Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GarnetAndBlack

GarnetAndBlack

GarnetAndBlack (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GarnetAndBlack/Archive.

– A user has requested CheckUser. An SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse or decline the request.

20 April 2012

Suspected sockpuppets

• GarnetAndBlack (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 129.252.69.40 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 129.252.69.41 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ViperNerd (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 129.252.69.37 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• CockNFire (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I requested a possible checkuser on the user's main account just to have definitive evidence that the IP is in the same range as user's former blocked socks, even though he has practically admitted as such, and previous findings have concluded as much. I find it disturbing that even after being warned by SPI last January, that the user has continued to edit war on the exact same articles and content that he was told by various administrators on other occasions to cease editing on, which dates back now to several years:

• 1st diff: [1] as GarnetAndBlack
• 2nd diff: [2] as GarnetAndBlack
• 3rd diff: [3] as GarnetAndBlack
• 4th diff: [4] September, 2010
• 5th diff: [5] September, 2010
• 6th diff: [6] September, 2010
• 7th diff: [7] as 129.252.69.40
• 8th diff: [8] as 129.252.69.40
• 9th diff: [9] as 129.252.69.41
• 10th diff: [10] as ViperNerd
• 11th diff: [11] as ViperNerd
• 12th diff: [12] as 129.252.69.41

Which is the same type of retaliatory behavior and vandalism editors have seen before concerning rival University articles with no regard to other editors or consensus or policy:

• 1st diff: [13]
  
• 2nd diff: [14]
  
• 3rd diff: [15]
  
• 4th diff: [16]
  
• 5th diff: [17]
  
• 6th diff: [18]
  
• 7th diff: [19]
  
• 8th diff: [20]
  
• 9th diff: [21]
  
• 10th diff: [22]

And similar behavior involving another user and GarnetAndBlack's anonymous IP sock here:

• 1st diff: [23]
• 2nd diff: [24]
• 3rd diff: [25]
• 4th diff: [26]
• 1st revert: [27]
• 2nd revert: [28]
• 3rd revert: [29]
• 4th revert: [30]

This IP, which is attributed to the University of South Carolina computer services division, has been edit warring especially on Clemson University pages to delete factual, relevant, & manipulating sourced information. GarnetAndBlack's socks became identifiable due to the obsessive nature of the same exact reverts, constant edit-warring, and bullying over the same content as his blocked socks. Thus, I am requesting that User:GarnetAndBlack be blocked indefinitely from articles related to Clemson University or their student athletic programs. I don't think that the user cares about consensus or what is written in article talk pages, even though multiple editors have spent too much time trying to reason with him; GarnetAndBlack has continued to try and suppress healthy edits on these pages, which, unfortunately for more well meaning editors, seems to be his ultimate goal. (may need to make additions or omissions if able) ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC) ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

---