Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Excirial (talk | contribs) at 20:25, 11 October 2008 (Might be smart to actually list the new case... Kind of forgot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared. |
|
Refresh the page
|
Administrators' (archives, search) | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
345 | 346 | 347 | 348 | 349 | 350 | 351 | 352 | 353 | 354 |
355 | 356 | 357 | 358 | 359 | 360 | 361 | 362 | 363 | 364 |
Incidents (archives, search) | |||||||||
1147 | 1148 | 1149 | 1150 | 1151 | 1152 | 1153 | 1154 | 1155 | 1156 |
1157 | 1158 | 1159 | 1160 | 1161 | 1162 | 1163 | 1164 | 1165 | 1166 |
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search) | |||||||||
468 | 469 | 470 | 471 | 472 | 473 | 474 | 475 | 476 | 477 |
478 | 479 | 480 | 481 | 482 | 483 | 484 | 485 | 486 | 487 |
Arbitration enforcement (archives) | |||||||||
320 | 321 | 322 | 323 | 324 | 325 | 326 | 327 | 328 | 329 |
330 | 331 | 332 | 333 | 334 | 335 | 336 | 337 | 338 | 339 |
Other links | |||||||||
The suspected sock puppets page is where Wikipedians discuss if a fellow Wikipedian has violated Wikipedia's policy on sock puppets. Cases on this page are evaluated primarily on the basis of behavioral evidence, and the editors and administrators who look at the reports typically do not have the ability to determine what IP addresses Wikipedia editors are using. If you believe your case requires an IP check, please go to requests for checkuser.
Sometimes users who appear to work with a common agenda are not sockpuppets (one user, multiple accounts), but multiple users editing with the sole purpose of backing each other up, often called "meatpuppets." Meatpuppets are not regular Wikipedians who happen to agree with each other; they are accounts set up by separate individuals for the sole purpose of supporting one another. For the purposes of upholding policy, Wikipedia does not distinguish between meatpuppets and sockpuppets. Please see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry.
Administrators
Administrators please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Administrators for detailed instructions about how to determine sockpuppets, archiving, etc. for editing here at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets (WP:SSP).
Reporting suspected sock puppets
Before creating a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets (WP:SSP), please be sure that:
|
- Assume good faith, if possible. An alternate account that is not used for abuse does not warrant a complaint. Keep in mind that users may sometimes make mistakes, so in cases where an alternate account is largely used for legitimate activities, it may be appropriate to ask the user before making accusations. The problem might merely have been caused by a mistaken login or other absent-mindedness.
- Fill in the names. Clicking "Start a case" with a new case name-or-number opens a fresh page, with a form ready to be filled in. The puppetmaster's name will be automatically filled in as the filename; if this is not correct, due to added numbers like "(2nd)", replace the {{SUBPAGENAME}} tags with the puppetmaster's username. Also replace the placeholder names SOCKPUPPET1 and SOCKPUPPET2 with the account names of the suspected puppets; add or delete these lines as needed. Always leave out the "User:" prefix.
- Make your case. Now write up your evidence in the "Evidence" section. This should describe why you believe there's puppetry occurring, however obvious it might be. If this is not the first time the user is suspected, links to other cases you know about should be provided as well. The evidence should point to one or more instances of illegitimate use of the puppet account. Include the diffs to support your statements. Sign and timestamp your case with ~~~~ on the line below "Report submission by"; preview your report for any problems; and, when you're satisfied, save it.
To start a case report about suspected sockpuppetry: Cases are created on subpages of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets.
To do so, add the username of the puppetmaster (the main account, not the sockpuppet!) -- and the number of the case, "(2nd)", "(3rd)", etc., if there were previous cases on that username -- into the box below.
Leave out the "User:" prefix. Replace only the word PUPPETMASTER, leaving the rest as is.Example: if there were already two cases about User:John Doe, the new case would be titled:
Then click "Start a case". You will be taken to a page where you can fill out the report.
Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/John Doe (3rd)
After you've saved the report, come back to see the remaining instructions below this box.Use of this form is deprecated. Please use Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations.
- List your case for review in the WP:SSP open cases section here. Add the line {{Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PUPPETMASTER}} (or PUPPETMASTER (2nd) or PUPPETMASTER (3rd), etc.) at the top of the list, just below the section header. (Again, remember to replace PUPPETMASTER with the actual account name, without the "User:" prefix.) Save your edit. Check to see that your report shows up at the top of the list, just below the "Open cases" header. If there's only a red link, check that the spelling of the username and the number match the filename you created.
- Notify the suspected users. Edit the user talk pages (not the user pages) of the suspected sockpuppeteer and sock puppets to add the text {{subst:uw-socksuspect|1=PUPPETMASTER}} ~~~~ at the bottom of the talk page. If this is not the first time the user is suspected, the most recent evidence page should be specified by adding "(2nd)" or "(3rd)", etc., after the user's name: {{subst:uw-socksuspect|1=PUPPETMASTER (2nd)}} ~~~~ or similar.
- Consequences. If the evidence shows a case of clear abuse, with no serious doubt, an administrator may block any sockpuppets, and take further action against the puppetmaster. In less severe cases, administrators may quietly monitor the account's activities.
- Checking further. In some cases, where there is significant abuse and yet puppetry is not certain, it might be appropriate to use technical means to detect puppetry. See Requests for checkuser (WP:RFCU) for details.
Open cases
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sock puppeteer
James Nancy (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Suspected sock puppets
- Joseph Pomeroy (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Report submission by
- Evidence
- The suspected puppetmaster, James Nancy, is currently unhappy with a CSD tag on his own company (William Bruce Agency), and has been removing it several times ever since. After getting his warning level up to level 4 it is silent quite a while, but suddenly a new user, Joseph Pomeroy, comes in and removed the CSD template. This account has been registered just 10 minutes before doing so, and has only editing the article in question. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Circumstantial evidence looks likely, such is the desire to make the article stick. My guess is that it's an inexperienced editor who is trying to promote business. JNW (talk) 20:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
-
- Likely YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 02:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tagged and blocked. OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Likely YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 02:29, 17 October 2008 (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.
- Suspected sock puppeteer
84.9.46.3 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Suspected sock puppets
- 12.161.202.86 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 24.76.174.87 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 24.91.189.152 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 60.234.250.60 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 66.131.133.44 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 66.153.158.183 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 67.185.122.33 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 67.203.128.11 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 68.108.88.221 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 68.147.212.202 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 69.114.86.34 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 69.145.113.237 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 69.235.168.136 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 69.47.53.190 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 70.188.113.227 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 70.243.123.1 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 70.29.12.204 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 71.104.95.250 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 71.74.143.2 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 72.178.108.234 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 72.190.4.77 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 72.67.106.141 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 75.169.189.83 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 76.179.12.8 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 84.202.59.105 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 86.157.88.170 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 92.13.55.198 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 98.151.39.75 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 98.211.221.103 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 129.21.121.40 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 137.186.63.36 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 195.212.29.67 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 202.78.151.98 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 203.100.208.23 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 219.89.137.207 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 220.253.78.146 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Report submission by
- Evidence
- All of these IP addresses redirected random pages to Rick Astley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Comments
- This user is continually changing his/her IP address and redirecting random pages to Rick Astley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Conclusions
It's called Rickrolling - it's a widespread form of vandalism, so the fact that various IPs do it doesn't mean that the IPs are linked. No action taken. GbT/c 13:02, 12 October 2008 (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.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
- HiNancyHowsTheNight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- NancyLikeDaNigDic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- SockpuppetComputerLove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
DiverseMentality(Boo!) 07:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Same attacking done on same userpages. No brainer, really
- Comments
- I concur. Both accounts are now indef blocked for vandalism, and look unlikely to be unblocked anytime soon. No further action required here at the moment, as far as I can see. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Yes, the account was blocked moments after this case. Sorry about that. DiverseMentality(Boo!) 07:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sadly, more puppets are on the way. DiverseMentality(Boo!) 07:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Closed, as all have been blocked already. Cirt (talk) 11:38, 11 October 2008 (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.
- Suspected sock puppeteer
Brianyau323 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Suspected sock puppets
- 219.77.182.39 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 219.79.40.118 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 219.79.41.188 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 219.79.42.150 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 219.79.217.99 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 219.77.181.162 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 219.79.217.122 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 219.77.177.171 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 219.79.217.147 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Report submission by
- Evidence
FrJonas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked as a sockpuppet of Brianyau323 as documented in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Brianyau323 (2nd). These anonymous IPs have since popped up restoring all of FrJonas's edits. These are dynamic, so an individual IP block won't work. Maybe a 48 hour one against 219.77.*.* and 219.79.*.*. Big range, but short block. Maybe he'll finally get the clue.
Alternatively, semi-protecting all articles in 219.77.182.39's edit history for a few weeks could be an effective solution. That would be
- Cheetah Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Template:Corbin Bleu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Corbin Bleu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- I Don't Dance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Vanessa Hudgens discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Deal with It (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- CB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Breakout (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Push It to the Limit (Corbin Bleu song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Plus a few others that Brianyau323 frequently edits:
- The Cheetah Girls: One World (soundtrack) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Hannah Montana 2: Non-Stop Dance Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- The Cheetah Girls discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- The Cheetah Girls (recording artists) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Comments
Problem solved through prolonged inaction (not my favorite way to go). Persistent reversion of all edits seems to have made him stop.Kww (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Active again the next day via 219.79.42.150.Kww (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And as 219.79.217.99.Kww (talk) 14:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And yet more as 219.77.181.162.Kww (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Might be wise to file a RFCU to check if IP range block causes large collateral damage. OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A simple whois reveals that it is registered to an address in Hong Kong [1]Vandalismterminator (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Netvigator is a large ISP. While I don't rule out socking, the opposite could also hold true. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I had given up on anyone ever doing anything about this. I have a tool that scans anonymous edits from a range, and evaluated the period of Sept 14-Sept 18 (current as of the time I ran it). His actual range of IPs is pretty narrow:219.77.128.0/18, 219.79.40.0/22 and 219.79.128.0/17 would block his edits. All edits from the 22 and 17 were from Brian Yau. The larger range was about 30% Brian Yau, and 70% other editors. I think blocking the 22 and 24 for a few weeks would have been appropriate. I just reran, and a small minority of the edits appear to have been Brian (6 edits, all from 219.79.162.3). This rangeblock would have been appropriate if applied in a timely fashion, but 5 weeks late? Doesn't seem like the appropriate way to go.—Kww(talk) 19:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Netvigator is a large ISP. While I don't rule out socking, the opposite could also hold true. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A simple whois reveals that it is registered to an address in Hong Kong [1]Vandalismterminator (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Might be wise to file a RFCU to check if IP range block causes large collateral damage. OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Kww sums up pretty much everything. Case closed. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:42, 14 October 2008 (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.
- Suspected sock puppeteer
Shuppiluliuma (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Suspected sock puppets
- Ayça Leovinus (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Berlinerzeitung (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- User:Loreena McKilkenny (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Shuppiluliuma
- Report submission by
Mohsin (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
This user is sock-puppet of over 30 other users, and has been identified in the article Turkey, who insults me about my edits the same way as the other previous sock puppets. Turkey history page comments[2]: Ayça Leovinus: 'Islamist, Berlinerzeitung: 'personal ideology (Islamism)', Gönülçelen: 'Stop removing content according to your personal ideology'
- Conclusions
- Inconclusive. Enigma message 21:16, 22 October 2008 (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.
- Suspected sock puppeteer
70.19.191.130 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Suspected sock puppets
- Freethebass (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 68.116.190.243 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 76.24.204.168 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Report submission by
- Evidence
- These accounts, including the previously blocked accounts User:DMizaCBass and User:Dexter morse have all engaged in repeated and identical vandalism at Worcester Academy (among other pages) over the past several months. It may not be possible to identify the puppet master account from the puppets.
- Comments
- I can assure you boys back home of three things:
- There are more than one "puppet masters" as you so kindly put it.
- There is another puppet not (yet) listed here.
- I am not a meat puppet!
Thank you. Freethebass (talk) 01:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- Freethebass blocked indef for vandalism. IPs are stale. Enigma message 21:15, 22 October 2008 (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.
- Suspected sock puppeteer
Valueyou (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Suspected sock puppets
- Tellus archivist (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Twinkletellus (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser) (previously confirmed association with Tellus archivist)
- Oidkdufjggd (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser) (previously confirmed association with Tellus archivist)
- Taxisfolder (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser) (needs checking).
- TwinkleJames (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser) (possible connection)
- Rydernechvatal (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser) (possible connection)
- 81.57.34.12 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (French IP active June/July/August 2008 & August 2006, major contributions to Joseph Nechvatal article, may be evidence of overlap in connection with Valueyou and others during the months mentioned)
- EricaNechvatal (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser) (creator of Joseph Nechvatal article)
- Report submission by
- Evidence
- Ongoing policy breaches by Valueyou relating to Noise (music) leading to comment by known sock puppet Tellus archivist here: Untrue! Semitransgenic has a grudge against me (see my edit history) Twinkletellu and Oidkdufjggd was another person working from my office (now gone) and had NOTHING to do with Tellus archivist. Tellus archivist is another person of another nationality that lives in the same city as I am in - in another part of town that I know who started the Tellus page on which I helped. Semitransgenic has been harassing me and thus discouraging me from contributing to wiki any longer and I want to report him/her as a negative force within the music wiki area. (s)He self described him/herself as a "policy nazi" (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Valueyou) and acts like a nazi. I don't see any constructive contributions by this person other than taking pleasure in posting ugly flag signs where talk on the discussion page would be just as good - no better - because these signs drive away users of wikipedia and makes it look half-ass and UGLY. Valueyou (talk) 12:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Talk:Noise_(music)#A_bag_of_cats so what - 2 different people
- User Valueyou describes himself on his talk page as an archivist as well in the discussion here: wow 2 archivists - so what - what does that prove? yes we are both archivists
- Talk:Noise_(music)#Synthesis 2 different people
- User Twinkletellus states he is an archivist here:
- User_talk:A_Train#Image_for_Tellus_Audio
- Edit histories of the following pages show Valueyou and Tellus archivist active: so what - 2 different people interested in the same subject
- [12] 2 different people
- [13] 2 different people
- Other overlaps evident. kinda vague - I should add that Semitransgenic removed my prior complaint against him/her from this page. nice nazi move. no? Valueyou (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC) you added a conclusion, not your place to do so. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC) So that gave you the right to censure my conclusion which condemns your actions?!? Valueyou (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- [14]
- [15]
- [16]
- [17]
- [18]
- [19]
- [20] OK, let's look at this one as it applies to any of the "evidence" (ha ha) listed here by Semitransgenic. Wiki user Taxisfolder, working from this office and thus this IP address, started the page. Taxisfolder no longer works here and is not anymore working on wiki. Taking over Taxisfolder's archival duties and following our employer's interests, I have improved the page. None of this has anything to do with Tellus archivist who has nothing to do with this office and only lives in the same city of the office. Valueyou (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- [21]
- Recent comments:
- [22]
- [23]
- [24]
- [25]
- [26]
- Comment
If this is the same user, or an associated group of users, they claim to be connected with one Joseph Nechvatal. A claim of being an employee of this person is made as well as a claim of having been an archivist for the Dia Art Foundation. There is a consistent expression of contempt for submission guidelines, reversion of tags is commonplace.
- The issue is this: after a month of work I greatly improved the noise music page - providing wiki with an outstanding noise music page with extensive footnotes, some lacking only page # which I can provide in the near future (as previously explained a # of times), free of WP:OR & WP:SYN that stood - more or less - for a couple of weeks. Semitransgenic then imposed a WP:OR deadline on my providing those page #s and when I challenged that arbitrary deadline Semitransgenic falsely accused me of sock-puppetry with a friend of mine Tellus archivist who has entered his resistance to Semitransgenic's dictates. (see talk page at Noise music) This was done to me in spite and will not stand. I strongly condemn nazi Semitransgenic's tactics. Now Semitransgenic seems to be saying that I am a sock-puppet with non-existent defunct ex-wiki users from our office! Who elected him wiki god anyway Valueyou (talk) 14:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOT SO! Note date: 15 August 2008. Semitransgenic lies! This dispute was settled and complied with. By distorting the current dispute (as stated above) by fishing in the past - Semitransgenic dislays bad faith and dishonesty. Valueyou (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you an expert in this field? I am offering primary source information. This is differnt than a POV. They are important as a group not because some book said they are, but by their productivity - with which I am aware. This is a fresh and emerging history and I would think that a PhD who has worked as an archivist at the Dia Art Foundation could offer such a list without a book saying it is OK. Valueyou (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have from the outset attempted to get the user to appreciate how Wikipedia works but advice has been persistently ignored. Citations were legitimately challenged see link for details. Semitransgenic (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again - By distorting the current dispute (as stated above) by fishing in the past - Semitransgenic dislays bad faith and dishonesty. Valueyou (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- this is a misrepresentation of facts. The article has never been free of WP:OR WP:SYN, tags were at one point removed because an assurance was given that citations would be forthcoming. At least six weeks on and there is still know sign of them, hence the continued presence of the tags. In this regard, nowhere has deviation from standard policy been applied by user semitransgenic, despite the vocal protestations of user Valueyou et al. There was no arbitrary deadline applied, and in light of the nature of the information submitted to the article, deletion may have been a more appropriate approach, yet user semitransgenic instead simply commented out the problematic citations and reinstated the requests. Semitransgenic (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, if I understand the tortured logic of Semitransgenic, the page was never free of flags except when there were none - until Semitransgenic decided time was up for the page #s. So there is a 6 week wiki rule that applies here that page #s be provided by that time -- and that time frame is not arbitrary. Right? I'd like to see that rule. Sounds like an arbitrary one to me. Valueyou (talk) 00:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Outside comment
I was asked to comment as I've had some interaction with related issues concerning visual art articles, particularly Joseph Nechvatal. I can't comment on the present trouble, but there were similar-sounding problems before. Users appeared and disappeared, some POV pushing/spamming etc. However, the material added did have benefit as it was filling in an area which would probably otherwise have been neglected. A firm and consistent response from other editors kept problems in check. My suggestion is that a similar response may prove the most productive one here. Maybe try to guide the editor(s) and help to make the most of their input. A bit of a confrontational situation seems to have developed, and getting some fresh eyes via WP:DR procedures or posting to relevant wikiproject would help. Ty 01:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Tyrenius for your opinion, but I am afraid that this issue needs more consideration. I ask here for a Consensus that disciplinary measures be taken against Semitransgenic as he is a bully and self-declared nazi (see the top of my talk page – that is how he introduced himself to me). I may or may not be of the Jewish faith, but either way I find this kind of macho posturing repugnant. He also addressed me as “dude” later on in my talk page and as I am not of the male sex, I find that sort of address sexist. So, I am seeking a Consensus to out Semitransgenic from the music section of wiki as clearly he has no love of music or the artists who make it. I don't see any constructive contributions by Semitransgenic other posting ugly flag signs where talk on the discussion page would be much better because these signs drive away users of wikipedia by making the pages look half-ass. I suggest that he be asked to go work on the Nazism page and leave the music section to those who love music. Valueyou (talk) 10:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Outside comment
Please cool the personal attacks...Having observed many of these issues in the past; and having seen some of the work of Valueyou (talk · contribs) and several of the other accused names; I concur with Tyrenius (talk · contribs) in having seen beneficial, valuable and useful work from the accused. However these personal attacks should be toned down from both sides. In my opinion this person has been a useful contributor....Modernist (talk) 11:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Err, in light of the below and WP:Canvas, I withdraw any support offered above...but it takes two to tango and both need to cool it......Modernist (talk) 14:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response from Semitransgenic
I have never made a personal attack on this person. I have also told the person directly that I believe their contributions are useful but that WP:OR WP:SYN WP:POV is simply not constructive long term. For the record, above user (et al.) is throwing a tantrum becasue they don't like regulations. Issue starts here Long history of problematic behaviour, account swapping over 2 year period, see comment by clerk. User believes real world credentials overules policy.
- Are you an expert in this field? I am offering primary source information. This is differnt than a POV. They are important as a group not because some book said they are, but by their productivity - with which I am aware.
- This is a fresh and emerging history and I would think that a PhD who has worked as an archivist at the Dia Art Foundation could offer such a list without a book saying it is OK. Valueyou (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- user is now engaging in flaming campaign as part of their protest. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, please view my comments on the talk page of the user in question to confirm that I have done nothing more than attempt to communicate best practice. None of the points I raise, or requests I have made, deviated from procedure. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response from Valueyou
NOT SO! Note date: 15 August 2008. This dispute was settled. The actual dispute is stated above. Semitransgenic is attempting to muddy the waters here. Please deal with the Semitransgenic abuse I have experienced. Valueyou (talk) 13:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response from Valueyou
I was unaware I was doing anything incorrect as I am a fairly recent editor here. The point is Semitransgenic continues to attempt to charge me with this false silliness. I am sure that Semitransgenic would like to see me kicked off of wiki as I dare oppose Semitransgenic's aggressive language and editing tactics. What a waste of time. Valueyou (talk) 13:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response from Semitransgenic
That's a false charge. Kicked off? but you will simply change user. As clearly shown in the comments on your talk page I have consistently expressed that I believe your contributions are useful but that your comtempt for policy is not, yet you have engaged in flaming/canvassing, accused me of anti-semetic sentiment, and have generally behaved in an uncivil manner. Why do you believe this is appropraite behaviour for an editor on Wikipedia? Finally, this is not the place to vent your frustrations. If you have an issue please see WP:DR. Thanks. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response from Valueyou
As stated above, various people come to work from this office over time and thus from this IP address. Stop making false claims against me. I will look into WP:DR. Thank you for the policy tip. Valueyou (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- I think this has now run its course and should be considered concluded, unless anyone has a valid strong objection, as continuation will not gain anything for anyone or the project. There has been no provable abusive sockpuppetry. The positive aspect of this is that other users have been drawn in to help reconcile conflicting positions, and there is a better ground to move forward constructively for both/all parties. Ty 18:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Now closed. Enigma message 21:20, 22 October 2008 (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.
- Suspected sock puppeteer
Hackman2 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Suspected sock puppets
- Hackman3 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Hackman4 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Hackman5 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Hackman199 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Report submission by
- - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
- Repeated vandalism to Rocket from multiple accounts, extremely similar names. Hackmann2 is permanently banned, other accounts only evaded bans by using multiple accounts.
- Comments
- Please remember to notify all accounts listed as possibly linked to the sock puppetry in question (instructions).
- Conclusions
Close, as all above accounts already indef blocked. Cirt (talk) 11:43, 11 October 2008 (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.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
- Studio9productions (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Groundzerohour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
TravellingCari 15:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Repeated re-creation of the same series of articles.
- Comments
- Conclusions
Main account blocked for spam, sock blocked for abuse of multiple accounts. GbT/c 13:06, 12 October 2008 (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.
- Suspected sock puppeteer
John Mason (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Suspected sock puppets
- Badeggbill (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Freshair1234 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 137.205.17.89 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 81.79.174.205 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 92.11.119.206 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Report submission by
- Evidence
The article Paul Gustafson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was created on 3 July 2006 by user Badeggbill. The article was then expanded and groomed by the suspected sockpuppets above, until by 18 March 2008 it looked like this, a tour de force of overblown trivia. The edits have been consistent, with a characteristic style and tone, across the suspected sockpuppets. From the outset, other editors have expressed, particularly on the first third of Talk:Paul Gustafson (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs), their suspicions that Paul Gustafson himself, using these sockpuppets, was controlling the article. The article is now being considered for deletion, and the latest suspected sockpuppet has mentioned starting again should the article be deleted.
- Comments
Might be worth noting the following, too:
- Badeggbill has previously posted Mr Gustafson's address on the article's talk page, and his user name is (apparently) named after a character in Gustafson's book.
- John Mason appears to be named after one of the schools that Gustafson teaches at.
- And I think 137.205.16.138 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser) needs to be added to that list, too.
Cheers, OBM | blah blah blah 12:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is really really really unfair. As I said before, I am not a sockpuppet, I have no knowledge of the schools at which Gustafson teaches or anything other than his angling, because I have (legally) his excellent, informative videos, available to purchase online.
Incidentally it is misleading to state that I 'mentioned starting again' - i hear it as presented here, sounding like a threatening threat. I assumed the article was being deleted so as the editors who so wished could rewrite it from scratch, it being so very flawed. I have no intention of doing so myself - one man's ceiling is another man's floor.
I expect to be fully exhonerated and I would like an apology. No-one appreciates me. I took a risk, a risk to attempt to add to the sum of human knowledge - during office hours!
This whole encyclopedia idea will be doomed to a watery grave (e.g. on the seabed, though obviously not literally) if such gross injustices of carriage are permitted.
Yours, Mike Fisher 137.205.16.138 (talk) 12:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- Two socks blocked indef, master blocked for 24 hours. Enigma message 21:09, 22 October 2008 (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.
- Suspected sock puppeteer
Pedrito (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Suspected sock puppets
- JIDF Threats (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Obaminator (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Report submission by User:Einsteindonut
~~~~
- Evidence
- Please see Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/JIDF_Threats and User_talk:Einsteindonut#Please_run_checkuser_on_Pedrito
I believe the fact that he tried to scrub his user page after doing all this also looked suspicious.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Einsteindonut (talk • contribs)
- Comments
- Please remember to notify all accounts listed as possibly linked to the sock puppetry in question (instructions).
- Conclusions
- Add this user to the other case then, please. Superfluous reports slow down the already heavily backlogged page. ScarianCall me Pat! 17:00, 22 October 2008 (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.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
- Genetix1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- User:Genetix12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- User:Genetix123456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Dave1185 (talk) 01:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
- Comments
- Hmm... I see no edits by the suspected socks. It's okay for someone to have an alternate account as long as they don't abuse it. I'll have a talk with them, but I don't think we can take action here. Cheers! SunDragon34 (talk) 04:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
This is very strange. I think we should just watch their talk pages and leave a note for each referencing this page. If trouble arises, it can be dealt with. Jehochman Talk 21:29, 14 October 2008 (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.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
- Smartness9999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- User:Smartness8304 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Dave1185 (talk) 01:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Smartness9999
- Comments
- Conclusions
Suspected sock puppet has precisely zero edits. None. Zip. So...? GbT/c 12:57, 12 October 2008 (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.
- Suspected sock puppeteer
Snuffereet (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Suspected sock puppets
- Watermelon Eet Choo Weets (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Report submission by
- Evidence
- Snuffereet (talk · contribs) is already indef blocked as a result of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/63.164.47.2. An edit by Watermelon Eet Choo Weets (talk · contribs) on Dave "Chico" Ryan[30] is identical to one by 63.164.47.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)[31], and the user has also vandalised The Portsmouth Herald[32], which was vandalised by sockpuppets of Snuffereet (talk · contribs) (see the page history and edits by 63.164.47.2[33], BWneeds a life (talk · contribs)[34] and other sockpuppets. An edit on Buddy Rose is also similar to the sockpuppets: Watermelon Eet Choo Weets[35], 68.108.88.24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)[36].
- Comments
- Hi, Snigbrook. Since you already seem to know a thing or two about the situation, would you mind posting some of those other suspected socks you mentioned onto the "Suspected sock puppets" list above, if they haven't been already? It'll make things easier for the investigators. Thanks. SunDragon34 (talk) 06:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- Inconclusive. Enigma message 21:07, 22 October 2008 (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.
- Suspected sock puppeteer
PoliticianTexas (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Suspected sock puppets
- DeLaCueva (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 71.30.147.211 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
(see also Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of PoliticianTexas)
- Report submission by
- Uncia (talk) 00:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dori (Talk • Contribs) 01:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence that DeLaCueva is 71.30.147.211
Consider the following sequence of edits that occurred within 45 minutes on 8 October 2008:
(1) 03:35 71.30.147.211 wikilinked Carlos F. Vigil Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a then non-existent article, from Espanola, New Mexico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) diffs
(2) 03:37 new account DeLaCueva (talk · contribs · account creation) created
(3) 03:48 Uncia reverted step (1) diffs
(4) 03:54 DeLaCueva created new article Carlos F. Vigil Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) diffs
(5) 04:18 DeLaCueva made same wikilink as step (1) to the now-existent article diffs
Additionally, if you look at the history of the NMAA District 2-AAAA article on 8 Oct:
- 3:04 71.30.147.211 reverted edits by DoriSmith
- 3:20 Uncia reverted edits by 71.30.147.211
- 3:31 71.30.147.211 reverted edits by Uncia
- 3:49 Uncia reverted edits by 71.30.147.211
- 5:38 DeLaCueva reverted edits by Uncia
- 6:17 DoriSmith reverted edits by DeLaCueva
- 6:26 DeLaCueva reverted edits by DoriSmith
- 7:06 Dayewalker reverted edits by DeLaCueva
Shifting from the 71.30.147.211 account to the DeLaCueva account allowed him to not be immediately accused of 3RR.
- Evidence that 71.30.147.211 is PoliticianTexas and therefore DeLaCueva is PoliticianTexas
On 8 October 2008, over a period of 35 minutes from 02:59 to 03:35, 71.30.147.211 made a series of edits to
- Española Valley High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- NMAA District 2-AAAA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Espanola, New Mexico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Santa Fe, New Mexico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
Of these,
- Española Valley High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- NMAA District 2-AAAA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Espanola, New Mexico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
are frequently edited by PoliticianTexas, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PoliticianTexas (2nd). Further
- Española Valley High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- NMAA District 2-AAAA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
are obscure subjects and over the lifetime of these articles most edits to them have been made by socks of PoliticianTexas (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PoliticianTexas (2nd) for discussion).
Additionally LamyQ (known sock of PoliticianTexas) and 71.30.147.211 made these identical (and incorrect, and therefore unlikely to be coincidental) edits seven days apart to Espanola, New Mexico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): diff, diff
- Timing evidence
LamyQ (talk · contribs · logs · block log). the last known sock of PoliticianTexas, was blocked 5 October 2008. First contribution by 71.30.147.211 and creation of DeLaCueva were on 8 October 2008.
- Comments
- Conclusions
No conclusive proof that this is a PoliticianTexas sock, but it's blatantly obvious DeLaCueva and 71.30.147.211 are the same user. DeLaCueva blocked for 6RR. Blueboy96 20:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per new evidence, DeLaCueva blocked indef as a PoliticianTexas sock earlier today.Blueboy96 00:53, 12 October 2008 (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.
- Suspected sock puppeteer
Words Australia (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Suspected sock puppets
- MassachusettsPoets (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Australian Reviewer (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Rachael Dept Engliska (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Report submission by
- Evidence
All accounts signed up since the creation of the AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andrew_Slattery and commented there. This diff [37] indicates clear relationship between two accounts at least. The article creator is Aokeier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and hasn't yet commented himself which can be significant either way.--Tikiwont (talk) 11:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- So you're here for sanity check or obtaining broader views? OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Either is welcome specially with respect to the article creator Aokeier. Actually, i followed up on the SSP tags by another user and decided to fill in the 'paperwork' as well. Since the block / autoblock it has become quiet, but Australia is also a different timezone and I am more or less off now for today. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- I've temporarily blocked Words Australia and accidentally also Australian Reviewer per name confusion, so the latter which triggered an autoblock. --Tikiwont (talk) 11:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All four accounts blocked indefinetely. User:Aokier is invited to continue to edit Wikipedia.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sock puppeteer
Encyclopediaofalabama (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Suspected sock puppets
- 22ndstar (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 22star (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 22stara (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 22staral (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 22starala (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Bdb0005 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Suspected sock puppets that have already been blocked
- Encyclopediaofalabama (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- EncyofAL (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Report submission by
- --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
- All accounts involved are WP:SPAs which were created within one hour of each other today, and have been acting with the sole purpose of adding External Link entries which point to encyclopediaofalabama.org.
- Note: I am not disputing the potential value of the link - especially if used within appropriate ref tags - this report is only about the way in which a group of accounts all were created for the purpose of adding the link to Wikipedia.
- Note: I have (re-)generated a COIBot report:
- encyclopediaofalabama.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
- After the first set of additions I added the link to the revertlist of XLinkBot. The link may be of interest, and the users was pointed to that by Anetode and later by me, but I also blocked the first set of accounts for sockpuppetry (I could have used block evasion, which may have been more correct at that point). I also think that the link can be of interest to the wikipedia, but this way of editing is highly inappropriate. I added more possible socks (well, one) to the list above. I would also suggest that the editor chooses one main account, and use that to follow the suggestions given on some of the other accounts (i.e. discuss!). --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- I believe (hope) that this is just a new user who is either confused or otherwise acting in good faith. They did post a question to the help desk, which is where I noticed that two similar usernames were involved. Ideally, I would recommend a soft-handed approach here; but they should be directed to use a single user account.
- The alleged puppetmaster account was blocked due to an issue with WP:USERNAME, and the user encouraged to create a new account - so that account in itself should not be counted against the user. The issue here is specifically with the five user accounts that were created today (22ndstar, 22star, 22stara, 22staral, and 22starala).
- Hello, you are correct on several accounts, I am a new user, I was only adding external links, and I was doing it from several different accounts. I have been advised by others on Wikipedia about common practices, and will be better behaved in the future. I plan on spending today contributing additions to all the Alabama county articles currently hosted, and see if I can fill textual gaps in other places. Also, I do not plan on adding any more external links, I will only be adding a new section to the talk page alerting others to relevant external links not already posted, and let the Wiki community decide whether to add them or not. That said, please let me know if there is anything else I should be doing differently. - Thanks 22star (talk) 15:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Blocked all accounts except 22star and left note with him. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:56, 13 October 2008 (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.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
- Phenomenon8980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- 131.247.207.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 131.247.201.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 131.247.244.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 66.158.193.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
— TAnthonyTalk 15:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
- User:Phenomenon8980 is circumventing a 72-hour block by editing with this IP (actually, just bad-faith reverting with no edit summary or explanation). This edit by IP 131.247.207.7 is identical to this one by Phenomenon8980 (and also subsequent individual edits). — TAnthonyTalk 15:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- IP 131.247.201.86 removed discussion here which goes against argument of Phenomenon8980; removal of talk is a typical tactic of this editor. Subsequent revert 1 and revert 2 following other editor good faith reverts. — TAnthonyTalk 21:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This edit by IP 131.247.244.191 is identical to this IP edit from above and this previous Phenomenon8980 edit ... I might believe it was another editor as the IP attempted to suggest here, if they didn't remove cleanup tags, "See also" links, categories and other valid content (once again, with no explanation). — TAnthonyTalk 15:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Phenomenon8980 has admitted to editing anonymously while under a block here, and then made these reverts/edits: [38] [39] [40] [41] (among others)
- In this edit IP 131.247.244.191 IP pretends to not know Phenomenon8980 in response to sock warning at User:131.247.207.7, accidentally using this newer IP for the warning on previous IP's talk page. — TAnthonyTalk 05:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In this talk page comment the IP sock compliments the disputed article and it's "creator" (him/herself, User:Phenomenon8980) in an effort to gain consensus. — TAnthonyTalk 18:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This new personal attack is reminiscent of this one and this one, and Phenomenon8980 seems to have motive since "his" article was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Current Days of Our Lives characters. — TAnthonyTalk 18:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
The user was blocked on 10/7/08 after using IP 131.247.201.86 to remove talk here, here and here in a 3RR situation, but the multiple sock violations presented here have not been addressed. — TAnthonyTalk 05:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- Already blocked. ScarianCall me Pat! 17:09, 22 October 2008 (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.
- Suspected sock puppeteer
Billysmith33 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Suspected sock puppets
- Bdmnc765 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Uyeoiu386 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Report submission by
- Evidence
- The three accounts were created within the last two days and have only contributed to one article: DeLaSalle High School (Minneapolis). Specifically, they have attempted to remove or neutralize the controversy created when the school (the subject of the article) built a stadium over the objection of community groups. This is a low-traffic article, and therefore especially vulnerable to abuse. Here are diffs by these editors:diff1, diff2, diff3. Similar edits were made by three IP editors on the same day.
- Comments
- This link shows the notability of the issue.--Appraiser (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please remember to notify all accounts listed as possibly linked to the sock puppetry in question (instructions).
- Although this case is of little importance and has low visibility, the evidence suggests to me that a single entity, perhaps connected to the school itself, would like the facts to be obscured. Little time has transpired, but I think it is important that the perpetrator learn that Wikipedia articles cannot be shaped by any individual with a goal by using false accounts. --Appraiser (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that one of the IPs involved is registered to DeLaSalle. Eóin (talk) 01:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusion
- Quite obvious. I have blocked all three indef as they're all clearly socks or meats and are just SPAs made to influence the flow of the article to suit their own POV. ScarianCall me Pat! 16:31, 22 October 2008 (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.
- Suspected sock puppeteer
Skoaler (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Suspected sock puppets
- Randomized44 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Randomized 2 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Report submission by
- -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 14:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
- Recreation of the Hadyn place hoax article with identical content.
- Comments
- Conclusions
- All blocked. Vandalism-only accounts. Enigma message 21:06, 22 October 2008 (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.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
- Max Mux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- 84.134.86.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 84.134.70.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 84.134.68.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 84.134.65.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 84.134.70.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked in 13 June 2008 for 31 hours
- 84.134.57.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 84.134.66.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 84.134.91.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) deleted by administrator
- 84.134.83.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) deleted by administrator
- 84.134.96.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 84.134.88.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Magioladitis (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Edit warring in Treaty of Lisbon. Check article's history. User warned in User talk:Max Mux to stop reverting but seems to ignore all warnings. Personal attacks to users. (for example [42], [43], [44], [45]). Refusal to respect new policy for date linking according to WP:MOSNUM (examples: [46], [47]). Disruptive editing (examples: [48], [49]).
Case is connected to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jakezing. (Check also Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jakezing). Max Mux is not new around. Some edits go back to May 2008 and maybe earlier.
- Comments
Confirm A few weeks back I reverted a single disruptive edit by Max Mux and my User Talk page was immediately blanked by one of the IP 'sock puppets' above. Max Mux then started adding repetetive comments to my talk page expressing 'non understanding' while a number of pages I had built or edited were vandalised by the above suspected IPs. Max Mux appears to come into direct and acrimonious conflict with almost every editor he comes into contact with. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Max Mux was told as early as 15 September that mosdat had changed see User_talk:Max_Mux#Wikilinking dates and has been reminded by others since, but three weeks later he is still using his anonymous IP sockpuppets to add date wikilinks AND beligerently accusing editors of 'vandalism' when they correctly revert his incorrect edits. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 22:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure I'm not sure about sockpuppeteering, but this editor does come into direct conflict with me, and several other editors. He has engaged in a talk page war with User:Jakezing, even when I had warned several times to stop. When I responded to Jakezing about Max, Max literally demanded to know what was going on, even posting more than once to find out. --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)-- 19:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Confirm: I confirm this report. See below. --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)-- 20:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have I not the right to know a reason when people won't talk with me?84.134.86.74 (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey Max, don't forget to log in!!! I think his comment above is evidence that Max is not deliberately using sockpuppets - he's just a numpty that keeps forgetting to log in. Bazonka (talk) 12:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh no Bazonka, that is not true. There have been several occasions where he has alternated between logged in and non logged posts in the space of several minutes. His anonymous IPs have made statements in support of his logged in identity trying to imply that they are from other people. It was done deliberately and he has done it many times in several locations. However, I think it is beginning to dawn on him that the anonymous IPs are not as untraceable as he first assumed...hence the sudden rush of apologies 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Check the revision history of Treaty of Lisbon. Max Mux reverted 8 times an edit using various anonymous IPs. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You may well be right, but it's exceedingly idiotic to post using an IP address to a page that's complaining about you using IP addresses. Bazonka (talk) 11:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More evidence Check the series of edits in [[50]]. Anonymous IPs 84.134.xx.xxx keep reverting a user talk page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the edits were made by me others not. Please accept my apologies if I have done something wrong also accept that I won't tolerate bad behavior from others.Max Mux (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts as a (unwilling) participant in this saga - Hey guys, this user has been a problem for me in the past. Under the 84.134 IPs he would blank my talkpage and mindlessly revert my non-Kosovo edits. Ironically, I mistakenly thought that he may have been User:Jakezing, so I made a check user case which you can see here: [51] . I documented over 20 different occasions where the IP wikistalked me somehow. But keep in mind this activity occured over the summer. 84.134 IP/User:Max Mux was formally warned and he has not bothered me since. Since the summer I've haven't had a problem with him at all, but I do see him occasionally on some Kosovo talkpages using the IP addresses instead of his user name. However, now knowing that he is using the same tactics against others that he used against me makes me unsympathetic towards him, and I tend to be a bleeding heart on things like this. --Tocino 03:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was angry at Tocino for his agressive pro-serbian and anti-Kosovo POV. But I have apologized because I know that bad behavior doesn't help against other bad behavior.Max Mux (talk) 07:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why you are still angry with me about that? As I said I have long since apologized. Some of the above mentioned edits were not even made by me. Max Mux (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "it wasn't me" dosn't cut it when they were in the same style, same ideal, same word style, same hatred, I doubt somebody else with essentialy your ip, would keep editing the same page and make comments in reply to replies and statements adressed to another IP.
- Hell, he left undeniabl;e proof he is socking, look at my talk page history, 84.134.118.38 made a reply in the name of Max, but, this ip ias different from the ip he used to post here. That alone is a good reason to show he's being a naughty niaghty deutscher...
- I support sock puppetitingp punishment for max, although his many ip's show banning him wont be easy. Second tocino... that was insulting tyhat you'd think i was the one being bad to you, i dont resort to petty vandalism--Jakezing (talk) 22:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It does not cut it with me either. There is doubt all the sock puppet actions, vandalisms to my talk page and stalking my edits were done by one person in a very short timescale. Max can deny it all he wants, but the truth is out there 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't deny anything. I repeat it to express it clear: I have made most of the edits. I have treated Tocino the wrong way. His bad behavior is no reason for me to behave in such a way too and I have long since apologized for it. Before I didn't realize that I was rstricted to edit only when logged in. Now I'm very careful to log in every time I make an edit. I have tried to talk to User: Magioladitis but he has reverted my comments. I think thats not the way to solve a problem.Max Mux (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC) And I must add that the dates look much better otherwise.Max Mux (talk) 08:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Max, you LIEDabout it, you told us it wasn;'t you, know it was? You ABUSED the fact your ip changes, you VANDALISED on them, you'sve done enough to be BANNED justr for vandalism alone.--Jakezing (talk) 11:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have not lied. I have more than one time clearly stated that MOST of the edits were made by me but SOME are not. Max Mux (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just ban him for a few hours so he learns his lesson and we can close this! --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)-- 15:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have already learned my lesson.Max Mux (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually think that you might have. Time will tell 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see little attempt to conceal his identity. I don't think the problem in this case is socking; I think it's the way a number of editors have been interacting. Laying aside his content disputes on Talk:International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo, most of his contentious edits seem to be fueled by frustration (look at his periods of mass talk-page spamming). I think he wants to improve the encyclopedia, but he feels alienated and frustrated.
- I see disputes and conflicts with other editors, and a period around three or four months ago of incivility (probably out of frustration, like I said), but from what I've seen I see no reason to take action against Max Mux for sockpuppetry other than to kindly remind him to log in when he edits and to observe WP:3RR. He's said several times here that most of the edits are his, and from my digging it seems that he's always acted like the same person whether logged in or logged out. I didn't find any edit where he actually referred to one of his other aliases as another person. If you think you have a diff where he is doing so, run it by me on my talk page and I'll look at it.
- Further, I see that he has somewhat toned down in terms of being civil and wants to talk to other editors. While I agree that he has been a little too persistent in making edits like this (and the subsequent reversions), and that he needs to learn when to let something go, these can (hopefully) be addressed by politely discussing the issue with the user. I will try to talk to him.
- I think we should keep an eye on him, talk to him about the conflicts he's involved in right now, teach him Wikipedia policy, and encourage him to be nice. And please, let's all be extra-nice to him. A lot of his frustration (and, consequently, his disruptive editing) is related to how he feels he is being treated. Please be nice to each other. I don't think he's a bad editor; I just think he needs someone to kindly teach him what's what and to help him in his interactions with others. For starters, I'll have a talk with him. If any of you have diffs showing him or his IPs making blatant references to each other as different people, or have anything that might help me better understand what's going on, send them to me on my talk page. Thanks. SunDragon34 (talk) 05:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- Largely stale due to the suspected socks being IPs. Enigma message 21:04, 22 October 2008 (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.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
- VedicScience (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- ADvaitaFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Aunt Entropy (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Both editing tendentiously on Henotheism, both use similar edit summaries with full sentences and punctuation, both sign "Be Well," user VS backing up AF here [52] and identically here [53]
- I don't have two modems, or even two computers for that matter! Anywho from my neighborhood or county or state or country who signs as "Be well" or "Take care" or anyone who supports my views - they are all my sock-puppets!!! BTW, you should know that Bach (User:Dbachmann) composes the symphony in the morning and issues rvs to look good and please so-called admins. He is also trying to become an admin. Then in the afternoon, he switches onto another modem and sock-puppets in as Ludwig Van Beethoven (User:Ludwigs2) to fight it out for Bach (User:Dbachmann) edits. Very well orchestrated. Both tendentiously pushing their views here Talk:Henotheism. Furthermore, admin User:Dougweller keeps insisting that no verifiablity is required and keeps pushing rvs based on "consensus". His edit comment on a recent Henotheism rv - "I have looked at the talk page, it is clear there is no consensus for this edit". Admin of "consensus" or "verifiability"? This place has become a sad joke. All this is obviously an admin trap to set me up for another block for no good reason. Check my history. I am a good faith editor. Wikipedia bureaucracy is a joke and should be dissolved ASAP. If nothing changes, Wikipedia admins will be nothing more than a digitized form of Nazism and you will be left with poor POV editors (admin boot-lickers) if the current form of Wikipedia bureaucracy remains. Be well and Take care. VedicScience (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Note: I have blocked User:VedicScience for one week. This follows not just his incivility here, but his numerous inappropriate responses to my advice on his talk page. Consider how much ADvaitaFan accomplishes in the next week in your analysis. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi YellowMonkey, this user is editing similar pages and with a similar tone to User:VedicScience. Could you check whether VS is sockpuppeting and therefore evading his/her block. Thanks GizzaDiscuss © 07:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- From the technical it is certainly possible. VS only edits from a home account, and ADF edits from an office computer. However, the locations of the home and office are only about 20-50km away from each other in teh same metro zone so that's quite plausible for a developed country with a good transport system. He seems very up to speed with all the policies and the like, and if he talks with the same idosyncrasies as well....YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 03:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- Quite likely. VS blocked for 2 weeks. Fan blocked indef. ScarianCall me Pat! 16:56, 22 October 2008 (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.
- Suspected sock puppeteer
Kingmike99 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Suspected sock puppets
- I wet the bed (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Report submission by
- Evidence
- Both User:Kingmike99 and user:I wet the bed are borderline blockable anyway (both have been mainly used for vandalism)> I've just speedied two G10 articles, one by Kingmike99 (subject Jenae Hratko, of which the last line was "...WHO LOVES TO WET THE BED!") and one by User:I wet the bed (subject Michael Hratko). Same bad spelling and grammar in both. Seems much too much of a ccoincidence.
- Comments
- Please remember to notify all accounts listed as possibly linked to the sock puppetry in question (instructions).
- I've notified the suspects. I can't see User:I wet the bed's contributions, as they've all been deleted. I noticed that User:Kingmike99 has been indef-blocked. Overall, the evidence seems to suggest socking. SunDragon34 (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- User:I wet the bed blocked as a vandal only account. Enigma message 21:04, 22 October 2008 (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.
- Suspected sock puppeteer
Rightandright (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Suspected sock puppets
- 87.203.191.155 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 85.74.106.186 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 85.72.186.242 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Report submission by
- Evidence
- Rightandright
- 85.74.106.186 (after Rightandright blocked for 1st time)
- Rightandright
- 87.203.191.155 (after Rightandright blocked for 2nd time)
- 85.72.186.242 (Rightandright still blocked for 2nd time)
- Comments
- The editor made a series of changes to an article; most were fine however a few were questionable and I reverted them. I left a note on the editor's talk page explaining why I was reverting. A discussion developed, however the editor was then blocked for issues on this and other articles. At this point, the anonymous IPs listed above appeared, and carried on making the controversial change (marked as minor by both Rightandright and at least one of the IPs) that Rightandright had been trying to make. Rightandright is now blocked again, and one of the IPs has reappeared. Three different editors have now reverted either Rightandright or the anon IPs; I believe there is a clear consensus for Rightandright's change not being made, however I would welcome the chance to continue the discussion begun earlier in an appropriate venue, e.g. the article's talk page or a user talk page.
- Although it appears there is an obvious connection just from the contributions, it may also be worth noting that the IP addresses both geolocate to Greece: [54] [55] and that one of them shares the behaviour of User:Rightandright in placing "(minor)" in the edit summary (of controversial edits): [56] as done a number of times by Rightandright: [57] [58] ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 05:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Another IP address making the same edit has shown up; 85.72.186.242 (talk · contribs) I have added them to the list. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- Inconclusive and stale. Nothing can be done here. Enigma message 21:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:138.40.153.43 (2nd nomination)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
- 138.40.153.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Jwalker400 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
RolandR (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Identical tendentious edits [59], [60] to those made by already banned sockpuppeteer. Borne out by continued harassment on my talk page[61], and by remarks on his/her own talk page [62]
- Comments
Unblock accepted- don't abuse the rules of this site to enforce your viewpoint you intellectually dishonest fraud. Talk to me directly like a real person or leave me alone.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwalker400 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 5 October 2008
- Jwalker: your account was created today[63]. Unless you have a valid argument, there's no reason to believe that you're not a sock. ~ Troy (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A subsequent unblock request[64] by the still-banned puppetmaster confirms explicitly that this is another puppet. RolandR (talk) 07:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't doubt that he's a sock, but this situation strikes me as a bit strange. Hold up on blocking until he replies on his talk page. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 07:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What is "strange" about this? S/he has been blocked for a month for "disruptive and tendentious editing", making an "utterly unacceptable edit", "plac(ing) a comment in the article", "edit warr(ing) over an "original, POV, unsourced addition (in a topic area already under ArbCom restrictions" and then "indulg(ing) in personal attacks" [65]. The blocked puppeteer then admittedly creates a new sock, which repeats all of the same behaviour. And s/he HAS replied, at length, on the talk page, leading another, previously uninvolveed, editor, to comment "Quit blubbering". This editor has made it clear that s/he has no intention of observing WP norms and peactices, and will continue with the same behaviour. Why has the sock not been blocked, and the IP prevented from establishing more socks? RolandR (talk) 08:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Primarily, I'm concerned that the editor has been almost tag-teamed by others. He was blocked for an inappropriate username, sure, but after that it all just turns into an overkill of templating regardless of what he says. I'm not surprised that he's frustrated. I don't agree with his POV pushing or personal attacks, but we took a new editor who did one wrong thing and punished him way too much (in my opinion). You have to realize that we're not training a dog; you teach a dog not to bite by smacking it. Good luck doing the same with a human.
- Anyway, I realize that you feel he's done enough to deserve this but at least wait for him to reply to my prompt. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 17:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you bothered to read the comment just before yours, deleted by Avraham, you would realise that there is a whole swathe of "editors" whose intent is not to improve Wikipedia, but simply to introduce an extremely partisan POV, to abuse critics of Israel and Zionism, and to bully and harass me and other editors in the hope that we will retire in frustration from this peoject. And then you would not have the gall to accuse me of "tag-teaming" this vandal. The fact is, several anonymous or single-purpose editors (or, more likely, one editor using several accounts) have attempted to introc=duce the same offensive comments into Israel and the apartheid analogy -- including an attack on Black Africans for "stealing" the land in Sourth Africa -- and have been promptly reverted by many different editors who have been working to improve the article. On this occasion, after being teverted by me, by Fieldday-sunday, by J.delanoy and by Tarc, this editor commenced to harangue and abuse me on my talk page, and repeatedly replaced the comments after they were removed. S/he was blocked, and immediately created at least two sockpuppets (one with an inappropriate username attacking me) to continue with this edit war. Immediately after these were blocked, and while the IP was still blocked for a month, this new sockpuppet was created, and again continued with the same pattern of tendentious POV editing, harassment and abuse. Frankly, I am astonished that anyone should attempt to gloss over this, and could view this as simply "a new editor who did one wrong thing". This is a serial vandal and bully, who surely has no place in Wikipedia. RolandR (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, if he continues to introduce material against consensus and policy, then that's that and he'll be blocked. However, you don't exactly see anyone explaining why what he is doing is taboo (except the multiple templates and blocks that have been handed out). I'm not saying you're in the wrong, but I still think this could be handled more effectively. Besides, I haven't dealt with him before, so let's see what happens. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 21:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you bothered to read the comment just before yours, deleted by Avraham, you would realise that there is a whole swathe of "editors" whose intent is not to improve Wikipedia, but simply to introduce an extremely partisan POV, to abuse critics of Israel and Zionism, and to bully and harass me and other editors in the hope that we will retire in frustration from this peoject. And then you would not have the gall to accuse me of "tag-teaming" this vandal. The fact is, several anonymous or single-purpose editors (or, more likely, one editor using several accounts) have attempted to introc=duce the same offensive comments into Israel and the apartheid analogy -- including an attack on Black Africans for "stealing" the land in Sourth Africa -- and have been promptly reverted by many different editors who have been working to improve the article. On this occasion, after being teverted by me, by Fieldday-sunday, by J.delanoy and by Tarc, this editor commenced to harangue and abuse me on my talk page, and repeatedly replaced the comments after they were removed. S/he was blocked, and immediately created at least two sockpuppets (one with an inappropriate username attacking me) to continue with this edit war. Immediately after these were blocked, and while the IP was still blocked for a month, this new sockpuppet was created, and again continued with the same pattern of tendentious POV editing, harassment and abuse. Frankly, I am astonished that anyone should attempt to gloss over this, and could view this as simply "a new editor who did one wrong thing". This is a serial vandal and bully, who surely has no place in Wikipedia. RolandR (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What is "strange" about this? S/he has been blocked for a month for "disruptive and tendentious editing", making an "utterly unacceptable edit", "plac(ing) a comment in the article", "edit warr(ing) over an "original, POV, unsourced addition (in a topic area already under ArbCom restrictions" and then "indulg(ing) in personal attacks" [65]. The blocked puppeteer then admittedly creates a new sock, which repeats all of the same behaviour. And s/he HAS replied, at length, on the talk page, leading another, previously uninvolveed, editor, to comment "Quit blubbering". This editor has made it clear that s/he has no intention of observing WP norms and peactices, and will continue with the same behaviour. Why has the sock not been blocked, and the IP prevented from establishing more socks? RolandR (talk) 08:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't doubt that he's a sock, but this situation strikes me as a bit strange. Hold up on blocking until he replies on his talk page. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 07:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A subsequent unblock request[64] by the still-banned puppetmaster confirms explicitly that this is another puppet. RolandR (talk) 07:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- Leaving to MoP to decide. This one is a tad stale anyways. ScarianCall me Pat! 17:15, 22 October 2008 (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.
- Suspected sock puppeteer
Chitrabharadwaj (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Suspected sock puppets
- Gyansinghparihar (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Rambabudixit (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Udditeli (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Report submission by
- Evidence
- The vast majority of all contributions by all these users is limited to the following two pages and their AfD pages:
- Literally every single other contribution by each of these users to other articles involves the topics in those two articles.
- They have made similar comments on the AfD pages, such as [66] and [67]
- They have engaged in vandalism tactics to avoid an open discussion of the deletion of the article mentioned above, as demonstrated by [68], [69], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bundelkhand_Ekikrit_Party&diff=prev&oldid=242753722, [70], [71], [72], and [73], a list that includes deletions of AfD votes, deletion of AfD tags themselves, and re-insertion of inappropriate or broken references that had been previously weeded out.
- Two of the accounts being reported (Rambabudixit and Gyansinghparihar) were only created subsequently to the AfD debate being opened on the two articles listed above.
- Comments
- I don't know if these accounts should be reported elsewhere. If anyone has views on this, please let me know (and I'll hunt around too).
- This is relatively time-sensitive since it involves vote-rigging and vandalism to two ongoing AfD discussions.
- Conclusions
- Probable. They're definitely meats at the minimum, quite possibly socks. Blocking socks indef: Master for 1 week. ScarianCall me Pat! 16:14, 22 October 2008 (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.
- Suspected sock puppeteer
Anton H (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Suspected sock puppets
- Rabicante (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 85.148.224.115 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 94.210.201.182 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 122.104.30.233 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 203.9.185.136 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Sillychicken1970 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Peaceful soul (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Report submission by
- Evidence
- These meatpuppets have been attempting to discredit and disparage the subject of this biography of a living person: Belzebuub. In one of the links to a forum that the user Anton H has posted on the page, I have found another forum topic on a website (Gnostic Teachings - http://www.gnosticteachings.org/) where together the lot of them were plotting ways of undermining and attacking the subject of the article, ranging from blanking the page [74], posting defamatory and unreferenced material [75], to playing what they call ‘the wikipedia game’ to get their personal attacks through the system [76] – starting at post #12. I came across this after following a link to a ‘source’ they added from the above website, which was merely a public forum post with disparaging comments about the subject of the article and the organization he founded. As evidenced by their discussion of the edits they had planned and carried out, their names on this forum are Tenrai (Anton H) freedom is blessing, SillyChicken,Paul G, Nik, and the moderator: Son of Man.
All the above users have posted in the forum, which was also addressed by one of the moderators of the site, who has encouraged them to continue their personal attacks and to attempt to ‘play by the wikipedia’ rules so that the wikipedia community does not catch on.
I have removed their edits from the article, but wanted to bring this to your attention so that it is known what they are up to. Thank you.
- Comments
- I have added the user Rabicante as a suspected meat puppet. He has created an account just today and is defending Anton on the discussion page [77]. His appearance coincides with the deletion of the Gnosticteachings.org webforum I cited above [78] where a bunch of people, including a site moderator, were discussing how to delete and/or add disparaging content about the subject of this BLP. Note that I haven't notified Rabicante on his userpage, since he hasn't created one. Matt reltub (talk) 06:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- Obvious. All socks blocked indefinitely as SPAs. Anton H blocked 48 hours. IPs are stale and cannot be blocked based on this report. Feel free to resubmit if you see further abuse. Enigma message 20:58, 22 October 2008 (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.
- Suspected sock puppeteer
JIDF Threats (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Suspected sock puppets
- Obaminator (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Report submission by
- Evidence
- A few weeks ago, a self-declared sock account of an established user was created in order to request a check-user of User:Einsteindonut. This account was indef blocked as an improper sock account. It seems that the same editor who created that account in order to harass User:Einsteindonut is back at it again, this time as User:JIDF Threats. The new account has the same focus on the Jewish Internet Defense Force article, the same insinuations with regard to User:Einsteindonut, and the same modus operandi - the creation of a single-purpose sock account, to avoid linking the complaint with the master account. I believe this user account should also be quickly indef-blocked. In addition, I think it is proper to run a check user on this account, and block the master account for repeat violations of policy. (I thinkI know who the master of both accounts is, and will provide evidence, in private, upon request).
- Comments
- Please remember to notify all accounts listed as possibly linked to the sock puppetry in question (instructions).
- I think a little empathy is appropriate. The JIDF has tried to "out" two editors — going so far as to publish a photo in one instance — and it has dug up and published detailed information about others. I can understand why an editor is reluctant to put her/himself on the line, especially when, as noted at ANI, "I have asked that oversight be applied to certain edits re my normal wiki account but as that has not happened so I create this ID". — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I refer you to User:FayssalF's comment the last time this happened. It is simply not appropriate to violate WP policies by creating sock puppet accounts for this purpose. If the editor is reluctant to put her/himself on the line, they should not be making provocative comments against other editors, or useless AN/I reports about off-wiki groups. NoCal100 (talk) 04:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I tend to agree with Malik here. The JIDF Threats puppet can be blocked without exposing who the puppetmaster is. I have the same objections to this as I did to attemtps to identify ED. Of course, the over-sealous might choose also to try to identify who you are given the evidence that your id was created as an anti-Calton sockpuppet.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- NoCal100 is entirely correct here, both in letter and in spirit. If the sockmaster had a specific idea about who ED was, and evidence, s/he could have provided it in private. In fact, NoCal100 is doing this in the best possible way: opening an investigation into a fishing expedition, but without himself naming who he thinks this person might be. Thus, if he provides private evidence and the results show him to be wrong, or are inconclusive, the innocent editor he suspected need not be embarrassed (and NoCal, also, won't be embarrassed). Anonymous socking harassment in the guise of fishing for violations is strictly prohibited. IronDuke 17:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops! My comment above is somewhat confused, because I came from User talk:Einsteindonut#Please run checkuser on Pedrito, O had it in my head that this was a CU request. Yes it's a sock - one of many operating in this area - that's gone beyong it's original self-imposed boundary by attacking ED.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The original post includes a CU request: "In addition, I think it is proper to run a check user on this account, and block the master account for repeat violations of policy." — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I tend to agree with Malik here. The JIDF Threats puppet can be blocked without exposing who the puppetmaster is. I have the same objections to this as I did to attemtps to identify ED. Of course, the over-sealous might choose also to try to identify who you are given the evidence that your id was created as an anti-Calton sockpuppet.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I refer you to User:FayssalF's comment the last time this happened. It is simply not appropriate to violate WP policies by creating sock puppet accounts for this purpose. If the editor is reluctant to put her/himself on the line, they should not be making provocative comments against other editors, or useless AN/I reports about off-wiki groups. NoCal100 (talk) 04:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a little empathy is appropriate. The JIDF has tried to "out" two editors — going so far as to publish a photo in one instance — and it has dug up and published detailed information about others. I can understand why an editor is reluctant to put her/himself on the line, especially when, as noted at ANI, "I have asked that oversight be applied to certain edits re my normal wiki account but as that has not happened so I create this ID". — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Pedrito
--Einsteindonut (talk) 05:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- Likely. JIDF blocked for 48 hours. Enigma message 20:56, 22 October 2008 (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.
- Suspected sock puppeteer
Happy puff (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Suspected sock puppets
- Happiestpuff (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Happyjennywawapuff (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Jennyjennywawa (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Jennywawa (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 220.255.209.202 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 220.255.211.108 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 220.255.43.105 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Report submission by
- Evidence
- Raffles Institution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Chwee kueh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Each of these accounts has been involved in the disruptive editing of Raffles Institution. At least three of them have targeted Chwee kueh. The names of the accounts strongly suggest sockpuppetry. At least one of the IPs was active and blocked before the suspected puppeteer.
- Comments
It appears to me that 220.255.xx is her block range. If so, a block range may be needed. 79.74.100.20 (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest a CU to check for any sleeper account AND check to see if there will be large collateral damage if the IP range is block. OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
CU confirmed. Named accounts all indef'd. 20.255.208.0/22 range blocked one week. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:08, 13 October 2008 (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.
- Suspected sock puppeteer
Pythagoras (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Suspected sock puppets
- Global10133 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Peakoil30 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Peakoil40 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Peakoil50 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Peakoil60 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 68.209.177.178 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Just The Facts (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Environmentcrisis (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Report submission by
- Evidence
- Global10133 was originally thought to be the puppet master for this crew. Their only edits include adding links and info to a POV sight called the Intelligent community [79][80][81][82]. The IP 68.209.177.178 continued these links shortly after Global stopped editing [83][84][85]. The PeakoilX0 group then appeared one after another, inserting the same text in the same articles [86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94]. Finally Environmentalcrisis appeared and made the same edits [95][96].
- Just The Facts was an SPA of First Amendment to the United States Constitution from 2005-2006. After a period of no activity, they showed up to make the same edit as seen above, mixed in with the PeakoilX0 group [97]. Pythagoras first edited in 2004, but was an SPA at First Amendment to the United States Constitution from 2005-2006 as well. After a period of inactivity, they too made the same edit as seen by the group above [98].
- Comments
- Raul654 believes that Environmentalcrisis is a Scibaby sock [99], but this may be a coincidence. Scibaby only appears in 2007, doesn't edit the First Amendment article or Pickens Plan/Peak oil, and is much more prolific. NJGW (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All but Pythagoras have already been indef blocked per wp:DUCK. NJGW (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Several other accounts and IPs were accused of being socks at First Amendment to the United States Constitution from 2005-2006. NJGW (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
All accounts now indef blocked. IP left for the time being. GbT/c 17:54, 12 October 2008 (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.
- Suspected sock puppeteer
Fumblingfoe (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Suspected sock puppets
- 69.143.57.71 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Rhodesscholar2 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 69.143.57.109 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Report submission by
- Evidence
- In this edit, User:Rhodesscholar2 states he will sue Wiki for calling him an ugly American, which User:Pdfpdf actually said to User:Fumblingfoe.
- The following edits are signed Mcmillan: this edit by User:Rhodesscholar2 and this edit by 69.143.57.71.
- Following the contributions log it is clear that the two accounts and the IP are all interested in only one issue, about Divine Mafa: [100],
- The anonymous IP 69.143.57.71 starts being used after a final warning to User:Fumblingfoe. Similarly, User:Rhodesscholar appears after a final warning to 69.143.57.71.
- Evidence that 69.143.57.109 is the same is less clear. May require WP:RFCU?
- Comments
- Please remember to notify all accounts listed as possibly linked to the sock puppetry in question (instructions).
- Where is the diff where Pdfpdf called Fumblingfoe an ugly American? I'm having trouble finding it.
- I'm looking into the case now. I'm getting a bit of a feel for what's going on. Let's all be especially nice to each other, and I think we can work this out. SunDragon34 (talk)
05:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)03:18, 14 October 2008 (signed after the fact)[reply]- Some material was on the page Divine Mafa which was deleted. Babakathy (talk) 07:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- Evidence is apparent but inconclusive to suggest this is any more than just a new user with no idea on how to use Wikipedia. Enigma message 20:53, 22 October 2008 (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.
- Suspected sock puppeteer
MortonStalker (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Suspected sock puppets
- fronsdorf (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Report submission by
- Evidence
- As for puppeteer and puppet, I have no idea which way around it is. I think it's entirely possible that another user is controlling one or both of these. Anyway, a poll was started on the wikiproject for rugby league talk page and when consensus for opposition was building both of these accounts were re-activated, apparently to skew consensus. Looking at the recent edit histories, the patterns (like their points of view) are quite similar. Lately both seem to be concerned exclusively with that vote and images of Super League players. I have concerns about sock puppetry and meat puppetry from other users in that poll. One of them may have created both of the accounts listed here. Perhaps IP checks? This is my first sock puppetry episode, hope I've not done it all wrong.--Jeff79 (talk) 07:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Please remember to notify all accounts listed as possibly linked to the sock puppetry in question (instructions).
- I am not Fronsdorf, nor do I have any connection to this person. MortonStalker (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry I am being called a sockpuppet of a stalker because I found the pictures were too big. Where do I go from here. Fronsdorf (talk) 20:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
I'm afraid it does rather look like the two accounts are being operated by the same person, but given the denial I would suggest taking it to WP:RFCU to find out for sure. GbT/c 17:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CU inconclusive. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:45, 14 October 2008 (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.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
- 75.50.172.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- 75.50.170.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 75.50.145.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 75.50.156.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 75.50.174.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 75.50.165.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Largo Plazo (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
This person keeps removing good faith Fact tags added by someone else to Salsa (dance), and repeatedly removes other text without explanation, regardless of the number of reversions.
- Comments
- If i may jump in here as a third party editor, this is quite likely not blatant sockpuppet usage, but rather a user located on a dynamic ip address. Also, the edits from this user don't strike me as being purely vandalistic. The removed content is a little WP:NOTGUIDE and non WP:NPOV, and there are simply good faith IP's that don't understand edit summaries. Slapping a vand4im warning without even trying to explain before doing so, or placing any lower level warning first is a little harsh; Especially for this type of vandalism. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 19:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He's been told several times in edit summaries. Since his IP address changes all the time there's no reason to think leaving a succession of User Talk warnings would make any difference since he won't see any messages left for a previously assigned IP address. Just now he went through the exercise all over again from yet another address, despite the warnings I did leave in all the User Talk pages. After the first dozen repetitions, I stop granting the benefit of the doubt regarding good faith. It's time to try to figure out what the next step is. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Next step is not a range block, as that would block too many IPs - probably take it to WP:RFPP and get semi-protection is it continues. GbT/c 17:47, 12 October 2008 (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.
- Suspected sock puppeteer
63.3.1.1 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Suspected sock puppets
- 63.3.1.2 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 63.3.1.130 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 209.247.22.85 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Report submission by
- Evidence
- AfD comments by Talk:63.3.1.1 (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs): [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112]
- AfD Comments by Talk:63.3.1.2 (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs): [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128]
- AfD comments by Talk:63.3.1.130 (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs): [129], [130], [131], [132]
- AfD comments by Talk:209.247.22.85 (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs): [133], [134], [135]
- Comments
- Not only have all four IPs made dubious keep or speedy keep reasons in all of the above AfDs to the point where they are likely violating WP:POINT, they also seem to be the exact same comments; for instance, this sounds exactly like this, and this sounds exactly like this. In addition, all three 63-range IPs have already been considered to be Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 63.3.1.1.
- I came here after seeing this You Have Message thing when I came to edit Wikipedia and I have no idea who made the bulk of the edits on this IP. In any event, these are dynamic IPs that are obviously shuffled around multiple unrelated editors and whichever one(s) of those editors made the above cited posts has NOT used the IPs in a sock like fashion in the same discussions. Moreover, these posts are hardly any more dubious or pointed or similar in wording than all of the following and if anything seem to be made in frustration as a response to the following:
- AfD comments by TTN (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser): [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146], [147], [148], [149]
- AfD comments by Magioladitis (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser): [150], [151], [152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157]
- AfD comments by Doctorfluffy (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser): [158], [159], [160], [161]
- I came here after seeing this You Have Message thing when I came to edit Wikipedia and I have no idea who made the bulk of the edits on this IP. In any event, these are dynamic IPs that are obviously shuffled around multiple unrelated editors and whichever one(s) of those editors made the above cited posts has NOT used the IPs in a sock like fashion in the same discussions. Moreover, these posts are hardly any more dubious or pointed or similar in wording than all of the following and if anything seem to be made in frustration as a response to the following:
- Looking at the one guy’s talk page, it is clear that a much larger issue is at hand and under discussion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_clarification:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FEpisodes_and_characters_2. --209.247.22.85 (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On a number of occasions I have had to deal with these IP's and if you look at the material that they tend to edit on, you will see a consistent pattern. When I opened the first sockpuppet case (click here), this person seemed to abuse multiple accounts and edit with one then going into revert other edits with another. The IP's, if you look at the sockpuppet list pertaning to the original account, you will notice that the first set of IP#'s were blocked multiple times. After consistent blocking, he or she began using a new set of patterned numbers. I think the most difficult problem when it comes to this sockpuppetry case is the dynamic IP issue. Soft blocking is usually the only way to deal with the issue, unless the harassment part plays a role. (click here to view the list of sockpuppet IP#'s) Good luck with this issue and I hope that everything gets sorted out. --Candy156sweet (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the one guy’s talk page, it is clear that a much larger issue is at hand and under discussion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_clarification:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FEpisodes_and_characters_2. --209.247.22.85 (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also like to add that this editor does like to post personal information. I've noticed this issue from reviewing the talkpage for 209.247.22.85 talk. This user (if this is indeed a sockpuppet of the address mentioned) did the same thing with me on another IP address 12.40.138.185 talk (Look at the block log on that IP#). Have you used WHOIS to determine the location of the IP# 209.247.22.85 talk? --Candy156sweet (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is in a different location than the other three, but it still strikes me odd of the similarities of the IPs' edit histories and their edits. Meating, perhaps? MuZemike (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could be possible. The only problem is that the other IP's, aside from 12.40.138.185 talk and 209.247.22.85 talk, are from similar internet providers. The internet connection is from Michigan, and 12.40.138.185 talk is also a Michigan connection. 209.247.22.85 talk is not congruent with the others. I would do some more checking to see if there are other connections aside from that. How did you come up with the possibility that this most recent address would be a suspected sockpuppet? Does this editor take up similar topics? I would review all of the sockpuppets on the link that I posted above, and do a comparison. I will do some checking as well. This editor tends to post to Michigan articles or on musical articles like Linda Ronstadt. This editor was so obsessed with the fact that I filed the sockpuppetry case against him, that he/she went to a public library in Michigan to post my personal information onto a Wikipedia article. I wish you luck. --Candy156sweet (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Compare the three diffs [164], [165], and [166], where both users explain that the articles in question are "unoriginal research" and that Wikipedia is a "collection of info." When commenting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyberathlete Amateur League (2nd nomination), I found the comment in question as the same as that of another IP response I saw several days before that. That's when I thought something was fishy. MuZemike (talk) 01:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see the similarity. I guess you can consider that meat puppeting or maybe he's just emulating the other editor. I can definitely see what you mean now. --Candy156sweet (talk) 01:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Compare the three diffs [164], [165], and [166], where both users explain that the articles in question are "unoriginal research" and that Wikipedia is a "collection of info." When commenting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyberathlete Amateur League (2nd nomination), I found the comment in question as the same as that of another IP response I saw several days before that. That's when I thought something was fishy. MuZemike (talk) 01:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Given the style of edits performed by these accounts, the type of arguments given at AfD, and the time frame when these accounts last became active in editing (the mid-to-end of Sept 2008), I believe these IPs are (mostly) being used by an editor who "vanished" per WP:RTV but hasn't really vanish. I shall not say more, but I'm sure that other experienced editors familiar with this past editor and editing style/pattern, and his/her (alleged) vanishing, know exactly to whom I am referring. I got to this page by seeing just one comment in an AfD (with a very strong feeling of deja vu), then looking at other edits performed by that account, and finally seeing this case report. I'm not necessarily agreeing that this user is meat/sock puppeting in the sense of vote-stacking, but is certainly not vanished as per WP:RTV and, arguably, is using IPs to avoid scrutiny. --Craw-daddy | T | 14:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I felt the same way when I compared the edits listed on this sock puppet case. Again, I have been exposed to this "user's" actions before. I have to say that this particular editor is a strong sock puppet with a dynamic IP. I don't really understand how this editor would be able to use a different internet provider like that unless he/she has someone else doing this editor's dirty work for him/her. The meat puppeting theory sounds more plausible than just a mere sock puppet case when it comes to the most recent IP# in question. Either that or this new user is emulating the vandal comments left by the original sock puppet. It seems that this issues goes from being a simple vandalism issue, to being a chronic nuisance. Voting or not voting this has got to end. I think that if more pervasive actions are taken with this sock puppet, the case will definitely have a positive resolution for a recurring problem. --Candy156sweet (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I know who exactly you're talking about (Hint: it has to do with Wikipedia's core policies). MuZemike (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'll chime in here. I agree with Durova that the person in question isn't likely to have engaged in these kind of technical measures to avoid checkuser, but I did get a strong sense of deja vu reading those comments. Imitation is possible, but the wording and stance are...unique. My bet is that it is him, but the IP is also used by many others. But if it is him, he will know that we know, as it were. Protonk (talk) 13:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I really think that this sockpuppetry case is a case of imitation. The newest IP# is from a different location, and I think it's highly implausible that this particular editor would go through that many hoops. I think that unless someone comes up with evidence that gives validity to this case, it should be concluded. I think that someone should reopen the original case to arbitrate the initial difficulties with this sockpuppet. That's just my opinion though. --Candy156sweet (talk) 09:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone think that our old friend LGRdC is involved in this? Stifle (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. (And, frankly, yes, I do, although the RFCU was rather inconclusive.) --Craw-daddy | T | 10:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You’re way off course, so I’ll give you a hint, pick one of the following who also do not like TTN: [167], encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=Deletionist&diff=1997437584&oldid=1997437294, or lots of em here or other suspected users behind these IPs, such as [168]. And as I have never used different IPs in the same discussion, not really seeing "sockpuppetry" here anyway. --63.3.1.130 (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2008
- I posted this on your talk page, but I think that it's relevant to this forum as well. Have you looked at the contributions for this IP# and other sockpuppet IP#'s and accounts related to this? If you think that there aren't any vandalism edits that come from this IP# or any of the other IP#'s within the sockpuppet list, then you are not checking the list or you just don't want to admit your guilt. They all come from the same general location in Michigan aside from the newest IP# out of Colorado. So unless there is a distinct explanation for all of these incidents, it will be considered sockpuppetry. Here is the list of relative sockpuppets. They're all related to one specific area, aside from the first one on the page. That one comes from am IP# in a public library. The same type of vandalism has shown up for all the those IP #'s including the responses that deal with AfD nominations. If you can find a way to disprove that information, go right ahead and present it. So far there is nothing there that clears you from any wrongdoing. --Candy156sweet (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, these IPs are used by some odd number of different users, but I am not seeing recent vandalism in the last month or so. And if none of us are using the IPs to revert war or vote extra times in those discussions, then we are not engaging in sock puppet behavior. These are just IPs used by multiple editors with the same range of dynamic IPs. They are no longer being used by any of those users for vandalism. I am sorry about whoever else has used these IPs that may have caused you grief in the past, but you shouldn’t let whoever that is ruin things for the rest of us who get these IPs. Can you point out any recent in the past couple of weeks actual article vandalism since this discussion was started? Can you point out any deletion debate in which two different IPs from the above list both voted in? If not, then what is the actual deal here? And yeah, I have edited here and there a long time ago and am someone who has concerns with that one guy who always nominates the same kinds of articles with the exact same lazy wording (yeah, it gets real old seeing the exact same wording on every single nomination, seriously none of those articles are different?), but I’m not the one some of you think and I can’t prove a negative anyway.--63.3.1.2 (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is one and here is another from 63.3.1.2 (talk). It's all coming from the same location. All of the listed sockpuppets other than this new one, and the one from the public library are coming from one central locale. It's concrete. The same internet provider for all of the numbers involved and one central location in Michigan. Do you have indisputable evidence to prove otherwise? If you don't want all this difficulty with dynamic IP#'s, then start an account with a username. This way there is no confusion when it comes this issue. --Candy156sweet (talk) 17:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And I am not the one who gets these IPs who made those two edits. If I created an account it would still be tied to these IPs and whoever else edits from than anyways, so what's the point? If you would like to offer some specific way in which we could work together constructively, I am all ears, but I personally am not using these IPs when they come around to me for vandalism. I can't do anything about what the other users of these IPs do. And even if I started an account it would still show up as being with these IPs and so what I get accused of sockpuppetry then too? All I know is I have never used these IPs to help out in some edit war or to make multiple votes in any of the same deletion debates. Therefore regardless of whatever others who have used these IPs in the past have done, I am not using them as socks. --63.3.1.130 (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You should get a username and take care of the problem altogether. If you use a legitmate account rather than the IP#'s, then any sockpuppeting issues would be ruled out in your case. If you continue to edit without an account, it will be hard for you to plead your case. You have no proof that you are innocent of these edits whatsoever. --Candy156sweet (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how it would, b/c if the username is checked then who knows if the others who use these IPs operate accounts to. In any event, you have no proof that anyone using these IPs is currently sockpuppeting. I have yet to see anyone show examples of vote stacking or helping out in edit wars and the one checky thing done on these was inconclusive anyway. Yeah, some of the editors who use these dynamic and shared IPs just like any IP used at a library, a school, or what have you gets the occasional vandals, but this board is for sock puppetry and I and as far as I can tell no one else is using these IPs in the same discussions (this one aside) or anything else that is actually what we call sockpuppetry. I have nothing to be guilty or innocent of. I and some unknown number of other users get shuffled around from these IPs. Some of those users make bad edits. Some make good edits. And as I wrote above, if you can offer some good project that we can work on with each other or what have you, hey I am glad to do that. --63.3.1.130 (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A username will at least give you something to fall back on. Without that, you can't really prove that you aren't the vandal editor in question. I'm not pushing this case to be an incovenience, I'm simply trying to weed out the vandal or vandals. Having a username would make this issue much easier. You can choose to do that, or you won't. That's entirely your judgment call. Like I've explained, you have no proof right now. I would only work on articles with someone who has a username. It's just the way I roll, pardon the urban slang. --Candy156sweet (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- After looking on Geolocate and WhoIs, I really think that the AfD issue is unfounded. I think that this project page should be concluded. --Candy156sweet (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A username will at least give you something to fall back on. Without that, you can't really prove that you aren't the vandal editor in question. I'm not pushing this case to be an incovenience, I'm simply trying to weed out the vandal or vandals. Having a username would make this issue much easier. You can choose to do that, or you won't. That's entirely your judgment call. Like I've explained, you have no proof right now. I would only work on articles with someone who has a username. It's just the way I roll, pardon the urban slang. --Candy156sweet (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how it would, b/c if the username is checked then who knows if the others who use these IPs operate accounts to. In any event, you have no proof that anyone using these IPs is currently sockpuppeting. I have yet to see anyone show examples of vote stacking or helping out in edit wars and the one checky thing done on these was inconclusive anyway. Yeah, some of the editors who use these dynamic and shared IPs just like any IP used at a library, a school, or what have you gets the occasional vandals, but this board is for sock puppetry and I and as far as I can tell no one else is using these IPs in the same discussions (this one aside) or anything else that is actually what we call sockpuppetry. I have nothing to be guilty or innocent of. I and some unknown number of other users get shuffled around from these IPs. Some of those users make bad edits. Some make good edits. And as I wrote above, if you can offer some good project that we can work on with each other or what have you, hey I am glad to do that. --63.3.1.130 (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You should get a username and take care of the problem altogether. If you use a legitmate account rather than the IP#'s, then any sockpuppeting issues would be ruled out in your case. If you continue to edit without an account, it will be hard for you to plead your case. You have no proof that you are innocent of these edits whatsoever. --Candy156sweet (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And I am not the one who gets these IPs who made those two edits. If I created an account it would still be tied to these IPs and whoever else edits from than anyways, so what's the point? If you would like to offer some specific way in which we could work together constructively, I am all ears, but I personally am not using these IPs when they come around to me for vandalism. I can't do anything about what the other users of these IPs do. And even if I started an account it would still show up as being with these IPs and so what I get accused of sockpuppetry then too? All I know is I have never used these IPs to help out in some edit war or to make multiple votes in any of the same deletion debates. Therefore regardless of whatever others who have used these IPs in the past have done, I am not using them as socks. --63.3.1.130 (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is one and here is another from 63.3.1.2 (talk). It's all coming from the same location. All of the listed sockpuppets other than this new one, and the one from the public library are coming from one central locale. It's concrete. The same internet provider for all of the numbers involved and one central location in Michigan. Do you have indisputable evidence to prove otherwise? If you don't want all this difficulty with dynamic IP#'s, then start an account with a username. This way there is no confusion when it comes this issue. --Candy156sweet (talk) 17:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, these IPs are used by some odd number of different users, but I am not seeing recent vandalism in the last month or so. And if none of us are using the IPs to revert war or vote extra times in those discussions, then we are not engaging in sock puppet behavior. These are just IPs used by multiple editors with the same range of dynamic IPs. They are no longer being used by any of those users for vandalism. I am sorry about whoever else has used these IPs that may have caused you grief in the past, but you shouldn’t let whoever that is ruin things for the rest of us who get these IPs. Can you point out any recent in the past couple of weeks actual article vandalism since this discussion was started? Can you point out any deletion debate in which two different IPs from the above list both voted in? If not, then what is the actual deal here? And yeah, I have edited here and there a long time ago and am someone who has concerns with that one guy who always nominates the same kinds of articles with the exact same lazy wording (yeah, it gets real old seeing the exact same wording on every single nomination, seriously none of those articles are different?), but I’m not the one some of you think and I can’t prove a negative anyway.--63.3.1.2 (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I posted this on your talk page, but I think that it's relevant to this forum as well. Have you looked at the contributions for this IP# and other sockpuppet IP#'s and accounts related to this? If you think that there aren't any vandalism edits that come from this IP# or any of the other IP#'s within the sockpuppet list, then you are not checking the list or you just don't want to admit your guilt. They all come from the same general location in Michigan aside from the newest IP# out of Colorado. So unless there is a distinct explanation for all of these incidents, it will be considered sockpuppetry. Here is the list of relative sockpuppets. They're all related to one specific area, aside from the first one on the page. That one comes from am IP# in a public library. The same type of vandalism has shown up for all the those IP #'s including the responses that deal with AfD nominations. If you can find a way to disprove that information, go right ahead and present it. So far there is nothing there that clears you from any wrongdoing. --Candy156sweet (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You’re way off course, so I’ll give you a hint, pick one of the following who also do not like TTN: [167], encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=Deletionist&diff=1997437584&oldid=1997437294, or lots of em here or other suspected users behind these IPs, such as [168]. And as I have never used different IPs in the same discussion, not really seeing "sockpuppetry" here anyway. --63.3.1.130 (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2008
- Please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. (And, frankly, yes, I do, although the RFCU was rather inconclusive.) --Craw-daddy | T | 10:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per Candy156sweet's proposal, and since no one has edited this page in a week, I will close this debate in 24 hours if there are no objections or further comments. Thanks. SunDragon34 (talk) 06:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- I can neither make head nor tail of this. Closing as inconclusive. ScarianCall me Pat! 16:04, 22 October 2008 (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.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
- Particleman24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Moleman 9000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Moleman 9001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Moleman 9002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Marzillius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 70.246.50.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Hammerthingys42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 68.9.49.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 24.126.147.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Updated with 70.246.50.160 by Prince of Canada t | c 09:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Two more IP addresses in connection with YTP content addition. treelo radda 23:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
User:Particleman24 has been a contentious editor, to the point where an RFC was filed against the user. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Particleman24. Shortly after the RFC was filed, Particleman24 disappears, and User:Moleman 9000 appears, with the same agenda:
- Adding material regarding "YouTube Poop"
- Adding unsourced material to Cartoon Network related articles
- Edit warring
The usernames and behavior are too similar for me to overlook, using a fairly obvious naming convention similar to what is observed with Mascot Guy. Please also note an RFCU at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Moleman 9000. Please also review the RFC referred above, as the issues have been fairly well (IMO) documented and endorsed by three ohter users; and the issues from the RFC have not been resolved. Diffs are as follows:
- Particleman24 adding YouTube Poop information to Cartoon Network: [169]
- Particleman24 making statements about copyright infringements on YouTube: [170]
- Particleman24 adding YouTube Poop information to Colgate: [171]
- Moleman 9000 adding the same YouTube Poop to Colgate: [172]
- Moleman 9000 edit-warring over the notability of Cartoon Network characters: [173]
- Moleman 9000 making statements regarding his disregard of copyright: [174]
- Moleman 9000 edit-warring over YouTube Poop: [175]
- Moleman 9000 still edit warring over YouTube Poop: [176]
Well, as it turns out, shortly after I file this report, Moleman is indef blocked for personal attacks [[177], but not before denying the statement of this SSP. Even tho he is indef'ed, I'd still like this case to move forward. Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm adding Special:Contributions/Marzillius based on this.
- Updating with 70.246.50.160, here
- Based on a posting I made to ANI, I'm going to add a few socks here. Please review that diff, this is more of a case of meat-puppetry and off-wiki campaigning (some of which may be viewed at [178]), rather than a simple sock. The Molemen have been blocked, and Hammerthingys42 has not made any current edits beyond a level-one warning. Yngvarr (t) (c) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:49, October 10, 2008.
- Comments
- Conclusions
Hammerthingys blocked indef as a sock. Not enough to go on for the other account, and the IPs are somewhat stale, so no further action taken. GbT/c 17:45, 12 October 2008 (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.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
- Vyaghradhataki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Sembian valavan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Kaadavarkon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Sree mrida (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Athmaiyer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Drabrah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
RavichandarMy coffee shop 08:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
This blocked user had been creating Wikipedia socks in order to remove content on the pages Iyer and Vadama. Apart from these profiles which arouse a great amount of suspicion, User:Vyaghradhataki has also been targetting the aforesaid Wikipedia articles from a series of IPs. The list of IPs used to vandalize the aforesaid articles is extremely long that I cannot name each and every one here. However, a glance at the history of the article Iyer would reveal that Vyaghradhataki uses IPs in the range 122.*.*.*. Hence, I recommended a range-block on the series of IPs mentioned.
- Comments
Erm, a block on 122.*.*.* would, at a conservative estimate, block 16.7 million IP addresses, so I think we can rule that out... GbT/c 13:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Wow. With one exception, the accounts are unbelievably stale, some not having edited for years. The one exception has already been indefinitely blocked. Please bear those factors in mind before bringing another case to WP:SSP . GbT/c 17:40, 12 October 2008 (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.
- Suspected sock puppeteer
Graham's Packed Lunch (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Suspected sock puppets
- Darien Muncastershire (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Robert Jacobsen (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 216.211.59.56 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 216.26.219.150 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Janet Jackson and Steve (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- David Galveston (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Report submission by
- Evidence
- Users have all replaced the word "foundress" with a neologism "encephemede". According to the article encephemede there are references for the word being used as early as 1992 but there are no results on Google for it. It was used in two edits by 216.211.59.56 [179][180], then by Graham's Packed Lunch on the same day.[181].
The following day, 216.26.219.150 reverted to an edit by Graham's Packed Lunch[182] followed by Graham's Packed Lunch reverting again.[183]
After this there was a discussion on User talk:Graham's Packed Lunch in which the user was warned for vandalism.
Another user made similar changes here: [184][185][186][187], and Robert Jacobsen (another new user) created an article[188] which appears to contain valid references although I have not been able to verify them. The user also reverted to one of the edits by Darien Muncastershire.[189]
A few of these edits have also broken the interwiki links: [190][191][192], this also suggests they are the same user. --Snigbrook (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another user, Janet Jackson and Steve, has edited the Encephemede article, to remove the AFD notice.[193][[194] after Robert Jacobsen and Darien Muncastershire were warned for it. --Snigbrook (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User David Galveston replaced six instances of "foundress" with "encephemede" in Polistes. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
Looks extremely likely to me. See also Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Swamilive. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See related case Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/72.35.4.220 which has an associated CU case. These are both related to Swamilive (talk · contribs). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
All accounts blocked, the IPs look dynamic, so not blocking. GbT/c 17:38, 12 October 2008 (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.
- Suspected sock puppeteer
PaulCarlinNakedOnDuty (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Suspected sock puppets
- Plasteg (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 79.71.148.32 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Report submission by
- Evidence
- Plasteg and 79.71.148.32 have both vandalised Real Radio (Scotland) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in similar ways (diff1, diff2 and diff3). PaulCarlinNakedOnDuty has also vandalised Glasvegas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in a similar way (diff4).
- Comments
Surely Wikipedia moderators have access to users' IP address. I have never used either of those logins. My answer to this accusation? A resounding "whatever." 79.71.148.32 (talk) 14:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- No comment on the relationship between PCNOD and the IP, but I have blocked the account indefinitely for linkspamming and vandalism. GlassCobra 14:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Archiving. GbT/c 13:28, 12 October 2008 (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.
- Suspected sock puppeteer
Spindoctor69 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Suspected sock puppets
- Spindoctor69 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Redgator5 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 190.246.1.14 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 190.246.82.69 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser) (Later sockpuppet that has appeared)
- Report submission by
- Evidence
- Few edits from either account but both focussed on Monmouth School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fish Information and Services (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fish Information and Services|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Comments
- Unclear what the school has to do with the price of fish but the obscure connection suggests WP:DUCK--Matilda talk 06:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This editor has also now commenced using an IP account - evidence here--VS talk 12:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I note that Spindoctor69 has apologised for his error in editing whilst not logged in. He states that he has now returned the comments I reverted; now placed after logging in. I respect that he is a new user and I am attempting to maintain as good faith as possible but I note that he has not in fact returned the comment (which my diff immediately above details) where he/the IP split the vote of Gene Pool into two votes. I wonder also if there is not an admission of colluded or conflict of interest style meat-puppetry at the very least in his comments below?--VS talk 22:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IP user- The IP user comments were made by me accidentaly while I was logged out (I had not realized that I was not logged in) I have now re-instated the comments under my name. As for this other account, I believe this is a coleague of mine (we went to the same school together and are in the same industry). If this counts as a conflict of interests, by all means take the action needed against him, but please leave his comments (if not his Keep Vote) because they are worthy of being read in the debate. Matilda, since you seem to know more about the regulations of Wikipedia than I do (this is not a sarcastic nor agressive comment so please respond accordingly), if this is not the appropriate place to leave this comment, please move it and notify my when you do so. Thankyou. Spindoctor69 (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good Faith - I hope we can resume good faith in this matter and resume the constructive debate in the articles for deletion area. In the case of the IP user, I hope that you can take that as an honest mistake considering I am a relatively new user.Spindoctor69 (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My User - I would just like to clarify, that by us working in the same industry Spindoctor69 is refering to the fishing industry and not FIS. And also, how can I be considered a single purpose account after ony a few days of having this account? Of course i'm going to edit the things which someone i know has worked on first to begin with, it's just common sense. This sockpuppet thing is madness. And don't delete my account just becuase of the misstakes that someone else has made, that's also rather silly.Redgator5 (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No accounts are deleted, either as a result of sockpuppetry or for any other reason.
For more information on what we mean by single purpose accounts please see Wikipedia:Single-purpose account - not particularly sinister, just a point of view based on aquite a lot of experience. --Matilda talk 23:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No accounts are deleted, either as a result of sockpuppetry or for any other reason.
- Conclusions
Improper attempt to influence AfD outcome. --Matilda talk 06:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur - please note this diff which shows that he purposefully refactored an edit by another editor so as to increase the vote to keep by one.--VS talk 12:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote keep - I have checked that out, if you read the bottom of the page, it was actually sarcasm by Gene Poole. But the vote was delete. I think if spin doctor had changed the Keep part, he would have changed the rest.Redgator5 (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No that is nonsense Redgator5 - Gene Poole has a history of making such comments - indeed he did on one another you were involved in just before this one. His comment was not sarcasm - indeed the bottom of the page you refer to is my edit where I am alerting the moderator to the fact that his comments were inappropriate. Fact is you and/or SpinDoctor did change the comments by another editor.--VS talk 02:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that is quite insignificant now since you re-instated the deleted comment and the discussion is closed. However, I think the edits were done by the same IP as Spindoctor that he used when he claims that he was not logged in. I think, we can just assume good faith (that it was an accident while editing) and move on since this discussion is going nowhere and is now irrelevant. As for spindoctor's account, it probabably is single purpose. However, I have made many excellent contributions and no longer wish to be dragged into these petty discussions.Redgator5 (talk) 03:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Final conclusion Sock-puppetry proven by this edit [195] clearly the same IP that the above suggests is Spindoctor.--VS talk 12:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking All three accounts now blocked as sock puppets and tagged.--VS talk 12:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Further information. The web site being promoted by Spindoctor69 and his socks, fis.com, is registered in Argentina. The IP sock locates to Argentina. As was already fairly obvious from his comments, Spindoctor69 is probably associated with the web site and the company. This is irrelevant to the notability discussion taking place in the re-opened AfD, in my opinion, since the motivation of an author is irrelevant to whether the topic is notable or not. (I'll confirm that a review of the IP evidence, i.e., logged-out edits later acknowledged by the editor, leads to a firm conclusion that Spindoctor and Redgator5 were editing from the same IP.) Abd (talk --16:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added the details of another sockpuppet above. This IP also locates to the same details as the above. I have not as yet addressed the issue of blocking for evasion of this ban. Other opinions (and if necessary administrator actions) will be appreciated.--VS talk 22:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not convinced that the project is well-served by indefinitely blocking this user. The user has conducted himself very naively, but may be restrained if given clear guidance. It's a bit strange to call IP edits sock puppetry, as such, though that is common usage here. The user should be warned that evasion of a block by sock puppetry is an offense in itself, but at the same time, the original blocks should be lifted, at least as to one account, probably Redgator5, though he should be able to choose; the offense simply was not egregious enough to warrant an indef block, in my opinion. The indef block essentially invites sock puppetry, of various kinds, creating more administrative hassle. We'd be better off with the user having an identified account, restricted as appropriate for the probable COI. If he violates clear warnings, then stronger measures become warranted. As it is, he naively created the sock puppet (or recruited a friend using, perhaps, the same network router) and was indef blocked as a consequence, without having been clearly warned. I'd suggest that, once sock puppetry was strongly suspected, the user should have been offered a "deal": Acknowledge any socks, stick to one account, and acknowledge and respect WP:COI rules, and be unblocked. If he accepts it, fine, we'd all benefit. (Instead of thinking of him as a COI nuisance, think of him as an advisor, someone expert on the topic but naive about Wikipedia policy and practice -- we'd confirm his advice, of course.) If he continues to be blocked, he'll probably evade, causing more trouble in the future. We can't just block an entire major service provider for Argentina, and the IP edits, were they not block evasion, would not be disruptive at all, as far as I've noticed. --Abd (talk) 13:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added the details of another sockpuppet above. This IP also locates to the same details as the above. I have not as yet addressed the issue of blocking for evasion of this ban. Other opinions (and if necessary administrator actions) will be appreciated.--VS talk 22:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All accounts blocked, this is just lingering now, so concluding and archiving. GbT/c 17:36, 12 October 2008 (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.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
- Thanos5150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- 24.20.80.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
NJGW (talk) 23:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Both POV SPA wp:fringe pushing accounts, currently edit warring at the same two articles they love to edit, and together are past 3rr (5 revisions in 18 hours). Warned about Sock policy on September 15 [196].
Note: 24.20.80.41 signs his edits as Thanos5150, in the exact same manner as Thanos5150, on talk pages that Thanos5150 has subsequently edited: [197] [198] [199] --Ronz (talk) 02:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: He's edited as :
- 70.162.188.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 70.162.145.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 70.162.188.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 24.20.85.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
--Ronz (talk) 02:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
I was looking mostly at his main article edits... guess it's just a 3rr/SPA issue then. NJGW (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that's still disruptive use of multiple accounts in the same article, and those who don't check the talk page history closely would get confused. NJGW (talk) 03:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DEFENSE: I have not used any accounts deceptively and quite frankly have no idea what you are talking about. At times I may forget to sign in but always put thanos5150 after my comments. If I have made an edit without signing in it is not a conscious thought on my part. I might open and close my browser several times in a day or have several browsers open at once and look back to the page and make edits without thinking to sign back in or even knowing I was signed out.thanos5150
- I agree that he hasn't used ip accounts deceptively. --Ronz (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ronz. I have been an erstwhile contributor here for a long time and have nothing to hide.
I would also say that I have also been accused of "disruptive" edits when in reality the exact opposite is true. I was only restoring the disruptive edits user Doug Weller who continually removed a whole paragraph that had been in the articel for several months because I removed one POV word he used to willfully discredit an author and idea. The article should have been left restored until the matter was resolved in the discussion page, not removed. That's like being guilty until proven innocent.thanos5150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thanos5150 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
No action. Submitter agrees no deception and AGF on the forgot to log in issue. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:40, 12 October 2008 (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.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
- 79.68.240.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Oxyman42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Oxyman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 79.67.180.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 80.41.153.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 80.41.154.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 80.41.168.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 80.41.183.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Mfield (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Continuing warring after infinite block yesterday. IPs are all in same ISP's range - Tiscali UK.
- Comments
Oxyman may well be another logged on today, blanking Oxymans42's talk page. Minkythecat (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Oxyman42. --Abd (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Activity by 80.41.153.175 today, attacking User:MickMacNee, blocked. User talk:Oxyman42 blanked and protected due to suicide threat. --Abd (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Activity by 80.41.154.93 today, also attacking User:MickMacNee on Talk:Routemaster. Another Tiscali IP, blocked. Mfield (talk) 22:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Activity by 80.41.168.149, another Tiscali IP, reinstating abusive comments on Talk:Routemaster. Mfield (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note also that said activity by 80.41.154.93 included particularly nasty summary edits about Abd's religious persuasion. This was in addition to reinstating abusive comments to the article. Minkythecat (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I have removed/buried some of them that were in edit summaries. IP is now blocked, await DHCP renewal and we can start all over again. Mfield (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Activity by 80.41.183.30, more religious slurs/threats and blanking. Mfield (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- IPs are dynamic and stale, for the most part. Oxyman blocked indef to tie in with block of main account. GbT/c 17:29, 12 October 2008 (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.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
- Jabarke1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Trenay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
TN‑X-Man 19:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Puppeter continues to repost Competition cams article and has enlisted sock account to support the reposting on the article's talk page. Suspected puppet's only edits have been to this article.As a side note, this is my first post here, so please advise if I have done anything incorrectly. Thanks!
- In this edit, Trenay answers concerns of Jabarke1, attempting to influence an AfD. TN‑X-Man 14:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
To correct TnXman, who is the capital of wrong accusations, Trenay is not my account at all. I only have one account, and you should probably provide some EVIDENCE before making any more false accusations. Again, you are mistaken.--Jabarke1 (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We have something around powerful enough to trace the connection between Jabarke1 and Trenay: the CheckUser tool. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 15:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I still don't see any evidence. If you would like solid proof, please send a number to myself & Jabarke1. We will call you. If you prefer, ask for our numbers so you can put us on a conference call. --Trenay (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Checkuser shows this is possible that they are the same person. Serious meatpuppeting concern here. Both warned. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:52, 12 October 2008 (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.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
- Gulizcik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- 78.135.21.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Adoniscik(t, c) 14:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Guliz should only be using one account, if that.
- Comments
Another diff: [200]; looks a lot like Guzlick's other contributions to this article. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one more [201] --2knowledgeable (talk) 06:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
As the IP has not edited in awhile and feuding is still going on, the article is semi-protected for one month. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:32, 12 October 2008 (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.
- Suspected sock puppeteer
24.184.206.83 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Suspected sock puppets
- Ghost109 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 71.246.120.155 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Mother Niggle (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Report submission by
- ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 05:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
- [202] User:Ghost109 quickly logs on (1 minute!) to assert that "indeed his 'cousin'" is the one using the anon. IP (the supposed user of the computer without being logged in under any account)
- [203] Quick start of editing under anonymous IP right after Ghost109 "logged out". The editing continued from the IP here, here, and then mysteriously switches to the other SOCK-suspected IP here. There's two more edits for 71.246... and we switch right back over to 24.184... here.
- You'd think that'd be enough for one day, but no!. Switching right back over: here.
- 24.184... keeps going for a little while. Then who else but User:Mother Niggle to "save the day!" here!. (The anon IP userpage is actually started off with a SOCKPUPPET tag of Mother Niggle and is [204] left on while 24.184... goes on and explains his family tree)
- It stays while "the family" logs on and "verifies their identity" and then 24.184... decides it must've been added by someone who "hates [him". (I mention this a few lines down)
- Mother... gets tired after one edit, and 74.246... makes a quick comeback: here. (The most current edition is by User:nneonneo, and that's to whom Ghost... goes and states that 24.184... should be banned. -- actually, he seeks sysop J.delanoy's help here)
- He's been making it a priority to let everyone he can "know" that "it's not him" but his "cousin" making edits, as he did here and here. Used the old well-known "I got hacked" excuse here (well, he said he "changed [his] password").
- Plays the pathos/logos authority card by boldly suggesting that 24.184... be banned here.
- Both participate in voting for merger at the Talk:Frasier page. [205] [206]
- Comments
This is nothing more than a pathetic personal attack on me. I have stated that this IP address IS MINE. You don't care about this situation, you only care about the fact that I defeated you in an argument. The reason I knew about it one minute after? Perhaps you need to learn how to read. He was on the Laptop, which I had no knowledge of the fact that it shared the same IP as this computer, and I was on the computer which controls the network. I was on Wikipedia at the time, and you could say I'm responsible for him being on Wikipedia at the same time on a different computer as me, because I told him the story about how I was in an argument with a wannabe admin at the time and jokingly made a comment about his extremely old account. Once again you can tell by the typing styles, and if Wikipedia's IP checks were thorougher you could see what came from the Laptop and what came from my computer. I want you to know that what you're doing is truly sad, Sanchez. You're acting like you know about a situation you simply don't because being a wannabe admin clouds your judgement. Ghost109 (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My favorite part of this accusation is not about the fact it's from pure resentment, but you're trying to say because I defend myself I'm guilty. Ghost109 (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I have made sure this account has not been responsible of vandalism. I have one blemish due to leaving my account logged in at the wrong time. As a matter of fact I'm quite the opposite and try to stop vandalism without telling the world on my page how I wish I could be an admin... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MamaVeemon
Ghost109 (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a vandal, eh? [207], [208]) ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 21:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ROFL!!! I can't tell what's funnier, the fact that you still can't get your facts straight, the fact that that you are once again talking about a situation in which you know nothing about (check the editor who undid that vandalism to see my apology for leaving my account logged in, as I said before but you were too ignorant to see that) or the fact that after those two paragraphs you only have an interchangeable rhetorical question in which I answered before you asked. Admit it, you just have a grudge against me for beating you in an argument, wannabe admin. Ghost109 (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That was about the first piece of evidence. Once again in the second piece of evidence, you've proven your ignorance, this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jagex&diff=next&oldid=232609044 is not vandalism. It was good faith, and sourced by multiple secondary sources. Can you make it more obvious that you're just assuming things out of bias because you dislike me? Ghost109 (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And by the way, once again, your ignorance proves strong, as 71.246.120.155 is both mine and my cousin's friend. Look how different these two IPs are, and you're going to say that I'm a sock puppeteer and this isn't just some wannabe admins biased opinion? And also, if you want, I'd be happy to tell you the IP of my main computer and the laptop. Ghost109 (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- rofl rofl, ok ok so were talking about teh council of taranoga or whatever, ok ill explain lmfao its simple vandalism tho, ok, i go on the comp, i see wikipedia stil open, i hit random article and edit it, i see im still logged in ghost so i log out, and i tell my friends about the article cause benjamin zhao is someone we know, and one of them vandalizes it with me, ok so after liek 2 edits, it gets undone, so i log in here and undo the undo so it might not be noticed and vandal on ip again ok, then when it undone a second time i just get bored and play video games.
ok my grammer might not be best but you shoud still understand what Im typing, ok --Mother Niggle (talk) 19:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Esanchez! What's the matter? You can still stalk my contributions yet can't respond to my comments at all directly? You have failed in this sad personal attack, truely, utterly, failed. Every time you have tried to argue with me you wind up running off after I disprove one of your pathetic one-liners. I know you're still stalking me (as you spend all day on Wikipedia and are adding evidence from my contributions) but it is simply sad, how obvious you make it that this is just a personal attack. All you are doing is sitting on Wikipedia 24/7 and viewing my contributions. I'll say it again, you can't respond to me. All you can do is act like a 5 year old reporting the kid in his kindergarten class that was mean to him. Pathetic. What a worthless attempt. It tells me so much about you. Ghost109 (talk) 02:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Confirmed via checkuser that Ghost109 (talk · contribs), Mother Niggle (talk · contribs), ProfessionalNub (talk · contribs), NewYorrrkRangers (talk · contribs), 24.184.206.83 (talk · contribs), Ghost109 blocked one week, others indef.
- 71.246.120.155 appears unrelated. No action. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:17, 12 October 2008 (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.
- Suspected sock puppeteer
Kylee2006 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Suspected sock puppets
- Jbd2956 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Buddyg04 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 130.209.74.218 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 75.81.205.154 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Report submission by
- Evidence
- All of the above accounts, including the suspected puppetmaster, are single purpose accounts, having only edited Senate bill 0099 (or added the same information to Obama-related pages) and commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Senate bill 0099. Also, curiously, all three of the accounts were created at various times over a year ago, but have no previous edits before the AfD process began.
- Response: I can't speak on behalf of Buddyg04 because I don't know who that is, but 130.209.74.218 is my computer's IP address and if I my husband or I were not logged on and contributed I guess it signed it with the IP address. I am married and I do share a computer with my husband. His wikipedia name is Jbd2956. I haven't logged on to or used his account, but he and I do share many similar views, so his responses may sound similar to mine. The other IP address obviously isn't ours, as we only have one computer. I am living in the UK, which one could easily see by looking up my IP address if he took the time rather than frivolous accusations. If you look up 75.81.205.154, it's the IP address of someone living in Ohio. Do a little research, it isn't complicated! Just because there are people who happen to share opinions and stances that differ from yours doesn't mean someone is being dishonest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylee2006 (talk • contribs)
- Kylee2006 created the article Senate bill 0099 at 15:30, September 15, 2008. [209]. At 16:53, September 15, 2008 I nominated the article for deletion. Within the hour, Jbd2956 [210] and 75.81.205.154 [211] responded to this as their very first edits ever.
- Response: Again, Jbd2956 is my husband. In case you aren't aware, I was notified when you put my article up for deletion because of what seems to be a political stance. When I saw the notice, I told him and he came over and posted on the board. As for the other IP address - I think that looking at the location alone should clear that - I don't know who 75.81.205.154 is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylee2006 (talk • contribs)
- Also within the hour, Buddyg04 began edit-warring across multiple Obama-related articles adding the same information [212] (again, these were the first edits by this editor, after having made only two previous edits two years ago! ) This editor then commented twice on the AfD.
- Response: Once again, I do not know who Buddyg04 is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylee2006 (talk • contribs)
- A couple of hours later, 130.209.74.218 responded to the AfD discussion as the very first edit [213] and then made extensive additions to the article in question.
- Response: Once again, this is my husband and my IP address. My husband left that response when he wasn't logged in. Also, my husband's former job was as an editor, so he combed through the article and took out things that could have sounded biased or were not fully supported by the referenced articles. Again, there is no foul play here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylee2006 (talk • contribs)
- The editing pattern is evidence enough, but there is also a very similar voice to the comments made by these accounts. Compare this [214] comment made by Jbd2956 and this [215] comment made by Kylee2006. Or compare this [216] statement by 75.81.205.154 with this [217] statement by Buddyg04.
- Response: First of all, these "editing patterns" you speak of aren't enough. And secondly - I didn't accuse you of sock puppeting even though there were people posting on the page who shared your views. I guess I could have if I'd only known. Is it unreasonable that there might exist in this world a handful of people with similar view points, and think that this article belongs on wikipedia and accessible to the general public? The article in question wasn't campaigning for either candidate, but rather discussing the content of a bill and the controversy surrounding it. Apparently other people out there were clear-headed enough to see that simple and plain fact. There is a lot of interest in this topic right now, people need to be able to find the actual text of the bill in question, which isn't readily available, so that they can draw informed conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylee2006 (talk • contribs)
- Comments
- At the very least, this is clear evidence of meatpuppetry, but the fact that these are all single-pupose accounts whose first edit was to enter this debate (and the stange bit about the accounts being previously established but with no edits) strongly indicates that they are all socks. Also, note that they have all weighed-in as separate people on the AfD discussion which removes any ambiguity about whether the IP's are simply mistakenly logged-out versions of the accounts. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: Once again, I do not know any of the other users who posted on the debate, other than jbd2956 (IP 130.209.74.218), who is my husband. However, I didn't ask him to post anything, and I certainly didn't invite others to post in the debate. This accusation is ludicrous on its face. I think my husband felt compelled by what he felt was a condescending tone and offensive allegations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylee2006 (talk • contribs)
And by the way, is there a way to accuse someone of internet harrassment? Loonymonkey has not only nominated my article for deletion, but has since apparently been tracking my every move so that he/she could accuse me of something ridiculous and waste my time. Apparently, by his/her own admission, Loonymonkey is also targeting other users and tracking them for no other reason than they had an opinion that differed from his/hers. I looked for myself - all of the articles he's "patrolling" are related to Barack Obama, Biden, Michelle Obama, etc. Why not correct some of the POV statements on the George Bush, Palin, or McCain pages? Is this behavior acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylee2006 (talk • contribs)
- The accusation is far from ludicrous and viewing your edit history is hardly "tracking your every move." But more to the point, the accusation of sockpuppetry has now been proven true. Just above, there is an admission that one of the IP addresses above is indeed a sock puppet of Kylee2006 (although it posted in the AfD argument as if it were a separate person) and that the account jbd2956 is coming from the same computer and is also a single purpose account simultaneously editing the same article and commenting in the AfD discussion as another person. So that's two verified socks (without even going to checkuser). The claim that the account is merely a meatpuppet operated by your husband, instead of a true sockpuppet, does not mitigate the circumstances.
- Also, please read WP:OWN. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, that is my IP address, but my husband was posting and not logged in. It wasn't for any sort of end. He probably didnt realize he wasnt signed in. I've fully admitted it's my IP address and that my husband did post from it. If you'd simply look up sockpuppet on wikipedia, you'd see it says, "A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception within an Internet community. In its earliest usage, a sockpuppet was a false identity through which a member of an Internet community speaks while pretending not to, like a puppeteer manipulating a hand puppet." I assume you are capable of deciphering the defintion. I denied "speaking through my husband" and will continue to deny doing so. He has his own opinions and his own voice. He is allowed to post on Wikipedia the same as you. I didn't tell him to post anything, and I certainly didnt tell him what to post. This is ridiculous! You've proven nothing because there's nothing here to prove. I looked up my IP address and said that the activity done on the computer when it wasn't signed in was my husband. I'm not hiding anything, pretending to be other people or whatever else you are going to attempt to accuse me of. It would seem that you need a hobby sir.
- And by the way, I noticed you stopped calling him a sockpuppet and are now calling him a meatpuppet, so here's another definition for you: "Meatpuppet, a new user invited to an internet discussion solely to influence it, similar to a sock puppet." And here's another chance for me to tell you just how wrong you are, yet again. First of all, my husband isn't a "new user". He didn't sign up a couple days ago just so he could post something on my behalf. He was not "invited to an internet discussion." In fact, all I told him was that the article I had written was been marked for deletion and that was the extent of it. He was ticked off because he believes, as I do, that the article is well documented, unbiased, and noteworthy - thus, not something that merits being deleted (which is probably similar to what his first post said). He already had a wikipedia account and decided to post his opinion, in his own words, on the talk page. He voiced his opinion and he is entitled to do so. Just because we share a computer, doesn't mean we share a brain. We aren't one person. And again, in case you didn't get it the first 5 times, jbd2956 was not "a new user invited to an internet discussion solely to influence it." And if that definition doesn't fit - then the term doesn't fit. There are no puppets here - just 2 people really annoyed with continual harrassment and accusations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylee2006 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no way to know whether your story is true so there isn't anyway to know if that account is a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. I'll take you at your word (though you have completely avoided assuming any good faith with me) that this is your husband and not you editing under that account from the same computer. But for the purposes of Wikipedia it doesn't matter. Please see WP:SHARE where it states
- "Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit towards the same objectives. When editing the same articles, participating in the same community discussion, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute, closely related accounts should disclose the connection and observe relevant policies such as the "three-revert rule" as if they were a single account. If they do not wish to disclose the connection, they should avoid editing in the same areas, particularly on controversial topics."
- I noted above that the accounts were all registered some time ago, but the fact remains that Jbd2956 had no edit history at all before this matter. You have admitted communicating to him about the AfD, and then his very first edit was to weigh in on the debate (without disclosing that connection). That is the very definition of meatpuppetry.
- There is no way to know whether your story is true so there isn't anyway to know if that account is a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. I'll take you at your word (though you have completely avoided assuming any good faith with me) that this is your husband and not you editing under that account from the same computer. But for the purposes of Wikipedia it doesn't matter. Please see WP:SHARE where it states
- Further, from that same computer, several comments were made to the AfD from the logged-out IP. It is one thing to mistakenly log out, but several comments were left on the AfD as if this were a unique individual "agreeing" with the previous comments. If this all really is an honest mistake, then you should strike those comments and disclose on the AfD discussion that you are editing together towards the same interests. To do anything less is to violate some of the core rules of Wikipedia. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: QUOTE: "Further, from that same computer, several comments were made to the AfD from the logged-out IP." If by several comments, you mean two, then sure, there were two unsigned comments from our computer - both written by my husband. I assume he didn't realize he wasn't signed in or didn't realize it mattered. But I suppose you'd have to ask him, as I am apparently not allowed to discuss my opinions with him or ask him to post anything on here...you know that whole puppet thing...
- QUOTE: "You have admitted communicating to him about the AfD, and then his very first edit was to weigh in on the debate (without disclosing that connection). That is the very definition of meatpuppetry" My husband originally got his wikipedia account so he could write an article about his band, which was promptly deleted. At least that's what he tells me. So he has some edit history before this matter. Although regardless, it seems silly to say that someone can't choose to post their first edit on a topic that has been given recent exposure in the news simply because he and I share a point of view. Again, the definition of a meatpuppet is, "a new user invited to an internet discussion solely to influence it." Let me reiterate once more that jbd2956 (1) is NOT a new user, (2) was not invited to an internet discussion, but merely informed of the existence of a discussion, (3) made statements in the discussion based on his opinions - not to regurgitate my opinions. We are married and do share a computer, but like most married people, we remain two separate people, with two separate brains, 2 separate points of view, and we both have a right to voice those points of view. We are not ONE person, so I will refuse to accept your argument that we ought to post as ONE person or admit to being ONE person. He can post whatever he chooses, in this case, he chose to post that Senate Bill 0099 deserves to remain on wikipedia. We certainly don't always agree, but as I have said before, we do share many of the same beliefs - yet amazingly enough, we are two separate people. I never once said, "hey this guy's trying to take down the article I wrote, come tell him not to" or anything like that.
- QUOTE: "If this all really is an honest mistake, then you should strike those comments and disclose on the AfD discussion that you are editing together towards the same interests." If you can even call this "a mistake", then it certainly would be an honest one - though I wholeheartedly disagree with you. We are not editing together. I don't sit down and ask him to look over my shoulder to help me write things and vise versa. He edited the article because he found out it was up for deletion. He repsonded on the board because he thinks that the article deserves to remain posted on wikipedia. He has said these things himself. We are not "editing together". While we share opinions on this matter, we are two separate people, with two separate accounts. It's a good thing the American Government doesn't share your views on sharing opinions or else people married to spouses with similar views on politics wouldn't be able to vote because they'd be viewed as one person. That is moronic. I will not strike his comments because he can freely make them. I will, however, ask him to retroactively sign those comments if it would appease you. Although, maybe you should ask him - I'd hate to be a meatpuppet by inviting him to a conversation. --Kylee2006 (talk) 02:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello there, LooneyMonkey. My name is Josh, aka jbd2956. Kylee2006 is my wife. Yes, we share a computer, and yes, we share many of the same views (married people generally do). However, I can think for myself, and I did think for myself when I posted here. Several days ago, we heard all the controversy about this particlar bill in the news. My wife then decided to research the bill herself rather than just believe whatever the media says. She tends to be cynical like that. After a lengthy search, she found the bill, and she decided that it would be very helpful and informative to provide easy access to this information for everyone. Wikipedia is a good place to do that. In fact, it is probably the best place to do that. It is supposed to provide people with easy access to accurate, noteworthy information.
I have looked through your posting history, and it seems to me that you have nothing better to do than search through Wikipedia pages and object to any information that you personally don't like. Yes, some of your edits were necessary; however, many of them showed your own personal bias in support of Barack Obama and his campaign.
Let me be clear. I voted for George W. Bush twice. I am not happy with the way his presidency has gone the past couple of years, and I know he he merely human and makes mistakes (some of them bigger than others). There are many pages on Wikipedia that say very damaging things about President Bush. I don't like these things, but I also don't troll around deleting information that sounds harmful to him (esecially when it's true). If things are true, then they are true. Nothing can change that.
In conclusion, please stop harassing my wife and I. She was merely trying to provide some factual information to the public. And when the facts she presented were attacked, I decided that I needed to defend the truth. I chose to post MYSELF. I am an adult, and I make my own decisions. Yes, I forgot to log in when I posted at one point. Sue me. My wife has already fully disclosed both of our usernames and our IP address, so we are not hiding anything or trying to deceive anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbd2956 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not harrassing anyone. I nominated the article for deletion (for multiple reasons, previously explained) and then noticed some very suspicious patterns of editing by the "multiple" editors weighing in to defend. I suspected that they weren't so "multiple" after all, but were coming from a single source. The edit history strongly supported this, so I opened this case. By your own admission, I was correct. At least three of the editors listed above were all coming from the same place, without having disclosed it. There isn't much more to say on that by me. I'm not going to go back and forth on this, particularly now that the personal attacks are beginning to fly. I'll leave this to a more-experienced administrator to sort out. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Additionally, such people [two or more users dwell or work together, thereby sharing a computer or an internet connection], who often closely know one another and have face-to-face contact may share common interests and writing styles, and may even teach each other about Wikipedia and its techniques and inform each other about its ongoings." This is explained in the article about sockpuppets. My wife and I fit this description. We have fully disclosed the fact that we live together and share an IP address. We have disclosed who we are and explained both usernames. We are not hiding anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbd2956 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, I had no idea that one Loon could manifest so much sway over a user-friendly atmosphere like Wikipedia. I use wikipedia almost daily to learn new things about my world. Two years ago I edited a couple of pages (mostly for grammar), but otherwise my pleasure is from learning, not broadcasting. However, I felt compelled to add facts to the page about Illinois Senate bill 0099, because it desperately needed more than commentary quotes. The "editing war" that Loon speaks of actually involved no editing whatsoever. I added a paragraph of facts about Senate bill 0099 and the Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education: K-12th Grade, and s/he deleted it. I re-posted the facts, and s/he deleted them. Imagine asking a friend to edit your paragrpah and he returns a blank sheet of paper to you. More of a censorship than an edit, I dare say.
Clearly, Loon knows the Wiki system, initiating all the Wiki-bureaucracy imaginable. Unfortunately, I must go about my life and leave Wiki-domination to the likes of Loon. I'm saddened to realize that everything I learn on Wiki from here on out may have been Wiki-dominated by some other loon who deleted the very facts I clicked to learn. Buddyg04 (talk) 22:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, an obvious case of sockpuppetry and possible meatpuppetry. In addition, these are SPAs that should be blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing. If anyone wants to run a checkuser, great, but they've admitted to editing off the same computer. Vote-stacking an Afd, multiple 3RR violations to insert clearly inappropriate POV material, and at the moment returning to edit war over the same articles. Wikidemon (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Indef. blocks are punitive. No need to block indefinitely; however, vote-stacking in an AfD is uncool. Maybe a block with a definite expiry is in order? Bwrs (talk) 23:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Confirmed Kylee2006 = Jbd2956 = 130.209.74.218
Confirmed Buddyg04 = 75.81.205.154 and unrelated to the others
My wife edits wiki so I sympathize here. I'll take your word for wife/husband accounts. However, there was definite meatpuppteting going on here. To avoid this, disclose your relationship on your user pages and don't always parrot each other. Considering that and that editing has ceased, no action taken. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:57, 11 October 2008 (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.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
- Dr Rgne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- 41.245.165.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
justinfr (talk/contribs) 12:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
See WP:ANI#Blocked?. Dr Rgne was blocked for edit warring by User:Garzo. After block, User:41.245.165.140 showed up on ANI to complain about being blocked accidentally because of a shared IP. A look at their contributions (e.g., to Talk:TNA World Heavyweight Championship) indicates they "coincidentally" share the same editing interests. Suggest they're the same and the IP is being used to block-evade.
- Also, a shared interested in Illyrians [218], which is what Rgne was blocked for.
Note to the above, the way this was worded deliberately makes it look as though I vandalized the page in question. In fact I was involved in a dispute whether to include certain links which had no verification or sources to warrant their inclusion. A user called "Cradel" made racist comments and multi-reverted without citing sources and references. I therefore thought it proper to remove said links until such time as he/she could justify their inclusion with sources, and in doing so, broke the "three-revert rule", thus earning a ban. Shortly after this occurred this "justinfr", whose name does not appear at all in the dispute in question, appears and accuses me of sockpuppetry, attempting to prolong the block. I am sorry if this seems out of turn, but I do not find this at all coincidental. Likewise his/her "discovery" of my edits came about through his/her "just frequenting the wiki:ani" page. Certainly only wikipedia administrators and people accused of wrongdoing would go there? What possible interest is it of "justinfr", unless he/she is acquainted with another party in this issue? Dr Rgne (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say you vandalized anything, I said you were blocked for edit warring, which is what it says in the block log. I have no opinion on the content of Illyrians, only in people (seemingly) evading blocks. If you review my contributions, you'll see I've posted on WP:AN/WP:ANI before and have had no previous interaction with User:Cradel. If you don't believe me, please feel free to file your own report. As I said, your contributions look similar. You've disputed this. I'll await an administrator or checkuser to come along and make a decision. justinfr (talk/contribs) 16:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
As noted on various other talk pages, this IP address is shared by thousands of people, who have a common provider. The IP address also tends to change every few days, done so by the provider, and not by the users. The fact that 2 people have similar interests is hardly the stuff of myth and legend. Do you not know anyone with common interests to your own? This accusation is just harassment. 41.245.165.140 (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it appears that what that user was blocked for had no warning preceding it, whereas people guilty of breaking the same "three-revert rule" went unblocked, and have continued to vandalize articles since! I have also queried the blocker about this, and have yet to receive a response. I have looked through the edit logs of this IP, and see that some person or people have vandalized pages as well. But it is unfair to block an entire IP range because of this. 41.245.165.140 (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If a block was unfair, you should dispute it using the {{unblock}} template on your user page, not by using an IP address to circumvent that block. You can dispute the similar contributions evidence, but a checkuser will tell us for sure. justinfr (talk/contribs) 14:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Added: Not just an interest in Illyrians, but also a penchant for disputing their connection with Albania IP diff, Rgne diff. justinfr (talk/contribs) 14:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dr. Rgne has responded on his talk page. justinfr (talk/contribs) 15:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, my turn to speak. I am on, as someone else stated, a shared IP address. Thus anything that I do, and am "punished" for, anyone with my same IP will suffer for. Do I regret the three-revert transgression? Well, I would had the admin who blocked me warned me upfront about it. I suppose I should have read up and known about it, but never got around to it. Now, as for this, "justinfr", I did seriously consider reporting him on an admin page, but really could not be bothered. If this person has nothing better to do than go around laying accusations against people, there is nothing I can say about it really. What's more although he provides links to "verify" similarities, in the case of TNA World Heavyweight Championship, note my edits...I voted on the discussion page to begin the TNA World Title lineage with Kurt Angle as of June 2007, whereas the other person on this IP range appears to desire to begin the TNA World Title lineage with Ken Shamrock as of June 2002! So justinfr is only FIVE YEARS out with his/her accusation there! Likewise, anyone with any common sense who has studied the Balkans will dispute the "Albanians are the direct descendants of the Illyrians, and Albanian is the modern form Illyrian" claim. Note that Cradel, sorry I mean justinfr, ALSO triple-reverted those articles. That is why I did so. As he/she did it without blocking or warning, i naively figured I could also. But "Garzo" (who has yet to respond to anyone) blocked me, but not him/her. And in the process blocked everyone else using this internet service provider! "Cradel" also made personal insults and racist comments. I find it highly unlikely that "justinfr" is "just someone who visits wiki:ani" from time to time, and find it far more likely that "justinfr" is either a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of "Cradel". Dr Rgne (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further to this I have just discovered that "justinfr" has been posting malicious comments about me on another page as well. I sincerely hope this entire ugly issue can be resolved intelligently and swiftly. If I offended anyone by breaking the "three-revert rule" (of which I was unaware prior to breaking it) I apologize. However I feel this person's unhealthy fascination with accusing people of wrongdoing does border on the sick. Dr Rgne (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be the ANI thread which I linked to above, though I dispute the characterization of my comments as "malicious". justinfr (talk/contribs) 16:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the IP address in question is in a /16 block (64000 addresses) operated by Telekom South Africa. I have no evidence to support the unusual allegiation that "thousands of people" are using this one address in that block within the short timeframe we're talking about. --Alvestrand (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Confirmed by checkuser, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dr Rgne. justinfr (talk/contribs) 23:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the confirmation was that there is "no evidence of shared edits". I daresay that you have no evidence that thousands of users are NOT using this IP address. I have in fact edited 2 wikipedia pages today, and each time left behind a separate IP address through no doing of my own. I am also constantly receiving warnings for vandlaism that I know I never did. One check over my edit log and I know for a fact that I never made at least half those edits. I realize this is just my word, and I can' prove that I DIDN'T make those unconstructive edits, but since there appear to be what 64 000 addresses, it is probable that others are using this same IP all the time. 41.245.165.140 (talk) 07:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
The RFCU from 16 Sep showed no evidence of shared accounts. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:24, 11 October 2008 (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.
- Suspected sock puppeteer
I B Wright (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Suspected sock puppets
- 20.133.0.14 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 86.148.143.220 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 86.133.160.144 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- 86.133.161.143 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Report submission by
- Evidence
Similarities in editing pattern suggest sockpuppetry. Commons themes are railway signalling, Southwest England, the Aerospace industry as well as being prone to incivility. One editor will typically leap to the defence of the other after edits are reverted or changed. Tries to deny sockpuppetry by demonstrations involving leaving messages with different IP addresses, but has now admitted to using a dynamic IP address.
- Two similarities of interest are hardly conclusive (South West England being a complete non sequiter). Nowere have I claimed to have a dynamic IP address except by Signalheads unwarranted asumptions (see below) I B Wright (talk) 14:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I B Wright
- Works in the Aerospace industry (20/10/06)
- You could have got this from my user page - hardly a revelation.
- It did come from your user page (as clicking the link will show) and it wasn't intended as a revelation; it's to allow a comparison to be made with your sockpuppets' edits.–Signalhead < T > 19:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reintroduces erroneous information previously added by 86.133.160.144 and leaps to his defence (27/10/07)
- Signalhead had removed cited information, I restored it while adding a picture of the signals in question.
- The 'citations' did not support the material at issue, and neither did the photograph.–Signalhead < T > 19:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But you vandalised the article by blanking the edit. You have no right to do that. Your use of the word 'erroneous' is a clear admission of vandalism:blanking because you do not have the right to decide what is erroneous.
- The 'citations' did not support the material at issue, and neither did the photograph.–Signalhead < T > 19:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Makes false 3RR violation accusation (28/10/07)
- Makes valid 3RR accusation - Signalhead reverted 3 times. Other than that, so what?
- More than three reversions within the same 24 hour period constitutes a violation of WP:3RR. I reverted the erroneous material three times, and that was not within the same 24 hour period. This false 3RR accusation is given as evidence for comparsion with the similar accusation made later by one of the sockpuppets.–Signalhead < T > 19:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- to be honest, I had not examined the fine print of the three revert rule. If it is as you say than it should be a 'four revert rule'. The name of a rule generally conveys what is prohibited. A quick canter around wikipedia reveals several other allegations for making three reverts. If the rule has the wrong name the confusion is understandable. I B Wright (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Everyone but you is at fault, is that what you think? –Signalhead < T > 10:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- to be honest, I had not examined the fine print of the three revert rule. If it is as you say than it should be a 'four revert rule'. The name of a rule generally conveys what is prohibited. A quick canter around wikipedia reveals several other allegations for making three reverts. If the rule has the wrong name the confusion is understandable. I B Wright (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- More than three reversions within the same 24 hour period constitutes a violation of WP:3RR. I reverted the erroneous material three times, and that was not within the same 24 hour period. This false 3RR accusation is given as evidence for comparsion with the similar accusation made later by one of the sockpuppets.–Signalhead < T > 19:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Denies being 86.148.143.220/86.133.160.144 (30/10/07);
- That link contains no such denial. Signalhead has clearly invented this to bolster a false claim.
- By referring to the anonymous user as "that other editor", you are denying that it is your sockpuppet.–Signalhead < T > 19:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct. So what?
- By referring to the anonymous user as "that other editor", you are denying that it is your sockpuppet.–Signalhead < T > 19:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How that indicates a connection with South West England is anyone's guess. I have some knowledge of the moon but that doesn't prove a connection.
- Whether you have a literal 'connection' with South West England is not important; it's just to demonstrate a pattern of editing articles associated with that geographical area, in common with your sockpuppets. I'll refrain from commenting on your connection with the moon.–Signalhead < T > 19:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Adds erroneous information at Token (railway signalling) (11/09/08)
- Information so erroneous that you let most of it stand with relatively minor editing. A complete non point.
- It was erroneous nevertheless, and it all helps to paint a picture of you and your sockpuppets' editing patterns.–Signalhead < T > 19:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Who gave you the right to decide what is erroneous and what isn't? You don't have that right and blanking legitimate edits is vandalism no matter how much a knowitall thinks it is wrong. A formal complaint has been made. I B Wright (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody gives me 'the right to decide' what is erroneous. What I have is called 'knowledge' and a good collection of reference material to hand. –Signalhead < T > 17:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Who gave you the right to decide what is erroneous and what isn't? You don't have that right and blanking legitimate edits is vandalism no matter how much a knowitall thinks it is wrong. A formal complaint has been made. I B Wright (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was erroneous nevertheless, and it all helps to paint a picture of you and your sockpuppets' editing patterns.–Signalhead < T > 19:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Denies responsibility (16/09/08)
- Correct. But then this is the point you are trying to prove. You can't introduce it as evidence because it isn't.
- It is relevant as evidence, because it's a repeat of your earlier actions when your erroneous material was reverted, viz you used a sockpuppet to reinstate the material and then to attack me.–Signalhead < T > 19:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Funny. There is no allegation of that here. So Wrong again.
- If you mean there is no allegation here of you attacking me, then that's because this report is concerned only with your sockpuppetry. Your incivility could be the subject of a separate report in the near future. –Signalhead < T > 17:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Funny. There is no allegation of that here. So Wrong again.
- It is relevant as evidence, because it's a repeat of your earlier actions when your erroneous material was reverted, viz you used a sockpuppet to reinstate the material and then to attack me.–Signalhead < T > 19:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 20.133.0.14
This is a shared IP address (as the user page clearly states) that belongs to a gateway behind which there are tens of thousands of PC's. Mine is one of them. I do forget to log on to my account sometimes, so my edits will often come from this IP address.
- You say there are tens of thousands of PCs on this IP address, yet there hasn't been a single edit from this address since 14 November 2007. Isn't that funny?–Signalhead < T > 20:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Adds some signalling information at Looe Valley Line (24/08/07)
- Yes. So what?
- Again, it's for comparison purposes.–Signalhead < T > 19:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fantastic. Edited from publically available sources. Pity you haven't get anything credible to compare it with. I B Wright (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Up to now, you have admitted to using the IP addresses 20.133.0.14 and 212.183.136.193 (which has a huge history of vandalism), so who is 86.148.176.111, who added a line to your text above? –Signalhead < T > 09:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fantastic. Edited from publically available sources. Pity you haven't get anything credible to compare it with. I B Wright (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, it's for comparison purposes.–Signalhead < T > 19:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Adds erroneous information at Signal passed at danger (27/09/07)
- Not my edit. It could have come from any one of the tens of thousands of PCs on this IP address.
- I find that very hard to swallow.–Signalhead < T > 19:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So erroneous in fact that it is still in the article (I hadn't followed the history last time). Or in other words not erroneous at all. In any case who gave you the right to decide what is and is not permitted in wikipedia. A formal complaint has been made in this regard. Claiming material is erroneous when it clearly isn't makes you a liar. In any case, not my edit. I know little of the finer working of London Undergound. I B Wright (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Erroneous information was added under the heading "SPAD Signals". It was corrected by me shortly after being added, so no, the errors are not still in the article. –Signalhead < T > 13:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So erroneous in fact that it is still in the article (I hadn't followed the history last time). Or in other words not erroneous at all. In any case who gave you the right to decide what is and is not permitted in wikipedia. A formal complaint has been made in this regard. Claiming material is erroneous when it clearly isn't makes you a liar. In any case, not my edit. I know little of the finer working of London Undergound. I B Wright (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I find that very hard to swallow.–Signalhead < T > 19:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not my edit. It could have come from any one of the tens of thousands of PCs on this IP address.
- See my response above.–Signalhead < T > 19:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again by making a false claim, you are a liar. In any case a few minute's research reveals that this edit demonstrates no such thing. The Plymouth Bretheren originated in Dublin (in Ireland - a long way from South West England). The connection with Plymouth is largely in name only. So there i no conclusion to draw. I B Wright (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, here's an alternative edit [219] (23/10/07) –Signalhead < T > 09:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again by making a false claim, you are a liar. In any case a few minute's research reveals that this edit demonstrates no such thing. The Plymouth Bretheren originated in Dublin (in Ireland - a long way from South West England). The connection with Plymouth is largely in name only. So there i no conclusion to draw. I B Wright (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See my response above.–Signalhead < T > 19:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Has interest in Aerospace industry (29/10/07)
- Congratulations: this IP address is owned by the aerospace industry. Hardly a revelation.
- Again, not intended as a revelation; it's for comparison purposes.–Signalhead < T > 19:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I accept that I B Wright contributes from 20.133.0.14. But Signalhead's evidence linking even those is very tenuous indeed especially given that the latter is more than one contributor (I can't estimate how many of the tens of thousands of users contribute, but given the thoroughness of many aerospace related articles, it is a good many).
- 86.148.143.220
- Adds erroneous information at Home signal (25/10/07)
- Well information seems to have been added. Signalhead has decided its erroneous, but beyond that, so what?
- It's the edit that started the whole chain of events. I reverted it, then you used a sockpuppet to reinstate it and to attack me.–Signalhead < T > 19:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And Signalhead's use of the word erroneous and that he vandalised (vandalise:blanking) the edit by deleting it is proof that he has set himself up as arbiter of what may appear on Wikipedia (the edit being legitimate and not vandalism). Whether it was right or wrong is irrelevant, Signalhead has no right to arbitrate. A formal complaint on this and other matters has been made. I B Wright (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the edit that started the whole chain of events. I reverted it, then you used a sockpuppet to reinstate it and to attack me.–Signalhead < T > 19:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 86.133.160.144
- Now this might be a shot in the dark, but this may be the same user as 86.148.143.220, particularly if a dynamic IP address is in play. A quick check reveals that this is indeed a block of addresses allocated dynamically so it is highly likely that this is indeed the same user as 86.148.143.220 but even that isn't conclusive. But that's as far as it goes.
- So 86.133.160.144 is the same person as 86.133.160.144. Wow, what a concept.
- This edit proves that someone was deliberately trying to deceive. Why on Earth would 86.133.160.144 refer to 86.133.160.144 as though it's somebody else? Clearly, the person making this edit expected a different IP address to appear in the signature, or mistakenly thought that he was logged into Wikipedia at the time.–Signalhead < T > 19:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't possibly comment further. I B Wright (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This edit proves that someone was deliberately trying to deceive. Why on Earth would 86.133.160.144 refer to 86.133.160.144 as though it's somebody else? Clearly, the person making this edit expected a different IP address to appear in the signature, or mistakenly thought that he was logged into Wikipedia at the time.–Signalhead < T > 19:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 86.133.161.143
- Adds inappropriate message at Token (railway signalling) (15/09/08)
- Agreed, comment is inappropriate. But I had added some considerable edit of which Signalhead made some relatively minor edits (not all of which I initially accepted), but most of the edit was largely left intact. I cannot comment on who else Signalhead has rubbed up the wrong way or why that contributor chose to indicate his contempt in the way he did. I had no reason to do so for such a minor skirmish.
- It seems to me that Signalhead is the sort of person who frquently has 'run ins', so it may well be true. I can't comment further.
- Actually, I've had very little bother here, despite my high edit count.–Signalhead < T > 19:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's funny. Just the 'evidence' that you have posted here shows clear evidence that you regularly vandalise articles by adjudicating on material on which you have no right to adjudicate. Further this whole business started because you are being accused by another ot others of vandalism and talking ownership of articles which you have no right to do (See the text of my complaint). I B Wright (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I've had very little bother here, despite my high edit count.–Signalhead < T > 19:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Makes false 3RR violation accusation (15/09/08)
- Actually the 3RR violation claim would at first glance seem to be true. Signalhead claimed to have reverted the comment twice, but in fact he did it 3 times making him a liar. In any case as the comment would seem to fall within the remit of vandalism, the 3RR rule wouldn't apply anyway.
- No, I reverted the inappropriate comment two times. The other reversion was done by User:RJaguar3.–Signalhead < T > 19:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't examine the history, so fair comment. I B Wright (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh dear, you seem to have slipped up again. If, as you state, you didn't examine the history then how could you have possibly known that the message was reverted three times, unless it was your sockpuppet that inserted the message? –Signalhead < T > 21:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't examine the history, so fair comment. I B Wright (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I reverted the inappropriate comment two times. The other reversion was done by User:RJaguar3.–Signalhead < T > 19:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It would seem that this may be a valid claim. It was not made by myself however.
- Comments
- Please remember to notify all accounts listed as possibly linked to the sock puppetry in question (instructions).
- Conclusions
Signalhead is having an edit war with someone who has expressed his point in a rather inappropriate manner. His abrasive attitude to others is such that he will rub people up the wrong way and it seems he has done so. When faced with an allegation he immediately leaps to accuse the nearest convenient contributor. His cited reasons don't stack up beyond suggesting the I B Wright and 20.133.0.14 are the same user - something that is not denied. They also suggest that the 86. IP addresses may be the same user, but the connection between the two is non existent.
- Note: The phoney 'conclusion' above was added by the accused sock puppeteer, I B Wright. –Signalhead < T > 16:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The conclusion above is not phoney but yet another attempt by Signalhead to remove content that he disagrees with. I am perfectly entitled to draw such conclusions as I wish. I have now made a formal complaint against Signalhead for Vandalism (blanking); Arrogant abuse of other contributors; preventing other contributors from making valid contributions to wikipedia; unilaterally appointing himself as an arbiter of what may or may not be edited into articles and bringing wikipedia into disrepute. I B Wright (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not appropriate for the accused sockpuppeteer, or the accuser, to make the conclusion. That will be done by others. --–Signalhead < T > 21:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even looking at the first three IPs, whose last edits are from 2006-2007. This is not the noticeboard for that. As for IBW and 86.133.161.143, checkuser evidence shows it is unlikely they are the same person. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:20, 11 October 2008 (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.
- Suspected sock puppeteer
HHNRecordsPR (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Suspected sock puppets
- GhostDog21 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- BubbleGum Gang Leader (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
- Report submission by
- Evidence
As for identity, it's the classic "I made that comment with the wrong account, so I better go change the signature strategy. As for abusive sockpuppeting, they both participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HHN Records, (see this deleted edit for HHNRecordsPR)and it's pretty obvious that HHNRecordsPR had a pretty strong motivation for keeping the article and disguising his identity during the argument.
- Comments
- Please remember to notify all accounts listed as possibly linked to the sock puppetry in question (instructions).
- HHNRecordsPR was banned from posting any more infomation on this site. Since that was everything I wanted to say, I placed my signature at the end of the comment. Also, since you are looking into the posting history, you can clearly see I placed my signature there after they were banned. Question, If I was HHNRecords, Why whould I disguise my identity if I thought I was posting the comment under the GhostDog21 user name? I know the person HHNRecordsPR, and just like me, they are not with the label either. I'm not sure why they picked that name, dumb idea. That person told me the reason they were banned was due to them having the label name in thier user name, and it seemed like they worked for the label, which is B.S. I noticed on the history of G-Unit Records and Shady Records that there are user names with the label in them, Heck, there is even an administrator with G-unit in their user name, and they make contributions to the label articles. • GhostDog21 (talk) 12:07:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Either way seems like puppetry (even if of the meat kind) which isn't allowed. And changing someone else's signature is stictly verboten anyway. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- BubbleGum Gang Leader seems a little too keen at establishing they are not a sockpuppet. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm glad someone notified me of this. Otherwise I would have known nothing about it and couldn't have defended myself or even ask questions. What I do recall is me stating that I would like to upload a proper article for HHN Records on wikipedia. After requesting GhostDog21 to send all his information on the company to me. I found out that you had the name blocked from recreation. I told you that I had no affiliation with the company and that I understood wikipedia's policies and guidelines on uploading an article on a business company, and to see if you would take the protection block off the name. I don't understand how that could make me a suspected sock puppet. I don't think there is really much I could do about being labeled a suspected sock puppet. I'm just going to try my best to get HHN Records a proper article and to become an established editor again. Thanks for those options on your talk page. ~ ~ ~ ~ BubbleGum Gang Leader (Talk|contribs) 18:54:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
- Blocked Ghostdog indef. Gonna AGF with BubbleGum and assume that he isn't a sock. ScarianCall me Pat! 16:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]