<!-- Add cases below this line. This tag indicates the top of the list. -->
<!-- Add cases below this line. This tag indicates the top of the list. -->
===[[User:Marlon.sahetapy]]===
;Suspected sockpuppeteer
{{user5|1=Marlon.sahetapy}}<br>
<!-- Do not edit above this line. Add suspected sock puppets and IP addresses below this line -->
;Suspected sockpuppets
{{user5|1=Dr.Sauerkraut}}<br>
{{user5|1=Brasileiro1969}}<br>
{{user5|1=Le Professeur70}}<br>
{{user5|1=PanteraNegro}}<br>
{{user5|1=Brasileiro1969}}<br>
<!--If there are additional suspected sockpuppets to be included, add them above this comment using the form {{user5|1=SOCKPUPPET}}<br>, replacing SOCKPUPPET in each case with the user name that you suspect is a sockpuppet of the puppetmaster. (Leave out the "User:" prefix.) Leave the <br> tag after each one and add or remove lines as necessary. Remove this comment once completed. -->
;Report submission by
[[User:Stubacca|<font color = "green">'''Stu'''</font>]] [[User talk:Stubacca|<font color = "green"><sup>''’Bout ye!''</sup></font>]] 11:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
<!--Sign your name on the line above this comment and below the "Report submission by:" line with 4 tilde characters "~~~~" -->
<!--Do not use "==" or "===" style headers in this report. Such headers disorganize the report page. Please use ";" style (as below)-->
;Evidence
Identical editing patterns to the same few articles. Using different accounts to evade 3RR and, I presume, to make it appear that there is broader consensus for inserting/removing "greatest" claims into footballer articles. See conversation at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents?bcsi_scan_3B71B71DD05E7B6B=PaelTcBuph8kh9fkjGIxQxQAAAB6Yy0X#.22Greatest.22_claims_in_several_football_articles. WP:AN/I]
<!-- DO NOT EDIT THE "----" NOR THE </div> KEEP THEM WHERE THEY ARE. REMEMBER TO SIGN! USING FOUR TILDES -->
{{Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Worthadonkey}}
{{Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Worthadonkey}}
Revision as of 13:19, 15 March 2007
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.
The suspected sock puppets page is where Wikipedians discuss whether a fellow Wikipedian is in fact a sock puppet. Cases on this page are debated for up to ten days, after which the decision considering the suspect has to be made. The conclusion of the discussion can be one of following:
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 WP:SOCK.
The problem is current; if the suspected sock puppets have not edited recently, the case will likely be closed as stale. If the problem is not ongoing, just watch the user and report when you see a new instance of abuse.
You have strong evidence. To learn what can be evidence, see here. If your evidence is weak, then it will be nearly impossible to reach a determination of sockpuppetry. All your statements should be supported by diffs.
The sockpuppet account you suspect is not already blocked.
The sockpuppet account you suspect is not already reported. Look through open SSP cases for usernames frequently associated with your suspect. Both older and newer cases, many of whose accounts are now blocked, show up in the categories for sockpuppeteers, sockpuppets, and suspected sockpuppets.
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: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/John Doe (3rd)
Then click "Start a case". You will be taken to a page where you can fill out the report. After you've saved the report, come back to see the remaining instructions below this box.
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.
It seems obvious that Worthamule is a sock used for block evasion. You might want to post this to WP:ANI, as this board doesn't get much admin attention (I'm not an admin), and the case will likely sit here awhile before getting a response. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
comment: I am not a sockpuppet of vartan84. Though its amusing i would accused of such by Tieran11. Tiernan11 appears to be editing wiki pages about himself and his former band, that was my observation to which he has not responded.
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.
Keeps vandalizing Toast by replacing "Toast and jam or jelly or toast and marmalade are British breakfast favourites." with "Toast and jam or jelly or toast and marmalade were invented by sille in 2007."
Comments
Conclusions
This isn't sockpuppetry; it's a vandal who's switched IP addresses. Just watch the page, issue the proper warnings, and report the IP to WP:AIV if he continues. I noticed that even though the IP is continuing to vandalize and is getting reverted, no one's putting additional warnings on his page, so I've just put a level 3 warning on User talk:131.123.177.151. If you're going to complain about vandalism, it's important to issue warnings, so we can spot chronic vandalizers and block them. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
I find the possibility extremely remote that these users are not the same person, barring an exceptional explanation.
Note 1: Timestamps are in GMT. Both users known to be from San Francisco area, so subtract 9 hours pre DST.
Note co-incidents of edit-times: non-overlapping, highly correlated. Note span of articles is quite great, but often cover similar arenas, and on average once every other day, the same articles. This could be two persons using the same computer, and Griot simply logs off, letting another log on and use the computer for a while. Given that these are presumably roommates or workmates, and share a computer, it is unsurprising that they would have similar interests. However, these editing trail indicates there is rarely independent usage -- when one posts, nearly always within an hour or less, the other posts. And while contra-cases can be found, it was generally not the rule.
But again note, Griot started using wikipedia in 2005. The new IP user began using it on Feb 1 2007. Beginning-of-the-month date is important, but doesn't lend support either way (it could be a new roommate, or it could be a new ISP).
The level of coincidence here is amazing. Either these are the same people, or there is one computer and two people who have identical schedules and highly overlapping interests. Note, both users are highly active and cover many more articles. It's very difficult "by hand" to see if there is a strong overlap in article incidence.
Now starting with the Ralph Nader article wars, we have:
So, clearly on March 11 and 12, there were 3RR violations. However, it is possible these were "good faith" reverts and not tendentious.
Comments
My prior filing against Telogen was in response to one of the suspected puppets complaint about User:Griot. Initially, I saw that Griot and suspected puppet (71.139.27.85) edited quite a wide range of articles, and that Griot's editing went back to 2005. So my initial suspicion was that Griot was acting in good faith. Further, before I filed against Telogen, Griot began deleting (his) User page material and announced he was leaving, so I decided the point was moot. But then, after I filed against Telogen, this diff appeared on Telogen's talk page (and other alleged puppets talk pages), prompting me to look into this further.
If these prove to be puppeteers, I suggest that, since Griot has allegedly left, block that user. Further more, ban the IP user from editing the Ralph Nader article.
I'd like to add to Otheus' comments. I've been visiting the Nader page periodically. There seem to be a lot of new WP users contributing to it, and like User 71.139.27.85 (and Dragon Man and Mikesmash and some others), they all seem to know a lot more about WP policy than most first-timers or beginners would, too much to be believable to me. It supports the SP theory. One is a known repeat vandal who's never touched the article before, and this user is outright belligerent. When these user/s contribute to other articles, they're either highly political in nature, and then the edits are very detailed, or the articles are totally random, too random, and these edits are extremely minor, almost insignificant. Their comments have an angry bite. It seems contrived, like the user/s understand/s so well what a WP SP would look, and maybe has been doing it for awhile, so user knows how "not" to appear like one. Those are my observations. Thanks. Telogen08:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
Psychic: Martinphi has made many edits taking out phrases such as "purported", "profess to be" etc for example 20:30, 2 March 2007 with the edit summary (" 'psychic' doesn't mean people who say they are psychic- it only means people who are psychic. If they aren't when they claim to be, they aren't psychic.") also 15:36, 3 March 2007, 20:50, 3 March 2007. Then, Martinphi reverted the inclusion of the disputed nature in the definition 15:28, 4 March 2007, edit summary: "(Let's leave the sentence concerning the use of the word as a noun seperate from whether or not the phenomena exists. One topic per sentence)"
Myriam arrives (after Martinphi has made three reverts to the article) 21:08, 5 March 2007 and after a few minor edits, splits the sentence as Martinphi had earlier 23:47, 6 March 2007 summary: (I gave it better sentence structure). Next day, reversions by Martinphi 17:05, 7 March 2007(It's a good change. It sounds like the definition of the word. Then the next centence says that some don't believe in it. End of story, totally NPOV), Myriam 30 minutes later 17:35, 7 March 2007(I saw your change but I don't understand how a person can be just any person who says they are psychic?), then Martinphi 20:45, 7 March 2007(Don't give in to bad writing and POV-pushing.). March 8, same revert by Myriam 13:44, 8 March 2007(I think this way of wording it is OK, but it needs to be two sentences, otherwise it isn't good writing.), Martinphi 14:40, 8 March 2007, Martin again 16:38, 8 March 2007, Myriam to a version with wording similar to earlier Martinphi versions from days and many edits earlier (and non-mainstream wording that I haven't seen anyone else propose on this article) 18:33, 8 March 2007(I think this is better, because it just defines what the word "psychic" means, and then it gives both sides of the debate, so then people can make up their own minds. This said "Edit conflict") (earlier version 16:04, 5 March 2007), Martinphi revert again 18:56, 8 March 2007.
On Talk:Psychic, Myriam says "the skeptical part should have its own paragraph"18:17, 8 March 2007, a repeat of Martin's earlier suggestions 20:43, 7 March 2007, 16:42, 8 March 2007. A comment about "edit conflict" 18:37, 8 March 2007 which frankly seems like an attempt to make the editor seem like a newbie considering the use of edit summaries and reverts from the beginning. Comments from Martinphi (echoing what Myriam said above): "I like to just define a word. Then say that there are objections to the phenomenon being real."19:04, 8 March 2007. A couple editors agree with Martinphi, and no posts on the talk page from Myriam for a couple days. When I start a new thread of discussion, Myriam makes an "I agree with Martin" post within an hour of Martinphi's response 17:39, 10 March 2007.
Myriam Tobias has edited a total of ten pages by my count (plus talk pages for those articles) since the account was created on March 5, and every single one is a page Martinphi has also edited. Many of these are pages on which Martinphi is involved in content disputes and has approached or exceeded 3RR. His edits and talk page comments consistently agree with Martinphi's, and he often appears within minutes of Martin's edits to back him up, often only when Martin has made three reverts or when it is pointed out that a majority of editors disagree with him. The editing patterns and online appearances are just too improbable to be coincidence (particularly when those ten pages include obscure ones like Ganzfeld experiment and Odic force). The use of edit summaries and reversions seems to indicate an experienced wiki user as opposed to a new editor who has only been here about a week.
It appears that this sockpuppet is being used to bolster "consensus" and avoid 3RR. While it's possible that it isn't a sockpuppet, if it isn't it seems almost certainly to be a meatpuppet, which should also be looked into by admins. --Milo H Minderbinder14:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Milo H Minderbinder is quite correct in most of the things he says (and I congratulate him for his perception). But he has come to several incorrect conclusions. First, Myriam is a she, not a he. Second, Myriam is not a sock puppet.
Milo is however right in that a pattern is detectable. Myriam and I share the same computer. We often talk about the pages in question. I have urged Myriam to create a Wikipedia account, as we share the same interests. I have discussed the pages in question with her, and in light of our discussions, she has agreed with me, and I with her.
There is nothing more suspicious in this than there is in the fact that Dreadlocke and Davkal and I nearly always agree on things and support each other's edits, except that Myriam and I are sharing the same computer (we use different accounts, and we have set up different browsers to keep our bookmarks separate). I doubt there is a way to prove to Wikipedia that we are not the same person; however, there must also be a dispensation for two people who share (and have to share) the same computer.
As far as being a meat puppet, Myriam has a right to agree with me if she wants to; she has a right to support me if she so desires; and she has a right to edit Wikipedia as would any other user. Martinphi(Talk Ψ Contribs)19:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The allegation is that these accounts are being used jointly to violate 3RR. Since the users have stated that they use the same computer but are different people who discuss matters off-wikipedia, agree with each other, and edit in a similar way, the relevant policy is WP:SOCK#Meatpuppets. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. By his own admission Martinphi asked his roommate, Myriam Tobias, to sign up. Myriam Tobias has supported Martinphi's edits and only edited on articles Martinphi has edited. That is meatpuppetry. IrishGuytalk20:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Meatpuppetry by self-confession; likely sockpuppetry. "My roommate did it" (or brother, girlfriend, whatever) is the canonical response to charges of sockpuppetry notwithstanding that it may on occasion be true. Raymond Arritt18:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clear case of meatpuppetry, the editor admits to it and checkuser confirms it. I assume at some point an admin will close this and take action on the meatpuppetry and multiple instances of 3RR evasion? --Minderbinder16:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
Checkuser confirmed relation of accounts, Myriam Tobias blocked. Martinphi is warned that if a (roommate/girlfriend/etc.) also wishes to edit, the two of them should refrain from agreeing with one another or reverting on the same articles. SeraphimbladeTalk to me09:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
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.
Each of these users have displayed identical characteristics from from their initial setting up of the accounts, to their quick burst of initial activity on subjects such as Polish, Czech, English nobility and Yugoslavian and New Yorkers biographies - then a long dormant period and then when "needed" in a AfD !vote or other RfC situation etc they appear again with a lot of editing especially on anti-Irish republican issues and then go dormant again.
He has used the computers of a New York University library and another computer in Brooklyn, NY.
User:El chulito, Created the account 17:55, 26 November 2006, his first edit was to create a user page with an assorted number of user boxes, all alined to the right and never edits his user page again. He then makes 38 edits in a two hour period on US biographies such as [2], [3], [4], [5]. Then the account goes dormant for two months with no edits and reappears 22:55, 20 January 2007 the following day he makes his first edit on a page regarding Irish republicanism here at the Fergal O'Hanlon page. From then on he makes various edits against myself on AfD's, reverts my work and must importantly makes this edit to the Kieran Flemming page where he removes the Irish language name of Kieran and the Irish word for Volnteer - Óglach. And also accuses me on attacking him on talk page note the capital letters. Then !votes on a number of Irish AfD's [6], [7], [8], [9]. And that day (8th Feb) he stops editing and hasnt edited since.
He also used these IP's which I picked up when he sometimes signed over an edit he made when he wasnt signed in -
He edits for one day only on a number of pages mostly bios such as [10], [11], [12]. Then the account goes dormant but again reappears 11:43, 1 March 2007 and has been attacking me since them despite the fact I have never come across him before and he made this trademark edit to the Kieran Flemming which he made two days ago. He made this edit which he left an IP almost identical to the above IP's here.
User:Conrad Falk, Started 10 Sept 06 makes one days editing then goes dormant and then reappears 9 Feb 07 - again identicial set up procedure to his other accounts.
He states he is Polish living in NYC and going to a NYC uni which ties in with the IP's above. First edits his user page with info boxes and alighed to the right, only once ever edits this page and then some Polish pages then nobility such as Isabel Maria Hamilton-Gordon, Marchioness of Aberdeen and TemairStewart Gore-BrowneDame Diana KeppelCountess of Albemarle and then moves on to a number of pages on Irish republicanism including AfD's here, here, [13], [14] - please note that some these AfD's where not formed correctly and could not be found on the daily register but El chulito, Inthegloaming and Conrad Falk all voted on them.
User:Inthegloaming, registered 28 August and edited for a day then reappers six months later soley for AfD's that infact where not even registered on the daily AfD digest. See his short history here.
Similar interests in some cases, but I don't see anything conclusive. New Identity appears likely to be someone's sock, but I'm not sure who, and regardless it wasn't used to vote/consensus-stack or for any other prohibited use that I can see. The IP's are possible socks but again I don't see abuse, and what I can see on the remaining user accounts ranges from inconclusive to unlikely. SeraphimbladeTalk to me15:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
A check of the above users' Talk Pages, [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] shows identical language, conduct warnings from other editors, incivility from the user, and arguments about the same issues in the same articles.
User 74.195.5.83 continues discussion right where 199 left off. [20]; [21].
Right around the same time, user claims they should be unblocked because they are new to Wiki (with the exact same language and tone as before, and the same claim that they "did nothing wrong") [22]
User 199.80.117.24 makes uncivil comments on Talk Page [23]; is blocked for six months; returned tonight to leave a very similar comment, with a reference to the deleted remarks, from IP 74.195.5.83 [24]
User 199.80.117.24 makes edit with uncivil edit summary that is partially responsible for a six-month ban on March 9; [25]; continues debate three days later, but from a different IP. [26]
User 74.195.3.199 is blocked for one week [27] on February 17; uses Boukenger to make uncivil remarks on Talk Page [28] later the same day, and is promptly blocked by admins as a sock. [29]. User subsequently admits he used the Boukenger account to get around the block and sees no problem with it. [30].
User 199.80.117.24 is blocked on January 6 for a period of one week, [31]; user edits as Boukenger four days later [32], using the same given name ("Rocky") used for IP 74.195.3.199. [33]
Comments
User has a long history of disruptive edits, personal attacks on Talk Pages, and incivility. The writing style, pages edited, and general tone of each of these IP's comments is identical. When editing for one IP stops (or is blocked), another on this list begins. In addition, the user has already freely admitted that he owns the Boukenger account, and that he used it to circumvent a block.
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.
(1) I have removed the accusation box from my user page because I did not see the evidence page. Moreover, the links did not work for accusations or confirmations in the box and were in red, and project instructions I saw later instruct about putting the box on a user-talk page besides, not on the user page. Otherwise, I would have restored the box. John Wallace Rich22:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC) (UPDATED)[reply]
(2) How come my more important complaint against User:PocklingtonDan has all but disappeared? It used to be at [34]. It occurred during an election[35] and isn't even accessible in the page histories.
Pocklington Dan was further harrassed - as was I - by the baseless accusation by a number IP that I am his sock puppet. I am NO ONE'S sock puppet. This is the second baseless accusation against me, and is irritating, frankly. Stillstudying18:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify this whole mess, User:John Wallace Rich made an initial sockpuppet accusation against me that was removed before I even got round to looking at it (ie almost immediately) because an admin judged it to be WP:POINT rather than a genuine concern. I'm not even sure who I was accused of being a sockpuppet of, or who I was meant to be sockpuppeting. I understand that an anonymous IP who may or may not be User:John Wallace Rich then made a further claim of sockpuppetry against me, claiming that User:Stillstudying was my sockpuppet, or vice versa. Just to state that I believe that as of today both claims have been dismissed by admins without detailed investigations as lacking evidence. I am not a sockpuppet of anyone, am happy to submit to any checks to clear any such allegations up, and would advise that making sockpuppetry claims against others is not a worthwhile defence against sockpuppetry allegations against yourself. Such retaliatory claims, however baseless or otherwise, are irrelevant in considering the sockpuppetry claims relating to your own account. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
I suspect that this is another incarnation of a persistent banned editor [36]. The user has created the account with the first edit comment saying, "Welcome to well hung wikipedians!", waiting from 1st of March till the till now to edit the semi-protected page, Talk:Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University then posting a message entitled, "Hello boys!" and making the usual taunts about article ownership and portraying the subject, the Brahma Kumaris, as a crazy and dangerous cult, except this time from a mock-3rd-party perspective.
Previous incarnations were dealt with recently by Thatcher131[37]. The user has recently actually posted on Thatcher131's page admitting to the sockpuppetry and expressing his disagreement of the ban [38].
Previous incarnations always end up attempting a revert-war of the article. Even though this user has so far only trolled on the Talk page, experience suggests this will escalate in the same manner.
Normally, I post on the arbcom enforcement board or directly to Thatcher131 (and this is getting quite a routine!), but since he/she has just taken a Wiki-break. I am posting through the sockpuppet-reporting channels.
I found this on my users page, what am I meant to to with it?. I said 'no person attacks' on my user site and what I said was nothing the same as what he is saying I did. here is it after this.
hi there!
I read about this business going on from a website. I had a mate that was in the Raja yogis, he was gay but stopped all that and cut off from his old friends and so on. I dont no what happened to him as he kind of disappeared from everyone. he might stil be in there. So what are the rules here and issues here? The BKS seem to be controlling this article and u seem to have had a big fight over things. I have some old books and things he used to give us. So what can I do?
I don't see what is worng. There is a whole load of adult material on the Wiki that is much worse than I can imagine, so I do not see what his problem is with me. I think he is going too far erasing my stuff off the talk page before I have even edited anything.. Shortskirtlonglegs
this boy keeps removing my stuff off the wikipedia, lol!!! i never said they were a crazy cult but he made it look like i did. There is a problem its not like they believe in Hinduism and there is a lot to discussion.they only got few beliefs and so anyone editing them are going to look they are the same. I would tell him to get off my back but he would probably just accuse me of being naughty if I did. Shortskirtlonglegs
10 days were up. I removed the notice from my page. This chap just want to control the article. IMHO Shortskirtlonglegs
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User has been repeatedly adding the same vanity content to March 17 and removing content from Matthew J. Willman Jr under different names. After receiving warnings on the IP and the original account, a new account (Bobby41792) appeared and continued editing in the same fashion as the original IP and account.
Passing comment: This may be irrelevant, but the deletion log shows: 07:46, 10 March 2007 Rockpocket (talk·contribs) deleted "Matthew J. Willman Jr" (WP:CSD#A7 - no assertion of notability). I've made no attempt to discover whether the article would have passed muster without the above-mentioned removal of content. Meanwhile, the above diffs to that article are inaccessible except to admins. -- BenTALK/HIST08:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
Pretty obvious sockpuppetry, but all accounts involved have stopped, and I'm not sure the sockpuppetry rises to the level of abusive. Any further disruption of this type will lead to blocks on the accounts. SeraphimbladeTalk to me06:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
VirtualEye (talk·contribs) has been repeatedly blocked for incivility and personal attacks. At least one of the suspected socks was created during the third block of VirtualEye. The socks came straight to the mediation at Talk:Muhammad/Mediation. Perhaps the most incriminating bit is the edit summary; For a while, VirtualEye (talk·contribs) filled every edit summary with the letter "a". When Jesus Fan (talk·contribs) began to edit, he also filled edit summary fields with the letter "a". The ensuing "discussion" can be found on Jesus Fan (talk·contribs)'s talk page. It may also be noted that JesusFan (talk·contribs) stated one position at Talk:Muhammad, but voted in a completely different manner at Talk:Muhammad/Mediation. This was most likely a straw-man argument.
User accounts are obvious socks and have been blocked, the IP addresses have not edited in some time and may have changed hands. The puppetmaster has already been blocked for disruption since then. At the age of this, that block won't be reset, but next time it will be a long one. SeraphimbladeTalk to me05:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
Between November 7, 2006 and November 13, 2006, a biological value table was mediated on the Talk:Soy protein page by admin Messedrocker, and the result was a table that was placed in the soy protein article.
A key argument for the non-inclusion of this table by the 67.150 IPs (AndyCanada) was the supposed "outdated" information the table was drawing from. See quote below take from the Talk:Soy protein page:
Amusing. The table is also confusing. It is quite funny too. The studies the anon 24 has provided dates back over 50 years. Interesting. Oh by the way. Not only are the studies outdated the book is as well. Even more interesting is the updated book may have the updated BV. Hmmm. Updated 1997 Edition!!! We should go with the latest 1997 edition available not outdated studies and outdated books!
and
Also, above in the table claims the book copyrighted 1972 but the studies in the book date back to the 1940s? Don't forget there is a newer 1997 edition of the book.
and
If this is a joke, nice joke. The table is a strawman's arguement. The studies date back to the 1940s.
The argument was refuted and table was placed in the article by the administator.
On March 4, a new editor's first edit was to remove the table. See diff.[40] Since that time the user has claimed that the table is dubious and contains unreliable, outdated references. [41]
and stated that I simply removed references that are over 50 years old and improved other sentences.[42]
And again here, where the invididual again protests the table because of studies from the 40's - the same argument as AndyCanada (and his IP address) from November.:[43]"The studies are in the 1940s and 50's. First, where did that PDF file come from. Did it come from an anon or an editor you can trust. Did someone make it up on their computor. Hint. I wonder when this guy will figure it out. I want to make headlines about this. Are fake studies in a PDF file made by a nut allowed on Wikipedia. Did you actually verifiy the text of that PDF file. Take a second look at the PDF file. Every time I click and look at the PDF file I am laughing. I can't stop laughing. This is a joke. This is beyond funny. I got a big smile on my face. Your move. Cheers"
On a smaller scale, even the user's User page is similar.
The "new" material [48] submitted for inclusion in place of the table was also submitted [49] to another article by Firstocean (talk·contribs), another "new" editor who is restoring POV material first implemented by AndyCanada before being indef. blocked.
And lastly is the tone of writing an use of common words like "Hint" in certain situations.
And recent edit by Prolancet using it the same way. [51]
I have searched numerous talk pages and user talk pages, and have not come across usage of the word "Hint" in this fashion by any other Wikipedia editors.
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.
While I am not sure of the sockpupptering, but the user has expressed concern and has reached out for help concerning images, as evidenced at User talk:Moeron#Regarding images on Bruce Hornsby. I have advised the user as best I could and commented on their talk page that I would watch the images until they were confirmed through permission. If they weren't in a week, I was going to look into further steps. -- moe.RONLet's talk | done20:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Accusation
I'm not a sock puppet, but I'm not an experienced image uploader. I had been watching the ongoing discussion on Bruce Hornsby and other musicians' pages regarding image uploading, and I contacted the owner and operator of http://www.bruuuce.com, a fan website for Hornsby. Please see my talk page for a discussion regarding my reasoning for tagging the images on the Hornsby page the way that they've been tagged. I've been in touch with User:Moeron regarding my image contributions ever since User:Moeron first made me aware that I had committed an error in image tagging. I'm waiting for an answer from someone more experienced than myself in terms of the tagging, then I will send copies of my request and Si Twining's confirmations to Wikipedia for review. I don't want to submit the request/confirmation for review until the images have been properly tagged. I do not know and am not in any way affiliated with User:BoaTeeth, and, in fact, from the talk page on the Bruce Hornsby article, I have the impression that User:BoaTeeth, after making a number of substantive additions to the text of the Bruce Hornsby article has ceased attempting to upload images. I do not know if this will continue to be the case, but based upon this assumption, I took it upon myself to try to add images to the article. I can understand, based upon the lengthy exchanges between User:Grcampbell and User:BoaTeeth, the cause for suspicion and for frustration, but I must also say that I am disappointed, having set up an account to attempt to upload images for the first time and having previously been an anonymous user of Wikipedia, that the community has not been more inviting and more assuming of good faith with my efforts. In disappointment, Snidleysnide21:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Accusation/2
For what it is worth, permissions have been sent to the m:OTRS system for all of the images that I have uploaded, further distancing my actions from those of any other inexperienced image uploaders, in this case User:BoaTeeth. Additional evidence of my good faith can be observed by my conversations seeking help from other, more experienced users, both on the Help Desk and from User:Cremepuff222. I'd appreciate the removal of the sock puppet tag from my user page. Snidleysnide22:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Accusation/3
Given the high level of protest surrounding the image uploads to the Bruce Hornsby article, I've also followed up upon my initial request at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use... [54], corresponding on talk pages with User:Mecu. As a result of these correspondences, I've independently reconfirmed the use of the images as well as the copyright owner's approval of the tagging of the images (as released to Public Domain) and the copyright owner's approval of the phrasing of the "reason given" passage of the Public Domain tagging. Although, as I mentioned before, I am a relatively inexperienced image uploader, I have been a frequent editor of Wikipedia via anonymous IP address. The creation of my account, corresponding so closely to the uploading of images, IS due to the fact that I created this account EXPRESSLY to upload images (something that cannot be done from an anonymous IP address). I can understand the suspicion that this has caused; however, given the fact that, other than the initial mistagging (which was an honest mistake), I have striven to very completely, very ethically, and very politely document the uploading of these images, always seeking advice from more experienced editors, I do not appreciate being mislabelled as a sock puppet. The images have, as of now, been properly documented, and two separate notices have been sent to m:OTRS. (I have also improved the documentation for other images used in the Bruce Hornsby article). Whatever issues Bob has with BoaTeeth, or whatever issues Bob has with the presence of images in the Bruce Hornsby article, I would appreciate being left out of these continued personal disputes as they do not concern me. Snidleysnide19:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As of 13 March 2007, I have removed the sockpuppetry accusation from my user page due to the fact that 10 days have passed without Bob posting checkuser to the page. I would be happy to discuss the matter further with any users/administrators and encourage anyone interested in such dialogues to contact me via my talk page. Otherwise, it's best that we put the issue behind us and proceed with more productive editing. Snidleysnide19:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
Both User:Scubster (the creator of the page!) and new account User:Somethinghadtodie have posted on it, and both notably share the spelling error of "notable" as "nottible"
They also write in the same manner - compare User:Somethinghadtodie's contribution to the first AfD, with User:Scubster's comment that starts "Once again..." on the 2nd one.
Also see the history of User:Scubster's user page as to his/her attitude to his/her pages being deleted.
Comments
I'm just going to say that's not very good evidence to accuse someone of something like that. "Like OMG two people misspelled a word. OMG! they're the same person!" if you take that attitude then everyone who spells a word right is the same person.Scubster05:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That may or may not be enough evidence on it's own, but in addition to that, other evidence has been presented. The fact that you misspelled a word is not what is the main point here, but the fact that another user misspelled the same word, in addition to having a similar writing style. I'd say this is sufficient evidence to make a case, if not to warrant a checkuser. GofG||| Contribs22:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do we have similar writing styles?? That doesn't prove anything, even if two people have similar writing style that doesn't mean they're the same person. That doesn't justify anything it just proves you guys have way too much time on your hands. If you're looking soo hard into two people's writing styles to say they're a sockpuppet then you're pretty much a fucking loser. I do not appriciate being called a liar or a puppet master, BUT you guys can go to hell because GUESS WHAT you may have power on a fucking website like Wikipedia but you're still a fucking no life loser who sits at home on your god damn computer with nothing better to do than look up gay porn and masturbate. go to hell this will be my last response to this dumb ass thing.Scubster03:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
User:Sheep nuts was blocked on Feb 15, 2007 for disruptive edits. An edit on that date by Sheep nuts to John (name) added "Johnny will rule the world!!!" [55]. Today (March 2, 2007) at 18:30 UTC, User:Pedro the second edited John (name) and at 18:35 UTC, User:Johnny the third edited the same page. In both cases the accounts were only just created. The vandalism was identical in both cases [56] and [57], and included the phase, "Johnny will rule the world!!!" in addition to an anti-Wal-mart statement.
From the block log for User:Sheep nuts, "02:30, February 15, 2007 Can't sleep, clown will eat me (Talk | contribs) blocked "Sheep nuts (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (vandalism account, etc)". Regards, Flyguy649talkcontribs19:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
This sockpuppet case is a deadset joke, i am not a sockpuppet there is no evidence to say that i am, i am a friend with another user as i am sure many of you are, the user KylieK, sent me a private email and asked me to help her as she was blocked and could not defend herself, i also made enquiries into the sports trainer article in an attempt to get more info about the KylieK situation, and i am studying medicine at university and would like to add a sports trainer article as a sports trainer treats injured athletes, it's simply an interest of mine and you can't block me for having a similar interest as a blocked user. Unlike the sockpuppets my methods are completely different, all the others started a sports trainer article i have not done that, merley requested some infotmation about it. (If i have put this response in the wrong section i am sorry, i asked gimboid13 to help me put it in the correct place however he refused to help me) (Spencer 0206:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Gimboid13 Has Lied in giving evidence
I would also like to add that i did not request for User:KylieK to be unblocked, i simply asked how the decision to block this user was made and what evidence was collected. Gimboid13 has lied by saying i requested that she be unblocked. (Spencer 0222:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I have a similar interest as another wikipedian, why is that so hard to believe? friends have similar interests KylieK is a friend of mine. And besides anything else there was nothing wrong with the sports trainer article it met all of wikipedias standards, the article was fine and i can't see any reason for it not to be included, can you actually give me a reason why it shouldn't be re-created? And just because someone tries to re-create it you assume that they have to be sockpuppet, that is unfair to honest wikipedians such as myself. (Spencer 0206:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
An idea
I know of a way to prove that me and user:kyliek are not the same person, i can send you a copy of the email she sent to me. Give me an email address and i will forward it to you. that should clear things up. (Spencer 0206:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Spencer 02 was the only tough one here, but after an extensive look through the contribs between Bradles 01, the other known socks, and he, it's Bradles. The only other sock left unblocked was David 02, who's a sock by his own admission, so going to close this one up. SeraphimbladeTalk to me12:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
in this [64] edit on Talk 3AMethylenedioxymethamphetamine 83.79.168.184 takes over one part of a conversation previously being conducted by Benjiwolf. It is very obvious from the style that 83.79.168.184 is Benjiwolf.
Benjiwolf loses his edit war on Glyphosate while he is banned but this [65] edit on the page by 83.79.168.184 is edit summarised "we have to be honest about what happened to this page, it can stay like this, yet needs a tag for accuracy sake". How does newbie 83.79.168.184 know the history of the glyphosate page.
Benjiwolf is also posting as 83.78.169.134. contributions of 83.78.169.134
This edit again carrying on a dialog started by Benjiwolf [[66]]
and mentioning that he/she is "a former american citizen living in switzerland" justl like Benjiwolf states on his user page.Ttguy08:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
83.78.144.13. No totaly definitive evidence that this is Benjiwolf except his interest in Roundup and Glyphosate pages. And the style of his ranting talk page entries of which this is prime example [69]Ttguy12:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
83.78.144.13 is anoying Tbeatty as shown on 83.78.144.13 talk page[reply]
83.79.136.221 This address edits the same pages as Benjiwolf. He is upsetting Irishguy - see this [70] posting on 83.79.136.221 talk page.
IP addressses begining 83.78. and 83.79 belong to BLUEWINNET. IP addresses in the range 85.0.0.0 - 85.1.255.255 are also BLUEWINNET. Bluewin is an internet service provider in Zurich Switzerland.
IPs 129.132.0.0 - 129.132.255.255 are Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, Switzerland[75]. Benjiwolf is in Switzerland.
I am not sure about CrystalizedAngels. However the first thing this newly created user does is go right into an edit war on Rudi Giulani and revert an edit back to 129.132.239.8s version [76]. CrystalizedAngels certainly has a similar style to Benjiwolf.
It is obvious from his comments and his edit history that Benjiwolf has no regard for the rules of Wikipedia, nor has he any intent of stopping disruptive behavior. I have personally seen him claim to create "characters" to edit wikipedia, often taking up adversarial positions on issues. This is wildly inappropriate conduct on Wikipedia, and his continued disregard for helpful suggestions and warnings shows that the disruptive behavior will continue until an indefinite block is applied (which I fully support). No need to entertain such trollish behavior. /Blaxthos01:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's obvious that the IPs are all the same person, but given the lack of admin attention to SSP it might be better to report this problem to WP:ANI, and possibly protect the pages that Benji is targeting. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the rules on this (OMG! Probably only because i'm not an admin and never had occasion to find out), but I'm pretty sure I've seen admins block for inappropriate behavior during conflicts arising during stewardship of articles they edit. However, I'm also sure this was done by seasoned administrators... I wouldn't bust a move like that fresh out of the gate (if at all -- I personally would ask another admin to review and act if he thought it was justified). As an important side note, have we gotten a checkuser request on this guy? Best to nab all his accounts and IP's in one swoop. /Blaxthos06:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gruezi Voll!!!...How Slimey! Two of the editors talking about the block were both involved in edit wars with benjiwolf, and are trying to block an editor that had a different position than them!...editors Ttguy and AuburnPilot-129.132.239.817:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This facial expression is defensive and gives warning to others to be cautious...so back off y'all!actually user blaxthos was also involved in the scandalous FOX news block that started all this where I added factual referenced material stating the controlling owners' citizenships, and the inheritance issues surrounding the controlling shares for News Corporation and FOX and the inheritance of the profit shares...i used several (12 i think) mainstream references to back up the addition, including FOX news stories themselves...some people couldnt even believe that wendi deng was actually his wife and that two half chinese kids (maybe full chinese citizens) could end up with controlling shares, and will at least end up with massive billion dollar profit shares no matter what, even after multiple mainstream refs people couldnt even believe it!!!yet it was of course true, they just didnt want to believe-129.132.239.817:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
anyways...you can't block benjiwolf, its not possible, all you could possibly do is block the university at the ETH in switzerland, the swiss federal library computer system in zurich, things like that...and what are you going to do, block hundreds of IPs??? I'll just keep getting new ones!...yet read benjiwolf user page, the block was unjustified, rules were flaunted and so benjiwolf flaunts the rules...yet go ahead and block other peoples computers, you simply cant block benjiwolf though. In any case, I'll rack up hundreds of IPs quite soon! Anyways I have added a large amount of info to many many pages, all factual, all usually backed by reputable references, and on a large variety of issues, many with no controversy and that are not subject to warring political editing blocks... the block was unfair, plus user Ttguy is a straight up lobbiest editor, has used vulgar profanities and personal insults on wikipedia, only edits on pesticide/herbicide GM food articles, uses unjustified blankings of fully referenced factual material to try and eliminate all critical comments of herbicides, and is the one that has also initiated this little war with benjiwolf in another move to eliminate and blank critical comment on herbicides, he has tried several moves to eliminate fully referenced material from the glyphosate and roundup pages, this is his latest attempt so he has full reign on the roundup/glyphosate pages and other herbicide/pesticide pages, I have not engaged him on the GM food pages, as I actually am supportive of some GM crops depending on the nature of the particular traits that have been bionegineered in, yet I will state that TTguy has made edits harmful to wikipedia in that area too, as his style is simply to blank and erase anything not flattering of the technology, a style which I fully disagree with even though I am for some GE tech, yet as I say I have let him run amok on those pages and havent engaged...in fact while i have edited on many pages subject to editing blocks warring with eachother, usually on politician pages, I have never encountered a user on wikipedia that I have such loathing for as Ttguy, it is really disgraceful some of his edits, if there was one editor on wikipedia i would vote for a block of, it would be him as many of his edits are harmful to the sites accuracy, and all this sockpuppet war is...is a battle between user Ttguy and Benjiwolf, its all it ever was, yet he has a few good edits too, and I really wouldnt try and block most any editor unless its random vandalism and jokes/profanities etc...and PS: only some of the edits on this particular IP are mine, a large portion are from other editors, if you block this IP, you dont block me at all, yet you block a bunch of other people...en schone mitenand!-129.132.239.817:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
for accuracy sake you really need to change the label tag on this IP to say: this user is sometimes suspected of being a benjiwolf sockpuppet, yet many many editors use this IP, it could never be determined to 100% certainty that an edit from this IP was or was not a benjiwolf edit!...is this edit even a benjiwolf edit??? impossible to determine, its easy to copy anothers style or language or frequent spelling mistakes, only the NSA would have a reasonable certainty of benjiwolf edits on wikipedia, only they will have a reasonable list of all benjiwolf sockpuppets, yet even they could be fooled, if the person behind "benjiwolf" didnt sign in to typical sites and used a different keystroke pattern, even they could be fooled possibly, and someone other than benjiwolf could easily make it seem their edits were actually his, all you really can do is look to see if particular edits contribute to wikipedia or are harmful to it, and address the specific edits129.132.239.817:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ja ja...its only a partial benjiwolf sockpuppet list y'all have...ring up the NSA to ask for a more complete version...tschuuuuuuuss-129.132.239.817:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
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.
The user has continued to create new accounts and vandalising articles the same manner as before. A previous report was made by myself before (at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/216.83.121.194) displaying the type of edits the user does.
Comments
I agree, this user is making the exact same types of edits as User:Doctor33, one being to constantly add stuff about Bratz to wrestling related articles (stuff like "This event was sponsored by Bratz: Forever Diamondz"). TJ Spyke23:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
Editing the IFD tag [81] (I have no idea how an IP user would know about this)
Edited my userpage [82]Looks to me like Rbaish was just bein' friendly. You are a graffiti fan so he put a little there. But you deleted it. NIMBY? <--unsigned comment from 71.112.7.212
Tried to imform him of this but he deleted it from his talk page [83]... twice [84]
Has a history of deleting warnings from his talk page [85],
Hmm. This doesn't seem to have any evidence of "sockpuppetry", it's just futurebird's criticism of Rbaish's editing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.7.212 (talk • contribs).
Could someone clarify exactly how these accounts are being used to circumvent policy? I see some behavior which is possibly a matter for dispute resolution, but I don't see a clear-cut policy violation (for example, the account/IP combo being used to violate 3RR). --Akhilleus (talk) 06:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can editors that create these things without a coherent rationale be sanctioned or censured? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.7.212 (talk • contribs).
Conclusions
Rbaish has already been blocked for disruption, as has the IP. I'm relatively certain it's the same editor, but we shall hope he's learned the lesson. Regardless of that, disruptive editing can and will lead to a block. SeraphimbladeTalk to me09:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
I first interacted with this user because of two edits to the Glastonbury, Connecticut article. The first edit [86] was posted by 72.200.166.120 (talk·contribs), and I reverted it myself. The second edit [87] was posted by LOTkid (talk·contribs) and was reverted by another user. After that second reversion, LOTkid vandalized my user page [88]. I posted a user warning template to his account, then politely asked him about sources for his assertions about Glastonbury schools. He was civil enough in return, but his answers were odd (he couldn't check one school because he didn't drop his kids off there anymore).
Actually not at one of the schools! The other i can but there is still vacaction for them!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.166.120 (talk • contribs) 26 February 2007
As I had the page on my watchlist, I noticed another editor's reversion of what he/she thought was vandalism [89]. Having seen similar edits from the two accounts and with the fact that one was editing the other, I figured that LOTkid had forgotten to log in before modifying his user page and thus I reverted the reversion.
Tonight, LOTkid made some changes to his user page and posted what I thought was an odd edit summary, "Actually im not that other user when im not loged on. Somone else please stop 72.200.166-. by the way i always log on:)"
I then checked the IP's talk page for the first time and discovered that it had racked up a pile of user warnings and a couple of blocks. I then noticed in the history that LOTkid had blanked the IP's talk page [90] then added the comment, "why shouldn't he?" [91].
I asked LOTkid to provide an explanation for all this on his talk page, but as of 1900 (UTC-5) there hasn't been a response.
Addendum Those prior two edits rather clinch the case. I've had no conversations with the anon user yet he answered my comment above about the schools which I only discussed with LOTkid.—Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 01:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alex had today checked somthing with vietnamese people today. Somthing that there are like 45,000 in poland. I dont care about that.+he speaks slovenian and i cant.:(— Preceding unsigned comment added by LOTkid (talk • contribs) 21:58, 26 February 2007 Also 72.200.166.120 has bad language i dont. He has a dirty mouth.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LOTkid (talk • contribs) 23:04, 27 February 2007
Obvious block evasion, and I'm not sure if there are any technical violations of 3RR, but I see disruptive edits and edit warring from this editor both anonymously and on the LOTkid account. 48 hours each. SeraphimbladeTalk to me09:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
After a one year absence, User:ImpartialCelt has reappeared, with over half their recent contributions being AfD votes, many of those being deletes for articles nominated by User:MacRusgail (e.g., [92], [93], [94], [95], [96]). There is also an example of this from 12 months ago [97]. Impartial Celt has edited very few pages, one of which MacRusgail was also an author of [98]. He also put a picture of a sock puppet on his user page and called it a portrait.
Comments
The Celtic League article has over a hundred authors. As for the accusation, I have the "sockpuppet"'s email. We are both interested in Celtic stuff. End of story. As I am innocent, I don't feel I have any reason to justify myself, just because I have objected to some temporary interest articles. --MacRusgail03:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Celtic League article has around 200 unique edits by considerably fewer than 100 authors. However, I'm quite happy to give you the benefit of the doubt. It just seems rather fishier than average that someone with so few edits should be an active AfD participant, and on so many with which you have been involved. Also, this is not politically motivated, but that red usernames on AfDs often suggest some form of invitation. --Limegreen03:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From looking at the times of each users' contributions, I think it's possible that these accounts are the same person. I'm not certain, however, and I think that a Checkuser request might be in order here--it might meet code "D". --Akhilleus (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
ImpartialCelt is obviously a sock, or at least wants to be seen that way, from the userpage pictures. I've obliged with an indef block. However, I don't believe that the evidence convincingly shows that MacRusgail is the puppeteer. SeraphimbladeTalk to me07:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
I don't have access to the deleted history, but these accounts seem clearly connected by the repeated removal of speedy deletion tags on Kyle collins. Even though there's been no activity on the puppet accounts since early Feb. (with the deletion of Kyle collins Sly-ey has no contributions), it seems like the puppets should be blocked, because User:Sly-eye is still active. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
Adversegecko created L-i-C. I put a speedy tag on it and it was deleted and then Rockgod89 appeared and recreated that article (identically word-for-word) and continued to recreate it through multiple speedy deletions. Finally, Gazzer2kuk appeared and immediately speedy tagged two articles I had written. On one of the articles he left the lovely reason of page set up by gay irish man. He next uploaded this image to add to his userpage which is of the L-i-C band.
Surely you can check the ip addresses? We were both logged on at the same time pretty much, and I am a different person to Adversegecko. We happen to be in the same band, and as a result, wanted a chance to put our page online. And our registration dates? Aren't they totally different? Surely if this account was created to sock puppet Adversegecko then it would have been created recently instead of a while ago? I'm trying to wikipediate (lol, made up word) but it's being made harder by IrishGuy's constant heckling, flagging, tagging and editing. Gazzer2kuk06:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ALSO, it appears that Adversegecko is no longer an account on wikipedia.... surely I can't be a sock puppet for an account that doesn't exist??? Gazzer2kuk06:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
I am not a sock puppet. I am in the same band as Adversegecko (the band you kept flagging for deletion) and firstly wanted to get the band's details on the site without some noob deleting them, and 2, after you repeatedly deleted the article, to piss you off. Gazzer2kuk07:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
Gazzer2kuk blocked as an admitted meatpuppet and for disruptive behavior, Rockgod89 and Adversegecko have stopped editing but will be blocked upon any further disruptive behavior. SeraphimbladeTalk to me05:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Shaw Brown. "Mike Stax" is the name of key person that appears in the article Richard Shaw Brown. Mikestax presents case on AfD page to save Rsbj66's autobiographical article. Mikestax has no other edit records and may be a single purpose account. When questioned about identity, Rsbj66 immediately replies to defend Mikestax. IP Check may be necessary. NOTE: Rsbj66 is a webmaster for many self published web-sites and my be able to manipulate log-ons from multiple IP addresses on multiple subnets.
Yes, Mike Stax is an open reference who has researched and published articles on Rick Brown and his band in his magazine. His magazine is one of the references given. He lives in California. I live in Thailand. I have no control over his mail or input.--Rsbj6619:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
20:02, 23 January 2007 Terryfilene22 (Talk | contribs) (rvv to 102628070 by arthurberkhardt; you keep eliminating the tobacco funding statement Nssdfdsfds, so you are the vandal)
08:36, 23 January 2007 Arthurberkhardt (Talk | contribs) (rvv to 102562931by terryfilene22)
01:00, 23 January 2007 Terryfilene22 (Talk | contribs) (Revision back to version 101756199 byArthurberkhardt)
The incorrect use of rvv (revert vandalism) by both, as well as the listing of the version number is evidence that the users are the same. The insistence by each of the accounts that each user is reverting to the other, when in fact all four reversions are exactly the same is also suspicious. The fact that Terryfielen22 has no other edits is extremely suspicious. The two-edit user, Terryfilene22 also has a rather odd edit summary: "you keep eliminating the tobacco funding statement Nssdfdsfds, so you are the vandal", which exactly consistent with what user Arthurberkhardt is saying on the page's talk page [102], namely that the introduction to the article should say that the group is funded by tobacco companies, despite the fact that there is no evidence for this. Both users are arguing the same point: that the article should, without evidence, contradict what the group itself says.
Clearly the evidence is compelling that Terryfilene22 is a sockpuppet created to circumvent WP:3RR. Both users should be blocked for breaking the rules in such an underhand way. It is also notable that neither puppet nor puppetmaster has made any proper edits to the page, excepting reverts, and a single addition of a URL (which is non-controversial).
User is also well-aware of the 3 revert rule policy: [103]
Comments
I have no affiliation with terryfilene22. Administrators on Wikipedia can check my IP address to be absolutely sure of this. A lot of people find the Center for Consumer Freedom to be a controversial group, so it's not surprising that people would feel strongly about Nssdfdsfds's dubious pro-CCF edits Arthurberkhardt02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Use of this form is deprecated. Please use Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations.
![[81]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Two_Curve_Bell.jpg&curid=9060658&diff=0&oldid=110937682){kind=link}
