Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations
- WP:RFCU redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct (WP:RFC/U), CheckUser policy (Wikipedia:CheckUser), or Wikipedia:Changing username (WP:CHU).
 Skip to: Submitting an SPI case • open cases • cases awaiting CheckUser |
Welcome to Sockpuppet investigations (SPI), a centralized forum regarding suspicions of sock puppetry amongst users as well as any additional CheckUser requests.
 |
If the evidence is sensitive, privacy is needed, or if it involves sock puppetry by an administrator, seek advice by email from a Checkuser or the Arbitration Committee first. Private information, emails, logs, etc, may not be posted on Wikipedia; if they are important evidence, you must also seek advice by email first. |
Important notes
- Before submitting a case, check that there isn't one already in progress using the search button at the bottom of this page.
- Please provide evidence (preferably with diffs and any reasonable deductions and impressions as a result) that show disruption or deception via IPs or accounts via sock puppetry. Cases without any evidence or with solely vague beliefs or assumptions will likely be rejected.
- Remember to assume good faith when possible.
- Consider notifying the suspected accounts by adding
{{subst:socksuspectnotice|PUPPETMASTER}} ~~~~to the bottom of their talk pages. Notification is not mandatory, and may, in some instances, lead to further disruption or provide a sockpuppeteer with guidance on how to avoid detection. - Keep it simple. Simple, concisely presented evidence leads to a quickly resolved case.
- Do I need to request CheckUser?
- CheckUser is a tool used by a small number of trusted users. It allows them to access evidence from Wikipedia's server logs to help resolve the case. For most cases, behavioral evidence is enough, with no need for CheckUser.
- To request CheckUser, there must be credible evidence supporting the suspicion of sockpuppetry or abuse, and good cause why CheckUser is required. Requests for checkuser without evidence will be declined, because
CheckUser is not for fishing. CheckUser is also not 
magic pixie dust, and should not be requested to investigate canvassing or meatpuppetry, 
Stale account(s) that have not edited for many months, or cases where behavioral evidence is sufficient to decide the matter (see also the 
duck test). Finally, while CheckUser will not be used to confirm that a user is editing from a specific IP address; quick requests may be made for the purpose of getting an underlying IP address or range blocked, however a CheckUser will not disclose what that IP address is. - If you see a purported suicide note or threat of harm (try IRC first in an emergency, at #wikipedia-en-spi connect).
Stale account(s) that have not edited for many months, or cases where behavioral evidence is sufficient to decide the matter (see also the 
| Requesting checkuser work for an existing case |
|---|
|
Anyone can request CheckUser at any time on an open case if it is necessary. If you wish to request CheckUser to any existing open case, then do the following:
|
- Quick CheckUser requests
If you need a CheckUser to review something, but it does not fall into the above categories, please see here for instructions.
- Administrator's instructions
If any administrator wants to help out at SPI, but is unsure how to get started, please read Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Administrators instructions. If you need help with anything, please ask one of the active SPI clerks.
Submitting an SPI case
Create the case by replacing "SOCKMASTER" in the white box below with the user name of the oldest account (the "sockmaster"), or the previous case name, and then clicking the button under the box. For example, if the case name is about User:John Doe or a prior case is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John Doe, then you should enter Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John Doe in the white box, and then click the button under the box. You will be taken to the next page, where there is a form to fill out giving the details of your report. Note that this form should be used for both opening a case for the first time, as well as opening a new case for a previous sockmaster.
If CheckUser might be needed, change |checkuser=no to |checkuser=yes in the edit box.
| Start or continue an SPI case here |
|---|
|
|
See also
- SPI clerks and clerking
- List of indicator icons used at SPI
- Suspected sock puppets and Requests for checkuser – predecessors to SPI which both ceased as of January 2009
- The SPI bot's edits.
Case status summary
Case status summary |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Open cases
Cases
Ratel |
|---|
|
Ratel
This page's archived case(s) is/are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ratel/Archive.
30 January 2012
This edit shows a familiarity with Wikipedia policy and the history of talk page discussion to a degree that is unusal for a first edit from an account. This article has been hit by numerous socks of Ratel, e.g., User:TickleMeister. The language and abusive tone seem familiar. The fact that the edit was posted to the top of the page, without a section heading or signature seem odd considering the familiarity with procedures. TFD (talk) 07:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Tnxman307, there are similarities of arguments:
The posting is also similar to Stealthcupcake's final posting, 8 August 2010.[5] That account was brought up at SPI but not blocked. Another editor Arydberg, who is unrelated to Ratel is topic banned from the article. TFD (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. This claim which is made clearly in bad faith (and should be investigated as such) presents insufficient, presumptuous evidence. Assumptions that do not even qualify as circumstantial are consistent with the editing users biased approach towards alleging the neutrality of a clearly slanted article. This warrants further investigation as well. To accuse users who read what is taking place, of being a sockpuppet account and using an abusive tone (which is false and also suspicious behavior as the tone was a mirror image of the tone said editor took towards other users, if not more polite)is an abuse of both power and in direct opposition to the "assume good faith" ideal. Good faith has been proven to have not been shown by this editor on this subject, who blatantly refuses to accept any evidence or interpretation of evidence that does not support their own. Yet again, this should be heavily investigated as the neutrality of this article is not simply disputed, but clearly non-existent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattisOne (talk • contribs) 08:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Also, it is completely illogical to use familiarity with "the history of talk page discussion" as evidence of sockpuppetry considering previous discussions are in fact, public. Such faulty logic should not be used and is being justified in bad faith.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MattisOne (talk • contribs)
Again, these claims are ignorant and made in bad faith to distract from the discussion of the actual topic, that the editor was losing. The similarities are incredibly vague and the grammatical usage and vocabulary were on entirely separate levels. Any rationally thinking person would take issue with the article in dispute to begin with so a similar tone could be assumed by just about anyone reading it who was also an intelligent thinker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattisOne (talk • contribs) 00:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC) The reason for the claims against other users are because other users are refusing to acknowledge neutrality disputes that are legitimate, as legitimate, assuming their own objectivity in determining as such when they have already formed an opinion, which in itself leads to non-neutrality (how can a non-neutral arbitrator determine what sources are neutral!?) as neutrality even in clearly defined policy has been interpreted subjectively (which in itself is ok but, leaves room for issues as did arise) but, also unfairly and then rules upon based on said interpretation. Also, I am not any previous IP editor, unless I made an edit on something years ago that I forgot about. Nonetheless, I had no prior contributions to this topic beforehand, so trying to link me to other users will ultimately prove fruitless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattisOne (talk • contribs) 01:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm uninvolved with Aspartame controversy. I took a look at their first few edits and there might be some familiarity with Wikipedia policies. For example, the first edit[6] has some modest references to Wikipedia terminology ("editors" versus "users" and a quote from WP:NPOV). OTOH, I don't see any WikiLinks or threats to take this to ANI or a noticeboard that would indicate more familiarity with Wikipedia. On the third hand, I'm a bit disturbed that on the basis of one edit, this was immediately taken to WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Ratel. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Anyone can come to any level of familiarity without actually being a previous poster so that entire argument is ridiculous to begin with on their part. Yes though, I may pursue action against this being opened up as a form of abuse towards people who disagree with their opinion of the neutrality of a page they edit and monitor for edits. This is unacceptable, unethical, and against policy here. I have just as much grounds then to state that they are all sockpuppets because they share the same misinterpretation of neutrality. MattisOne (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin commentsTFD- can you provide some more concrete evidence of a connection? You say they are familiar with Wikipedia procedures, but then admit they did something (posting to the top of a talk page) that shows they are not familiar with procedures. Some more evidence that demonstrates a connection would be helpful. TNXMan 16:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
DUH. I told you, I'm unrelated to any other account. This "pseudo-investigation" is a waste of time, as my name was added to this list out of spite, under the guise of vague similarities. MattisOne (talk) 03:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC) |
Jigsawnovich |
|---|
|
Jigsawnovich
30 January 2012
Ongoing AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jangale Asfalt is contested by suspected sockmaster. Suspected Sock1 (Persian Clique) was created during the AfD. His only edits have been to join the AfD discussion, in support of suspected sockmaster. Suspected Sock2 (Joonif) was also created during the Jangale AfD. His only edits have been to the Jangale article, in an apparent effort to bolster the article by adding sources such as Facebook. Another AfD contested by suspected sockmaster is that of Bahram Nouraei (rapper). Suspected Sock3 (Omid galactus) has a strong overlap in articles edited with those edited by suspected sockmaster. While he has made few edits, a large percentage of his edits have been to four articles edited by both editors, including the Jangale and Bahram articles while at AfD. Suspected Sock4 (Soso freak) had few edits, and had not edited for 10 months. But has just now appeared during the Jangale AfD, to !vote with suspected sockmaster. Epeefleche (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
|
Clerk endorsed - Could also be meatpuppetry. Let's find out. —
Mr. Curious Man |
|---|
|
Mr. Curious Man
This page's archived case(s) is/are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mr. Curious Man/Archive. 31 January 2012
Editing behavior, including recreation of List of Tinga Tinga Tales episodes, which previous socks created. Calabe1992 01:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
01 February 2012
Again, edit behavior, mentioning of puppetry: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADonlammers&action=historysubmit&diff=474339224&oldid=474219145 Calabe1992 04:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I have added Brainiac Adam's Mammy. This is a WP:DUCK, indef-blocked, but I am including it here as it may help any checkuser to look for sleepers. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
|
Likely match, didn't see anything else. 
Shez 15 |
|---|
|
This page's archived case(s) is/are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shez 15/Archive.
31 January 2012
All of them maintain the same kind of Rani Mukerji fanaticism. The third IP is almost certainly his, because I remember him evading his blocks with an account that has a similar beginning. If you notice, all the involved IPs and user accounts I've added edit the Filmfare Awards page as well as Rani Mukerji's awards page. Shahid • Talk2me 06:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin commentsThere's not a lot I can tell you here. The last confirmed account from the archive is
|
Infinitejjang |
|---|
|
Infinitejjang
01 February 2012
Infinitejjang has already been blocked twice, mainly for removing Sungjong from Template:Infinite and Infinite (band). [[7]], [[8]], [[9]] As well, user has changed the official profile birthdate of Sungjong from 9/03 to 10/05 [[10]]. After this block, IntlnltetroII came active with the same edits - and blocked as well. [[11]] [[12]]. Recently two more socks have entered the picture with the exact same edits. INSPIRITyoungwon [[13]] [[14]] INSPIRITforever [[15]] [[16]] Quacks like a duck, must be a duck. Evaders99 (talk) 02:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
|
Confirmed, along with:
Philip126 |
|---|
|
Philip126
This page's archived case(s) is/are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Philip126/Archive.
01 February 2012
Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
|
IP blocked.
Brianmagallano |
|---|
|
Brianmagallano
This page's archived case(s) is/are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brianmagallano/Archive.
01 February 2012
User has a similar editing pattern on editing Philippine TV related articles. Bombo cdo recreated the article TV Patrol Western Mindanao, which was deleted via AFD on January 22 as a hoax article, and reposted by User:Tvpatrolnorthmin last week. -WayKurat (talk) WayKurat (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
|
Koov |
|---|
|
Koov
This page's archived case(s) is/are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Koov/Archive.
01 February 2012
Same editing pattern and I don't want to violate WP:BEANS here, but this guy really needs to get some new names. Checkuser probably not required, but it's up to you guys. Nightw 17:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
|
Vermont Hardcore Punk |
|---|
|
Vermont Hardcore Punk
31 January 2012
All 3 user accounts appear to focus exclusively on creating the page for My Revenge (band) and defending said page on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Revenge (band). ZZArch talk to me 05:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments |
MFIreland |
|---|
|
MFIreland
This page's archived case(s) is/are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MFIreland/Archive.
31 January 2012
Compare contribution pages, concentration on military & arms, total absence of edit summaries, no discussion on talk pages whatsoever, and unlike previous sock with concentration on Ireland matters, there's now a concentration on Rhodesian matters. Editing patterns (section/page blanking) are also similar, but there's enough in the contribution pages to prove the case. Would an IP/range block be appropriate? TransporterMan (TALK) 16:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments |
Cusop Dingle |
|---|
|
Cusop Dingle
31 January 2012
These two accounts collaborated at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Christian Concern with an outcome that appeared to me to be against WP:NPOV. The evidence from the users' contributions is not conclusive, and if there was no connection between the IP editor and User:Cusop Dingle then it will help to clear the air. – Fayenatic (talk) 18:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments |
Computer Guy 2 |
|---|
|
Computer Guy 2
This page's archived case(s) is/are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Computer Guy 2/Archive.
31 January 2012
This is a formal complaint against User: Computer Guy 2 for orchestrating "meatpuppets" to validate his singular POV on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives webpage. Computer Guy 2 has been a single purpose editor that has consistently established a blatant anti-ATF sentiment in almost all of his material, and, up until the last two days, was SOLELY responsible for the "controversy" section in this article. As you can see from the history of this page, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bureau_of_Alcohol,_Tobacco,_Firearms_and_Explosives&limit=250&action=history, very little editing traffic had been conducted on the page after a consensus against Computer Guy 2's POV had been established for enumerating individual and isolated wrongdoings in the comprehensive and concise entry. In fact, only two revisions had been made in the preceding six(6) weeks. However, in the past two days the above users and IP's have joined in Computer Guy 2's endeavor and have systematically conducted over 70 revisions. Each of these individual accounts and IP's have only registered and posted on Wikipedia in the last few days, and only specifically on and for those articles for which Computer Guy 2 is currently editing. Computer Guy 2 has alluded to these multiple users as individual and independant entities that he is building a "consensus" with- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABureau_of_Alcohol%2C_Tobacco%2C_Firearms_and_Explosives&action=historysubmit&diff=474108366&oldid=474089239 Computer Guy 2 has repeatedly referred to and claimed membership to a blacklisted anti-ATF website- cleanupatf.org as a great source for material to post against ATF interest- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bureau_of_Alcohol,_Tobacco,_Firearms_and_Explosives&diff=prev&oldid=447647662 As "Solo I Fatti", a confiremed sockpuppet of Computer Guy 2- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ATF_gunwalking_scandal&diff=prev&oldid=470982199 He has also repeatedly asked for assistance from that website when trying to "win" a discussion on wikipedia. There are two many of these examples to list, but here is a clear example- As User "Ike", post 17 in the thread on 7 Sep 11 at 1:10 pm- http://cleanupatf.org/forums/index.php?/topic/148-professionalism-in-atf/ Which was less than an hour after receiving a point from this user about ATF "Shooting to Kill" and "duty to retreat"- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABureau_of_Alcohol%2C_Tobacco%2C_Firearms_and_Explosives&action=historysubmit&diff=449019040&oldid=449011050 This is relevant because User Ike asked for assistance from the cleanupatf website on the 28th, which coincided with at least five(5) individuals coming over to Wikipedia to initate the edits and revisions on this topic- User Ike acknowledges posting the material, which was the material posted by Computer Guy 2 less than an hour before, and also asks for assistance with other examples that can be listed- Also note that Pipergrey93 acknowledges her identity as "Sandra Davis" here on wiki- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=473740798 , and that Mrs. Davis is in fact the webmaster over at Cleanupatf.org- http://cleanupatf.org/forums/index.php?/user/621-sandy-davis/. With this information, it becomes clear that Computer Guy 2, who was just suspended less than two weeks ago for sockpuppetry, in fact is enlisting help from outside resources to promote his own isolated POV. Beyond that and more egregious to the principles of Wikipedia, Computer Guy 2 is attempting to present these new sources as isolated and completely independant sources who happen to support him completely, in ways that nobody else has despite this being an endeavor he has been involved in for well over a year. A textbook example of "meatpuppetry" as I read the guidelines. Thanks for your time and attention. AceD (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments |
Mizmontana |
|---|
|
Mizmontana
31 January 2012
Apologies that I messed up this request with a miscapitalization. User I am reporting is Mizmontana, not MizMontana. Editing the same articles with a similar tone, with tendency toward edit warring over minor details. Accounts were created within about one week of each other in December 2010. Master and sockAccounts "leapfrog" each other and appear to seldom or never edit on the same days. Suspected sockmaster MizMontana appears more mature, though prone to some tendentious editing behavior, Sock1 Soglad Tomeetyou is markedly notable for tedentious editing, angry accusations against other users, Example etc. Didn't jump out at me as a possible sock until both have shown an obsession with the issue of including a random list of minor towns in the Montana article, a list I have attempted to delete until a criterion was established, the topic discussed on talk, Talk:Montana#towns where other than Soglad's behavior, consensus appeared to be that a criterion for inclusion should be created. see edits around January 2-6 , then Jan 27 to present But when Soglad Tomeetyou vanished, MizMontana has now appeared here and is continuing a similar pattern, though in a less disruptive matter. It's as if the two accounts are being "good cop/bad cop" on the same issues. Montanabw(talk) 19:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments |
Brian Boru is awesome |
|---|
|
Brian Boru is awesome
This page's archived case(s) is/are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brian Boru is awesome/Archive.
01 February 2012
On January 27th, two IP addresses began making edits similar to the indef blocked user Brian Boru is awesome, a user with a history of block evasion. Both IPs geolocate to the same area as IPs listed in previous SPI investigations of the user. IP 24 has been making identical mass edits with identical edit summaries (such as we don't do apperance lists,[22][23] note that both the IP and Brian misspell appearance the same way) to comic book related articles. IP 96 has mostly been reverting any edits that revert IP 24's initial edit. IP 96 (which is very similar to an IP that Brian commented on using) doesn't use as many edit summaries, but the ones that are used are still very similar (such as the use of we got rid of...). SudoGhost 05:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments |
Billy Hathorn |
|---|
|
Billy Hathorn
This page's archived case(s) is/are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Billy Hathorn/Archive.
01 February 2012
IP address 72.178.222.89 was previously blocked under Block Evasion (Billy Hathorn) for a period of one month commencing December 11, 2011. There is reasonable suspicion that the sockmaster has again anonymously resumed editing; the evidence being based upon the the author's editing style and focus.Cheezwzl (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments |
Rikford |
|---|
Rikford - GVA - SpaceGasser - DejanVinkovic - Per Wimmer
Rikford
01 February 2012
SpaceGasser and DejanVinkovic were created around the same time and has only been used in support of keeping Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Per Wimmer. GVSA and Rikford has only been used for the Per Wimmer article. They contributed with removal of critical in-line [citation needed] for independent sources and replacing them with www.wimmerspace.com sources [24], exaggerated glorification of Per Wimmer e.g.:"Per Wimmer wrote world history" and "and pushing the boundaries, being a pioneer is, indeed, part of what drives him" [25] and removal of NPOV material [26]. The image of Per Wimmer (File:PerWimmer251x188.jpg) is uploaded by Rikford aka WimmerSpace.com [27]. Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments |
MarcEdelmanFan |
|---|
|
MarcEdelmanFan
28 January 2012
Abundantly provided by the history of Marc Edelman. In these edits, EdelmanFan adds a Facebook group and some thoroughly unencyclopedic comments about the subject's supposed popularity, which I removed, and which were reinstated here, here, here, and here by the IP, which I subsequently blocked for edit warring and adding unreliable (and silly) BLP information. I left them a note saying I'd start an SPI, after which EdelmanFan reinserted it again. Note also that IP's only other edits are to Sanford H. Calhoun High School, where they did nothing but add Edelman ([28], [29]) and the Facebook group ([30]); same as EdelmanFan ([31]). This is tiresome, disruptive, and rather childish. I sure hope this isn't Edelman himself, but it'd be just as bad if it were one of his students. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
29 January 2012
Both names editors and the IP are editing to include fancruft at Marc Edelman and Talk:Marc Edelman. The IP was blocked for disruption at 21:19, 28 January and MEF on 22:23, 28 January 2012. SLJ started editing 18:03, 29 January 2012. A clear case of block evasion. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin commentsDeclining the CU request - if it's clear then there's no need to check. WilliamH (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
|
CheckUser declined CUs do not associate accounts with IP addresses publicly. 
Christianmangala |
|---|
|
Christianmangala
01 February 2012
It looks like the IP is being used to try to avoid a speedy deletion of Obics. Both accounts have only edited the one page. GimliDotNet (talk) 11:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
|
Cases: Administrator Action Needed
Open cases: awaiting Checkuser processing
Cases in this section have an open request for Checkuser that is being processed. Any user may update or act on this case, and any patroller or clerk may decide the case. However it will not be closed if the Clerks believe any further action is needed.
- Endorsement or decline of Checkuser request may only be made by a Clerk or Checkuser.
- If your case is not showing up here, or this section seems out of date, please click the .
Awaiting clerk approval
Awaiting Checkuser
Papaursa |
|---|
|
Papaursa
26 January 2012
Astudent0 (including earliest edits: [32]); Papaursa (again, including earliest edits: [33]); Mdtemp; Jakejr (once again, account starts right off with the same style of AFd editing as the other three: [34]) In fact, they tend to follow each other with astonishingly similar worded comments in AfDs. For example: Mdtemp ("Delete all These events all lack signficant coverage and fail WP:ROUTINE and WP:SPORTSEVENT"; then, Papaursa ("Delete all These fail to meet WP:GNG since all of the coverage is WP:ROUTINE. The first events of a new MMA organization are not notable. There events decided no championships and received only routine sports coverage, so they also fail WP:SPORTSEVENT"); and Atudent0 ("Delete all This is not a vote and no valid reasons have yet been given for keeping, but WP:ROUTINE and WP:SPORTSEVENT are valid for deleting"). In discussion after discussion these accounts seem to show up just to support each other's call to delete or redirect. Notice how Astudent0 follows Papursa's redirect vote with practically the same comment, while in this case Papaursa follows Astudent0's lead. In fact if you compare practically any of the Afds they all comment in, you see that shared common thread, i.e. that these accounts seem to have the sole purpose to sporadically show up in the same MMA related AfDs to do nothing more than vote to delete with practically copy and paste rationales. Given the striking similarity in style (first edits of these accounts are to nominate or comment in MMA related Afds), userpage (blank or says in a sentence how they want to delete MMA articles), following each other in MMA Afds and saying to delete or redirect as each other says, etc., it is just too much to be mere coincidence and thus they seem to be vote stacking AfDs presenting a false sense of consensus. Temporary for Bonaparte (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC) I also added an IP, whose's sole edits are to vote delete in the same fashion in an AFD in which the other suspected sock accounts commented. --Temporary for Bonaparte (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC) I am in part concerned because they seem to be indiscriminately nominating articles for deletion and even saying to delete after sources have been presented. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edvin Hebovija is an example of one of their bulk nominations of fighters with widely varying degrees of verifiability and notability. You can see in the discussion that Papaursa, AStudent0 and Mdtemp all repeatedly badger everyone who disagrees with them by boilerplate repeating the same MMA not comments. --Temporary for Bonaparte (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC) TreyGeek, I do not think it is really comparable to say that by the same standard your account is similar to Papaursa et al. You have a distinct userpage versus these suspect sock or single purpose accounts. Your edits go back to 2008 and include article building contributions without diving into AfDs. Papaursa's FIRST edit was to an AfD: [35]. Jakejr's SECOND edit was to an AfD: [36]. Astudent0's SECOND edit was to an Afd: [37]. The IP's only edits were to an AfD. Mdtemp's FIRST edit was to an AfD: [38]. The Mdtemp account per its userpage even seems to be admittedly a single-purpose account with the sole intent of trying to delete MMA related articles, which is the similar behavior to other accounts listed above. I did not and would not accuse you or the others who said to delete in some of these discussions, because you have other and actual contributions to the project. The other accounts, by contrast, seem interested in doing little more than trying to get rid of as many MMA related articles as they can with essentially copy and paste rationales. So we have dozens of discussions where almost all of the comments are from these same four accounts saying to delete and little to no additional comments. Seeing as these accounts have demonstrated neither interest nor knowledge of article contributions, I don't really think many of these AfDs actually reflect community consensus. Afds in which only four accounts participated and its four accounts who do nothing but say to delete MMA related articles is a bit troublesome. --Temporary for Bonaparte (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Comments by other usersAccused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
|
Checkuser note: I am unable to find anything conclusive enough for action on a technical basis, but I do think there are connections to be made here. I'd like another CU to take a look, so I'm not marking this case as checked. Quick Checkuser requests
This section is for CheckUser requests unrelated to sockpuppetry, such as:
-
- Underlying IPs – identification and blocking for a longer term than autoblock.
- Collateral damage checks – before hardblocking IPs and ranges.
- Threats of harm (to self or others) – where the location and other details may be needed for law enforcement or medical authorities.
- IP block exemption checks – before granting IPBE or to confirm proper use.
Requests to investigate and confirm sockpuppetry should be listed in the sockpuppet section above. If posted here, they will be delisted by a clerk without being actioned.
Copy the following template and paste it to the end of this page (quick link to edit) with a useful header and details, then sign using "~~~~" and click "save".
-
==== HEADER ====
{{SPIquick}}
Archived cases
The following are old SPI cases, separated by month. This archival system was deprecated in February 2010.
| 2009 | |||
| January | February | March | April |
| May | June | July | August |
| September | October | November | December |
| 2010 | ||
| January | February | March |
| April | May | June |
| July | August | September |
| October | November | December |
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) |
|
|---|
|
||||||||||||||
