Jump to content

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Archive/August 2006

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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. No suspected master sockpuppet. No evidence. Yes, the user may be involved in a lot of Afds, whic are normally suspicious, but there is no evidence presented here. Iolakana•T 20:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

User:CindyLooWho

Evidence This user was created August 20, 2006 and has since then participated in a majority of AfD's with no major namespace edits. See User Contributions here. This appears to be an SPA for the purpose of voting or skewing votes. The user quotes deletion policy as an experienced user.

For ease of checking: CindyLooWho (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

  • ???? Ummm, okay? What can I say? I'm new and yes, most of my contributions have been in regards to AfD discussions. I am very interested in ridding Wikipedia of junk and quasi-vandalism. Of course, I am also interested in keeping good stuff too. Yes, I only have a couple of "regular page" edits. More will come. If you look at my individual comments on AfD's (which cover several different types of topics) and my one or two "regular page" edits, I think you will find some valuable input and I don't think you will find any evidence of single purposeness or trying to skew anything. ???? CindyLooWho 19:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I have looked at your comment. You quote policy as if you are not new and within 20 minutes of your account creation. Also, your second edit was putting an article up for deletion. These are not normal activities for new users. --Tbeatty 19:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Lol. That's because I am an intelligent person who is definitely not stupid enough to get involved in a discussion of a page's merits without at least reading about Wiki policies first - and then re-reading the specific sections that have to do with an individual AfD nominee before voting/commenting on the request for the page's deletion. I am not a new user of Wikipedia anyway. I have used it for almost a year. I just never bothered to get into the editing side of it until now. This is silly. Are you just harassing me because I disagreed with you on one AfD? CindyLooWho 19:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm not harassing you at all. Your edits fit the profile of a sockpuppet. 1) new account 2). only used for voting 3) very familiar with Wikipedia style and rules even though you claim to be new.--Tbeatty 22:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
          • You are totally harassing me. You can say my edits fit a "sockpuppet profile" - but so what? Newsflash: happening to fit some kind of profile is not against the rules. I'll tell you something else - I am going to continue to use the majority of my Wiki time in much the same way, so I am going to continue to fit your profile. Let's get to the core of your accusation. You've made the claim that I am a sockpuppet for the purpose of breaking the following rule: Voting and other shows of support - Wikipedia uses a "one person, one vote" principle for all votes and similar discussions where individual preferences are counted in any fashion. Accordingly, sock puppets may not be used to give the impression of more support for a viewpoint. This includes voting multiple times in any election, or using more than one account in a discussion at polls and surveys, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, or on talk pages. In addition to double-voting, sock puppets should not be used for the purpose of deception, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists. So you've made the claim - now how about backing it up with some specific proof. Please be my guest and go through every single page I voted on and write down the name of every other user who voted on the same issue. If there is a single other user who happened to vote on even 5% of the same pages I did and voted the same way that I did I'd be totally shocked. Go do the work - and you can apologize to me when you come to the realization that you are filing an empty claim that is 100% based on profiling and 0% based on actual evidence. Christ - if any page qualifies for a speedy delete it's this one. All guesses and speculation and zero cited facts regarding the breaking of any rule. CindyLooWho 00:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Filling out a sockpuppet complaint with your profile is not harassment no matter how many times you say it. --Tbeatty 00:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
              • I think you mean "fitting a profile" is not against the rules no matter how many times you say it. Three days and still absolutely zero evidence of rule breaking provided. Can't say I'm surprised. CindyLooWho 01:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is the profile and how to spot them.

Characteristics of sock puppets

Not surprisingly, sock puppet accounts usually show much greater familiarity with Wikipedia and its editing process than most newcomers. They are more likely to use edit summaries, immediately join in edit wars, or participate vocally in procedures like Articles for deletion or Requests for adminship as part of their first few edits. They are also more likely to be brand new or a single purpose account when looking at their contributions summary.


Moving from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium (second nomination)

  • Pointing out it's a new account is not a negative thing, but accusing somebody of sockpuppetry without providing evidence is. PizzaMargherita 18:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I didn't accuse them of being a sockpuppet here and your comment was for the 'New account' comment. I guess you can shift gears if you like. If you want to talk about Sockpuppetry, you can provide counter evidence on the Sockpuppet page. --Tbeatty 19:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry, it doesn't work that way. The burden is on you to prove that CindyLooWho is a sockpuppet. Also may I remind you that many users remain "anonymous" for a long time before creating an account. So far as I know, on WP we do not discriminate users for being anonymous, nor for quoting policies as experienced users. In essence, assume good faith. And stop wasting our time. Thanks. PizzaMargherita 19:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
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:Copperchair

Evidence

Copperchair is back as Don't fear the Reaper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as evidenced by the following edits:

  1. World War III - Reaper diff, compare to previous sock
  2. War on Terrorism - Reaper diff, compare to previous sock
  3. War on Terrorism: Allies - Reaper diff, compare to previous sock
  4. Template:War on Terrorism - Reaper diff, compare to previous sock.

Note also that 190.10.0.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has editted concurrently with Reaper; it seems clear that they are the same person.

I have just received sysop privileges, so I am going to block him myself. Hope this is not a problem. I am not going to block the IP address right now. TomTheHand 18:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments
Of note is this particular case, [1] [2] here is where the IP links to an article twice that his sock puppet account had just made, Participants in the War on Terrorism, a mere 2 minutes after its creation. ~Rangeley (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Or this [3], which was done as the IP and is another favorite edit of him, [4]. ~Rangeley (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Obvious sock. Iolakana•T 11:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
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:Cretanpride

Evidence

This is an obvious one: an IP user with an address similar to Cretanpride's other IP puppets, vowing to carry on the same struggle that Cretanpride's been involved in (see this diff). --Akhilleus (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Obvious. Iolakana•T 13:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

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:Pvcblue

Evidence

An edit war has been going on on The Smurfs since July 19th, when 72.48.12.232 added an external link to Pvcblue's site[5], and Pvcblue corrected that tlink three minutes later[6] (I suppose the first is his original IP address, and he wasn't logged in then: no problem there). After a week, a number of IP address users started to read the link, without further comment: this was usually their only edit to Wikipedia. I suspect that they are either sockpuppets or meatpuppets of pvcblue. The reason why the link is unnecessary and the discussion is at the talk page, but that is irrelevant here.

Things then got quiet for a few weeks, but after I deleted the link again (as no reason for including it was given on the talk page), it started all over again the last few days:

Eigth different users all with the same single purpose and method, it gets a bit tiring... Fram 09:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

A - Fram only removes my link because he has issues with me, when a wiki edit monitor said it could stay, Fram still removed it, when another wiki mod re-added my link and shortened it for comprimise , again Fram removed it - weeks after stating I was told to make a case for it, NO ADMIN or EDIT MONITOR sent me any kind of message or said in any discussion for me to make a case for it, but THEY did put it back on the page, Fram who thinks he own's the page keeps removing it.

B - Fram now accuses me of what, I am not really sure exactly as the whole process and pages and definitions are so conveluted and unreadable and unfollowable it is not funny, but as far as I see this thing, he is saying I put people up to doing this, returning my link after he (not anyone else) decides it should be removed. No I don't tell or make anyone do anything, but if others who dont like what he is doing are doing this - it is his problem - not mine.

There are also 3 other links there on that page that should be removed for the same reasons as Fram keeps stating for my link removal but he leaves them there, seems I am the only one that Fram removes tho - this link thing is his little pet project. He needs to leave it alone, when a edit monitor himself makes the link acceptable and adds it back to the page a normal user like Fram should not remove it! Plain and simple.

Pvcblue 15:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply to A: I have explained at the talk page why I removed the link. Wikipedia has no "edit monitors", Wikipedia has no "mods", I don't think I own the page. You were well aware of the discussion at the talk page, as you participated in it. As for an editor saying it could stay and another readding your link: please provide diffs, as I don't know what you are talking about.
Reply to B: I was not the only one deciding that it should be removed, and I have given reasons why, while none of the eight people who are supposedly sockpuppets or meatpuppets have ever bothered to give an explanation why it should be added. And it is quite a coincidence that so many people come along to add the same link to your website in the same manner always the same day I or someone else removes it, without there being some organized effort to do so.
Reply to the rest: other links are not the focus of this discussion, this is about suspected sock (or meat) puppets. Again you are talking about "edit monitors" versus "normal users", but that kind of thing does not exist here. Furthermore, please show me where some other long-time editor has readded the link (and not just shortened, cleaned, ... it after you put it up and refused to put it at the bottom and/or make it shorter). As far as I know, no one except you and the above eight editors have ever added this link. Fram 20:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You are so full of it - where in any of this does this prove anything about "sockpuppets"?? It doesn't!!! You can speculate all you want but it is your suspicions against me, saying I did, but I didn't have anything to do with "puppetry" - this is your personal vendetta - I didn't put anyone up to it, but you have this need to come after me.

you wrote - "Reply to the rest: other links are not the focus of this discussion, this is about suspected sock (or meat) puppets. Again you are talking about "edit monitors" versus "normal users", but that kind of thing does not exist here. Furthermore, please show me where some other long-time editor has readded the link (and not just shortened, cleaned, ... it after you put it up and refused to put it at the bottom and/or make it shorter). As far as I know, no one except you and the above eight editors have ever added this link. Fram 20:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)"

Cobaltbluetony is a edit monitor, he fixed and replaced the link to my website - you are a regular user - where do you get off undoing what he does?

Also you only have 6 unknown editors - one is me - I forgot to log in - the horror!! and 2 are registered users, now if you are unfairly accusing them of something I wonder if they can go to wiki about you?

58.170.1.153 inetnum: 58.160.0.0 - 58.175.255.255 netname: TELSTRAINTERNET42-AU descr: Telstra Internet descr: Locked Bag 5744 descr: Canberra descr: ACT 2601 country: AU


60.229.173.157 inetnum: 60.224.0.0 - 60.231.255.255 netname: TELSTRAINTERNET43-AU descr: Telstra Internet descr: Locked Bag 5744 descr: Canberra descr: ACT 2601 country: AU

71.125.241.83 OrgName: Verizon Internet Services Inc. OrgID: VRIS Address: 1880 Campus Commons Dr City: Reston StateProv: VA PostalCode: 20191 Country: US


72.48.32.190 Grande Communications Networks, Inc. GRANDECOM-05 (NET-72-48-0-0-1) 

                                 72.48.0.0 - 72.48.255.255

Grande Communications FRISCO GRANDECOM-FRISCO-DSL-DYNAMIC (NET-72-48-0-0-2) 

                                 72.48.0.0 - 72.48.63.255


72.68.162.63 OrgName: Verizon Internet Services Inc. OrgID: VRIS Address: 1880 Campus Commons Dr City: Reston StateProv: VA PostalCode: 20191 Country: US


72.80.106.54 OrgName: Verizon Internet Services Inc. OrgID: VRIS Address: 1880 Campus Commons Dr City: Reston StateProv: VA PostalCode: 20191 Country: US


Fram just go get a real life - leave me the hell alone! I left you alone for weeks, not even caring about links or anything, but all of a sudden YOU decided you needed to remove the link to my site again, and someone else - thank you whoever you are - decides it needed to go back - so what do you do? - "oh let's got get pvcblue" - you need a reality break!

Pvcblue

Cobaltbluetony is an editor, I am an editor, you are an editor. There are no "edit monitors", and he is not an administrator. Furthermore, he fixed the link to your website, he didn't replace it after I or anyone else deleted it: he put it in a correct position and made it a bit more acceptable. Oh, and another reply to your previous point A: look at tthis diff [17] and then tell me again that "NO ADMIN or EDIT MONITOR sent me any kind of message or said in any discussion for me to make a case for it, but THEY did put it back on the page". Stbalbach (a regular editor, just like all of us) asked you to make a case, and you replied: so they did tell you to make a case, and they didn't put it back on the page. Instead of making a case for the value of your site, you wrote a rant against me, to which I replied. After that, you nor anyone else of the eight mentioned above that felt the need to put the link to your site in, have replied in any way, not even by an edit summary. So the question still remains: why is your site worthy of inclusion compared to many other ones, when it is incomplete, has a very small forum, and offers nothing the other linked sites do better. Furthermore, you violate WP:EL by adding a link to your own site. Basically, there is no reason given to have your site in the external links, you have not continued the discussion at the talk page (and refused discussion at your own talk page), you have made incivil remarks repeatedly, and there is a quite suspicious amount of new users with the same editing pattern, which is actually all that this page is about. Fram 07:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You wote - " Basically, there is no reason given to have your site in the external links, you have not continued the discussion at the talk page (and refused discussion at your own talk page), you have made incivil remarks repeatedly, and there is a quite suspicious amount of new users with the same editing pattern, which is actually all that this page is about. "

No I haven't continued to contribute - YOU MADE ME FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE HERE - your constant harrassment made me feel unwelcome and I left - just like now - I have not been around for weeks, yet you bring this back to me and I have had nothing to do with it. YOU HAVE A SERIOUS PROBLEM, you are the one who needs to be looked into. I am saying this for the last time - LEAVE ME ALONE! I don't care what YOU feel or think is right or wrong. YOU are not GOD - YOU are not the owners of this site, YOU are just a person with a agenda and personal grudge. - The word by the way is UNCIVIL not incivil, and so what I have made them, big deal - YOU WON'T LEAVE ME ALONE! You are a arrogant, self righteous, pompass, small minded little man and need to get a life! You can have all the freaking suspicions you want and have fun doing it - BUT LEAVE ME THE HECK ALONE! IF everyone is equal and there are no MODS or ADMINS, then YOU need to stop YOUR actions and just leave me alone - YOU brought this to me (and keep doing so) and wonder why I am uncivil? You do need serious help! Pvcblue 13:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Incivility is NOT an appropriate response to perceived harrassment. Nevertheless, you persist in ignoring the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia (WP:NOT and WP:EL, for starters) and do not work well with others. This is an serious encyclopedia, not a promotional platform for your own work. If you have well-researched information, you may add it (avoiding original research) with the appropriate formal tone and listing or referencing your sources. There ARE administrators to enforce the polices and guidelines of the site, so if you persist, you could get yourself banned for sockpuppetry or incivility. - CobaltBlueTony 14:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Closing. This is just a big thing, over something very minor. The IPs could be blocked for spamming, as could that account: Report it! Iolakana•T 17:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
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:Guerillafilm

Evidence

This comment (of mine) was deleted with the following edit summary: "removed slander":

By the way: your "style" (sentences that begin with lowercase letters, using caps for emphasis) is very similar to Johan12121's and Boxofficemojo's, as are your links, manners, subject matter, obsessions and POV... [18][19][20][21][22]

This is not the first time allegations of suckpuppetry have been removed in violation of the Wikipedia:No legal threats and the obvious Wikipedia:Don't randomly delete stuff from talk pages policies [23].

I believe that Guerillafilm has at least three sockpuppets (Sensorium, who has raised this RfM against Guerillafilm, believes that he or she has at least one more).

Guerillafilm also deleted his or her own incriminating reponse (in which he or she confessed to first-degree meatpuppetry) with the curious edit summary "deleted slander". That's his or her prerogative, but it's my prerogative to draw attention to it. [24][25][26][27][28][29]

that's because they are friends of mine at different computers in different homes. no rule says you can't invite friends to WIKI. if you like, then have an ADMIN do an IP check on me. [30]

The meatpuppet argument (still a blockable offence) would be convincing if the meatpuppets didn't a) write in exactly the same style (lowercase initials, all CAPS emphasis, same articles, same POV) and b) suddenly spring into existence a few days ago. It's clear from the disparate IPs that the user has been careful to mask his or her IP address. It's also clear that he or she hasn't been careful enough (until prompted) to mask his or her style and agenda.

Sockpuppets:

Possible sockpuppet:

See also:

chocolateboy 19:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments
Quite obvious meatpuppets here, trying to get on their side. Iolakana•T 17:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
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:Subhash bose

Evidence: User:Subhash bose is currently blocked for incivility and the use of suspected sockpuppets. On his userpage it states that he "attends... The University of Texas" and lives in Austin, Texas. Recently, a new IP (User:128.83.131.139) began editing the same articles with the same editing pattern as Subhash bose. Like other IP's that are suspected sockpuppets of Subhash Bose, 128.83.131.139 traces to the University Of Texas At Austin. BhaiSaab talk 19:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Emailed user about this (Subhash bose); however, they may not be telling the truth, whatever the reply. Iolakana•T 19:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Add it to the current RFCU if you want, but you'll have to be quick. Iolakana•T 17:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
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:NBGPWS

Evidence

Account User:Caelestissurf was just created, had no previous edits, and immediately became involved in an edit war that NBGPWS has been involved in (for an article where he's received a 3RR block).

See Protest Warrior and its history for direct evidence. See article's talk page and User:NBGPWS's talk page for background. Vpoko 13:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

One edit, no previous connections. Obvious sock. Iolakana•T 20:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

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:Copperchair

Evidence

Copperchair is back as The end is near (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He has made his favorite edit to World War III here], adding "future" and removing the Cold War template. He removed the Copperchair sock notice from 190.10.0.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) here. He made his favorite edit to Template:War on Terrorism here; compare this with the version of Tony Camonte (Copperchair's last sock) here. He is also well known for removing references to the Iraq War being part of the War on Terrorism; see the latest sock doing this here, here, and here.

Please also see Copperchair's previous cases to compare:

  1. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Copperchair
  2. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Copperchair (2nd)
  3. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Copperchair (3rd)
  4. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Copperchair (4th)

Note that Copperchair returned and registered this new name just a couple of days after the two week block expired on 192.10.0.36. See that block here and the creation of the new account here. 190.10.0.36 has also made edits since the lift of the block, and the IP's return was just 13 minutes before the creation of The end is near. 190.10.0.36's edits have been to the same sort of articles as Copperchair and the gang, and he has made the same non-disruptive edits as Copperchair, but has not made disruptive edits since the lift of the block. It looks like 190.10.0.36 is also operated by the banned user. An extended block on the IP might be helpful in preventing Copperchair's return. TomTheHand 13:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Also note he made this edit: [31] Which was another favorite of Esaborio [32] ~Rangeley (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


Comments

Yeah, I spent all morning chasing him. Despite numerous requests to desist on his talk page, he persisted in modifying the War on Terror template and then removed it from a number of pages. Budgiekiller 12:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I recommend that something other than a temporary block be used, this is the 5th time he has returned and its something as simple as his IP block wearing out. Copperchair was banned for a year and a day, in the very least his sock puppets should get banned for the duration of Copperchairs, but taking into consideration all the disruption caused by his frequent use of sock puppets it should probably be extended even further. We probably cant fully keep him away, but the steps that can be taken should be taken. ~Rangeley (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
That user has been blocked. I think I will bring this to the admins noticeboard for an indef block. Iolakana•T 20:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
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:Bakasuprman

Evidence

Evidence in my opinion is quite incriminating.

Lets start first by the most convincing piece of evidence...

1. Look at the contribution history of the two users For user Subash Bose and For user Bakasuprman If you glance carefully at this you wil notice that only one of the user is active at any given point in time. This speaks volumes of sockpuppetry.

2. Lets review the history of talk page of User:Subash_Bose

a) At 11:04, 17 August 2006 I ask him if he has a habit of stalking.... he seems hurt so first he replies but logs off at around 11:14, 17 August 2006 after posting his reply and logs in as Bakasuprman.
You can confirm this from his contribs page... after his contrib at 11:19, 17 August 2006 he logs off and logs on as Bakasuprman.
(Just to add... he logs back as Subash at around 16:39, 17 August 2006 as from his contribs)
He's inactive during following periods 11:19 - 16:39 , 16:49 - 20:25, pretty active all other times.
Now Bakasuprman's contribs reveal the following:
b) He logs in at around 18:05, remains very active replying almost every 5-10 mins and becomes inactive after contributing at 19:44, 17 August 2006
He remains inactive for almost 2 Hrs... why? because at 20:25 he re-emerges as..... User:Subash
So he is active during 14:34 - 14:48, 18:05 - 19:44 which absolutely goes with his absence in a. above


I have'nt done a very detailed investigation, but I am convinced if I investigate further in these lines, the evidence is rock solid.

3. Usually this user edits articles which have been vandalised to a large extent by the master puppet Subash... look at Gujarat revision history of Gujarat riots With User:Subash getting blocked, User:Bakasuprman appears modifying the very same piece of article as Subash. Upon my reminding him of 3RR violation he becomes quite with a fear of losing yet another established wiki user.

4. Today Bakasuprman is particularly very active since Subash cannot do much of talking

5. The mannerism and the edit descriptions are very similiar...

I think we have another sockpuppet of Netaji in Bakasuprman. --Geek1975 08:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


Comments

Comment What a joke. I am in no way of form a sockpuppet. This is merely an attack to get me out of the way. Obviously I am active because people like Geek will flood the page with POV.Bakaman Bakatalk 16:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment 2 - Geek is not even a sysop. How can he identify when someone logs in and out? As for POV Geek has supported another user when he called me "fascist" and "hindu taliban" . Bakaman Bakatalk 18:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

There was no 3RR vio and I was not even awake when Geek posted the specious "warning". Usually edits articles vandalized? Most of my contribs have been in those articles only to combat POV pushers like Geek. Why am I inactive sometimes during the day? Perhaps I have other things to do in the real world. Btw, I was on wikibreak 21st and 22nd of August. Bakaman Bakatalk 18:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment : I feel there is an unhealthy assumption of bad faith here. About point 3 - If that had been the case, then the other user would've been auto blocked. -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK18:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course. Therefore, unless MediaWiki isn't working, then that would be correct. And since MediaWiki is working, these are not sockpuppets. Iolakana•T 19:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
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:Cretanpride

Evidence

Ironically enough, User:66.233.19.170 removed a sockpuppet warning from User talk:Cretanpride: see this diff. Otherwise User:66.233.19.170 shows a pattern of contributions similar to Cretanpride's, and also invited a bunch of users to comment on the AfD discussion for Homosexuality in ancient Greece. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Obvious. Iolakana•T 19:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

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:Cretanpride

Evidence

User:66.53.98.167 made the following edits to Homosexuality in ancient Greece: [33] [34]. These disruptive edits reflect User:Cretanpride's attitude towards this article for the last few weeks. Cretanpride has used other sockpuppets to edit the article, including User:Sac222. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Obvious. Iolakana•T 19:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

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. There is no problem. Iolakana•T 18:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Wiarthurhu

And Karrmann is a very troublesome member who agrees to mutually stop removing each other's edits, and then renegs on his word, claims to edit NPOV yet gets a member banned for countering his POV that the Yugo is a "crapbox that nobody likes" and addresses fellow editors as "you asshole" and plays Wikipedia as if it was Halo or paintball. I'll note this as another negative Wikipedia tactic. I created matador300 as a name to eventually switch to, but had elected to stick with the original name to avoid confusion. Satisfied that I'm not the evil one in this case? Why do you think I picked a name the same as my old signature?? Oh, I forgot you might not be clever enough to figure that out.--matador300 16:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wiarthurhu is a very troublesome member who we have been dealing with for some time. Today, I saw a new account creep up called User:Matador300. He was shown as the uploader of a new file for an image uploaded by Wiarthurhu. Please note that Wiarthurhu has signed his comments as "matador300" for quite some time. Matador's contributions are also all for collectible articles, whish Wiarthurhu seemed to be an expert in. Karrmann 12:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As of today, the sockpuppet (as it most certainly is) has only been contributing to articles about toy cars - which is indeed both a hobby and a bone of contention with Wiarthurhu. However, under "Legitimate uses of multiple accounts" on WP:Sockpuppet one may find:
   "A user making substantial contributions to an area of interest in Wikipedia
    might register another account to be used solely in connection with developing
    that area."
So yes, it's 99% certain that this is a Wiarthurhu sockpuppet - but lets be careful not to judge whether it's an unacceptable one just yet. SteveBaker 12:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Karrmann? Careful? *snicker* --matador300 16:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Who is a vandal? That's another negative personal attack. --matador300 16:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The sockpuppet is: Matador300 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Uh, "Please, do not report cases of sockpuppetry older than one week where there is no current problem. If the case is not a current problem, just watch the user and report if new cases of abuse show up." This is a sockpuppet that was last used on July 10th. Is this really an issue? Cowman109Talk 17:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Both Wiarthurhu and Matador300's user pages are showing indefinite blocks...so I guess it's game over for Wiarthurhu. SteveBaker 18:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
In an unrelated issue, Wiarthurhu was community banned, and since it is clear Matador300 is a sockpuppet of his (though not necessarily abusive) I blocked it as well. Cowman109Talk 18:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
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:Ceula

A request for checkuser was declined with the comment "obvious". Ceula, LeonardLorch, 199.88.72.4, and 199.88.67.33 have all been trying various ways to include the exact same promotional material in various articles, both as links and as content, usually two or more of them editing the same article on the same day.

Edytore, 199.88.67.33 and 199.88.72.4 have edited others' comments about this behavior.

These users edit each others' contributions often within minutes of each other.

Edytore feels it is a personal attack to mention LeonardLorch in context of this behavior. The promotional material that they've been spamming is authored by a Leonard Lorch. - Ronz 18:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Iolakana•T 17:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that sockpuppetry is likely here because LeonardLorch was a Wikipedian before Ceula was, but I blocked LeonardLorch for spam activity. IPs have also been blocked for spam activity. No block will be issued to Ceula. Iolakana•T 17:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
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:Cybertrend

Evidence
  • Appeared at the same moment Franklyn2 disappeared for getting vandalism warnings. Franklyn2 was a proven sock puppeteer himself.
  • This account is one of several (including especially "Scuzzler" and some anonymous IPs from a tight range of IP addresses) editing the exact same set of pages involving a person named Peter F. Paul, to add the same very strong POV.
  • Identical misusing of sources, identical spelling errors
  • The giveaway: Cybertrend accidentally signed a message on my talk page with Scuzzler's name.Uucp 14:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The complex of Peter F. Paul sock puppets has made this kind of error before. On March 22, Franklyn2 (very likely the same person as Cybertrend/Scuzzler/etc.) signed on the Peter Paul talk page for a post made by anonymous IP 24.196.167.104. A list of likely sockpuppets appears in the Comments section, below.Uucp 18:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments

Please supply the user names of the sock puppets you suspect. Iolakana|T 14:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Cybertrend is very likely the same person as Scuzzler, and possibly the same as Franklyn2, Whistleblower, 24.196.167.62, 24.196.167.104, and some other anonymous IPs.Uucp 14:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking through the contribs (please supply diffs next time!!), it seems likely. Iolakana•T 17:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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:Franklyn2

Evidence
  • Franklyn2 was using several accounts, then disappeared when he got tagged for vandalism. Mysteriously, a group of new accounts then appeared, pushing the same POV on the Peter F. Paul page.
  • Identical misusing of sources, identical spelling errors
  • New accounts are clearly sock puppets of each other: Cybertrend accidentally signed a message on my talk page with Scuzzler's name.Uucp 14:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Cybertrend for more discussion of this complex of seeming sock puppets.
Comments

Looking through the contribs, and the signing of another susp. sock, makes this seem likely. Iolakana•T 17:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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:Subhash bose

Evidence
  • RSudarshan appears to be a Wikipedia account created today, 21 August 2006, for the purpose of reverting to the aforementioned doubtful material, preceded by a brief message on Syiem's Talk Page to make it appear as if he's not a sock puppet.[44]
    CiteCop 15:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments
Agreed. Accounts have been blocked, per evidence here. Iolakana•T 17:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
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. I am going to close this now, as it is just transcluding there on SSP. Any further information should go to the talk page of the abuse report page. Nothing more can really be done here. Iolakana•T 16:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Father's Wish

Summary: Several sock puppets and anon users believed to be the same user (or a group of users working together) are vandalizing the group of articles related to Avatar: The Last Airbender. The edits were shown to be a violation of WP:V and WP:C. This has been explained on many talk pages, yet the user(s) continue to insert the content. Their actions have included massive WP:3RR violations, ban evasions, personal attacks, blatant vandalism, and more.

Parties Involved

Numerous IPs, including but probably not limited to:

Articles (excludes user pages and user talk pages):

Complaint

The user Father's Wish has been continually contributing a massive amount of information to Avatar: The Last Airbender pages that he claims "he hacked from www.nick.com" that concerns future episodes the series. When confronted over this, he apparantly started creating other accounts or just not signing in at all when re-adding his unverifiable information or creating new pages based on it. A RfC was taken at Talk:List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes#Request for Comment: Verifiability of recent additions, and community consensus was reached that this information was not to be included on Wikipedia. Despite this, the listed IP addresses continuted breaking the 3RR and adding the information back to the page List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes. After semi-protection was secured, several pages, included the semi-protected page, were vandalized by newly-created accounts and IPs, and the information was added back to many of the pages in question.

This particular dispute has engulfed numerous pages, including List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes, Secret of the Fire Nation, Part 1, City of Walls and Secrets, Secret of the Fire Nation, Part 2, Tales of Ba Sing Se, When there was you and me, Template:Avatar, Avatar: the Last Airbender, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Avatar: The Last Airbender, among others. Some duplicates of pages with the unwarranted information have also been created: List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes2, Template:Avatar2 List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episode, Template:Avatars.

In addition, there is a (presently) less-prominent dispute: Father's Wish and other of his suspected persona have been adding a massive amount of material on numerous pages that has been copied verbatim from http://www.nick.com. He/she has refused to remove this plagairzed information and has added back said information several times after other editors removed it. Plagairized content is currently in the process of being identified and removed and is known to involve the following pages: Earth Kingdom, Fire Nation and List of Avatar: The Last Airbender minor secondary characters.

Further details regarding this case can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Avatar: The Last Airbender#The current mess, where the user in question has also spoken. 06:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Investigation by Neil916
  • I have reviewed the edit history over the many articles and have reached the conclusion that it is very unlikely that Father's Wish (talk · contribs) is the sockpuppeteer here. The reasons for my conclusions include:
    • The majority of the vandalism edits that are involved here revolve around the List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes article, and related templates, an article to which Father's Wish made only one minor typographical edit.
    • The edits by the anonymous SBC user based in Chicago began at 06:36 on 7/20/06 to the List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes article.
    • The anonymous SBC user did not duplicate any of the edits that were contributed by Father's Wish, and vice versa.
    • Father's Wish stopped contributing at 13:40 on 7/21/06, despite not being blocked until 20:16 on 7/24/06 at the height of the anonymous Chicago user's vandalism rampage.
    • The talk page history for Father's wish shows one edit at 13:34 on 7/21/06, responding to a question from Frye2387 where it appears that he made an edit without being logged in, and quickly logged in and made a further edit to that same section. The IP address used, 68.239.106.106 is a Verizon account based in Washington, DC. Father's Wish did not revert the change made by the anonymous user, so he either didn't notice vandalism to his talk page and ignored the "you have a new message" tag, or he logged in after realizing that he wasn't logged in after the first edit. I believe that a checkuser will confirm this.
    • The Chicago vandal has denied being Father's Wish, when he has no apparent motivation for doing so. In fact, if the complaint to his ISP had progressed as it was, it would have undermined the credibility of the person making the complaint if several unrelated users were responsible for these actions that a contactor was trying to pin on one person.

Since many of the pages involved in the vandalism spree have been deleted, I am unable to review their histories. In addition, since they were deleted, I can't tell if any of them were touched by Father's Wish.

Reviewing the history of all the pages involved shows a clear case of multiple users pushing POV and performing random acts of vandalism. It appears to me that several of the editors involved with reverting the vandalism were too quick to jump on the bandwagon conclusion that all of those acts of vandalism were performed by a single user who, while certainly guilty of apparent plaigerism and contribution of unverifiable content, doesn't appear to deserve to be lumped into the same category of some of these other vandals.

The anonymous vandal from Chicago merits a separate discussion and I am inclined to believe that his activities merit action of some sort, but the discussion should be moved to a separate location, because I don't believe that Father's Wish is really involved in this.

I'd like to add that my conclusion involves only the involvement of Father's Wish here, not the obvious sockpuppets created by other users in order to evade blocks.

Neil916 00:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

If this is true, which seems highly likely, then it also highly likely that the Chicago IP vandal did not begin creating sockpuppet accounts until after List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes was semi-protected, because it was after that event that numerous accounts started popping up making the same edits. On this basis, all the user accounts on this page are sockpuppet accounts except for Kashdadon, whose sole edit was to make the "When there was you and me" article (which has since been deleted). Should this all turn out to be true, I'd suggest removing the block on Kashdadon's account; however, all the other accounts were, to my knowledge, created after this event and engaged in very similar vandalism (during which a time that Father's Wish did not make any edits), and as such I'm very inclined to believe that, Father's Wish and Kashdadon excluded, all the other listed accounts are sockpuppet accounts of the Chicago IP vandal, and should thus remain blocked, and appropriate action will continue to be taken against this user at the abuse report that I have filed against at Wikipedia:Abuse reports/Father's Wish (though that abuse report may be erroneously titled). –Prototime (talk • contribs) 00:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it appears incorrect since this investigation. Can I please have the name of the page(s) that was [were] deleted so I can check the logs and see if, in fact, Father's Wish edited them as such. Thanks, Iolakana|T 13:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
To my knowledge, the only deleted articles have been Tales of Ba Sing Se, When there was you and me, List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes2, Template:Avatar2 List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episode, Template:Avatars. –Prototime (talk • contribs) 04:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, Father's wish did not edit any of them (Template:Avatar2 List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episode does not exist). I can post the logs on a sub-page of this case, if you wish. Iolakana|T 15:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments

As of the time I write this message, he is creating more accounts and committing more vandalism than myself and numerous other editors can keep up with. –Prototime (talk • contribs) 06:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

He is now going so far as to vandalize my userpage and talk page. H2P 07:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Possibly due to the same relation, 69.221.248.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) just vandalized my talk page. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 19:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
That new IP address is an SBC user in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Neil916 19:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

gotta keep the truth up, prototime and the rest are reverting to a vandalized state. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.74.117.57 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

So you admit to owning all these accounts, then? –Prototime (talk • contribs) 07:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually is me and 4 buds doing this on proxies. but hey, we know it's the truth, we saw it on the nick's xml file and we're gonna keep it up until we make some sort of compromise or apology. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.74.117.57 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
You're WAY beyond compromise anymore H2P 07:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This user is still making new socks and continually vandalized pages, and even has admitted to these actions and continues to do this. Can something PLEASE be done about this as soon as possible? It is extremely difficult to make any worthwhile edits to pages relating to Avatar: The Last Airbender when the editors are just policing articles day-in and day-out. –Prototime (talk • contribs) 16:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming this is where I respond to accusations? I'm not a sock puppet. I added the Tales of Ba Sing Se page because the link that was on the episode list page at the time did not go anywhere and because I thought it was a real episode because it's listed on TV.com. I also made a minor edit on The Secret of the Fire Nation (Part 2, I think) just to correct some spelling. That was before all the reverts. I did not know how the info had been obtained at the time, nor had I read any of the policies rules (but that's something I intend to do before I make any more edits). I don't know if any of you will believe me, but I am telling the truth. Xair

I wasn't completely sure if Xair was a sockpuppet account myself, but thought I'd add it to cover all grounds. You've been removed from the list; sorry for the mix-up. –Prototime (talk • contribs) 16:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

A compromise has been created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inclusivethings (talk • contribs) 12:18, 24 July 2006

Oh really, and what is that, may I ask? –Prototime (talk • contribs) 16:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Look at the new episode page that I keep reverting to a good state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inclusivethings (talk • contribs) 13:08, 24 July 2006
You mean the one that's been deleted? H2P 20:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the deleted one. All you have to do is unprotect the original list, change it to include the rumored titles and secrets of the fire nation, and put a nice box at top that says "may change on air" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.229.8.161 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 24 July 2006
But, it's gone now, so you might as well just stop you're preventing us from actually making progress with editing the other Avatar pages H2P 20:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll produce another copy soon, or the admin can undelete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.229.8.161 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 24 July 2006

Accounts blocked. I will check over the IPs tomorrow. Iolakana|T 20:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

(It should be noted that several additional accounts and have been added to this list since you blocked what accounts you knew to at the time.) –Prototime (talk • contribs) 04:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay all done, I will stop if a vote begins. I see no vote, I will not stop. Please link me to the vote when it does begin. Leave the link in this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdrenalinePower (talk • contribs) 17:08, 24 July 20

Even if that was an option, it would not work, as I'm sure you'd just vote with about 50 socks.--Fyre2387 21:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
He's got you there. H2P 21:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I promise to not vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdrenalineRush (talk • contribs) 17:16, 24 July 2006
Thing is, a consensus on the matter was already reached on the original article’s talk page. You just choose to ignore the consensus.--Fyre2387 21:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
If you do not start a new one, it will persist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdrenalineRush (talk • contribs) 17:28, 24 July 2006
We don't need to start a new one when we already have an answer at the link Fyre just gave. H2P 21:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Persist it shall — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.74.65.140 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 24 July 2006
How old are you? 12? H2P 21:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm only 6 and a half years old, my first friend is 12, my second friend is 10, the third is 15, and the fourth is 14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.74.65.140 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 24 July 2006
Somehow I find that doubtful, unless one of your friends is typing for you. --Passerby Cat talk cat 23:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Look, we'll stop now. Seeya. We'll admit it too, we do a lot of things to wikipedia, we love how the admins do their job. Why do we do it? Because we get an adrenaline high from this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calitosexy (talk • contribs) 21:51, 24 July 2006
That's gotta be the most disturbing thing I've heard today. H2P 05:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Reviewing the history of the dynamic IP addresses this user has received from his Internet provider shows no overlap in contribution times, which shows that it is highly unlikely that there is more than one user involved here. I'd recommend reporting an abuse complaint to the user's ISP under Wikipedia:Abuse reports. Neil916 16:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The claim by this user that he/she will stop vandalizing pages is unfounded, as he/she is still creating new accounts and vandalizing pages. –Prototime (talk • contribs) 19:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup, blackmailing us. I have blocked the Master sockpuppeter. Iolakana|T 19:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, blocked IP addresses and accounts. Are there any more accounts or IP addresses left? Iolakana|T 13:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Blocking the IP addresses is not likely to be helpful with the exception of the most recently used. The user has an AT&T Yahoo! DSL account with a dynamic IP address. When he turns his modem off and on, it assigns him a different IP address. It appears that in his area, he is being assigned addresses out of at least 4 class "B" IP blocks: 68.74.0.0, 68.78.0.0, 70.229.0.0, and 70.230.0.0. That means that there are about 260,000 potential IP addresses he could be assigned. He has no control over which IP address he uses and it is unlikely that he'll ever be assigned the same address twice. Obviously, range blocks would result in an undesirable level of collateral damage. That's why I suggested a report to his ISP in my comment above. If the vandalism, disruption, and sockpuppetry behavior continues, his IP being used at the time along with the exact time of the vandalism can be used by the ISP to pinpoint which subscriber is responsible for violating the ISP's terms of service and terminate the account accordingly. IP addresses can also be determined by administrators with checkuser rights if the user creates new sockpuppet accounts. There's a fair amount of work involved, so if the activity doesn't persist, though, it might be just as well to let the matter end here. Neil916 16:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
As Neil916 said, there are indeed tons of IPs he's been using, more than I or anyone else can keep track of (and at 260,000, I'm not surprised). Unfortunately, I logged on today only to discover that this user is still carrying through his attacks on pages with IPs. I guess I'll be filing an ISP abuse report after all, and I'll continually update this page with any new accounts he/she creates until that process is complete. –Prototime (talk • contribs) 17:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Also please update the article list on this to include the articles being vandalized; I'm not seeing any recent activity that you're referring to on them, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. Neil916 20:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The article that was vandalized earlier today is Secret of the Fire Nation, Part 2 (already listed) by 71.75.183.222, which apparantly has been utilized before (EDIT: would this IP be in an additional class "B" IP block, 71.75.0.0? If so, I'll be sure to mention it on abuse report I just filed). In addition, I've filed a Wikipedia Abuse Report concerning the IPs, which can be found at Wikipedia:Abuse reports#Father's Wish vandal. –Prototime (talk • contribs) 20:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
City of Walls and Secrets was also hit earlier today with the same old story, this time by 24.226.104.43. –Prototime (talk • contribs) 21:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not likely to be the same user. The original contributor using the anon IP addresses was an AT&T Yahoo user located in Chicago, IL. 71.75.183.222 traces back to a RoadRunner account in an unknown location, likely North Carolina or South Carolina. The user has contributions dating back to May 14, 2006, and the recent changes don't seem to be of the same nature as the Father's Wish sockpuppet or even vandalism. 24.226.104.43 traces to a cable user in Cobourg, Ontario. The one change this user has made doesn't appear to be vandalism or reverting content. Neither of these two new accounts test positive as open proxies, so you could be looking at meatpuppetry, but more likely completely independent users. Neil916 23:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I had a feeling that was the case; I've gone ahead and removed these from the list. Let's wait and see if they do anything else. –Prototime (talk • contribs) 23:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I am the vandal, and I must apologize for the inconvience I have caused to everyone, I was pretty pissed that they wouldn't allow me to use the titles I obtained from Nick's XML file, but I have stopped for 2 days now. (All Chicago IP Addresses should be stopped). Unfortunately, I am not father's wish but rather a completely different individual. Again, I apologized and have stopped. [45]
On that same page, anonymous user 68.74.151.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) said:
"It's kind of weird how you think I'm Father's Wish when I'm not." [46]
I've asked that the conversation be continued here (which requires that this page be unprotected), because that page isn't an appropriate place for it. My question to the anonymous user: You deny that you are Father's Wish. Do you admit that you are the sockpuppeteer for the rest of the non-IP accounts listed at the top of this page? Neil916 00:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I have added an "Investigation by Neil916" section to this page, which explains my conclusion that Father's Wish is not the same user as the anonymous Chicago vandal. Neil916 00:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
mmm.. so even when i apologize and stop you people persist? 68.74.184.117 04:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Well that's because you've been acting like an immature child. We know that if you are allowed to even remain an able editor, you'll start messing up someone elses pages. I'll repeat your post: "We'll admit it too, we do a lot of things to wikipedia, we love how the admins do their job. Why do we do it? Because we get an adrenaline high from this." By this context, we know you will return and we can't be having that. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 04:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
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:Hotrodsurf

Suspected Sockpuppets

Reasoning

All of the above users, have voted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot Rod Surf to keep the article(s) Hot Rod Surf and HOT ROD SURF. All, with the exception of Bham Greaser have signed their comments, not using 4 tildes, but instead, by signing with parenthesis, their unlinked user name, manually inputting the date and time and then closing the parenthesies. Example: (Jmcrownpoint 2:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC). It can be shown that they are manually inputting the date and time as it does not match with the recorded time in the edit history.

Additionally, User:Hotrodjohn and User:Bham Greaser have made their first, and so far only edits to that article for deletion.

The IP User:72.130.148.120 added a comment to the AfD and signed it (manually) as User:Jmcrownpoint. And then another, also signing as User:Jmcrownpoint. This IP has also added other comments in support of the articles.

User:Hotrodsurf has the earliest creation date of them all, and created the article HOT ROD SURF. User:Jmcrownpoint, created an account a day later and then created Hot Rod Surf.

At the very least, it appears User:Jmcrownpoint is attempting to shore support by making comments both as a registered user and as an IP in violation of Wikipedia policy.

--Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 02:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. Iolakana•T 16:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
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:Akademy-force

This user adds Mohammad Reza Aghaei Laghaei name to the CIA wikipage, using various IP addresses (all of them originating from Iran, unless indicated), and vandalizes several other pages, despite numerous warnings, he continues to do it:

Blocked. Iolakana•T 16:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
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:What123

hi, I wanted to bring your attention to User:What123, who I suspect to be a sockpuppet of User:SirIsaacBrock. User:What123 seems to follow the same pattern of edits to articles around the Israel-Arab conflict, depopulating articles relating to abarigional conflicts for Category:Conflicts in Canada, etc... but the diff here (the use of "Cordially" at the end of his comment) is what makes me sure it's him Mike McGregor (Can) 15:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Liberal usage of {{TOCleft}} and editing on War, Dog and Nazi related articles is very indicative of this user being User:SirIsaacBrock. (→Netscott) 15:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
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.
I'm closing this as there's really insufficient evidence presented here, and the conversation is veering away from the purpose of this venue -- Samir धर्म 02:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Morton devonshire

User:TheOnlyChoice is a sockpuppet of User:Morton devonshire, who was rather clumsy.

Morton is using a sockpuppet, as shown clearly from this edit, TheOnlyChoice signed his name "--unsigned by Morton devonshire" then the very next edit, User:Morton devonshire changed it to User:Morton devonshire. [70]

Other evidence:

User:Morton devonshire and User:TheOnlyChoice

1. Both users edit the same pages, and User:TheOnlyChoice launched immediatly into a AfD[71] [72] a page that User:Morton devonshire has edited before.
2. Both use the term POV cruft, a vague term. [73] [74]
3. User:TheOnlyChoice suggests another AfD. Then immediatly following, Morton devonshire warned everyone to avoid using sockpuppets, as if to take the heat away from him, [75]

Past behavior, boot log

23:54, 3 May 2006 Jtdirl (Talk | contribs) unblocked Morton devonshire (contribs) (mispresentation of WP policy by blocker) 22:35, 3 May 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) blocked "Morton devonshire (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (AfD vote-stacking, don't do it again)[76]

See converstation here.

Requests

Signed: Travb (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The interpretation of diff logs is wrong

  • Comment your interpretation of diff logs needs to be improved. Let's look at the real history: 1st time. Here you see the same diff. Is your argument that Tony Fox is also a sock puppet? What is happening is someone is removing MD's signature and he is simply replacing it. There is no evidence of sockpuppetry. As his comment says: Please stop harassing him. Here is the Orginal Edit. It is unsigned but clearly from MD. Someone put "unsigned by MD" later and MD corrected it with the real signature. People who can read diff logs will see this. There is no evidence of Sock Puppetry. --Tbeatty 01:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I am also surprised that you haven't seen the term "POV cruft" more often that you think it's rare.--Tbeatty 01:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Tbeatty is not telling the truth, here is the proof

You are not telling the truth. You are using a common trick, adding two distant edits to make it look like something else.

Here is the entire edit history:

  • (cur) (last) 23:26, 18 August 2006 Travb (Talk | contribs) (→Use of Sockpuppets to Avoid Scrutiny)
  • (cur) (last) 22:32, 18 August 2006 Morton devonshire (Talk | contribs) (→Use of Sockpuppets to Avoid Scrutiny)
  • (cur) (last) 22:31, 18 August 2006 Morton devonshire (Talk | contribs) (→Use of Sockpuppets to Avoid Scrutiny - please do not harass me)
  • (cur) (last) 22:29, 18 August 2006 Tony Fox (Talk | contribs) (→Afd? - - erm...)
  • (cur) (last) 22:20, 18 August 2006 Rootology (Talk | contribs) (do not remove other people's comments.)
  • (cur) (last) 22:18, 18 August 2006 Morton devonshire (Talk | contribs) (→Use of Sockpuppets to Avoid Scrutiny - my mistake)
  • (cur) (last) 22:07, 18 August 2006 TheOnlyChoice (Talk | contribs) (Afd?)
  • (cur) (last) 22:03, 18 August 2006 Paraphelion (Talk | contribs) (→Use of Sockpuppets to Avoid Scrutiny)
  • (cur) (last) 21:58, 18 August 2006 Seabhcan (Talk | contribs) (→Ganser and ST911.org - moved discussion from my talk page)
  • (cur) (last) 21:55, 18 August 2006 Seabhcan (Talk | contribs) (→Ganser and ST911.org)
  • (cur) (last) 21:21, 18 August 2006 Morton devonshire (Talk | contribs) m (→Use of Sockpuppets to Avoid Scrutiny)
  • (cur) (last) 21:21, 18 August 2006 Morton devonshire (Talk | contribs) (→Sources - Using Sockpuppets to Avoid Scrutiny From Other Editors)
  • (cur) (last) 22:03, 18 August 2006 Paraphelion (Talk | contribs) (→Use of Sockpuppets to Avoid Scrutiny)
  • (cur) (last) 21:58, 18 August 2006 Seabhcan (Talk | contribs) (→Ganser and ST911.org - moved discussion from my talk page)
  • (cur) (last) 21:55, 18 August 2006 Seabhcan (Talk | contribs) (→Ganser and ST911.org)
  • (cur) (last) 21:21, 18 August 2006 Morton devonshire (Talk | contribs) m (→Use of Sockpuppets to Avoid Scrutiny)
  • (cur) (last) 21:21, 18 August 2006 Morton devonshire (Talk | contribs) (→Sources - Using Sockpuppets to Avoid Scrutiny From Other Editors)
  • (cur) (last) 21:12, 18 August 2006 NYCJosh (Talk | contribs) (→My suggestion, hybrid of Trav's: Terrorism in the United States)

What User:Tbeatty wrote:

  • Comment your interpretation of diff logs needs to be improved. Let's look at the
    real history: 1st time. Here you see the same diff. Is your argument that Tony Fox is also a sock puppet? What is happening is someone is removing MD's signature and he is simply replacing it. There is no evidence of sockpuppetry.
    As his comment says: Please stop harassing him.
    Here is the Orginal Edit. It is unsigned but clearly from MD. Someone put "unsigned by MD" later and MD corrected it with the real signature. People who can read diff logs will see this. There is no evidence of Sock Puppetry.
    --Tbeatty 01:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
My contention is:
[77] In green above.
User:Tbeatty is a liar, this statment is completely false:
    • Then go to your reference and below left side of TheOnlyChoice's edit there is a link called "Older Edit". Click it and you will get this. On the right you will see what "TheOnlyChoice" added in that edit. He didn't add "unsigned" or having anything to do with the signature. You are incorrect to imply that the two edits were linked. They are clearly not linked either in section or content. --Tbeatty 02:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment your interpretation of diff logs needs to be improved. Let's look at the
real history: 1st time. Here you see the same diff. Is your argument that Tony Fox is also a sock puppet? What is happening is someone is removing MD's signature and he is simply replacing it.

He is attempting to confuse those who review Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, by using a section which has nothing to do with the alleged sock puppet. I am going to report this to the admin board. Travb (talk) 01:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Morton's an asshole, but I don't see what TheOnlyChoice's edit has to do with any of this.--Paraphelion 01:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
NOTE: Paraphelion calling some one an AHole is uncivil please doing do it. Æon Insane Ward 02:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop with the personal attacks. I didn't call you a liar or any other names (as you have done to me) as I assume your Sockpuppet accusation is in good faith. You are simply wrong in your interpretation of the diff log. You are interpreting red marks on the left side of the diff log as somehow being relevant to the left side user. That is not an indication that they are related. Simply going to two previous diffs will show that. You are wrong and you should remove your request. --Tbeatty 02:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Assaults On My Character

I emphatically deny that I am User:TheOnlyChoice, and quite frankly I am tired of Travb's attempts to have me punished. Please run a checkuser on me and User:TheOnlyChoice -- go ahead. We are not the same person. As Clint would say: Go ahead punk, make my day!  : ) Morton devonshire 01:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Then why did User:TheOnlyChoice sign his name "--unsigned by Morton devonshire" [78] ironically in a message about sockpuppets? Then 11 minutes later User:Morton devonshire (yourself) state "my mistake" and add signed name?[79] Why did you right my mistake Morty?
I have seen it in court cases on television: the defended screams "assualt on my character" right up until he is convicted. This is the only evidence you can provide, an accusation that this is an "Assault On My Character"? Travb (talk) 01:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
You are simply incorrect. The paragraph was clearly added by MD. Your mistake is that User:TheOnlyChoice even added the "unsigned". Diff logs show differences but only the edits on the right can be definitively attributed to an editor. Go to the previous diffs here and you clearly can see that TheOnlyChoice didn't add unsigned. You cannot read diffs and are making an incorrect and unfounded accusation. --Tbeatty 01:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Tbeatty you are not telling the truth (see above). I am going to report you to the admin, for defending an alleged sockpuppeter with a false history logs. Travb (talk) 01:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Travb you are in error and you are not assuming good faith on this issue. TBeatty is telling you the truth. Æon Insane Ward 01:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The only really troubling diff I'm seeing is the unsigned template issue. We should be willinng to just chalk that off as an error and assume good faith. I would not block at this stage. alphaChimp laudare 02:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Walkthrough

  1. Morton posts sockpuppet policy and does not sign it [80]
  2. Paraphelion adds unsigned to the post and comments that Morton should have signed it [81]
  3. TheOnlyChoice posts AfD comment [82]
  4. Morton signs his original post that Paraphelion added unsigned tag to [83]
  5. Rootology removed Mortons signature and puts back unsigned, not really sure why.

[84]

It probably has something to do with Rootology's edit comment for this edit - namely that Morton removed other people's comments. He probably just reverted.--Paraphelion 01:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. Tony Fox commenting on AfD section post from TheOnlyChoice [85]
  2. Morton resigns his original post [86]
  3. Morton posts "uhh yeah" in reponse to paraphelions comment about him not signing. [87]
  4. Trav comments in reply to morton, that morton wrote that, the comment at this point is self signed by morton he acknowledges he wrote it and has signed it now 3 times. [88]
  5. Trav insults a group of editors (sorry had to include this) [89]
  6. Trav moves around my comments, you really shouldnt do this btw. [90]
  7. Trav replies to himself asking Morton why he brings up sockpuppets [91]
  8. Trav eludes one of the "deletionists", rofl I love this term now, is a sockpuppet. [92]
  9. Trav accuses Morton of being a sockpuppet because Morton mentioned them, then TheOnlyChoice posted about AfD ... I dont see the connection myself. [93]
  10. Trav says Morton changed his name from TheOnlyChoice to Morton. [94]

I would like to point out that the evidence Trav posts is incorrect, because the statement being edited, shown above, is actually Morton signing his own post, not a post that was once signed TheOnlyChoice. Good Job Trav, please listen to those more experienced TBeatty was trying to educate you to how the difs work. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 01:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Morton here removed a comment from Paraphelion, and here I re-added the removed comment with an edit summary note to *not* remove other's comments per policy. It looks like quick RV to replace the improperly removed comment was too slow, and it caught Morton's sig. That was my edit--to restore the incorrectly removed comment. rootology (T) 01:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry removed my own comment, didnt read yours completly, this seems to be all a bit blown out of proportion by Trav, however it seems settled now. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 02:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Morton Deletes Other Users Comments On Talk Pages

Comment Section header says it all, in this edit he removes my comment : http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America&diff=next&oldid=70483038 --Paraphelion 01:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

  • He removed the comment but signed the section, I think you are missing that point, you complained he didnt sign it and added unsigned morton, so he signed it. I do not really see what the big issue is, its obviously not a case of sockpuppeting. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 02:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    I had already signed it for him. Not surprising that you have no problem with your friend deleting other people's comments that you categorize as a "comaplaint".--Paraphelion 02:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    Friend? I dont know any of these people in the real world. Sounds like you are not AGF. Or is there a cabal conspiring against you? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 02:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    He meant the deletionists as a group. Their are (roughly) two groups on this page: the deletionists, and the inclusionists. Travb (myself) mongo and TDC have both deleted and added content. Please don't accuse other users of being paranoid. Travb (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    Correct, I am referring to the two never once being at odds at each other in discussion. This is how you can discern unilaterialists such as Zer0faults, as in every talk page I have seen of his, he immediately takes a side and only argues with the other, regardless of whatever fallacies his own "side" uses.--Paraphelion 02:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Request to close

I was wrong in reading the edits, I got confused, but that is no excuse. I will wait for the results of the checkuser on Morton, then I will apologize to him. I already publicly apologized to Tbeatty on the talk page. Travb (talk) 02:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You cant have a checkuser with no evidence to support one, there are rules against fishing. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 02:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I have other evidence. I know about the rules against fishing.Travb (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok look you have several editors who have inpedenatly checked the evidence you provided. We all found you to be in error Travb. Æon Insane Ward 02:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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:SqueakBox (2nd)

I believe User:SqueakBox has used his sock puppet User:Pura Paja to edit articles related to José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, something forbidden by the ArbCom as can be found in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas.

The reasons that has led me to this conclusion are:

  1. He has vandalised the articles in a way typical of SqueakBox. He has redirected sub-articles such as Zapatero and the 2004 General Election ([95]), Zapatero's domestic policy([96]), Zapatero's foreign policy ([97]), Zapatero's early years (1960-2000)([98]) to the main article José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero. Something SqueakBox has done a lot of times. In my opinion, it's absurd to redirect a subarticle to a main article. Redirections are used when several titles are valid for the same article. To redirect a subarticle to its parent article simply prevents other users from reading or editing them. If you don't want an article to be read why don't you ask it to be deleted? I believe isn't likely that two users come to do something so stupid.
  2. In the user page of User:Pura Paja, the supposed user claims he's from Britain, grew up in Spain and is from London. SqueakBox is also from Britain, what is a coincidence. What is more important and revealing is that this British user's first edits (see his contributions: [99]) are so similar to the nonsensical edits by User:SqueakBox in a Spain-related article. Moreover, he's not posted any explanation in any talk page to justify his decision although it supposed a change so depth to five articles.
  3. SqueakBox has created sock puppets in the past to circumvent the ArbCom's decision as can be found in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/SqueakBox.

In regard to SqueakBox's obssesion with redirecting the articles the following text was posted in the evidence of the Arbitration case:

Hagiographer 08:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I will take this to the administrators noticeboard, as I am currently involved in a "dispute" with Squeak and I am the admin who normally patrols this page. Please check Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#SqueakBox sockpuppets. Iolakana|T 13:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

What rot, I am in London not Hondurss81.158.46.131 14:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Zapatero isnt on my watchlist any more and I have no interest in the article. probably a Zapatancas sockpuppet but who knows? What is certain is that I am in honduras as I can prove, SqueakBox 22:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC) Here is my IP, SB, 63.245.13.229 22:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC) Hagioghrapher cant claim its a coincidence that 2 people from the UK are editing this internationalo encyclopedia, SqueakBox 22:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Also Hagiographer is lying to claim I am vandalising Zapatero articles, I am no vandal and hjis lie, identical to those of Zapatancas, merely shows he is Zapatancas, SqueakBox 22:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This says that I am in Florida (close enough) and the person editing Zapatero is in London, hence this person cannot be me, SqueakBox 00:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

This is vandalism, rapidly reverted to the Pura Paja not the Hagiographer version and done quickly. Perhaps Hagiographer would explain why after the ban on Zapatancas and I at Zapatero he reverted to the Zapatancas version if he is not Zapatancas, perhaps Pura Paja was reverting him as a banned user from the article, that would certainly explain his actions while his lack of edit comments may be because he is a new user, unlike Hagiographer who writes edit comments identical to Hagiographer's, an obvious conclusion given they are both from Spain (well that is using Hagiographer's logic). He wonders why anyone else might agree with me yet the afd showed I had a lot of support in my desire to eliminate those unencyclopedic and unnecessary articles so to claim only I want the redirects is evidently false. Hagiographer has already chased one person off the wikipedia with his false accusations, I on the other hand have never used a sockpuppet here at Wikipedia as I am a man of integrity (means honradez, conoces la palabra y su significancia, Hagi?) and for anyone to claim otherwise would be a smear on my character that I am little disposed to tolerate as businessman with a reputation to keep that is important, SqueakBox 00:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that either SqueakBox has gone back home on holiday and he's using somebody he knows in Honduras to play the game of the two IPs or he's in Honduras and he's using somebody he knows in Britain. If SqueakBox wants us to believe Pura Paja is not a sock puppet of him he has to make him explain why he repeats his absurdities. What's the use of redirecting a sub-article to the main article?! Why Pura Paja repeats the same attacks that SqueakBox? Why he makes no mention to content like SqueakBox? Hagiographer 07:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It's quite evident SqueakBox has things to hide. If not he wouldn't use lies to defend himself. He claims he had a lot of support in the Afd. Well in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zapatero and the 2004 General Election it can be found that simply nobody but him asked the article to be deleted (nobody posted Delete). Hagiographer 07:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

RFCU came back unrelated. But maet-puppetry is certainly possible here. Iolakana|T 12:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
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:Ali doostzadeh

Evidence
  • User 69.86.16.239 works in tandem with Ali doostzadeh in eliminating any classical citation or fact contradicting Scytho-Iranian hypothesis. This pattern is repetitive, while Ali doostzadeh vandalises a part of an article, 69.86.16.239 vandalises another part, until no trace of contribution remains. This tandem process is intendended to prevent the contents from scrutiny of the community. Ali doostzadeh created other sock puppets in the past to circumvent rv rules and create impression that users other then militant Iranian nationalists participate in vandalizing the contents
  • After I repeatedly asked Ali doostzadeh to stop vandalising the contents, and posted vandalism warning, the deletions were switched to other users, User 69.86.16.239 being one of them.
Comments
No need to suspect.. it is me when I forget to log in. And furthermore the IP number was not in anyway responsible for the closing of your falsified topic. The fact that one of your topics was closed because it was non-scholarly shows that you are the militant nationalistic pan-Turkic vandalizing articles. It is you that is vandalizing articles with false materials. For example in Ossetic you falsified that Ossetic is agglunitative. In Scythian you falsified that Agathyrsi is a Scythian tribe. Indeed one of your false articles was deleted by the administrators of the site for lack of reliable material [101]. Not by me, but by the administrators because of lack of reliable evidence. You don't seem to understand that wikipedia is not a forum where you can cut & paste material from your site [102] which is full of false information claiming every ancient group in the world (from ancient greeks to summerians to ..) as Turks. So I refuted your material and you don't seem to understand that WIKIPEDIA has a policy of [103] and if your stuff on history is whack and non-academic (that is not accepted by mainstream scholars universally), then it could be deleted. So stop the irrelevant cut & paste and destruction of Wikipedia's integrity with your pan-turkist website: [104] --Ali doostzadeh 19:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Using " non-academic (that is not accepted by mainstream scholars universally)" criteria is vandalism, since you do not provide a verifiable codification on which academic is academic and which is non-academic, what is "unniversally" and which world falls out of your definition of "universally". Using personal definition of your group to justify vadalism, and calling names and attacking messangers as excuse for vandalism is vandalism and sockpuppet censorship vandalism prevents the community from scrutinizing the issue.

Barefact 16:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC).

I certainly do. I made you a challenge in the other thread to give me an example of a scholar from a major university who has publications in peer reviewed journals and has numerous publications on Ossetic language that claims that Ossetic is a non-Iranian language. You failed miserably. The same thing on Scythians. You were also using many false sources. I am sure you have heared of Harvard, Oxford,.. universities. So stop trying to act like a cow boy historian. The contents of your website is certainly not academic. As per the term universal, you used the term yourself [105]. You said in one of your false articles trying to reject the scholarly viewpoint, The following discourse addresses the reasons for the current universal acceptance by the scientific community of the preposition that the Scythians were unambiguously Indo-European, and specifically Iranian speaking, and the methods to reach this conclusion.. Note you are trying to present original research when you yourself admit that your OR goes against universally accepted facts. So you are caught plagarizing materials with OR. --Ali doostzadeh 16:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Take this to WP:RFCU. Iolakana|T 12:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
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:Ali doostzadeh

Evidence
  • User Arash the Bowman works in tandem with Ali doostzadeh in eliminating any classical citation or fact contradicting Scytho-Iranian hypothesis. This pattern is repetitive, while Ali doostzadeh vandalises a part of an article, Arash the Bowman vandalises another part, until no trace of contribution remains. This tandem process is intendended to prevent the contents from scrutiny of the community. Ali doostzadeh created other sock puppets in the past to circumvent rv rules and create impression that users other then militant Iranian nationalists participate in vandalizing the contents
  • After I repeatedly asked Ali doostzadeh to stop vandalising the contents, and posted vandalism warning, the deletions were switched to other users, User Arash the Bowman being one of them.
  • After I restore the vandalized section, to avoid Wikipedia rv rule, Ali doostzadeh uses other proxies to re-vandalize the page. See history of Scythia for repeat vandalism about source, development, and constituent people of Scythia
Comments

.

Nope thats not me.. stop accusing. You were totally dismissed in the Scytho-Iranian theory and that is why the administrators deleted it. As per Scythia, your information was false. I copied it in the talk page and then afterwards refuted it and you did not provide a reply. --Ali doostzadeh 00:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


I can also safely say that Arash the Bowman is not Ali doostzadeh. I have interacted with Arash before I interacted with Ali, and I can say with a degree of certainty that they are not the same person, just by the way they talk. Ali doostzadeh has put a lot of work into Wikipedia, and has earned the respect of many, he would not be the type of person to do something like this, however, this is just speculation.Khosrow II 00:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I have yet to see any evidence, just a list of accusations. Just because Arash and Ali are working in tandem doesn't mean they are sockpuppets of the same person --- if anything, you would want to accuse them of Wikistalking, but I accuse them only of correcting the horrendously slanted or outright fabricated contributions of an extreme POV warrior. If they are sockpuppets, then so am I for trying to fix the outrageously bad (grammatically, syntactically, stylistically and factually) article on the Ossetic language. Cuff me and block my username. --Jpbrenna 07:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry you are wrong on this. I am not Ali. Your suspicion only proves the fact that there are different people who believe your comments to be without historical value and fabricated to serve a certain point of view. Think about it. Arash the Bowman 10:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Take this to WP:RFCU. Iolakana|T 12:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Ali doostzadeh

point to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ali doostzadeh (3rd)

Evidence
  • User Khosrow II works in tandem with Ali doostzadeh in eliminating any classical citation or fact contradicting Scytho-Iranian hypothesis. Khosrow II plays a dispatch center, coordinating organized vandalism and warning participants of the group about an article to be censored. This pattern is repetitive, once Ali doostzadeh vandalises an article, Khosrow II jumps to his defence. This tandem process is intendended to prevent the contents from scrutiny of the community. Ali doostzadeh created other sock puppets in the past to circumvent rv rules and create impression that users other then militant Iranian nationalists participate in vandalizing the contents
  • After I repeatedly asked Ali doostzadeh to stop vandalising the contents, and posted vandalism warning, the deletions were switched to other users, coordinated by Khosrow II.
  • After I restore the vandalized section, to avoid Wikipedia rv rule, Ali doostzadeh uses other proxies to re-vandalize the page. See history of Scythia for repeat vandalism about source, development, and constituent people of Scythia


Comments

What, now hes accusing me? Barefact, how about we make a bet, if Ali and I are not the same person, you have to leave Wiki forever. Huh? How about it? Admin's, check our IP's and get this false accusation over with.Khosrow II 14:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

you are not the same person, if you are telling truth.
You are a train of sock puppets, engaged in wholesome vandalism, ganging up on a subject to its complete elimination, no stupid Herodotus can get into the way of your Iranian censorship. Sockpuppeting is destructive and contrary to Wikipedia rules. Keeping contents from scrutiny of the public is contrary to Wikipedia rules. You do not accept offers of compromise and respect for scholars that do not conform to your enunciated concepts. You prefer force, deception, and vandalism in a sockpuppeting manner.

Barefact 14:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you accept my wager? Anyway, can an Admin please show this guy our IP's addresses so he'll stop his false accusations. Barefact, if I was Ali, why would I be willing for an Admin to check my IP?Khosrow II 15:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


Once again I invite you to accept the situation as it is. There are at least two different people (I don't know if Ali and Khosrow are the same person!) who are convinced that your pan-turkic manipulations are just that: pan-turkic maipulations. This is a serious encyclopedia, where only subjects with general acceptance among scholars is presented, not divergent points of view and attempts to rewrite history to fit ideological POVs. Now please stop accusing people and don't be paranoid. There is no consipiracy against you, just several people that do not accept manipulations of history. I also invite admins to publish my IP nr. to prove that I am not a suckpuppet of anyone. Arash the Bowman 08:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Take this to WP:RFCU. Iolakana|T 12:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
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:Ladodgersss

Evidence
Comments

Obvious sock; blocked. Iolakana|T 10:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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:Uther Sockdragon

Evidence
  • See history for User:Uther Sockdragon where he lays claim to both the account and IP in blanking the warnings on his user talk page.
  • See history for article talk page where his nonsense and personal attacks were readded to the discussion and he clearly states that he's adding his own comments back in the edit summary.
Comments
IP has been blocked. Iolakana|T 12:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
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:WorkingHard

Evidence

This user has been reverting numerous deletions of irrelevent information I and other users have made at Jessica Lunsford. This user is obviously upset that I am deleting his advertising having made the website for this dead girl. After a recent edit this user posted as WorkingHard and pasted a note on my talk page that I was banned from posting.Cumberbund 07:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments
It is the IP that needs blocking, not the account. The IP has been blocked. Iolakana|T 14:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
It is a shame what is going on with the Jessica Lunsford article. References from verifiable sources should not be deleted in accordance to policy however, I fail to see any strong evidence that would indicate that User: WorkingHard is a sockpuppet. I agree with "Kilo" above. A block on the IP is what was needed for now. Tony the Marine 00:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
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:Kenwood 3000

User:Ricky4444 is making vandalism edits about people being questioned in kiddie porn stings, which is User:Kenwood 3000's trademark. In this case, the edit was on the Shinobi series. It's sillier than most such vandalism as Shinobi is a fictional character. User:Toadfish7530 had made a more or less identical edit a few hours earlier and they are another suspected Kenwood sock puppet. Ace of Sevens 05:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

User have already been blocked, but not by me. Iolakana|T 20:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:24.94.126.250

Evidence

User:24.94.126.250 was blocked for six months in July. [106] If you compare the edit histories of 24.94.126.250 and the new User:24.94.124.46 here and here, you will notice striking similarities. Both users edit articles dealing with hostages and Metal Gear Solid 3. They have also engaged in much blanking and the former user engaged in verbal threats before he was blocked. PBP 04:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

What's wrong with you man? I'm not a sock puppet. I'm just editing articles which were clearly incorrect. I have not threatened anyone. The only time I was edited was when I mentioned something about former Moroccan POWS. Some guys keep deleting it so I deleted the paragraph mentioning it in the discussion table. I wrote the paragraph. I'm not using another computer. This is my own computer. I thought my ban was over. I have no idea how the IP address changed. I thought I was given early parole. Oh and if you are going to ban me again, please don't revert everything I have edit. None of it was BS. Quit stalking me man. The edits I did on hostages were things I originally posted. I felt they weren't important enough. If you want to ban me than do it but I don't know how the ban was lifted.

User has been blocked for admitting that they are the same user: "I thought my ban was over" -- to quote above. Iolakana|T 20:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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:Kenwood 3000

Evidence

Although this user is blocked he or she is suspected to operate several sock puppets ([107]). The edits made by the alleged sock puppets are generally hoax stories about people (Ainsley Harriott, Andi Peters, etc.) being questioned about child pornography as a part of Operation Ore. The edits are sometimes quite convincing and not reverted as vandalism, thus allowing misinformation to spread. Also, the information of user pages seems to match a certain pattern. All users are musicians, or something related to arts. Some sock puppets match the behaviour and names of the sock puppets of another puppeteer, General Tojo, who is known to operate via different IP addresses and through proxies. ([108], [109], [110]). mensch • t 20:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Another factor is that this user has continually added references to Brand X and John Goodsall about some fictitious musician, "Ian Hart-Stein", who he claims was the founder of Brand X (or an alias of John Goodsall). The only references I've ever seen to "Ian Hart-Stein" are on Wikipedia, last.fm, freewebs.com, and some other user-updatable band site. In other words, someone who writes a hoax on Wikipedia could be using other hoax pages and sites in an effort to give legitimacy to this hoax. A reliable source, allmusic.com, has this overview of Brand X indicating that there is no "Ian Hart-Stein". I have several Brand X CDs in my collection, and none of them mention "Ian Hart-Stein". --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 21:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Similar notes have been posted under other suspected sockpuppets, including User_talk:Rory_Carrol, where he posted repeatedly about Ian Hart-Stein and a fake song called Phil's solo (a false article which was recently AfD'd, see his talk page for a similar message). I've nicknamed him the Brand X vandal as he seems to focus on members of the group, ranging from recent vandalism to Phil Collins under recent puppets and User:Les4555 (see [111] for changes which include "Ian" and "Phil's solo" again). The user's focus seems to be that Collins kicked these fake members from the group after deciding he wanted a more commercial sound, made the "Phil's solo" to give him more playing time, and all edits to Brand X articles seem to reflect this. --Ataricodfish 21:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments
everyone in that category has already been blocked. Iolakana|T 14:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
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:68.225.78.240

User:68.225.78.240 was blocked today for persistently changing the date format in the Julius Caesar article, despite an established consensus and repeated warnings to stop it. User:209.173.133.41, who has no previous edits, appeared within minutes and continued to make the same changes. --Nicknack009 20:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

User has been blocked. Iolakana|T 14:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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:Samvak

Evidence

Once again User:Samvak putting a toe into the waters of "Wikipedia as a source of self promotion" using:

See Also:

--Zeraeph 11:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

IPs have been blocked. Iolakana|T 14:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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:Helicoptor

Evidence

User Helicoptor (talk · contribs · logs) and Hardee67 (talk · contribs · logs) have similar interests in their contribution history. The Hardee67 account picks up where Helicopter left off in July. User Helicopter caused trouble back in July when several articles they had edited came up for AfD. They were also involved with moving pages, such as Cat flap against concensus. User Helicopter became dormant on 21 July, but user Hardee67 started editing on 19 July. After a number of minor edits to planet articles (which were all reverted), Hardee67 votes on some of the AfD that Helicoptor was involved in, e.g. [112] [113]. They also have similar interests in large number articles (million and trillion related). Hardee67 is now is nominating other articles for AfD where Helicopter had previously had disputes.

Comments
This is very weak evidence, and I do not feel it is enought to merit a block. Iolakana|T 11:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Have you checked their contributions? When someone starts making numerous spurious AfD nominations without having any previous involvement in the articles concerned, you can be pretty sure they are somebody's sockpuppet. Notice the 10th attempt at a delete on Daniel Brandt and the 6th attempt on Girlfriend. This quite appart from the rest of the vandalism and disruption they are causing. -- Solipsist 14:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I say that Hardee67 needs to be blocked indefinitely. His account is being used only for vandalism. Georgia guy 14:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Account blocked. Iolakana|T 14:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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:AI

Evidence

This user AI (talk · contribs · logs) and Nikitchenko (talk · contribs · logs) and perhaps other incarnations have been banned indefinitely from editing on Wikipedia. Any sockpuppetry by these people is there an illegitimate use of a sock and is prohibited. The user ESL344G (talk · contribs · logs) is suspected of being another incarnation of this banned user. ESL344G has made only edits to a single article on Wikipedia, namely Talk:Barbara Schwarz and the edits there are highly suspicious, as they appear to come from someone with a fairly deep understanding of the case of Ms. Schwarz, but the user purports that Ms. Schwarz is not notable. Well then, if she isn't notable, how did ESL344G just so happen to stumble across this page? The user appears to be fairly familiar with the Wikipedia process of talk pages and user talk pages, leading further evidence that this is an incarnation of an experienced editor and not a new user. This user should have a CheckUser performed on them to ensure that we are not dealing with yet another incarnation of the banned user AI, Nickitchenko, or another of their socks.Vivaldi (talk) 03:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments
Vivaldi XXXXXXXX, you and your sock puppets spam your version of the now deleted hateful Wikipedia article on me for a year or longer on Usenet to harass and attack me. The article is noticed as you, and your friends, spam it day by on Usenet. Tilman Hausherr posted on Usenet that there was a third vote in this Wikipedia article. If you post about it on Usenet, you don't have to be surprised that people come here.
Poster ESL244G came at the same time as Steve Dufour. AI and ESL244 G have very different posting styles. But I like them both. I wonder however, when you will be barred. I vote for it. -- Barbara Schwarz comment left by 216.190.12.37 (talk · contribs · logs)
User 216.190.12.37, you have been warned that posting what you believe to be the real life names of editors is against the policy of Wikipedia, your continued failure to heed these warnings will get you blocked. Vivaldi (talk) 05:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Barbara Schwarz: Regarding CheckUser which was submitted by a Wikipedia user. This must be performed pursuant to Wikimedia CheckUser privacy policy and performed by system administrator. With clearance, perhaps we can return to creating a solid, well sourced article that is fair, impartial and an article written without malice or hate. I would also encourage everyone to behave like adults on Schwarz's talk page and not in an excited or agitated manner. Leave out name calling and derogatory remarks. The article will flow better if everyone is relaxed.--ESL344G 23:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Wow, you are so experience about these policies, for a newbie. Even I am clueless about this, I only know the term. But then, I've never been accused of running sockpuppets. --Tilman 06:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Funny thing is that I rather suspect this user to be a sock puppet either of 216.190.12.37 (i.e. coming from Salt Lake City through sisna.com), or of another registered user who has also participated in that discussion in the past (I prefer not to mention him because although I don't (word "don't" inserted later, but it was what I meant) agree with his arguments, he has always been very civil with me). --Tilman 08:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Tilman, I have nothing left to say to you. In my opinion, your focus toward Barbara has been a campaign of dislike.--ESL344G 23:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

While doing this, please check also whether Orsini (talk · contribs · logs) is a sock puppet of any other person participating in the discussion. The user only participated in this discussion, and supports "my side", this is just too good to be true :-) --Tilman 12:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


User has been blocked. Iolakana|T 14:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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:Larry Lawrence

I'm just going to copy and paste the entry from WP:RFCU#Larry Lawrence since the edit summaries and history is pretty self-evident that Larry Lawrence is running a large number of sockpuppets for the purpose of avoiding being in violation of wikipolicies such as WP:3RR:

Puppet Master: Larry Lawrence (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Puppet lists:

After further review I may have misidentified Larry Lawrence as a possible Esaborio sockpuppet, but there are a lot of similarities in Larry Lawrence and the three four other accounts I've listed. If you look at their edit summaries they all have the unusual linking of POV and Talk in their edit summaries when reverting entries and seem to appear for a revert when one is in danger of violating 3RR. Buy1 and E Pluribus have similar user pages and all show similar edit patterns or seem to be a lot more knowledgable of Wikipedia than their edit count should afford.--Bobblehead 20:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Note the linking to the actual page Talk and not to the respective talk page, which would be expected. Also the frequent misuse of a comma as a period (ex. ,,, rather than ...) ~Rangeley (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I have blocked Larry Lawrence, Buy1get1free and Kevin Taylor for being socks; but I don't feel that Lunchtime and E Pluribus Koryn are sock. Their use of the edit summary are quite normal. Feel free to take to RFCU or comment further. Iolakana|T 16:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
RFCU was created and all of the above accounts plus Socold (talk · contribs) and WiIIBeback (talk · contribs) were confirmed as sockpuppets. See this RFCU for more details. If it is alright, I'll go ahead and add the sockpuppet templates to their account? Well, I'll go ahead and do it. If it's not alright, feel free to undo. My bad. Already done.;) --Bobblehead 15:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Accounts have been blocked. Iolakana|T 14:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
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:ED209

Evidence

The evidence for sockpuppetry in this case is primarily based on two things;

  1. These sockpuppets emerged either A)In the heat of a revived VaughanWatch debate or B)Right after User:ED209 was blocked for a week.
  2. The tone and style of the sockpuppets edits are consistent with (if a bit more extreme than) those of ED209. They are all antagonizing (as ED's have been) and are focussed entirely on me (pm_shef) with some spillover into other users involved in the dispute, notably JamesTeterenko.

While originally these socks were assumed to be part of User:VaughanWatch's retinue, the latest burst of personal attacks has led me to believe that they are in fact a seperate group, who happen to be cooperating with the VW out of convienience.

Suspected Socks
Comments

Comment From User:ED209 He can't post it here because he's blocked, so I agreed to do it for him. -pm_shef 01:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC) This wouldn't be the first time I've been charged with this. However, I suspect when I win this, it will be the last. You are making incredible allegations about me when trying to connect me with these sockpuppets. I am on a cable modem and I am not going to go out of my way to change my IP to hound you. I suspect this is the same user as VaughanWatch. My criticism toward you and your edits have never crossed into the harsh things that these sockpuppets have wrote. Regardless of what you say. Please, start a checkuser on me with all the listed sockpuppets. I would appreciate if you included these comments in that as my evidence in defending myself (I can't right now). I am admitting to have Rogers, which is different than the IP sockpuppets of VaughanWatch, which has Bell. Plus, as I stated earlier, I feel that I have never made the overtly harsh personal attacks such as the ones you've read recently. ED209 00:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Pm shef, please supply evidence of sockpuppet violations, with numerous diffs. Iolakana|T 12:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I didn't supply diffs originally because all of the suspected socks contribs are evidence. So all of their edits are indicative of what I said above, thus to provide diffs would be the same as just linking to their contribs page. For comparison's sake here are some similar edits by User:ED209;
If you need more, I can get more. -- pm_shef 23:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
He asked for similiar difs from the sockpuppets that you listed. These edits above appear to have been made in April, from other users. Mangerno 05:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Accounts have been blocked. Iolakana|T 14:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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:VaughanWatch

Evidence

SupermanAboveTO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

YoungWebster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  • Again, this users only edits are to Vaughan related politicians, the above noted AFD. The user came out of a hiatus of nearly 3 months to vote at the AFD.
  • User has already been confirmed as a sock in RCU, so I will block him indefinitely. -- JamesTeterenko 00:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

JohnnyCanuck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  • This user is primarily involved in edit wars on Vaughan political pages and the IHHOF. He is the creator of the AFDed article noted above. In the RCU noted below, he was deemed to be a likely sockpuppet of VaughanWatch.
  • Note: I have blocked this user for 3 hours for constantly removing the sock puppet tag from his user page after sufficient warning. -- JamesTeterenko 19:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

ResponsibleGovernment (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  • User has only edited on one day, and all of those edits were related to Vaughan, most of them jumping into an ongoing discussion such as [119].

GoodFaithEdits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  • User's only edit was to do a revert in an ongoing edit war where a number of IP's in VaughanWatch's range were approaching 3rr.
  • Already indefinitely blocked. -- JamesTeterenko 01:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Energyblue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

pm-shef (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Logeon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Vengeisnice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  • Vandalism only account attacking those involved in identifying socks, blocked indefinitely
Comments

Is there anything else to suspect that JohnnyCanuck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a confirmed sock; I am aware that it is likely that he is such, but is there anything firmer evidence. He seems to not like the tag being in place on his page. Iolakana|T 15:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

That seems likely then, so I've blocked. Iolakana|T 13:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
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:Kmaguir1

Evidence

User created account User:Truthseekers solely to make edit to Michel Foucault to avoid 3RR detection in insertion of homophobic original research. Edit made was identical to one made only by User:Kmaguir1, who has been skirting the edge of 3RR on above article and on Judith Butler since an earlier 3RR block. Specifically, after Kmaguir1 became aware of 3RR blocking, he made three reversions to Foucault within a few hours; about 15 minutes after the 3rd such reversion, the new account "Truthseekers" was created, and its first edit was restoration of this identical disputed material. Following that, Truthseekers went on to make two addition such reversions (but staying at 3, rather than making 4; out of an apparent concern for 3RR policy).

Kmaguir1 has used the phrase "truthseeker" repeatedly on my user talk page, and on Talk:Judith Butler in the last couple hours. Not a lot of creativity was involved in choice of sock-puppet name. LotLE×talk 05:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Funny additional detail: "Truthseekers" second edit was to East Memphis, Memphis, which is where Kmaguir1's user page says he lives. Of course, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, which Truthseekers somehow stumbled across on his 4th edit, he emphatically denies being Kmaguir1. LotLE×talk

Also: Truthseekers now edits User talk:Kmaguir1 to remove the sock-puppet template: [120]

Distinctive archaism in using the word "agreeance": Truthseekers ([121]); Kmaguir1 ([?]). LotLE×talk 00:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

On User talk:Truthseekers, "Truthseekers" makes the comment:

There was no sock puppet notice on my page, only some drivel posted by Lulu of the Lotus Eaters explaining the three re-edit rule to me, which I had not even come close to violating yet. The sock puppet warning is on my friend's webpage, and he hasn't taken it down. -Truthseekers 15:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

However, there was a sock-puppet notice on the Truthseekers account (removed by Truthseekers as his only edit to his userpage), but a 3RR notice only on the Kmaguir1 account. The (repeated) slippage in the use of "my account" to describe the other account makes it pretty clear that this is a self-identical person rather than merely a "close friend" as purported. LotLE×talk

It appears Kmaguir1 has now added the sockpuppet User:Sonofhealfdane to carry on a make-believe conversation with himself on Talk:Michel Foucault. This account had made a couple earlier edits back in december, but none since until suddenly discovering the need to restore Kmaguir1's contentious original-research on the article.

Comments
I have already explained kmaquir1 is my compatriot. You'll find I made an edit on the East Memphis page because I am also a resident of East Memphis. I know it's fairly unheard of that more than one person lives in or around East Memphis, much less that they also use wikipedia. Lulu's attacks are amusing, but tiring and unfounded. If you'll search his/her webpage, you'll find that "truthseeker" or "truth seeker" is not mentioned in a single instance, despite the claims. Even if it were, that makes no case for me being a "sock puppet". If any other phantasms of Lulu's imagination emerge, please ensure that I am not included in his paranoid attacks. -Truthseekers 06:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
this is rediculous. -Truthseekers 06:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

A sock puppet? Truthseekers’ a friend of mine—I resent that you think I would pretend to be someone else—I wanted to get some community involvement, etc. Come on—bringing more people onto wikipedia only helps us. I have never used the word “truthseeker” on Lulu’s page. I think she’s enraged that I did what Wikipedia is supposed to do—go out and bring new people into the community. Didn't mean to delete the message she left either--didn't really read the regulations on it. -Kmaguir1 06:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I mean he's a new user--what do you expect him to be able to read, when he all of a sudden gets thrown into a sock-puppetry battle? Hell, I don't even know anything about it. He probably got rid of it because he didn't want his page cluttered (the First thing on his page!) with sock-puppetry allegations. I would tell him to do the same thing--before reading the rules. I'm sure he didn't mean any harm by that--and apologies all around if that "thwarts the process". But we're different people, using different computers, different IPs, and I wasn't ordering anything. I am not a liar, and take strong exception to the allegation I am one. I expect to be vindicated, and I expect that for me, Wikipedia will be vindicated in that it will find me righteous before these untruths. -Kmaguir1 07:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

So "Kmaguir1" didn't mean to perform the deletion that was performed by "Truthseekers"? That's the problem with trying to juggle sockpuppets: you get confused about which account you were logged into when doing a given thing. LotLE×talk 07:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
There was no pronoun in that sentence, and while lazy grammatically, it was referring to him--it is difficult to get things unconfused when you're trying to explain to a friend right next to you how to format and how to defend you on a page. But I mean, look at the IP addresses--he works late, and he was editing of his own volition on his own wikipedia account--now, if you think I was coercing him--that's another charge. See comments on Talk:Judith Butler for a more empirical discussion (they'll be up soon). -Kmaguir1 07:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Did he delete it from mine or his? Oh, mine, according to Lulu. -Kmaguir1 07:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
But let this be said: I did not, per policy, put any words into anybody's mouth. He agreed with my assessment. It's just ridiculous we have to go through this. -Kmaguir1 08:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not a sock-puppet! This is ridiculous... I'm a friend of Kmaguir1's from school -Truthseekers 08:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I have created the RFCU page for confirmation, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kmaguir1. Iolakana|T 15:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Nearly the first thing Kmaguir1/Truthseekers did after creating the new account was loudly proclaim "Check my IP address". This hints that he perhaps moved to a different machine as part of the deception attempt (or shelled in to a proxy, or the like). Of course, he may have messed up that attempted separation in later posts, but the IP addresses themselves may not show the sock-puppetry. LotLE×talk 16:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
That's because it's the most easily verifiable way to determine that this is not simply an account created and used by the same person. I'm still waiting for actual evidence supporting "sock puppetry". As it stands now, I, Truthseekers, have de-bunked every poorly erected shard of evidence you've purported. You present nothing new other than POV to support your claim that I am a sock puppet. You can't begin to grasp, for some reason, that I am in agreeance with Kmaquir1 about the information in question and simply exercised my ability to edit a Wikipedia page. It would seem you would wish Wikipedia to be your own little fascist state, where you determine all correct and relevant information. Thankfully, this is not the case. That doesn't discourage you from using the established avenues of complaint improperly to further your end. I suggest punitive action be taken against user Lulu for his misuse of the safeguard of Wikipedia. -Truthseekers 16:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
We just know its you, Kmaguir1. The word "agreeance" gives you away. Maybe its a Memphis thang?--Agnaramasi 22:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, that shows poorly for your intellegence level then if you base this belief soley off of the use of the word "agreeance". As I have already established, Kmaquir1 and myself are good friends in real life. Not only is it ludicrious to insinuate that Kmaquir1 is the only person to ever use the word "agreeance", but it is equally silly to hypothesize that two well-aquianted peoples' style of speech and writing won't rub-off on each other. The vindictive nature of this acusation is so amusing. The simplest explaination for all of this is rejected so violently in leui of such a crack-pot theory. Hahaha, priceless. -Truthseekers 03:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
That usage certainly is distinctive; could you put the specific diffs from both up in the "evidence" section? That would help demonstrate the point. LotLE×talk 00:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
As I've said in several places, I suspect that the users are two different persons. That does not excuse anyone for meatpuppetry, unless being a new editor is an excuse. (Arguably, it is. But the less new editor, Kmaguir1, should have known better.) Truthseekers, you can stop referring to "you all." As you see, we all are not in agreement on everything. Thanks.--Anthony Krupp 15:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you, you shouldn't be grouped together. It seems the consensus for accusing myself and Kmaquir1 shifts to accomadate lesser claims now that people have started to realize the huge pile of untruth they are standing on. I think the only one still clinging to the chilish hope of the original accusation is Lulu. I have still failed to see any evidence supporting meat pupperty either. All I have seen is POV that claims I created the account at the behest of Kmaquir1 to circumvent the three-R rule. I've easily refuted this, simply saying that I created the account out of my outrage at the tyrannical censorship that was taking place in the article and my agreeance with Kmaquir1 on the issue that it had to stop. It rests upon to you prove I did not post of my own volition, a task, I might add, that is considerably daunting. Take off the tinted glasses you are seeing issues through, you'll find things to be alot clearer. -Truthseekers 16:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think meatpuppetry is defined as you posting against your volition. If the effect of your earliest postings are to insert material that another user cannot because of the 3RR, then you were in effect a meat puppet. At least that's how I understand the use of the term here. Others who've been around longer can clarify. In any case, Truthseekers, you can read WP:SOCK and see for yourself what is and what is not allowed here. Again: although you began your tenure here as a meatpuppet, one can hope that you will become your own person. Your most recent edits seem to show this, which is why I have advised that we cut you a break. You might at this point also read WP:CIVILITY. Might help ensure that others cut you a break as well. That's all for today.--Anthony Krupp 16:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Even if this is a case of meatpuppetry rather than sockpuppetry, the behavior (even if collaborative) was clearly intended to try to perform an action that would otherwise be prohibited and sanctioned. As I comment on another talk page, meatpuppetry doesn't mean absence of volition, but simply collusion to a bad purpose. LotLE×talk 17:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Then prove it. I joined to post about facts that you didn't like. That's as much as you've got to run on. also, the added "proof" adds nothing to your care. As one who is unbiased can surmise, myself and Kmaquir1 were checking up on each other's pages while the accusations from the volitile Lulu flew. It's also not hard to fathom that I carelessly edited my page, unknowing of the rule, seeing as Lulu began his sladerous attacks within 5 minutes of me joining the boards. However the evidence may have appeard to Lulu, one fact is sure: Lulu of the Lotus Eaters was rude and slanderous to a new member within 5 minutes of me joining the boards, and did so off of shakey evidence at the mercy of his own emotions. -Truthseekers 20:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Accountability

Lulu called Truthseekers a sockpuppet. She initiated an investigation in furtherance of this--so SHE has to deal with that. She should be penalized for falsely calling him a sockpuppet, for so maligning the both of us. And you can already see she is beginning to backslide--that she admits the possibility of meatpuppetry, etc. No, no. She initiated a sockpuppetry, so she believes sockpuppetry. Let's not discuss here, or elsewhere, meatpuppetry, until we've dismissed Lulu's charge of sockpuppetry. Period. She can't backslide from her original stance, she has to be held accountable. -Kmaguir1 19:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you have no sense of accountability for your own actions? If you have no sockpuppet, then the tag will come down, and in the future perhaps you will avoid behaviours that look like sock or meat puppetry. You're wasting so much of everyone's time. Tiresome. Just read and reread WP:CONSENSUS and the other rules and guidelines, then edit. Focus on content, not on people. See you on the talk pages.--Anthony Krupp 20:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I raised the accountability issue here.-Kmaguir1 20:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I will take that as a no.--Anthony Krupp 12:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruling

There has already been a ruling and a small punitive action has been taken against my friend, Kmaquir1. However, no punative action has been taken against me and the ruling appears to acknowledge that I am no sock puppet. Since there has already been a ruling, I expect the acusations from Lulu and others to cease immediatly. Should further slander continue, I'm sure Wikipedia offers some solution against personal attack, as that's what such maliciousness would be. -Truthseekers 22:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

There has not, of course, actually been any action taken on this sockpuppet violation at this time. Kmaguir1 did receive a rather smaller 3RR block than he earned, but the Truthseekers account was left unblocked in the meanwhile. Hopefully a more substantial block of both accounts can happen. LotLE×talk 22:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
"User:Kmaguir1 and sock-puppet User:Truthseekers reported by User:LotLE×talk (Result: User:Kmaguir1 blocked for 24hrs)". taken directly from the Wikipedia Administrator's message board. Must I remind you of the personal attack policy? I'm sure it's against the spirit of Wikipedia for someone to continually and endlessly accuse other users, as you seem to enjoy doing. -Truthseekers 22:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
This encyclopedia

Please see my statements about Son's claims on the Michel Foucault talk page. I support blocking him for as long as an admin feels justified. That sort of hyperbole, it's disastrous. And frankly, I'm insulted someone would call him my sock. N oevidence would exist for this, naturally. -Kmaguir1 07:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Lulu says the last edits Son made were in December--I hadn't made an edit on wikipedia on this time--how is she claiming this occurred? -Kmaguir1 07:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I mean, I would think we don't have the same IP address, although some fraternity houses share this IP, I doubt it was them. Just again, I want to iterate my disgust with those comments. Pure unmitigated disgust. -Kmaguir1 07:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Lulu appears to have a vivid imagination, one that spills over and disrupts Wikipedia, apparently. -Truthseekers 11:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

RFCU came back possible, as well as another sock. Both [Truthseekers and another one] have been blocked. Iolakana|T 13:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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:Jebise

Evidence
  • User:JebiseReturns is a sockpuppet of Jebise, a banned user, as is evident by his/her new username.
  • Edits such as this [122] to Jebise's user page further support my accusation
Comments

User has been blocked. Iolakana|T 13:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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:Copperchair

Evidence

Copperchair/Esaborio/Varese Sarabande and his various IPs are back. He doesn't even try to hide it; as he keeps going back to the same articles to edit after he is banned.

See also: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Copperchair, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Copperchair (2nd), Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Copperchair (3rd)

PBP 14:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

I don't know what PBP is talking about. SPECTRE 16:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

On the one hand, the account was created very soon after Varese Sarabande was banned, he has edited the same variety of articles as the above socks, and he is making a lot of the same edits (dropping "Cold War" from the World War III article, removing mentions of the Iraq War as being part of the War on Terrorism, updating casualty counts on War on Terrorism pages). He shares the above socks' misunderstanding of the definition of "hypothetical." He also doesn't seem to have the editing pattern of a newbie; he's been editing a lot, using edit summaries, and making edits to templates and talk pages. That seems like the mark of an experienced editor. On the other hand, his attitude seems somewhat different from the other socks. I would consider it likely that SPECTRE is another sock of Copperchair, attempting to act a little different so that he's not caught and banned so quickly. What, exactly, can be done about this situation? Right after Copperchair's latest sock is banned, he creates a new account. It's a real problem, and simply banning the individual accounts doesn't seem to cut it, especially since he seems to be trying to learn to evade detection. TomTheHand 19:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

He seems to be trying to hide his edits. For example, here he acts like he's reformatting Template:War on Terrorism to look more like the World War templates, but he actually removes the Iraq War. If this is Copperchair he's gotten far more sneaky. He does it again here, never mentioning that he's removing the Iraq War, only acting like he's reformatting the template. Here he acts like he agrees with me about removing the word "future" from the opening sentence ("World War Three is a term used to describe a hypothetical [future] conflict on the scale of World War II or larger."). However, he states that this is because it could be a current conflict (the War on Terrorism) and shows the same misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "hypothetical," then goes on to remove the Cold War template, Copperchair's other favorite edit. TomTheHand 19:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm adding User:Larry Lawrence to this request. Based on the user's edit history they were created on June 26 and immediately started making similar edits to the pages Copperchair/Esaborio/Varese Sarabande made. --Bobblehead 19:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The only similarity I really see is removing War on Terrorism from the Iraq War page, and he's been doing it since well before Esaborio was banned. I sort of look at Copperchair as someone who refuses to obey his ban and works to circumvent it, not really as a puppetmaster. TomTheHand 19:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. Could be true. Perhaps it was just the odd timing of Larry's return right after Varese Sarabande got banned that triggered the connection. Just seems odd that since the account was created aside from a few edits the account's contribution has been to push the same POV as Esaborio. Perhaps WP:RFCU would be a better place for me to go. --Bobblehead 20:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that a CheckUser comparing Larry and Spectre to Esaborio and Varese Sarabande would be a great idea. I requested a CheckUser for Esaborio to Copperchair, but Copperchair's edits are too old. Esaborio and Varese should be plenty new enough. TomTheHand 20:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Looks like Spectre already got banned, but I did file a request for Larry. Just added Spectre to the list of accounts Copperchair has been banned for.

Would it be possible for an admin to add Spectre, Varese Sarabande, and 190.10.0.36 to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Copperchair#Documentation of bans so all of this is documented in one place? TomTheHand 21:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, is there a way to prevent him from simply registering another user name and returning to his routine? TomTheHand 21:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Copperchair has another sockpuppet, User:Tony Camonte, making the exact same edits. I'm posting here even though User:SPECTRE is already banned because I don't want to keep clogging up the place with more cases and this one was still open. Can something be done to keep him from just registering a new name every day? Blocking/banning seems to be pretty much entirely ineffective. TomTheHand 19:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Here are some specifics:

  1. Tony Camonte makes Copperchair's favorite edit to World War III here. This is done by 190.10.0.36 here and here, by SPECTRE and 190.10.0.36 working together here, by Varese here, here, and here, by 201.199.77.202 here and here, and by Esaborio here and here among many others.
  2. Tony reverts Template:War on Terrorism to SPECTRE's last version here. SPECTRE, in turn, was reverting the article to 190.10.0.36's version (First example here). 190.10.0.36 was reverting to Varese's last version here and essentially Esaborio's last version here.
  3. Compare Tony's edit to War on Terrorism here to Spectre's here, 190.10.0.36's here, Varese's here, and Esaborio's here.
  4. Compare Tony's edit to War on Terrorism: Allies here with SPECTRE here, 190.10.0.36 here, and Varese here. The page was created after Esaborio's ban, so no comparisons are available to him.
  5. Compare Tony's edit to War on Terrorism - Theaters of operation here with 190.10.0.36's here, Varese's here, and Esaborio's here.

I think that should be sufficient evidence. Tony has now been blocked, but again, a long-term solution would be really helpful. TomTheHand 20:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well... there are currently two RFCU up at the page. All we can do is wait and see if they are related or the same. Only Larry remains not blocked. Iolakana|T 12:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I have added and listen all the block on the arbitration page. Iolakana|T 12:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to provide a couple of diffs comparing Esaborio to Copperchair. Some evidence is already available at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Copperchair, but more couldn't hurt. Note that Esaborio was undetected for four and a half months, so while it's possible to connect Esaborio with Copperchair by comparing Copperchair's last edits with Esaborio's first ones, it's difficult/impossible to connect Copperchair directly to the rest of the socks because they were created so long after Copperchair's ban.
I feel the need to provide this because Esaborio and the socks have always denied being Copperchair. By comparison, Esaborio admitted to being 201.199.77.202 and Varese Sarabande actually signed his posts as "Esaborio." The later socks no longer openly admit to being Esaborio, and attempt to hide their edits, but because they make the exact same edits I think the connection is obvious.

  1. Copperchair's final edits before his ban were updating IMDB rankings on Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi here and here; Esaborio's first edits four days later is to do the exact same thing here and here.
  2. Compare Copperchair's last edit to War on Terrorism here with Esaborio's first edit here; they are separated by five months but are strikingly similar.

I believe the most obvious evidence of the Esaborio/Copperchair connection is where Esaborio copies Copperchair's user page here; he makes some changes to the content in the middle, but it begins and ends the same and actually still links to Copperchair's talk page. I find it hard to believe that Esaborio would come upon a user's page three months after that user is banned and decide to copy it. TomTheHand 14:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Why are we still discussing Esaborio here? The user has been blocked. Iolakana|T 18:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I was attempting to tie all of the users together. Sometimes the socks have admitted to being each other, but they're always denied that they are Copperchair; I thought it would be a good idea to put together a little bit more evidence that they are Copperchair, and the only way to do that is through Esaborio. TomTheHand 18:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
At this point Esaborio has already blocked and banned as a sockpuppet of Copperchair, so the tying has already been done. The user has not done anything beyond claiming in edit summaries and on Verese's talk page that they are not Copperchair and has not attempted to appeal the ruling that Esaborio is a sockpuppet. So building up evidence against Esaborio is kind of like trying to prove that a guy already in prison is guilty. :) If you want to build up evidence just in case they appeal their ties to Copperchair, you could do so in your user space? On the other hand, by not appealing the ban and instead creating multiple sockpuppets to continue their disruption they've violated Wikipolicy and are subject to being blocked even if they aren't Copperchair.. Kind of like breaking into houses to prove that you haven't broken into any houses. --Bobblehead 19:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
You're right. I apologize. TomTheHand 20:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Is there any solution that can possibly work to stop this user from continually making new accounts? ~Rangeley (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we may have another sock puppet, [123], note the very similar form in edit comments, even down to the misuse of the comma as a period. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The above user does look like a sock puppet of Larry Lawrence, but not of Copperchair. TomTheHand 20:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I've gone and struckthrough Larry. I don't think he's a puppet of Copperchair, but rather a puppetmaster. I've also created a suspected sock puppet report for Larry Lawrence --Bobblehead 21:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I am just going to close this now, as the user have been blocked. There is a current, more active, SSP about Larry near the top of thew SSP page (as of today). No further edits should be made to this page. Iolakana|T 12:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

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.

Zinedine231

Known accounts

Comments I put in a checkuser request to get other accounts. These are known accounts. It's blatant vandalism. Two accounts have been banned based on vandalism alone.

This particular vandal likes to keep hitting Mira Costa High School, Robert Spencer and Michelle Malkin. His trademark seems to be referencing people to pornography and the use of racial slurs, particularly "kike". Two of the accounts have been banned permanently even with checkuser. I believe all of the edits are from the same person since the pages and similiarity of edits are identical. I believe he probably has many more. --Tbeatty 06:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't create two cases: one on RFCU and one here; it is not needed. Accounts have been blocked. Iolakana|T 11:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
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. 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.

Matthvm

Summary

Matthvm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a user who has been indefinitely blocked for making persistent legal threats after being warned (and blocked 3 times before) for civility. He has several suspected sockpuppets, at least two of which were in place before his block, and, among other things, were used to back each other up on AFDs. Only Matthvm and one sock has been blocked.

Parties Involved

The two original sockpuppets were:

The following sockpuppets have came up since the block:

Complaint

Although I had suspected sockpuppetry as early as June, the first recorded complaint was on the Talk:Halifax Regional Municipality, Nova Scotia page by User:Saforrest, and more examples can be found on that page.

All 5 share the same interests: mostly Nova Scotia-related topics, particularly geography and transportation. Edit wars have ensued between me and this group over highway articles such as Nova Scotia Highway 102 and Nova Scotia Highway 111, and among other people over articles such as Halifax Regional Municipality, Nova Scotia. They are known for egregious spelling and grammar errors, and lack of civility.

Other idiosyncracies:

  • Each of the original three voted in two AFDs: Needs Convenience and Lawtons. All three voted keep. Jwalker2006's 6th edit was to the Needs AFD.
  • Matthvm was perma-blocked for making legal threats on July 15, the same day 20060715 showed up to continue the argument on Talk:Halifax Regional Municipality, Nova Scotia.
  • Both 20060706 and Compaquser demanded the sockpuppet notice be taken off their user pages this week, and 20060706 also made an edit to Matthvm's user page today.
  • Compaquser was auto-blocked last night for having the same IP as Matthvm, but was reinstated after he complained.

Kirjtc2 20:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Investigation

The evidence pages for the sockpuppets are not well formed, they all point to a talk page with a number of allegations, but not presented in a well structured manner. I asked that this be corrected but it hasn't yet been. Nevertheless I carried out an investigation of patterns of articles edited, the phrasing used, the interdependent editing, timing of edits and so forth and based on that evidence, even absent a Checkuser, I conclused all of the users listed above are sockpuppets of blocked user user:Matthvm. I have blocked them all and will be changing their tagging to confirmed, and adding a puppetmaster tag to blocked user user:Matthvm. Please advise of any questions or concerns. ++Lar: t/c 11:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the evidence pages; I've been offline for the last couple of days. (Incidentally, I also think that Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets needs to be more prominently linked from WP:SOCK, since I didn't find the former page when I was initially trying to figure out what to do.) --Saforrest 12:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

User have been blocked. Iolakana|T 16:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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. 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:Pnatt

Evidence

The contributions of User:NHLfan have precisely the same pattern as those of User:Pnatt, and his more recent sockpuppet User:Peterpansyndrome, especially this revert at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling). See my comment at ANI here.

Comments
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. 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:JaysCyYoung

Evidence
  • User:Stukov and User:JaysCyYoung began contributing within two days of each other and both make corrections almost identical in tone and pattern for pages of Toronto Maple Leafs players and other hockey players, sometimes within minutes of each other.[124][125]
  • User:Stukov has made cosmetic corrections and additions to User:JaysCyYoung's user page. Unless the users know each other well I find it odd that User:Stukov could make edits to User:JaysCyYoung page that were acceptable to the latter's page.[126]
  • User:Stukov created the page Black Cop and both users made corrections to the page almost identical in tone and pattern within minutes of each other.[127] When the page was nominated for deletion, User:JaysCyYoung's "vote" may have helped sway the decision for no consensus.[128]
Comments
  • Yeah, okay. Just because we know each other in real life doesn't make us "sock puppets". We both appreciate hockey and are fans of the Toronto Maple Leafs. I mean god forbid we have common interests right? Sorry you don't like the fact that Black Cop survived the vote, but that doesn't mean you can throw around baseless accusations. --Stukov 05:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm actually a little insulted that this user thinks that we are one and the same. Apparently I have enough time to sign in and sign out in order to make edits to pages I have an interest in. Here's an interesting question I want Mrblondnyc to answer: why would I sign into one account to make edits on a Leafs page and then sign into another account to make edits I could have made on the first account? That makes no sense. In short, you are being obsessive and a little paranoid by focusing so much on me. I realize that I am awesome and all, but still -- this is not healthy. JaysCyYoung 06:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Your common interests are hockey... and Black Cops? And you just happen to edit the same pages within minutes of each other? Like this one? OK sure. Why would you do this? I don't know. But it's been known to happen which is why the sockpuppet page exists. That's something you may need to ask yourself. No I don't like the Black Cop page but I've made numerous additions to the page to help you out. Oh I mean the both of you. - MrBlondNYC 07:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Just thought I should mention that JaysCyYoung has removed the message regarding this debate from his talk page, calling it vandalism.--Drat (Talk) 11:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The fact of the matter is that we're two different people. I really have no worries about the matter since there cannot be any concrete evidence to support this since it's NOT TRUE. Are we simply going to call every wikipedian who knows each other in real life sock puppets? Give me a break. You can't prove this and you know it. This whole "proceeding" is a joke. --Stukov 14:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Mrblondnyc, you are welcome to take this to WP:RFCU, if you have firmer evidence. Iolakana|T

Go ahead and check our IP address. Once again, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that we are the same person. This is personal defamation and is a person attack on the character of each of us. We are both Leafs fans and have made extensive improvements to the player articles on the team page. I generally write information or provide statistics on the player and Alexei is particularly adept at font layout and adding pictures, making boxes and charts, etc.

Furthermore, my vote on the Black Cop page was in support of something I've seen time and time again in movies. I've also edited pages which Stukov has contributed in when I think that he has been wrong. You have no case and you're launching a personal attack on myself, something that I don't appreciate. Why am I being singled out when I have been long-time contributor and a valuable member on Wikipedia? Because I have different views? This is ridiculous. And I never threatened legal action, lol.JaysCyYoung 19:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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:NCC17

Puppet master: NCC17 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Puppet list:

Evidence

NCC17 has engaged in an editwar in the article AC/DC on the links which should be included in the external links section. I protected the article, and almost immediately NCC17 votes in the poll which I opened as well, as well as some users who had never edited Wikipedia; which seemed strange to me. Soon afterwards, a number of new editors followed which had no more than 3 or 4 edits (and only on AC/DC, just like NCC17).—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 11:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments
  • I have been observing the AC/DC edit war as the article appears quite frequently in my VandalProof watch window. I have also noticed the voting discrepency as described by SoothingR and was actually going to request a check user myself(but he beat me to it). Anger22 11:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Very likely that he is using sockpuppets now. I have removed the comments (really "votes") by the sockpuppets. Blocked the master for a short period of time, until consensus is reached on the talk page. Iolakana|T 16:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
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. 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:Hypertime McMultiverse

Evidence

These all seem to be sockpuppets of Hypertime McMultiverse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as each has made the same (picture-vandalizing edit) that he made.

And his IP address:

However, there may be more, and the user claims to be able to change IP address. Is there any way to block all IP addresses from this user's computer? JianLi 04:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Obvious sockpuppets, including the IP address. All of them have been blocked. Iolakana|T 14:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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. 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:Copperchair

Evidence

Copperchair/Esaborio/Varese Sarabande seems to be back and using the IP address 190.10.0.36. He is more disruptive than before and has been blocked twice for 3RR within the past few days. I've looked at his contribs and the IP really looks like it's only been used by the above user, even before the ban. I'm not sure what the procedure is on blocking IPs but it would be helpful if something could be done.

See also: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Copperchair, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Copperchair (2nd)

TomTheHand 13:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

IP has been blocked. Iolakana|T 13:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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. 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:Parsssseltongue

Evidence

User:Dain Quentin Gore has only one edit, a "strong keep" vote at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ryan_avery, an issue near and dear to User:Parsssseltongue's heart. Not only did Gore feel so strongly about the issue that he voted "strong" keep, he also felt the need to defend Parsssseltongue's practice of arguing with every "delete" vote, which I and others had criticized PT for. —Chowbok 14:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments
  • First, I support PT's right to argue every vote - that's what AfD is for - discussion (voting is secondary). I expressed this support in this same AfD before Dain's edit, and this may have influenced his writing - but maybe I'm another of his sock puppet's too? even though I generally disagree with his opinions. Second, I wish more editors would take the time to research their cases the way PT does. He does a good job of it, though I disagree with his conclusions. He's an inclusionist, and I'm not. Third, I think the evidence above is exceedingly weak. Indeed, if this was accepted as evidence, then expect to see a rash of new users parroting dissenters in order to discredit them. I do support diligent investigation of this matter (as I would any such claim), but once that is done, and if this is the best or only evidence, then the matter should be dropped. Rklawton 15:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This is outrageous! First, a quick look on google turns up an artist of the name Dain Quentin Gore who seems like a guy that might be interested in this subject. I might point out that from time to time people do actually read the articles on wikipedia. If said people see that something of interest to them is up for deletion they might choose to enter the debate. Second, I've been keeping a bit of an eye on PT since I welcomed him many month's ago and his pages first entered my watchlist. This isn't the first time that an article of his has landed in AfD, and yes, he does always vigorously defend them. Sometimes I've supported him, sometimes I've voted the other way, sometimes I've stayed out of the debate. I can tell you this much, from what I've seen, he has always played by the rules. Then agian maybe I'm a puppet too. As noted above, this matter should be settled quickly and dropped. -MrFizyx 16:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Dain Gore is a Phoenix area artist who is friends with the subject of an article I originated. I am not Dain Gore. This is the third time I have been accused of being someone else (though the first time I have been accused of being a sockpuppeteer), and it is the third time I am here to say, "Nope, I'm not him/her." I write on a lot of Phoenix area subjects, am I going to be accused every time if one of those articles comes up for deletion? PT (s-s-s-s) 17:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It's pretty weak evidence to be accusing someone on. PT seems perfectly content to discuss the matter under his own name. (And there's nothing wrong with arguing with every delete vote -- which he didn't do, anyway.) I obviously don't agree with him about this particular article, but he's been civil and aboveboard, and he and Dain have offered a more compelling defense than most AfDs get. Shimeru 19:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. The comments here have convinced me I was too hasty posting this. —Chowbok 20:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Dismissed: Insufficient evidence. Iolakana|T 12:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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. 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:Copperchair

User:Copperchair was banned in March, and was declared to have been using user:Esaborio as a sockpuppet here. User:Varese Sarabande registered while Esaborio was being acccused of sockpuppetry and began making many edits on August 1 and later August 3, days after Esaborio was blocked. These were on the same topics as Esaborio and Copperchair, namely, the War on Terror and Star Wars. When I asked him if he was Esaborio or Copperchair, he told me he was indeed Esaborio. PBP 15:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Also note this edit, where Varese Sarabande signs his post as Esaborio. TomTheHand 17:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
User has been blocked. Iolakana|T 18:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
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. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:64.7.136.166

Evidence

I believe User:Waterwheel is a sock puppet for User:64.7.136.166. I posted several references to suspected off-wiki harassment by user 64.7.136.166 on the talk page Actuarial Outpost. This user systematically deleted all references to this case 3 times in 24 hours, as can be seen here, here, and here. When I warned this user that he was on the verge of violating the WP:3RR policy, User:Waterwheel picked up where 64.7.136.166 left off, as you can see here.

User:Waterwheel has a very limited list of edits, all of which are related to Actuarial Outpost and support the view of 64.7.136.166. Further, this account was inactive since May 22, and suddenly began editing again right after the 3RR warning to 64.7.136.166. Thus, I suspect User:Waterwheel is a sock puppet for User:64.7.136.166, and is being used to try to get around WP:3RR. SkipSmith 05:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

In this, I beleive I have to concur with SkipSmith, barring a checkuser. -- Avi 17:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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. 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:Kshatriya knight

Evidence
Comments
  • Creating a sockpuppet to give oneself a barnstar is, for lack of a better word, lame. Creating a sock puppet to give oneself a barnstar "for being the defender of truth" can be found floating several kilometres above the height of hypocrisy. You'll run into the corpse of irony on your way up. SiflOlly 22:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah it was pretty lame :P, but it didnt really say that you couldnt post a barnstar for yourself and it made the image of the defender of truth look betta. its been taken off and now i know how sad it was lol

Not sockpuppets; possible just logged out. Iolakana|T 19:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Archive/August_2006&oldid=123572230"