Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stiarts erid/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Stiarts erid

25 October 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


See this edit: "I know its wrong to sock puppet accounts but please please please listen to me". This is a self-admitted sock of The one they called sir (talk · contribs) and Stiarts erid (talk · contribs) SchroCat (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Yes but if you read my plea on Betty Logans talk page you will see I am only trying to get her to see my point of view, but seems to be ignoring it. Very childish if you ask me she also deleted my comment on her wall showing she has no intention of listening. Can someone talk sense into this editor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stiarts_erid_2 (talk • contribs)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
22 December 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


After having his unblock request refused, User:Stiarts erid left this charming message. Just 20 minutes later User:Skiwalkko made his first edit. 22 of the 31 edits by Skiwalkko are to articles edited by Stiarts erid (see [1]) across two distinct topic areas. I think it's a clear case of quacking, but it might be best to run a user check to be on the safe side. Betty Logan (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. I have never heard of this Stiarts erid user, I am new to this whole thing. I simply try editing a page that this rogue user has edited and get accused of being a sock puppet. I'm not being rude but regardless of the quality of my edits to George of the Jungle 2, Betty Logan keeps reverting them back which I think is very rude, and shows a very arrogant person. I am sorry if my editing style isn't to her liking but I can't change the way I am for a paranoid editor. I have not done anything wrong , and am quite offended by her allegations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skiwalkko (talk • contribs) 08:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
Behaviorally and CU-wise, this is block evasion, thus blocked Skiwalkko. Materialscientist (talk) 09:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


23 December 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


We have a case of perpetual block evasion here. The editor has previously evaded blocks with suspected sock accounts, User:Stiarts erid 2 and User:The one they called sir. Over the last 24 hours, two further confirmed sock accounts have been blocked: User:Skiwalkko and User:The betty logan htcbi. In the last hour or so another suspect sock account, User:Angel of editing, has been blocked. This brings us to the most recent one User:My latest trick which left a message on my talk page. Obviously we can't ignore the reasons for his block, so we need to block his IP address (if static) or possibly his range if we can isolate it. Once that is done I recommend that he is advised about WP:OFFER if he wants to continue editing. Betty Logan (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


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


27 December 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

First edit was to admit that he's a sockpuppet of Stiarts erid, ostensibly to negotiate an unblock. Next 3 edits [2], [3], [4], [5] are the same sort of edits to Suzi Quatro that got Special:Contributions/Skiwalkko blocked for SP above. Ruby Murray 15:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


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


28 December 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Block evasion: only edit so far was to undo my reversion of sockpuppet User:One more trick up my sleeve's troll post to Talk:Suzi Quatro, at [6]. Note the subtle choice of new username. Ruby Murray 18:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yrbusitcbiha's sole edit is same talk page revert as sockpuppet User:Unblocker: [7].
Dttibgoe's account created 10 minutes after Yrbusitcbiha, sole edit was this request for unblocking at my talk page: [8] Ruby Murray 12:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All Dttibgoe's subsequent edits were the same talk page revert as Yrbusitcbiha, and a few complaints at my talk page (and here) about not being allowed to post before unblocking. Dttibgoe's account has now been blocked for personal attacks and suspected SP. Unblocked and Yrbusitcbiha were also blocked yesterday for SP. Ruby Murray 11:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Comment If this editor is using a static IP or a limited range, then maybe it's time to invoke an IP block since blocking the accounts doesn't seem to be having much effect. We seem to be back here every couple of days. Betty Logan (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
01 January 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

First and only edit was to re-add same unreferenced content to The Ronettes discography as last few SPs in [9] Ruby Murray 02:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
01 January 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Latest obvious sock, all edits are undos of editors reversions of puppeteer and several socks. Ruby Murray 20:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
02 January 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Latest obvious sock, all edits are undos of editors' reversions of puppeteer and several socks. Ruby Murray 16:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
02 January 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Latest obvious sock, all edits are undos of editors' reversions of puppeteer and several socks. Ruby Murray 19:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


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


02 January 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Yet another duck, editing argumentatively on 48 Crash, another Suzi Quatro song. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


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


03 January 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Latest obvious sock, all edits are undos of editors' reversions of puppeteer and several socks. Ruby Murray 12:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

  • To get unblocked you have to prove you can make constructive edits and as you let someone else revert to my edits proves they are constructive. Also how can I prove my edits are constructive if you won't let me create an account to do so, it doesn't make sense.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Theonewhoknowsmorethanme (talk • contribs)
    • The proper path would be to make an unblock request at the talk page of the original blocked account, rather than continuing to create new accounts. Since the user has been warned on numerous occasions about this problem, it is unlikely they are willing to follow Wikipedia guidelines, even if some of their edits have been useful and proper. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will take the opportunity to advise the editor that he follow the advice at WP:OFFER. You should leave Wikipedia for six months, and after the time period has elapsed return to your original account (User:Stiarts erid in this case) and file an unblock request. If you have not been disruptive by creating sockpuppet accounts then an admin will most likely give you a second chance. In fact, if you respect your block for six months I will support the unblock request myself, but you need to show that we can trust you and that you will stop being disruptive. Betty Logan (talk) 13:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you I will do that then you won't hear any more from me until the 3rd of July then. Also I know you don't have to appologise but I would like to say sorry for all the nasty things I said about other editors when I had no right to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theonewhoknowsmorethanme (talk • contribs) 14:49, 3 January 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
  • Although the user has admitted to sockpuppetry above, I ran a check just to be sure, and I didn't see any unblocked accounts. I have blocked this account and I urge them to keep their promise to stop creating sockpuppets and to request the standard offer in six months. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Stiarts_erid/Archive&oldid=1136068025"