Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kumioko

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bbb23 (talk | contribs) at 13:03, 30 November 2016 (Marking case as closed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Kumioko

Kumioko (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected
For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kumioko/Archive.


23 November 2016

– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.

Suspected sockpuppets

User created on 2 October 2016, first edit was creation of User:Mr. Nosferatu with text "I am User:Mr. Nosferatu, back from the dead!". By his seventh edit, a few days later, he is suddenly defending Kumioko at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States[1] with impressive knowledge of what happened (from the oft-repeated POV of Kumioko, that is). Editor claims there not to be Kumioko, but that's not the first time he tried that either. Among his so far 20 mainspace edits are three edits to Medal of Honor recipients[2][3][4]. Medal of Honor, together with Wikiproject US, were the main areas of interest for Kumioko. Fram (talk) 14:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: it's no big deal, but a checkuser isn't just for comparison with known older accounts, but also to check for sleeper accounts / other socks. Kumioko (if this is Kumioko of course) has employed many socks, often multiple at the same time, so a checkuser seems useful even when older accounts are stale. Fram (talk) 15:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:138.163.0.41 (obvious IP sockpuppet) added – see recent revision history of this page and block log. SuperMarioMan–Talk 23:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

@Bbb23: User:Sunny Side Up is a non-stale puppet. Sro23 (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • WikiProject USA was certainly near and dear to Kumioko. When he was head of the project he attempted to suck into it everything remotely connected with the United States. I don't know if you can use cross-wiki data for CU, but his Reguyla account is active on Commons. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, any idiot can see that the comments accusing me of being Kumioko are heresay at best. They are nothing more than accusations. If there was proof, you would have blocked my account outright. Yes, certainly anyone who copies the Wikiproject assessment templates and pastes them as I did (you'll notice I only assessed stubs except one I think) must be a sock of Kumioko. Its obvious that anyone who would look at the block log, see comments and accusations from both sides and read hyperbolic statements with obvious errors and lies would just be Kumioko. If you go looking for a justification to block someone you are going to find one. I don't need to argue it, from what I read of what happened to Kumioko (and I read very little frankly) you are going to do whatever you want anyway regardless of what I say or do. I am not going to give you my real life identity, facebook, linkedin or get on Skype to confirm I am not them. So if you are so desperate to accuse an editor who doesn't agree with you just because you can, with nothing but accusations, then Kumioko was right! Just because I don't agree with you doesn't make me a sock, it just makes you a dick for accusing me of being one without evidence. Mr. Nosferatu (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's more to do with the fact that within days of registering you were discussing users on WikiProject talk pages and debating technical areas at WP:VPP. Certainly "evidence" that you are not a new user. Otherwise you clearly did a lot of background reading in less than a week. I support blocking on the basis of WP:DUCK. SuperMarioMan–Talk 23:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SuperMarioMan: Not really You are looking for any reason regardless of how small to accuse users of this Kumioko editor. I have no idea why other than what I have read but I have to tell you I am 100% in agreement with them right now that the editors on this site have no respect for each other. When allegations are enough to block another user this is no website I want to be a part of. Go ahead and block this account because unless you close this stupid allegation and apologize for the misunderstanding and accusation I want no part of this place. There is no proof, you just want to block me because you hate Kumioko. It's obvious. Mr. Nosferatu (talk) 02:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since [[User:Fram|Fram] chose to "deny" my request for them to withdraw this here, I will ask for it on this page as well. I request this be closed and someone apologize for this misunderstanding. It is not socially acceptable in any culture to accuse someone of being another user, particularly one that has been banned from it. The people who edit this site shouldn't be different. And maybe I am naive in my belief, but when it is done, it's generally accepted practice for the person who did it to apologize for doing it. Mr. Nosferatu (talk) 11:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

As far as I can see, all the accounts are  Stale. CU declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sro23: Thanks! I've reinstated the CU request.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mr. Nosferatu is  Inconclusive. The only possible sleepers that are technical matches for Mr. Nosferatu were created in August and September 2016. Unless Kumioko has a history of creating accounts that are dormant for months, it made no sense to block them. There are other administrators and CheckUsers who know more about Kumioko’s history than I do. I’m leaving this in a checked status for a behavioral analysis and any additional comments by CUs.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: Pinging editors with experience with Kumioko: Favonian, DoRD, Dennis Brown, Timotheus Canens. GABgab 16:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Having read his comments at WT:USA, in particular this one in which I get honorable mention, I'm inclined to follow the duck call. Awaiting comments from my pinged colleagues. Favonian (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't pinged, but I'm also convinced this is a sock of Kumioko, or at least a sock of whoever's been getting blocked in the recent archives. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked as an obvious sockpupper, per comments here — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kumioko&oldid=752285410"