Jump to content

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Adding report for User:Harpiz2. (TW)
No edit summary
Line 44: Line 44:
{{Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kikbguy}}
{{Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kikbguy}}
{{Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/DrJamesX}}
{{Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/DrJamesX}}
{{Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Abillity Man 2}}
{{Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Satipo}}


<!-- ADD CASES TO THE TOP OF THIS LIST. This tag indicates the bottom of the list. -->
<!-- ADD CASES TO THE TOP OF THIS LIST. This tag indicates the bottom of the list. -->

Revision as of 04:02, 1 January 2009
    Shortcuts
    Refresh the page


    The suspected sock puppets page is where Wikipedians discuss if a fellow Wikipedian has violated Wikipedia's policy on sock puppets. Cases on this page are evaluated primarily on the basis of behavioral evidence, and the editors and administrators who look at the reports typically do not have the ability to determine what IP addresses Wikipedia editors are using. If you believe your case requires an IP check, please go to requests for checkuser.

    Sometimes users who appear to work with a common agenda are not sockpuppets (one user, multiple accounts), but multiple users editing with the sole purpose of backing each other up, often called "meatpuppets." Meatpuppets are not regular Wikipedians who happen to agree with each other; they are accounts set up by separate individuals for the sole purpose of supporting one another. For the purposes of upholding policy, Wikipedia does not distinguish between meatpuppets and sockpuppets. Please see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry.

    Administrators

    Administrators please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Administrators for detailed instructions about how to determine sockpuppets, archiving, etc. for editing here at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets (WP:SSP).

    Reporting suspected sock puppets

    view • edit

    1. Assume good faith, if possible. An alternate account that is not used for abuse does not warrant a complaint. Keep in mind that users may sometimes make mistakes, so in cases where an alternate account is largely used for legitimate activities, it may be appropriate to ask the user before making accusations. The problem might merely have been caused by a mistaken login or other absent-mindedness.
    2. Fill in the names. Clicking "Start a case" with a new case name-or-number opens a fresh page, with a form ready to be filled in. The puppetmaster's name will be automatically filled in as the filename; if this is not correct, due to added numbers like "(2nd)", replace the {{SUBPAGENAME}} tags with the puppetmaster's username. Also replace the placeholder names SOCKPUPPET1 and SOCKPUPPET2 with the account names of the suspected puppets; add or delete these lines as needed. Always leave out the "User:" prefix.
    3. Make your case. Now write up your evidence in the "Evidence" section. This should describe why you believe there's puppetry occurring, however obvious it might be. If this is not the first time the user is suspected, links to other cases you know about should be provided as well. The evidence should point to one or more instances of illegitimate use of the puppet account. Include the diffs to support your statements. Sign and timestamp your case with ~~~~ on the line below "Report submission by"; preview your report for any problems; and, when you're satisfied, save it.
      To start a case report about suspected sockpuppetry:

      Cases are created on subpages of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets.
      To do so, add the username of the puppetmaster (the main account, not the sockpuppet!) -- and the number of the case, "(2nd)", "(3rd)", etc., if there were previous cases on that username -- into the box below.
      Leave out the "User:" prefix. Replace only the word PUPPETMASTER, leaving the rest as is.

      Example: if there were already two cases about User:John Doe, the new case would be titled:
      Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/John Doe (3rd)

      Then click "Start a case". You will be taken to a page where you can fill out the report.
      After you've saved the report, come back to see the remaining instructions below this box.

      Use of this form is deprecated. Please use Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations.


    4. List your case for review in the WP:SSP open cases section here. Add the line {{Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PUPPETMASTER}} (or PUPPETMASTER (2nd) or PUPPETMASTER (3rd), etc.) at the top of the list, just below the section header. (Again, remember to replace PUPPETMASTER with the actual account name, without the "User:" prefix.) Save your edit. Check to see that your report shows up at the top of the list, just below the "Open cases" header. If there's only a red link, check that the spelling of the username and the number match the filename you created.
    5. Notify the suspected users. Edit the user talk pages (not the user pages) of the suspected sockpuppeteer and sock puppets to add the text {{subst:uw-socksuspect|1=PUPPETMASTER}} ~~~~ at the bottom of the talk page. If this is not the first time the user is suspected, the most recent evidence page should be specified by adding "(2nd)" or "(3rd)", etc., after the user's name: {{subst:uw-socksuspect|1=PUPPETMASTER (2nd)}} ~~~~ or similar.
    6. Consequences. If the evidence shows a case of clear abuse, with no serious doubt, an administrator may block any sockpuppets, and take further action against the puppetmaster. In less severe cases, administrators may quietly monitor the account's activities.
    7. Checking further. In some cases, where there is significant abuse and yet puppetry is not certain, it might be appropriate to use technical means to detect puppetry. See Requests for checkuser (WP:RFCU) for details.


    Open cases

    Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Harpiz2

    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:Klaksonn

    Suspected sockpuppeteer
    Klaksonn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Suspected sockpuppets
    Liygkg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Kjgugh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Report submission by

    Ogress smash! 02:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Evidence

    Klaksonn is an endless harasser, stalking particularly User:Enzuru. It's so tiresome and his edits are predictably un-Wikipedic and inciting.

    Comments
    See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kjgugh#User:Kjgugh, the account is now indef blocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Conclusions

    Closed. Both blocked. Cirt (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:98.231.153.180

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

    98.231.153.180 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets
    Report submission by
    Evidence
    Sockpuppeteer kept adding his own version of the Flag of the Republic of China. 1 2 3 4. I gave him his last warning 5 and then User:Aruba1018 began vandalizing, doing the exact same thing. 6 7.
    An older version of the flag.
    A newer version of the flag. I guess I really created a big mess in the academic community.
    Comments

    User:Aruba1028 joined on November 23, 2008 8 and not immediately after I gave User:98.231.153.180 his last warning as I expected.

    This appears to be an anonymous user whose edits were reverted by several Huggle users without a clear stated reason. The anonymous user attempted to contact one of the reverting users, and his talk page edits were also reverted (and another vandalism warning issued.) Understandably, the user appears to have then created an account to attempt the same edits. I don't think this is sockpuppetry. I was passing by and tried contacting the reverting users, but none were able/willing to clearly explain claims of vandalism. This may in the end be confirmed to be vandalism (by someone who can read Chinese, but this may simply be a case of overzealous Huggle users. -- Tcncv (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC) (Updated -- Tcncv (talk) 14:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    Hi. I am that "criminal" vandal you are looking for. So what if I had put up a higher-resolution flag of the Wang Jingwei Government? The Wang Jingwei government was a puppet regime of Imperial Japan which claimed to be the legitimate government of China during World War II, and tried to assert its authenticity by adopting the same flag as the Republic of China. The ROC was then headed by Chiang Kai-shek and was based in Chongqing. To fend off suspicions from outsiders, the Wang Jingwei authorities decided to add an extra pennant on the ROC flag.
    Offical full version SVG flag.
    I don't understand what the big deal is. At first I thought the reason that you stupid people put down my flag is because I am anonymous and don't have a user account. So I logged in and tried to upload the flag again. Now, let me ask you one question. How the heck does my addition constitute vandalism when I am a history major specializing in the history of China? This flag came from my history textbook and I was just reproducing it on my computer for the benefit of the Wikipedia community. I uploaded something educational and you people are making such a big deal out of it. You know what, if you have the guts, go ahead and mark this paragraph as vandalism and close my Wikipedia account. I dare you. If you don't understand Chinese history and the resemblance between the old and my "vandalizing" flag, then shame on you all ultra-liberal do-no-good reactionary administrators. Wikipedia should thank you for scaring away potential editors like me. Aruba1018 (talk) 23:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    May I just point out Aruba1018's flag is correct and does have the correct peace, anti-communism, national construction (和平反共建國). there were many versions, some said just peace and national construction some said peace and anti-communism and some said the whole national motto: "peace, anti-communism, national construction (和平反共建國)." for more info please read Flags of the Republic of China-Nanjing and [1].

    In my opinion I suggest keeping Aruba1018's flag, not only is it the "full version" its also higher res.--SelfQ (talk) 14:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably a moot point now, but I did want to weigh in on my own reversions of the flag. I rolled back the Wang Jingwei Government article to a version with the flag sans pennant. When the editor logged in, I left them a welcome message, but did not construe the flag as vandalism. Rather, I thought it was inconsistent with the text of the article which stated the same flag was used by both the Wang and ROC governments. Since I can't read Chinese, and since the pennant flag was getting added with different versions that appeared to have different text, I removed the flag from the lead for the sake of consistency. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A SVG has been created by the Graphic Lab, for future notice it sould be used as the Offical flag for the Republic of China-Nanjing from 1940 till 1943 because it is the "full version". There are other versions that are currently being made into SVG's but those are variants and sould only be used in for example the flags article to point out that there are variants or when a article specific calls for that flag.
    Conclusions

    User:Mariaflores1955

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

    Mariaflores1955 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets
    Report submission by Koalorka (talk) 21
    24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
    Evidence

    This case has its roots in a content dispute over media that should be included on the Joachim Peiper biography page. I first introduced an image from the newly released German Federal Archives which I believe is superior to the small and grainy existing image in hopes of improving the encyclopedia. I assumed this would be greeted with support from the history buffs, since high-quality images like this were extremely rare. To my surprise, over the next few days the image was reverted several times by a series of seemingly unrelated IP users accusing me of "vandalism": [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] followed by the registered account [[7]]. After both receiving warnings from a project admin about good faith edit warring I recognized the pattern and questioned Mariaflores1955 about the use of sock puppets, she responded by saying these were her "colleagues": [8] and "others": [9]. Not surprisingly, these "collegues" also happen to originate in London, UK, where the accused user allegedly works or resides (as stated on her introduction page: [10]). After both receiving a warning from the involved admin, discussion ensued, but Mariaflores1955 could not restrain herself from reverting any remaining images of hers that were removed. After one more revert from myself, another IP adress quickly stepped in to revert me yet again: [11]. I then informed Mariaflores1955 that she would be reviewed for sock puppetry and she then admitted to using an IP [12], claiming a browser session time-out. Her continued reverts under different IP's, constant and unwarranted accusations of vandalism and stubborn personal attachment to any changes or contributions made by her prove that this user is not acting in the best of faith.

    Comments
    Seems obvious enough to me, socking in violation of policy (and as far as this is concerned, meatpuppetry is viewed as socking) and some issues with WP:OWN as well. Regarding the image, there needs to be consensus over which (if not both) should be included and it needs to be shown that abusing accounts to distort consensus will not be tolerated. The master account requires sanctioning in such a way that they will be persuaded to contribute within policy in the future. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is pretty desperate attempt by Koalorka to get his own way. I would go as far as saying that it is absolutely laughable dinner theatre. I do not dispute that one of the IP addresses is mine. It is my home IP address as I explained already. While editing couple of articles my log-in timed out and I did not realized immediately. However, as soon as I discovered this I logged in under my user name. The other IPs do not belong to me and blocking them will only affect other Wiki users. As for the other IP addresses, according to IP address locator - 85.70.121.251 is not even in the UK!! This IP is from a user in the Czech Republic. I guess this user found it also offensive that Koalorka freely changed content of several articles throughout Wikipedia. I do not know who he/she is but hope that the person will leave a comment either here or on the Peiper discussion page. Another IP address belongs to a friend of mine from Kensington in London who, brought the unwanted changes to my attention in the first place. I certainly did not tell him to make any reverts, but as far as I can see these were done well in the Wiki guidelines. As for the last IP (86.141.169.132), I do not know who it belongs to, but it surely is not mine!!
    I am also puzzled why LessHeard vanU commented on this case without having all the facts, besides the mad rumblings of Koalorka. Is this a forum for you express your opinion? I believe this is a section for my comments on the unsubstantiated accusations of sock puppetry. If you would like to leave a comment regarding the Peiper photo or any other photos, please do so on the appropriate page. This is not the venue for it. The discussion is ongoing at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joachim_Peiper Also, I suggest that you review the talk page of Mr. Koalorka with comments by administrators before making rash comments here. Also, I welcome any messages regarding this issue on my page. Best Regards, Maria Mariaflores1955 (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, I am an admin and am reviewing the case for sockpuppetry as part of my WP responsibilities; you are perhaps fortunate that I decided to comment rather than block you for abuse of policy and write up my conclusions. I am uninterested in reviewing the images, as there are other avenues for that, but in limiting policy violation. I am also aware that one ip was non UK based - and know that there are ways to proxy addresses - but would point you to the fact that having other people edit for you (admitted by you) is meatpuppetry and is regarded as violating WP:SOCK as well... On the above basis and your disregard for WP practice and policy I would suggest to another reviewing admin (now that I am "involved") that your account is sanctioned for socking and other disruptive actions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is important to state that no one edited anything for me. Again, please do reared the above statement. Please see comments left by other administrators regarding this ridiculous complaint e.g. J Milburn and his statement on Koalorka talk page. Again, I was informed by another contributor about the disrespectful changes to the articles and there is no meatpuppetry here. Can you please list for me any violations I have committed? You state that the addresses are my proxies, is there an evidence to support this conclusion? After all, this is not Sadam's Iraq or Hitler's Germany - one should not be punished without evidence. My conscience is absolutely clear, as I have not done anything wrong!! Although I am only an American living in the UK, I am sure that there is something called burden of proof!! Best Regards, Maria Mariaflores1955 (talk) 13:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Conclusions

    User:Oxyman42

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

    Oxyman42 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets
    Report submission by
    Evidence
    • Oxyman42 was created in April 2006 [13] (under a different name)
    • A prior SSP case involving this account and some IPs was opened 19 Sep 2008, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Oxyman42
    • This account was blocked indefinitely on 20 Sep 2008 [14] after some fall out from that case through comments in failed unblock requests of a short block resulting from that case
    • Various abusive IPs appeared after this case, targetting User Abd who filed the original case
    • User Oxyman, which was created on 5 December 2006, was blocked on 12 October 2008 [15] as an obvious sock of Oxyman42 (but not as far as I can see doing anything malicious)
    • User Oxyman24 was created on 17 December 2008 [16]

    Oxyman42 was blocked over a dispute with me elsewhere, and never realy showed he understood why socking is not allowed (see unbock requests and the subsequent block of Oxyman). Obviously all users have similar names. The new account Oxyman24 has recently registered a contrary opinion contrary to mine on an article [17]. All users show an interest in UK trains.

    Maybe there is nothing malicious here at all and it is just down to not knowing the rules (Oxyman42 was not indef blocked for socking, the Oxyman block was self evident by its name and its edits to Oxyman42). But if they and Oxyman24 are all the same person, they clearly need to be told to stick to one account, with others blocked. (although the worrying IP abuse from Oxyman42 continues with this latest incarnation on 20 December 2008 [18]). If Oxyman24 is not related he should probably also rename his account to avoid connections with Oxyman42.

    Comments
    OK I have just found this section,
    • the only oppinion I have registered is that on Talk:LNER Peppercorn Class A1. I did not know I could not register a different opinion to MickMacNee's, I only actually read the post under the subheading "Infobox proposal" MickMacNee had not posted in this section so I didn't even know his views, I now see he has posted in the lengthy discussion above concerning an edit war on that article. Still I only posted an oppinion in the talk page and did not edit the article concerned.
    • Oxyman is a common nickname for net uses and duplication is not that surprising.
    • "they clearly need to be told to stick to one account" As I understand it you can have as many accounts as you like so long as you don't use them to break Wikipedia rules. there is no actual sockpupetry going on here and this user appears to be making up rules.
    • Further the only way to rename an account is to open a new one this would violate your one account rule so there is no way I can win here
    • "Maybe there is nothing malicious here at all" Should you not wait until there is evidence of something malicious before accusing users of Sockpupetry?

    Oxyman24 (talk) 00:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Conclusions

    Master account already indef blocked, but I shall copy this diff to there for information. Oxyman24 indef blocked as obvious sock. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    New socks have appeared

    MickMacNee (talk) 06:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Conclusions
    I have indef blocked Firefly462 per WP:DUCK, and blocked the ip for 1 year under the same provisions - the WHOIS indicated that this was an assigned ip, therefore stable, and if the underlying ip should stop the creation of accounts. If new accounts arise let me know so I can review/block, and take it to WP:RFCU to see if there is an other underlying ip or small range that can be blocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ktrubolt

    The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
    Suspected sockpuppeteer
    Ktrubolt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Suspected sockpuppets
    Steven f gagnon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Ktrubolt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Report submission by

    Geoff T C 17:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Evidence

    see user contribs. Similar edits to Gravity Entertainment

    • I received two emails, one from each user, each blaming the other for whatever. The one from the Steven Gagnon account made a legal threat; I will disclose this email if anyone requests. Tan | 39 17:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments


    Conclusions
    Both accounts already indefinitely blocked by others (one for vandalism not socking). Not sure if templates are needed, so have not affixed same. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:08, 2 January 2009 (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:AlexLevyOne

    Suspected sock puppeteer

    AlexLevyOne (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets
    Report submission by
    Evidence
    More disruptive edits will follow soon.
    The IP address was previously blocked for sockpuppetry, see WP:Suspected_sock_puppets/AlexLevyOne(5th), and is included here because of likely puppet activity from that IP since the end of the block.
    For more details and history see WP:Suspected_sock_puppets/AlexLevyOne
    WP:Suspected_sock_puppets/AlexLevyOne(2nd)
    WP:Suspected_sock_puppets/AlexLevyOne(3rd)
    WP:Suspected_sock_puppets/AlexLevyOne(4th) and
    WP:Suspected_sock_puppets/AlexLevyOne(5th).

    Editing from the IP address User:81.64.4.162 (most or all of it unhelpful) has stepped up in the new year. JohnInDC (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments
    • I'd have no problem with an indef block of all the accounts mentioned here. Suggest (1) be sure everyone is notified, (2) go through the past reports on AlexLevyOne and check all the IPs that were given short blocks, to see if any of them are continuing to edit. If so they should be blocked for three months or more. This has been a long-running case. EdJohnston (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with this user is not so much confirming the puppet once you find one - it's pretty plain to anyone who's followed this user - but finding the puppets in the first place. AlexLevyOne typically abandons accounts as soon as they're unmasked, at which point it becomes a waiting game for the newest account. I (personally) think the evidence is sufficient for Nullah, and that blocking the IP for a bit would be a good idea; but it is, sadly, likely only a matter of time before we're filing another one of these. JohnInDC (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Conclusions
    That should do it for these accounts, and I have nothing further right now. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pretzky

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

    Pretzky (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets
    Report submission by
    Evidence
    Comments
    Comments
    • This is a huge report, but there is a lot of good evidence. I looked over the talk pages of the various editors, and found lots of warnings and other signs of poor judgment in the past. My inclination is to indef all four of the named accounts. Will leave this report open for a little while in case other comments come in. EdJohnston (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Conclusions

    User:Dwellsmusic

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

    Dwellsmusic (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets
    Report submission by
    [[20]] and [[21]] and [[22]]. Contribution records here [[23]], here [[24]] and here [[25]].
    Suspected puppet master is blocked. Second suspected puppet has made a number of good faith edits, however then removed the AfD tag which was unhelpful.
    Conclusions

    User:Seth hilton

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

    Seth hilton (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets
    Report submission by
    Evidence
    • All three are single-purpose accounts devoted to writing articles about a non-notable New Zealand singer, Seth Hilton. All but one have already been blocked for spamming, and the latest incarnation, the only one not yet blocked, also created an apparent hoax about a movie Hilton is allegedly in. The username refers to the name of an alleged TV show in which Hilton plays a title role.
    • I just added DrVince (talk · contribs), although all edits are in his own userspace, because all edits are related to Seth Hilton and were done in the same time frame. These user pages are all identical to articles created by the other users reported here. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments
    • I have no connection whatsoever with the other accounts mentioned.
    • I am a contributor on the fr.wikipedia.org and have been for a while.
    • Seth Hilton is a signed singer under contract to the Lollystickrecords label.
    • He is a managed actor who has been an extra on many shows.
    • Be aware that you are asking personal informations about a minor, certain procedures must be followed.
    • Any proof sought will be handled in a quick and professional manner. DrVince (talk) 03:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Greetings. Which part of Montreal do you live in? I see that your English has improved quite a lot since your last contribution to the French Wikipedia. Voulez-vous poursuivre cette enquête en français? Peut-être ce sera plus facile pour vous. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • En effet, le français m'est plus confortable. Et j'habite coin St-Hubert et St-Zotique. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrVince (talk • contribs) 05:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • D'accord. Sachez que ce n'est pas par certitude de votre culpabilité que je vous ai impliqué dans cette enquête, mais il semble que les trois autres utilisateurs nommés ici tirent des pages de votre espace utilisateur et les copient sur l'espace article, où, comme vous l'avez peut-être constaté, leur espérance de vie est de l'ordre de quelques minutes à peine. Aussi, je trouve qu'il est tout de même bizarre qu'un souverainiste québécois s'intéresse à la carrière d'un obscur chanteur néo-zélandais pour lequel les seules références sur le Web sont des pages maintenues par le sujet lui-même (du genre MySpace). Mais j'aimerais savoir, pour ce qui est des positions atteintes aux divers palmarès par l'album Face to Face, d'où viennent vos chiffres? -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 06:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Après avoir questionné Seth Hilton, je n'ai toujours aucune preuve tangible.  Je ne connais pas la provenance des chiffres.  Je ne peux obtenir de moyen de communication avec Lollystickrecords.  Je n'ai pas non plus de communication avec son agent, s'il en a un.  De plus, les relations d'affaire entre lui et moi ont changé.  Je ne contribuerai plus à ses pages.  Je crois que quelqu'un d'autre prendra le flambeau.  Moi, je me dissocie. DrVince (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, what was said here by DrVince convinced me that he's probably no sockpuppet. First, his edit patterns here in the English Wikipedia are quite consistent with what I saw in the French Wikipedia, that is, all edits are done on talk pages, project pages, and user subpages. Second, the reason I conducted this investigation in French was to verify his claim that he's a regular contributor to the French Wikipedia (that username had not been used there for nearly two years). The quality of his French is satisfactory. Since this user never received a warning about an edit in the article namespace (never even made such an edit), while the other three users listed here made all their edits there, I must conclude that DrVince was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. He can't even be accused of conflict of interest, even though he did have a business relationship with Seth Hilton, since he limited his edits to his own user space. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 05:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that DrVince should be dropped from this report. It looks to me that User:Thenewzzshow could easily be blocked as a spam/advertising-only account. What to do about that editor seems to be the last open issue. I wonder how it happens that Thenewzzshow was editing sub-pages in DrVince's user space unless they know each other somehow? Consider if any scrutiny is needed of 70.73.158.100, a Toronto-based IP that has also been editing the Seth Hilton article. EdJohnston (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • DrVince did imply that he knows Seth Hilton in his reply to me, by claiming a (now past) business relationship with him. Given the other three usernames listed here, one would think that the sockpuppeteer is either Seth Hilton himself or someone closely related to him. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Conclusions
    • Blocked newsshow indef and it's very likely he's "seth" per deleted contribs. Don't know about the discog guy as that account's tendencies are slightly different (i.e. capitalisation is different in article titles); poss. CU? Good job on the French investigation btw, Blanchard. ScarianCall me Pat! 05:27, 7 January 2009 (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:Til Eulenspiegel

    Suspected sock puppeteer

    Til Eulenspiegel (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets
    Report submission by
    Evidence

    Seems to be a single purpose account for use in a discussion on Talk:Noah's Ark (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs). Comparing the users only two edits: The first seemed reasonably well written, though they did seem a little too comfortable with wiki syntax (indentation, signing) and the use of talk pages, and I was amazed that someone seemed to have read through a very good portion of the argument (if not all of it) after this much time. I didn't think there was much reason for concern, after all, there are instructions to sign your name when you post, everyone else was indenting, and maybe they were really interested in the argument. Their second edit was totally different in style. It was a quick reply whose style was nothing like the first, in addition to knowledge of wiki syntax they now showed proficiency with Wikipedia terminology ("POV"). This style of reply had also been noted by myself a week earlier, from Til's account here. FimusTauri's assertion that many people do not accept the word myth is practically identical to Til's earlier assertion.

    After discussing this talk page issue with Til for a couple of weeks now I've grown accustomed to Til's writing style, and these two accounts seem eerily similar. The difference in the two replies makes me think one person wrote the first reply (guided by Til), then Til wrote the second reply himself in a bit of a hurry.

    Comments

    Not that clear cut - could be a matter for WP:RFCU. Cirt (talk) 20:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that the account seems like a 'single-purpose account' with only two edits to the same page, and that whoever it is, does seem to be in general agreement with my same position; but it's not my sockpuppet, and I honestly have no idea who it is, other than someone expressing an opinion - nor have I had any kind of intercommunication with that editor. I never use sockpuppets, or break any rules. I'm certain checkuser would verify that he or she, is not I. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I can give categorical assurances that I am not a sockpuppet. I am, however, new to WP editing. My apparent 'familiarity' with the terminology is only a result of having read through the discussion page - after all, I did not want to make any contribution without having first availed myself of the facts of the dispute. Ben may be surprised to learn that when I first read the discussion, I was actually about to make a comment in favour of his position. It was only after re-reading the arguments that I decided my first impulse was in error. I am in general agreement with Til only in the point that use of the word 'mythology' may be considered offensive to the many people who genuinely believe that the story of Noah's Ark has at least some basis in reality. Further to this, I felt that Ben was being unreasonable in insisting on pushing for the inclusion of that word and it seemed that Til was isolated. Hence, I felt the need to say what I did. Regarding the apparently 'altered' style of my second comment. I can only say that my contributions are currently restricted to the times when I am at work and that second comment was placed shortly before finishing for the day and thus was, of necessity, brief.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC) I should add that I am in the UK - my work times are 09:00 to 17:00 GMT. The time-stamp of my contributions matches the time here, but I am not certain that this time-stamp appears the same universally.--FimusTauri (talk) 10:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    On the same lines - I am off work now till Monday - I wouldn't want anybody to misread a four day silence as having any other cause!--FimusTauri (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This looks a little like a rather hasty and unjustified accusation to me, I have been involved with the editing of Noah's Ark and have seen no evidence of sock puppetry. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree because Til does not seem the type of editor to engage in sockpuppetry over his various disputes and the evidence is flimsy at best. I certainly have concerns that our "don't bite the newbiews" policy has been violated with no serious evidence offered. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't decide to start this because I thought Til was the sort of person to do this or think it was unjustified with edits like these two, and time spent away from the computer, as FimusTauri seems to be making a deal out of above, didn't seem relevant since they were on at around the same time. I thought I clearly explained this in my first comment. FimusTauri continues to amaze with their ability to navigate policy pages so quickly, but if everyone else thinks its unlikely to be a sockpuppet, then I'm happy to drop it and then apologise to them both. Cheers, Ben (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There isn't much to go on here. No evidence of specific abuse. Just two editors who happen to agree with one another on a contentious religious topic. I suggest that this be closed unless something more specific turns up. EdJohnston (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Conclusions

    Closed with no action. Re-open if anything more specific turns up. EdJohnston (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2009 (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:Nineveh 209

    Suspected sock puppeteer

    Nineveh 209 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets
    Report submission by
    Evidence
    • First edit Aturaya07 does is reverting one of my edits [26], that previously was reverted by Nineveh_209[27], and directly after I've it reverted back again a new user (Aturaya) reverts it again [28]. They all have similar names, Aturaya and Aturaya07 obviously socks. And the most likely sockmaster seems to be Nineveh_209.
    Comments
    • I had already explained my first revert to Taivo (talk · contribs) which Nineveh_209 also read since he responded to it in Tavio's talkpage, after he had read it he reverted my edit and then suddenly two new accounts with similar Assyrian usernames pops up and reverts my edits (which was their first edits), it seems to me that Aturaya07 and Atuaraya is in fact Nineveh_209 who is trying to edit-war with me so that I will get blocked. I've stopped reverting it back for now since I don't want to engage myself in edit-wars, but methods like these shouldn't be accepted.
    • I have no relationship with any of those accounts, the accusations above are groundless, I have never heard of those names whatsoever, this user is simply trying to eliminate all opposition that disagrees with his views, look at his history, the issue has been brought up on the talk page regarding the name but he has not taken the time to read any of it. I will not waste my time here anymore explaining things to this incompetent editor who has put me and many others down verbally and constantly manipulates the meanings of words to satisfy his justification of proving his irrelevant claims throughout this encyclopedia. An expert in linguistics has proven this user wrong on several occasions and I have agreed with the expert and this user has dismissed all our views as being stupid, biased, etc without providing any of his own evidence to back up his claims. He is intolerant of other views so has gone to some sad lengths to eliminate established users who discount his uncivil behavior by labeling them as sock puppets. If need be compare my ip address with those users mentioned above me to prove my point. Also try contacting the other user to see he or she will answer to the above accusations. I don’t know if the two above accounts are the same or not But I can say for a fact I have absolute no relationship with them nor have I ever heard of them until I was falsely accused for this. This will be the only comment I make on this situation. Ninevite (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the User Aturaya, I created the User Aturaya07 then after a couple hours decided that the name Aturaya is free so i created that account but i don't know how to delete my Aturaya07 account(which i have no need for) I don't know who ninveh209 is and the mods can do a quick IP check and find out we are two completely different people, I reverted your edits because you are vandalising the page, the discussion with Assyrians/Syriacs on the Aramaic page was already resolved ages ago please read the previous discussion before vandalising the page thanks.Aturaya (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment by User:EdJohnston
    • There's really not much evidence here. I see that The TriZ and Nineveh 209 have been in previous disputes in the Assyrian area. Nineveh 209 has been editing since mid-2006, has never been blocked, and has not previously had any sock complaints made about him. Both he and The TriZ seem to have done some good work. The similarity of names of Aturaya07 and Aturaya is adequately explained by Aturaya's comment above. In nationalistic disputes, sometimes people agree with each other without being socks. Lacking the sort of evidence we normally hope to see in sock reports, I suggest that this one be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2009 (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:Palm Tree Tommy

    Suspected sockpuppeteer
    Palm Tree Tommy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Suspected sockpuppets
    A good user (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Kyle Parker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    For the sake of the children (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Greaseboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Phacocoerus aethiopicus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    A dark handsome stranger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Hovis Bread Mix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Rhys Pwnes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Report submission by

    OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 10:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Evidence

    Repeated attacks to a particular editor's user page [29], using the same formatting and attack verbage: [30] [31] [32].


    Comments

    Yup, I'm a sockpuppet alright. Got looooooads more to come as well hahaha

    Conclusions
    I don't know how to close this, exactly, but let's just say that we're working on it. It happens to be an ooooooold banned user Hamish Ross (talk · contribs) and several administrators and checkusers are currently working to try and eliminate all of these accounts he's created a year ago.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Closing. Since Ryulong and other admins have indef blocked all the accounts listed in this report, there is no further admin action needed. If this report is just for record keeping, any admin should feel free to revert my close and add more data. EdJohnston (talk) 06:54, 5 January 2009 (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:Pprice1

    Suspected sockpuppeteer
    Pprice1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Suspected sockpuppets
    Laurenwest99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Film09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Carolrubensteinesq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Report submission by

    Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Evidence

    Puppetmaster registered their account and created article Scott Walterschied which is currently AfD; half an hour after puppetmaster posted their first comment to the AfD, the sockpuppet User:Laurenwest99 registered and has, so far, only participated in discussions related to this AfD (including the Article Rescue Squadron [34] and a "post of support" on puppetmaster's talk page [35].) Both users have repeatedly neglected to sign their comments, and both have gotten very personal in the AfD discussion (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scott_Walterschied - [36], [37].) Both also seem to be online/active at the same time. Could possibly be a meatpuppet, but overall style of writing leads me to believe that they are the same person.

    Comments
    • The Scott Walterschied article has been deleted a copyright vio. I expect it's probably a meatpuppet, who was asked to register to back him up. Posting to the talk page of the other user is something only an established user would probably do imo. They're probably just friends. Majorly talk 15:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I cannot offer any further hard evidence for or against the claim, I would like to second the assertion that the user(s) in question are taking this subject very personally, and have attempted to dissuade debate against their point via ad-hominem (some of which has been extremely ironic, such as asserting that detractors are spending too much time on the issue). My point is that intense personal investment (emotional or otherwise) is a stroke in favor of the likelihood a user might employ methods like sockpuppetry to get their way. I would like to affirm that such a level of involvement is quite patently in play. - Vianello (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adding User:Film09 to suspected sockpuppet list who recreated the Scott Walterschied article with the same content.
    • Also adding User:Carolrubensteinesq, a brand new user who is contesting the MfD [38] for User:Film09. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Conclusions
    Based on the clear disruptive SPA nature of these accounts, I ran a CU.  Confirmed Pprice1 (talk · contribs) = Film09 (talk · contribs), and  Confirmed Laurenwest99 (talk · contribs) = Carolrubensteinesq (talk · contribs). There appears to be no relation between Pprice1/Film09 and Laurenwest99/Carolrubensteinesq. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Carolrubensteinesq was already blocked for a legal threat. I've blocked the other three. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kjgugh

    The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
    Suspected sockpuppeteer
    Kjgugh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Suspected sockpuppets
    Enruzu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Kjgugh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Report submission by

    Enzuru 02:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Evidence

    As seen here, this user has not only taken out critical information, this user has called me an Ismaili and broken WP:good faith, and also vandalized my user page under a different account because of our debate on Ali al-Hadi. These are all the same things a user who has harassed me and User:Ogress, this user is User:Klaksonn as one can see from his contributions and the contributions of his multiple socks, and how they parallel with what is happening here. User:Enruzu has already been blocked, please now block User:Kjgugh.

    My userpage has been vandalized a second time by User:Enuzru. --Enzuru 02:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments
    see Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets#User:Klaksonn.
    Conclusions
    Puppet already blocked, Master has "retired" so has also been indef blocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:The Other Hand

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

    The Other Hand (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets


    Report submission by
    Evidence

    Gratin has in the past week been the subject of some ridiculous editing problems. One editor gutted it, split off two meals which are made in the 'gratin' style, into articles, and proceeded to do a lot of redirecting of other potato based recipes. Then, on the talk, (Talk:Gratin), a surprising number of editors suddenly appeared to support his interpretation. I stumbled onto the page via recent changes, and, having no horse in the race, tried a compromise of the two sets of information. Shortly after, Michael Grossman appeared, saying that the article as it was (the older version) needed to be gutted and rewritten. He used similar tone and style to Believe it or Not and The Other Hand, and the IPs. Finding it suspicious that after months of near stagnation, four different editors suddenly appeared at the page in a couple of nights to support a radical rewrite, I brought the matter to WP:AN/I, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive501#Possible_sock.2Fmeat_problem. As you can see, Yngvarr concluded that there probably was something untoward going on, and that TOH would be who to name. When I filed the report, the commentary at Gratin stopped. I opted to AGF, and further assume that the editor behind the accounts, having been called out as a sockpuppeteer when he first posted as Michael Grossman, had seen my report and opted to stop. I didn't push the matter further, but the section was archived ,and an IP showed up and like Michael Grossman, made their very first edit commenting against the article, and BIoN showed up just a couple hours later to agree with the IP.

    Yngvarr's analysis, seen in the AN/I archived thread, is brief but direct, and in line with my suspicions.

    Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/The_Other_Hand. All are sockpuppets of one another. ThuranX (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    All three Accounts notified. IP Behavior suggests dynamic IP, so notifications there seem pointless. User:Yngvarr also notified as a courtesy, based on his help at AN/I. ThuranX (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    One of the suspected accounts, Believe It or Not, has begun engaging in edit warring to his preferred version. ThuranX (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I expect these are probably sockpuppets, but a checkuser would need to determine any relationship for sure. The IPs are probably just the accounts logged out. Majorly talk 15:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have filed the requested Checkuser. ThuranX (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Conclusions
    Master blocked for 1 month, with "ticking off", and named socks indefinitely with templates. As ever, dynamically allocated ip's are not worth blocking... So I haven't. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rolaball Rocko

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

    Rolaball Rocko (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets
    Report submission by
    Evidence
    Comments
    A gaggle of ducks; may not be one individual, but a group sharing a pc or similar, but pretty much talking to each other. Sock or meatpuppet, I am blocking all named accounts. See below re ip accounts. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Conclusions
    All named accounts blocked indefinitely (some previously for vandalism) and templated. IP's trace back to Tesco/Virgin UK, who dynamically assign ip's upon connection, so blocks are not feasible. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Troy86

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

    Troy86 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets


    Report submission by
    Evidence

    General outline is that all of them create poorly-sourced articles about African diaspora groups in Latin America, add unsourced content to each others' articles, and show up to defend each other on talk pages/AfD. Despite the common interest of all these accounts, they never talk to each other --- normally, human migration is an unpopular enough subject area on Wikipedia that probably every editor working on it knows each other and has left a message on each other's talk pages asking for advice.

    Some specific examples:

    1. 2008 July 05: They all show up in four subsequent edits within 30 minutes of each other on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamaican Brazilian to vote keep [61][62][63][64]
    2. 2008 September 20: Troy86 creates African minority in New Zealand; Blackable2323 shows up to work on it within a few hours [65]
    3. 2008 November: 70.156.138.197 edits Jamaicans of African descent [66]; within a few minutes, Cup22 [67] and Blackable2323 [68] both show up too.
    4. 2008-12-25: They all show up on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angolan Brazilian to vote keep, with similarly poor arguments; Troy86 and Blackable2323's edits are within 6 minutes of each other, while Cup22 and Unknown789's edits are within half an hour of each other [69][70][71][72]

    I believe there were also some similar editing patterns in the histories of the deleted articles German Jamaican (Troy86 and 70.156.138.197 both adding copyvio to it, then later Cup22 goes to create it again as Germans in Jamaica) and Japanese Jamaican (Troy86 created it, and IIRC one of the others deprodded it, though none of them showed up to comment on the AfD)

    Comments by User:EdJohnston
    • I have left messages for User:Lehoiberri and User:CaliforniaAliBaba requesting more info, since I understand from their talk pages that more than one IP is suspected, the IPs are in different regions, and the role of User:Skanter is also in question. Agree with Bradv that a checkuser is needed. Sometimes the checkusers don't like it if the complaint is very scattered, so let's get it organized first. I also am not sure that everyone suspected of sockpuppetry has been notified. EdJohnston (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Skanter is a possibility based on similar editing patterns; creating many poorly sourced "[nationality] Brazilian" articles. However, JustBeingSkanter sounds like somebody imitating Skanter's editing style. --Geniac (talk) 04:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Conclusions

     Possible. Recommend checkuser to confirm. BradV 20:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jaredsacks

    The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
    Suspected sockpuppeteer
    Jaredsacks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Suspected sockpuppets
    Sekwanele (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Report submission by

    FFMG (talk) 11:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Evidence

    Started editing/responding withing minutes of User:Sekwanele, [ http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAbahlali_baseMjondolo&diff=258954986&oldid=258953686]. Also started doing the exact same edits as the user.

    Both have very similar editing patterns. [73] and very similar arguments on the talk page [Talk:Abahlali_baseMjondolo].

    Apart from that particular article, they seem to follow the same editing style.

    Comments
    Please...FFMG has a long record of simple removing rock solid references from articles
    The fact that more than one user is concerned about FFMG's stance, not to mention his/her open bias towards certain kinds of politics, a bias that in at least once case has extended to outright and blatant prejudice, hardly means that those users are the same person. This can very easily be confirmed offline.
    FFMG also has at least one supporter - yet no one has hurled accusations of sock puppetry on that basis. Let us please stick to the issues here. FFMG does raise some good points here and there about unreferenced statements. But s/he also recklessly and with clear political bias removes rock solid citations and that is a serious problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sekwanele (talk • contribs) 16:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There doesn't appear to be any damning evidence here, although enough evidence to suggest further investigation. Recommend WP:RFCU. BradV 16:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Conclusions
    • Please, i'd like to clear my name as soon as possible. I'm tired of being harassed by Wizzy and FFMG. Please let me know what steps I need to take to prove that I am not sock puppeting. Thanks Jaredsacks (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2009 (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:164.58.212.202

    Suspected sock puppeteer

    164.58.212.202 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets
    Report submission by
    Evidence
    • This user appears to be using sock puppets to edit Rachel Pollack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in a questionable manner. Some of it might fall into the category of content dispute, but at least one principle is being violated - user anonymity. This user and its sock puppets have at least twice tried to "out" a Wikipedia editor, referring to her by her supposed real name. (Note: it's in the edit summary, not the edit itself.) diff diff diff
      • Another sock puppet also added the editor's supposed name to the article as a purported friend of the person who is the article's subject. I believe this to be the same editor in part due to that the name is (reportedly) misspelled with an "E" on the end in all cases. diff
      • And the IP and a sock puppet have been keen to add this person's name to Eunuch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). diff diff
    • In addition, this user has appears to have used several single purpose accounts (mostly single edit accounts) to add uncited personal information on the subject, much of which does not follow the dictates of WP:BLP. Generally, this user seems focused on piling on information about the subject author's transexuality, to the point of prurience. I don't know that this is specifically prohibited behavior, but spreading it around multiple sock puppets does not seem conducive to generating consensus. It feels more like vandalism.
      • Here, the user and a sock puppet added a salacious entry from one of Pollack's books. I believe to be the same person due to the mention in the edit summaries of "Greenie babies and Biber Babies". diff diff. Other sock puppets have made reference to this book before. diff diff diff
      • Here, the user and sock puppets contend the the subject is multilingual, but don't cite a reference for this. I notice that like some of the edits above, the editor refers to the article's subject as "Ms. Pollack" in the edit summary. diff diff diff
      • I note that this user had been warned regarding its reinsertion of unsourced, potentially libelous material about the author's supposed disdain for transsexuals to the article for John Byrne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) diff and that the one-edit John Byrne Is Supreme (talk · contribs) later added a uncited note about Rachel Pollack's transsexuality to the Pollack article. diff
      • In fact, there is a pattern of single-edit users making reference to the author's transsexuality: diff diff (from the IP - diff) diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff
      • There also seems to be an emphasis on the Pollack's Jewishness: diff diff diff (note the Wizard of Oz theme with the next two usernames) diff diff diff diff diff
      • And on Pollack's qualities and habits as a chef: diff diff This is a theme carried over into other articles on transgendered people such as Kate Bornstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). diff
    • I note that this user has been warned six times on its talk page about violations of WP:BLP. I'm not sure that all of these accounts are sock puppets of this IP, but I submit that it is using at least some of these accounts to avoid blame for continued disruption.
    Comments

    This is an issue another user has expressed concern about and checking through the edits appeared to show a pretty wide-ranging problem and I was in the process of asking advice on the best approach.

    It is worth noting that Magyar Kiss Kiss edited another article Zsuzsanna Budapest [74] which the IP has also edited [75]/[76]. The last year-and-a-half's worth of that article's history is almost completely made up of SPAs doing exactly the same thing as they are in the Rachel Pollack article and need checking here (with the exception of Queenlaese). There may be other similar pages with the same problem but these are the two main ones I am aware of as well as the IP [77] and an SPA [78] on Eunuch.

    The problem is that the user(s) are pushing an agenda that is violating WP:BLP as well as a consensus on how to deal with the issue sensitively which has lead to repeated reversions by a number of users. The persistence and single-minded nature (as well as the blatant BLP violation) take this out of the realm of simple disruptive editing and into the realm of vandalism. (Emperor (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

    Several of these have now been confirmed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/164.58.212.202. Many were too stale to be verified, but I think they fit the pattern. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 09:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And it looks like the socks have been blocked indefinitely and the IP blocked for 6 months, so it seems like we're in good shape. I'm assuming no further action needs to be taken at this time. How do you close this case? --GentlemanGhost (talk) 10:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately it might be just the opening shot in a long encounter.

    Might be best to leave it open at least a few weeks while we see if they come back. I'll freely admit to being a noobie on this stuff. 17:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anniepoo (talk • contribs)

    Conclusions
    • There is nothing more to do here. Though I recognize the seriousness of the abuse, all of the registered accounts that have been active in the last three months are now blocked indef, mostly due to the efforts of Nishkid64. The IP at the head of the report has been hardblocked for 6 months. Many of the accounts made only a single edit. I suggest that this report be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Closed. per above assessment by EdJohnston (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 12:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sureshmaran

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

    Sureshmaran (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets
    Report submission by
    Evidence
    • Sureshmaran has been adding spam and deleting sections from articles Sengunthar, Mudaliar and Thondaimandala Mudaliar using various socks and ips. I discovered that he recently started making numerous edits to the user pages of Chola_and_sengunthars (talk · contribs) and Pallavacholasengunthar (talk · contribs). After going through the history of the user pages of these alternate accounts, I found other users and ips who have been editing in the same style as Sureshmaran by adding unknown personalities and random people and deleting info from the same articles namely Sengunthar, Mudaliar and Thondaimandala Mudaliar. I'm listing Sureshmaran as the puppet master as he is the one making edits at present. I believe that the other accounts are all aliases and sleeper accounts of Sureshmaran. I'm listing some diffs below:
    Comments
    Response of Sureshmaran

    I had done many tentative edits in the user pages of cholas and sengunthars, pallava chola sengunthars for the sake of using it in the article sengunthar. These user accounts are not created by me. I accept that i had used the above mentioned user pages created by others solely for experimental purposes

    While doing such trial,the edit identified by this IP address 117.193.194.9 is entered when i had logged out from user account

    The rest IP addresses and user accounts/pages had never been created and used by me respectively --Sureshmaran (talk) 10:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I find the creation of the various Userpages, and the then admitted editing by Sureshmaran (and also users Istvan56 and Redlance) too close in timeframe to be pure co-incidence. Two individuals create an account and use it to make a proto article, and then three more unconnected accounts disregard WP guidelines to edit either or both? It seems a little far fetched. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC) Addendum; whatever the result, user pages "Chola_and_sengunthars" and "Pallavacholasengunthar" will require deleting. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments by EdJohnston

    I don't see much to do here. Almost none of the claimed sock accounts have been active in the past two months. The IP 136.8.5.100 is the only one recently active, except for the final IP 117.193.194.9 which has only one edit (which looks like formatting). I hope someone is watching this report who can clarify whether the active IP 136.8.5.100 and Sureshmaran have collaborated in any way that breaks WP:SOCK. EdJohnston (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Conclusions
    • I see edits that reflect inexperience with use of Wikipedia, and am reluctant to write this up as a violation of WP:SOCK. One IP is currently active, 136.8.5.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and has been a source of bad edits. It could be a shared IP that includes some vandals and some regular editors. I have blocked this IP six months anon-only for vandalism, but without labelling it as a sock. The only connection to Sureshmaran is that the two accounts edited the same article at different times. I don't see any other actions being needed. Let me know if anyone disagrees. EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments by --Istvan56 (talk) 05
    52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

    I haven't been on Wikipedia for a while. Just checked in and see that my edits here were questioned as a sockpuppet account. Nope, just me editing a poorly written article. It needed more than I could give it though. Don't know who this guy was who had the alt accounts but Istvan56 isn't one of them.--Istvan56 (talk) 05:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SavetheArchduke

    The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
    Suspected sockpuppeteer
    SavetheArchduke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Suspected sockpuppets
    Gonçalo-Manuel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Report submission by

    Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.) 18:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Evidence
    • Nominating all the same articles for deletion as the user which was just blocked for disruptive editing.
    • Just confirmed that it is indeed him with this edit.
    • They both end their posts with an exclamation mark and 3 dots aswell. See [96] and [97].
    Comments
    Just because I give reason to someone that doesn't mean I'm the same person. I just wanted to do my job. I followed those editings and I simply agreed, sometimes just partially, with the criteria for deletion or of non notability. How can you accuse someone just for saying what I said, I mean, I tried to justify myself and I was accused???... What part of my justification says that I am the same person? How can you even say that? How can you conclude for me saying that I just want to do something that the other guy is my puppet? Intelligent conclusion, no doubt!... SavetheArchduke (talk) 11:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We both end posts with !... Now that's a smart argument! SavetheArchduke (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest that it is a signature argument - the use of ellipses is rare, and to incorrectly format them is rarer; to find two accounts editing the same articles with the same syntax error is exceedingly rare. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Obvious sockpuppet - using multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny of the attempts to get these actors' articles deleted. —BradV 20:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Obvious in your twisted basic mind! I was tracking the guy, and since I had some other pages which deletion I wanted to propose or at least suggest in order to force some improvements, I just agreed with some of those deletions. Beside, I didn't delete any filmography. SavetheArchduke (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Conclusions

    Probable. May need RFCU. Note that Gonçalo-Manuel is actually the older account and should probably be assumed to be the master account. Black Kite 16:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rumble74

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

    Rumble74 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets


    Report submission by
    Evidence
    • A very similar edit pattern with many edits involving Muhammad Ali and Led Zeppelin. These users have been warned over Led Zeppelin edits.
    • Both users blank their user pages and user talk pages.
    • Update: These diffs as well 1 and 2.


    Comments
    You left out these accounts which have similar edits to the other accounts already mentioned. This needs to be looked at:

    N.B. WikiAlf's comments here: [101]

    Geolocate indicates user accounts in New Jersey. A-Kartoffel (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Addendum. Another check in the article history of Muhammad Ali reveals these accounts with a similar edit history comparable with Rumble74:

    • I'm convinced based on similar patterns between the two listed at the top. I also will note that this particular user (in both forms) seems to be engaging in too much radical back-and-forth changes in Muhammad Ali, when the material should have been stabilizing somewhat by now. A big reason we cannot even consider submitting this article for GA is because of this user, in my humble opinion. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 23:56, 5 January 2009 (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:Kikbguy

    Suspected sock puppeteer

    Kikbguy (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets
    Report submission by
    Evidence
    Comments
    • Please remember to notify all accounts listed as possibly linked to the sock puppetry in question (instructions).
    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:DrJamesX

    Suspected sock puppeteer

    DrJamesX (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

    Suspected sock puppets

    Less recent activity




    Report submission by
    Evidence

    (Note from Uwishiwazjohng) Please check the history of this page. User Switchintoglide removed text here that confuses the context. The identified themselves, saying they had edited the David Bowie page and saying that they could not be DrJamesX by using personal information.

    Switchintoglide also said "I have also never made a legal threat towards you or anyone else, so that evidence is false."


    Switchintoglide (talk) 00:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have removed the false statement that User_talk:Switchintoglide since I was mistaken. The person who called my addition libelous appears to be, as she admitted on User_talk:DoriSmith, her boyfriend User_talk:Quotseeky. She also claims not to know User_talk:DrJamesX but in the same sentence identifies him as a man twice her age. She claims that she also has worked on David Bowie's page. She has in fact made 2 edits, compared to the 20 she made to David Ferguson (impresario). Her first edit was to remove all requests for more/better citations. Her membership started on November 22, which was during the time that an edit war was brewing on this page. Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 04:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,
    His name is "DrJamesX"; James is a man's name.
    He said he was a biographer of Mr. Ferguson; I don't know many biographers my age!
    I think my assumption is reasonable.
    Switchintoglide (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we can both agree now from the talk on other pages that your charges are out-dated.Switchintoglide (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The following [[104]] shows that User:Switchintoglide added a citation from 'Lecture Catalog (1974/1975) - David Ferguson Lecture agency'. The likeliest way the user would know about this source is by being personally acquainted with Mr. Ferguson. This source was self-published by Mr. Ferguson, is not searchable on the internet, and was not widely distributed. Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 06:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Email admin@ifuc.org for inquiries about citations. I was interested in the work of Vaughn Bode and how he was affiliated with Ferguson and emailed a request for more information. I received a nice reply with information about the lecture catalogues and other wrk of the IFUC. I would say that this is "the likeliest way" I knew about these sources. Thank you for your concern!
    Switchintoglide (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Uwishiwasjohng has already let me know s/he made a mistake

    "Switchintoglide, I see that you are trying to get help and that you are worried that I'm going to get you in trouble. When you stepped into this mess, you came in the middle of an edit war between DrJamesX and I. I can see that you are sincerely trying to appeal to admins.

    Let's be adults about this and fix it ourselves. Let's do what we can to make reasonable edits. I want to work *with* you, not against you. I want this to be article to be accurate.

    What do you say? I propose we continue to discuss the edits on the talk page and try to make the edits together.

    Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 06:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)" [1]

    I did this to try to de-escalate. Please note that I made no admission of wrongdoing, because I don't believe I'm wrong. Actually, I wanted to see if the user would work with me. The reaction further convinced me that the user is a meat-puppet. It did nothing but spur another suspected meat puppet into action. Now User:Melrosechoc who suddenly has started contributing to other articles. This is similar to what User:Switchintoglide did. Note that User:Switchintoglide asked me to remove my accusation for her, her admitted boyfriend, User:Quotseeky and User:Melrosechoc. Now, User:Melrosechoc is making similar edits, removing the Legal History section and adding page citations Uwishiwazjohng (talk)
    I don't know Melrosechoc, but s/he appears to be trying to improve the article with citations and I think you need to leave him/her alone to do what you have expressly said to be your intention. If you keep making problems for people who try to improve the article, can't you see that users will read something into your intentions? Just lighten up! Not everyone who contributes is "against you" and I don't think that all of the users you have accused deserve to be treated this way! Switchintoglide (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As a matter of fact, User:Melrosechoc is making contributions that indicate to me that she has information that only those on the inside of David Ferguson's organization would have, such as the fact that IFUC is now a private organization, and that CD Presents in now an EU company. Your adamant defense of the user makes me more convinced that you know him/her —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.56.73 (talk) 03:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea with whom User:Melrosechoc associates, and mentioning a name is not being "adamant" as you assert. An example of being adamant is your obsession with all things David Ferguson. It looks like you spend hours at it, whereas I spent 5 seconds mentioning his/her name in saying that you may have been unfair to him/her. Contrary to what you may think, this is not a conspiracy against your edits.Switchintoglide (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Quotseeky

    I am not a sock puppet of James. It should be clear to anyone who visits this, that uwishiwasjohng has simply accused everyone who has ever been to the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quotseeky (talk • contribs) 19:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This accusation is untrue. There were a few accounts that weren't WP:SPA and I didn't include those. I include User:Quotseeky of being a sock/meatpuppet because the only action they had committed at the time was to vandalize my Legal History section, which at least 4 different users did within a few days —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uwishiwazjohng (talk • contribs) 04:15, December 16, 2008 (UTC)

    Comments by EdJohnston

    This report is quite implausible. All I see is that David Ferguson (impresario) has been the scene of many disputes; that there seem to be COI-affected editors here and there, that there are WP:UNDUE weight questions about how much to emphasize his legal troubles (an ongoing penalty of $10.85 a day is unlikely to deserve space in the article, and in fact the whole Legal section appears to be small potatoes); there is quite a lot of indignation and there are people who write at great length. Geolocating the various IPs, which anyone can do, shows that there are editors from New York City, from Stanford University, and from Montreal Canada. It is hardly credible that User:DrJamesX is the controlling mastermind of such a diverse empire. I see nothing that merits even a Request for Checkuser. There could be some policy violations in the editing of the article, but I encourage the users to open an article WP:RFC if they want to bring in outsiders to help with a specific question. In my opinion, the sockpuppet report should be closed. I'll let it rest for a day or two to see if any other comments come in. There is also quite a bit of good-faith editing going on, and a lot of people who are trying to do the right thing, although they hold very different views of what that might be. EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Conclusions

    Closed with no action, per my comment above. If anyone can get some new data that is more persuasive, open a new SSP report and mention this one. EdJohnston (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Abillity Man 2 Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Satipo



    Bot Reported

    Archives

    1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Uwishiwazjohng
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets&oldid=261213445"