were up to me, I would suggest that you are simply mad, sad, or angry that you have/are loosing an argument and would like to undermine everything by trying to get every single user in the argument banned or blocked. I know you are unable to look up my IP address, but someone has to be. I - personally - am NOT LINKED OR RELATED TO ANY ACCOUNT. They or Screwball could be Sockpuppeting, but I am NOT. Furthermore, I am NOT DEFENDING the "master account". I have nothing to defend but this account. And it's pretty rash that you suggest I happen upon it when you have linked to it in the talk page. I have also informed the other "suspects", since you have failed to do so. 68.39.100.32 (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why dont you get your own account (see Wikipedia:Why create an account?) It seems like you are already contributing to the Wikipedia society. There are many advantages by having an account instead of making anonumyse edits. Jack Bornholm (talk) 06:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say there is not enough evidence - but the problem here is that there is sufficient evidence. The term "redundant" is iterated by an IP, and by the brand new users who have essentially no eidts on Wikipedia, but who seem inexorably drawn to repeat the exact words of Screwball23. And using posts like: Like Screwball previously said and saying that asking for a consensus is somehow wrong do not sound to me like two brand-new, unrelated and suddenly appearing on the same article independent editors. At least get up to 11 edits before asking us to believe in this coincidence <g>. They are socks of someone - and this will find out who. Collect (talk) 02:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the thing is, I am the one who initially started using "redundant", not Screwball. And what, if I agree with you I cant say, "Like Collect previously said," without people thinking I am a sockpuppet of you now?68.39.100.32 (talk) 02:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, if you are going to somehow use my location and a group Screwball joined to try to get me blocked, please at least look up 46.165.193.133's location.68.39.100.32 (talk) 02:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is absurd. I see now reason why Collect and Metallurgist are even trying to pull this dirty nonsense. They should be grown men and shouldn't resort to this to fight a pathetic case that they can't even argue logically. Collect has been proven wrong again and again, and honestly, the guy probably has issues because of all the anger and resentment he stores for me. (This guy patrolls my edit history in his lonely room, and he's always on my back). I think Metallurgist should have been forthcoming about his investigation because I have yet to see a discussion on this topic from him. This is a desperate move from a sore loser; he lost consensus and wants to bite both me and this IP user. Shame on him.--Screwball23 talk 05:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I am not the one who posted the SPI, and I have AFAICT no substantial interactions with the other editor anywhere at all, so making some snide "tag team type accusation" does not fly here. My initial thoughts were, in fact, to oppose the SPI, but then I actually examined the evidence. Evidence is a nasty thing Screwball - it sometimes makes people think that something actually did occur. Your post accusing me of being in cahoots in some way with another editor unfortunately reinforces my position. Cheers - but attacking the messenger is not the way to work on Wikipedia. Ever. Collect (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And your absurd attacks on me personally make me think your name is entirely too apt. I do not follow you nor anyone around. Period. With well over two thousand pages on my watchlist, do you honestly think I give a dam about you? Dream on. Collect (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Simply stating something doesnt make it right. In this case Metallurgist cant be a sore looser since there hasent been a concensus yet. I would say that it right now is pretty even in this case. You have been just as abusive as the others in this discussion, lets not make Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 into a war victim. Jack Bornholm (talk) 06:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Considering your history, screwball, Im not surprised you have a detective on your tail. You should be the grown man and have let the discussion occur instead of unilaterally deleting it and then edit warring. And if we find out you are sockpuppeting, then whos the one that needs to be a grown man? The system gives the option of not informing the accused, and considering the shticks you and your cohorts pulled, I decided that was a good idea.--Metallurgist (talk) 08:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just based on tone, general combativeness, and argument style I would have to say that Screwball23, 68.39.100.32, and possibly LookinPace all seem to be the same person. There are even instances in the talk page of the article they edit where Screwball23 and 68.39.100.32 will type words in the middle of a sentence in ALL CAPS to stress a point. I haven't personally seen many editors who do this, so this appears to be more circumstantial evidence. Rxguy (talk) 06:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But what about the other editors that do type in all caps? Are they Sockpuppets now too? It's not that hard to press shift or all caps and type.... Collect, the facts ARE there. That's the... funny... part (for lack of better words). The thing is, I find it hard to understand how, if Screwball is guilty, or if the other accounts are guilty, why my account would be in trouble for arguing a similar point with another editor. If I said that Screwball attacking you was wrong in a similar fashion you did, Collect, am I now a sockpuppet of you? That's fundamentally what it is. Arguing the same point in the same fashion. I understand why Screwballl is upset - he is being accused and is probably trying to deny strong evidence - it's his account. I feel the same way about my account. But it's not just attack someone and expect to not suspect you even more. CheckUser will be around. I have nothing to hide, I didn't do anything. If you have nothing to hide, or didn't do anything, then you shouldn't be freaking out. IP addresses say a lot. Unless your my next door neighbor (creepy) I doubt that anything will come out of this when CheckUser gets to this. I honestly wish CheckUser would get here soon so we could end this already, lol.68.39.100.32 (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's rare for people to type that way and it's an unconscious behavior that I believe gives your identity away, much in the way handwriting nuances would be used to identify people. Looking through the talk page for the Republican Primary page I just noticed another such nuance, both 68.39.100.32 and Screwball23 use parentheses to set a comment aside rather than the use of commas, as is traditional. I believe it's quite clear that it is the same person with anger management issues arguing here. Rxguy (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how the use of commas or parenthasis or caps proves anything at all. There are many places online that use camas, parenthasis and all caps. There are probably many editors on here that do that too.... Now where is CheckUser? Lol. 68.39.100.32 (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, what is the reason you dont make an account. I am getting curiouse. That would be far better for you work on wikipedia as an editor and it would stop all this. Make an account and live free Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then you will report me for sockpuppeting THAT account. And Metal would add it to this list in heartbeat. No thank you.68.39.100.32 (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not to sound too pushy, but why has a CheckUser not stumbled upon this investigation yet? This is taking away from improving and coming to a true consensus throughout Wikipedia.68.39.100.32 (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
  • I've blocked 46.165.193.133 as an open proxy (I've just tried it), so where it geolocates to in the context of this investigation is irrelevant. This and several other factors rather give me the impression that there's socking going on, so I checked.
  • LookinPace and Walepher are  Confirmed matches with each other and also edit from proxies. As a result, comparing them with Screwball23 is not technically conclusive. But seeing proxying users chime in for Screwball like this, well, I don't think it's unexpected or unreasonable to assume that Screwball is responsible. No comment on any IP associations. WilliamH (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Master reset, and given 2 additional weeks for evading/socking, IP done for a week as it looks static, accounts indef'd. There is enough evidence to put me beyond a reasonable doubt here. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
03 November 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


[1] Collect (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reinserting material into the Linda McMahon article which had been discussed many times, with User:Screwball23 being the prime proponent of the wording used here. [2], [3] show the tenor of the edits. The other article Vvv2012 heavily edits is Polish-American vote where almost all of his edits occur. Screwball23 has a very extensive history of edit warring and disruptive editing. [4] and he has specifically been warned not to edit about WWE related articles (including the McMahon article).

The fact that the material added is substantially the same as that added by Screwball23 in multiple edits, and that this editor specialises in only two articles - both of which were edited by Screwball23, I consider to be quite sufficient evidence that this new SPA may well indeed be that other editor who recognises that the edits on Linda McMahon would be scrutinises were he to make them. Cheers.


Note also [5] where Screwball23 uses the exact same edit summary as Vvv2012 "rv biased editing" which cerainly implies that they are the same editor. Collect (talk) 23:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Even more and absolutely non-controvertible evidence: [6] by Votevotevote2012 -- and [7] where Screwball affixes his own sig to the post! He is using two separate accouts to edit and comment on one article in order to be "two editors". I suggest this is exactly what is absolutely forbidden on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Note both accounts already blocked by Bwilkins Nobody Ent 11:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]



Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Screwball23/Archive&oldid=1138679248"