Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Archive/July 2007

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:Rlest

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Rlest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

86.148.190.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Kurt Weber 15:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Rlest has recently been making incivil and insulting remarks to several users, including User:Miranda and User:Kmweber (see [1]) and was finally blocked for an incivil edit summary on User talk:Miranda (the edit: [2], and the block notice: [3]). He then proceeded to continue to edit his own talk page, leaving uncivil edit summaries on his own talk page ([4]) until it was finally protected.

Approximately two hours after all of this, the aforementioned anon made these edits ([5] and [6]) to the talk pages of, respectively, Miranda and Kmweber. After he was warned about this, he repeatedly blanked his talk page with edit summaries that were clearly personal attacks on Miranda ([7]) until he was blocked by User:Deskana.

The fact that the anon's incivil talk page remarks were to Kmweber and Miranda, and that the only connection between the two of them is that Rlest had been upset with both of them over the past couple of days, leads me to believe that this is Rlest simply trying to evade his 24-hr. block.

Comments

Would add that the only edits of the IP editor were those mentioned above. JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 16:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to mention that Qst (talk · contribs · block log), his previous account indulged in the exact same behavior after a similar incident of a meltdown. --MichaelLinnear
- Yes I know. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

That does appear to be Rlest and is consistent with previous enquires concerning whether he was also Molag Bal. I have extended the block to match Rlest's. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:MERVYNKING

Suspected sockpuppeteer

MERVYNKING (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

PELE BUXTON (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

—Mrand ^T-C 03:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Special:Contributions/PELE BUXTON performed his first edit less than three minutes after User talk:MERVYNKING was indefinitely blocked. Edits are of the same vein: adding nonsense nicknames or other misc unverifiable information to articles, mostly biographies. Often the edits directly or indirectly insult the target of the biography.

Example Pele Buxton edits: [8] [9]

Example MERVYNKING edits: [10] [11]

Comments

I waited to report this in the hopes that it had died down, but after taking over a week off, he has started back up. —Mrand ^T-C 03:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Probably a sock, definitely a vandalism-only account. Blocked indefinitely. MastCell ^Talk 19:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Gaspan

~~Suspected~~ confessed sockpuppeteer

Monopoly123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

~~Suspected~~ avowed sockpuppets

Gaspan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Easypeasy12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
WIKIERthanU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Update: All of the below is moot; the user, as User:Monopoly123 confessed, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goof Ball. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All timestamps give are UTC.

Very cut and dry sockpuppetry in an ongoing AfD:

Gaspan (talk · contribs) creates questionable article, at 22:14, 24 July 2007 (article is presently at Goof ball, was Goof Ball)
Knowing it is questionable, Gaspan very poorly sockpuppets supporting comments onto the new articles' talk page, at 14:08, 25 July 2007, not realizing that edit summary will show that he posted this himself
Admin Fuhghettaboutit nominates the article for deletion, 22:08, 25 July 2007
This WP:NFT article is sent to AfD, 22:12, 25 July 2007 (WP:AFD page is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goof Ball)
Author, Gaspan (talk · contribs) shows up at 23:31, 25 July 2007
Shortly thereafter in the wee hours of the UTC-night, alleged other user, Easypeasy12 (talk · contribs), a new account arrives out of no where, at 02:23, 27 July 2007. Note the similar writing pattern:

Gaspan: "...about this new growing sport..."
Easypeasy12: "...about this new sport!"

Significance: Extremely evidentiary, as virtually no one calls pool games "sports" in day-to-day English, outside the professional, industry context

Some time passes and then all of sudden, a very new account shows up, WIKIERthanU (talk · contribs), at 01:41, 29 July 2007. Same whiny tone, and writingn pattern; note especially:

Gaspan: 'I never herd of the billiard game Goof Ball, but...'
WIKIERthanU: 'Though I've never even heard of a game called "Goof Ball"...'

— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Pretty obvious, really. Use checkuser if necessary I guess. The odds of these being different IP addresses are about nil. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

User:Gaspan, User:Easypeasy12 and User:WIKIERthanU are the same individual.Proabivouac 06:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And same as User:Monopoly123, all per confession at AfD. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All accounts tagged and blocked indefinitely. MastCell ^Talk 19:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Alterego269

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Alterego269 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

68.88.73.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.88.197.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.88.207.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Spylab 13:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Their edit histories show a very similar pattern, such as typing edit notes in caps, making personal attacks and focusing on topics suck as band lineups.

Comments

User:Alterego269 is using these sock puppets as a way to evade a block for personal attacks and disruption. There may be more IPs, but these are the only ones I've noticed so far.

Just ran a WHOIS and both IPs are from Dallas, Texas. --Chris ^g 14:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And they're also from the same ISP. --Chris ^g 14:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

It appears to be a dynamic IP being used by Alterego to evade his block. I've extended Alterego's block to indefinite for ongoing block evasion. I've blocked the most recently used IP for 24 hours, but he will undoubtedly switch to a new one and return. The best approach is to revert and report on sight, and request semiprotection of target pages, which will prevent IP's from editing. MastCell ^Talk 19:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:HAPPY BIRTHDAY ANY ADDMINISTRATOR THAT HAS ONE TODAY!

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Suspected sockpuppets: HAPPY BIRTHDAY ANY ADDMINISTRATOR THAT HAS ONE TODAY! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

=David^(talk)_(contribs) 01:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

S/he admits to being a sockpuppet on both the user and talk pages.

Comments

~~Possibly User:CIyde. He uses this type of vandalism. Miranda 02:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Conclusions

Confirmed It's CIyde/Encyclopedist, and the user is blocked indef. Miranda 09:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:SEGA

Suspected sockpuppeteer

SEGA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

SabbathForever2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
RunLikeAnAntelope (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

edgarde ☺ ★ 19:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

New account SabbathForever2007 immediately began editing with typical SEGA obsessions

altering Black Sabbath credits contrary to consensus and WP:ALBUM, despite warning[12]
uploading album art (previously copyvio, now may be legal as claimed)
obsessed with Geoff Nicholls, [13] demoting Nicholls on Black Sabbath pages listing him in Credits/Personnel section

Confirmed SEGA socks with similar behavior:

Rumitoid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

OneLove1977 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Requested on user's talk page he stop these edits. Initial replies were typical refusals, but after being reported to WP:AN/I,[14] said he would stop changing formatting here (note aggressive Talk page style, another SEGA trait), while continuing to upload art (apparently with correct copyright tags).

Has since reneged on format changes, resuming campaign[15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. This campaign makes regular cleanup work for WP:ALBUM and watchers of those pages.

Has deleted {{Sockpuppet}} template and categories from User page a couple times, with Edit summary: "Rolled back vandalism by User:Edgarde". Has not denied being the banned user.

RunLikeAnAntelope resumes the work of former SEGA socks for the band Phish. Apparently on good behavior; offense may be limited to sockpuppetry evading block.

Comments

Conclusions

RunLikeAnAntelope is definitely Sega, and as checkuser confirms that Steph11 is the same user, that one has been blocked as well. SabbathForever2007 also shows SEGA's characteristic interests and aggression. Socks have been blocked, in the process of cleanup of images/edits/creations per WP:BAN. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Eurovoicecritic

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Eurovoicecritic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Euromedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

MartinBrook t 12:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Identical POV edits to European Voice article. User creation log shows creation of User:Euromedia by User:Eurovoicecritic.

Comments

Apologies if I am not reporting this in the correct manner.

Conclusions

Yes, and as both accounts have been used in tandem to insert the same material (which, incidentally, violates a number of policies in its own right), I've indef-blocked the sock account and given 48 hours to the sockmaster. MastCell ^Talk 18:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:DariusJersey

Suspected sockpuppeteer

DariusJersey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

RichardColgate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
CathyTurpin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Daverotherham 17:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence RichardColgate, despite being unknown to rival political activists in Jersey, creates and edits articles, and contributes to talk pages relating to Jersey politics, and especially matters relating to the Progress Jersey group, or promoting the notion that all minor parish and ward functionaries are notable politicians. He displays a great deal of inside information, and has a very similar style to Darius's own in Talk page discussions, as does CathyTurpin: Particular signifiers are the avoidance of commas betwen clauses of a sentence, although not items of a list, and the mismatch between the superficially erudite tone and the erratic spellings, e.g. concensus and inconsequent syntax. However,although Darius writes to the local paper and sends circulars in the same style, Richard only writes on Wikipedia. His personal details, as listed on his User page are similar to Darius's in all the major details. He has no trace of any other internet activies on Google. Darius, on the other hand is revealed by Google and Yahoo! to be an online gamer, presumably used to operating fictional personae.

RichardColgate has created a suite of non-notable pages of no useful or encyclopaedic content, but name checking Darius and cronies: Daren O'Toole created 12-8-'06 Richard Bisson ditto Roads Inspectors created 29-8'06 RichardColgate has also done most of the development of the entry Darius J Pearce that DariusJersey cheekily and unethically created on himself, right up to the past few days. He contributes to the more useful and notable pages on Progress Jersey, Centre Party (Jersey) and [[Jersey Democratic Alliance], but makes comments Darius would have done, without being seen to be him. RichardColgate made several contributions, and CathyTurpin one, to the deletion review on Darius J Pearce, without declaring any link, although complaining of my own declared partisanship. He also contributed clandestinely to the deletion review on Darius Pearce, the previous article deleted for non-notability on Darius. Both RichardColgate and DariusJersey have contribution histories cut off at the start of May 2006, with no earlier edits available for examination, although they both seem to have been already experienced administrators at that point. Richard's contribution 05:31 10 July 2007 Talk:Conservative liberalism is a re-ordering, but still in Darius's style, of Darius's recent declaration as a Liberal Conservative. I am not sure if it is in the public domain, but he circulated it widely. Richard's contribution 22:19 5 July 2007 User talk:Daverotherham drawing my attention to a good faith edit of his concerning a party colleague of mine is very similar to DariusJersey's of 05:49 4 September 2006 Although Richard accuses me of playing party political games on Wikipedia, it should be noted that his first action in this field was 02:57 2 May 2006 Jersey Democratic Alliance where he proposed deleting the entry on our party for not bothering to update our election website after the election. He continues to be mischievous, most recently by demanding a higher level of citations on the JDA entry 03:52 13 July 2007 Jersey Democratic Alliance than the example he sets on his own CP(J) entry 03:43 13 July 2007 Centre Party (Jersey). This latter edit also provides further evidence of dishonesty by now citing Paul le Claire as party leader, contrary to his claim in the deletion debate for Darius J Pearce, and in other complaints about me, that the latter is the leader. CathyTurpin's contrib 02:57 4 July 2007 Wikipedia:Deletion Review/log/2007 July 3 shows the identical idiosyncratic punctuation and spelling - "concensus" - to RichardColgate, and given the same interests, is highly probable to be the work of the same writer. I am openly a member of a rival party, so I need neutrals to rigorously check this, lest I be suspected of malicious accusations. User:RichardColgate and User:CathyTurpin are almost certainly sockpuppets, and at the very best extremely compliant meatpuppets, who do not even edit the material they are told to post for spelling and grammar. The puppeteer is Darius J Pearce aka User:DariusJersey, dominant intellectual, although not official leader, of the Centre Party (Jersey) and Progress Jersey, and veteran online gamer.

Comments

Conclusions

I'm sorry, I don't see enough here to conclude that these are sockpuppets. Given some of your allegations above, it may be worth taking this to the conflict-of-interest noticeboard, but I can't conclusively say there's any sockpuppetry afoot on the above evidence. You could also consider Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser if the accounts have been used abusively. MastCell ^Talk 16:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Bouha

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Bouha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Drmaik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Irrer 14:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[[20]]

User Drmaik replied to an explanation I wrote for Bouha, at her/his request. Drmaik mistakenly signed his/her retort as Drmaik then quickly changed the signature to Bouha, while simultaneously changing some words in an attempt to mask the changing of signatures.

Bouha is editing under two accounts, the second of which is Drmail.

It seems to me, at least at first glance, that these two accounts are editing different areas of the project, and aren't violating WP:SOCK -- anybody else have an opinion, on that? Am I missing something? – Luna Santin (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reporter, IRRER is a sockpuppet of an indefinately banned vandal originally appearing as MARIAM83 and now under multiple other handles. I have not noticed any particular sign that Drmaik and Bouha are the same, other than that one edit that might have been an error or might not..., but regardless the MARIAM83 has a particularly paranoid and vicious streak so I would not give this much credence. collounsbury 17:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Collounsbury, a longtime contributor much like Drmaik/Bouha, is also, much like Drmaik/Bouha, British, Christian and particularly intent on editing articles about Arab/Muslim countries that both are clearly unfamiliar with, not only because of background/origins, but mainly because they are obviously not experts in the area. Collounsbury, as usual, overlooks evidence if it does not corroborate his POV "beliefs." Fact, as the above link demonstrates, Drmaik is Bouha, and as Drmaik's ENTIRE history demonstrates, Drmaik has contributed to Bouha's special articles, which might explain why on Drmaik's talkpage, prior to this discovery, Mariam83 left a message about a deletion or reversion made to sourced and factual material. Nonetheless, in a fascist portal such as this one, I do not expect dedicated drones to be punished, nor do I much care if such fascist drones are. Sadly, what should matter, content, does not, and people like Collounsbury seem intent on its distortion, as is evidenced by his pov, unsourced edits, blindly imposed. OCD.

Of course, Bouha/Drmaik shouldn't be blocked, as he doesn't seem particularly malicious, though much like the rest, compromises accuracy and content with his unfamiliarity w/ certain topis. And as most of you probably have multiple accounts, and if not, manipulate the system in a way that elicits "consensus" rather artifically, this is pointless, but I just wanted to prove how flagrant wikimania hypocrisy is.

Conclusions

Closing. The accuser is now indef-blocked as an abusive sockpuppet of a banned user, and seems to be admitting that this is a frivolous case designed to make a point. MastCell ^Talk 16:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Jebbrady

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Jebbrady (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

69.115.162.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
67.80.157.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (Added by EdJohnston 22 July 2007; see note below)

Report submission by

Lisasmall 15:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Please compare 69.115.162.235's contributions to jebbrady's contributions.

Please also review Talk:Herbert W. Armstrong to see both identities in action, using identical arguments and language, posting aggressively in the same time frame but never actually overlapping in the same exact moment.

Please see User_talk:Jebbrady for his admission that he has previously been "blocked so rapidly by more than one administrator." Without making a judgment on the validity of those blocks or holding them against him in this complaint, this evidence of past blocks is offered here solely as a possible reason the sockpuppet has been used.

Please note that the majority of the "work" done by both identities is the reversion/deletion of work done by other editors. I did not do a reversion count; someone with more experience might be able to tell if justified fear of the 3RR rule might have inspired the creation of the puppet.

This user, by either name, is in violation of WP:OWN, WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY, WP:CIVIL, WP:SKILL, WP:NPA throughout Talk:Herbert W. Armstrong. Those violations are not the subject of this report. It is the behavior of both identities while violating the other policies which seems to prove they are controlled by the same individual. Similarities in conduct, vocabulary, syntax, timing, and the consistent POV expressed by both identities, prove they are the same individual.

Proof that this is not an innocent-though-repetitive "I forgot to log in" error but is actually intentional use of a sockpuppet is that not once during a multitude of opportunities on the Talk:Herbert W. Armstrong page does Jebbrady say anything like, "Oh, that's me, I just forgot to log in." He does nothing to clear up the manifest confusion among other editors about whether they are talking to one person or two.

"Proof" here means proved to my own satisfaction in reviewing the referenced documents. Someone else might have a lower or higher standard of proof. Examining other articles the two identities have "worked" on might, or might not, produce additional evidence.

Evidence added by User:EdJohnston: See another IP account employed by this same user at 67.80.157.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). This account was blocked for 31 hours on 4 March 2007 by User:Jossi for editing violations at Worldwide Church of God. A discussion of this event is still visible at User_talk:Jebbrady. The note in the block log is 'vandalism' and the unwanted changes consisted of blanking of some paragraphs critical of Herbert W. Armstrong, which this editor repeated three times, until blocked. EdJohnston 16:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Conclusions

Yes, they appear to be the same editor, pretty clearly. It may be as simple as forgetting to log in. However, in the absence of any explanation from Jebbrady, I have soft-blocked the IP for 1 week, which should encourage him to log in. If the IP again becomes a problem in terms of tag-teaming with the named account, I can block it for longer, but it appears to be a dynamic IP, so don't be surprised if another related IP pops up in the next few days. MastCell ^Talk 17:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Zephead999

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Zephead999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Zubt555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.182.85.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Pie76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Bsroiaadn^Talk 22:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Diff of edit by Zephead999
Diff of edit by Zubt555
Diff of talk page comment by 71.182.85.70 talking about how it shouldn't be mentioned in Rush article if it's not mentioned in the Led Zeppelin article, which the other two accounts did a lot.
Check the contributions of all ~~three~~ four as well, they all edit the same article and began after the last stopped.
Also, check these:
diff of edit by Zephead999
diff of edit by 71.182.92.118
diff of edit by Pie76

Comments

See also: Dragong4 (talk · contribs) and Zabrak (talk · contribs). Both are previously blocked account with very similar editing habits. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 156.34.142.110 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had tagged Zephead999 as a suspected sockpuppet of Dragong4, but Bsroiaadn removed it. Dancter 01:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Zephead999 and Pie76 were already indefinitely blocked for vandalism. Based on Zubt555's behavior and edits, the account is a crystal clear sock and has been blocked indef as well. The IP address is also pretty clearly a sock, but has not edited recently and is probably dynamic so will not be blocked unless used again for the same purpose. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Spongebobvssouthpark

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Spongebobvssouthpark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Craigk0406 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Kaori 21:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

This seems highly suspicious to me.

Comments

The accounts aren't abusive for now, though. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 21:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Yes, it's an alternate account, but has not been used abusively, so no sanctions are in order. MastCell ^Talk 23:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Hkelkar

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Hkelkar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Yitzhak Hudas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Nahartasanhedrin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Ghanadar galpa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Itsmejudith 20:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC) Itsmejudith 14:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 194.176.201.24 (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Evidence for Yitzhak Hudas as a sockpuppet, [21] [22] The first of these appeared minutes after I had requested semi-protection of the page, because of edits I believe were also by Hkelkar as an IP. Hkelkar is a very prolific sockpuppeteer. He has scarcely spent a day of WP since his ban. He is hoping we will run out of energy in identifying his puppets, or that we will not be believed. Yitzhak Hudas, a new account, has accused me of "whitewashing" on the Dalit Voice article, just as Hkelkar did before. He is now going on to reinstate former edits of Hkelkar's.

[23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]

Compare with edit made by banned user User:Hkelkar

[31]

This editor is editing at least two of the pages that the banned user Hkelkar edited, with similar patterns. In particular, POV-pushing in a direction favourable to Hindutva (the article subjects are related to an opposite political viewpoint), incivility and wild accusations of antisemitism.

Edit summaries include the following:

"rm non-notable, not a historian but a antisemitic polemicist (Alan Hart (writer)"

Although the removal was correct the summary may be in violation of WP:BLP. I left a message on his talk page to that effect.

"apart from a blurb by anti-Israel hrw, nobody else makes this absurd claim"

"er, you wouldn't list stormfront.org as a "caucasian emancipation organization", would you? Very subtle!" (this was in response to wording that clarified that positions held belonged only to the article's subject)

Hkelkar has already been operating sockpuppets and had his ban extended. This may be another such case.

Comments

I looked at the evidence. Given the amount of time that Hkelkar officially has been gone (last edit in December 2006), and the fact that the newer user has fewer than 50 edits, I see insufficient evidence to draw any conclusion. The only way to demonstrate a connection would be to show that other sockpuppets of Hkelkar have also edited the same article with the same POV. Do you have such evidence? Shalom ^Hello 22:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are 20 IPs and 3 user names listed as suspected sockpuppets of Hkelkar since his ban. His suspected sockpuppet User:Sumaharran made his sole edit on 9th July at 08.22 UTC to revert an edit by User:Hornplease on Indian nationalism, which itself was a reversion of one of Hkelkar’s IPs. Nahartasanhedrin turns up at 16.26 UTC on 9th of July to revert an edit by Hornplease on the article Slavery and religion. On 11th July User: Zuhunir comes on the scene to revert an edit by Hornplease, which was a reversion of an edit by an IP that Hornplease clearly suspected of being a sockpuppet of Hkelkar. The IP User: 70.112.77.235 , blocked by Dmcdevit as a sockpuppet of Hkelkar, also made several reverts of edits by Hornplease.

The IP User:128.83.131.124, banned as a suspected sockpuppet of Hkelkar, made the edit summary “all backwards are not Dalits. Devdasis were backwards. HRW is crap”, a similar attack on HRW in an edit summary to one I listed above for Nahartasanhedrin. The IP was banned on 11th July by User:Aksi great.

Hkelkar was clearly engaged in much sockpuppetry at the beginning of this month and there is much that suggests that this is one of his creations. He appears to have been wikistalking Hornplease. Itsmejudith 07:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

This is clearly someone's alternate account; it jumped in to follow User:Hornplease and revert his/her edits, and uses veteran edit summaries. I think it's likely to be Hkelkar, but regardless of whose it is, it's an alternate account of an established editor jumping into an active controversy and editing disruptively, so I've blocked it indefinitely. MastCell ^Talk 18:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Chikorita

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Chikorita (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Bayleef (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Olterlo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Liverpool Scouse 22:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Admits being a sockpuppet on own Talk page, "I'll just keep creating accounts!" here:[32]

I did recall a mention of this as a possible future sockupuppet on Wp:AIV earlier (good guess!) and lo and behold it appeared. Don't recall the user in question though.

Comments

Diff is here. There's not much we can do about this, unless you wish to file a checkuser. Generally, for simple vandalism, it's not worth the trouble to do a checkuser. Shalom ^Hello 22:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above. Plus the point of sockpuppets is they just arrange a new account anyway (the account in question is now blocked). Not worth me going to the trouble of a checkuser so this may as well be concluded? Liverpool Scouse 22:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, scrap that. My investigative skills have led me to User: Bayleef. See this Diff. Suspect info updated above.

Further, Bayleef in turns seems to be a tagged suspected S/P of Meganium.[33]

Which Chikorita admits to being a sock of. Kesac 22:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I see a pattern emerging! Get this one tagged then? Liverpool Scouse 22:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is starting to turn real strange. Now you may wish to consider a checkuser. Good work. Shalom ^Hello 22:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And another sock... I'm going to start a WP:SSP on Meganium as it looks like Meganium is the sockpuppeter, and is still creating socks. Kesac 23:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Sockpuppet of Meganium, suspect tag added by Kesac. Liverpool Scouse 22:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continued at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Meganium Kesac 23:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All accounts named here are already indef-blocked for vandalism. Closing. MastCell ^Talk 18:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Meganium

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Meganium (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

Kesac 23:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Chikorita for original discussion. Meganium seems to be the sockpuppeter for these socks, most recently with this edit.

Comments

Added a couple more that were in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Meganium Kesac 01:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added User:Staravia, User:Pika-electa, and User:Luxio. NawlinWiki 19:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Yup. All are already indef-blocked. You may get a slightly faster response, if more socks pop up, at WP:AIV. MastCell ^Talk 18:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:DFC Free Oz

Suspected sockpuppeteer: DFC Free Oz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: FailpageMustGo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Per this AfD, it is believed that this user may be a sockpuppet of User:FailpageMustGo. The latter's username suggests that one or more is a single purpose account, having repeatedly made bad faith nominations for Railpage Australia to be deleted.

Comments

Conclusions

Likely sock, definite disruptive throwaway AfD-nomming account. Blocked indefinitely. MastCell ^Talk 18:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:SirIsaacBrock (2nd)

Suspected sockpuppeteer

SirIsaacBrock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Hpuppet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
DepartedUser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Hipocrite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
64.95.38.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

SirIsaacBrock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a banned user and an established puppet master. SirIsaacBrock has used his puppet accounts to set up dialogues with himself to debate both sides of an issue. At 15:33, 3 April 2006, SirIsaacBrock made a post using the signature of Hpuppet as though two of SirIsaacBrock's comments sandwiched a first Hpuppet's post.[34] The first Hpuppet post was not made by Hpuppet but was in fact made by SirIsaacBrock. Hpuppet responded to SirIsaacBrock's 15:33, 3 April 2006 post without mentioning SirIsaacBrock's use of Hpuppet's signature.[35] Since he responded to SirIsaacBrock's 15:33, 3 April 2006 post, it seems very likely that Hpuppet saw SirIsaacBrock's use of Hpuppet's signature. Hpuppet's failure to note this misuse of his signature in his response and the proximity of the posts makes me believe that SirIsaacBrock and Hpuppet are one in the same. Hpuppet has posted as DepartedUser [36] and as User:Hipocrite [37]. 70.51.198.36, a sock puppet of SirIsaacBrock, claimed that User:Hpuppet, User:Hipocrite, User:Whomp, and User:64.95.38.193 are all the same person.[38] I recall reading SirIsaacBrock out some of his other puppets, but can't find the diffs. Hipocrite sought to change his user name to 877711744ytr78711133uuurt a month ago, on June 27, 2007.[39] 64.95.38.193 blanked DepartedUser's talk page seemingly in connection with DepartedUser's desire to leave.[40] Per this April 4, 2006 post, Kafziel felt that User:Hpuppet was an abusive sock puppet. This all seems like ancient history. However, this July 24, 2007 news article Monkey v. Dog v. Wikipedia gives recognition to SirIsaacBrock and his/her puppets and I believe the news article makes this a current problem. Monkey v. Dog v. Wikipedia has a wide audience since people searching Google news with "Wikipedia" in the search box will bring up Monkey v. Dog v. Wikipedia. Please review Hpuppet and the other accounts to see whether they are SSP of SirIsaacBrock and take appropriate action.

DepartedUser blanked this SSP request[41], which would keep this issue from being addressed. DepartedUser also blanked Requests for checkuser/Case/Hipocrite[42], Requests for checkuser/Case/64.95.38.193[43], and Suspected sock puppets/User:Hpuppet [44].

User:Thorpfilms

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Thorpfilms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Jaymesthorp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
YoutubeMarketing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

aBSuRDiST -^T ☺ ^C- 18:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

These accounts are the only contributors to Jaymes Thorp which was previously deleted. Each of these accounts has been used to remove speedy delete tags from that article. They have made edits to nearly no other articles. Below are some links to relevant evidence.

diff from Youtubemarketing diff from Youtubemarketing diff from Jaymesthorp Warning for Thorpfilms

Comments

The case for sock puppetry seems clear to me. I also believe Jaymes Thorp should be salted.

Oh, and not to mention that Jaymes Thorp and Thorp films have "thorp" in them. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 22:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, yes that too. Although the YoutubeMarketing account disturbs me more, because it seems he's pretending to be a YouTube employee.-- aBSuRDiST -^T ☺ ^C- 22:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Jaymes Thorp article was speedily deleted, and as a result the diff links above do not work. This user might give up now.-- aBSuRDiST -^T ☺ ^C- 14:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Obvious sock/meatpuppetry. The puppet accounts have been indef-blocked. I warned the main account but did not block it. I also salted the target page, which should take care of things. MastCell ^Talk 17:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Nordic Crusader

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Nordic Crusader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Hayden5650 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Muntuwandi 02:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

The editors both claim to be from New Zealand.
Nordic Crusader has been blocked indefinitely, recently User:Hayden5650 made edits to Nordic Crusader,s talk pagediff.
Similar pattern advocating a racist ideology and promoting Nordicism. Nordic Crusader with the username and Hayden5650 with significant contributions to nazi related articles. All this is apparent from the Users talk pages egversion dated 18th June 2007.

Comments

Saw my name pop up here. Don't really see how I can be a puppet of NC when my first edit was 6 months before his. --Hayden5650 07:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very difficult case for me. I've spent almost a half hour looking through contribs, talk pages, etc., and I'm still not sure.

The edit to Nordic Crusader's talk page, just half an hour after NC signed off, is highly suspicious. Also, both users have been blocked for abusive editing and sock puppetry, so it's not inconceivable that this is another sock in the drawer. The statement that "I had an account for six months, so I can't possibly be a sock puppet" is a weak argument.

Note also the frequent use of simple sentences with exclamation points in the unblock requests, and the generally evasive attitude. This is circumstantial evidence, but it counts.

That being said, these editors do not edit exactly the same articles, and they seem to have worked in different modes. I would not recommend hammering down an indef block without further evidence or a checkuser. Shalom ^Hello 14:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Nordic Crusader has been indef-blocked by another admin for disruption. I agree with Shalom; I don't see enough circumstantial evidence to say that Hayden's a sockpuppet here. If there is a strong suspicion, you could take it to checkuser requests as a possible block-evading sockpuppet. MastCell ^Talk 17:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Gorux

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Gorux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: w00t (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Giggity Giggity GOO! 15:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Suspected sock puppet of w00t (Famous ED troll that loves to crapflood #wikipedia)

Comments

Conclusions

Something doesn't look right. Gorux has three contribs, which seem ordinary and do not raise any suspicion (it would seem that he edited previously under an IP or another account, but that's not a violation per se of policy.) W00t (talk · contribs) has no contribs. It's possible that the reporter intended a different account name. Shalom ^Hello 06:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closed for lack of evidence. MastCell ^Talk 17:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Hxseek

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Hxseek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Hxseeker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
203.166.99.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
60.240.29.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Ronz 19:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Similar usernames

Editing similar articles, during similar time periods, making similar or identical edits. Articles include Illyrians, History of the Balkans, and Macedonia (region). For example: [45] [46] [47]

Hxseeker changed signature from 203.166.99.230 to Hxseeker [48]

Seems to admit to being same editor [49]

Hxseek changed signature from 60.240.29.56 to Hxseek [50]

Hxseek seems to be admitting that he's using these three accounts, though I cannot find the explanation he mentions: [51]

Comments

I would almost say that this is a definite certainty. I'm pretty sure that Ronz is correct, having looked at these diffs, and the user/s talk page. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hseeker is actually older than Hseek. Have you asked the user whether this is a "confirmed alternative account"? Is he evading a block or anything? --Asterion^talk 18:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From their contributions: Hxseek has been editing longer but less often, since 02:23, 10 June 2007. Hxseeker since 14:37, 13 July 2007. The edits by 203.166.99.230 precede them both (especially noticeable in Macedonia (region) and Illyrians). If the three are the same person, then yes the accounts have been used to edit war while avoiding blocks, among other things. --Ronz 19:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any convincing evidence that 60.240.29.56 is the same person or is working in concert with others. Rather, this just looks like a semi-experienced editor with similar viewpoints. --Ronz 17:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

The two named accounts are obvious socks and have been used to edit the same articles. I've indef-blocked Hxseeker and blocked Hxseek for 48 hours for using the two accounts and the IP's in violation of WP:SOCK. I did block the IP's temporarily, though they appear dynamic, so not sure how much effect it will have. MastCell ^Talk 17:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Minutes to Rise

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Minutes to Rise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Melodic Horror (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 87.167.236.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 87.167.247.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); AFI-PUNK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 87.167.210.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Ska-Lord (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

Report submission by

Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 20:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User:Minutes to Rise was indef. blocked after trying to provoke edit wars over genres and trolled on the exact same articles as User:87.167.247.95 and User:Melodic Horror is trying to do now. I know the last two are the same person because of this which, if you look closely, was made by the IP address yet it was signed Melodic Horror. User:87.167.236.109 was blocked because "This IP has been blocked for 48 hours, as it appears to be in use by the blocked user User:AFI-PUNK to evade his block". This can be seen here. If you look at the page history you will notice that User:87.167.247.95 blanked the page after the block was put in place. Also I noticed that all of the IP adresses are within the same range as User:87.167.210.141, User:87.167.226.119 and User:87.167.242.147 . These 3 IP Addresses were also found to be used by AFI-PUNK and were blocked. Also the new and old IP's can be traced back to Nuernberg, Germany. Page history of article Alesana with edits of current sockpuppet (87.167.247.95): [52] Page history of same article but with edits of (suspected sockpuppet of AFI-PUNK)User:87.167.210.141: [53]

Comments

AFI-PUNK is actually the sockpupeteer. Minutes to Rise, the rest of the users listed here, as well as countless other users that have been blocked are all socks of him.68.114.92.198 04:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a suckpuppet and not a suckpuppet of minutes to rise or afi-punk!and i'm deffently not from NÜrnberg,Germany!I'm from Germany but not from Nürnberg and i'm not German! and AngelOfSadness told me that afi-punk is german or was! so I can't be the sockpuppet of him!! so don't BLOCK ME! please! Melodic Horror

That's just a boldfaced lie. I looked at your edit history, you use the exact same horrible writing style as AFI-PUNK. Compare this[54] to this.[55]68.114.92.198 14:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what's this?[56] An edit to a Papa Roach album concerning the genre? Gee where have I seen that before... 68.114.92.198 14:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be silence! It's not a lie!!! i'm not his suckpuppet! AND YOU should better watch at yourself! you have a sockpuppet problem too! you should try to clean your problems up and not mine! care about yourself! Melodic Horror

Congrats again to wikipedia for let another clear cut case of vandalism and sockpuppetry sit on the shelve for days. I look forward to you guys doing something about it sometime next week.68.114.92.198 15:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should really , realy better care about yourself! you just talk s***; s*** and bulls***!! you should look at your user page! your are a sockpuppet Melodic Horror

I know I'm a sock puppet, I was revealed to be one a while again. The difference between you and me is that I only had one sock puppet and you have over 15. Plus I'm able to admit it, where as you are still lying about it.68.114.92.198 21:55, 23 July 2007

Listen YOU F*****! I dont lie!! and idont have 15 sockpuppets! afi punk has got 15 sockpuppets!!!!! and where the f*** do you want to know that im a liear? or lier?? are you god??? idont think so and you really start to f****** bother me!!!!! care a about yourself! idon't wanna say this S*** again!! Melodic Horror

This user is definately a sock puppet. They have been disrupting precisely the same articles as the IP adresses mentioned (which seem to work on the same range) with the same content [57], [58], [59], [60]

I have been harassed by them on two occasions now and have seen, first hand, other users (Hoponpop69 (talk · contribs) being harassed by these sock puppets.

Seraphim ^Whipp 20:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFI-PUNK wrote a lot of comments on talk pages in all caps shown here, here, here and here which, as you can see, are all attacks directed at Hoponpop69 (talk · contribs). And here is an edit made by (87.167.236.109 (talk · contribs) also written in all caps and the reason for using them.Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 12:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Yes, Melodic Horror looks to be a pretty clear disruptive sock of AFI-PUNK/Minutes To Rise. Both named accounts have been indef-blocked. The IP's are dynamic and stale, so I haven't blocked them. MastCell ^Talk 17:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:TharkunColl

Suspected sockpuppeteer

TharkunColl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Sprigot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Giggy _U^CP 22:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Sprigot (talk · contribs) made his third edit in this report: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/XAndreWx - hardly something you'd expect from a new user. XAndreWx (user in question, who has asked me to step in and help here) was at the time "edit warring" with TharkunColl (talk · contribs)

Sprigot has also made several edits that, in nature, "agree" with TharkunColl. Here are three edits by TharkunColl: [61], [62], and [63]. Here's Sprigot editing the same article, and adding unsourced (and possibly untrue, OR in any case) statements that had been removed by consensus: [64]

One may also wish to note this block log - obviously TharkunColl is used to this sort of warring...and who's to say he won't create a "scapegoat" to get out of it. Giggy _U^CP 22:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I am not Sprigot. TharkunColl 22:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I was hardly expecting you to confess to it. But can you provide any proof? Giggy _U^CP 22:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of proof? TharkunColl 22:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is on the accuser to provide proof, not the accused to prove innocence (i.e. a negative). Your "obviously... who's to say" comment is also unhelpful. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 22:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"possibly untrue, OR in any case": It's far from untrue and not OR to say that Birmingham has a significant Irish population; which appears to be the sole piece of "evidence" you have to offer. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 22:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If TharkunColl and Sprigot can make edits at the same time. That may end the sockpuppet speculation. GoodDay 23:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm a friend of Tharkie's and would like to say, I don't think he is User:Spigot. The reason being, that Tharkie wouldn't have the patience/immediate how-to knowledge on wiki to know how to file a page such as Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/XAndreWx I'm afraid I myself don't know how to do diffs properly, but http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TharkunColl&diff=prev&oldid=146296216 he hasn't even archived his talk page yet after almost 2 years. What I mean to say is that Tharkie might love a good argument, but he sticks to that most of the time, and would not be bothered or even able technically to do this without spending time he'd rather spend in discussion about the articles.Merkinsmum 01:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yet a brand new user making his third edit is able to file an SSP report? It took me all of 5 minutes (patience isn't an issue) and I had to provide a few diffs that can be found easily once you've read WP:DIFF (technical how-to). Giggy _U^CP 01:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is in any case my opinion that this accusation is malicious, since it emanates ultimately from XAndreWx, who for quite some time now has been edit warring on the Manchester and Second city of the United Kingdom articles and causing general disruption - for which he has already been blocked. TharkunColl 07:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brand new account != brand new user. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 07:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate please Andy? Now it seems (to me) that I'm being accused... Giggy _U^CP 08:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To pun on the Private Eye magaine running gag re: drunken journalists - "Socks all round". Sprigot 09:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think you're being accused of, and why do you think that? Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 11:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sprigot responds

I'm Sprigot and I find it insulting that you think I'm TharkunColl - is it inconcievable that a long term Wikipeida 'user' as in reader would pick up a fair amount ? I've been reading the Second city of the United Kingdom article for the last few weeks - and frankly Giggy the behaviour of your adoptee XAndreWx has been not just rude - but down right disgusting - he constantly lies - especially about "not being aware" of Wikipedia rules he's already been told of (and broken - proof here) - frankly it makes my blood boil the way he was behaving - and that's why when I found the multiple transgressions (3RR and Sock Puppeteering) I very easily figured out that everything on here has a 'WP:' - basically 'cause all of you talk in acronyms and you have to look it up to figure out what you're talking about (and remember the 3P's - Process, Process, Process). As to refruting the claim then here goes:

Can someone check mine and Tharkuncoll's IP addresses please ? I assume that they are different.
Would anyone like to read my work - of which there is plenty on my Talk Page, I find it is substantially different in content, tone, and metre - metre is the hardest to fake because people 'slip' back into the 'way they talk / write' very easily.
My spelling is awful - and I couldn't give either - I suspect Tharkuncoll's spelling is better than mine, and that he could (give that is)
Repeated words and phrases - most people use repeated words or phrases in there languages - look at this reponse and compare it to my other texts and then to Tharkuncolls - you'll see there is a lot of repeated use of words and phrases in my text which are not in Tharkuncoll's
I suspect I've made edits which Tharkuncoll disagrees with - someone mentioned my addition of Birmingham to the list of large Irish immigrant population would be against Tharkuncoll's judgement on the English people article. My ancestory is Irish (as well as Lancastrian and also from Birmingham - see more on my Talk Page). Birmingham has a large Irish population - although as most have been here for 40 / 50 years so they have married into the indigenous population (like my family) - so it's all a bit blurred - but Birmingham has a very inclusive and vibrant St. Patrick's Day parade, a large Irish quarter (Digbeth), and even an Irish Mayor.
Happy to talk to you or an administrator via Telephonic Communication.
Happy to meet XAndreWx in his home town of Manchester - I'm there about once a week for work (not a threat - please don't mis-construe it as one).
GoodDay's point above is valid, don't you think ? "If TharkunColl and Sprigot can make edits at the same time. That may end the sockpuppet speculation. GoodDay 23:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)"[reply]
Any other means of proving that I'm real I'd be happy to discuss (although blood samples are out - I'm not keen on needles, lol). I've never been accused of being purely 'virtual' before - and find the experience quite strange - but amusing too.

Finally I'd like to add - isn't this a case of sour grapes ? I mean your very anxious to defend XAndreWx aren't you ? It's not my fault that your adoptee is a foolish liar (apart from the evidence above how about here too- at the bottom of the page). Ammusingly he blames his multiple transgression of the 3RR rule (XAndreWx specific) on you over here on the page investigating his suspected Sock Puppeteering (the evidence I raised against him is substantially better than than the evidence you've raised against Tharkuncoll too).

In our conversation over here you say that "As I said to Maxim, I haven't spoken to Andrew in several weeks now, and am not fully responsible for his behaviour. I have attempted to contact him, but to no avail...I will try again. In regards to 3RR, I fully agree with you that this behaviour should be stopped, so I would ask that you don't draw me into your 3RR and sockpuppet reports and make it seem as if I'm on his side. I'm not. I'm an external party who is currently removing the adoptee template from his userpage since that's clearly over. I'll try to talk to him again, but you can't expect me to control his behaviour fully, as it isn't possible. Giggy UCP 22:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)". Yet when Maxim unblocks XAndreWx's initial 3RR over here (bottom of the page) Maxim says "Giggy has asked me to remove it, and I trust you've cooled off by now." - if you hadn't spoken to XAndreWx then why did you talk to Maxim about 'letting him off' his initial 3RR ?[reply]

I see that according to your sentance above "XAndreWx (user in question, who has asked me to step in and help here)" shows that XAndreWx has been in touch with you since you removed him as a adoptee (I hope in the words of Maxim he has "cooled off" by now too), and this accusation of Sock Puppeteering against Tharkuncoll very much goes against your previous statement of "In regards to 3RR, I fully agree with you that this behaviour should be stopped, so I would ask that you don't draw me into your 3RR and sockpuppet reports and make it seem as if I'm on his side. I'm not." and your asseration that you are not on XAndreWx's 'side' (I think you'll find that 'it's hard to defend the indefensible').

What has been heartening about this has been all the messages of support to Tharkuncoll on this page and his Talk Page - support that was not in evidence in XAndreWx's Sock Puppeetering case I may add - thanks to everyone for there support!

Giggy - when this has been fully refruted - I'm expecting a full apology from you - otherwise your going to look very silly over all of this...

All the best to all - especially Giggy. Sprigot 09:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Sprigot. I really don't think you are Tharkie- you have a more informal tone and use hyphens as punctuation- as I sometimes do.:) Instead of these accusations/ flaming, why doesn't one of you just file a Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser and as Thark says, they can check their IP addresses?Merkinsmum 10:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No - 'Thank you' Merkinsmum - from this link I've learnt that neither I nor TharkunColl can use it in this manner (see main table at the start of the page "Checkuser on yourself to "prove your innocence" Such requests are not accepted. Please do not ask.") - although perhaps someone here could do that for us - I'm happy to be submitted to investigation - in fact I look forward to being vindicated by it. Also I've learnt a great deal apart from the above from this page - it's been very useful - so thanks again. Sprigot 11:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I meant 'the other team' could do it rather than the two of you.:) Anyway as I see it User:Sprigot has not been a disruptive editor. He has no 3RRs etc. I'm not that aware of the ins and outs of wikipedia buerocracy, but it strikes me they may not have grounds for Checkuser, as Sprigot has not been disruptive in any way. Socks are not actually banned,

"Some people feel that second accounts should not be used at all; others feel it is harmless if the accounts are behaving acceptably."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry

So they would have to argue that Sprig is definitely being used to circumvent 3RR repeatedly or something like that.

Anyway that's by the by as I really think Sprig is not Tharkie. I really wish it could be checkusered, as it may discourage editing if people feel unable to revert or make similar edits for fear of being accused. I just hope that this extreme case of biting a possible newcomer, or of a newcomer being caught in crossfire, doesn't result in Sprig and other new editors who may come to the pages involved, from editing. Maybe it is time, I hate to say it, for the issues on some of these pages to go to arbitration, as has been suggested here Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-07-10_British_monarchy#ArbCom then checkuser could be part of that process.Merkinsmum 11:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I can't understand how this allegation could ever have been entertained as a serious possibility, since there is not the slightest shred of evidence to support it, apart from a perfectly normal convergence of views on certain topics. And at the risk of giving our accusers even more "evidence" (I use that term in its loosest possible sense), I must say that I agree with Sprigot's views on the role of the Irish in Birmingham, and indeed number amongst my friends individuals of that very ilk. TharkunColl 11:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Sprig is probably bound to have slightly similar views on some issues as Tharkie, as he is a Brummie. Just because people are from Birmingham, doesn't mean we are all sock or meatpuppets of User:TharkunColl. After all, there are over a million of us, as our city has the largest number of people residing in it after London. This is due to it being the Second City of the United Kingdom -but I won't get into that now lol.:)Merkinsmum 12:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but being poorer and more "slummy" than Manchester, with fewer educated people, Birminghamopolis has fewer internet connections. I rest my case. By the way, I do happen to know that Andy Mabbutt really exists so I do strongly suspect that account to be real. I also ran the TharkunColl/Spigot comparison through my personal "in-brain" semantic analyzer and the two do seem to be different in their behaviour. For one thing, TC would never in a million years attempt to reach a consensus before editing, even though the "consensus" that "Spigot" is aiming for is actually within his POV. So in this reality at least, everything appears to be fair. Andy by the way, do you still work for Birmingham City Council? MarkThomas 14:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"poorer and more "slummy"" - is a bit low isn't it - why not just go for direct name calling. Sprigot 15:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brummies just don't often join in this debate about the 2nd city as a) it's daft and doesn't reflect the real world b) it's not worth it as the hastle and most people don't enjoy such heated debates as much as Tharkie. Some issues on wiki, are discriminated against and maybe this is one. I don't know if anyone has seen this before with various subjects, but it happens a lot on articles about occult or new age subjects- they get deleted or one perspective (which may have an admin working for it or something) gets the page reflecting it's views more than is reality. But I hate to sound like a wiki conspiracy theorist:)Merkinsmum 19:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really Irish any more - stuck in bit of a 'mush' between England and Ireland - although it drives me 'barmy' when I hear my Irish relatives talk about 'going home' - it's been over 40 years... Sprigot 12:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a bit strange that User:TharkunColl is the one being accused here yet User:Sprigot is the one writing the majority of the defence. Either TharkunColl doesn't care or he has decided that the history of his account is so negative he is moving on to become Sprigot. Therefore using that account to defend himself. When he accused me of being a sockpuppet the IP he said I used never edited again after the one day so I dunno who that even was. XAndreWx 18:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TharkunColl just has a dryer, less long-winded writing style than Sprigot also as we stay longer on wiki I don't think our responses are quite as long. But I've seen Tharkie be a subject of a debate on another forum and he wasn't frantic in his own defence there either. I think he enjoys controversy about him and if people throw around wild accusations about him, he sits back and watches the ensuing debacle laughing to himself and finding it a great source of hilarity!:)Merkinsmum 19:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and your asseration that you are not on XAndreWx's 'side' - I didn't say I am. But I'm hardly going to let a "hate campaign" (what a fun word to use, so let's go with it) run against him when I know he's innocent. I'd be doing this even if I did detest him. Nothing else to say really...I mean, the purpose of this was to remind Tharkie and Sprig that their campaign against Andrew should stop. Sure, it wasn't the best way to go about it...but that isn't the point. The point is leave him alone! Giggy _U^CP 22:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giggy wrote "I mean, the purpose of this was to remind Tharkie and Sprig that their campaign against Andrew should stop." Aaah, so Tharks was right and this page has only been made as a 'tit for tat' malicious page. It's WP:POINT then and people's time is, in effect, being wasted. Case closed I think.:)Merkinsmum 22:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone direct me in the right direction for the reporting of mis-use of WP Procedure (specifically WP:SOCK) so that I can raise this issue with the appropriate authorities ?

I presume that waste of admin time by raising false WP:SOCK accusations is at least one of the issues - as is the libellous nature of the false WP:SOCK itself.

Thanks in advance. Sprigot 22:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name an admin who wasted their time here. If you really wish to complain, go to WP:AN/I. Giggy _U^CP 23:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it have to be an admin that wasted their time for it to be reprehensible? It's not just an admin's time that's counted. We are all supposedly equal when it comes to problems with contributors.Merkinsmum 00:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sprigot said admin time, so did I. Read his comment ;) Giggy _U^CP 01:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Well, case withdrawn. We aren't going anywhere with this...hopefully we can just assume innocence on both sides, and hope for an end to the edit war. I've closed the case as withdrawn. Giggy _U^CP 23:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not close it actually - until it's been reviewed - especially as you still have doubt in your mind - assumed innocence is not innocent - I and TharkunColl are innocent and you need to recognise this (I look forward to being fully vindicated). You've wasted a lot of peoples time on the page above - that's nothing to be proud of - perhaps you should be apologising to them as well. Sprigot 23:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I recognise your innocence with the limited capabilities I have to do so. Since there is no hard proof, I must assume it, hence my comment. Giggy _U^CP 23:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to the Second city of the United Kingdom edit war my audit log of contributions show that for the last two days I've been trying to move Towards a Consensus after calling for a Rational Debate on the subject, so please don't lecture me on an article you haven't been involved in editing. Sprigot 23:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edit war between Tharkun and Andrew was what I referred to. And my having not edited it doesn't mean I'm not able to read it, read the talk page, and assess the situation. Giggy _U^CP 23:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strange that Giggy is so keen to close this once we've got to the crux of the matter.Merkinsmum 00:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I'm withdrawing as it's obvious there is no puppetry. Giggy _U^CP 01:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my place to take this to WP:AN/I for admin attention, but if either Tharkie or Spriggy, the offended parties, are sufficiently put out to take that step, they are of course within their rights to do so and I think I would support them.Merkinsmum 00:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to see that 'passions' have cooled. In future, we must stick to 'talk pages' to settle matters (instead of 'edit warring'). Congratulations to Tharkie and Spriggy, on their vindications. GoodDay 20:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Case withdrawn without prejudice. MastCell ^Talk 17:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Pizza30

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Pizza30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Books305060 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Ckatz^chat _spy 04:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Nonsensical edit to UTV article, as with User:Books305060. Similar theme, similar writing style, same date for "event". Diff: [65]

Comments

May be a match. First and only contrib by Pizza30 was July 21, two days after Books305060 was indefinitely blocked and, likewise, two days after Books305060 contributed to the very same article. Note also the very similar names, "(word)30..." The syntax used by both identities is awkward and similar. I would have reversed the designations and said that Pizza30 is the puppet, as that identity has only one contribution, ever. Books305060 has a much longer record and seems more likely to be the puppeteer. Not relevant to the sockpuppet question, but I probably would not have characterized the two contributions as "nonsense" — I understood what they were saying — but as unsourced original research. -- Lisasmall 17:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback - so the proper order would have been to tag User:Books305060 as the primary? I'll keep that in mind. (As for the "nonsense" description, it is because Books305060's contributions have generally been nonsense - the editor has a history of creating hoax pages and purposely adding false information to existing articles.) Thanks again. --Ckatz^chat _spy 20:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Yes, I think they are a puppet and puppeteer, and that Pizza30 was created to permit Books305060 evade the block established July 19. I would feel more comfortable saying so definitively if 1. Pizza30 contributes more in the next ten days, providing more writing samples to compare with Books305060's work; and/or 2. a checkuser were performed to see if the come in from the same ISP, household, or community. -- Lisasmall 17:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the user's contribution record - there have been quite a few questionable edits, including another hoax page that was speedy-deleted. --Ckatz^chat _spy 03:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Likely socks. Both accounts already indef-blocked. MastCell ^Talk 17:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Hatewatcher

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Hatewatcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Itzwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

SLSB talk ER 14:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Itzwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an abusive sockpuppet of Hatewatcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) being used to upload Image:Contract 0081.jpg, an image which constitutes unreferenced negative information concerning a living person, in violation of WP:BLP, and which is identical to Image:Kevin strom contract.jpg, uploaded by Hatewatcher, which was speedily deleted pursuant to CSD G10. Itzwiki has also placed the WP:BLP violating image in Kevin Alfred Strom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) just as Hatewatcher did. John254 15:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Report submitted by SLSB. Fixed by John. SLSB talk ER 15:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Comments

This is simply false. I do not know the username Itzwiki, have never used this user name, and proof of that can easily be had from our IP addresses. I have, originally, registered another username which used my real name but that was years ago, and I stopped using it for privacy reasons. Itzwiki is someone else. HateWatcher 20:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs by John are damning. One thing is for certain: Itzwiki must be a sock puppet of somebody. His only edits have been to this single article. Shalom ^Hello 14:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs by John (whoever John is) are not my problem. I don't care what you say, I am not Itzwiki, I have never been Itzwiki, and I have never even heard of Itzwiki. Look at the IP addresses. Let's have them out in the open. These childish accusations are nonsense. HateWatcher 05:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has been ZERO evidence presented, and in fact the case is simply wrong. I am requesting a speedy closure of this absurd and ridiculous false accusation. HateWatcher 22:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I think these are fairly suspicious for at least being associates, if not sockpuppets. However, at this point I'm going to strongly warn Itzwiki regarding WP:BLP, and close the case there. If there is further evidence of these accounts tag-teaming or being used abusively, I'd suggest going to checkuser (unless it's very clear-cut). MastCell ^Talk 17:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Marketingsupport

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Marketingsupport (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

NoMoBS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
216.199.93.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

SarekOfVulcan 21:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

NoMoBS was created today, shortly after Marketingsupport got a 3RR warning (not that that stopped MS from edit warring). Both of them have only edited the same two articles, and have been making very similar edits. The anon has also only edited two articles, with similar edits and edit summaries (or lack thereof) to the other two.

NoMoBS states on their user talk page that even though account shares same corperate IP address as Marketingsupport, they are separate individuals controlling the two accounts, and thus not sock puppets even if the ip address and edits are identical.

Comments

In this diff, NoMoBS makes a fairly convincing case that he is an associate of Marketingsupport, rather than a meatpuppet. I'm willing to WP:AGF on this one, and withdraw the request, if it's agreed that I'm not crazy. :-)--SarekOfVulcan 02:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation given by the users is like "The dog ate my homework", but I believe it may be correct. Nonetheless, although I think a block is probably not warranted, these folks need to be warned about WP:COI, and their contribs need to be checked for COI. Shalom ^Hello 04:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NoMoBS explanation SOUNDS plausible, and since they both work for the same company (with the same COI), that would explain why their edits are nearly identical PR spin. (User:Johnpdavid is also part of the same organization and also has COI) There are a lot of users with that same IP address (and the same COI), I hope they are wise enough not to try to be sneaky like this again. --RandomStuff 15:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NoMoBS seems much more reasonable and knowledgeable than Marketingsupport, I do not think it is a sock puppet account. --RandomStuff 17:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

The named accounts are likely associates of each other in real life. However, so long as their behavior is not abusive, they are not tag-teaming, and are not causing problems on the page, and the conflict-of-interest is well-documented, I think we can close this without further action, as Sarek suggested above. MastCell ^Talk 16:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Mariam83

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Mariam83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)}

Suspected sockpuppets

IndividualBrain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Simonjk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (already perm. blocked)
SocietyNL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Irrer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (indef blocked)

68.89.169.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.90.47.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.88.232.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.88.232.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Sigma 7 09:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

First edit [66] relates to a sockpuppet case. He later redacted this edit.
Edit war entry [67], which seems to indicate part of an edit-log conversion. He is also supported by an anon [68] and a blocked user [69]. He says there's a history book infront-of-him, but didn't provide the actual citation (or at least reference).
User seems quite familiar with wikipedia editing procedures, and with a large number of "authoritative" edits. Not an issue by itself, but when combined with the above...

Editing pattern seems similar to what's described at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mariam83

Added User:Simonjk & User:SocietyNL. Identical editing patterns on articles dealing with North Africa, specifically Architecture of Africa in this case. Caknuck 07:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added 4 IP Addresses - which do edit-warring multiple undos against various users. --Sigma 7 09:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Most of the IP addresses relate to Texas, which is confirmed here. The above IPs that I checked are coming from Texas, specifically Houston. Miranda 07:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed link. --Sigma 7 08:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Yup. All named accounts are already indef-blocked as sockpuppets. The IP's are socks as well, but are dynamic and currently stale. Further IP vandalism which matches Mariam's pattern could probably be sent to WP:AIV or WP:AN/I for faster response. MastCell ^Talk 16:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:85.15.56.195

Suspected sockpuppeteer: 85.15.56.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Mmtrmm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 85.185.48.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (added at 7:20 AM, 21 July 2007); 85.185.48.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (added at 11:05 AM, 21 July 2007)

Report submission by

Poindexter Propellerhead 07:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

This Iranian IP address is reverting to a version of the article IQ and the Wealth of Nations which contains POV statements and gross inaccuracies (like boosting the average Iranian IQ by 25 points). Mmtrmm is making the same edits. Checkuser has been requested. Page history | here.

(Late addition) They even make very similar comments when they revert other editors.
85.15.56.195: "please verify your sources , why are you faking the numbers , it's a shame" [70]
Mmtrmm: "It's a shame to fake" [71] Poindexter Propellerhead 04:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding, as of 7:20AM, 21 July, the address 85.185.48.133, which earlier today was blocked after 4 reverts, identical to the above, in under half an hour.[72] It, too, is an Iranian IP address, with no history other than very recents edits to this page. Am also adding it to the Checkuser request.[73]] Signed belatedly, Poindexter Propellerhead 08:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a new one, after the last one was blocked. Another Iranian address, making, as its first and only edits, the same reverts to IQ and the Wealth of Nations.[[74]] Added to Checkuser request. Poindexter Propellerhead 11:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks as if my checkuser request is dead, as carrying it out would require matching an account name to an IP address, which I am told we do not do except under relatively dire circumstances. Poindexter Propellerhead 12:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Looks like a match. Neither user has any unrelated edits. Shalom ^Hello 04:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Highly likely. Checkuser case pending; will await its findings. MastCell ^Talk 21:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A more obvious case than most, yet none have been blocked.Proabivouac 01:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first two addresses were originally believed to be inept good-faith editors, so were not even warned for a while. When the pattern became obvious, I tagged the first two as socks and filed a 3RR report, but I was unaware of the 3RR warning requirement, and gave the warning too late. After that, new IP socks were used, effectively derailing the 3RR case until sock status could be established.[75] The most recently used IP ignored a 3RR warning before being blocked, but I saw little point in pursuing a 3RR action against an IP whose sock status was still unproven. Poindexter Propellerhead 23:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser case was declined. I think there's enough circumstantial evidence here, as Proabivouac points out, to conclude these are socks used to edit-war. I've blocked Mmtrmm (talk · contribs) for 72 hours. The IP's are dynamic and stale, but if it starts up again, consider requesting semi-protection for the target page. MastCell ^Talk 16:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Hardouin

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Hardouin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Ckoicedelire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
George kush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
HalfMoonBay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - Note: the last edit from this account was in January 2006.
Pedro carras (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - Note: the last edit from this account was in June 2006.
Minato ku (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
195.93.102.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - (used with other IP's to "win" a longstanding revert war in Economy of Paris article visible here (page history).

Report submission by

Shalom ^Hello 12:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

The has been an active contributor to Paris-based articles for over two years now, but has profited from the low-contributor input on the same to force certain inventive propos of his own as fact. The right or wrong of this doesn't matter here; my concern is this contributor's habit of knee-jerk revert-warring to "protect" his propos (in ingnorance of all reason and references) in any way possible, even resorting to sockpuppetry to get "his word" in place. One can also add calculated slander and other manipulative behaviour to the list.

The list of suspected sockpuppets can be found at Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Hardouin. All have at one time or another reverted to 'to the letter' former versions written by User:Hardouin, and one of these has even been blocked after breaking (circumventing? Don't remember) the WP:3RR rule to 'protect' the same. Most of this revolves around the use of one term, and changes are most always to the same.

The list of coincidences is too overwhelming - how can a newly-registered user come to one page only hours after an edit to the same to revert it to a former version written... by someone else? And this repeatedly, to the same articles? One of these puppets have been proven with the help of User:Green Giant and an admin, but the rest are similar to a point of being far beyond suspect. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 11:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Cross-posted from WP:ANI. Shalom ^Hello 12:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive268#ThePromenader's bullying attitude. There is a nasty ongoing dispute between ThePromenader (the plaintiff in this case) and Hardouin (the defendant). Shalom ^Hello 12:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right to mention this. This complaint here is part of the feud waged against me by ThePromenader. This guy has a habit of accusing me of creating sock-puppets. If push comes to shove, I will unearth the nasty accusations made by ThePromenader against User:Metropolitan. He accused Metropolitan of being my sock-puppet, and he went as far as checking Metropolitan's IP address and even finding out the location of Metropolitan's parents in a suburb of Paris! If you think this is crazy, it is. Ask Metropolitan for more information. I can unearth the relevent messages of ThePromenader if needs be. They are buried somewhere in the talk page history of these two users. Also ask User:Stevage, a user who knows ThePromenader and his behavior in the Paris-related article. Also, I have one question. If a user makes false accusations of sock-puppettry and these accusations are proven to be wrong, is there any sanction for that behavior ? So far ThePromenader has escaped any real sanction, except a few blocks for breaking the 3RR, and I'm really getting sick and tired of these constant accusations against me. Hardouin 18:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I have made no accusation here against Metropolitan now, even if I have spoken with him personally about it in the past. May I remind you that it was the sockpuppetry of you, Hardouin, that resulted in that accusation. I don't know how many times I have mentioned this in the past, but it is actually he who divulged the story behind his own IP/publication story. Still I have my doubts, but still I make no accusation. So, what relevence has this story here?

Anyhow, Hardouin has until today had little knowledgable opposition to his inventive impositions, thus all the fuss. All I ask is that all concerned consider the plausibility of the abovementioned circumstances being pure coincidence, and there you will find the motive of my claim. Take care, all. THEPROMENADER 19:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a couple more puppets to the list. I'm really getting tired of next-to-no contrib editors showing up to 'support' or revert to User:Hardouin's unverifiable inventive ideas - as again just last night in the Economy of Paris talk page. All appear as if by magic at a single article where, just by coincidence of course, at that moment an edit war or discussion about contested article content is taking place. The attempts at language change are sometimes comical, but the 'arguments' and terminology are always the same. All user pages above gravitate around the same Paris-based articles. All user pages above are minimal or empty.

Amongst other things, Hardouin seems to think Wikipedia to be a platform to his own ideas and opinions. True that he enjoyed an almost total freedom to present his opinion as fact for almost a year, but this was before I and others began to impose references on such articles. This reverting, edit-disrupting and discussion-corrupting little sock-puppet army has been part of his long-standing defense against referenced fact and consensus, I would like very much that it cease to exist. THEPROMENADER 07:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

It's been eleven months since Hardouin's last block. My research does not substantiate the claim that these suspected sockpuppets stepped in during those times. It's rather tardy to make this type of assertion, but the claim of WP:OWNing Paris-related articles for two years is rather serious. So I've also located several underlying IP addresses for the suspected sockpuppets and none of them originate from the same providers. Strongly recommend dry just-the-facts-ma'am presentations with page diffs when requesting investigation. Refer the underlying conflict to WP:DR. Specifically suggest mediation since this dispute ranges over several articles. If that doesn't resolve your problems, try arbitration. Durova^Charge! 19:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It also should be noted that there was an eight-month delay in Hardouin's edits.

This was not a "tardy" claim, but a resumé of all accumulated puppet activity - the latest occurences were just the proverbial straw. Such a timely activity to help revert articles untouched since months - reverts all to the same inventive terminology and version (Hardouin's own) - is impossible to chalk up to coincidence. It is quite simple to adopt other IP's, so please don't this alone decide your case.

Advice taken for the exposition/mediation suggestions. I tried to pack two years of misbehaviour into one report - my bad. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 22:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If two years of problem behavior have occurred then that merits attention in its own right. I looked into the sockpuppetry question, which is the normal scope of this board, and didn't see any smoking guns. There wasn't enough evidence to pursue these claims further. Durova^Charge! 22:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing per Durova; no clear circumstantial evidence of sockpuppetry. If the accounts are used abusively, consider a request for checkuser. MastCell ^Talk 16:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:JBAK

Suspected sockpuppeteer

JBAK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Ferdinandhartzenberg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Zaian 10:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Similar names (User:Ferdinandhartzenberg, Ferdinand Hartzenberg / User:Treurnicht, Andries Treurnicht - successive leaders of the Conservative Party, a former right-wing party in South Africa)

Uses same IP address range (ISP is NTL) [76] (cf JBAK), edits at same times of the day, and IP address changes every day in the same way.

Main interest is the Battle of Ventersdorp article: [77] (cf. JBAK)

Right-wing sympathies; feeling of victimization [78] (cf JBAK, anon)

Reliance on right-wing website www.arthurkemp.com; puts references into edit summary rather than in article: [79] (cf JBAK)

Misunderstanding the role of non-administrators: [80] (cf JBAK, anon)

Uses a space after hyphen: [81] (cf JBAK)

After previous user was banned, has now decided that it is not advisable to admit he's a sockpuppet: [82] (cf JBAK)

Comments

Ferdinandhartzenberg has been blocked indefinitely for violating the username policy; however, it's important to prove sockpuppetry as well because he has followed up anonymously with a string of nuisance edits. He has repeatedly proved unsuitable for editing after initially being banned for death threats - look at my user page history for the type of abuse he is capable of. When not blatantly abusive, he is a nuisance editor, highly POV, thin-skinned, doesn't cite his sources, etc. It's unfortunately necessary to keep fighting this idiot because of the damage he causes by a deluge of edits to topics in South African history. Decent editors are few and far between in this area, and it's easy for his editing pattern to overwhelm and discourage them.

Both users are indef blocked, but the page history to User:Zaian shows consistent sock puppetry by anons. There's no reason why ten different people would randomly vandalize the userpage of someone who is not a rouge admin. :)

The evidence presented is beyond compelling. At first I thought the four edits by the newer username would be insufficient to reach a conclusion, but Zaian has done his homework well, and I agree with his assessment. Shalom ^Hello 14:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I agree that these are socks. Both accounts have already been indef-blocked. If more accounts with similar behavior pop up, you can let me know or go to WP:AN/I for a faster response. If your userpage is being vandalized and you'd like it semi-protected, let me know or go to WP:RFPP. MastCell ^Talk 16:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:124.185.8.227

Suspected sockpuppeteer: 124.185.8.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Wink183AFI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Chris ^g 10:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Take a look at these diffs :

diff1 *

diff2

Comments

Conclusions

Definitely a match, but there are three edits combined by the two accounts, and they are simple vandalism all at the same time. Chris has already warned them, so I think it would be "biting the newbies" to block them. (Obviously anyone is free to reverse this decision and block anyway.) Shalom ^Hello 13:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two days have passed without further incident, so I'm closing the case. No block is necessary. Shalom ^Hello 06:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:MascotGuy

Suspected sockpuppeteer

MascotGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Tombstone Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Foul Ball Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Miremare 22:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Fairly obvious. First edits were all user pages of previous sockpuppet accounts. Name conforms to MascotGuy's style at Wikipedia:Long term abuse/MascotGuy.

Comments

Added another sock, User:Foul Ball Guy, which he's added a block template to, but which isn't blocked. Miremare 22:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Clear enough there, as a banned editor edits have been reverted/deleted. Nice of him to let us know about a few of his sleepers, I guess. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Gundor Twintle Fluffy

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Gundor Twintle Fluffy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Dark Lord Dylan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Dark Grevious (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Dark Grievous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
65.126.113.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

MSJapan 19:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

The background to this is that Gundor's userpage was MfDed by me for non-WP content and only 13 article edits out of 467 total. He streamlined his page and I withdrew the nom. He then vandalized my talk page here. He then signed a contrib he made a Dark Grevious with the Gundor name here, and after some quick hunting I found User:Dark Lord Dylan, whose page Gundor had edited, and had added a false MfD as Grievous here and then posted on the talk (with a reply at the same time) trying to pretend that it was me here and changed the timestamp here. After looking at the history, the only other user to edit Dylan's page was the IP I listed above, who also edited Gundor's user page, (supplying most of the content on both), as well as the talk on the same articles the others were on, and then posting "thanks for the support" and so forth, as if they were different users. It should be pretty clear from the IP's limited contribs as a whole what's going on, so I won't diff those edits, and just to look at the contrib overlap between the accounts. Contribs wioll also show that aside from warnings, only Gundor has edited Gundor's talk page, except for a replacement by the IP here.

Comments

It looks complicated, but after superficial checking your diffs it seems likely that these accounts belong to the same person. However, I don't get in what way the user violated the Forbidden uses of sock puppets. Could you provide a few recent examples where, for example, one of the accounts was used to circumvent a block or to bias a discussion? Han-Kwang 20:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the fact that nothing he used the socks for was in the "permitted uses" section, he never signed a comment, so he was probably disregarded. I'd think the poor impersonation of me would be a good indicator of a policy violation, and the same user contributed to the same talks and bolstered himself on his own talk page with different accounts, which I think falls under a somewhat convoluted "show of support". There's simply not much article material to work with - 500+ edits across the accounts, and maybe 15 edits to articles, along with the fact that it's multiple edits to the same sentence, and we seem to have a non-contributor who sockfarmed up a social group for himself on WP. Theresa Knott blocked all of the accounts already, after I filed the SSP, so I'm guessing the contribs were clear to her; I filed the SSP to cover the bases. MSJapan 21:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that he was misbehaving in other ways that warrant a block. I just think it's really a boundary case for an SP violation. Anyway, case closed I guess? Han-Kwang 22:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Pretty clearly sockpuppets, and spreading misbehavior over multiple accounts to conceal the fact it's the same person behind it is a violation of the sock policy. Two sock accounts (as well as the main) were blocked by Theresa Knott, I've blocked the third. The IP has not edited in quite some time and may have changed hands, so has not been blocked. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Below the bridge

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Below the bridge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Beneath the bridge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Ksy92003 16:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

On July 11, 2007, the user Beneath the bridge was trolling and vandalizing my talkpage (see [83]). The user was blocked indefinitely for trolling (see [84][85]). Today, the user Below the bridge vandalized my talkpage ([86]), which was reverted a short time later. On Beneath the bridge's talk page, it was assumed by a couple admins who were monitoring the situation (after I took it to WP:ANI that the user's name, Beneath the bridge, suggested that the user was a troll, as trolls live beneath bridges. The same can be said about the new user account, Below the bridge. The user's first edit ever, and only so far, was the vandalism to my talk page, and the same is similar to the one that was permanently blocked, also suggesting that this user created this new account because the old one was blocked and wanted to continue trolling. Ksy92003(talk) 16:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Conclusions

Both users already indef-blocked. MastCell ^Talk 05:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Cjelly

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Cjelly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Faceless128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); DarthWoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

w p k t sfs 02:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

These three diffs: [87] , [88] and [89]

Comments

OH NOES WHAT HAVE I DONE?! --Cjelly 04:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I'm rather offended by this accusation. I'm the one who listed the creator in the first place, and so I realized after the other people edited that I had neglected actual current owner, so I listed him, while retaining the original creator that I listed (as NeoGAF the community was originally GAF, which WAS created by Cordeira, but is now administrated by Evilore). I have admittedly not contributed all that much to very many articles, but it's rather discouraging to continue doing so at all with the established editors so eager to fling accusations.DarthWoo 03:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You dork, the reason these three editors are editing in a similar way is because a thread was posted and people came and three people happened to add that bit of information. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I don't see enough here to indicate that these are sockpuppets. I have semi-protected the page, to quiet the flood of IP vandalism. Once that is sorted out, it may be easier to see if there are any problems that need attention, but for now I don't see anything to act on. MastCell ^Talk 05:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:68.42.40.188

Suspected sockpuppeteer: 68.42.40.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Korn Muffin McGee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

DearPrudence 23:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User has replaced Waffle dozens of times with the same message ("Waffles taste like waffles, and that's all you need to know =]", and was recently blocked (not for the first time, and always for the same offence) with the expiry time of a week. The account Korn Muffin McGee was recently created and just replaced the Waffle article with the exact same message.

Comments

Conclusions

Yes. Account already blocked indefinitely by Ryulong; IP blocked for 1 month with account creation blocked as well. MastCell ^Talk 00:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Nicolaas Smith

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Nicolaas Smith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

Diletante 17:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

All of these are single purpose accounts used to insert information in the articles Historical cost, Inflation, Hyperinflation, and Accountancy. The information appears to be from a book by Nicolaas Smith. User:Economy Speak was banned for a short time for violation of 3RR, but it does not appear that any socks were used to evade the block, rather the socks have been used chiefly to argue on the talk pages of the articles.

I have not included links to any diffs as I feel that each users contributions viewed side by side is evidence enough.

Comments

I agree that these are all disruptive socks because the contribution log speaks for itself. Note: D'Artignan has already been indef-blocked for disruption, including vandalizing this report. Shalom ^Hello 17:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

At best, these are a handful of single-purpose accounts created to tag-team and overwhelm a discussion; they edit each other's comments, etc. They're likely socks, or perhaps meatpuppets, really a moot point. I've indef-blocked all the puppet accounts, and given Nicolaas 72 hours. Interestingly, they all stopped editing around July 10, which is when D'Artagnan was indef-blocked, so I wonder if they were caught up in the autoblock or account-creation block. MastCell ^Talk 21:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Dodopie

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Dodopie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Jojopie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Fofopie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Jewb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
JEWB SUCKS!!!! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Rotflmfao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 12:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Dodopie, Jojopie, Fofopie all have a clear similarity in their usernames
Jewb and JEWB SUCKS!!!! have clear connection in their usernames
Jojopie uploaded Image:BAN.JPG (an image of a 'ban hammer') and posted it on Jewb's userpage.
JEWB SUCKS!!!! has two edits only, and are both to User talk:Jewb.
Dodopie's user page has text saying "Connor and Johnny owns you!". A page, Jonny h was created and then deleted by one of these suspected puppets, although I'm afraid I've forgotten who, and can't now check (perhaps User:Rotflmao; see comments section below).
Fofopie and Dodopie have both edited Anonymity (Dodopie immediately after Fofopie).
Fofopie vandalised the 300 article, making reference to 'lupus'. Jojopie was warned for creating a page titled U have lupus.
Jojopie and Fofopie also vandalised Roy Castleton immediately one after the other.
Rotflfmao's only edit is to User:Dodopie.

Comments at time of submission by Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 12:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have guessed that Dodopie is the puppetmaster as he is the only one currently with a userpage.
There's some evidence (in particular, at least 2 of the suspected puppets refer directly to each other, even using names) to suggest that at least some of these are meatpuppets. However, it's unclear which are sockpuppets and which meatpuppets, and so I'm making use of the ArbCom decision referred to on the Suspected Sockpuppets page whereby a case where there is uncertainty over whether an account is a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet may be treated as a sockpuppet case.
I had previously included Rotflmao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) as a sockpuppet. However, as I was writing this, his contributions and then his talk page disappeared, although his account is still listed at Special:Listusers. I have also forgotten why I initially included him in my report to Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents, but I did so in my first report and presumably had a reason to. He definitely did have contributions beforehand, so if administrators can see anything I can't, it's maybe worth taking a look.
- Rotflmao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) <- deleted contributions shows the page v0id, only editor is user:Rotflmao. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My mistake, it was actually Rotflmfao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Note the second f. I have now listed him as a further suspected sockpuppet. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 13:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proof of notification of suspects: Dodopie Jojopie Fofopie Jewb JEWB SUCKS!!!! Rotflmfao

Comments

Conclusions

All named accounts, including the puppetmaster, have been indefinitely blocked as vandalism-only or trolls, so I don't think there's anything else to be done here. MastCell ^Talk 21:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Kaiser1877

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Kaiser1877 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Piononno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Darkspots 21:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Both accounts were created on the same day, June 27, 2007.
Both accounts have fewer than 50 edits and either half or most are to Talk:Fräulein or Fräulein.
Both use a similar, unusual style of talk-page comments, inserting two lines before the comment. [90], [91]
Both accounts push a unique viewpoint about Fräulein, using the catchphrase that "educated" speakers use the German term in a particular way: [92], [93]

The violation here is that both have argued on Talk:Fräulein in the same way, backing each other up: [94]

Comments

I agree 100% with the findings listed above. I reviewed all the diffs, and the evidence seems irrefutable.

However, since one of the users has unrelated edits, and they legitimately appear to be newbies (and not a sock of a third, unknown editor), I would recommend against the death penalty. Instead, indef-block Piononno, and temporarily block Kaiser (three days should be enough) and warn him to steer clear of Fraulein or else. Just a suggestion. Shalom ^Hello 02:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would think this might be an innocent case of a new user not knowing the rules. Justg put a warning on the page with a link to sockpuppet rules. Don't bite the newcomers. Basejumper 18:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I've chosen to block User:Kaiser1877 indefinitely, as it appears more single-purpose, and view User:Piononno as the puppeteer. I've given him a 48-hour block. MastCell ^Talk 21:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:JJonathan

Suspected sockpuppeteer: JJonathan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: 172.170.110.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 172.129.80.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 172.131.146.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 172.131.86.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 172.145.41.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 172.146.171.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 172.146.21.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 172.148.40.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 172.148.74.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 172.148.83.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 172.167.153.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 172.130.182.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 172.162.40.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 172.166.62.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 172.148.7.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 172.164.103.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 63.3.22.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Kurt Shaped Box 01:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

See WP:LTA#JJonathan for this vandal's MO. Looks like he's returned and has started editing from the 172.1xx.xx.xxx range, hitting his usual target articles with plausible-sounding false info and unreferenced (probably completely made up) 'vocal range' references. I've managed to keep on top of it so far - but perhaps a range block may be in order?

Comments

Based on the LTA report, I'd consider this a match. Short-term blocks should be sufficient because the furor seems to have died down after this report was posted. A range-block would probably be overkill, but it was a good idea two days ago. Shalom ^Hello 04:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still continuing without any sign of abating. The last two IPs on the list (just added) have been active today, with the same old. He's like a dog with a bone. It seems to be quite difficult to get his IPs blocked on the fly, as AIV are reluctant to block unless a final warning has been given (by which time, he's switched IPs). --Kurt Shaped Box 13:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Yes, all JJonathan-style IP edits, but all are stale and haven't been used recently. Short of a range block or semi-protecting the most frequently hit pages, I'm not sure there's anything to be done at this point. Thanks for your continued vigilance in reverting and reporting these; apologies not to catch this sooner. MastCell ^Talk 21:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Drappel

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Drappel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

BotleyBoy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

---The user formerly known as JackLumber 19:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

They both chiefly edit calendar entries; contrib pages look pretty much the same; both are British. Edit warring, POV pushing at Yoghurt [95], [96]

Comments

Conclusions

No match as far as I can see. The edits to yoghurt are three days apart, so it may just be a coincidence. The article interests are far from identical. Since articles about calendar dates are high-profile and frequently vandalized, it's plausible for two unrelated users to have them watchlisted. The editing patterns are different (one edits about 5-10 times per session online, the other around 30-50 times per session), and the edit summaries are totally different (one uses the automated "undo" summary; the other does not). Shalom ^Hello 21:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; I can't see enough here to conclude that they're socks. If they're used in conjunction in the future, you could consider checkuser, but the circumstantial evidence argues against them being socks. MastCell ^Talk 21:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:XAndreWx

Suspected sockpuppeteer

XAndreWx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

89.240.154.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Sprigot 02:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

XAndreWx has repeatedly breached rules around the 3RR rule - and I believe he has attempted to subvert this by sock puppeteering.

The user coming in on IP address '89.240.154.160' has only significantly edited the Second_city_of_the_United_Kingdom article where currently a edit 'war' is going on which XAndreWx is heavily involved. He's also edited the pages of users that XAndreWx has had disagreements with - only.

All of the multiple revisions for the same text come from XAndreWx and 89.240.154.160 come from http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Second_city_of_the_United_Kingdom&action=history

Here are the diffs for both accounts for Second_city_of_the_United_Kingdom:

The suspected sock puppet '89.240.154.160':

19:35, 18 July 2007
19:27, 18 July 2007
18:50, 18 July 2007

The suspected sock puppeteer XAndreWx:

18:34, 18 July 2007
18:31, 18 July 2007
18:06, 18 July 2007
00:39, 18 July 2007
21:26, 17 July 2007
20:06, 17 July 2007
15:50, 16 July 2007
12:53, 15 July 2007
20:20, 12 July 2007

Pages of users edited by '89.240.154.160', with whom XAndreWx has had dissagreements:

19:32, 18 July 2007
19:26, 18 July 2007

Pages edited by users, and then edited by '89.240.154.160', with whom XAndreWx has had dissagreements:

19:44, 18 July 2007

Comments

XAndreWx was originally blocked for the 3RR rule by User:Irishguy for this article here:

22:41, 15 July 2007

This block was overturned by User:Evilclown93, also known as User:Maxim, on the request of XAndreWx's adoptor User:Giggy, with the comment of "Giggy has asked me to remove it, and I trust you've cooled off by now." here:

01:48, 16 July 2007

Even though XAndreWx was unblocked he again repeatedly violated the 3RR rule - in fact violating it at least six times since he was unblocked just two days ago.

I also believe that he then resorted to sock puppeteering to continue the revisions (three more identical revisions were made) - I have also created a 3RR complaint which documents the evidence I have gathered in this matter.

I hope we can get some fair and just adjudication soon - this is a depressing state of affairs.

See also User:0Andrew0 (warned for 3RR on 4 February 2007). Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 19:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response by User:XAndreWx

This page is preposterous and absurd! For a start the IP says it uses Opal Telecom which I have never heard of. Also when checking where the IP comes from it says Luton and I live in Lancashire. Also there are plenty of other people who have reverted the edits made by numerous sockpuppets e.g. User:Rob right not just me and that IP obviously agrees with me that User:Rob right's edits are unhelpful to the rest of Wikipedia. It is clear to me that User:Sprigot is trying to start some form of hate campaign against me for some reason and this kind of behaviour is disheartening that new users may be subject to this. I feel shocked and appalled by the treatment I am receiving and would like assistance from an impartial user on how to deal with this kind of nonsense. Also with regards to 3RR. I was unaware this was a rule on wikipedia as my "adopter" never told me this at any point in time and only found out when an administrator slapped a block on me with no warning and complete disregard for what was actually happening. There are some IP users on this which constantly add unhelpful edits and think using out of date sources is acceptable. This can easily infuriate the most calm of users as it did me. Also this hate campaign by User:Sprigot only makes my experiences on here worse. If the editing community want people to share their knowledge then I think they need to treat people better to avoid people becoming as distraught as I have and leaving wikipedia. I will not be leaving as I want to let people know the facts rather than the fiction some users often feed to them. Thank you and good day. XAndreWx 23:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also: If you think I am being overly dramatic calling it a hate campaign then just take a look at User talk:Sprigot. This user seems obsessed with me and the account was clearly created by one of the editors from the Second city of the United Kingdom article on the Birmingham side out to get me and drag my name through the mud. I hope this behaviour is not acceptable as this account User:Sprigot is also sockpuppetry, the very thing they are accusing me of. XAndreWx 23:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WHOIS for 89.240.154.160 has a contact detials as: Opal Telecommunications Plc, Irlam, Manchester. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 19:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Not entirely clear whether the IP is related or not. However, XAndreWx has been blocked for violating 3RR in his own right. The article should be semi-protected in any case if IP edit-warring becomes an issue; you can go to WP:RFPP. MastCell ^Talk 21:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:AFI-PUNK

Suspected sockpuppeteer: AFI-PUNK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: 87.167.236.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Gscshoyru 11:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Same edits as other socks of this user, see Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Rise_Against_All-138

Comments

Conclusions

Yup; blocked for 48 hours. If the IP appears to be static and resumes its behavior after the block expires, I'll extend it. MastCell ^Talk 21:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Bucs10

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Bucs10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Yankees10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (admitted sock puppet, see first edits)
Mghabmw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Get Buck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
208.168.252.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
208.168.232.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
208.168.238.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
208.168.233.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

The Evil Spartan 22:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

[97] 'nough said? I count 21RR.
[98] Ditto.
[99]
[100].

My main contention is if Mgh is the sockpuppett, along with 208.168.whatever. Please take a look at this page to see the edit warring linking 208 with Mgh: both edit warring in the same war, breaking 3RR so badly it hurts. This was a continuation of an edit war started out by Yankees10 and a user great at IP hopping: I note that Yankees 10 hasn't edited since July 2, so I'm suspicious. I'm also filing a report on the other user, who's a pretty obvious sock. Given that these users managed to reach literally '21RR on Reggie Jackson (see history), I think a hefty block would be in order for all of them. The Evil Spartan 22:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Conclusions

Hmm... a complex one. Here's what I came up with:

Bucs10 == Yankees10 (first edit was to redirect user and user talk pages), but they haven't been used abusively and neither has edited that recently, so I'm not going to block them at this point.
The IP's belong to User:Mghabmw - he has admitted as much on his talk page.
User:Get Buck has already been indef-blocked as a likely sock, which I think is appropriate.

Since Mghabmw has already been blocked for his egregious 3RR violation, I'm not going to take further action, other than to note that the IP's are his, and that Yankees10 and Bucs10 should note their connection. Any further edit-warring by Mghabmw should be met with a lengthy block. MastCell ^Talk 21:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, that the IPs are not solely my own. Other people use this network. Whether they wikipedia or not, that I do not know. Mghabmw 06:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

All blocked indef: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pascack

User:Pascack

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Pascack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

The following a really obvious sockpuppets, per [101]. It's just a question of whom, though it seems pretty obvious to me it's Pascock:

Columbia05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Sportsnationman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Aepi99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Conine92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Hoosier95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
192.234.99.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.175.17.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - not the same reverse WHOIS, but I've noted they're not always perfect (I once edited from a Penn State University IP, that stated as much right in the WHOIS, but also said I was in California). Likely a different user though.

Also likely:

Joeidaho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

The Evil Spartan 23:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

[102] 'nough said? I count 21RR.
[103] Ditto.
[104]
[105].
Please note I've also filed a report on this user's adversaries. As said there, I recommend a hefty block for both of them, given the heavy 3RR, lame edit warring going on. There have been multiple reports at ANI, none of which I feel like digging up, as these reverts say enough. The Evil Spartan 23:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This is unacceptable. Good to see that they were all punished accordingly. It was very annoying seeing Pascack using all those socks spark controversy. He deserved this Soxrock 17:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

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

User:Bobby Boulders

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Bobby Boulders (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

82.45.40.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 00:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Bobby Boulders has had several sockpuppets blocked. He wants to "liberate wikipedia from the facist administrators." 82.45.40.89 is a wikiterrorist. He has the same ideals as this Mister Boulders. The two specialize in "blitzing", making several edits a minute. On the night of June 3rd, 2007, 82.45.40.89 made 5+ edits a minute, adding "1812 Overture" and "horse semen" to articles. Also, the two vandalize user and user talk pages. Such as 82.45.40.89 does here [106] here [107] and here [108]. The Boulders socks do similar things. And this diff is rather curious [109]. It is also confirmed that 82.45.40.89 has sockpuppets here [110]. And for some reason, he has a grudge against admins before he even edits as revealed here [111]. I realize it's probably unlikley he's a sockpuppet, but I couldn't help wondering with all the evidence I gathered.

Comments

Conclusions

The case is moot. Both users are already blocked for the long term. Shalom ^Hello 04:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Choster

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Choster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Choster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
TiconderogaCCB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

UnclePaco 19:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Utilizing User:TiconderogaCCB [112] [113]; who has been blocked on at least two occasions for edit warring and what seems to be a way to avoid a third 3rr block [114] uses User:Choster [115] . They both type in the same heavy handed way and utilize WP:OWN and write on similiar articles. UnclePaco 19:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Conclusions

No match. The editing patterns of these two users are different in every way. Choster is a regular editor who works on category sorting and other maintenance tasks; TiconderogaCCB is a sporadic editor who prefers to focus on a narrow range of articles. Choster reverted back to the version by TiconderogaCCB because, according to the edit summary, he was undoing an "out-of-process reversion". He probably was unaware of the ongoing dispute relating to this article, and was trying to calm the situation. Shalom ^Hello 04:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Brian Reddyb

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Brian Reddyb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Renegade reddy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.42.208.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Retroviralreddy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Retroreddyb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Beebop1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

CounterFX 12:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Renegade reddy: Newly-registered account. First edit was the unjustified reversion of an enforcement of WP:BAN. Also compare this post with Chiefofmsiss1's (confirmed sock puppet).

86.42.208.242: Removed sock puppetry warning from Renegade reddy's page. Also performed vandalism identical to Fm104 and Reddysteddybrekky (both of which are blocked sock puppets of the same user).

Retroviralreddy: Apart from being an Irish footballer born in 1878, a leader of a bloodless coup in which Saddam Hussein participated, and a founding producer of the Swedish manufactured band Rednex, Brian Reddyb is now also the manager of the Australian guitar pop band Gaslight Radio and the founder of the Sweden-based melodic death metal band Dimension Zero. To spell it out, H - O - A - X.

Retroreddyb: It has also been discovered that the ever-so-prolific Brian Reddyb was the manager of the Northern Ireland alternative metal band Therapy?.

Beebop1: ...and the manager of the Greenlandic rock band Chilly Friday.

Comments

Refer to User talk:Brian Reddyb for a complete list of this user's sock puppets, and to Talk:Rednex for ample evidence of this user's pattern of disruptive edits, persistent hoaxes, and bogus accusations against opposing editors.

Conclusions

Yes, obvious Brian Reddyb socks. Named accounts blocked indefinitely, IP blocked for 31 hours. MastCell ^Talk 19:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Imnotfamous

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Imnotfamous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Afcyrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Charlene 21:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Reposted article Cyrus Robinson created originally as Cyrus robinson by Afcyrus. After new article was speedily deleted per G4, this account re-created it again.

After addition by Twinkle (the first time I've used it to report a possible sock), I think Afcyrus is the puppeteer and Imnotfamous is the sock, but perhaps it's six of one and half-dozen of the other. --Charlene 21:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Sock?!

My IP is in Virginia, Imnotfamous' IP is in Kansas! How can I be a "sockpuppet"?! Imnotfamous is a former co-worker who is aware of my contributions to digital forensics! What happened to the "good faith" and "edit boldly" policies of wikipedia? The claim is false. I posted originally for Imnotfamous because she did not have an account. Apparently, I did a terrible job and did not list any relevant information (I was just beginning with early life/family info). I was recommended for deletion. That's fair. Imnotfamous decided to post the article ON HER OWN, and did so. She was immediately sent for speedy deletion bcecause someone called her a sock of my account, which is false, just because there is a reasonable claim for the article that was objected.Afcyrus 16:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was not deleted because of suspected sockpuppetry. It was deleted because of a Wikipedia policy that allows speedy deletion of recreated articles that do not differ substantially from the article that was deleted. BassoProfundo 16:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, however, charlene used the deletion and the reposting as grounds for claiming sockpuppetry, so naturally my response would be a rebuttal to that claim.Afcyrus 16:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can vouch for the authenticity of Afcyrus's story. I know him in person through his work, and I know of the other person. This was definitely two different submitters under two different accounts, both who were new to wikipedia, and had previously planned on making the page. While I can't comment on the notability of the original page, this is definitely not a sockpuppet. Rurik 22:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: While possibly not technically a sockpuppet, see WP:MEAT. — ERcheck (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment WP:MEAT also does not apply. I did not ask her to create an account. She asked me to begin an article for her so that she could complete it once she had created an account.Afcyrus 05:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

This is a gray area, a little close to the edge of a WP:MEAT violation - but I think we can let it slide, in the spirit of not biting newcomers, so long as Afcyrus and Imnotfamous are careful, from here on out, not to double-vote or tag-team-edit, as they are connected in real life. MastCell ^Talk 19:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:87.167.242.147

Suspected sockpuppeteer: 87.167.242.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: AFI-PUNK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Minutes to Rise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 87.167.210.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 87.167.226.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 15:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Tries to provoke edit wars over music genres like User:Minutes to Rise and User:87.167.210.141 on the exact same articles.He continued trolling over the same articles as Minutes to Rise did, and his IP is in the same range as a confirmed sock of his (User:87.167.226.119 and User:87.167.210.141). Also all IP addresses trace back to Nuremburg, Germany. Page history of article Forever (Papa Roach song) with edits of current sockpuppet:[116]. Page history of same article but with edits of User:87.167.210.141: [117].

Comments

An extremely obvious sock, per AngelOfSadness. Also see the CheckUser request. By the way, I'm also pretty sure that this editor is German, he does occasionally use a German word [118]. Sala Skan 21:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Already blocked by another admin for 31 hours, but yes, this appears to be AFI-PUNK/Minutes To Rise. He seems to be using dynamic IP's within a range, so the next step would be semi-protection of target pages. MastCell ^Talk 18:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Rise Against All-138

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Rise Against All-138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: 87.167.242.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); AFI-PUNK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Minutes to Rise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 87.167.210.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 87.167.226.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 12:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Tries to provoke edit wars over music genres like User:Minutes to Rise,User:87.167.242.147 and User:87.167.210.141.He continued trolling over the same articles as User:Minutes to Rise and User:87.167.242.147. .Page history of article Forever (Papa Roach song) with edits of current sockpuppet:[119]. Page history of same article but with edits of User:87.167.242.147:[120]

Comments

Conclusions

Contribs mark this as a sockpuppet of AFI-PUNK/Minutes to Rise/etc. Blocked indefinitely; Getting Away With Murder semi-protected. The IP's have been blocked for 24-31 hours by other admins, but also appear to be used by the same person. MastCell ^Talk 18:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Brian Reddyb

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Brian Reddyb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Reddybrekkyboo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

CounterFX 00:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Another newly-registered account whining against the 'unfairness' of the previous blocks in an uncivil tone. Diffs: [121], [122], [123]. Refer to User talk:Brian Reddyb for a complete list of this user's sock puppets, and to Talk:Rednex for ample evidence of this user's pattern of disruptive edits, persistent hoaxes, and bogus accusations against opposing editors.

Comments

Conclusions

Obvious, disruptive sock. Blocked indefinitely. MastCell ^Talk 00:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Martyjmch

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Martyjmch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

216.54.109.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Mesosphere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Han-Kwang 17:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

The majority of Martyjmch's and 216.54.109.3's edits consist of adding linkspam for gats-inc.com and spectralcalc.com. Whois info for the latter website shows the sites are related:

Registrant: GATS Inc.,  Ken Beaumont, 11864 Canon Blvd. Suite 101, Newpoort News, VA 23606
Domain Name: spectralcalc.com

Martyjmch received a level-3 spam warning on July 10. On July 11, the brand-new account Mesosphere started linkspamming for spectralcalc.com on several pages.

Comments

The evidence is irrefutable. This person, who has linkspammed articles more than 40 times under three different accounts, does not need any more warnings. Of the diffs I checked, he has no positive contributions at all. I would come down hard, blocking both user accounts, and blocking the IP for a full week or even two weeks. Shalom ^Hello 17:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Yup. Spamming sockpuppets blocked indefinitely; the IP, which appears static and used only for spam, has been blocked for 1 month. I'd go to 6 months if they resume spamming when the block expires. MastCell ^Talk 22:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:71.202.143.250

Suspected sockpuppeteer

71.202.143.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Gotcha115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Cheers, Je tL ov er 21:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Tag teaming blanking to Usana, "Gotcha" seems to mean that haha I'm evading block. Cheers, Je tL ov er 21:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seems to be a Usana scammer, as this IP has been devoted to eliminating any information regarding the pyramid scheme charges from that particular article. If there are any more of these, let's just lock the article, if not delete and protect it, as it's really hardly worth the bother to document yet another multi-level marketing scheme that's trying to use us to page rank boost. Geogre 22:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The user account has been indef-blocked as VOA, and the IP has not edited in the last 20 hours so blocking it is probably not necessary. Semiprotecting the page might be a good idea. Shalom ^Hello 17:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Agreed. Named account already indef-blocked, and IP has not been used in the past week. No edits to Usana in the past week, either, so I won't semi-protect it at this point, though that would be a good option if problems recur. MastCell ^Talk 22:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Zuminous

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Zuminous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Potchietooch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Stopchamishlies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Blockoutbud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Bellche (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by Hereward77 18: 08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Barry_Chamish&diff=143728759&oldid=143711446

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Barry_Chamish&diff=143345004&oldid=143344732

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Barry_Chamish&diff=143760602&oldid=143753462

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Barry_Chamish&diff=143648903&oldid=143512901

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Barry_Chamish&diff=141807373&oldid=140404090

Comments

This is a strong-armed, 3RR-evading sockpuppet warrior - one of the worst I've seen here. He's a single-purpose account focused on violating WP:BLP w.r.t. Barry Chamish. All accounts must be indef-blocked, the page should be semiprotected for a week if it isn't already, and a checkuser would not be a bad idea. Shalom ^Hello 19:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above. You seem to have missed Sextonoss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). It is very likely that these are all sockpuppets of Truthprofessor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who was blocked for a week for identical behaviour on Steven Plaut, and whose sockpuppets were blocked indefinitely. I also believe that all of these are linked to the Runtshit serial vandal, and would support the call for a checkuser. Though, as most of these seem to be using an anonymising proxy, that may not provide useful or reliable results. 20:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Truthprofessor has now vandalised the Barry Chamish article. --Hereward77 18:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made some trivial changes in line with WP:NPOV. That's not vandalism. Truthprofessor 18:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were deleting text without explanation or discussion. Please stop. --Hereward77 19:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I explained each change. See my edit summary. Truthprofessor 19:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calling something "POV" isn't good enough. --Hereward77 19:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Yup. All single-purpose, throwaway, BLP-violating socks. All blocked indefinitely. MastCell ^Talk 22:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Frabel

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Frabel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Crackerjack22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Maelwys 14:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User:Frabel recieved several COI complaints about his work to the article Hans Godo Frabel. He stopped making any edits, and the next day User:Crackerjack22 appeared, and started making similar edits, removing the COI tag from the article, and uploading art by Hans Frabel with a GFDL-by-owner tag.

Comments

It's hard to prove this with so few edits by Crackerjack22, but it looks very likely. Let's wait a week before closing this, and see if any new information presents itself. Shalom ^Hello 03:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There have been no edits from either account since July 10. This looks like a stale case. Shalom ^Hello 21:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Crackerjack22 is a pretty obvious sock, given their first edit. I've blocked that account indefinitely, as it was being used to avoid scrutiny and sidestep WP:COI. I'm not going to sanction the master account, as it hasn't been used in a while and hopefully this will get the message across. MastCell ^Talk 22:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Devraj5000

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Devraj5000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

R-1441 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Chubbles 04:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Devraj5000 blocked per 3RR violation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of atheist Nobel laureates. R-1441's comments followed on the same page directly afterward.

Comments

I was the blocking admin, and I concur with Chubbles' assessment. It's a shame that Devraj has chosen to do this. --Hemlock Martinis 04:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

It's a fairly obvious sockpuppet, so I'm going to hurry this along. --Hemlock Martinis 04:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:68.33.194.77

Suspected sockpuppeteer

68.33.194.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppet IP's

24.147.71.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Blaxthos 15:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Commentary with inflammatory language regarding IBM and the Holocaust by "Lark" (anonymous)
Supporting commentary using the same language style and errors (anonymous)

68.33.194.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
24.147.71.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Check out each IP's contribs - both seem to have a pattern of taking a stance and then agreeing with the other on the same articles.

Comments

I think this is a match. Both IPs have disrupted the same articles and talk pages with the same style of rant, and they have referred to each other for support.

It is not obvious what to do about this. I'm not the one to decide (and I'm not an admin anyhow). Shalom ^Hello 00:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I think it's likely that these IP's are being used as sockpuppets. However, as 24.147.71.29 has not contributed in over a week, I'm not going to take any action at this point. The matter could be reopened if disruption from multiple IP's again becomes an issue on these pages. MastCell ^Talk 22:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:David Cat

Suspected sockpuppeteer

David Cat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Freddy Cat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Kevin Cat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Cheers, Je tL ov er 03:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

[124] and David Cat had some sort of a feud against User: Metros, not to mention the user names. They're all like "Joe Cat" or "Sean Cat" or "Dennis Cat".

Comments

I think there's more to those puppets, rarely does one user start doing that. The master is probably David Cat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (see contribs). Looks like there was a feud going on there. Kwsn^(Ni!) 03:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Yes, Kevin and Freddy are clear socks and both are blocked indefinitely. This suggests that Freddy is a sock of David Cat, so I've blocked David Cat for 72 hours as the sockmaster. MastCell ^Talk 04:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: After hearing from Metros and David Cat, it's possible that the abusive "Cat" accounts were created by an impostor of David Cat and are not his socks. I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and unblock him. MastCell ^Talk 23:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Gooogen

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Gooogen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Humanhelper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
220.253.68.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
203.33.160.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
124.168.39.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Evidence

220.253.68.210 has an IP address at Sydney, Australia [125]

203.33.161.65 has an IP address also at Sydney, Australia [126]

124.168.39.104 also has an IP address at Sydney, Australia [127], but says he claimed that is a foreigner in Beijing and can write Traditional Chinese (although the People's Republic of China writes in Simplified Chinese): [128] [129] [130]

But 203.33.161.65 and 124.168.39.104 IP address edits are overlapping: [131]

Proof that Gooogen and 124.168.39.104 are the same person:

124.168.39.104 edits the same message: [132]
Gooogen edits the same message:

[133]

220.253.68.210 claimed that he does not speak Chinese [134]

Gooogen and Humanhelper are both newly created accounts.

Humanhelper and 220.253.68.210 have similar edits: [135] and [136] respectively.

Comments

I don't know if Humanhelper is a sockpuppet or not.

I don't either. I'd rather err on the side of WP:AGF for him. I think the IPs are socks of Gooogen. I'm also curious about the editing pattern of Cold water (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Shalom ^Hello 16:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

These are possibly sockpuppets, although I do want to waste time and do not have the motivation to collect further evidence, since now decided to quit wiki.

Unfreeride 22:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if you my IP address if available to wikipedians now , but i am in Taiwan and was in Newcastle, Australia between April 30- June 29. I am new to wiki and don't know rOm and 124.168.39.104 was my IP address while in Australia. I do speak chinese and use traditional chinese characters since the software I was using is Taiwanese. Although I am more familiar with the simplified characters. I have never claimed I don't know chinese. I noticed how rOm's opinions were similar to mine cause I was reading the same article on humn height and what attracted me to this was that I spend alot of time in China and was sceptical. We only had our own opinion and never used eachother to support a POV. I asked unfreeride to give more reliable data than he already gave since I believe the chinese height potential is about 1 standard deviation below caucasions and negroids, this is what I had in common with rOm. If unfreeride can't find the evidence supporting his POV which I highly doubted he would and quits it'll be good not to have someone write about compensation for and sensationalism of northern chinese height and intelligence to every intellectual article he can find. Anyway I will log out of Gooogen so my IP address is avaiable to you if not already.

Is it visible. I don't know the number cause I am in an apartment in Yilan and the computer is not mine. When I return to Taipei you'll see yet another one and likewise when I return to Beijing. (~gooogen~)

"I am new to wiki and don't know rOm and 124.168.39.104" Why are 124.168.39.104 and Gooogen posting and editing the same exact stuff many times?

Unfreeride 14:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I am gooogen and 124.168.39.104 was my Australian IP in the last month as it says above. Does it not?

I was 220.253.68.210, I complained about Unfreeride POV pushing - and it has led him to group me and other users who have deleted his biased unverified post to be labelled sock puppets. Other Admins have already punished Unfreeride with a 48 hour ban for suspected bad faith.

I don't even live in Sydney! I would like Unfreeride to be ignored, he is just causing trouble once more. ---r0m

Conclusions

Unfortunately, this one has gone a bit stale. The IP's are pretty clearly Gooogen, and I think he's admitting as much above. There's definitely some tag-teaming with Humanhelper as well. As these accounts have dropped off in activity, I'm not going to block any right now; however, any further evidence of tag-teaming or WP:SOCK abuses by Gooogen and Humanhelper should be taken very seriously. MastCell ^Talk 22:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Mikedk9109

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Mikedk9109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

76.188.116.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

The report was submitted by JetLover (talk · contribs) at 03:21, 17 July 2007, who forgot to sign here.

Evidence

[137] and [138]

Comments

Conclusions

Yup, self-proclaimed. I've blocked the IP for 31 hours. MastCell ^Talk 04:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:86.112.249.4

Suspected sockpuppeteer

86.112.249.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

86.112.233.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.112.234.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
86.112.208.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 23:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

IP's are in the same range. I first met 86.112.249.4 when he persistently blanked his talk page. We clashed swords and he was blocked. Then this sockpuppet blanks my talk page and vandalizes the same page 86.112.249.4 did, Dick Trickle. Then he also blanks his own talk page. And then, the most damning evidence of all, he seems to admit it here [139] If you check the contribs, they keep on admitting it! Certainly sir.

Comments

Block me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.234.106 (talk • contribs)

The socks keep on comin... Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 00:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't reviewed any of the evidence, but doesn't this look like a case of dynamic IPs rather than sock puppetry? CounterFX 00:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's using it to evade block, and I believe that's sockpuppetry. And this is the only place to put it. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 00:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the guy just admitted to having an account and says he'll sign up for another. [140]

You need a faster response than you're going to get from here. Try dropping a note on WP:AIAV as well. If the block evasion persists, you could also request an IP range block (of a short duration). CounterFX 00:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No IP Block will work mate. Ways to get round. and you will be disturbing other "good" users All I want is my banned for no reason account open. Problem silved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.234.106 (talk • contribs)

You ever wonder "hmm, maybe I was blocked for a reason...and stupid ransom demands wont work"? Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 00:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I don't really care about my block. You all are providing the entertainment tonight. Good on ya boys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.234.106 (talk • contribs)

Wait, I thought your demand was to have your account unblocked. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 00:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you said. Aint gonna happen. I'll make my new one (right now so you can try to spot it) and go away from this bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.234.106 (talk • contribs)

JetLover: Never bother arguing with vandals. Just drop a note requesting the range block on the noticeboard and let the admins handle the case. CounterFX 00:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with that, in Wikipedia if a account is blocked it must have a reason and if they say blocked indefinitely it is indefinitely, I wouldn't bother creating another account if you are going to keep up with this attitude you will only get it blocked. JetLover, next time you encounter another of these socks just take it to WP:AIV it will work faster than all this burocratic procedure. -凶 00:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough.

If you don't have WP:TWINKLE up and running, I would recommend it. You can report him to AIV in one mouse click. Makes him work harder recycling IPs than you have to work reporting each one. - Crockspot 01:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Do it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.234.106 (talk • contribs)

Conclusions

Probably one guy with a dynamic IP. I'd suggest AIV in the future for a faster response. Often the best approach is to semi-protect target pages - see WP:RFPP. MastCell ^Talk 04:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Nate1506

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Nate1506 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Bongwarriorsupportsdrugabuse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
DrugsArentFunny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Nate1507 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Nate1508 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Nate1509 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Nate1510 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Nate1511 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Chris ^g 08:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

All these user are active in vandalism criticising User:Bongwarrior's User name. See these diifs:

Comments

I thought this guy would give up by now, but he's been going at it for a few weeks (at least, that's how long I've been involved) and he's still going strong. He has used tons of names, most of which I believe have been blocked. User:HappyCamper has taken the steps of protecting my userpage and talkpage, which hopefully will cause him to lose interest, but who knows. HappyCamper has also submitted a related checkuser request here. --Bongwarrior 08:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

All accounts are already indef-blocked. For what it's worth, they seem to be obvious harassing sockpuppets. You could report further occurrences to WP:AIV for a potentially faster response. MastCell ^Talk 00:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Dale Longworth

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Nate1506 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Dale Longworth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Eliz81 18:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Special:Contributions/Dale Longworth match the pattern established by User:Nate1506.

Comments

Conclusions

Obvious sock, already indef-blocked. MastCell ^Talk 00:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Nadirali

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Nadirali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (banned)

Suspected sockpuppets

Vmrgrsergr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

deeptrivia (talk) 04:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Same IP range 74.98.xxx.xxx that did extensive edits on the banned user User:Nadirali's homepage also has edits on User:Vmrgrsergr's homepage. (Nadirali's 74.98.241.189 vs. Vmrgrsergr's 74.98.240.85, both belonging to Rogers Cable Communications Inc., TORONTO, Ontario, Canada) [141]. This by itself is a strong evidence of sockpuppetry.

Editing a very similar set of articles related to aviation (airlines and airports), Star Wars, Star Trek, X files, asian cuisine (especially South Asian), Pakistan, science fiction, South Asian history (esp. pre-Islamic history of N.W. Indian subcontinent), etc. (can surely provide diffs, but there are too many of them. Browsing through contribs of both accounts should make this clear.) Two users living in the same locality, both Pakistanis of multiple ethicities (see below), with the same unique combination of interests cannot be a coincidence.

Other evidences are not standalone evidences, but strongly suggest sockpuppetry in context.

User:Vmrgrsergr created soon (20 days) after User:Nadirali was banned for a year (banning decision).
Both describe themselves as Pakistani users of multiple ethnicities (with several similar userboxes on their homepage)

Like the banned Nadirali, Vmrgrsergr too has opinions regarding how science fiction/fantasy movies should be categorized, e.g. [142]

Like the banned Nadirali, Vmrgrsergr too has opinions (same as Nadirali) about how much of Pakistan's history is shared with India, and is engaged in similar edits as Nadirali (details of Nadirali are here). [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148] [149], etc.

Nadirali was strongly against the idea of having an article on Pakistan studies (see this, and [150]). Vmrgrsergr has been making repeated attempts to get this article deleted [151] and is now ranting over the article in a very unproductive manner (see Talk:Pakistan Studies) . Note that "both" users feel that the policy that applies in this case is the completely irrelevant WP:SOAP.
Vmrgrsergr collaborates with and "seeks help" on AfDs, debates, etc. from same editors Nadirali collaborated with, like User:Khalidkhoso and User talk:Omerlives (example: barnstar exchanges; [152] [153], [154],[155])

Similar level of English writing skills and logical reasoning. This sounds a bit subjective, but in fact Vmrgrsergr's kind of arguments and language was the first thing that strongly reminded me of Nadirali.

This is a small list of evidences I could produce in the limited time I can devote on this. I'm sure much more can come out if enough time is spent, but hopefully this should be sufficient. deeptrivia (talk) 04:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They both have extensively edited] Kerwin Matthews.Added by Baka man 23:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Conclusions

Contributions per evidence presented above indicate that the same individual is behind both usernames.Proabivouac 07:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed by checkuser.Proabivouac 19:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Can someone close this thing please? I can't find the template instructions. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duly closed. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Ian 101

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Ian 101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

PIMPZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (blocked)
DJSpyro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 02:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

The users target User:NawlinWiki, and the master had some kind of a grudge against him. Note that DJ's first edit was to Nawlin's userpage. Suspicous. As of now, I've got my eye on Nawlin's userpage and I will add anymore socks to the list.

Comments

Conclusions

DJSpyro blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account. He's likely a sock, but it's kind of a moot point. MastCell ^Talk 05:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:ArtGarfunkel

Suspected sockpuppeteer: ArtGarfunkel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: 62.231.136.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

FunPika 14:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

The IP address vandalized Florent Malouda 3 minutes after I had to revert ArtGarfunkel for vandalism twice.

ArtGarfunkel's first vandal edit: [156]

ArtGunfunkel's second vandal edit:[157]

My second vandal revert: [158]

IP vandal edit: [159]

Based on the amount of time between vandal edits, I suspect that the IP adress belongs to ArtGarfunkel.

Comments

Conclusions

User:Fire Star has been blocked indefinitely, which renders the status of the single IP edit academic. The IP has not edited since July 10. Shalom ^Hello 21:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:68.38.77.236

Suspected sockpuppeteer: 68.38.77.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: 74.121.93.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Talmage 04:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Similar vandalism in succession to Dustin Pedroia and Aaron Hill.

Comments

Conclusions

Both accounts were blocked 24 hours by User:Alphachimp on July 9. They have not returned. Shalom ^Hello 21:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Wjmummert

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Wjmummert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

68.74.73.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
206.81.51.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

fuzzy510 02:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

68.74.73.4 first made an edit to Bill Self at 17:05 on July 11 that was later reverted by ESkog at 17:50 the same day for being unsourced and POV with a bias towards the Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball team. Later, at 23:12 on the same day, Wjmummert came along and made the same edits to the page three times in a 2+ hour span, and for the same reasons, they were reverted again, once by ESkog, and twice by myself. Today, after being warned and reported for violating 3RR, the exact same type of edits, down to much of the wording, were made by User:206.81.51.187.

Additionally, the two IP addresses have shared other Illinois-slanted edits on Charlie Villanueva, and 206.81.51.187 has made multiple other POV edits on other Illinois basketball-related articles.

As one final tie to Wjmummert's apparent bias, a message was left on my talk page to lecture me about, of all things, not getting into a revert war, and to accuse me of only doing so because I was a fan of Kansas Jayhawks basketball. --fuzzy510 02:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Conclusions

Based on the content of the edits, the sockpuppetry at Bill Self is beyond dispute. User:Kafziel protected that article until July 15, and hopefully that will be enough. Kafziel also blocked Wjmummert for 48 hours because of the edit warring and sockpuppets. Shalom ^Hello 21:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mml44

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:Ghirlandajo

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Hare krine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Yjiadasa-mahala-wishna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Blueboy 96 00:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

On several occasions, Ghirlandajo has removed references to Joseph Stalin being Russian:

Only three minutes after being created, Hare krine goes to the Stalin article and takes the Russian ref out again. Suspect this is an attempt by Ghirlandajo to avoid 3RR.

It's also likely that Hare krine is related to Yjiadasa-mahala-wishna, as Hare krine's only edit: here blows away a bunch of new content and reverts way back to one of Yjiadasa-mahala-wishna's edits. C ^thirty-three 00:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Has WP:AGF been thrown out the window? Blueboy's cranky claims that Dzhugashvili had a single drop of Russian blood [163] and that there are references to confirm the fact (above) are patently false and belong to WP:FTN. If he fails to prove my misdemeanor, I urge him to apologize for frivolous accusations of sockpuppeteering and vandalism which he aggressively pasted on my talk page.[164]

Conclusions

I find that this is woefully insufficient evidence of sockpuppetry to warrant this accusation against an extremely well-established contributor. I would support closing this report as unfounded. Leaving open temporarily for other admins to comment. Newyorkbrad 01:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur with Newyorkbrad, and I'm closing this case for lack of meaningful evidence. Under the worst of circumstances, it's hard to prove sockpuppetry when the suspected sock has only one to three edits, and the suspected sockpuppeteer has several thousand edits. Furthermore, I checked the contribution log of Ghirlandjoe - he was working on a completely unrelated article, over the course of several edits, around the moment that Hare krine made his lone edit to the Stalin article. To suggest that Ghirla would have interrupted his work on the other article to log out, disrupt the Stalin article, then log back in to his main account and resume business as usual, is beyond ridiculous. Shalom ^Hello 03:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Minutes to Rise

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Minutes to Rise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: 87.167.226.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

TheLetterM 17:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User is a sock of User:AFI-PUNK, already blocked for sockpuppetry in May of this year. See the case here.

I got suspicious about this user when he reverted an edit I made to Post-Hardcore and left a message on my talk page, telling me not to bother and essentially claiming ownership of the page. Looking at other edits this user has made led me to the original username, which was reported by User:Hoponpop69 and the disruptive user, sock IPs and another username subsequently blocked. Both User:Minutes to Rise and the anon IP have made edits to articles AFI-PUNK and its socks have edited, and continued in its grand tradition of making contentious, uncooperative edits on user talk pages. I believe that a look through both users' edit histories and comparing them with AFI-PUNK will reveal them to be the same person. This is pretty open-and-shut sockpuppetry.

Additional evidence supplied by TheLetterM via email

Please take into my consideration evidence that User:Minutes to Rise is using User:87.167.226.119 as a sockpuppet, and evidence showing how both are sockpuppets for User:AFI-PUNK (also banned for sockpuppetry).

Evidence showing that User:87.167.226.119 (heretofore referred to as "The IP address") is an SP of User:Minutes to Rise:

IP posts comment on my Talk Page, signs it as Minute to Rise.

IP does it again.

This time, Minutes to Rise himself posts a comment.

Also see the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Post-hardcore&diff=prev&oldid=144436418 http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Post-hardcore&diff=prev&oldid=144437951

Observe the same edits to the post-hardcore article by the "different" users.

Thus, I believe this shows that the IP address and Minutes to Rise are one and the same.

Evidence showing how the above are Sock Puppets of banned User:AFI-PUNK:

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Paramour_Sessions&diff=132217330&oldid=132117239 http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Paramour_Sessions&diff=prev&oldid=144416642

These show AFI-PUNK and the IP address making edits to the same page, both stating how this album "has a few pop-punk influences".

Edits here posted on the Talk Page of defunct user Hoponpop69 have the same insulting tone and all-caps typing that both my talk page and user SalaSkan have endured.

Furthermore, I've just run WHOIS on the IP address, the results seen here:

http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=87.167.226.119&email=on

Now, after comparing with the WHOIS entries from IPs from the AFI-PUNK suspected sock puppets page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/AFI-PUNK

comes the following:

Showing that the IPs are indeed related and come from the same place.
(above evidence copied from email from TheLetterM. Crum375 20:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

More evidence: I am now 100% certain it is him. The IP made another all caps comment on a talk page [165], and then Minutes to Rise signed it.[166] Sala Skan 11:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Added them to the category. Sala Skan 20:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

This seems a pretty clear case of sockpuppetry to continue revert warring. I have indefinitely blocked Minutes to Rise as a sockpuppet of User:AFI-PUNK who was blocked for the same thing. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:King of America

Suspected sockpuppeteer

King of America (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

Kariteh 08:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Contributions are focused on video game articles and show a pattern of removing/altering non-North American information, such as changing European release dates or box shots. He seems to use multiple accounts, and seems to be following A Link to the Past around with the intention of reverting pro-EU edits on his part. Could an administrator look at the following contributions and consider blocking these accounts?:

Here are some examples of American bias:

The following are done to show connection through edit history.

Worms: Open Warfare 2 edits: [167] - [168] - [169].

Metroid Prime Hunters edits: [170] - [171]

Picross DS edits: [172] - [173] - [174] - [175] - [176]

Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney - Justice for All edits: [177] - [178]

Sonic Rush Adventure edits: [179] - [180] - [181]

Unrelated articles which possibly show similar editing interests (between most of them for the most part):

Wrestling articles (Vince McHamon, WWE 08 video game)
Virtual Console-related articles
200X in video gaming
List of Nintendo DS games
List of Wii games
Nickelodeon-related articles (Danny Phantom, Catscratch, Fairly OddParents)
Wikipedia's Sandbox
Touch! Generations-related articles

Personality:

Often swears
Blanks pages (especially sandbox)
Rude tone
Anti-IGN tone
Almost every single user/IP knows how to use reversion software

Comments

The presence of User:74.225.211.177 and all the circumstances described above may point towards these accounts/IPs all being sockpuppets of User:Super World Champions, a previous sockpuppeteer who has been banned. Super World Champions and his socks (this 74.225.211.177, as well as User:Da D00d Uploader and User:UltraNintendoEntertainmentSystem) showed a very similar pattern (see Contributions):

focus on video games and release dates
on wrestling games articles
on Danny Phantom and the Fairly OddParents
on Nintendo DS and Wii related articles
and expressed an anti-IGN tone regarding release dates

Kariteh 08:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Both named accounts are clearly socks of User:Super World Champions, and have been blocked indefinitely. I have no doubt that the IPs listed were used by the same user as well, but appear to be highly dynamic, so blocking them would likely be ineffective and cause collateral damage. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Christophe defaye

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Christophe defaye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: 220.146.158.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

— Coren ^(talk) 08:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

SPA[182] puppet master logged off to remove CSD tag [183] then forgets to log back on [184] at first [185] to make wikilinks to his spam.

Comments

Conclusions

Let's please try not to bite. I see here a new editor who's definitely in need of some guidance, but I don't believe they're acting with malice. If he does in the future, we can always deal with that then. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Raspor

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Raspor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Rtc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Orangemarlin 22:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Raspor is a known sockpuppet master: and
Raspor has a community ban as shown here
Rtc and Raspor edited similar articles, mostly in the Creationism vs. Evolution articles. Rtc's contributions vs. Raspor's contributions
Per the evidence above, both stay mostly in the Talk space, rarely editing articles.
Both have a fascination with Karl Popper as shown Rtc1, Rtc2 and here for Raspor
Tendentious editing of single articles, specifically Talk:Intelligent design and Talk:Pseudoscience for Rtc and Talk:Intelligent design for Raspor.
Complains about be typecast as a supporter of Intelligent design, as here. This is similar to complaints from Raspor here

Comments

I agree that there seems to be a similarity between RTC and Raspor:

Obsessed with Popper
Excited about mathematics but doesnt know much about it
Can write well if he has to (but still slips atrociously)
Thin skin
Aggrieved attitude
Knowledge of WP procedures immediately
Editing only a few articles in a certain subject area
Edit warring
Amateur philosopher
Desperate not to be cast as an ID or DI or creationism supporter, all evidence to the contrary

The pattern seems to be more than random.--Filll 23:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please withdraw this case. Apparently I was mistaken in that Rtc does have the same obsession as Raspor, and has a very similar style, but it has been indicated to me privately that Rtc is not the same person. I believe that Rtc does not live in the US where Raspor lives, leading me to believe that they act similarly, but are, in fact, not the same person. Orangemarlin 09:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Case withdrawn by filer. MastCell ^Talk 00:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Mariam83

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Mariam83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Irrer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Bouha 09:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

New account, same agenda and fascination with Tunisia, North Africa (only on talk thus far), familiarity with wikipedia

Comments

Conclusions

Both accounts already indef-blocked - nothing to do here. MastCell ^Talk 00:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:219.90.163.49

Suspected sockpuppeteer: 219.90.163.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: 219.90.217.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 219.90.160.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

[[186]] [[187]]

Comments

Both IPs are registered to Australia. Both of them made edits with regards to the Australian match against Iraq during the 2007 AFC Asian Cup. There is a chance that it's vandalism in response to their defeat in the Asian Cup.--Kylohk 13:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another suspected sock puppet is User:219.90.160.204. In his edit[[188]], he stated how he can't be stopped, implying that it's the same person.--Kylohk 14:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, It's clearly the same individual. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Eh. A vandal with a dynamic IP. The IP's have all received short blocks, but the better way to handle it is semi-protection. I've semi-protected the target page for 3 weeks; that will dry up the IP vandalism faster than trying to whack each new IP address. MastCell ^Talk 00:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Amphetamineannie

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Amphetamineannie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Germanrug (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Ephedrineeva (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Dexedrinedana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Gscshoyru 17:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Near-identical edits on Cranbrook School Sydney. Seems to be that all of these are one-edit accounts.

Diffs: [189] [190] [191] [192]

I think that some of the others who've edited the page may be socks of the same user as well.

Gscshoyru 17:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Conclusions

All socks, and all have already been indefinitely blocked by another admin. I semi-protected the target page for 2 weeks to deter any more throwaway accounts. MastCell ^Talk 00:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:172.130.119.61

Suspected sockpuppeteer: 172.130.119.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: 172.130.201.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Spellcast 22:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Blatant sockpuppet of 172.130.201.213 blocked only minutes ago.

Comments

Conclusions

Both IP's are already blocked for 31 hours. I've semi-protected the target page for 2 weeks. For future reference, if a page is being vandalized by someone with a dynamic IP, the best approach is often to semi-protect the page (see WP:RFPP) rather than trying to whack each new dynamic IP address. MastCell ^Talk 00:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Nedvedfan13

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Nedvedfan13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Nedvedfan14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Nedvedfan15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Zap Boy ^{(contribs) (sign here)} 22:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Almost the same username. Created at same time

Comments

But they aren't being used abusivley. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 23:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Agreed with JetLover. These are obviously sockpuppets; however, none appear to have been used at all, and so are not violating WP:SOCK. If they end up being used abusively, they could be reported, but as of now no intervention is warranted. MastCell ^Talk 00:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Tanninglamp

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Tanninglamp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

69.115.23.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
72.79.115.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

--Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

The primary evidence is the contribution history of Tanninglamp and the two IP addresses. All three show an interest in adding BLP violations to Keith Olbermann or the toupee article in regards to Keith Olbermann and a toupee and Rick Reilly. The editor also has propensity of accusing editors that remove his BLP violations as being biased and either being opposed to "freedom of speech" or removing "opposing views" or "negative views". Appplicable edits:

Tanninglamp adding a misinterpretation of a source to Rick Reilly article on March 28.[193]
69.115.23.71 re-adding the same content on May 14.[194]
72.79.115.175 re-adding the same content again on May 15.[195]

69.115.23.71 editing the Ralph Nader [196] and Toupee [197] articles while Tanninglamp was under 48 hour 3RR block from May 10-12.[198]

Following another round of adding BLP violations to Keith Olbermann, Toupee, and Mike Francesa on June 29, 72.79.115.175 was blocked for 7 days.[199] Since then the editor has used 69.115.23.71 to complain about the removal of his additions on the Keith Olberman talk page.[200] When I reverted the additions for being added by a blocked user,[201] the editor turned his attentions towards my talk page to complain about my biases and removal of his comments on the talk page.[202][203]

All in all a pretty easily spotted sockpuppetmaster that has been used to circumvent blocks to add content that violates BLP. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The first group of edits to Rick Reilly, alleging that he allowed his daughter to drink alcohol, is more than sufficient to prove that this man and the IPs are the same person. Nobody else would have added the BLP violation back into the article, word for word. I didn't even bother to read the rest of the evidence (but Bobblehead, I appreciate your effort in putting it together).

Both the sockmaster and sockpuppets are blocked until the end of this week. The only action to take is to change the master's block to indefinite. Shalom ^Hello 14:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Nothing really to be done here, the editor has already been blocked for the sockpuppetry. Of course, if (s)he engages in future sockpuppetry or BLP violations, please report it here or at ANI. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Diyako

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Diyako (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - later known as Xebat
Xebat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

D.Kurdistani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.222.81.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - confirmed D.Kurdistani
71.222.103.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - confirmed D.Kurdistani
71.222.66.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - confirmed D.Kurdistani

Report submission by

-- Cat ^chi? 19:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Background

Firstly some background on who Diyako was. Diyako is a user who was banned by arbcom for a year (which has expired recently) for engaging in personal attacks, revet warring and other kinds of disruption such as repetively {{prod}}ding Iranian people claiming they don't exist. At some point Diyako registered a new username under "Xebat" he announced it as his new account. Diyako had one "possible" sockpuppet before. Diyako has a serious history of personal attacks: block log

A checkuser between Diyako and D.kurdistani was filed as far back as 14:00, 7 April 2007. The result was a "decline" as Diyako was long stale by then. A checkuser is not possible as logs have expired. I asked arbitrators and checkusers for possible private logs but no one confirmed having such logs so far.

Evidence

D.Kurdistani's first edit on 00:38, 17 August 2006, just roughly two months after Diyako's ban by arbcom on 14:01, 7 May 2006. The "possible" sockpuppet mentioned above showed up roughly the same time arbcom case was closed.
User initiated a Nawroz article as his third edit which looks awfully professional for a 3rd edit
- Diyako was also very active on the article in question (under an alternate title): Newroz as celebrated by Kurds.
- Diyako considered an article merger to be cultural slavery. See the rfc case for more evidence on this.
Very recent NPA vios by D.Kurdistani (while logged out from a dynamic IP range): (1), (2), (3)
D.Kurdistani also showed interest in acquiring User:Diyako's former username. He identified himself as a "Diyako" further back

Comments

I have no way to be certain of this (even though I spent fifteen minutes reviewing all the evidence), but I'm about 99% sure that User:D.Kurdistani is a sockpuppet of User:Diyako. In addition to the formidable evidence from WhiteCat/07, you will find that other users refer to D.Kurdistani as "Diyako" on User talk:D.Kurdistani (search for "Diyaki" on that page using your browser's search function). If his real name is Diyako, then it's similar to calling User:Phaedriel as Sharon, or User:SlimVirgin as Sarah, or for that matter User:Shalom as Yechiel. But that begs the question: how many people do you know who are named "Diyako"? By far the most likely explanation is that these are the same person in real life. Shalom ^Hello 14:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t rush to conclusions yet, you cannot be 99% sure if I am a sockpuppet of Diyako by taking fifteen minutes to investigate this. You don’t know me so how can you tell that I am sockpuppet of Diyako or Xebat. You have to know who the user is and be positive that you are correct to conclude that I am a sockpuppet [204]. I ask you to please take your time and investigate this before you make a statement like that. --D.Kurdistani 06:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t get this why are you doing this Cat, there is no need to go this far. I now you don’t like me and have bias against me, and there has been a history of tensions between us, but still you don’t need to take it this far. I have done nothing wrong on Wikipedia, there is no need to start a case like this based on false and biased pretences.

I repeat, I have done nothing wrong, I am not Diyako or Xebat or the IP addresses you list. --D.Kurdistani 07:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser is pretty conclusive that you are the IPs in question, infact the checkuser revealed your username. Prior I did not have the slightest idea. I would not have filed this case should a checkuser request did not positively identify you as the ips. -- Cat ^chi? 16:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Evidence

1.I was using Wikipedia (reading and editing articles) for a long time before I got an account, I got an account on August 17, 2006. Diyako and Xebat were both blocked on May 7, 2006 [205], [206], do the math and you see the time frame is 3 months and 11 days between (Diyako or Xebat) getting banned and me getting an account. Do you think he would have waited that long to get another account? I don’t think so. This first piece of evidence can’t be used as evidence, this does not provide a definite link between me and (Diyako or Xebat) in any shape or form. --D.Kurdistani 23:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. That does not make any sense; I was using Wikipedia (reading and editing articles) for a long time before I got an account. --D.Kurdistani 07:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at my history I am not or have I been very active on the Nawroz article. And as a matter of fact I don’t have a single edit on the article Newroz as celebrated by Kurds. --D.Kurdistani 07:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This does not make sense at all, you have not stated your point and how it could be used as evidence. Don’t provide links and expect us to help you find evidence, make your points clear. --D.Kurdistani 07:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. How can you accuse me of sockpuppetry from IP addresses, if I make an edit but do not log in that does not translate to sockpuppetry. Irregardless I am not the IP addresses you claim, it could be someone else that uses my computer or someone else on my wireless network, you can’t be 100% percent sure that it’s me. --D.Kurdistani 07:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. I did try to change my user name to Diyako [207], my name is a bit long and just wanted my first name to appear on user account. But I could not change my name because the name already existed, so I asked him if I could have the name since he was not using it [208]. So far he has not replied. So if I was a sockpuppet of Diyako would I ask myself to have a account name that I already had? No, it would not make any sense. --D.Kurdistani 07:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Those IPs are confirmed as you as per the check user case. It isn't an accusation and instead a reaction to a checkuser's conclusion.

4. One possibility is that you forgot your password. Diyako account lacks an email address so the password can't be reminded. (logic based on the assumption that you are Diyako)

-- Cat ^chi? 18:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

After spending some time looking through all the users' contributions, I've concluded that D. Kurdistani is a sockpuppet of Diyako/Xebat. Since Diyako/Xebat was banned for a year in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman, and D. Kurdistani's activity began during the one-year period, he has violated the ArbCom ban.
The name Diyako is a form of Deioces, and as a famous king could quite plausibly be a username chosen by different people, and might be a personal name as well. Nevertheless, it's not common, and D. Kurdistani's interest in the name raises suspicions.
The real smoking gun, however, is that D. Kurdistani created Nawroz as a POV fork with his third edit. Essentially, this article was created to portray Nowruz as a specifically Kurdish holiday (most apparent in this version). Diyako/Xebat was active on this issue (see the archives of Talk:Nowruz and Talk:Newroz) and advocated the existence of separate Kurdish/Persian versions; he also created a POV fork, Nevruz, for the "Turkish" version of the holiday.
Since this involves an Arbcom case, I'm going to post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement before taking further action.

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:LidiaFourdraine

Suspected sockpuppeteer

LidiaFourdraine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

83.5.153.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
83.5.133.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
83.5.131.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
83.5.159.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
83.5.136.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Bigdaddy1981 00:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

All five of these anonymous Amsterdam-based urls appeared on a AFD for the suspected puppeteer's article Fluid entropy and make strong keep arguments which are similarly rambling and of a near identical style and tone.

Example (from suspected puppet 83.5.153.45) - "Strong keep: The consideration of entropy transfer of self-organizing systems will require careful experimental and further theoretical studies, which ask questions different from those which were asked before. This may be an opportunity to LEARN MORE about extraordinary efficiency of biological energy conversion systems which are basically of entropic nature. --83.5.153.45 15:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)"

Example (from suspected puppet 83.5.153.45) - "Strong keep: To prevent fuel tank explosions in aviation we have to change our relation to the entropy issue. But the consensus of hier expressed opinion is still against any solution of the entropy problem in aviation and space. Thus currently in the aviation sectors prevailing the non-sustainable trends, for example entropy – terrorism. Mankind versus Mother Nature. --83.5.153.45 07:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)"

Example (from suspected puppet 83.5.133.222) - "Strong, strong keep: To this day, NTSB investigators cannot explain the source of ignition that caused the presumably accidental explosion of TWA Flight 800 in 1996. 11 years after the TWA 800 broke up into pieces off the Long Island coast, the consensus is that the airplane's fuel tank exploded after the fuel ignited from an unknown (i.e. taboo) source (i.e. entropy). The source of ignition of the explosion is belived to be within the fuel, however no conclusive ignition source has been found by accident investigators (i.e. entropy remain taboo). That the world is becoming unethical is evidenced by the few of people who are continuously increasing their and others' entropy by playing the Game of Pleasure in Destruction. --83.5.133.222 14:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)"

Example (from suspected puppet 83.5.131.170) - "Strong keep: Any author attempting to break the taboo on entropy paid a drastic price for her impertinence. --83.5.131.170 18:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)"

Example (from suspected puppet 83.5.131.170) - "Strong keep: The entropy concept has rarefy been studied in biology and powerengineering, althought entropy is as significant as energy, because entropy is the only concept in the physical sciences having directionality with lifetime. Application of the entropy concept to biology would lead to a deeper understanding of living systems. There are still conceptual and methodological difficulties in the measurement and estimation of the entropy content of living systems. --83.5.131.170 07:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)"

Example (from suspected puppet 83.5.159.69) - "Keep On aircraft entropy. Strict attention should be focused on ensuring that fuel entropy in a tank is minimal at the initiation of takeoff. The detection of entropy in fuel, sufficient to cause engine thrust power problems, is difficult and may not be possible. Strange as it may seem, entropy will have a tremendous effect on reducing the performance of a airplane. Despite the accident and research evidence indicating that small imperceptible amounts of entropy can cause the same penalties as ice accumulations. Recent accidents indicate that the pilot community still may not appreciate the potential consequences of small amounts entropy of the fuel.--83.5.159.69"

In addition, all are making more than one keep "vote" each, I believe in an attempt to confuse administrators.

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fluid_entropy

Comments

Forgive me for not reading the whole report. After reading the contribution logs (and "voting" at the Fluid entropy AFD), I am convinced beyond doubt that these are sockpuppets. They should be blocked for the expected duration of the AFD, and the puppeteer should be sent home indefinitely. Shalom ^Hello 06:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added 83.5.159.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) — BillC ^talk 10:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Obvious, but since the AfD closed awhile back there's no real point in blocking anyone; will issue a strong warning instead. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments to conclusion: "All five of these anonymous Amsterdam-based urls appeared on a AFD for the suspected puppeteer's article Fluid entropy and make strong keep arguments which are similarly rambling and of a near identical style and tone." Yours conclusion/information is wrong and crank (Amsterdam?????!!!!)hihi---83.5.169.94 07:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

User:Hoponpop69

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Hoponpop69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

68.114.92.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
24.63.96.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Signature ^brendel 18:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User:Hoponpop69 was disstatisfied that I did not protect a number of article he wanted protected and did not block an entire IP range he wanted blocked (I didn't repsond to many of his request becuase he did not supply sufficient evidence - there was no obvious vandalism; I did take action in those instances where H69 provided suifficent evidence). Hoponpop69 has since left Wikipedia, stating that he was tired of our "bureaucracy."

A few days later User:68.114.92.198 started harrasing me for not having complied with H69's requests. The following lead me to beleive he is H69's sockpuppet:

his short contribution history is to rock related articles, as is that of H69.
Why would he chime in on an discussion between me and another user, reflecting H69's sentiment, when he has never done so before.

In July he/she reappeared under User:24.63.96.152. This user:

Has has almost exclusively edited my talk page
Reflects H69's mood, by continuing the same discussion as 68.114..., as seen here. Signature ^brendel 18:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

His/her edits are written in a very aggressive and acusitory manner. Considering the good-bye message H69 has left on his/her user page, the tone used by both IPs matches the mood and Wiki-perception of H69. Signature ^brendel 18:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beleive that these IP addresses are edited by the same person as the Hoponpop69 account. They seem to be used soley to air H69's greivances on my talk page. Signature ^brendel 18:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two observations:

Based on extreme incivility, such as this recent edits, the IPs should be blocked regardless of whether they are socks. Personal attacks are not tolerated.
68.114.etc edited the userpage of H69. In itself that doesn't prove much, but combined with the other evidence it's irrefutable. Shalom ^Hello 20:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are very likely to be the same user, as their tone and grievance with BrendelSignature is formed from the event that H69 left wikipedia. It seems like they are dissatisfied with the conclusion of events and are now taking it out on BrendelSignature. Seraphim Whipp 23:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that was me. I thought I made it pretty clear that it was me. I don't see how this is sockpuppetry though.Hoponpop69 18:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No you didn't. Once you refered to yourself in the third person plural -as though you were only observing this case- "and users have now given up trying to keep them correct." If you really wanted to clarify your identity you could have signed w/ Hoponpop69. Signature ^brendel 19:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said "users" because their were other people than me reverting this guys edits, wo had given up. How about assuming some good faith, like you more than generously did for that sock puppet? Also I thought I made it clear that I had stopped editing as a member with the note I put on this talk page.Hoponpop69 22:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing under your IP still counts as editing WP. When you say "I'll stop editing WP" that would commonly mean you will stop editing WP, be it under your account or IP. Signature ^brendel 22:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I think we're pretty much done here. These are admitted IP socks. I'm going to block 68.114.92.198 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for 48 hours for incivility, and Hoponpop for 72 hours for abusing sock puppets to harass another editor (though this may be moot as he appears to have given up using his named account). The other IP hasn't been used recently, so will just be tagged. MastCell ^Talk 22:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Wiki En Wiki

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Wiki En Wiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

WikiWiki En (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
70.45.48.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Uiki En Uiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Feature Q 18:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

I first noticed a conection between Wiki En Wiki and 70.45.48.178 in this [209] edit, when I researched further I noticed Wiki En Wiki had been blocked for spamming a week ago, and while researching trough this I came up with Wiki Wiki En and Uiki En Uiki wich were doing the same edits and being used as block evading socks. Then I proceeded to create an account since I have been working under an IP and created this report.

Comments

Jackpot. The sockpuppetry is concealed somewhat by ordinary edits, but the strong POV regarding Puerto Rican Independence Party, shared by all three users/IPs, seems not quite accidental. Shalom ^Hello 02:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Obvious socks. At the very least, User:WikiWiki En and User:Uiki En Uiki should be blocked as impersonators of User:Wiki En Wiki.Proabivouac 03:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Named sock accounts indef-blocked, sock master blocked for 72 hours. I'll leave the IP alone for now, though I'll tag it and if it acts up again it should be blocked. MastCell ^Talk 22:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Raspor

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Raspor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

TheBestIsYet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Orangemarlin 20:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Raspor is a known sockpuppet master: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Raspor and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Raspor
Raspor has a community ban as shown here
TheBestIsYet and Raspor edited similar articles, mostly in the Creationism vs. Evolution articles. TheBestIsYet' contributions vs. Raspor's contributions
TheBestIsYet began editing about 1 day after a Raspor sockpuppet, Octoplus was blocked as being a sockpuppet.
Per the evidence above, both stay mostly in the Talk space, rarely editing articles.
Tendentious editing of single articles, specifically Talk:Creation science for TheBestIsYet and Octoplus and Talk:Intelligent design for Raspor.
TheBestIsYet recently started editing on July 8, 2007, yet appears skilled right from the start on how to edit.

Comments

TheBestisYet's writing style is very reminiscent of Raspor's and similar trolls who have previously appeared and been blocked on these talk pages and others with a similar theme. I would be extremely surprised if TheBestisYet is not a sockpuppet of one or all of them. I therefore endorse this complaint whole-heartedly.--Filll 20:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How unlikely is it that a genuine editor could incidentally register at the same time Raspor's sock is blocked, and incidentally soapbox the same talkpages, and incidentally never try to touch the mainspace? Fatalis^talk 11:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty unlikely, I'd think. Jim62sch 15:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

The timing, contribs, habits, and focus make it pretty clear that this is an obvious, disruptive sockpuppet. I've therefore indefinitely blocked the account. MastCell ^Talk 21:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:TyrusThomas4lyf

Suspected sockpuppeteer

TyrusThomas4lyf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Hoopsknowledge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.253.192.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Myasuda 03:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User TyrusThomas4lyf was been blocked indefinitely in May for repeated personal attacks and edit warring, after numerous warnings and attempts to mediate. For a summary of this user's past behavior, see the RFC and his talk page User talk:TyrusThomas4lyf. This same user has also edited under the aliases IlliniPride and 68.253.206.119 in the past, as noted at [210] (see section "Problematic edits by IlliniPride / 68.253.206.119 / TyrusThomas4lyf").

Supporting evidence that Hoopsknowledge is indeed a sock-puppet for TyrusThomas4lyf include not only this user's editing of the same selection of articles, but introduction of the very same edits. For example:

Identical edit: [211] (TyrusThomas4lyf) and [212] (Hoopsknowledge)
Unusual obsession with "game score" (no other editor has supported this inclusion): [213] (TyrusThomas4lyf) and [214] (Hoopsknowledge)
Unilateral removal of same cite tag (identical act of vandalism): [215] (Hoopsknowledge) and [216] (TyrusThomas4lyf)
Identical commentary: [217] (Hoopsknowledge), [218] (alleged sock-puppet account 68.253.192.48), and [219] (established TyrusThomas4lyf sock-puppet account 68.253.216.115).
Same claim inserted [220] (Hoopsknowledge) and [221] (IlliniPride -- a known alias for User talk:TyrusThomas4lyf).
Removal of the very same sourced 76ers information: [222] (68.253.206.119 -- a known alias for User talk:TyrusThomas4lyf) and [223] (Hoopsknowledge)
Same claim inserted [224] (Hoopsknowledge), [225] from (IlliniPride -- a known alias for User talk:TyrusThomas4lyf).
Familiarity with an admin well-known to User talk:TyrusThomas4lyf: In the diff [226], Hoopsknowledge seeks out an admin in an attempt to retaliate against my identification of him as a sock-puppet. But why does Hoopsknowledge select Kafziel out of the hundreds (if not thousands) of available admins? The answer to this apparent mystery can be resolved by examining the contents of User talk:TyrusThomas4lyf. There, it becomes clear that Kafziel is one of the admins that User talk:TyrusThomas4lyf knows very well -- in fact, Kafziel instigated several blocking actions against TyrusThomas4lyf. The fact that Hoopsknowledge would seek out this particular admin of the many ones available (no one claimed TyrusThomas4lyf was a bright guy) is compelling evidence in and of itself.

TyrusThomas4lyf is using active deception to subvert the Wikipedia community's decision to block his harmful activity. Failure to act now will only encourage further sock-puppetry in the future.

Comments

I do find it interesting how they all get rid of the piece they're editing and then they re-insert it after they have edited it. [227] Also, adding and removing the same info from the same articles seems a little too suspicious to be a coincedence to me. Guitarman051392 4:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC) — Preceding comment signed as by Guitarman051392 (talk · contribs) actually added by 12.217.240.86 (talk · contribs) -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Obvious sock. Blocked indefinitely. Kafziel ^Talk 16:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/JohnBambenek

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:MastCell

Suspected sockpuppeteer

MastCell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

AMDZone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by MSTCrow 16: 51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

The user, AMDZone, was created on July 4th, 2007. Within what appears to be within a minute of his account creation, he created a spurious AfD for Fudzilla. The fact that immediately after he created the account, that he was familiar enough with the system to create an AfD and leave all of the appropriate tags thereof, strongly points to an experienced user abusing the system. The entirety of his edits are all on July 4th, three creating the AfD, and one saying "Hi" on his userpage, for a total of 4 edits. I do not know who the sockpuppeteer is likely to be, only that the abusive user exists.

AMDZone's edit history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/AMDZone

Update: As Fudzilla was deleted out of process by MastCell, who despite the fact that the emerging consensus on deletion was 4 in favor and 7 against at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fudzilla, deleted the page without comment. I now suspect that he could be the sockpuppeteer of this sock. - MSTCrow 00:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'm not really sure where to start here. I guess I could ask why I'd bother to create a sockpuppet to nominate the article for deletion, or why I'd care enough to go to such lengths, etc. But OK: I saw this thread on AN/I, in which a user asked an admin to close the AfD. I watch AN/I, and I close AfD's, so I thought I'd take care of it. Never heard of Fudzilla before. As to "out of process", head over to deletion review rather than making frivolous and rather far-fetched accusations. I suspect AMDZone is someone's sock, but the AfD's already run its course, and solicited input from quite a few editors, so it didn't seem to make sense to close it. MastCell ^Talk 04:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to point out to the accuser that AFD results are based on a mix of consensus and the merits of the arguments presented, not a majority vote. Admins close AFDs, nothing suspicious about that. This needs much stronger evidence. Someguy1221 06:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As best I can tell, the posited accusation is this: I wanted to delete Fudzilla but didn't want to nominate it from my own account. So I created a sock to nominate the article. Then I waited until the AfD was 2 days or so overdue for closure, and until someone posted on AN/I requesting an admin to close it, at which point I closed the AfD. I understand being upset over the outcome of an AfD (that's what deletion review is for), but this is ridiculously far-fetched. MastCell ^Talk 15:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

This is a totally frivolous nomination. I commend MastCell, one of our most outstanding administrators, for his forbearance in dealing with this most unpleasant situation. My feelings for the accuser are the opposite, and I will tell him as much on his talk page. Shalom ^Hello 03:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:LordPathogen

Suspected sockpuppeteer: LordPathogen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Haelstrom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

--evrik ^(talk) 03:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Though User:Haelstrom has been blocked today, I suspect that the account is a sockpuppet for LordPathogen. Several users have noted off-wiki emails received by Haelstrom. We can provide the emails if necessary. ----evrik ^(talk) 03:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Please refer to User:MindHavoc and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of LordPathogen

Admins, pls feel free to do checkuser at your convenience to verify that I am not in fact in any way connected to Haelstrom. This is yet another sad attempt by Evrik to attack me any way he can, the most recent of which was him posting my private information on wikipedia including my email address, DNS headers, email address and a google search of me, resulting in him being blocked for four days. It appears it was not enough as he is back to his harassing ways. When you see that I am correct, I ask that you also remove me as the suspected sockpuppeteer from Haelstrom's page since Evrik, as usual overstepped his bounds and put that tag there himself. I also request that he be punished for his presumption and for this further harassment. LordPathogen 03:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Lord Pathogen has occasionally edited unregistered. 129.33.49.251 (talk · contribs) signed his name [228][229] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm sure Will knows, forgetting to login (but still signing your name) and deliberate sock-puppetry are two different things... It also appears Evrik has a history of accusing me of sock-puppetry, such as where he incorrectly accused me of being the apparently infamous Primetime without one shred of evidence... (see bottom) Again, I ask please do checkuser right now. LordPathogen 12:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that if one is honest about being the same person then editing under an IP is not the same as sock puppetry. But when we tag IP addresses used by registered users we often use the "sock puppet" template. There's probably a better one somewhere, it's hard to find them. I listed the IP address here so the record would be more complete. Are there any other accounts or IPs you've used?

As for the Primetime matter, that was my fault. He asked me a question and I thought he was asking about something different so we mis-communicated. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, in any case I got that IP while visiting a company and forgetting to login to Wikipedia. LordPathogen 18:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked for User:MindHavoc. ----evrik ^(talk) 00:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really??? I had no idea. I guess that's what all those links mean, huh? Thanks for clearing that up :-) Oh, and you were blocked for going beyond the pale by posting my private information on Wikipedia, isn't that right? LordPathogen 01:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LP - if you keep bringing up that event it might lead readers to think you want to draw attention to your personal info. You've mentioned it already. Please don't use bold text to make inflammatory remarks more vivid. The only topic here is your possible use of sock puppets. Past use of sock puppets is germane. If you want to complain about Evrik then please find a more appropriate venue. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you say nothing about Evrik being pedantic about the MindHavoc issue despite THREE links already on this page? Why is that? Was there really a need for him to state yet again about MindHavoc? Was it somehow unclear? Seems to be a double-standard. And to answer your implied question, no I did not want my private info posted by Evrik who obviously is not contrite about it, yet I am the one warned about "inflammatory remarks." His character as evidenced by his block log is obviously germane when he makes an accusation here. You, I may point out, did not even delete my private information from your own talk page (as an Admin should have immediately done) where Evrik posted it. Admin Fred Bauder had to do that. Frankly, I'm not even sure why you are here Will. Evrik has posted his accusation. It remains to be adjudicated. Unless you are the admin doing that, why are you here exactly? Was the record of the previous case somehow insufficient? If you keep doing this, it might lead readers to think you are carrying Evrik's water here and other places. LordPathogen 03:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to make sure the report is complete. As for my general view if this dispute, on one side I see a long-time editor who contributes articles on many topics, while on the other side I see a new, single purpose account who seems to be disruptive. Yes, it's part of my role as a community member to encourage productive behavior and discourage unhelpful participation. As for my talk page, I never saw your information there - Bauder deleted it first. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting on that checkuser please... Thanks! LordPathogen

Before anyone goes and removes a properly placed tag again, I would refer you to item 8 listed at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets#Reporting_suspected_sock_puppets

--evrik ^(talk) 15:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Stale, and looks like both accounts have stopped editing. If there is further reason for suspicion in the future, please do bring it back though. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:200.0.176.17

Suspected sockpuppeteer

200.0.176.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

lvmtridas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
lvmxavis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Ivanmorales (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) His userpage was deleted on 8 April 2007 for violating WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This is further evidence of a spammer at work.) Shalom ^Hello 03:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Report submission by

Shalom ^Hello 03:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

A special thanks to User:Irishguy for starting a thread at WP:ANI#Possible spam. This IP and the three users listed above have all edited the same articles about the same quasi-notable people, and - more importantly - add a profusion of links to www.newmedia.cfm.edu. Most people have not heard of this website. It is extremely unlikely for someone without a conflict of interest to devote 50+ edits to link Wikipedia to a fringe website.

I am not merely concerned with the question of sockpuppetry as such. I also want to make sure that THE SPAM IS REMOVED. There's a lot of reverting to do, and I'd like you to share the burden if you have a minute. Check the contribution log of these articles (in some cases, you'll see all four usernames in the same history) and revert, ideally without obliterating valid edits from bots and legitimate users. Shalom ^Hello 03:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Wow. I only caught the one. Thanks go to Shalom for digging up the other two. As I noted in my initial AN/I report, I am not qualified to know if the links are valid or not as the ones I saw weren't in English...but the fact that there was at least one account dedicated to only adding that link is suspicious at the very least. IrishGuy ^talk 08:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Given the significant amount of damage and spamming, the spammer accounts have been blocked. Not going to block the IP as it appears to be the university's, but if it spams again in the future, just report it to WP:AIV. Still working on cleaning up the spam, and on articles converted into ads by the spammers. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Joe User NY

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Joe User NY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

72.229.170.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
67.183.2.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Misterdiscreet 23:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

None of these users have done anything on wikipedia other then promote KeepTalking, which has been nominated for deletion.

All three users are participating in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KeepTalking and none have edited any articles outside of ones relating to KeepTalking. According to [230], 72.229.170.199's CNAME record is cpe-72-229-170-199.nyc.res.rr.com, which is where Joe User NY presumably is from, given the name.

Comments

First: Sockpuppetry involves multiple accounts pretending to be multiple people. I have one account, I may have not logged in, but I have never claimed to be two people nor have I voted twice on the same subject logged in or not. Second: While 72.229.170.199 is indeed my IP address and Misterdiscreet is very happy to point out the location, he fails to point out that according to [231] 67.183.2.190 resolves to c-67-183-2-190.hsd1.wa.comcast.net, which apparently is the state of Washington. I am obviously not in both locations at once. Third: I have accused Misterdiscreet of being abusive to another user and losing his objectivity, his response was to threaten to report me. Joe User NY 00:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you've never heard of proxies. That said, I thought both 72.229.170.199 and you had voted to keep. Looking at the AfD again, though, I see I was wrong on that account... Misterdiscreet 01:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Don't see a violation of WP:SOCK here, but Joe User NY is advised to make sure that he signs in consistently when participating in AfDs, or at least to make sure that he identifies that the IP contributions are from the same person as the named account. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Artemisse

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Artemisse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by IPSOS (talk) 16: 58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Just look at contribs. All revert to the same version of the article. Some are single edit accounts, some are used repeatedly.

Comments

Conclusions

All have been confirmed as socks, and have been indef-blocked by User:Luna Santin and User:Deskana. Shalom ^Hello 00:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:208.68.114.47

Suspected sockpuppeteer

208.68.114.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Swasion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Cheers, Je tL ov er 23:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Tag teaming on vandalism to Petals Around the Rose.

Comments

Conclusions

I will leave a message on User talk:Luna Santin asking him to block the sockpuppet account. Shalom ^Hello 00:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Kashifkhan

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Kashifkhan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Zaksol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

— Coren ^(talk) 02:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Recreates vanity/autobiography page 1 that sockmaster kept recreating up to final warning 2. SPA created almost immediately afterwards 3.

Comments

Looks like a match to me. The "book" response would be to block Kashifkhan 48 hours and Zaksol indefinitely. Shalom ^Hello 04:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Yes, fairly obvious sock based on contribs. Sock blocked indefinitely, master account blocked for 72 hours. MastCell ^Talk 04:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Molag Bal

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Molag Bal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Jaasmeimer Eoosteraatz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Gscshoyru 18:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Similarity in name to User:Jaasmeimer Zoosteraatz another suspected sock.

Comments

Conclusions

Blocked per this discussion at WP:ANI. I recommend any further accounts similar to past Molag Bal socks be listed at ANI for duck test-blocking. --Iamunknown 23:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:78.129.131.121

Suspected sockpuppeteer: 78.129.131.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: 208.74.136.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 76.76.10.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Andrew_pmk | Talk 16:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Personal attacks on User talk:Sunstar Net

Comments

Three IPs blocked as open proxies. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

All open proxies, claiming to be someone called NicAgent (talk · contribs · block log), apparently [232]. All blocked, nothing to do here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Qst

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Qst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

81.153.223.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Daniel 05:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Qst was in a heated dispute with Moreschi over Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Qst, which culminated in a flurry of messages, an ANI report, and Qst storming off in a huff (and requesting the deletion of all his/her userpages) for a couple of hours before deciding to come back.

During this, an IP address (81.153.223.189) made this lovely addition to Moreschi's talk page, where the flurried activity was occuring. The IP was consequently blocked anon-only, and then requested this unblock, which is delightfully-worded also.

"And?", you may be saying. Well, one hour eariler, 81.153.223.189 made its' only other edit, to revert {{Blockedimpersonator}} with an edit summary "revert, no concensus". This edit came out of the blue, as there had been no editing on this template in over 48 hours. Within an hour, 81.153.223.189's edit was reverted, to which Qst immediately re-reverted, with edit summary "There is no consensus for this". Qst was reverted, but Qst reverted straight back again.

So, was the IP merely trolling to have suspicion like this raised? No. Why? Because the IP edited it first, to revert back to Tellyaddict/Qst's favoured version. Rather than wondering what the IP was doing (as Qst would have done, if the IP wasn't his/her), Qst proceeded to re-revert back to the IP's version within moments of it being changed again. The IP proceeded the account, not the other way round - if it was the other way round, the "maybe the IP was trolling to get Qst in trouble" argument may have been on good grounds, but this isn't the case.

The final bit of evidence is the editing times. They never overlap, yet Qst is active both immediately before and immediately after the IP spree. Qst even denies having anything to do with the IP.

Another IP address,86.138.190.41 (talk · contribs), which appears to be retired editor KamrynMatika (talk · contribs) per this (update: confirmed), agrees with my suspicion.

I believe Qst should be blocked for at least a month for abusive, decietful sockpuppetry to show that we will not tolerate this kind of absured disruption, and to allow him/her to calm down and get over the fact that his/her RfA failed. We don't need any more trolling like this. Daniel 05:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The report at WP:RFCU#Qst suggests that the IP was a Molag Bal sock. I have asked the checkuser, Mackensen to comment. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 06:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have some albeit-behavioural evidence to link a confirmed Molag Bal sock (RV) to Qst, and will be compiling it over the next 24 hours. Daniel 06:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I agree that the evidence looks extremely damning. I am blocking the Qst account for a month. Any admin may review this action. ~ Riana ⁂ 06:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally, I agree with this decision. Daniel 06:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Wacky billy bob

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Wacky billy bob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Jagged ruby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Acroterion _(talk) 02:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"Discussing Talk Page" Udayan Saha made vandalistic remarks about several students at Carmel High School

Conclusions

I think that someone is putting our names on the Carmel High School web page and calling us gay to make us look bad. I have a suspicion that person is Udayan Saha (since his name was not on there) and he has even talked to me and he was the one that told me this first.

Blocked as a sockpuppet; I've semi-protected the page given the ongoing problems with vandalistic socks. MastCell ^Talk 22:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Zaigon

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Zaigon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Nargon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Gscshoyru 16:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Exact same edits.

Comments

Conclusions

Sure, they're likely socks. Both are already blocked as vandalism-only accounts, so there's nothing more to do here. MastCell ^Talk 21:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Ldingley

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Ldingley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

NokhchiBorz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Óðinn 09:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User page of NokhchiBorz proves beyond any doubt that this is a sock puppet of Ldingley, created with the purpose of block evading. Ldingley is blocked indefinitely for persistent copyright violations.

Comments

Conclusions

Yeah, that's pretty obvious. Let me say it this way: if NokkchiBorz is not the same person as LDingley, he sure looks like he's asking for trouble. :) I'll forward this to WP:ANI to speed up the response time. Shalom ^Hello 21:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NokhchiBorz has already been indef-blocked as a sockpuppet of Ldingley, so I'll go ahead and close this. MastCell ^Talk 01:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:The Namaste Guild

Suspected sockpuppeteer: The Namaste Guild (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Monitor-Weekly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Andrewdvalles3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

— Coren ^(talk) 20:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Vote stacking in an AfD. Original account is in obvious conflict of interest and both apparent socks have been created within hours of the AfD nomination 1 2 and have made no contribution beyond support for the nominated article 3 4 5.

Comments

Elitism at its finest. When you have no other alternatives to our points of rebuttal, you resort to blatant crass. We gladly volunteer that we asked others to assist us. That is not against the rules (since there are none in accordance with Five Pillars of Wikipedia), and this is a tactic that is practiced everywhere; especially in politics. We could allege the same thing at your attention. We would also like to elaborate that we were offered help by Sancho; and the information that was provided was extremely helpful. With that information we enlisted support. However, to speculate that we told these people what to say is not only false, but also irrelevant when the facts are weighted... we were encouraged to do so. The Namaste Guild 20:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vindictiveness at its finest, if you will forgive my harsh response. I have crossed out the sockpuppet votes at the AFD, and I will ask the first admin who reads this to indefinitely block those sockpuppet accounts. Even if those other accounts are of your friends and not yourself (and I believe they are entirely your own), for Wikipedia policy it makes no difference (see meatpuppet). Shalom ^Hello 21:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Yes. I've indef-blocked the two solicited meatpuppet accounts, and striking their comments from the AfD is appropriate. After consideration, I've elected not to block the puppetmaster account. He may not have been aware of policy and a warning on his talk page.

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:222.153.66.204

Suspected sockpuppeteer

222.153.66.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

222.153.78.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
222.153.75.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
222.153.76.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
222.153.70.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Cheers, JetLover (Talk) (Sandbox) 03:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few more (Wonder-Contributor)(<S>)

Evidence

All IPs are in the same range, two of them swear like marines, they edit each other's talk pages, they both seem to be obsessed with the sandbox, and they both attack the same people. I think it's pretty evident.

They Swear in an Australian dialect. Very distinct. (M\1/I\2/N\3/D\4/Y\5/S)

All making death threats as well...Cheers, Je tL ov er 23:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Correct. One of the SSPs has already been blocked 72 hours for vandalism in his own right. The other should be blocked with an identical expiry time (if anyone notices until then). The sockmaster IP has been inactive since May, so it should not be blocked. Yechiel Man 08:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think we should indef block these guys for death threats. Cheers, Je tL ov er 23:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But we can't. IPs can never be indef-blocked unless they are open proxies, or unless the IP administrator (e.g. a school district) wants to be indef-blocked. Instead, they are blocked on an escalating scale, starting from 24 hours for a first offense, to a week for a second offense, to a month for a third offense, and so forth. These numbers are arbitrary and subject to administrator discretion. Shalom ^Hello 14:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Gone stale at this point, but all the IP's were clearly involved in vandalism if nothing else. Blocks were handed out and none have edited for the past week or two, so I'm going to go ahead and archive this. MastCell ^Talk 01:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Lance6968

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Lance6968 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

132.211.195.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
132.206.58.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
132.211.195.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
132.211.195.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
132.211.195.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Victoriagirl 17:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Four of the five IP addresses are found at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales in Montreal. The fifth is located at Montreal’s McGill University.

All six accounts have made edits to Barbara Kay controversy. Four have contributed to Edward Kasner. Three have contributed to Montreal style bagel and Anti-Quebec sentiment.

All IP addresses in question have been used to revert changes made to edits by Lance6968. Three of the addresses - 132.211.195.140, 132.211.195.82, 132.206.58.39 – have referred to Lance6968 in their edit summaries (“Restoring lance6968 contributions”, “Revert to last edit by lance6968, “Restore Lance6968 contributions”, “Revert to Lance6968”)

On 11 Feb 2007 Lance6968 reversed edits made by Mel Etitis to Edward Kasner. Five minutes after the final edit[233], Mel Eitis’s user page was vandalized by 132.211.195.57.[234] The only other edits made by 132.211.195.57 concern Barbara Kay controversy and Anti-Quebec sentiment, to which Lance6968 has contributed.

After 132.206.58.39 was blocked by Mel Etitis, his page was vandalized by 132.211.195.82.[235] The only other edits made by 132.211.195.82 concern Barbara Kay controversy and Edward Kasner, to which Lance6968 has contributed.

With the exception of 132.211.195.140, all accounts have been used to make personal attacks on other editors. Three of the accounts - Lance6968, 132.211.195.57 and 132.206.58.39 have been blocked for this behaviour. Both Lance 6968 and 132.211.195.38 have accused other users of antisemitism [236][237][238][239] and have drawn comparisons between certain users and Nazis.[240] [241]

In a recent post, 132.211.195.38 appears to have identified himself as Lance6968.[242]. A request for clarification made by another user has gone unanswered.[243]

Comments

The smoking gun is that no unfamiliar IP would have "reverted to Lance6968" if they just happened to see the article in April 2007. Lance had not edited that article since January - about 50 diffs earlier in the history log - and had not edited at all since February. I think the match is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Lance6968 should be indefinitely blocked. I'm ot sure how to deal with the IPs, or perhaps to semiprotect the magnet article. Yechiel Man 20:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since opening this case, one of the accounts (132.211.195.38) has been used to vandalize my user page.[244] Victoriagirl 23:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Note: Reported at WP:AIV. Shalom ^Hello 23:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, probably all socks. None have edited recently enough to warrant a block at this point. The IP which vandalized User:Victoriagirl's page was warned and could be reported to WP:AIV if s/he repeats it. If roving IP vandalism or sockpuppetry becomes an issue on the Barabara Kay article, semi-protection (via WP:RFPP) might also be useful. MastCell ^Talk 01:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:TyrusThomas4lyf

Suspected sockpuppeteer

TyrusThomas4lyf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

TyrusThomas4lyf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.253.216.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
69.208.210.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Zodiiak 14:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

TyrusThomas4lyf was blocked in various increments for repeated hostile abuse, vulgarity, personal attacks, and edit warring. See the initial RfC on him here. He did not answer and the rest of the story can be told by reviewing his old talk page, here. After being indefinately banned he has returned and began doing the same things that got him banned in the first place; edit warring, personal attacks, etc. He has returned to the same articles that he has shown extreme biases against and began resuming his disruptive behavior, see the following: diff1, diff2, diff3, and diff4. Here he is identified as a sockpuppet by a user who was involved in past incidences with him as well, here: diff1, diff2, diff3, and diff4. It is exhausting dealing with him (diff and diff2), as he simply refuses to acknolwedge consensus and exhibits extreme ownership behavior. His biases towards prominent players, outside Michael Jordan, is unbelievable. He discourages users from editing on Wikipedia and does not maintain a NPOV on any article. Please review and contact me if you require any further information. Thank you.

Comments

Conclusions

Yes, these are pretty clearly socks. The master account has already been indefinitely blocked. I'll block 68.253.216.115 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for 31 hours as it has been recently used; the other IP hasn't been used for awhile. If multiple IP's are being used to vandalize a specific page, you can go to WP:RFPP to request temporary semi-protection, which will restrict the article to established, named users and lock out IP's. This is sometimes more effective than trying to catalog and block a litany of roving IP's. MastCell ^Talk 01:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Raspor

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Raspor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Octoplus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Orangemarlin 20:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Raspor is a known sockpuppet master: and
Raspor has a community ban as shown here
Octuplus and Raspor edited similar articles, mostly in the Creationism vs. Evolution articles. Octoplus' contributions vs. Raspor's contributions
Per the evidence above, both stay mostly in the Talk space, rarely editing articles.
Both have a fascination with Karl Popper as shown here for Octoplus and here for Raspor
Tendentious editing of single articles, specifically Talk:Creation science for Octoplus and Talk:Intelligent design for Raspor.
Octoplus recently started editing on June 28, 2007, yet appears skilled right from the start on how to edit. # Additionally, one of the first comments by this editor is on a talk page of an editor who has previously engaged in difficult conversations with Raspor, as shown here.
Other editors are convinced of the relationship between the two as shown here.

Comments

I concur completely with the case presented above. The longer that Octoplus edited, the more apparent the similarity of Octoplus' writing style and interests to Raspor's writing style and interests became. Octoplus has been contentious and argumentative and has declined to write any material relevant to an article on Wikipedia, although he was invited to do so repeatedly, which is similar to Raspor. The reason Raspor was initially banned was that he was not a positive element among the editors on these creationism controversy web pages. Octoplus continues in this same tradition, with the same idiosyncracies in spelling, grammar, and indentation, etc.--Filll 20:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur as well. Octoplus is a tendentious editor given to trolling and wasting the time of other editors. Jim62sch 20:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The interminable discussions raised by Octoplus have seemed to me to be very close in style and thinking to Raspor's approach. .. dave souza, talk 21:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well obviously I disagree. This has been a technique used in these evolution articles to keep the control of the article in the hands of a small amount of editors. If one goes through the archives one can see that anyone who feels the article is POV is blocked, banned, accused of being a troll, accused of being a 'troublemaker' virtually anything. And of course a person how sees the POV in the articles is going to seem similar to previously banned editors since the the POV areas are the same. And each time a person seems these and brings it up they are elimated from the discussion. This is simply a method to insure the control of the article to push POV is in the hands of a few non-compromising editors. Octoplus 22:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. While I've not had any contact with raspor, having compared their contributions, I notice a few striking similarities in style. Their tendency to characterise as "petty" any errors of theirs that are pointed out to them. Their habit of often responding to criticism in a manner that amounts to "..I know you are, but what am I?..". And of course their shared conviction, that a darwinist cabal is guarding creationist articles. And as others have pointed out, the fact that both spent all their wiki-time trolling the talk pages of the same articles. ornis 23:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

The contributions history and editing style identify Octoplus as a sockpuppet of Raspor with a high degree of certainty. An IP check could be helpful as the icing on the cake, but Raspor is likely too stale (last edits in January 2007). Based on the evidence presented above, and a review of the contribution history of both accounts, Octoplus appears to be a sockpuppet of the banned user Raspor, and has been blocked indefinitely. MastCell ^Talk 23:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Willicher

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Willicher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Orangerider (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Rex 15:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

He created an account 3 July 2007, and the following day both Willicher and Orangerider were editing principally the "Deutsches Reich" and "Nazi Germany" articles and they seem to be on exactly the same line. (Illustrated by the "Willicher is right-comment" here) but my suspicion was caused by a comment by Orangerider on Willichers talkpage, again they fully agree with each other but they posted 2 messages merely 3 minutes apart despite both posting considerable comments. It seems to be more than coincidence to me.Rex 15:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMPORTANT! I just found out Willicher changed the time code ... to make it appear he responded later than he actually did. Rex 15:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Hello! I'm not Organerider! We are just cooperating. We are also cooperating in the German Wikipedia. In fact we have the same opinion in a lot of cases but this is the result of a same political, historical and legal point-of-view on several topics. I've never changed the time code and I'm using CEST. He and I are experts of German public law especially questions concerning the development of the unified german nation state and its legal status after WWII. Why makes anyone it so difficult for us to support the English Wikipedia and to integrate our knowledge? --Willicher - Greetings from Germany! 18:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I'm closing this case as a false positive with insufficient evidence. Willicher has been editing intermittently for almost two years, while Orangerider showed up on July 4 and started editing very actively. I know sockpuppets do that, but I just don't see why Willicher would have started a sockpuppet after two years of working on the straight and narrow. Their editing patterns are different, their edit summary usage is different - even the choice of articles they edit has only light overlap. All indications are that these are real-world friends who happened to be online at the same time. If further evidence comes to light, Rex is welcome to present it for review. Shalom ^Hello 21:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Turkesani

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Turkesani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

Matthew_hk t c 14:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

These account keep on creating a football player but believed to be not exist. The accounts keep on adding the player into many team squad.

User:70.144.143.165

Suspected sockpuppeteer

BlackStarRock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Suspected sockpuppets: 70.144.143.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 70.144.158.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 72.150.132.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 70.144.166.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Acroterion _(talk) 04:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Admitted use of multiple IP's to harass.
Similar writing styles ([245], [246], [247], [248])
Attempting to own the talkpages of his IPs ([249], [250], [251])
Laying personal attacks on those who disagree with him ([252], [253], [254])
Being incivil/assuming bad-faith ([255], [256], [257])

Comments

User:BlackStarRock was temporarily blocked for vandalism to this page --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 04:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC) User:BlackStarRock was unblocked, vandalized this page again, and was re-reported. P3net ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 05:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

As per here, editor is now permaBlocked. P3net ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 06:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC) As the IP's have not been used recently, I won't block them at this point, but it seems very likely that they were used as socks. If they show up again, blocks would be in order. MastCell ^Talk 18:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Wenmovie

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Wenmovie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Phaseoftenn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Shinknee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Urbanit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

~Matticus ^T_C 09:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Personal attacks at User talk:VirtualSteve [258] soon after being blocked for similar behaviour. [259]
User:Phaseoftenn added similar comments at User talk:Wenmovie [260]
User:Shinknee blanking warnings on User talk:Wenmovie [261] and User talk:Phaseoftenn [262]
User:Urbanit vandalised this report [263]
General tone, language and spelling similar in all cases
All sockpuppet suspects have few or no edits outside of the actions described above.

Comments

This is pretty obvious. The personal attacks, the harassment of VirtualSteve, the spelling errors, the editing of one another's userpages - it all adds up to indef-blocks for all the accounts. I'll tell Steve to take care of it. Shalom ^Hello 16:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

All three sock-puppets blocked indefinitely. Puppet-master similarly blocked.--VS ^talk 18:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Mikkimoore2

Suspected sockpuppeteer: Mikkimoore2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets: Bryantstith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); 24.74.59.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); Tannerrassmussen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Crockspot 12:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

See edit histories and block logs of User:Bryantstith, User:24.74.59.121, and User:Tannerrassmussen . I picked this guy up on RC patrol a few days ago, and he keeps coming back for more, including the same vandalism edits, and harrassment and vandalism of my user space.

Checkuser request is pending.[264] - Crockspot 05:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"Clerk notes": Please inform User:Stephen and User:Anetode, who made the blocks, about this case. Also please tag the suspected socks with the appropriate template on their userpages.

Question, for the IP account, should I create a user page and add the template, or should I put the template on the User talk page? I'm not sure that IP accounts should have user pages. - Crockspot 20:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Up to you. Most people that I've seen create the IP's user page and add the sock template to it. Shalom ^Hello 04:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis: The editing pattern of all four accounts is very similar. In particular, they have all inserted the same two-word phrase into Michelle Malkin within a period of 48 hours. Shalom ^Hello 13:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Sockpuppetry confirmed by checkuser, and IP blocked for 1 month. All named accounts blocked indefinitely. MastCell ^Talk 18:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Truthprofessor

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Truthprofessor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Stamperr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Jetsamsam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Billshaffer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Ardera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Truthwinsout (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Smearzapper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Accuret (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

RolandR

Evidence

Accounts making only one or two identical edits to Steven Plaut, apparently established in order to avoid 3RR. See diffs [265], [266], [267], [268], [269], [270], [271], [272], [273]. I strongly suspect that these sockpuppets are also linked to the Runtshit vandal. RolandR 08:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This is so obvious, I'll take it to WP:AIV. Shalom ^Hello 08:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now joined by Intrepid3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -- see diif [274] RolandR 07:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And by Bankrupter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -- see diffs [275], [276], [277]. RolandR 11:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now by Querifor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); see diff [278]. RolandR 16:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Fairly obvious single-purpose socks created to edit-war on Steven Plaut. All socks blocked indefinitely; puppetmaster account blocked for 1 week. MastCell ^Talk 18:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: While all of the named socks are obvious, disruptive socks and remain blocked, this checkuser request suggests that it's doubtful that User:Truthprofessor is linked to the other accounts. Therefore, I've unblocked him. MastCell ^Talk 15:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Jagged ruby

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Jagged ruby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Ccidiom123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
JASON WING baby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Ccidiom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Askans Rike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Tlesher 20:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User:Ccidiom123 was created after User:Jagged ruby received a warning of potential block on further vandalism from User:Black Harry [279]. After this, the only edits made by Jagged ruby were to blank vandalism warnings from his/her own user page, to leave angry messages at Black Harry's user page, and disparaging, homophobic remarks about "Anthony Cai" (possibly an acquaintance), at [280].

Immediately after this vandalism was reverted, User:Ccidiom123 re-added an expanded version of the same vandalism on the same page [[281]] several times, also blanking his/her own userpage after receiving warnings. After four warnings, Ccidiom123 was blocked, and User:JASON WING baby was created, whose only edit to date was re-adding the same vandalism [282].

User:Ccidiom was created on the same day as User:Ccidiom123, and has edited the same pages.

The chief contribution of all four accounts has been vandalizing the Carmel High School (Carmel, Indiana) and Carmel School pages; the fact that they use practically the same text and disparage the same name (Anthony Cai) in their vandalism indicate that all are the same person. Tlesher 20:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

User:THE IRANIAN PED was also involved. Seems to be a bunch of kids vandalizing the Carmel School page and others, warning each other, and giggling about it. Acroterion _(talk) 01:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that now we have User:CORY DASH active on Carmel High School (Carmel, Indiana). Acroterion _(talk) 01:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Obvious socks and vandalism-only accounts to boot. All listed socks blocked indefinitely; sockmaster account (Jagged ruby) blocked for 1 week with a zero-tolerance policy for further vandalism. MastCell ^Talk 18:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:70.101.52.242

Suspected sockpuppeteer

70.101.52.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

140.211.50.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
74.65.56.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
BStuart6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Cheers, Je tL ov er 06:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Vandalism to Otter and Brad Stuart, users appear to be tag-teaming.

Comments

Conclusions

All the IPs have been blocked 31h by User:Fire Star. No further action is needed. Shalom ^Hello 13:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Freya Worshiper

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Freya Worshiper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Lucky_number_47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Myth_Researcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Lucky number 49 23:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Users have thus far contributed only to articles to which Freya_Worshiper contributed, Brisingamen and Freyja.

Their first edits- here and here are on the same date and within four hours of one another, on the same article, and rewrite content by Freya_Worshiper previously deleted in a revert [283].

Lucky_number_47 refactored talk page discussions by myself and Freya Worshiper; then edited comments by Freya Worshiper (see esp. line 112).

Lucky_number_47's word choice is notably similar to the more distinct comments by Freya Worshiper. In the above diff, not the use of "invented", compare this edit by Freya Worshiper. See my removal of "Christian short story", which originated here, which Lucky number 47 restored and wikified.

While Myth Researcher has not made as many signifigant edits, the above qualities linking them to Lucky number 47 suggests some relation between the users. I would like to request a checkuser on these users, as well as Freya Worshiper to see if there is any relation between all three users' IP addresses.

I also note the similarity of the username Lucky_number_47 and my own. While I realize there is a likelihood of two usernames being very similar, some of Freya_Worshiper's last edits were personal attacks on me, and Lucky_number_47 began contributing two days after Freya_Worshiper was blocked. Both of these suggest to me a strong likelihood of the account having been created, if not as a sockpuppet, at least by an individual with an interest in Freya_Worshiper's position, and an awareness of myself.

I believe that the evidence demonstrates that at least Lucky number 47 is a sockpuppet, and that there is enough evidence against Myth Researcher to request a checkuser to determine whether they are in any way connected to Lucky number 47 and Freya Worshiper.

Comments

I did not check all the diffs, but I did check enough of the contribution patterns of these users to be convinced that they are likely working as sockpuppets. Obviously, if you want a checkuser, you need to request it at the appropriate page, so I will do that (code F, ban evasion).

I'll also notify User:Ck lostsword, who blocked the sockpuppeteer, to ask him if the SSP edits look familiar to him. Shalom ^Hello 06:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

All of the edits do look very similar - at least similar enough to merit a block IMO. Either way, it seems that the accounts exist solely to push a version of the page, whilst their names are also inappropriate - LN47's breaks criteria 1 of the WP:USERNAME for being too similar to LN49, whilst Myth Researcher is misleading, implying that the user is an authority on mythology, presumably to lend more weight to their arguments. I will block the accounts indef for these reasons and suspect that a checkuser on them is not necessary unless further socks appear. Thanks ck lostsword•T•C 07:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jpgordon declined to checkuser this case because it's "pretty obvious." Thanks, Ck lostsword. Shalom ^Hello 10:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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